I think the book was published at a time when the red river hog was included as a subspecies of bush pig, rather than as a distinct species
I don't know when various authors referred to 'whales and dolphins' as I have understood dolphins to be whales. Orcas were placed in the dolphin family, but are now often classified with pilot whales in a separate family. I'm a bit more bothered about river dolphins being placed alongside dolphins in books as if they belonged to the same family.
Bush pig | mammal
Yes, that is a snapping turtle, nothing wrong there.
View attachment 456595 https://themepack.me/i/c/749x468/media/g/502/emperor-penguin-theme-1.jpg
Minor nit-pick, but this picture is labelled as 'Emperor Penguins'. Based on beak-shape and colouration I am 98% inclined these are King Penguins
I am aware that they are the same thing, but there was a dolphin section that they could be more appropriately put into
In Zoo Tycoon 2's Zoocyclopedia, the Warthog (African Adventure)'s page lists the warthogs in the game as Phacochoerus africanus aethiopicus. However, said subspecies doesn't exist. I believe that this was meant to be the Desert Warthog, Phacochoerus aethiopicus, but was instead rendered as a non-existent subspecies.
Also in Extinct Animals, many of the animals, likely due to get it released by October 2007, were just reskins of animals that came before. The American Mastodon is a reskinned (possibly remodeled) Asian Elephant, the Short-Faced Bear a reskinned Polar Bear, similarly the obscure Titanotylopus, rendered as 'Giant Camel', is simply a cop-out reskinned Dromedary model. I believe this is the reason all this obscure fauna was in the game - simply because they were easy to create.
However, the most bizarre one of these was Protoarchaeopteryx. It was a reskinned secretary bird, which meant it did things Protoarchaeopteryx didn't do, such as fly. Ironically, the Zoopedia states that Protoarchaeopteryx didn't fly, but in other parts treats it as Archaeopteryx itself, regarding it as the birds' ancestor. It even uses the iconic German Archaeopteryx fossil in the Zoo Tycoon 2 fossil minigame as the puzzle to be reassembled.
So there's that I guess
You don't say?
Don't go bashing a belief if you don't understand what they actually say! As someone who has visited Ark Encounter and read a few books I can tell you several of these are no what creationists believe. First of all, no one is calling mutations negative. After all, they are a large part of how species change over time (no one is denying that species do change. Secondly, creationist "kinds" (generally referred to as baramins) usually follow the family level, no "things that crawl, ect".Some more creationist zoological inaccuracies!
-Humans are not animals. Definitely due to the whole 'Image of God' thing. Then what are we? Do we belong in our own class, then?
-Mutations are always negative. Funny enough, the notorious AiG actually did an article on good mutations, crediting them as divine.
-"Kinds". Attributed to the various use of 'kind' in the Bible. However, this is unlikely to be a classification of animals such as cats, dogs, etc. At the very most classifying things back then was very basic, such as things that fly, things that crawl, etcetcetc.
-Everything Ken Ham has ever said in regards to evolution and/or paleobiology.
-Carnivores did not exist before sin. However, in Genesis, dominion is not only applied to cattle of the Earth, but also to birds of air and fish of sea. So was Adam going to have a whale plough his fields?
-The Creationist definition of 'Evolution'. Said word only applies to macroevolution in the creationist world. Microevolution is totally okay though
-Dragons are proof of men living with non-avian dinosaurs. Whilst Dragon myths were based off dinosaurs, they saw dinosaurs just as much as we see dinosaurs today. As skeletons.
My apologies
