I often joke with my online friends from the Northern Hemisphere about how squirrels are the most exotic animals to me, because it's essentially true - I have literally never seen a squirrel in real life, neither in a zoo or in the wild. For me personally, a Europe DLC would be just as exciting as the more requested North America DLC, both not being at the top of my priorities but still having the potential to include a lot of species I'd love to see in the game.
Would you buy an Asian dlc that excluded tropical species?
Funny, because Gray Squirrels keep messing up my yard
.Actually, I like Prevost's Squirrels and Red Squirrels
That's awesome, such an interesting perspective. I would love a European dlc and another Asian dlc...but I was so disappointed with Australia dlc (it lacked animals AND completely omitted New Zealand)
Everyone has their own (perfectly valid) opinion, and I actually think the Australia Pack was near as perfect as it could be given the size of the traditional DLC (unlike most people I actually appreciated the inclusion of the dingo, while at the same time retaining the devil as my #1 wanted species for the game). I also don't imagine the New Zealanders would be too happy being lumped under Australia lol. Now I'm just hoping we'll get more Oceanian animals through future DLC, whether through a specific regional animal pack or (perhaps more likely) as part of general, less region-focused packs. But this ain't the topic for that.
I love deer 🦌
Banned
Love so many asian species from russia china and india that I would instantly buy even 2 of those 
Could imagine a good Russia Pack with Red Foxes and Tanukis. They could also put the Moose in itLove so many asian species from russia china and india that I would instantly buy even 2 of those
It's funny, I was going to use this exact same example. I had a friend who was from Australia but studying in the US and she absolutely loved seeing common gray squirrels, raccoons and opossums on campus. Perspective really is everything!
Nobody lumped New Zealanders under Australia, I think you misunderstood me.
We got an Australian dlc (that was severely lacking species) instead of an Oceanian dlc which would encompass ALL of the continent not just one country. I'm advocating for the inclusion of all of Oceania. And now I'd be willing to bet money New Zealand and the rest of Oceania will not revieve an Oceania dlc.
That was my point, they focused on one country and didn't even represent it well
Not people from New Zealand are apart of AustraliaOf course! Would throw in a blue bull(Replace dromedary with it?)
"Oceania" isn't a continent, it's a geographic grouping. Australia is a continent on its own (and they did extend beyond it - the cassowary is more commonly associated with New Guinea than Australia).Nobody lumped New Zealanders under Australia, I think you misunderstood me.
We got an Australian dlc (that was severely lacking species) instead of an Oceanian dlc which would encompass ALL of the continent not just one country. I'm advocating for the inclusion of all of Oceania. And now I'd be willing to bet money New Zealand and the rest of Oceania will not revieve an Oceania dlc.
That was my point, they focused on one country and didn't even represent it well
I've said before but I think a small New Zealand pack is totally doable. For habitat animals all you'd really need is the kiwi, but you could also include the takahe, little blue penguin, and the New Zealand fur seal now that we have the Aquatic Pack (not the kakapo though - it isn't kept in captivity at all). Then for the exhibit animal, just the tuatara would more than suffice. We also have some totally unique and beautiful foliage (cabbage tree, pohutakawa, kowhai, ponga), and Maori art would make both amazing scenery and a building set.
In the end, however, they didn't do enough for either South America or Australia. It's ludicrous to me that they only got 4+1 animals each, but a region like Southeast Asia got 7+1. I hope they do revisit the first DLC's towards the end of the game's life and boost them up a little bit (even if it's only two animals each or something).
"Oceania" isn't a continent, it's a geographic grouping. Australia is a continent on its own (and they did extend beyond it - the cassowary is more commonly associated with New Guinea than Australia).
1) Oceania is a continent it depends on what country you live in and the continent model taught there. Just like the number of countries recognized is varied by country to country.
Where I live we learn about 7 continental areas (North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica and Oceania (not the continent of Australia which would exclude islands in the South Pacific)
2) If your country does not accept Oceania as a continent, they probably go by landmasses in that case Europe, Asia and Africa (which are connected) and South America and North America (which are connected) would also be considered continents as well. And in that model there would only be 4 continents: Americas, Australia, Antarctica and Afro-Eurasia (that's also the least taught continent model worldwide)
3) The Southern Cassowary (which is the species in Planet Zoo) are not associated with New Guinea, live in Australia
There's always going to be disagreement about what constitutes a continent, but there's still a discussion to be had here. I'll just use the other quote function.
Whoa I wrote way more than I was expecting to, I just love my biogeography.
@12344321
The Australian continent (which also has several other names, such as Sahul, to avoid confusion with the country) has actually been widely recognised, especially in scientific circles, since the 1950s, given unlike Oceania it is easily definable and contained as it constitutes a continental shelf. More recently there has been growing awareness that New Zealand, New Caledonia and some other South Pacific islands actually lie upon an enormous sunken mass of continental crust known as Zealandia, far far larger than any other known microcontinent or continental fragment, and that such a landmass would have been recognised as a distinct continent long ago had 94% of it not been underwater.
I'll link the three relevent wikipedia articles below (note how the Oceania article specifically avoids referring to it as a continent):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia
Despite all this, you're still free to class what you want as a continent really.
It is true that different continent models are recognised not just from country to country but also from person to person, given, as I mentioned, there's always been a lot of disagreement about what constitutes a continent. However, many of the landmasses grouped under Oceania have no real relatedness aside from being islands lying within the same general corner of the world - it is a geographical region created for convenience. In this sense it is understandable why Oceania is utilised as a continent category by Frontier.
The Australian continent (which also has several other names, such as Sahul, to avoid confusion with the country) has actually been widely recognised, especially in scientific circles, since the 1950s, given unlike Oceania it is easily definable and contained as it constitutes a continental shelf. More recently there has been growing awareness that New Zealand, New Caledonia and some other South Pacific islands actually lie upon an enormous sunken mass of continental crust known as Zealandia, far far larger than any other known microcontinent or continental fragment, and that such a landmass would have been recognised as a distinct continent long ago had 94% of it not been underwater.
I'll link the three relevent wikipedia articles below (note how the Oceania article specifically avoids referring to it as a continent):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia
No? From what I understand countries such as Brazil that reject Australia in favour of Oceania are also more likely to recognise things such as a single America. I personally follow a seven continent model, but one which joins Europe and Asia into Eurasia (my concept of continents is largely based on physical distinctness and biogeographic boundaries, in which case there's no reasons for them to be separate continents) and recognises Zealandia as the 7th continent. Basically, what are commonly referred to as "geological continents".
Despite all this, you're still free to class what you want as a continent really.
Unlike the continent discussion, which is subject to a degree of intepretation, this is simply not true. The Southern Cassowary is much more widespread in New Guinea than it is on mainland Australia, just look at the distribution map below. Not to mention that cassowaries as a whole are, like tree kangaroos, heavily associated with New Guinea despite also occurring on the mainland.3) The Southern Cassowary (which is the species in Planet Zoo) are not associated with New Guinea, live in Australia
Whoa I wrote way more than I was expecting to, I just love my biogeography.
Haha you commented on my post just fine but failed to address any points for some reason
There's always going to be disagreement about what constitutes a continent, but there's still a discussion to be had here. I'll just use the other quote function.
@12344321
It is true that different continent models are recognised not just from country to country but also from person to person, given, as I mentioned, there's always been a lot of disagreement about what constitutes a continent. However, many of the landmasses grouped under Oceania have no real relatedness aside from being islands lying within the same general corner of the world - it is a geographical region created for convenience. In this sense it is understandable why Oceania is utilised as a continent category by Frontier.
The Australian continent (which also has several other names, such as Sahul, to avoid confusion with the country) has actually been widely recognised, especially in scientific circles, since the 1950s, given unlike Oceania it is easily definable and contained as it constitutes a continental shelf. More recently there has been growing awareness that New Zealand, New Caledonia and some other South Pacific islands actually lie upon an enormous sunken mass of continental crust known as Zealandia, far far larger than any other known microcontinent or continental fragment, and that such a landmass would have been recognised as a distinct continent long ago had 94% of it not been underwater.
I'll link the three relevent wikipedia articles below (note how the Oceania article specifically avoids referring to it as a continent):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia
No? From what I understand countries such as Brazil that reject Australia in favour of Oceania are also more likely to recognise things such as a single America. I personally follow a seven continent model, but one which joins Europe and Asia into Eurasia (my concept of continents is largely based on physical distinctness and biogeographic boundaries, in which case there's no reasons for them to be separate continents) and recognises Zealandia as the 7th continent. Basically, what are commonly referred to as "geological continents".
Despite all this, you're still free to class what you want as a continent really.
Unlike the continent discussion, which is subject to a degree of intepretation, this is simply not true. The Southern Cassowary is much more widespread in New Guinea than it is on mainland Australia, just look at the distribution map below. Not to mention that cassowaries as a whole are, like tree kangaroos, heavily associated with New Guinea despite also occurring on the mainland.
Whoa I wrote way more than I was expecting to, I just love my biogeography.
No good on you, you did it in a very respectful (and intelligent) way
My understanding was Oceania can be a continent or region depending on if you are talking about it either geographically or politcially. And some geographers accept (and prefer) Oceania as a continent geopolitically over using Australia (continent).
Zealandia and Australia as continents exclude almost all of the south pacific islands so I don't use those terms unless I'm referring to the continental shelves they are located on.
"[Continents] are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria"
My point which I didn't make clear before is if you see Europe and Asia as a continent, then you should see Europe, Asia, and Africa as a single continent since they are one contiguous landmass they're technically ONE continent, you arbitrarily decided Africa isn't apart of Eurasia...it is. The sinai penninsula is connected to Egypt. Same with the Americas (which are connected by the Ithsmus of Panama)
I was wrong about the southern cassowary I guess I always associated southern cassowaries with Australia because they live there.
Regardless, An Oceania Animal pack would be dope as it’d encompass the fauna of Australia, New Guinea, and New Zealand
Well no, Africa is clearly distinct from Eurasia as it sits on its own tectonic plate and moves independently as its own landmass. Ditto with North and South America. These are all continents with borders that can be defined clearly from their physical attributes. Europe and Asia have no such distinction, their separation is a historical social construct.
EDIT: To make it clear you're free to consider Europe and Asia continents if that's what you prefer, I am just explaining how Eurasia as a single continent is different to, say, a singular America.
Last edited:
Yeah, Africa sits on it's own tectonic plate, but you're jumping between geological defintions of a continent and geopolitical ones. We just established a continent has several defintions...
If plate tectonics is your defintion for a continent then Arabia would be considered a continent. Same with the caribbean (there are twelve major tectonic plates arguably). There are not 12 continents
Just to be clear you are free to consider the Arabian penninsula and the islands of the Caribbean a continent. I'm just clarifying the difference between the defintions of continents.
If your definition is a large contiguous landmass there are four on Earth (Afro-Eurasia, Americas, Antarctica and Australia)
And if your defintion is arbitrary and follows no actual geologic or tectonic boundary than there are 5, 6, 7 or more continents.
I favor Oceania as a continent instead of Australia because the continent of Australia is only 3 countries and excludes several island nations that exist in the Pacific from belonging to any continental areas.
Good talk, yay geography
Where did I jump between them? If you think the definition of a geological continent is a large contiguous landmass, it's not. For more insight into the definition of a geological continent, see this article arguing for the classification of Zealandia as such.
I didn't say plate tectonics were my only definition, I said that Africa sitting on a different tectonic plate to Eurasia immediately makes it much more distinct than Europe and Asia are to each other. Arabia, like India, is pushing into the Eurasian plate and so I consider it part of Eurasia, while the Caribbean plate is a displaced piece of North America. These are classifiable as subcontinents however. Then there's also microcontinents, continental fragments and whatnot just to make things more complex.
Continents are, by definition, pretty arbitrary - it's another classic case of humans trying to put nature in boxes. Hence why I'm not too fussed about what each person considers a continent, but I just wanted to shed some light on the Oceania situation. Hopefully this cleared some things up.
