Feeback on dinosaur classification in Challenge mode

[bhoefert]

I'll start by saying that the dinosaur classifications present in the JW Database all appear to be correct, at least for the species I've unlocked so far.

But in Challenge Mode, you have to research new species before putting them in your parks. These species are broken down into groups: ceratopsids, pachycephalosaurs, sauropods, stegosaurids, etc.

It's been previously mentioned that Dryosaurus is referred to as an ornithomimid in the research system of Challenge mode. If you're going to have the ornithomimids and Dryosaurus in the same chain of unlocks, there's really nothing you could refer to them collectively as other than "small dinosaurs" or "small herbivores." This is because Dryosaurus was an ornithischian and ornithomimids were saurischian so they are on opposite sides of the dinosaur family tree. But you could have the unlocks be referred to as Small Herbivores 1, Small Herbivores 2, etc.

I've also noticed that Muttaburrasaurus and Iguanodon are referred to as hadrosaurs. I think Ouranosaurus is as well, but I haven't unlocked it yet so I'm not sure. Muttaburrasaurus, Iguanodon, and Ouranosaurus were not hadrosaurs. If you are looking for a group which includes Muttaburrasaurus, Iguanodon, and Ouranosaurus plus the hadrosaurs in the game, that would be the Ornithopoda, referred to as "ornithopods."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithopoda

Dryosaurus was an ornithopod as well, but I understand it might be grouped with the ornithomimids for gameplay reasons. However I respectfully submit that the "hadrosaur" unlock tree should be labeled Ornithopods 1, Ornithopods 2, etc. It's one thing to take artistic license with the appearance of a dinosaur, but I don't think the game should be labelling dinosaurs inaccurately in terms of their classification.

 

[ChicagoZohan]

I'd say, do what the JP1 Chaos Theory tree does in this situation. Call the category Medium Herbivores and make the nodes Hadrosaurs 1, Iguanodontids 1, Hadrosaurs 2, etc

 

[bhoefert]

I've also noticed Dryosaurus is an "ornithomimosaurid" for territory purposes, so it would probably be easier to just rename the category than to assign Dryosaurus to a different group, since I imagine that would take extra work.

Which brings me to another piece of constructive criticism: there is no group called "Ornithomimosaurids." There are Ornithomimosaurs, which is a group that contains the family Ornithomimidae, referred to as "Ornithomimids." So you have a wider group, called Ornithomimosaurs, and a smaller group, the Ornithomimids. What is in the game is kind of a conglomerate word of the both of them.

Of course, if you're going to keep Dryosaurus in the same group, you'd just have to refer to them as "small herbivores" since Dryosaurus isn't related to the ornithomimids at all other than both being dinosaurs.

 

[Xionahri]

Likewise, the hatcheries of the aviaries and lagoons still call the pterosaurs and marine reptiles 'dinosaurs', which is not even remotely true either.
And that gets even worse if we consider in the future the synapsids from Dominion and the Smilodon from Camp Cretaceous, since then not even the land animals can be collectively called reptiles, let alone dinosaurs.