How reliable is the data on Zootierliste? According to it Twycross Zoo only has 19 species of bird. The reason I am suspicious of its data is that seems an exceptionally small number for a zoo the size of Twyross. Although it is a long time since I have been when I last went it had a much large bird collection.
How reliable is Zootierliste
- Thread starter chimpman
- Start date
Adax
Active Member
Zootierlist is a user-generated database (a bit like wikipedia). Generally speaking, it's fairly reliable (in my limited experience
). But it's better to use it in the sense that you're looking for a species: you know where it is, rather than to have a list of zoo species. Because, particularly for birds, invertebrates, etc., not all the information is always available.
). But it's better to use it in the sense that you're looking for a species: you know where it is, rather than to have a list of zoo species. Because, particularly for birds, invertebrates, etc., not all the information is always available.
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
Zootierliste in general is a fairly reliable resource, though over the years it has grown to be quite notorious for the inaccuracy of its UK listings with a lot of people trolling and making up species that zoos don't actually have; however, this would of course have the reverse effect of what you're saying has happened with Twycross.
Another thing I'd say is to always check the source. You can do this by clicking on the zoo's name under whatever species you're checking, and looking under 'Quellen/Nachweise.' The most common type of source is of course someone's visit, which will read: 'Besuch' (visit), followed by the date of the visit in question, and then in brackets, either 'gesehen' (seen) or 'nicht gesehen' (not seen), followed by either 'ausgeschildert' (signed) or 'nicht ausgeschildert' (not signed).
If a species is neither seen nor signed, then they are likely either offshow, or gone from the collection entirely, but the editor just didn't feel as though they had enough evidence to move it to former holdings. If the date is old, then depending on the lifespan of the species in question, and on if you have any contradictory information of your own, then take it with a massive pinch of salt. However, if the source is recent and is listed as both seen or signed, then 99 times out of 100 it is correct.
The other thing is with subspecies. Sometimes zoos get listed as holding certain subspecies-pure animals, when in fact they are more likely to be generic hybrids, just labelled poorly by the zoo itself. Also, ZTL sometimes has duplicate listings where an animal was counted as both its subspecies and the non-subspecific, general listing (e.g. 'Asian Elephant' and 'Sri Lankan Elephant').
Another thing I'd say is to always check the source. You can do this by clicking on the zoo's name under whatever species you're checking, and looking under 'Quellen/Nachweise.' The most common type of source is of course someone's visit, which will read: 'Besuch' (visit), followed by the date of the visit in question, and then in brackets, either 'gesehen' (seen) or 'nicht gesehen' (not seen), followed by either 'ausgeschildert' (signed) or 'nicht ausgeschildert' (not signed).
If a species is neither seen nor signed, then they are likely either offshow, or gone from the collection entirely, but the editor just didn't feel as though they had enough evidence to move it to former holdings. If the date is old, then depending on the lifespan of the species in question, and on if you have any contradictory information of your own, then take it with a massive pinch of salt. However, if the source is recent and is listed as both seen or signed, then 99 times out of 100 it is correct.
The other thing is with subspecies. Sometimes zoos get listed as holding certain subspecies-pure animals, when in fact they are more likely to be generic hybrids, just labelled poorly by the zoo itself. Also, ZTL sometimes has duplicate listings where an animal was counted as both its subspecies and the non-subspecific, general listing (e.g. 'Asian Elephant' and 'Sri Lankan Elephant').
Velas
Well-Known Member
Generally speaking, I'd say Zootierliste is a reliable source, since it relies on its users to maintain its information, but this same reliability also makes it very susceptible to innacuracies and misinformation. For example, the whole of the South American Zootierliste profiles have a lot of wrong info because a single person decided it would be really funny to mess it up (myself and some other Brazilian zoochat members are already correcting a lot of zoo collections, but we still have a long way to go).
It also has some outdated info regarding animal taxonomy, with a lot of subspecies that aren't considered valid anymore, or classifiying zoos as holders of a specific subspecies when their animals are generic/hybrids or vice-versa (to be fair, a lot of zoos classify their animals wrongly or just flat out don't do it, and a lot of recent taxonomic changes happened, so it is understandable for such mistakes to happen).
So if you wanna see a zoo's species list, I recommend using it, but also double checking either here on ZooChat for either species lists or recent visit reports to check if the info on ZTL is correct or up to date.
It also has some outdated info regarding animal taxonomy, with a lot of subspecies that aren't considered valid anymore, or classifiying zoos as holders of a specific subspecies when their animals are generic/hybrids or vice-versa (to be fair, a lot of zoos classify their animals wrongly or just flat out don't do it, and a lot of recent taxonomic changes happened, so it is understandable for such mistakes to happen).
So if you wanna see a zoo's species list, I recommend using it, but also double checking either here on ZooChat for either species lists or recent visit reports to check if the info on ZTL is correct or up to date.
Last edited:
It remains an excellent resource, and I would say is pretty accurate for those collections that a visited frequently by those contributing to the database. For very infrequently visited collections (e.g. those based on a single visit), listings quicky become outdated and I have certainly come across listings for some places I have visited where I suspect some 'fabrication' of what was actually 'seen' and/or 'signposted'.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Based on a visit to Twycross late last year I think the list looks broadly accurate though someone who visits a lot will know more (it doesn't feel like a bird focused place to me though the parrots were fun) but Zootierliste is missing a couple of small birds in the Aviary in the area near the Gruffalo Discovery area, which has various colours of Society and Zebra finches.
DJD Zoo Pals
Member
As with any crowdsourced project, Zooteirliste is only as good as the data users contribute to it. Like others have mentioned, the lists for large and frequently visited institutions are often updated and so should reflect the current collection pretty well. For smaller and more obscure institutions, lists aren't updated as frequently and so can pretty rapidly become out of date.
I also get the sense that aquariums are typically less well documented than zoos, but I'd be curious if other Zoochatters also share that impression.
-DJD
I also get the sense that aquariums are typically less well documented than zoos, but I'd be curious if other Zoochatters also share that impression.
-DJD