Chester Zoo Natural Vision Plans

[Maguari]

I would argue that a species name is a proper noun, referring to a distinct and particular entity among a variety of entities, and so should be capitalised.

Of course, where this falls down is when it comes to species like Lion, Tiger, Giraffe, etc, which by that logic would never be written without a capital and that's just daft. In lists I would always capitalise, but 'one-word' species I would not in a body of text unless my meaning very specifically means the species (in which case I'd probably switch to scientific anyway). Multi-word names I almost always capitalise if they refer to a particular species or subspecies.

 

[KJ]

Dont know if it on this topic but the plans are here:
Case File

 

[SMR]

SMR, Shouldn't it be Sumatra tiger?

Nooo...

I was thinking of going into Tesco and asking for some Brazilian nuts, but my fear is being shown to a small room and a large woman with a pot of wax.

 

[SMR]

I would argue that a species name is a proper noun, referring to a distinct and particular entity among a variety of entities, and so should be capitalised.

I don't think you'll find anything to support that position in any English language guides, a quick scan of Fowlers and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage - the ones I have to hand at the moment - would tend to agree. I think your point would only be valid if the subject was an individual entity, in other words the last surviving member of its species.

I'm not sure why there should be a special need to capitalise multi-word names, especially those where there can be absolutely no confusion.

 

[gentle lemur]

SMR, Shouldn't it be Sumatra tiger?

No it expletive shouldn't!
If it did, we'd have to say India elephant, Scotland wild cat and pole bear!

Aaln

 

[Pygathrix]

Of course it shouldn't, I was jokingly referring to a previous discussion when SMR and I were sitting in Pedants' Corner:

http://www.zoochat.com/2/chester-zoo-sealions-148748/#post316928

 

[gentle lemur]

Of course it shouldn't, I was jokingly referring to a previous discussion when SMR and I were sitting in Pedants' Corner:

http://www.zoochat.com/2/chester-zoo-sealions-148748/#post316928

I know, but once I had thought of pole bear, I couldn't resist sharing

Alan

 

[Maguari]

I don't think you'll find anything to support that position in any English language guides, a quick scan of Fowlers and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage - the ones I have to hand at the moment - would tend to agree. I think your point would only be valid if the subject was an individual entity, in other words the last surviving member of its species.

I'm not sure why there should be a special need to capitalise multi-word names, especially those where there can be absolutely no confusion.

But that's for standard English - in a scientific document (which I would say includes, for example, a zoo stocklist) I think capitalisation is appropriate to show the names refers to a clear taxonimic entity. I find it a useful marker of that distinction (and, since when was English even vaguely consistent in its usage anyway? ).


(The above paragraph starts with a conjunction. I feel dirty.)

Of course, if everyone was sensible and stuck to scientific names, where the rules of capitalisation are laid out very firmly, none of this would matter!

 

[sooty mangabey]

I'm guessing that the budget, in which expenditure on almost everything has been cut massively, means the end of the regional development agencies, and that this, in turn, puts into serious doubt the funding for the Chester developments. Does anybody have any further thoughts or hard information on this? I really hope that this doesn't go the way of the Bristol project, but rather fear that it might.

And far more importantly, on the issue of capitalising species names - no! And I write as a pompous English teacher.

A zoo stocklist would be offering each species name as a sentence-like entity, so the capital would be justified. But in a normal sentence? Not needed. And what of starting a sentence with a conjunction? Perfectly fine!

 

[Chlidonias]

Of course, if everyone was sensible and stuck to scientific names, where the rules of capitalisation are laid out very firmly, none of this would matter!

indeed. For the benefit of Javan Rhino who started this off and may not be familiar with those rules, in scientific names the genus is capitalised, the specific and subspecific names are not: eg, Panthera tigris tigris is correct, panthera tigris tigris or Panthera Tigris Tigris are not correct. Unlike the vernacular names there can be no dispute about that.

 

[Paix]

I'm guessing that the budget, in which expenditure on almost everything has been cut massively, means the end of the regional development agencies, and that this, in turn, puts into serious doubt the funding for the Chester developments. Does anybody have any further thoughts or hard information on this? I really hope that this doesn't go the way of the Bristol project, but rather fear that it might.

I dont think this development will fall through, certain factors may of Natural Vision but I dont think HoA will. Anywho, whats happened to Bristols NWCP! I know they havent got any funding but they seem otherwise fine...

 

[sooty mangabey]

I dont think this development will fall through, certain factors may of Natural Vision but I dont think HoA will. Anywho, whats happened to Bristols NWCP! I know they havent got any funding but they seem otherwise fine...

Is this just a hunch, or do you have any empirical evidence to support what you say?

And to say that NWCP "haven't got any funding" but are "otherwise fine" is akin to saying that someone is dead but otherwise just fine. The funding is a fairly important part of a project such as this...

 

[^Chris^]

But that's for standard English - in a scientific document (which I would say includes, for example, a zoo stocklist) I think capitalisation is appropriate to show the names refers to a clear taxonimic entity. I find it a useful marker of that distinction (and, since when was English even vaguely consistent in its usage anyway? ).


(The above paragraph starts with a conjunction. I feel dirty.)

Of course, if everyone was sensible and stuck to scientific names, where the rules of capitalisation are laid out very firmly, none of this would matter!

Capitalization would not be used in a scientific document (I naturally tend to do so and always get told off for doing it) except occasionally in lists/tables. Never in a body of text (apart from obviously things like Sumatran tiger or Pallas' cat). Agreed- this is why scientific names are so important.

 

[Javan Rhino]

Wow, I've been breaking so many rules ;p. Didn't know the one about the scientific name either, I have always put things like:

"Chester Zoo's 'Heart of Africa' project will see several species introduced to the zoo, as well as several species moving into new exhibits. Species that will be shown are Western Lowland Gorillas (gorilla gorilla gorilla), Chimpanzees (pan trogolodytes)....

To me that always looked right ;p.

As for funding, I don't think it will affect Heart of Africa or indeed any part of Natural Vision. If you remember, it is always explicitly stated on the website and in guide books that it is a registered charity and recieves 'no government funding.' So if they don't recieve any anyway, it will all be done with profits left from admissions, cafe's, gift shops etc and fundraising/donations.

 

[Maguari]

Capitalization would not be used in a scientific document (I naturally tend to do so and always get told off for doing it)

I did it all through my university career and never got picked up on it (even at Masters level).

 

[Paix]

Is this just a hunch, or do you have any empirical evidence to support what you say?

And to say that NWCP "haven't got any funding" but are "otherwise fine" is akin to saying that someone is dead but otherwise just fine. The funding is a fairly important part of a project such as this...

Its a hunch yes, and the plans are fine, the reality isnt on the subject of NWCP! lol

 

[Paix]

Wow, I've been breaking so many rules ;p. Didn't know the one about the scientific name either, I have always put things like:

"Chester Zoo's 'Heart of Africa' project will see several species introduced to the zoo, as well as several species moving into new exhibits. Species that will be shown are Western Lowland Gorillas (gorilla gorilla gorilla), Chimpanzees (pan trogolodytes)....

To me that always looked right ;p.

As for funding, I don't think it will affect Heart of Africa or indeed any part of Natural Vision. If you remember, it is always explicitly stated on the website and in guide books that it is a registered charity and recieves 'no government funding.' So if they don't recieve any anyway, it will all be done with profits left from admissions, cafe's, gift shops etc and fundraising/donations.

Profts left from admissions, cafes, gift shops etc! I think it will mainly be donations etc like you said, it is 250 million. I think HoA will go ahead, but like I have already said, I do not believe all the plans will go ahead. For example, there have been many other masterplans in Chesters history, alot from their past Masterplans never went ahead!

 

[Shirokuma]

At the risk of going way off topic... does anyone have any information on Chester's previous masterplans or on plans the zoo had which didn't ultimately go ahead?

 

[Paix]

At the risk of going way off topic... does anyone have any information on Chester's previous masterplans or on plans the zoo had which didn't ultimately go ahead?

I was told that Cheetah bridge, or a bridge similair in design, basically another path over the bridel way, has been planed for a good number of decades... And it has only just gone ahead.

 

[bongorob]

A bridge was first proposed for that area in the late 1960s, and first appeared on the map in April 1968. It was not built until 2008.