Zoological inaccuracies & mistakes

[Birdsage]

There isn't much demand but any good content will get you a small following.

Here’s an example of an exceptional wildlife channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgvwJuCk2KMzvjmrKhlVZ9A

I think they’re quite educational myself.
Here are some other ones:

Ecotasia (formerly Backyard Expeditions) covers a wide range of conservation and nature subjects, from biochemistry, the diversity of birds and plants in the Amazon, and the fauna of the Mariana Trench, to conservation in games, the effects of tourism, and even the importance of zoos.

BioBush is a bird-centric channel that has a wide range of ornithological videos, including many that are just plain silly. The creator was a zookeeper at Bird Kingdom until recently.

Shelby On Safari generally discusses 3 things: 1. animal facts, 2. zoo and aquarium visits, and 3. popular-culture connections with animals.

Animal Education with Cole Shirk primarily features videos discussing animals in zoos and other collections as well as zoos and conservation subjects.

 

[Zoofan15]

Jamamji: The Next Level (2019)

I was talked into watching Jamamji: The Next Level (2019) this afternoon. I literally don’t know where to start…

A Common hippopotamus was found in a tropical rainforest. It was stopped in its tracks by somebody tossing it a piece of fruit and ceased to bother anyone henceforth.

The ostriches had casques and were hellbent on killing people, pursuing them across long distances.

The Mandrill troop had a gender ratio so unbalanced it made the founding Hamadryas baboon troop of London Zoo’s Monkey Hill (1925) seem achievable. The Mandrill troop was comprised almost entirely of adult males (I think I saw one female).

The Mandrill had long tails. They were seen walking bipedally and brachiating with unwarranted enthusiasm.

The premise of this movie was this was a video game, so technically I’m criticising the zoological inaccuracies of a game within a movie; but it still irritated me nonetheless.

 

[Pertinax]

The Mandrill troop had a gender ratio so unbalanced it made the founding Hamadryas baboon troop of London Zoo’s Monkey Hill (1925) seem achievable. The Mandrill troop was comprised almost entirely of adult males (I think I saw one female).

....The Hamadryas at ZSL in that troop numbered something like 9 females to God knows how many males but it was an awful lot, as all the old photos and postcards of that exhibit show. I read an explanation somewhere of why this happened but cannot remember what it was now.

 

[Zoofan15]

....The Hamadryas at ZSL in that troop numbered something like 9 females to God knows how many males but it was an awful lot, as all the old photos and postcards of that exhibit show. I read an explanation somewhere of why this happened but cannot remember what it was now.

There’s a really comprehensive article about it here:

The Massacre at Monkey Hill - Priceonomics

But this paragraph best answers your question:

In 1925, a shipment of ninety-seven hamadryas baboons arrived by boat from the Horn of Africa. They were all supposed to be male. As Jane Goodall’s biographer Dale Peterson writes, the zoo’s gender preference was “based on the idea that the males—big and dramatically fanged and caped, with pink buttocks—would appeal to a zoo-going public more than the smaller and less gaudy females.” But whether by neglect or indifference, six females were included in the shipment. The result was a bloodbath.

 

[Pantheraman]

From the Dhole Conservation Fund

"We know that dholes live in packs. What these packs consist of is something of a mystery. Historical records indicate that some of these packs come together at different times of the year. Some packs have only one adult pair, and some have more. We know more about the wolf and African wild dog pack makeup and dispersal than we do dhole."

Dhole Conservation Fund

"Deeply inhales and exhales"

Hey, Dhole Conservation Fund, wanna know something interesting? THIS IS NOT A F@#$%@$&* MYSTERY!!!

It is very well known by scientists that dhole packs consist of one breeding pair, a current litter, and their adult offspring. RARELY are there 2 females that have pups. So no, it's not common like you somehow think it is. And you seriously think historical records are a good source of information? Need I remind you that historical records also made dholes seem like bloodthirsty killers? Oh wait, but this makes dholes seem cool, so let's not bother thinking about if this is true or not. Also, let's ignore that dholes have these things called home ranges and territories that they work together to defend from other dhole packs.

And you want to know about dispersal? AJT Johnsingh observed that before a new litter is born, part of the pack will leave and find their own spot to call home to keep the pack size stable. But of course, you won't even mention his findings for some reason, then again, thy do kinda go against your ideas of how dholes really are, and of course, you wouldn't want to seem not as knowledgeable about these animals as you've gotten people into thinking.

And this is just a part of the issue with available information about dholes. Western and even some Eastern sources will treat historical crap as facts and will treat mere speculation as fact as well, and listen, I'm fine with that if you're talking about non-avian dinosaurs, but in this case, ABSOLUTELY F$%^&$#%& NOT!! because these speculations have pretty much been shown to be untrue.

But alas, the misinformation spread continues and for whatever reason, many experts aren't doing a flipping thing to put an end to it, and naturally, you cannot trust barely any sources out there when it comes to dholes. And this is one reason why I wrote a book on dholes, to give people a credible source of information on these canids.

 

[Chlidonias]

From the Dhole Conservation Fund

"We know that dholes live in packs. What these packs consist of is something of a mystery. Historical records indicate that some of these packs come together at different times of the year. Some packs have only one adult pair, and some have more. We know more about the wolf and African wild dog pack makeup and dispersal than we do dhole."

Dhole Conservation Fund

"Deeply inhales and exhales"

Hey, Dhole Conservation Fund, wanna know something interesting? THIS IS NOT A F@#$%@$&* MYSTERY!!!

It is very well known by scientists that dhole packs consist of one breeding pair, a current litter, and their adult offspring. RARELY are there 2 females that have pups. So no, it's not common like you somehow think it is. And you seriously think historical records are a good source of information? Need I remind you that historical records also made dholes seem like bloodthirsty killers? Oh wait, but this makes dholes seem cool, so let's not bother thinking about if this is true or not. Also, let's ignore that dholes have these things called home ranges and territories that they work together to defend from other dhole packs.

And you want to know about dispersal? AJT Johnsingh observed that before a new litter is born, part of the pack will leave and find their own spot to call home to keep the pack size stable. But of course, you won't even mention his findings for some reason, then again, thy do kinda go against your ideas of how dholes really are, and of course, you wouldn't want to seem not as knowledgeable about these animals as you've gotten people into thinking.

And this is just a part of the issue with available information about dholes. Western and even some Eastern sources will treat historical crap as facts and will treat mere speculation as fact as well, and listen, I'm fine with that if you're talking about non-avian dinosaurs, but in this case, ABSOLUTELY F$%^&$#%& NOT!! because these speculations have pretty much been shown to be untrue.

But alas, the misinformation spread continues and for whatever reason, many experts aren't doing a flipping thing to put an end to it, and naturally, you cannot trust barely any sources out there when it comes to dholes. And this is one reason why I wrote a book on dholes, to give people a credible source of information on these canids.

Why are you always so angry? If you have written a book on dholes as you say, I sure hope you didn't spend every page yelling at the reader, ranting and cursing about how every Western source is wrong and stupid, and proclaiming that only you know the facts. It doesn't make you sound clever.

 

[Pantheraman]

Why are you always so angry? If you have written a book on dholes as you say, I sure hope you didn't spend every page yelling at the reader, ranting and cursing about how every Western source is wrong and stupid, and proclaiming that only you know the facts. It doesn't make you sound clever.

I didn't. I just talked about dholes, don't worry.

It's just really frustrating (as you can tell) when these people continue to spout misinformation on these animals and ignore important sources of information. And honestly, I didn't know I always sound angry.

 

[amur leopard]

"We know that dholes live in packs. What these packs consist of is something of a mystery. Historical records indicate that some of these packs come together at different times of the year. Some packs have only one adult pair, and some have more. We know more about the wolf and African wild dog pack makeup and dispersal than we do dhole."

I'd hazard a guess that they are saying this probably in full knowledge of the facts you state above but are purposely understating how much we know about dholes to make it seem as if very little research has been done, which could in turn boost donations to the fund. Probably wrong, but it's just a thought.

 

[Pantheraman]

I'd hazard a guess that they are saying this probably in full knowledge of the facts you state above but are purposely understating how much we know about dholes to make it seem as if very little research has been done, which could in turn boost donations to the fund. Probably wrong, but it's just a thought.

Sadly, I think you could be right. That and some things they say are likely made up probably to make them sound cooler to boost funds.

 

[Pantheraman]

I know I covered this before on this thread, but then I remembered a conversation I had back in 2019.

Here's this post from the Dhole Conservation Fund.



In the spring of 2019, I emailed the Svasara Jungle Lodge of Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve located in the Central Indian province of Maharashtra. The topic was about tiger-dhole interactions as I was doing my own analysis of the old colonial accounts of their interactions and in the process, wanted to get a better idea of how the two species interacted. A lodge staff member was kind enough to forward my message to their head naturalist who responded.

This is their response.


Now let this sink in for a moment. (And yes, I still find this person thinking I'm a girl hilarious).

 

[Birdsage]

The Meadowlark Song says that despite the two scientifically recognized functions of birdsong (territorial defense and mate attraction), “ornithology has overlooked a third possibility” and that birds could be “singing simply for the joy of the melody”.

 

[birdsandbats]

The Meadowlark Song says that despite the two scientifically recognized functions of birdsong (territorial defense and mate attraction), “ornithology has overlooked a third possibility” and that birds could be “singing simply for the joy of the melody”.

My honest opinion? All three of those are true, including the third.

 

[Birdsage]

I am referring to this:

 

[MRJ]

My honest opinion? All three of those are true, including the third.

I can’t see how. They must be mutually exclusive. If the bird is using the calls for mating and territory defense then to suddenly burst into song for the "joy" of it would be confusing and potentially dangerous.

It is also anthropomorphic. Because we enjoy the call of this species in particular we are giving it human characteristics. Nobody is claiming that crows call for the joy of their melody.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

My honest opinion? All three of those are true, including the third.

I can’t see how. They must be mutually exclusive. If the bird is using the calls for mating and territory defense then to suddenly burst into song for the "joy" of it would be confusing and potentially dangerous.

It'd only be mutually-exclusive when someone claimed all three were true within the same species and the same call, of course - so it's definitely wrong in *this* case, but I think @birdsandbats meant in general.... and I don't think we can rule out the possibility that some birds *do* have calls/songs which are for the purpose of self-amusement.

 

[MRJ]

It'd only be mutually-exclusive when someone claimed all three were true within the same species and the same call, of course - so it's definitely wrong in *this* case, but I think @birdsandbats meant in general.... and I don't think we can rule out the possibility that some birds *do* have calls/songs which are for the purpose of self-amusement.

Given the syntax of the comments I am pretty sure the comment was about the meadowlark.

Be that as it may, of course we can't "rule out" calls for self amusement in the same way we can't "rule out" the continued existence of the thylacine. However, given substantial research over a long period into bird song has not produced any supporting evidence, it would seem far more likely it does not happen. Of course, one day I may be proven wrong, and I will then be more than happy to accept that, just as I would be happy to see a living thylacine.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Given the syntax of the comments I am pretty sure the comment was about the meadowlark.

The original one from @Birdsage definitely was - but I got the impression that @birdsandbats wasn't familiar with the Youtube video being alluded to and was speaking more generally. Doesn't really matter either way, of course

 

[MRJ]

The original one from @Birdsage definitely was - but I got the impression that @birdsandbats wasn't familiar with the Youtube video being alluded to and was speaking more generally. Doesn't really matter either way, of course

Perhaps, but as you say irrelevant to the proposition.

 

[birdsandbats]

The original one from @Birdsage definitely was - but I got the impression that @birdsandbats wasn't familiar with the Youtube video being alluded to and was speaking more generally. Doesn't really matter either way, of course

I wasn't aware of the video and was talking about birdsong in general - no specific species or call.

 

[Birdsage]

This song indeed refers to meadowlarks specifically and not songbirds in general.