My lottery win plan!Maybe one day a mysterious dead relative I've never heard of will die and for some reason leave me an enormously ridiculous inheritance, and I'll make the Frontier devs an offer they can't refuse to semi-officially mod my game with everything under the sun.
Just out of curiosity, when saying Geoffrey's spider monkey is the most common globally, what is that based on?
Propaply a play on subspecies.
Depending on if you treat the black headed capuchin as a subspecies of geoffreys or not, the EAZA number jumps from 17 to 68
Depending on if you treat the black headed capuchin as a subspecies of geoffreys or not, the EAZA number jumps from 17 to 68
Geoffrey's spider monkey is the only medium-sized New World primate kept in Australia and New Zealand (all the others are capuchin size or smaller), so it could be considered more widespread in global zoos than the white-faced saki even if it isn't as common overall.
EDIT: It seems there's also a single brown spider monkey and two hybrid spider monkeys remaining at Wellington Zoo - still all spider monkeys though
EDIT: It seems there's also a single brown spider monkey and two hybrid spider monkeys remaining at Wellington Zoo - still all spider monkeys though
Last edited:
Well comparing primate numbers using zootierliste and the zoochat findings on the aza collection differ greatly. Spider monkey is up in the top 5 most common primates. For worldwide numbers though it would take weeks of digging through organisation archives to get a hard estimate what the exact most common primate in zoos would be. My guess at the most common? Ring tailed lemur by a big Margin
I was just thinking about spider monkeys. What is the evidence for saying that is the most common spider monkey species?
Zoochat seems to agree that in north America the Geoffrey spider monkey is the common however discussion amongst mislabeling species seems to occur confusing which species it is exactly , elsewhere in the world I'm not sure there is any public discussion/records about this. I'm not an animal expert of course so a tiny grain of salt to be taken with findings like this
That is also what I am more or less able to dig up myself. I just wouldn't call it dominating based on that alone. Other species I can also find evidence of in several continents. And there are a lot of maybes and unknowns present in the evidence for these kinds of things.
König was just told a big presence in Europe is not good enough evidence but is a big presence in NA and Australia/NZ then? Geoffrey is not very common in Europe compared to some other species of Spider Monkeys. And a common species here Ateles fusciceps is also to be found on other continents https://zooinstitutes.com/animals/brown-headed-spider-monkey-168/
Not saying Geoffrey's can't be the right answer here. But it all depends on how to define a global presence. Most countries, most continents, most countries within a continent, or most zoos in total.
That is why I was wondering if there were some sources I couldn't find myself.
If you examine North America and Oceania together as a group, that's three separate international regions compared to one. By definition it meets the needs of more players. Plus, more often than not, there is still considerable crossover between NA/Oceania and Europe (like with the siamang; even if it's not the most common overall, it is the most common when looking at how widespread it is.
Surprisingly Australia and NZ are actually a decent measure for that, because our collections are largely built around what is most easily available in international breeding programmes. We get the "basic package" (plus native animals and a handful of oddballs, like the random bobcats Hamilton Zoo used to keep, or Auckland's Asian golden cats). If an exotic species is in a zoo in Aus/NZ, you can almost guarantee it's pretty common in NA and/or Europe, too.
Whatever the case, if the game was just a "European Zoo Simulator" it wouldn't be half as good as it is now. I'm two species short of being able to build a pretty good NZ zoo, for example (well, technically a handful of species, but the two are the most important); couldn't say that with Zoo Tycoon. Plus, there are some animals that are common in EAZA zoos but not anywhere else by virtue of European zoos being generally older.
Thats info using jaza, ztl and zoochat for usa and australasia.
Everything else is just a guess:
- presence of geoffroy in central america vs columbian in colombia. (both primates are endemic to these areas, every other latin american country keep different species)
- china
I want more monkeys so i can building a monkey house.
thats a great look at the general trend , easy to say the geoffroy better represents worldwide collections
Honestly in the case of spider monkeys I personally don't even care that much what species we get (like I have to make do with the Bengal tiger instead of the Sumatran), but I object to the idea that something like the white-faced saki ought to come first out of the other New World monkeys just because it's common in Europe; it's not like there's an alternative monkey it's close to.
Im honest i feel like some of the things here missed the forest for the trees.
All i said was that the white faced saki is the most common south american monkey larger then a capuchin or squirrel monkey, providing evidence from zootierliste, a side tracking zoo animals from europe, russia, the middle east, western asia, singapore, taiwan and new zealand, while also mentioning that they seem to be common in the AZA as well, but without being able to provide an actual number, because we simply dont have actual numbers outside of the countrys coverd by zootierliste.
I understand that the white faced saki isnt on everyones list, its straight up ugly, imo in a charming way though, but even then, whats wrong about the simple fact stated that according that all hands on data the white faced saki is the most common?
Going further its said that how common an animal in NA, Australia and NZ is is more important then an animal is in europe, which again is a weird statement to me.
For one, even if we just compare the zootierliste numbers from europe, singapore and the middle east, we get 118 zoos with white faced sakis + the fact that they seem to be common in the AZA, with callum mentioning them being in about 50 zoos.
But even then, geoffreys spider monkey doesnt even get past the zootierliste number with 10 less holdings, so we have roughly 60 more zoos with the sakis, literally more then 1,5 times as many as geoffreys spider monkey.
Not even speaking about the fact that our numbers for every region thats not coverd by zootierliste are pretty much educated guesses with some like china and most out south east asia, africa and south america being practically blindspots where we dont really know anything about.
Using zootierliste as the main ressource for such statements like "x is most common in the EAZA regions, which cover over 50% of all zoos" doesnt make the thing an europe centric thing, its simply the only actual hard evidence and ressource we have.
Idk about you guys but zoochat posts from 2007 really arnt satisfying to me as a tangible ressource for discussions and if there isnt hard evidence and just educated guesses, why are those supousedly a better evidence then zootierliste, and thats when the math adds up something it just didnt in this case.
Sure there are no sakis in NZ and australia, but we have clear evidence that they are kept extremly commonly in europe, common in north america and atleast present in both asia and the middle east, so if anything the statement of spidermonkey > saki because geoffreys are more common in the AZA, australia and new zealand sounds much more like a straight up bias towards Australia and New Zealand. It makes sense, id also prefer animals that are found in europe compared to those that arnt, but i dont like how this is flung around like fact while calling referring to the actual hard numbers as europecentric. That just sounds like hipocracy to me.
And the most weird part is, that theres one argument that actually would have tipped the scales in favor of the spider monkey which for some reason only i mentioned.
The black headed spidermonkey, the most common spider monkey in the EAZA with 51 holdings is debated to be a subspecies of geoffreys spidermonkey.
Idk how common they are outside of europe, but roughly 10 less is a big difference from 60 less holdings worldwide and would have actually been the most global answer to this.
I just simply googled, and the L.A. Zoo keeps them as part of the species survival plan for the geoffreys spider monkey, while they are also kept in more north american zoos and in gyza zoo in egypt.
So easy clap, we got a numerical argument against the first statement of the white faced saki being the most common with the geoffreys spider common being around the same degree of common with one of those species propaply being just around 5-20 more common worldwide.
And thats it, argument solved, those two species are equally common, both look very distinct from both each other and the other primates in the game and would both be great candidates for new monkeys with both having at minimum 150 holdings world wide.
I hope i made my point clear, but pls guys, i am not against having discussions, in fact im here for them, but i dont like baseless arguing or just throwing around stuff like "european zoo game simulator" because the only actual non trash source we got thats easily accessible covers mostly europe and is used as the base of an argument.
Like it or not, zootierliste literally does cover roughly 50% of the zoos on the planet and when every other place has literally no actual efficent way to track how common animals are, using it as a main source is just the most logical solution.
I know everybody wants what theyve allready seen the most, but so often when discussing animals and how common they are people go like "yeah they are in my local zoos so they must be common" even if that zoo literally is one of only a handfull zoos in the world keeping them or even more common something like "Nah man that animal isnt common at all, i dont remember seeing them ever" when we have an actual source of that animal being in over a hundred zoos.
Numbers are Numbers, how we interpret them is our buissness and while i understand arguments like something covers more zoo regions ergo it reaches more players, that doesnt mean on the flipside that the one big number we have for one region is less important.
Afterall their are multiple animals the community wishes for and has allready gotten, that are rare in zoos or completly absent from certain zoo regions, that still everybody agrees on that they should be in the game, for example the platypus, proboscis monkey or the pronghorn. The fact that none of these animals are found in EAZA zoos doesnt make them bad additions, as that completly depends on the animal and how unique it is compared to what we allready got.
And if im honest, in some cases who cares how common it is, squirrel monkeys for example.
With just one southamerican primate they are just to similar to the capuchin, with the howler, spider, saki and any tamarin being a much more unique addition that should defenetly go first. The squirrel monkey would be to the capuchin what the thompson gazelle is to the springbock, the same flavor of SA Monkey but a bit different, while the others mentioned before would be to the capuchin what the nyala, wildebeast, sable antelope, gemsbock and bongo are to the springbock, same order but very different in appearence, size, habitat and usecase making for a much more diverse selection.
The worth of an animal is not just numbers, but at the same time completly ignoring them also isnt the way and aslong as we dont have reliable numbers for 50% of the world zoos the other 50% must do with educated guess about the other half.
TLDR: Saki and Geoffreys Spider Monkey are equally good additions from a numbers perspective and both add their own charm to the game, but jesus christ why is reffering to the only source of reliabe information for some reason such a wild concept in these forums
All i said was that the white faced saki is the most common south american monkey larger then a capuchin or squirrel monkey, providing evidence from zootierliste, a side tracking zoo animals from europe, russia, the middle east, western asia, singapore, taiwan and new zealand, while also mentioning that they seem to be common in the AZA as well, but without being able to provide an actual number, because we simply dont have actual numbers outside of the countrys coverd by zootierliste.
I understand that the white faced saki isnt on everyones list, its straight up ugly, imo in a charming way though, but even then, whats wrong about the simple fact stated that according that all hands on data the white faced saki is the most common?
Going further its said that how common an animal in NA, Australia and NZ is is more important then an animal is in europe, which again is a weird statement to me.
For one, even if we just compare the zootierliste numbers from europe, singapore and the middle east, we get 118 zoos with white faced sakis + the fact that they seem to be common in the AZA, with callum mentioning them being in about 50 zoos.
But even then, geoffreys spider monkey doesnt even get past the zootierliste number with 10 less holdings, so we have roughly 60 more zoos with the sakis, literally more then 1,5 times as many as geoffreys spider monkey.
Not even speaking about the fact that our numbers for every region thats not coverd by zootierliste are pretty much educated guesses with some like china and most out south east asia, africa and south america being practically blindspots where we dont really know anything about.
Using zootierliste as the main ressource for such statements like "x is most common in the EAZA regions, which cover over 50% of all zoos" doesnt make the thing an europe centric thing, its simply the only actual hard evidence and ressource we have.
Idk about you guys but zoochat posts from 2007 really arnt satisfying to me as a tangible ressource for discussions and if there isnt hard evidence and just educated guesses, why are those supousedly a better evidence then zootierliste, and thats when the math adds up something it just didnt in this case.
Sure there are no sakis in NZ and australia, but we have clear evidence that they are kept extremly commonly in europe, common in north america and atleast present in both asia and the middle east, so if anything the statement of spidermonkey > saki because geoffreys are more common in the AZA, australia and new zealand sounds much more like a straight up bias towards Australia and New Zealand. It makes sense, id also prefer animals that are found in europe compared to those that arnt, but i dont like how this is flung around like fact while calling referring to the actual hard numbers as europecentric. That just sounds like hipocracy to me.
And the most weird part is, that theres one argument that actually would have tipped the scales in favor of the spider monkey which for some reason only i mentioned.
The black headed spidermonkey, the most common spider monkey in the EAZA with 51 holdings is debated to be a subspecies of geoffreys spidermonkey.
Idk how common they are outside of europe, but roughly 10 less is a big difference from 60 less holdings worldwide and would have actually been the most global answer to this.
I just simply googled, and the L.A. Zoo keeps them as part of the species survival plan for the geoffreys spider monkey, while they are also kept in more north american zoos and in gyza zoo in egypt.
So easy clap, we got a numerical argument against the first statement of the white faced saki being the most common with the geoffreys spider common being around the same degree of common with one of those species propaply being just around 5-20 more common worldwide.
And thats it, argument solved, those two species are equally common, both look very distinct from both each other and the other primates in the game and would both be great candidates for new monkeys with both having at minimum 150 holdings world wide.
I hope i made my point clear, but pls guys, i am not against having discussions, in fact im here for them, but i dont like baseless arguing or just throwing around stuff like "european zoo game simulator" because the only actual non trash source we got thats easily accessible covers mostly europe and is used as the base of an argument.
Like it or not, zootierliste literally does cover roughly 50% of the zoos on the planet and when every other place has literally no actual efficent way to track how common animals are, using it as a main source is just the most logical solution.
I know everybody wants what theyve allready seen the most, but so often when discussing animals and how common they are people go like "yeah they are in my local zoos so they must be common" even if that zoo literally is one of only a handfull zoos in the world keeping them or even more common something like "Nah man that animal isnt common at all, i dont remember seeing them ever" when we have an actual source of that animal being in over a hundred zoos.
Numbers are Numbers, how we interpret them is our buissness and while i understand arguments like something covers more zoo regions ergo it reaches more players, that doesnt mean on the flipside that the one big number we have for one region is less important.
Afterall their are multiple animals the community wishes for and has allready gotten, that are rare in zoos or completly absent from certain zoo regions, that still everybody agrees on that they should be in the game, for example the platypus, proboscis monkey or the pronghorn. The fact that none of these animals are found in EAZA zoos doesnt make them bad additions, as that completly depends on the animal and how unique it is compared to what we allready got.
And if im honest, in some cases who cares how common it is, squirrel monkeys for example.
With just one southamerican primate they are just to similar to the capuchin, with the howler, spider, saki and any tamarin being a much more unique addition that should defenetly go first. The squirrel monkey would be to the capuchin what the thompson gazelle is to the springbock, the same flavor of SA Monkey but a bit different, while the others mentioned before would be to the capuchin what the nyala, wildebeast, sable antelope, gemsbock and bongo are to the springbock, same order but very different in appearence, size, habitat and usecase making for a much more diverse selection.
The worth of an animal is not just numbers, but at the same time completly ignoring them also isnt the way and aslong as we dont have reliable numbers for 50% of the world zoos the other 50% must do with educated guess about the other half.
TLDR: Saki and Geoffreys Spider Monkey are equally good additions from a numbers perspective and both add their own charm to the game, but jesus christ why is reffering to the only source of reliabe information for some reason such a wild concept in these forums
Alrighty without nitpicking parts of the absolute giant wall of text , I agree with any semi popular primate should be considered - seems like we got a bit side tracked by relevance in collection numbers. It's like we forget we already have a rare in captivity monkey with little to no opposition about its inclusion these days. I should also note that I don't oppose zootierliste, I admit I'm not the most familiar with it - I treat all giant databases with skepticism initially
Last edited:
Quick infodumb for zootierliste then.
Zootierliste is moderated and managed by members of the organisation zgab, a member of the IUCN.
On the side is a blackbord, where members (free registration) can comment on population changes, lets say zoo x crocodile monitor died and they got an argus monitor instead (totally not my local zoo lol).
You would only notice the change by actually going to zoo x as they dont have a website, so a member can post a picture of the animal and info board on the black bord, where the mods check if the evidence and/or their own research is conclusive they change the status of these animals for zoo x.
Its a bit like a more controlled wikipedia
Zootierliste is moderated and managed by members of the organisation zgab, a member of the IUCN.
On the side is a blackbord, where members (free registration) can comment on population changes, lets say zoo x crocodile monitor died and they got an argus monitor instead (totally not my local zoo lol).
You would only notice the change by actually going to zoo x as they dont have a website, so a member can post a picture of the animal and info board on the black bord, where the mods check if the evidence and/or their own research is conclusive they change the status of these animals for zoo x.
Its a bit like a more controlled wikipedia
I think the barest minimum selection of primates I could accept for the roster to feel somewhat complete would be:
- Hamadryas baboon
- Colobus
- Lar gibbon
- Tamarin (preferrably golden lion, ideally multiple)
- Howler monkey OR spider monkey
- Squirrel monkey
- Lion-tailed macaque
- The other howler/spider monkey
- One or more guenons
- Coquerel’s sifaka
- At least one other lemur (aye-aye, collared, or blue eyed black)
- Maybe one more langur
- White-faced saki
This wasn't my intention - I was just mentioning which species were present in this corner of the world given discussions of who was more common globally were going on, and for me the measure of widespreadness (which is different from commonness) depends on how many continents a species is kept in zoos. While of course I prefer species kept in my local zoos, I certainly don't think the game should be an "Australian zoo simulator" either - you'd definitely miss out on a ton of fantastic animals going down that route lol.
100% agree with this. The two aren't even from the same family, it's not like one replaces the other or anything.
I don't think anyone is arguing that other resources are better than Zootierliste, they're saying that you should also use other available resources in cojunction with Zootierliste before claiming something is globally the most common. And while they aren't 100% reliable, things like the Zoochat threads for Australia covering exotic mammals, native mammals and exotic herps are still great resources to gauge how common a species is - even if it isn't totally correct, it still gets you in the right ballpark. For example, if there aren't exactly 9 zoos in Australia holding Geoffrey's spider monkey and there's been an error somewhere, it's likely that the true number is something like 8 or 10 and this is still useful data. I don't see why a database being user generated means it's completely unreliable and the data from it should be ignored.
Basically Zootierliste is fantastic and also the number 1 resource I go to when trying to see how common a species is in as many countries as possible, but people from parts of the world not covered by the EAZA such as myself would appreciate it if you didn't claim that it was the only good resource for gauging the abundance of a species in captivity and that every other resource is unreliable.
I don't think anybody objected to that - both would be good additions. I just think the spider monkey is more important and should come first.