Great! I was thinking of using some code for this.
What program are you using for it?
Preparing for PZ2 metawishlist
- Thread starter Stygi
- Start date
What program are you using for it?
Python
The code isn't in a great format to be used by other people, but I could clean it up if needed. I don't mind running it on my system.
Step 1: It takes in a txt list in the format (no bullet points, just a new line):
- >User1
- Giraffe
- Leopard
- Zebra
- Chinchilla
- ....
- Blackbuck
- >User2
- Tiger
- Grey Wolf
- Gorilla
Step 2: Initially, it returns a csv file with all of the typos from the master list of lists not covered by my code. I fix the typos.
I get a final output as a csv file with all of the animal names and numbers for all species above a particular threshold. If you guys could convert the survey responses into a txt file in the format I described, I could probably handle most of it. If I need help with step 2, it should be easy enough to teach someone.
This is an issue I've been thinking about as well. If we are aware of the common names used, we can use a function to replace every alternative common name for the one that has the strongest consensus. This means that in the database all mentions of 'black-and-white colobus' can be replaced by 'mantled guereza' for example.
To prevent error, it would be good to keep a list of commonly used alternatives in the first post to inform users. I'd say for easy consensus we use the common names used by Wikipedia.
The biggest issue here is finding out which alternative names are used, which takes some manual checking, especially in the beginning, and especially for less well-known species.
I'm sorry, @random goat. It is that big of a deal for me. I will not participate in any capacity if this project uses subspecies unless Frontier decides they want to compensate me for my time.
I don't think the generic votes should be piled into any one subspecies. That opens the door for Slothgate 2.0. I don't want to encourage people to purposely vote for subspecies or reward individuals smart enough to know what a subspecies is but too stubborn/entitled to follow directions. A few errors here and there from people who genuinely don't know better is one thing. I am not paid to deal with the other.
Also, wouldn't people start voting for more than one subspecies of the same species? It opens a huge can of worms for an already ridiculously huge endeavor. People can have that nitpicky discussion somewhere else. I don't think the metawishlist is the appropriate place for it. I remember joining the forums around the time when people were hounding new member/posters about which leopard subspecies. I felt VERY pressured to vote for/support the Amur to please the zoo nerds, and I don't want to create that situation again.
I already have written code that does this for many species.
Its not a few almost every single animal has variations in common name whether that be the changes of spelling, missing words in a long name, placement of hyphens, using entirely different names or even in some cases calling it the wrong name.
This would ruin the data because it would spread people out and discourage users from participating if they had to go to multiple places at once
I am more than happy to manually do this at the beginning and document all the variations to add to the code.
Im not too advanced in my use of tech but if any grunt work manual sorting is needed I have to the time to do it.
I've harped on carnivoran biases before, and it rears its ugly head here again. People care about the subspecies because carnivorans are oh-so "more important" and "they're all so unique from one-another" while said same people casually overlook the multitude of vastly more significant differences between far more distantly related groups of animals.
I yearn for a zoo game that gives all these the standard species so people can finally learn to appreciate the broader scope of biodiversity.
similar situation here, not great with coding but am more than happy to do any manual sorting
I agree, but my point is that using scientific names will scare off most potential participants. Especially if we allow lists of 100+ animals, very few people are prepared to look up all the scientific names. Even with lists of up to 25 plants this was not done.
I'd be interested in @SuzieSky's code to see how much of the potential double names are already covered.
Yeah I think scientific names is probably too high of a barrier to entry with a list of up to 200 animals
Last edited:
I don't see an issue with this at all. It forces people to make an informed decision and it means curators get more precise data. If the entry maximum is a problem, make the max smaller (ex. 20, 30, 50). Curators don't need to work with entries of dozens of picks per person, they have power over the size of their workload.
I think it's more that brown bear, wolf, lion, tiger are species with massive distribution that is actually reflected in real life zoos. Every child knows what a "bengal tiger" is, but not a "southern white rhino". Add to that the difference in biomes and look that comes with them (wolf especially).
We can treat them the same way we treat different species in similar groups, like the various species of Capuchin monkeys.
Peregrine falcons and common barn owls are cosmopolitan and in an even greater variety of habitats, yet nobody ever bothers to isolate their subspecies.
We'll only get change if we make pushes for the change to happen. Unless someone cares a whole awful lot, nothing will get changed.
maybe but @SuzieSky is strongly against it and I don't want to fracture the group over this issue
I'm with Suzie. Making arbitrary distinctions for which clades are considered "similar" or "distinct" doesn't help when trying to aggregate data. There needs to be objective and consistent criteria for how the data is treated to get the best results.