Zootierliste America

[Animal]

Should the collections
United States of America - San Francisco (California Academy of Sciences)
United States of America - San Francisco (Steinhart Aquarium at The CA Academy of Sciences)

Be merged? Both have a single AZA membership and the aquarium is not really seperate from the Academy as they are both under a single roof and in the same building.

Collections like Omaha have both the aquarium and zoo under one collection.

Both are filled with species now, so merging would take some time. Please let us postpone this topic for a few weeks.

Two questions:

1.) Is there a way to see who makes a certain edit? Somebody keeps listing Matschie's Tree Kangaroo for Brookfield when they do not currently have the species. They had one off-exhibit briefly, but it is no longer around. I've gone back and changed it three times now and it would be beneficial to see who's changing things so I can message them and clarify the status.

2.) How do you completely remove a species from a zoo's listing without moving it to the "former species" tab? There have been a few instances were I initially added the wrong subspecies and then corrected it after. However, it atomically gets listed as a former species when in many instances the zoo never held the (sub)species in the first place.

1.) Only the admins can see who did an edit and to see it for certain entries we would have to have a look into the database. Please put the species in the former holdings and add that info into the infobox over the sources.

2.) Please write on the notice board if a species has to be removed from a collection permanently.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Hello everyone. I've been going through and reviewing a lot of U.S. entries and I've noticed that some people might be struggling with how to properly cite and use sources. I've written up some notes/reminders that I hope are helpful:
(Disclaimer: I am not a ZTL admin, so if any of them disagree with what I say here please defer to them. I think most of this is pretty basic and unobjectionable "how to use sources properly" stuff though.)

1. Always include a source. I'd say ~98% or more of the entries I see have some kind of source, but I'm still coming across a few that are blank. These entries may get reported and deleted if a valid source can't be found.

2. If your source is that you visited, please make that clear. There are many entries where the only source is just a date - nothing saying "visit", "seen", etc. A date on its own with no context is not a proper source.

3. If you are using a zoo website, blog post, YouTube video, etc - please include a link. I can understand not doing this always for social media posts like Facebook and Instagram - sometimes those are difficult to provide direct links for - but for stuff where you can definitely include a URL in your source, please do so. I've come across instances where this was a problem - for example, where the entry just says "listed on website" and and I haven't been able to find any reference to the animal on the website.

4. When using social media like Facebook and Instagram posts, please include the date it was posted. URLs are the ideal, but if you don't have that then at least include the month and year so that others can easily find your source post. "Featured on zoo's Instagram" is a much harder source to verify compared to "Featured on May 2023 Instagram post from zoo".

5. Don't enter information and leave the sources box blank. I am seeing some entries with information like "behind the scenes" or "1.0 imported from X" with no sources provided. All information should have a source provided for it; otherwise how can it be trusted by anyone else? Additional information is great, but sources should still be used.

 

[Mr Gharial]

I can understand not doing this always for social media posts like Facebook and Instagram - sometimes those are difficult to provide direct links for - but for stuff where you can definitely include a URL in your source, please do so.

You can also add the date of the facebook post as a source.
"- FB-Mitteilung 14/02/2021" (or something similar) is used as a source on multiple occasions.

Edit:

4. When using social media like Facebook and Instagram posts, please include the date it was posted. URLs are the ideal, but if you don't have that then at least include the month and year so that others can easily find your source post. "Featured on zoo's Instagram" is a much harder source to verify compared to "Featured on May 2023 Instagram post from zoo".

Should've kept reading before responding

 

[KiwiBirb]

Just to confirm, behind the scenes animals shouldn’t be counted right? I’ve noticed that someone has listed several behind the scenes species for the Bronx (I.e. Binturong, American Beaver, Cheetah, Yellow-Bellied Marmot, Sand Cat, Warthog, etc.)

 

[Mr Gharial]

Just to confirm, behind the scenes animals shouldn’t be counted right? I’ve noticed that someone has listed several behind the scenes species for the Bronx (I.e. Binturong, American Beaver, Cheetah, Yellow-Bellied Marmot, Sand Cat, Warthog, etc.)

Yes, BTS animals are counted, as long as you mention they're behind the scenes in the additional information box

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Just to confirm, behind the scenes animals shouldn’t be counted right? I’ve noticed that someone has listed several behind the scenes species for the Bronx (I.e. Binturong, American Beaver, Cheetah, Yellow-Bellied Marmot, Sand Cat, Warthog, etc.)

No, animals which are BTS are still eligible for inclusion - you just have to note their status in the information abd references.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Another important note for anyone using USDA reports as a source for entries: please be aware that animals are not always correctly identified to species on these reports. It is especially common for certain groups that have more obscure, uncommon, and/or easily confused species - rodents, bats, marsupials and xenarthrans come to mind - but it can happen with any species. Birds have been subject to this as well; one example is some kookaburras getting listed as "Giant Kingfisher" with a completely different Latin name.

In general it is probably best practice to have multiple sources for entries rather than just a USDA report. At the very least, unusual listings should be investigated and cross-checked with other sources before being entered - as oftentimes they are just misidentified listings of more typical species.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Another important note for anyone using USDA reports as a source for entries: please be aware that animals are not always correctly identified to species on these reports. It is especially common for certain groups that have more obscure, uncommon, and/or easily confused species - rodents, bats, marsupials and xenarthrans come to mind - but it can happen with any species. Birds have been subject to this as well; one example is some kookaburras getting listed as "Giant Kingfisher" with a completely different Latin name.

In general it is probably best practice to have multiple sources for entries rather than just a USDA report. At the very least, unusual listings should be investigated and cross-checked with other sources before being entered - as oftentimes they are just misidentified listings of more typical species.

Thanks for this. I've been using this thread to note species that need extra special attention, so it's helpful to have these taxon added as being potentially problematic.

More and more, I'm trying to go back and find multiple sources for every entry, since almost nothing is consistently able to be taken at face value. By my count, I've seen warnings that we need to be careful and can't always rely on:

• zoo websites,
• zoo signage,
• social media
• USDA reports,
• Isis/Zims entries (which I understand can't be quoted as a source on ZTL anyway),
• zoochat holder lists,
• eye witness accounts from anyone that's not an expert in that taxon.
• our own zoo visits, if we're not an expert in that taxon.

I've now got a long and growing list of single sourced entries that I'm trying to track down a second source for. (It almost feels like I need a database to keep track of items that aren't ready to go into the database!). I am also going back through some entries to add additional details that I can find to shore up some of the entries for the more challenging taxon.

It's a big project, but we're making lots of great progress over there!

 

[Animal]

It's a big project, but we're making lots of great progress over there!

I can't stress enough how true this is!

 

[1Squirrel monkey]

As a European myself, how is the overall quality of the American listings on ZTL after these months? Are the species listed correct and complete? How is the coverage of the zoos themselves?

 

[iloveyourzoos]

As a European myself, how is the overall quality of the American listings on ZTL after these months? Are the species listed correct and complete? How is the coverage of the zoos themselves?

I'd say it's getting better every day!

I think it partially depends on what you're wanting to use it for:

- If you're trying to get a sense of the types of species a zoo currently has, then it's pretty good for most of the bigger zoos, and great deal of the medium and smaller zoos too.

- If you're planning a trip to see a particular species, then I'd probably check the citations to see how recent and reliable they are, and also ask around before committing to a schedule. And doubly so if you're coming for a subspecies.

- If you're trying to look at historical (former) entries, or using it to say definitively that a zoo does NOT have a species, then I'd say there's still too much work that needs to be done before you could use it for those purposes. The information that is there is usually correct, but the absence of information might just mean that there's a lot that still needs to be added.

- It can also depend on taxonomy too. Since a lot of entries are based on people's personal visits -- including their recordings on their personal lifelists from the past few years -- the more "popular" or "commonly recorded" mammals tend to be more complete than birds or reptiles, which fewer people might keep track of. And birds or reptiles may be more complete than amphibians and fish. And amphibians and fish are more complete than domestic animals (which are often listed as generic when the zoos actually hold particular breeds).

 

[Animal]

It is going faster than expected and the records (with good sources) are coming in. It is still a long way to go.

 

[1Squirrel monkey]

I'd say it's getting better every day!

Thanks so much for your thorough reply! It's great to hear development is well on it's way. When ZTL went global, I was very hesitant. With so much information suddenly needing to be added, I judged it impossible. But my opinion has changed since, with ZTL being pretty well known here, and a wide fanbase, you all have done amazing work! As we say in my country: Many hands make light work.

So to react to the points you make (thanks again):

- If you're trying to get a sense of the types of species a zoo currently has, then it's pretty good for most of the bigger zoos, and great deal of the medium and smaller zoos too.

So this is probably the most developed field and something I'm very interested in. It seems like it's pretty accurate now to compare Europe and America species-wise using the site.

- If you're planning a trip to see a particular species, then I'd probably check the citations to see how recent and reliable they are, and also ask around before committing to a schedule. And doubly so if you're coming for a subspecies.

- If you're trying to look at historical (former) entries, or using it to say definitively that a zoo does NOT have a species, then I'd say there's still too much work that needs to be done before you could use it for those purposes. The information that is there is usually correct, but the absence of information might just mean that there's a lot that still needs to be added.

I think you sum it up well here. The added information is (mostly) complete but not yet complete enough. And that's very logical. It's also nicer than having it the other way around

It can also depend on taxonomy too. Since a lot of entries are based on people's personal visits -- including their recordings on their personal lifelists from the past few years -- the more "popular" or "commonly recorded" mammals tend to be more complete than birds or reptiles, which fewer people might keep track of. And birds or reptiles may be more complete than amphibians and fish. And amphibians and fish are more complete than domestic animals (which are often listed as generic when the zoos actually hold particular breeds).

As unfortunate as it is, this is also very human and I recognise this from European entries. And for Europe it is even more pronounced, as it applies to the information added as well. Bigger mammal species tend to be recorded with visits more often and the population size is often known as well. Smaller mammals and especially herps and fish have it far less easy. But this is probably due to the fact these species need to be well recorded after a visit, whereas species like gorillas are better to remember.

Speaking about that, do American Zoos often have annual reports? With stock lists and such?

 

[Animal]

As unfortunate as it is, this is also very human and I recognise this from European entries. And for Europe it is even more pronounced, as it applies to the information added as well. Bigger mammal species tend to be recorded with visits more often and the population size is often known as well. Smaller mammals and especially herps and fish have it far less easy. But this is probably due to the fact these species need to be well recorded after a visit, whereas species like gorillas are better to remember.

Also most people are more knowledgeable about mammals. If a Amur Tiger is mislabeled as Sumatran Tiger, people do find that error. With some amphibians not so much. So there is also a bigger risk of putting in species wrong if they are mislabeled or not labeled at all.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Speaking about that, do American Zoos often have annual reports? With stock lists and such?

I'm sure that the zoos have that information internally, but most of them don't make that information publicly available anymore, unfortunately. I've actually had more luck finding full lists from the 1970's and before, than for recent years. (But even then, I'm not sure if they were public at the time, or if they only became public in the intervening years.) Instead, their public annual reports are usually about finances, with an occasional focus on new construction projects, new arrivals, new births, or conservation projects.

In a few cases I've found examples where a zoo's master plan will list their current and "hoped for" animals as of the year of the plan. Or where their website does a pretty good job of listing all (or most) of the animals. But of course, we only know how complete the website is after we've had a visit to compare it to.

 

[1Squirrel monkey]

Additionally, could somebody maybe give an estimate of the percentage of US zoos that has a full list added?

 

[birdsandbats]

Additionally, could somebody maybe give an estimate of the percentage of US zoos that has a full list added?

That's really hard to say because no one even has good numbers for how many zoos there are in the US. Most of the AZA zoos will have mostly complete lists I would think, but probably only a small portion of non-AZA zoos.

 

[SusScrofa]

Speaking about that, do American Zoos often have annual reports? With stock lists and such?

USDA inspection reports are the closest thing to a US zoo public inventory list thats available to the public online, but the reports only list mammals and only very recently birds.

APHIS Public Search Tool

It should also be noted that USDA reports arent 100% accurate. They can regularly miss some species on one report and add them on the next. Its quite common for small mammals to be listed as the wrong species including the Nasua coatis being listed as "Mountain Coati", Black-tailed Prairie Dog listed as another Cynomys species, spider monkeys listed as wrong Ateles species, various small rodents and bats listed as something completely different, etc. Now with birds added on newer reports, I've also noticed errors such as various small zoos listed as holding buttonquails (Turnix) when these are probably King or Common Quails.

Therefore, I would say USDA reports should absolutely not be used as the sole source when adding an entry. However, I think they are good for confirming if a species is still present at a zoo that was visited a while ago or has an old visit date as a source.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Additionally, could somebody maybe give an estimate of the percentage of US zoos that has a full list added?

Well since there are hundreds of zoos in the US (minimum - depends on definitions) and there's no way to know if any zoo's list is "full" anyways, the answer to that would be no

I'd echo @birdsandbats in that most major zoos are fully or close to fully filled out at this point. Many smaller places remain incomplete or empty, and probably will remain so for a while.

It should also be noted that USDA reports arent 100% accurate. They can regularly miss some species on one report and add them on the next. Its quite common for small mammals to be listed as the wrong species

ow with birds added on newer reports, I've also noticed errors such as various small zoos listed as holding buttonquails (Turnix) when these are probably King or Common Quails.

Yep, and there's a large number of entries on ZTL now that reflect these issues - whether it's animals being moved to former immediately because they aren't listed on one USDA report (which is a bit premature IMO) and obscure species being listed based on no evidence other than a questionable ID on a report.

Are the species listed correct

Species accuracy is pretty good. Subspecies accuracy is still a mess for some species - mostly due to lots of inconsistency about how to list things and species getting double-listed because people enter them under different taxa. Examples include lions (generic vs. krugeri), bison (generic vs. Plains), Gray Crowned Crane (generic vs. gibbericeps), etc. A mix of issues going on there - lack of information about what zoos have, incorrect IDs from zoos themselves, no cited sources to cross-check, and no clear status quo to guide new entries.

 

[Dhole dude]

That's really hard to say because no one even has good numbers for how many zoos there are in the US. Most of the AZA zoos will have mostly complete lists I would think, but probably only a small portion of non-AZA zoos.

This is mostly true but there is still a lot more work that needs to be done even on major zoos. For example, the Minnesota Zoo has at least more than double the vertebrate species than what is currently listed on ZTL (which is almost entirely fish species that I have yet to identify), so there’s still a lot of work to be done. Thankfully I have all summer to work on updating entries for my local zoos (If I ever get around to it)