Perhaps a solution to this issue is to allow an American member the ability to delete listings and edit photos, a similar to status to what lintworm has.
Zootierliste Goes Worldwide
- Thread starter Animal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- zootierliste
I will say a lot of us were against the idea of an American version of ZTL when those threads were created. I know I gave ZTL a chance because it was a known entity that has been successful with European zoos, but it has become clear to me that, at least right now, ZTL is not equipped to the unique differences with a lot of American zoos.
Except in many cases the signs are correct- simply stating "giraffe". These were added by a single person, using an unknown source, it did not come from zoo signs themselves. Yes, some zoo signs do have incorrect subspecies information, but that is a different problem.
Is it really asking for a higher standard of proof though? ZTL in the past has removed/changed entries even in Europe that were incorrect for whatever reason.
Furthermore, one of the main issues I'm finding is that it seems ZTL assumes zoos everywhere act like European zoos. I have no doubts that signage may work more effectively as a source in Europe, but in the US signs oftentimes don't mention subspecies, and especially outside the AZA there are plenty of incorrect signs for Reticulated giraffe, African leopard, Bengal tiger, etc. It would be nice for the ZTL team, who I have no doubts are experts in the way European zoos function, would listen to some of us Americans about some of the nuanced differences between zoos here. Even the fact everything in ZTL needs to be to subspecies level (if relevant) in many ways reflects this- as US zoos simply don't put the same weight on subspecies as European ones, making it a system that is somewhat "out of sync" with the US zoos themselves.
Indeed, I think some of these problems come from ZTL not doing their due diligence when expanding, and not considering how zoos in other regions may do things differently than in Europe. Missing subspecies in some cases fed into a lot of the confusion too- I know on the first day ZTL opened I accidentally added a few zoos to Eastern Atlantic harbor seal, because the zoos sign them as "Atlantic harbor seal" and Western wasn't added yet. Seeing as harbor seals are not an area I knew well, I didn't think anything of the slightly different common name on ZTL and added them there. I'd imagine many others are in a similar boat too, and of course there's a lot of groupthink going on once someone adds an animal to a particular subspecies.
Unfortunately, the problems are fairly systematic. It would be one thing if it was only giraffes, but it isn't. It's:
giraffes, zebras, bison, roan antelope, harbor seals, sloth bears, spider monkeys, lions, brown lemurs, leopards, tigers, cheetahs, coatis, night monkeys, brown bears, Asian elephants, tufted deer, pronghorn, sand cats, Chlorocebus monkeys, Pallas' cats, red fox, ocelots, Hystrix porcupines, galagos, blue duikers, African crowned cranes, motmots, Andean cock-of-the-rocks, keel-billed toucans, Galapagos tortoises, hellbenders, basically all native rescue species, and more
Again, there really aren't when the problems are oftentimes systematic. Furthermore, given all of the confusion, I think a lot of us who are not experts in all animals, but are aware of some of the issues, are a little concerned about contributing more to the problems and/or making it worse. I recently visited an aquarium with nothing on it on ZTL- and it's a facility not many zoo nerds ever visit. However, given that I'm not a fish expert, and don't know if there are any similar subspecies issues with fish, I don't think I'm going to add anything simply out of not knowing whether or not I can trust the aquarium's signage. Sure, I could add just the herps at the facility since that is something I know more about, but how beneficial is it to add partial species lists that may mislead people into believing that is the facility's entire collection and/or may disincentivize others to add more if a species list is already there?
Utahraptor
Active Member
I think this could be the best sollution right now, but i think each continent should have it own "status member", to avoid time zones problem and potential lack of knowlodge betwen a SA editor and a NA "deleter" for example.
All Baringo and reticulated giraffes are now listed under generic and all relevant information was transferred too, but even that is temporary given work is done behind the scenes to find the remaining pure individuals.
I can understand why some of you think that things are going too slow or that you feel you are not listened too. But be aware that what has become a dogma on Zoochat: "all baringo and reticulated giraffe are basically generic" is not necessarily true, and especially not obvious for a relative outsider. I had a discussion with @Animal but it is not a case of not believing, but rather one of gathering more information (from sources not available to the average Zoochatter).
Zoochat worldwide is not even 8 weeks old, if you see the amount of data that has already been added, that is quite insane. Sure the error rate is far higher than for Europe, but that took close to 20 years to build up and even in Europe we still haven't figured out our Hystrix porcupines or Chlorocebus monkeys completely. A database is an eternal work in progress and if you want to get stuff listed/corrected have the right source material (and a Zoochat thread often isn't that). I have seen enough mistakes here, such as claims that all sloth bears in the US are generic, while there are 2 recent nominate imports from Europe. The admins read that too, so up your game and don't complain.
My status (and doubtless that of others) is at least partly a remnant from a different era when Zootierliste was much smaller and had much less of an online presence. Apparently it was necessary to put more restrictions on new users. I could think of plenty of governance structures for Zootierliste too, but it is already hard enough to find trusted members who actually know what they claim to know.
I can understand why some of you think that things are going too slow or that you feel you are not listened too. But be aware that what has become a dogma on Zoochat: "all baringo and reticulated giraffe are basically generic" is not necessarily true, and especially not obvious for a relative outsider. I had a discussion with @Animal but it is not a case of not believing, but rather one of gathering more information (from sources not available to the average Zoochatter).
Zoochat worldwide is not even 8 weeks old, if you see the amount of data that has already been added, that is quite insane. Sure the error rate is far higher than for Europe, but that took close to 20 years to build up and even in Europe we still haven't figured out our Hystrix porcupines or Chlorocebus monkeys completely. A database is an eternal work in progress and if you want to get stuff listed/corrected have the right source material (and a Zoochat thread often isn't that). I have seen enough mistakes here, such as claims that all sloth bears in the US are generic, while there are 2 recent nominate imports from Europe. The admins read that too, so up your game and don't complain.
My status (and doubtless that of others) is at least partly a remnant from a different era when Zootierliste was much smaller and had much less of an online presence. Apparently it was necessary to put more restrictions on new users. I could think of plenty of governance structures for Zootierliste too, but it is already hard enough to find trusted members who actually know what they claim to know.
Yeah, that's my bad. I was going off of outdated info from before these imports. Likewise, there have been false claims in the opposite direction- namely claiming that individuals at Miami and Philadelphia are purebred Sri Lankan when at least one of their grandparents was purebred mainland.
It's been interesting to make note of the differences between the established European zoos that are on Zootierliste and the species lists at the brand-new American zoos that have been added to that website. As the months go by, I'm sure that the moderators on Zootierliste will be able to tweak a lot of the species and subspecies so there is a consistent, orderly approach to all the animal names worldwide. It will take time and patience.
I've been asked before about whether or not I'm an individual who logs into Zootierliste and updates zoo lists, but I've never done that. I'm happy enough to use that site as a search engine for my own personal ZooChat threads, but I would never attempt to do anything on Zootierliste in terms of adding species lists from the zoos I visit. I leave that for the taxonomic experts!
I've been asked before about whether or not I'm an individual who logs into Zootierliste and updates zoo lists, but I've never done that. I'm happy enough to use that site as a search engine for my own personal ZooChat threads, but I would never attempt to do anything on Zootierliste in terms of adding species lists from the zoos I visit. I leave that for the taxonomic experts!
Last edited:
These statements in the past weren't from the average zoochatter, though. They were from people who had access to ZIMS, to the studbook, even a giraffe keeper at an AZA private facility. That's why it's become such an ubiquitous statement on here, because the information came from trusted people who had/have access to all of those private sources.
What I'm finding interesting is that up until this situation, Zootierliste seemed to have a really sterling reputation on zoochat - it was sometimes frustrating when asking questions about European facilities to sometimes get 'just check Zootierliste', especially when looking at broad questions like 'does this facility have anything special'.
I had no idea this was an 'anyone can edit' situation the entire time. I have almost twenty years experience with wikis, including from the administrative side, so I can sympathize with the challenges this presents for both the administrators and users. I really do think the idea @birdsandbats and @Utahraptor had of some more localized moderation would be helpful and I appreciate that @ lintworm took some initiative to help the situation. I'm glad that the administration seem to be looking into the matter as closely as possible, but I also see a lot where other users are coming from, in that I would definitely advise keeping uncertain animals on the 'generic' lists and only moving to subspecies when confirmation is reached, rather than the other way around.
I had no idea this was an 'anyone can edit' situation the entire time. I have almost twenty years experience with wikis, including from the administrative side, so I can sympathize with the challenges this presents for both the administrators and users. I really do think the idea @birdsandbats and @Utahraptor had of some more localized moderation would be helpful and I appreciate that @ lintworm took some initiative to help the situation. I'm glad that the administration seem to be looking into the matter as closely as possible, but I also see a lot where other users are coming from, in that I would definitely advise keeping uncertain animals on the 'generic' lists and only moving to subspecies when confirmation is reached, rather than the other way around.
I am not denying this and I am aware of it. But when this was challenged the initial reaction was, "well everybody knows". If you tell that to someone who is unaware of the previous discussions and statements, that isn't really a convincing argument. If they didn't agree with you all, I could not have put all giraffes under generic for now. But for accuracy sake they are also working behind the scenes to identify if there are still pure animals around for accuracy sake.
And I thought Germans were the most notorious grinches and grouches....didn't expect competition coming from countries that would have had the means and knowledge to create their own ZTL versions decades ago, and yet never managed to do so.
So the initial enthusiasm of the international ZTL honeymoon period has cooled down a bit, and the cold reality regarding the grunt work of tenacious database management is setting in. Who would have thought...As previously mentioned by others, it will take some time to get the international ZTL on the previous European level. Which is doable via cooperation and collaboration, not by resentments and reproaches.
Rome - neither the one in Italy nor the 22 in the US of A - was not built in one day. Not even its 22 American versions.
So the initial enthusiasm of the international ZTL honeymoon period has cooled down a bit, and the cold reality regarding the grunt work of tenacious database management is setting in. Who would have thought...As previously mentioned by others, it will take some time to get the international ZTL on the previous European level. Which is doable via cooperation and collaboration, not by resentments and reproaches.
Then please do so. Step by step, slowly but surely.
Rome - neither the one in Italy nor the 22 in the US of A - was not built in one day. Not even its 22 American versions.
If I am to add the herps, I would first like confirmation about what to do about this individual:
Does ZTL have a spot to put things like this or are hybrids just completely omitted?
Completely omitted, except occasional cases where the hybrid is a result of a taxonomic split which impacts an existing captive population, in which case a ZTL database entry may exist for the species in the broad sense (inclusive of hybrids between the two species, and individuals of uncertain status) and also for the species in the strict sense. For instance, there are ZTL database entries for Bornean Orangutan, Sumatran Orangutan and Orangutan (sensu lato).
In this case, you'd omit the hybrid entirely - although if one or more of the pure progenitor species is also held at the collection, you can add a note within *that* entry to state that a hybrid animal is held within the collection too.
I don't know, I've been to Rome, Wisconsin, and it totally looks like it could have been built in a day. It's basically just a gas station, a mini golf course, and a few houses.And I thought Germans were the most notorious grinches and grouches....didn't expect competition coming from countries that would have had the means and knowledge to create their own ZTL versions decades ago, and yet never managed to do so.
So the initial enthusiasm of the international ZTL honeymoon period has cooled down a bit, and the cold reality regarding the grunt work of tenacious database management is setting in. Who would have thought...As previously mentioned by others, it will take some time to get the international ZTL on the previous European level. Which is doable via cooperation and collaboration, not by resentments and reproaches.
Then please do so. Step by step, slowly but surely.
Rome - neither the one in Italy nor the 22 in the US of A - was not built in one day. Not even its 22 American versions.
Based on the difficulty level of the mini golf course, it might have taken longer...I don't know, I've been to Rome, Wisconsin, and it totally looks like it could have been built in a day. It's basically just a gas station, a mini golf course, and a few houses.
Sicarius
Well-Known Member
The specimens in Europe and Asia should also be hybrids. What you could do is add the park to Cyclura lewisi and then add the following info in the box: Cyclura lewisi x Cyclura nubila (HYBRID). Or you could simply omit it as stated before.If I am to add the herps, I would first like confirmation about what to do about this individual:
Does ZTL have a spot to put things like this or are hybrids just completely omitted?
---
We are close to 2 months after the worldwide update. In this time, I have lined up hundreds of (sub)species that are all online now. This has become a fulltime job for me, haha. But just imagine the work being done by the admins. I think we should all be a little bit patient, I'm sure issues discussed here will be taken into account. Like @Batto said, Rome wasn't built in a day either.
I'm glad many of you keep on contributing, thank you.
squatch
Member
I noticed someone has entered Joel Sartore as a source for holdings of sifaka (coquerels, von der deckens and diademed) in Madagascar. I found this frustrating as he doesn't always take photos of animals that are being permanently held at a facility, or animals that are captive at all. Personally I don't think his photos should be a valid source but I'd be curious to hear what other people have to say.
As long as they are captive for any length of time at a facility, it's at least a valid former holding.
This is true - however, unless there's something I'm not aware of, the actual dates each photo was taken are not provided on PhotoArk. I suspect whoever entered those sifakas may have gone off the 2024 copyright notice, which is the same for all photos if you click through a variety. I noticed a few from a PhotoArk book I have that was published a couple years ago, so I know I wasn't just chanceing to hit new photos.
While PhotoArk is a potential source of information, I don't believe it can be solely relied on as a source due to lack of an actual date - holdings could be current or from over a decade ago. Any citation from there should be backed up with a second source or it's invalid, personally. If someone knows where to find the actual date the photos on PhotoArk were taken I'd be interested to know, I've looked a few times out of curiosity on certain species and never found it.
As birdsandbats said, at least a former holding is fair, but in my experience, when he posts a new photo and tags the facility, most of the time the facility replies or posts it in their story or posts it with him: I know for a fact that the Italian facilities he tags do state if the species is still present at the collection and Plzen is always reposting in their story, so I believe at least them have the species (but this is Plzen we're talking, so basically a mapped down Middle Earth for European and not Zoo enthusiasts
)iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
On the question of current vs. former holdings.
What is the preferred practice if there is a valid source showing that a zoo had an animal on a given date, but the animal is not seen or signed on a more recent visit (or visits)? Do we prefer to wait until we have proof of a death or transfer before converting the listing to former, since it is possible that the animal might still be behind the scenes? Or does it depend on how long the animal has been unseen (and if so, what's the appropriate amount of time?) I realize we can add the non-sighting and non-signing under notes either way, but am curious about when the conversion to "former" should or shouldn't be done.
And is that standard different for when the listing already exists versus if the listing is being created? For example, if I last visited a zoo one month ago, I assume that it's safe to enter all the animals as current (unless there's a source saying otherwise). But if my last visit was six months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago... I assume that at some point they should stop being entered as current (with the option for more data to prove them as former) and start being entered as former (with the option for more data to prove they are still current).
What is the preferred practice if there is a valid source showing that a zoo had an animal on a given date, but the animal is not seen or signed on a more recent visit (or visits)? Do we prefer to wait until we have proof of a death or transfer before converting the listing to former, since it is possible that the animal might still be behind the scenes? Or does it depend on how long the animal has been unseen (and if so, what's the appropriate amount of time?) I realize we can add the non-sighting and non-signing under notes either way, but am curious about when the conversion to "former" should or shouldn't be done.
And is that standard different for when the listing already exists versus if the listing is being created? For example, if I last visited a zoo one month ago, I assume that it's safe to enter all the animals as current (unless there's a source saying otherwise). But if my last visit was six months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago... I assume that at some point they should stop being entered as current (with the option for more data to prove them as former) and start being entered as former (with the option for more data to prove they are still current).