List of species I've seen

TinoPup · 26 May 2023

Kakapo said:
Blue-crowned motmot is Momotus momota. The only other species of the genus is Momotus mexicanus, It obviously don't exist such a thing as "Momotus aequatorialis" and other nonsenses. I expected this kind of reply when I posted the motmot photo in the morning. But red is red, a plum is a plum, and the sun is the sun. And Momotus momota is Momotus momota. I'm not who for contradict the whole science and the whole world, unlike you and most zoochatters like to do.

Species in the genus Himantopus are H. himantopus, H. leucocephalus, H. mexicanus, H. melanurus and H. novaezelandiae, this just from memory so maybe I skipe one more that I don't remember. Years ago I've heard some rumours about the lumping of all species in H. himantopus but this is rarely followed, used or accepted by nobody.

He wasn't arguing the taxonomy with you on this one. The species held in the USA is usually signed as the wrong species entirely. The same as many zoos here having "mountain coati", a real species that is not present in the USA; they are usually South American coati (sometimes white-nosed), given the improper name and signage.

dillotest0 · 27 May 2023

To supplement, sometimes this taxonomy/name confusion can happen in larger zoos too. One particular story I'm quite fond of is that which happened with the San Diego Zoo I believe in the late 20th century - when they received a small, black pig from Guinea. By their observations of the young pig, they agreed that it was a Western Giant Forest Hog - Hylochoerus meinertzhageni ivoriensis. They kept the female pig with a red river hog of same sex and similar age for many years, and the two grew close.
In the coming years, however, the 'western forest hog' of theirs didn't seem to possess features typical of its species - and doubts were cast onto its identity. I am uncertain as to how the story ended, though if I recall correctly it was decided the animal was simply a melanistic red river hog.

Chlidonias · 27 May 2023

dillotest0 said:
To supplement, sometimes this taxonomy/name confusion can happen in larger zoos too. One particular story I'm quite fond of is that which happened with the San Diego Zoo I believe in the late 20th century - when they received a small, black pig from Guinea. By their observations of the young pig, they agreed that it was a Western Giant Forest Hog - Hylochoerus meinertzhageni ivoriensis. They kept the female pig with a red river hog of same sex and similar age for many years, and the two grew close.
In the coming years, however, the 'western forest hog' of theirs didn't seem to possess features typical of its species - and doubts were cast onto its identity. I am uncertain as to how the story ended, though if I recall correctly it was decided the animal was simply a melanistic red river hog.

That is an identification issue, not a taxonomic issue.

Swampy · 27 May 2023

Kakapo said:
Species in the genus Himantopus are H. himantopus, H. leucocephalus, H. mexicanus, H. melanurus and H. novaezelandiae, this just from memory so maybe I skipe one more that I don't remember. Years ago I've heard some rumours about the lumping of all species in H. himantopus but this is rarely followed, used or accepted by nobody.

You have some remarkable definitions of nobody.

That aside, just curious, what makes you accept that particular split, between very similar Himantopus species, but reject other published splits? What about that case in particular causes you to view it as valid?

TeaLovingDave · 27 May 2023

Kakapo said:
And that's even more striking given the fact that, just like you wrote in your last phrase, I'm simply recognising the general consensus view.

Maguari said that the modern-day scientific researchers you have - over the years - variously called illogical, mentally ill, racists, deluded, liars, absurd and other such epithets represent the general consensus view, not you

reading comprehension is a wonderful thing..... as is the ability to recognise the repeated appearances of the "argument to tradition" fallacy in your posts.

As for your claim that you are "NOT telling others they are wrong", you did so within the exact same paragraph.... but here are a mere handful of further counterexamples.....

Kakapo said:
you're absolutely wrong, is you and some other zoochatters who never misses an opportunity for try to ridiculize me and the vast majority of currently-accepted taxonomic splits of placements

Kakapo said:
your main goal on this forum seems to be to pursue me trying to ridiculize my correct taxonomy and substitute it by your wrong one,

Kakapo said:
you're wrong. This is an emerald dove (Chalcophaps indica). Never existed such a thing as "Chalcophaps longirostris".

But at the end of the day, this is all moot - at this stage I increasingly suspect that you don't even believe half of what you post, and find enjoyment provoking these recurrent discussions/arguments for your own reasons and purposes.

TeaLovingDave · 27 May 2023

TinoPup said:
The same as many zoos here having "mountain coati", a real species that is not present in the USA; they are usually South American coati (sometimes white-nosed), given the improper name and signage.

This is another interesting example of why attempting to directly translate the name of a taxon from one language to another can present pitfalls, of course - at this stage, the erroneous identification has long-since become known and is being perpetuated (both by zoological collections and the private trade) because "mountain coati" gives the impression of something rare and unusual, but it originated from a fairly simple error, or possibly a deliberate lie-based-on-a-literal-truth... to wit, the import of the subspecies Nasua nasua montana into the private trade, and the assumption that the subspecific name meant that the taxon in question could be given the common name of "mountain coati".

Great Argus · 27 May 2023

Kakapo said:
Common names are just ornaments and have no rules, hence there is absolutely zero possibilites of get picky

Then why are you using only common names and not binomials? Several of the common names used on ZTL and this thread are almost never used, many of them I'd never heard of before.
The common names themselves have been half the argument and confusion because of various circumstances including pertaining to other species, not recognizing widely accepted splits, virtually unknown common names, etc. If they are "just ornaments" why did you even opt to go common names? Unless this remark about "zero possibilities of getting picky", is a way of attempting to get around criticism since binomials either are accepted or aren't... as you probably anticipated posting using binomials would land even more argument than you have so far...

Westcoastperson · 27 May 2023

Kakapo said:
I like that you put that example because it's very handy and useful applicating with the weird anti-taxonomy of sites like zoochat, or zootierliste, or wikipedia, or any other source that likes to follow the last "updates" of taxonomic publications without questioning them. Imagine that suddendly, in a forum, a member in any context mentions red fox, red deer and red kite, like all the 8000000000 persons of the world including all members of that forum did since ever. But just because one of these 8000 million people published a novel when he calls the red fox "flaming fox", the red deer "chestnut deer" and the red kite "orangish brown barred kite", all members of the forum suddenly attack the one member that still calls them red deer, red kite and red fox. Absurd, it isn't? Then, why the same absurd situation dominates in THIS forum? Why we still call a red fox red fox when knowing that its pelage is not red? Because it's a red fox, no matter the colour. And the common name of red fox is red fox. The novelist can be a bestseller but it's still a person and there is no reason that the new name he used predates the one used by everybody since ever. Researchers are people, too, and given the fact that modern "taxonomy" is in many cases almost the contrary of classic taxonomy, they just give OPINIONS, not EVIDENCES.

I’m very sorry to break up this conversation and sidetrack with a different problem but what intellectual high ground do you feel you have over Wikipedia? Do you really want to disrespect a FREE information source. Do you understand the importance of FREE information? How dare you ignore your own privilege of having access to that FREE information to make a quick point. Have you ever read a Wikipedia pages. Some of them have sections based on Taxonomy, they show the taxonomist of the scientific name their using right beneath it, and those little numbers next to the information aren’t there for fun they link the articles and papers the authors used to gather the information. I honestly can’t tell if you pulled Wikipedia out because you heard in passing some of the information is wrong if you’re just that ignorant to miss all the hard work people put in to make those pages. Have you ever considered how you would find quick, free, easily laid out, and comprehensive information without Wikipedia? How about you go find out how many species of Myliobatis Britannica has listed. I’ll save you the time, it’s not nearly as many as Wikipedia. So even if Wikipedia is wrong, your clearly so knowledgeable on Taxonomy why don’t you go fix it, it’s accessible to the public? I’d just like to warning you they don’t lie when they say the fact check each submission they get.

Chlidonias · 27 May 2023

Westcoastperson said:
I’m very sorry to break up this conversation and sidetrack with a different problem but what intellectual high ground do you feel you have over Wikipedia? Do you really want to disrespect a FREE information source. Do you understand the importance of FREE information? How dare you ignore your own privilege of having access to that FREE information to make a quick point. Have you ever read a Wikipedia pages. Some of them have sections based on Taxonomy, they show the taxonomist of the scientific name their using right beneath it, and those little numbers next to the information aren’t there for fun they link the articles and papers the authors used to gather the information. I honestly can’t tell if you pulled Wikipedia out because you heard in passing some of the information is wrong if you’re just that ignorant to miss all the hard work people put in to make those pages. Have you ever considered how you would find quick, free, easily laid out, and comprehensive information without Wikipedia? How about you go find out how many species of Myliobatis Britannica has listed. I’ll save you the time, it’s not nearly as many as Wikipedia. So even if Wikipedia is wrong, your clearly so knowledgeable on Taxonomy why don’t you go fix it, it’s accessible to the public? I’d just like to warning you they don’t lie when they say the fact check each submission they get.

I think you missed the intent of the post you quoted. He is saying that people or sources who/which use current taxonomy are "anti-taxonomy". Referencing Wikipedia doesn't have anything to do with, as you put it,"you heard in passing some of the information is wrong", but rather the opposite - that (in general) it follows the most current taxonomic status of species and is therefore "anti-taxonomy".

Kakapo · 27 May 2023

BLUEGILL

Photo by @Semioptera. Museum of Science Boston, USA

BLUEMOUTH

Photo by @Kakapo. Zoo Antwerpen, Belgium

BLUNTHEAD CICHLID

Photo by @ThylacineAlive. Bronx zoo, USA

BOBCAT

Photo by @MagpieGoose. Hoo Farm, UK

BONELLI'S EAGLE

Photo by @Ding Lingwei. Shangai zoo, China

BORLEY'S REDFIN

Photo by @KevinB. Zoo Antwerpen, Belgium

BOURKE'S PARROT

Photo by @WhistlingKite24. Featherdale wildlife park, Australia

Kakapo · 27 May 2023

BRONZE-TAILED PEACOCK-PHEASANT

Photo by @MagpieGoose. Chester zoo, UK

BRONZE-WINGED PARROT

Photo by @Calyptorhynchus. Jurong bird park, Singapore

BROWN FOREST WALLABY

Photo by @Michal Sloviak. Prague zoo Praha, Czech republic

BROWN HYENA

Photo by @vogelcommando. Prague zoo Praha, Czech republic

BROWN LORY

Photo by @ronnienl. Weltvogelpark Walsrode, Germany

BROWN RAT

Photo by @KevinB. Dierenpark Emmen, Netherlands

BROWN WOOD OWL

Photo by @hmb_zoo. Hamerton zoo park, UK

Kakapo · 27 May 2023

BRUCE'S GREEN PIGEON

Photo by @MagpieGoose. Chester zoo, UK

BUCKTOOTH TETRA

Photo by @Dormitator. Faunia Madrid, Spain

BUDGERIGAR

Photo by @WhistlingKite24. Featherdale wildlife park, Australia

BUFFALO TRUNKFISH

Photo by @RatioTile. National aquarium in Baltimore, USA

Kakapo · 27 May 2023

BUFFON'S MACAW

Photo by gentle lemur. Chester zoo, UK

BUSHY-TAILED JIRD

Photo by @Baldur. Omaha's Henry Doorly zoo, USA

BUSHYMOUTH CATFISH

Photo by @Peter. Lodz zoo, Poland

BUTTERFLY PEACOCK BASS

Photo by @vogelcommando. Rotterdam zoo, Netherlands

Chlidonias · 27 May 2023

Great Argus said:
Then why are you using only common names and not binomials? Several of the common names used on ZTL and this thread are almost never used, many of them I'd never heard of before.
The common names themselves have been half the argument and confusion because of various circumstances including pertaining to other species, not recognizing widely accepted splits, virtually unknown common names, etc. If they are "just ornaments" why did you even opt to go common names? Unless this remark about "zero possibilities of getting picky", is a way of attempting to get around criticism since binomials either are accepted or aren't... as you probably anticipated posting using binomials would land even more argument than you have so far...

That seems to be the case. A post from earlier in the thread (second paragraph: "In fact, a part of the reason of the usage of only common names in this thread was precisely to avoid confrontations in different taxonomic points of view.").

Kakapo said:
Not, you're wrong. This is an emerald dove (Chalcophaps indica). Never existed such a thing as "Chalcophaps longirostris". Chalcophaps indica longirostris it's what you confused with that, and it's one of the 13 subspecies of Chalcophaps indica. The only other species of the genus is Chalcophaps stephani. I don't list subspecies for this thread, only species.

I know that common names are very confusing, and most of the times (except for well known animals) they are just unusable or inexistent, for that's it's what I use primarily scientific names in my daily works. But that's not the idea of the thread. In fact, a part of the reason of the usage of only common names in this thread was precisely to avoid confrontations in different taxonomic points of view.

I'm sorry for you able to be confused by the less confusing taxonomy that can be used, aarvardk250. I can't imagine then how you can feel with the 3834091 times more confusing taxonomies that most zoochatters use, inventing constantly taxa that doesn't exist (or more precisely, following those that invent them).

Sicarius · 27 May 2023

Westcoastperson said:
So even if Wikipedia is wrong, your clearly so knowledgeable on Taxonomy why don’t you go fix it, it’s accessible to the public?

Don't give 'em any ideas

Westcoastperson · 27 May 2023

Chlidonias said:
I think you missed the intent of the post you quoted. He is saying that people or sources who/which use current taxonomy are "anti-taxonomy". Referencing Wikipedia doesn't have anything to do with, as you put it,"you heard in passing some of the information is wrong", but rather the opposite - that (in general) it follows the most current taxonomic status of species and is therefore "anti-taxonomy".

Oh ok I see, thank you for the correction. I still do disagree with the usage of Wikipedia because, as I implied earlier, Wikipedia does get the short end of the stick and is the butt of quite a few jokes when it really is an accurate and helpful source of information.