It wasnt directly directed at you, as i do understand your points, but even then the only wished for animals that have large ranges elsewhere are the Moose, icon of skandinavian culture and far more common in Zoos over here then the Us, the Eurasien lynx, but many choose the iberian cousin over them and the wolverine, that i personally actually dont even want in an european pack, as their arnt commonly distributed or even known by the majority of people across central and south europe
Predicting the remaining dlc content
- Thread starter paul78
- Start date
With all due respect, your argument doesn't quite hold from the moment you use the jaguar as an example of the point you're trying to make.
It would make more sense to include the jaguar in a SA pack.
Likewise, it would make more sense to include all the not super endemic animals I mentioned some posts ago (great bustard, common pheasant, capercaiillie, Eurasian lynx, (Scottish) wild cat, red fox, red deer, roe deer, chamois, moufflon, West Caucasian tur, wisent, Eurasian otter, European badger, European pine marten, Eurasian beaver, etc.) in a Europe pack, because they're either originary from Europe, more iconic in Europe or more abundant in Europe.
Only the wild boar, moose, wolverine and fallow deer are "European" animals that are arguably more iconic or abundant in other continents. Bear in mind, though, that currently the fallow deer found in Mesopotamia (Dama mesopotamica) is considered a different species from its European counterpart (Dama dama).
That is a very fair question. There are a number of reasons I think it matters. If people disagree with these reasons, then that's fair enough, but I still think I should be able to express my opinion about what packs I would like, without being accused of being anti-Europe.
First, a disclaimer, just to underline where I think I (and others who would prefer something other than a Europe-only pack) am misunderstood / misrepresented.
1) I think Europe has a great many amazing species. I think the biology of Europe is super interesting, especially the biogeography of Europe and how historical factors (primarily the ice ages and the effect of the position of the Mediterranean and the Alps have resulted in its unique ecology. However, the result of this biogeographical history coupled with its spatial relationship with Asia, is that the ecology of Europe is characterised by a very low degree of endemism in comparison with all other continents and a low biodiversity when compared to all the other continents, except for Antarctica. This low level of diversity is especially clear for reptiles, but is (I think) consistent for other animal groups as well.
2) I think under my proposal (an 8-animal Eurasia pack) people assume fewer European species overall. This is NOT necessarily true. There could well be MORE European animlas under my proposal than under a 4+1 Europe-specific pack.
So, to answer the question (at last): "why does that matter".
1st: I am a pedant and I like things to be accurate. Putting the Moose or the Wolverine etc. into a "Europe" pack implies that they are primarily from Europe (in my opinion). Since they are not primarily from Europe (and are more widespread outside of Europe than within it), they do not belong in a Europe pack.
2nd: Education: part of the purpose (or at least result of the game) is increasing people's knowledge of biology, specifically zoology. Accuracy is important.
3rd: I want the final roster to be as strong as possible and I think that a combined 8+1 Eurasia pack is very likely to result in a better final list of species in the game than a 4+1 Europe pack and a 4+1 Asia pack (since it frees up space for other packs). Neither Europe nor Asia need a theme (both had one at the start of the game, and there are many, many, many plants from both regions) so nothing is lost by having a pack with no scenery)
4th: I think that Oceania, especially, is BADLY in need of more species, and having 2 more packs which can not include Australian species (rather than other type of packs like an endangered species pack, which could also include European / Eurasian species) minimises the opportunities for more to be added later on.
_______________________________________
Honetsly, I would suggest that for most people outside Scandinavia (although i obviously can't back this up with evidence) the moose would be considered more emblematic / iconic of Canada than Europe... I'd go so far as to say that a very good proportion of people worldwide wouldn't know that they're found outside North America.
_________________________________________
That is what I was saying. For precisely the same reason as the Jaguar was better in a South America Pack, the Moose would be better in a North America Pack. It is more widespread, and more iconic of North America than in / of Europe.
Originally from Europe? Most are originally from Eurasia, not just Europe... But, If that's your list, fair enough. For me, none would be in my top 20 wanted animals, with the exception of the Lynx. They're more iconic in Europe for Europeans. I doubt that's true for people from (for instance) North-Western Asia.
After having read many messages about Europe's fauna and what some non-Europeans think of the animals in Europe, I think a Europe DLC is totally needed for the Education purpose of the game. I've come to the conlussion reading the forum that there is a big lack of knowledge about European fauna (I'm not talking directly to ElectricMonk, but in general). It seems many people don't know that we have moose, beavers, bisons, killer whales and white sharks in Europe, that we have a small population of monkeys, that we have succesfully reintroduced/saved many species like the lynx, the wolf, the beaver, the musk ox, bearded vultures ... We also have many small animals that could work as a exhibit animals and a rich variety of plants that could be added to the game, specially from the Mediterranean area.
And flowers!
Right now there is a criminal lack of flowers in the game to build european parkstyle zoos and who doesnt like flowers afterall?
And yet the elk (moose) is found in the greatest numbers per square kilometre in Sweden where it is the national animal. I don't know how you define primarily. Is widespread related to numbers of individual animals? Area of physical territory? Numbers of countries?
So let's educate people and let them know about the diversity of animals found in Europe. Rewilding would be a key narrative for me in this. Europe has significant wilderness and natural areas and these are actually growing in many cases due to changes in agricultural practices and direct positive human intervention.
All the more reason to educate people and challenge their perceptions. As you say, accuracy is important.
If we are just going for how "popular and iconic" an animal is so that it come from a specific reason then why not add lions to an european pack?
They are nowwhere on the world as common as in europe, infact we have more lion status then lions are alive today.
But that would be stupid, wouldnt it?
Shouldnt we get lions in a pack with either african or indian animals because thats where they live and not just where we belive they are most iconic too?
Moose are as much an northamerican as they are an european species, in fact they are more common over here both in the wild and zoos, but thats not enough to win you over, is it?
Yes, the moose is one of the few examples of a partially European animal that could be considered more iconic somewhere else (NA). Just one of the many other examples in which this "rule" doesn't apply. Even the moose is still debatable, given that it is the national animal/symbol of at least two European countries (that I know of).
Well, I mean, that's how it is in a vast land like Europe and Asia, without huge physical barriers between the two continents. Difficult to delimit the exact origin. Either way, you're comparing apples and oranges: a continent, and a region within a continent (Europe and North-Western Asia). Most of the European animals I mentioned are spread across all Europe (within their preferred biomes, ofc), but only spread in 1/4 of the Asian continent, 1/3 at most (Mesopotamia, Turkey&Levant, Siberia, Central Asia steppes, depending on the animal). It is then fair to infer these species are originary from either Europe or close to the boundaries of Europe and, therefore, it would just make all the sense to include them in an European pack.
And yes, that's my random list of not-endemic European animals, given how stubborn you are about endemism. There of course some very appealing endemic European animals that have also been mentioned before. I respect and understand that you don't find most of them worthy of being included in PZ. I'm sure there are many players aswell who don't care about any Australian animals other than the obvious 4: emu, platypus, Tasmanian devil and wombat.
I think there are a few to many individual points above for me address all of them. Fundamentally, though, if you disagree with me about whether a region pack should contain species that exist primarily within that region, then you will not agree with my opinion which, to reiterate, is that I would prefer an 8+1 Eurasia pack to a 4+1 Europe pack.
May i question, what would you even put in there? Not out of hostility but because of honest curiosity. I mean hey maybe you win us over that that pack would be pretty cool
No, it would not be safe to infer that. The pattern you describe in no way implies that those species are originally from Europe (not that it’s relevant anyway). The biogeographic history of Europe (very broadly) is that temperate species were pushed south in the ice ages. Those that survived did so at the southern tips of Iberia and Italy (which is why those species that are endemic tend to be from those locations). Most of the rest of temperate Europe’s fauna reinvaded from south west Asia and Africa.
I have never said directly, not implied that I do not find those species ‘worthy’ of being included. Please do not misrepresent what I have said.
Yes i actually said the same in a previous post about where the animals live.
Most of them were pushed down to mesopotamia and recollonized europe, with them today being found primarly in europe with only a few exceptions.
The only animals with a big presence outside of europe that are discussed here are the moose, eurasian lynx, fallow deer, mr worldwide fox and the wolverine. All other species main habitat is central europe, with most of them still existing in mesopotamia, but nowhere else in eurasian, making them destinctly european and not eurasian animals
The thing is, most of the key animals that people put on their Europe lists are exactly those animals that you have noted as having a big presence outside Europe (and the Eurasian otter too)… indeed, the animals you noted would probably be 5 of the 8 I would choose for a Eurasian or (better) a boreal pack. As for the others, not sure…. Maybe Eurasian badger,… more than 4 animals that exist in Europe certainly.
edit: I’m super-torn about Mr Worldwide - I love the red fox but here they’re a vicious pest so no zoo would have them. I’ve loved seeing them on the occasions I e been in Europe though.
Last edited:
Area of physical territory - that’s what widespread means. Numbers of individual animals would be most numerous and number of countries would be irrelevant.
Good - let’s educate them that these species are found across Eurasia, or across all of Eurasia and North America then!
Personally i hope that we get a general moose with the NA pack and i could and would skip the wolverine for now.
I feel like another thing to keep in mind is though, that animals should be versatile. The red fox would be a great addition for both asian, north american AND europe (theoretically also australia but i doubt they would want anything to do with them in their zoos), the fallow deer lives in petting zoos world wide (my reason for why i want it more then the reddeer) and the eurasian lynx would also be great for asian themed parks, while still being common in zoos over here.
Animals having a wide span where they life isnt bad, its an asset
I feel like another thing to keep in mind is though, that animals should be versatile. The red fox would be a great addition for both asian, north american AND europe (theoretically also australia but i doubt they would want anything to do with them in their zoos), the fallow deer lives in petting zoos world wide (my reason for why i want it more then the reddeer) and the eurasian lynx would also be great for asian themed parks, while still being common in zoos over here.
Animals having a wide span where they life isnt bad, its an asset
Of course that would be stupid, but that’s not what iconic means. No one thinks that lions are representative of Europe thry are not, at all, an iconically European animal.
exactly!
That's what the zoopedia does! The same it educates with the South America pack saying the jaguar is also found in North America and with the Australia pack saying the cassowary is also found in Asia. I don't see why it should be different if a red deer comes in a Europe pack. The zoopedia could say it is also found in Asia and Northern Africa.
How many people genuinely read through the zoopedia?.. not as many who read the title of the pack I’ll wager.