I don’t really see what the benefit of this would be, and I’m a taxonomic pedant. With respect to the grey wolf it would be impossible to accurately represent the whole species with one model. Indeed, even for most subspecies there is substantial morphological variation along climatic gradients (especially latitudinal but also in elevation) which would make even representing a whole subspecies difficult, except for subspecies with very limited distribution. Grey wolves are a very good example of morphological variation among populations within and among subspecies due to local adaptation. In game terms the general morphology is much, much more important than the phylogeny which is determined by (invisible) broad scale genetic relatedness more than morphological similarity.
Meta-Suggestions list 1.9 Edition (6th edition)
- Thread starter Bearcat9948
- Start date
The benefit would be portraying a more accurate animal that can be pinpointed (as well as just not having Arctic wolves represented twice being a good thing). I'd rather just have a Eurasian wolf than an unhelpful and paraphyletic "cold forest" grey wolf. I don't see why that's stop people from using it as a substitute for non-Arctic grey wolf subspecies just because it gets more specified.
And it also helps out modders too to focus on only just 1 subspecies, as they get the newly-found freedom to make other subspecies.
And it also helps out modders too to focus on only just 1 subspecies, as they get the newly-found freedom to make other subspecies.
In the end it comes down to a trade off. In my view, this is between a fairly minor quibble about taxonomy vs. a substantial difference in playability. Irrespective of the taxonomy, the arctic wolf is not represented twice, since the model for the ‘Timber wolf’ is, very clearly, not an arctic wolf. If the arctic wolf wasn’t in the game, the arctic wolf wouldn’t be represented at all, since their morphology is so distinct from other subspecies.
I don’t really see how reclassifying the Timber wolf as the Eurasian (or any other) subspecies aids modders either - they are more than capable of altering the classification themselves if they want. In fact, if it’s so worrying to you, it would be very simple to simply modify the information board for the ‘Timber wolf’ yourself and just replace the image displayed with whatever common or scientific name you’d prefer.
The base-game wolf is listed as Canis lupus. This bracketing includes all individuals inside that one species, include Canis lupus arctos: the Arctic wolf. You cannot have a valid Canis lupus without including Arctic wolves. This is an indisputable fact. By having a broader take with the whole species, you include all subspecies under that species.
For a game with developers who claim to thoroughly research their animals, this shouldn't be a surprise to them. Something doesn't leave its more inclusive groups just because it doesn't 'look the part" or some other subjective criteria, that's not how genetic relationships work.
I've spoken to modders before, and several have stated that they like it better when Frontier makes more specific subspecies, and it gives them to motivation to make other species. Sometimes suspension of disbelief isn't enough, and you really need to see something to find inspiration.
I just find it weird that it’s marked as Canis lupus but leaves out any consideration for warmer subspecies (such as the dingo) as is it just represents holarctic subspecies (except arctic wolf) it would be most versatile under Eurasian but then you’d run into the issue that it was clearly meant to go along with the New World North American scenery. Thus giving you the idea that NA has two wolves in game. Again all this is very nit picky as a general audience member would just use one of the three Canis lupus subspecies where they fit and make their own head canon. It’s just messy to me since there are already three Canis lupus representatives
Sure, as long as we can retcon the Formosan black bear into a more generic Asiatic black bear.
We don't have any other Asiatic black bears in PZ, so I'm fine with a generalisation in that regard.
I’m afraid that you’re wrong, in that you’ve got things a bit backwards. Specifically, you are claiming that, because Canis lupus is in the game, all subspecies, populations and, in fact, individuals of Canis lupus are in the game (since all belong to the species). However, what the labels on the boards and descriptions are doing is (effectively) saying that
‘the animals we have here belong to the species Canis lupus.’
This does not mean that all subspecies (or populations or individuals) of Canis lupus are here. Chihuahua’s are also Canis lupus. To say that chihuahuas are in the game would, nevertheless, be incorrect. Similarly Arctic wolves were not in the game until the subspecies was added.
I think it's easy to see the conceptual problem in having two subspecies and then a third undefined member of the same species whose scientific name includes those two subspecies.
But I don't see much problem if the timber wolf is renamed as any subspecies. As it has been said, they are very similar to other cool-climate wolves, so you could still use it like any of them. For example, now that you mention it, I use the Formosan black bear as non-Formosan subspecies too. Or if I want a Kamchatcka brown bear, I use the grizzly bear with no problem. But wouldn't it be weird if the grizzly bear was called just "brown bear" while we have an Himalayan brown bear?
Or for example, if they add the quagga, they should rename the "plains zebra" as "Burchell's zebra" or something like that even though it's clear that our plains zebra is not based on the quagga subspecies.
And let's not forget that in some languages that wolf is translated as "MacKenzie wolf" or something similar referring to the C. l. occidentalis subspecies. So it's only the scientific name what is wrong. Maybe just because "timber wolf" can't be translated, maybe because Frontier based it in that subspecies, probably both.
But I don't see much problem if the timber wolf is renamed as any subspecies. As it has been said, they are very similar to other cool-climate wolves, so you could still use it like any of them. For example, now that you mention it, I use the Formosan black bear as non-Formosan subspecies too. Or if I want a Kamchatcka brown bear, I use the grizzly bear with no problem. But wouldn't it be weird if the grizzly bear was called just "brown bear" while we have an Himalayan brown bear?
Or for example, if they add the quagga, they should rename the "plains zebra" as "Burchell's zebra" or something like that even though it's clear that our plains zebra is not based on the quagga subspecies.
And let's not forget that in some languages that wolf is translated as "MacKenzie wolf" or something similar referring to the C. l. occidentalis subspecies. So it's only the scientific name what is wrong. Maybe just because "timber wolf" can't be translated, maybe because Frontier based it in that subspecies, probably both.
Last edited:
That’s bot how taxonomy works, at all. As I stressed earlier, animals don't leave their higher level relationships for semantic reasons like appearance. This means that subspecies are always part of the more inclusive species group. Canis lupis means Canis lupus arctos, because Canis lupus arctos is part is Canis lupus for it be be monophyletic species. When you have the whole species listed, you are very literally including all of its more exclusive subspecies.
Also, domestic dogs are generally accepted to be Canis familaris now, so that part of the discussion can be resolved at least.
First, I never said they ‘left their higher level’ - obviously they don’t. All subspecies of Canis lupus are Canis lupus. But that does not mean that saying ‘I have Canis lupus in my zoo’ means that I have Canis lupus arctos in my zoo. You are simply wrong. To illustrate, I could say I have mammals in my zoo (a higher taxonomic level). This does not mean I have all species of mammal, even though all species of mammal are included in that taxon…. You also need to look up the meaning of semantic.
We’ll that’s not at all clear and different authors have different opinions it is far from universally agreed. I think, though, that I have seen you present cladistic approaches to classification elsewhere (for instance using the term monophyletic here and paraphyletic earlier) and, in that basis, my understanding (though I could, admittedly be out of date) is that domestic dogs are nested well within grey wolves (having descended from the Eurasian wolf subspecies and, therefore, making Grey wolves paraphyletic if domestic dogs are categorised as a different species.
The difference here is that there's no animal in PZ that's a "generic mammal" with a listed scientific name as (Mammalia). All the animals in PZ are much more specific than that, and for good reason. By contrast, having a specific species means you include everything else from bellow. All Arctic wolves are grey wolves, but not all grey wolves are Arctic wolves. So by having all grey wolves, you not only include the Arctic subspecies but every other subspecies too. You don't get to pick and chose which subspecies are or aren't included in the whole species.
Here's a visual that might help illustrate things. The red group includes everything in the other coloured groups as a fundamental of how taxonomy operates.
The most recent literature supports grey wolfs existing as a monophyletic clade without dogs.
In the scope of the discussion on the Timber Wolf, I would like to quote myself. I believe mentioning ecotypes in the first sentence of the Zoopedia description can eliminate the double representation issue without having to add a subspecies name.
Even that ecotype is paraphyletic, as Arctic wolves are closer to Northwestern wolves than either are to Eurasian wolves.
As far as I know Ecotypes are not limited by taxonomic ranks and phylogeny.
Ecotype - Wikipedia
But of course you can also play it safe and simply say "Timber Wolves are Grey Wolves that inhabit Holarctic temperate and boreal forests". Using the term Ecotype isn't absolutely necessary, but based on its definition it is also accurate to use it in this context.
The problem there is the lack of taxonomy with ecotypes, they're paraphyletic by default and shouldn't be used when making specifics. Which is still something I'd rather see. It homogenises Eurasian and Northwestern wolves even when there's a well-observed genetic barrier between the subspecies. Ultimately it goes back to the harmful idea of appearances over genetics.
I agree, but it isn't really up to the developers of a game to contest accepted definitions or terminology.
I'm ok with either approach, whether they use the term Ecotype or not. One way or another, there needs to be a clarification in the Zoopedia introduction to eliminate double representation without the need to change the taxonomy of the animal.
Something that I think is way more important to fix than the timber wolf at this point is the huge disparity in interbirth period vs. age of sexual maturity for all the mammals. Because there's no adolescent / midstage age model, a LOT of baby animals remain "infants" for a stupid amount of time, long after a real zoo would consider them eligible for moving on to another collection. And, because mammals will not mate again until their offspring are fully grown (which is unrealistic for many many species, as is even noted in the interbirth period) it makes some species like bison and buffalo extremely difficult to maintain a viable population with. I find myself having to make nursery habitats to hold babies just so their moms will breed again in a timely fashion before they go infertile. Because, funnily enough, the interbirth period is accurate if you remove offspring from the mother's habitat. If you're not going to adhere to it for all species all the time, why even include an interbirth period statistic in the zoopedia? Irl info is irrelevant if the IN-GAME animals don't behave that way.
Tl;dr: make the interbirth period stat function for mammals the same way it functions for birds and reptiles.
Tl;dr: make the interbirth period stat function for mammals the same way it functions for birds and reptiles.
If the developers actually put in the research they claim they do for their animals, they shouldn't be afraid of challenging normatives to put scientific processes foremost. The paradigm doesn't shift itself, it has to get a push.
Yeah, that isn't true. "Generally accepted" is a huge leap from "potentially considered". Our old friend Linnaeus considered them separate species, but more recent genetic work in the 90's flipped that idea on its head. The paper you linked to itself states pretty clearly that there isn't actually enough research done on the subject to say one way or the other whether domestic dogs represent their own species.
So, really, the opposite of what you say is true; it's "generally accepted" that domestic dogs exist as a subspecies of Canis lupus, with some outliers agreeing that it's a separate species.