Meta-Suggestions list 1.9 Edition (6th edition)

[ElectricMonk]

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.

I’m not sure why you think I don’t understand the basics of taxonomy. Yes, I am well aware that all arctic wolves are grey wolves. That is not at issue. I am going to try one last time to explain.

a) the setup
A zoo obtains several wolves captured in turkey. The zoo places them on display and adds a sign saying: Canis lupus

q1: is the sign incorrect?
q2: does the enclosure have arctic wolves in it?

The most recent literature supports grey wolfs existing as a monophyletic clade without dogs.

The paper is very good and interesting. It does not, however, show that Grey Wolves (excluding domestic dogs) are not paraphyletic. All the grey wolves in the study are Eurasian wolves. The authors note that their data suggest (not demonstrate) that wolves from the three sampled sites (all Eurasian wolves) are more closely related to each other than to domestic dogs. This suggests:
A) that domestic dogs are monophyletic
B) that (the 3 sampled populations of) Eurasian wolves are monophyletic in relation to domestic dogs (not necessarily also true in relation to new world wolves, since there could have been multiple invasions of NA from NE Asia).

Reading further, in fact, the dates given for the divergence between wolves and dogs makes it very unlikely that dogs and Eurasian wolves are not more closely related to each other than to at least some new world wolves, unless all new world wolves descend from a single source population info Eurasian wolves less than 16 thousand years ago (when domestication occurred). Noting though that the paper does not look at new world wolves at all.

Edit: For a more recent paper showing just how messy relationships among wolves actually are, see This paper, which does compare old and new world populations, though it does not include domestic dogs.

 

[SalamAnders]

To those of you who want the wolf to be generic, may I ask why?
What is the big benefit from it?

Have you looked into which NA grey wolves subspecies actually are kept in breeding programs in captivity? It is not a lot.

In North American (good) zoos the focus tend to be on the Mexican Grey Wolf, one of the smallest subspecies so it looks noticable different from most other wolves. Also it is endangered, so sweeping it under the least concern generic wolves would be a shame.

You can find other wolves in captivity in NA but they are typically either hybrids or rescued animals.

In Europe most wolves are of the Eurasian subspecies but occidentalis is also in a decent amount of zoos. And then there of course is the Arctic wolf (even though the captive ones might be hybrids)

So from what I can see, there is 3 subspecies (if we don't count the Arctic Wolf) that makes sense to consider for a zoo game. And those 3 looks so noticable different from each other that they shouldn't be put under the same model.

 

[ElectricMonk]

To those of you who want the wolf to be generic, may I ask why?
What is the big benefit from it?

That I can use them to represent wolves from across Eurasia and North America.

Have you looked into which NA grey wolves subspecies actually are kept in breeding programs in captivity? It is not a lot.

Nevertheless, there are some and I would like the option to include generic (temperate forest ecotype) Grey wolves in either my European or my North American sections or zoos depending on my build concept and mood.

In North American (good) zoos the focus tend to be on the Mexican Grey Wolf, one of the smallest subspecies so it looks noticable different from most other wolves. Also it is endangered, so sweeping it under the least concern generic wolves would be a shame.

I have no issue with also adding Mexican grey wolves eventually but, for the moment, there are higher priorities than adding more Grey wolves (e.g. there are already fewer marsupials than Grey wolf models)

You can find other wolves in captivity in NA but they are typically either hybrids or rescued animals.

Maybe I want to represent them, or to create a wildlife refuge?

 

[Mjmannella]

a) the setup
A zoo obtains several wolves captured in turkey. The zoo places them on display and adds a sign saying: Canis lupus

q1: is the sign incorrect?
q2: does the enclosure have arctic wolves in it?

A1: It's not wrong, but it would be too broad if said zoo also had Arctic wolves alongside (what I presume are) Indian wolves. PZ's wolf being the whole species wasn't an issue if Arctic wolves were never added. Now that they're here, it's causing the taxonomic duplication.

A2: Arctic wolves don't live in Turkey, so it would be a false claim to say there's Arctic wolves there. However, the zoo should probably still specify that the subspecies there is (presumably) the Indian wolf, especially given how varied grey wolves are as a species. Even zoos that hold just 1 tiger subspecies will still clarify which subspecies they have.

 

[Mjmannella]

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.

The most recent look into binomials was in 2017, and found support for Canis familiaris (that also includes dingos) separate from Canis lupus. This paper was accepted by the IUCN in a workshop on canids in 2019. If there's any literature more recent, please let me know!

 

[Sahara]

Can we just have separate topic for the wolf thing? Seriously, I don't care what subspecies it's supposed to be. I can use my imagination and pretend it's whatever wolf I want.

 

[SalamAnders]

Can we just have separate topic for the wolf thing? Seriously, I don't care what subspecies it's supposed to be. I can use my imagination and pretend it's whatever wolf I want.

Yes, we should move elsewhere, and it turns out that you are actually behind the old thread I had in mind.

Timber Wolf is in desperate need of a model update

Of all the animals in the game, I genuinely think the Timber Wolf is the ugliest. Pretty much all the canines in the game look good to great, but then you have the wolf and its face just looks so strange. I can't seem to place it, but its snout seems stretched too thin and the eyes are oddly...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Antimony96]

COMPROMISE: Formally change the existing timber wolf to the Northwestern Wolf. In exchange, add a slightly tweaked Eurasian Wolf as a bonus DLC.

 

[Bearcat9948]

Hey everyone, I wasn't ignoring this thread, I was not able to log in to my account due to a website error but it seems like that's all been fixed now

 

[ElectricMonk]

A1: It's not wrong, but it would be too broad if said zoo also had Arctic wolves alongside (what I presume are) Indian wolves. PZ's wolf being the whole species wasn't an issue if Arctic wolves were never added. Now that they're here, it's causing the taxonomic duplication.

Thus, you agree that the game did not have arctic wolves until the release of the arctic pack (as I said). The sign does not become incorrect if arctic wolves are added to the zoo, nor does it suddenly imply or state that there are now arctic wolves in the enclosure.

A2: Arctic wolves don't live in Turkey, so it would be a false claim to say there's Arctic wolves there. However, the zoo should probably still specify that the subspecies there is (presumably) the Indian wolf, especially given how varied grey wolves are as a species. Even zoos that hold just 1 tiger subspecies will still clarify which subspecies they have.

On that basis every species in PZ that has varied subspecies should be reduced to one subspecies… this would be very bad for flexibility across the board and is not generally done by zoos IRL anyway. We don’t have wolves (other than dingos) in zoos where I live so I’m unsure whether zoos that do generally label to subspecies level. I suspect, though, that they don’t (even if they do, they wouldn’t be wrong if they didn’t).

The most recent look into binomials was in 2017, and found support for Canis familiaris (that also includes dingos) separate from Canis lupus. This paper was accepted by the IUCN in a workshop on canids in 2019. If there's any literature more recent, please let me know!

I’m surprised you like that classification since they explicitly reject the cladistic approach in their classification (I.e. that genetics is the only or even most important factor in classification), soecifically noting that:

“we further endorse the suggestion of Groves (1995) that these [domestic] ‘species’ be regarded as Parataxa, i.e. biological entities of fundamentally different kind to naturally occurring species.”

they also specifically note that the ICZN does not determine names for domestic or feral ‘species’

“the nomenclature of the domestic animals themselves (and of their feral derivatives) remains outside of the scope of the ICZN rulings. In a sense, then, any nomenclatural system for domesticates is equally ‘valid’ and ‘defensible’,..”

If you want to be ruthlessly cladistic about it though, and insist that genetic relationship trumps all other considerations you should probably go with Canis lupus familiaris for domestic dogs and Canis lupus dingo or, if you want to be really strict, (something like) Canis lupus familiaris (dingo) for the dingo.

 

[SalamAnders]

On that basis every species in PZ that has varied subspecies should be reduced to one subspecies… this would be very bad for flexibility across the board and is not generally done by zoos IRL anyway. We don’t have wolves (other than dingos) in zoos where I live so I’m unsure whether zoos that do generally label to subspecies level. I suspect, though, that they don’t (even if they do, they wouldn’t be wrong if they didn’t).

I agree with you here, which is exactly why I don't think grey wolves should be generic. It makes sense to have an Aardvark without a mention of a subspecies, even though Aardvarks got several subspecies, simply because zoos (at least not that I know of) don't state their Aardvark as a specific subspecies.

But with grey wolves, there is in most cases a mention of the specific subspecies. The only places in Europe I have heard about having unspecific wolves are some German Wildparks, which I guess might be because they aren't part of an official breeding program. Otherwise, you will almost always be able to find it mentioned on a sign if it is a European grey wolf or the Mackenzie Valley Wolf. It is usually as much of a big deal as it tends to be with tigers.

I imagine it is the same case in the USA with AZA zoos since they tend to keep the endangered Mexican Grey Wolves. It is at least easy to find on their websites.

 

[Mjmannella]

Thus, you agree that the game did not have arctic wolves until the release of the arctic pack (as I said). The sign does not become incorrect if arctic wolves are added to the zoo, nor does it suddenly imply or state that there are now arctic wolves in the enclosure.

That's misinterpreting what I said. Before the Arctic Pack, the Arctic wolf was represented once. Now it's represented twice because the devs refused to specify the "timber" wolf subspecies.

Hell, the timber wolves in PZ have the entire range of the whole species, rather than just showing once specific area to suggest a certain subspecies. The analogy with Indian wolves doesn't fully pinpoint the taxonomic problem with PZ's wolves.

On that basis every species in PZ that has varied subspecies should be reduced to one subspecies… this would be very bad for flexibility across the board and is not generally done by zoos IRL anyway. We don’t have wolves (other than dingos) in zoos where I live so I’m unsure whether zoos that do generally label to subspecies level. I suspect, though, that they don’t (even if they do, they wouldn’t be wrong if they didn’t).

When you have 2 Canis lupus, you should really specify the subspecies because as a rule of taxonomy you'd end up representing one subspecies twice. Imagine if we had a "Tiger" and a "Siberian Tiger". That represents Siberian tigers twice because all Siberian tigers fall under that other "tiger". Wolves aren't different just because some are white and others are grey.

And as I mentioned before, the vanilla game being more specific means modders have an opportunity for creative drive.

Finally, at this point I suggest we take the lead of @SalamAnders and move the discussion to a more relevant thread.

 

[mrBadams]

can we PLEASE for the love of god get an "invert x/y axis" option for the game camera. I absolutely love the game but the camera feels very counterintuitive

 

[Veah]

Finally, at this point I suggest we take the lead of @SalamAnders and move the discussion to a more relevant thread.

Maybe those posts (from #22 and #24) can be made their own thread by the mods? Or moved to the thread @SalamAnders has mentioned before? I think the "what is even a timber wolf and what were the devs thinking of when they made it" is a interesting discussion worth its own thread, instead of derailing the Meta Suggestions list which is also a valuable thread.

 

[ReptoMin]

COMPROMISE: Formally change the existing timber wolf to the Northwestern Wolf. In exchange, add a slightly tweaked Eurasian Wolf as a bonus DLC.

This would honestly be the best option. It shouldn't be that hard to make either. A slight change to the fur shader would make it look stockier. And with a few more minor changes it would be a good candidate for future base game additions.

 

[yoav_r]

Only now got around to reading the list. Great job @Bearcat9948.

 

[coatifan]

@Bearcat9948
Potential suggestion: Give the Spanish Moss foliage the "Temperate" biome tag. It is found throughout the Southeastern United States[1] and I have even seen it in Maine [anecdotal]. Not only is this marked as Temperate in the main globe, but it also the range of the American Alligator, which coexists with Spanish moss in ecoregions like the Louisiana bayous[2] and has only the Temperate and Aquatic biome tags.

[1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish-moss-growing-zones.png
[2] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/79/ce/8e79ce54c928d250404aa687a4199c45.jpg

 

[digitaldog]

Ability to assign work zone from the structure or habitat menus instead of having to navigate to the work zone menu.

 

[Dukemon]

It is a little annoying, when you buy an animals from the market for an habitat that you want to build but is still on the "ToDo" List on a lower priority, but the Zooguests do have this Animals in the Warehouse as "Want to see", already. I do not buy this sudden inspiration of visitors, what animals the Zoo has.

 

[NZFanatic]

It is a little annoying, when you buy an animals from the market for an habitat that you want to build but is still on the "ToDo" List on a lower priority, but the Zooguests do have this Animals in the Warehouse as "Want to see", already. I do not buy this sudden inspiration of visitors, what animals the Zoo has.

While I agree from a gameplay perspective, there is a realistic element to this; many RL zoos do advertise new species before they've even got the enclosure built. My local Orana Wildlife Park advertised their intention to bring gorillas in three years before they arrived, and Wellington Zoo has been hyping up their coming snow leopards for about two years now, and the enclosure isn't even finished.

Of course, the difference is that the real-life zoo visitors know that they won't be able to see the animals until they're in an enclosure.