Ranking the areas still requiring animals

[abigenius]

In my personal opinion, Latin America is the most urgently needed area

A latin here, I'm from Mexico and I think that latin America in general It's a area that need some important animals, but at least México it's area good representing, I live in the tropical zone , and the zoo of here has animals from hot climates, it's rare to see bears and wolf for example, but the African animals are common and the native animals it's some rare, they aren't common actually, the asiatic animals are so rare as well , and I don't know why but there a some species

I'm studying zoology so that it's the reason why I visited many zoos in the country as well the Guadalajara zoo , one of the biggest zoo of latin America , A small view of the Mexican zoos

 

[coatifan]

A latin here, I'm from Mexico and I think that latin America in general It's a area that need some important animals, but at least México it's area good representing, I live in the tropical zone , and the zoo of here has animals from hot climates, it's rare to see bears and wolf for example, but the African animals are common and the native animals it's some rare, they aren't common actually, the asiatic animals are so rare as well , and I don't know why but there a some species

I'm studying zoology so that it's the reason why I visited many zoos in the country as well the Guadalajara zoo , one of the biggest zoo of latin America , A small view of the Mexican zoos

The authority has arrived! Glad to see you agree; do you have particular animals in mind? I'd be curious to see how Mexican zoos represent Mexico as a nation and Latin America as a region in their collection, and how you'd want to see that reflected in Planet Zoo.

TL;DR: What latin american animals would you want?

 

[abigenius]

The authority has arrived! Glad to see you agree; do you have particular animals in mind? I'd be curious to see how Mexican zoos represent Mexico as a nation and Latin America as a region in their collection, and how you'd want to see that reflected in Planet Zoo.

TL;DR: What latin american animals would you want?

Of the most common animals in Mexican zoos and that I would love to have in PZ are:

1.- Mexican Crocodile
2.-Bighorn sheep
3.- American flamingo ( they are so common and almost zoos have this specie, the only zoo that have another species of flamingo it's the Guadalajara's Zoo)
4.-White tiled deer
5.- Ocelot
6.- Collar pecary

The animals that aren't common in the zoos but they are native from the country an as well a would love to see in the game are :
1.- Axolotl
2.-Mexican Tamandua
3.- Mexican Aguti
4.- Spider Monkey
5.- Mexican Grey Wolf
6.- Red lynx
7.- Cacomixtle

 

[coatifan]

Of the most common animals in Mexican zoos and that I would love to have in PZ are:

1.- Mexican Crocodile
2.-Bighorn sheep
3.- American flamingo ( they are so common and almost zoos have this specie, the only zoo that have another species of flamingo it's the Guadalajara's Zoo)
4.-White tiled deer
5.- Ocelot
6.- Collar pecary

The animals that aren't common in the zoos but they are native from the country an as well a would love to see in the game are :
1.- Axolotl
2.-Mexican Tamandua
3.- Mexican Aguti
4.- Spider Monkey
5.- Mexican Grey Wolf
6.- Red lynx
7.- Cacomixtle

Interesting selection! I'd love to see all of these in-game, especially since they provide a good mix of biomes that could also represent several additional countries, and most of them are quite different from anything else we have right now.

 

[yoav_r]

South America is gonna bump up it seems

 

[Antimony96]

South America is gonna bump up it seems

We'll see. Hopefully decent representation for non-tropical SA species (not just the bear, but also maned wolf, rhea, mara, etc.)

 

[yoav_r]

With the new red crowned crane, would you say Japan is complete in representation and should bump up a category?

 

[Aramar]

With the new red crowned crane, would you say Japan is complete in representation and should bump up a category?

Japan is better represented now, but it only has a macaque and a crane. Still no deer, no otter, no fox, no tanuki, no bear, no wildboar, no serow... I wouldn't say it is completed.

 

[yoav_r]

Updated this post, I will update this map once the pack is out. Japan, India, Australia and Tropical South America got bumped up a tier. Thoughts?

 

[AlexSea]

I would argue that Oceania is the continent/region that still needs the most animals. The Tasmanian Devil, Common Wombat, Goodfellow's Tree Kangaroo, Emu, Red-Necked Wallaby, and North Island Brown Kiwi are all animals that I think we need to have a complete Oceania roster. Since Frontier has seemingly transitioned to giving us biome packs as opposed to region packs, we could get more Oceanian animals from temperate, grassland, desert, and rainforest packs. Since we're getting the Platypus, they clearly haven't abandoned Oceanian animals altogether, which is good.

 

[raf8655]

What immediately stands out is the incredible lack of animals from south america, many monkeys, coatis, sloths...A dedicate DLC with with very few animals...A real crime!

 

[ElectricMonk]

Areas which are missing key species (require specific species, but not dedicated expansions):

• Australia - (Emu, Wallaby, Tasmanian devil, Tree kangaroo)

I can’t agree that , for Australia, it’s really ‘possible to create a dedicated area in a zoo’. The best that is possible, if species are to share the some part of their distribution, is 3 habitat species (koala, dingo and, now, platypus) in temperate eastern Australia. In all other regions, only two (or fewer) species are in-game. Central Asia and Central America / Mexico are both much better represented than any part of Oceania. IMO Australia would need (excluding flying birds) at least:

Emu
A wallaby
A wombat

to be able to make a realistic Australian zone.

To be fair, Australian regions in the rankings, should be split, as has been done for all other continents. Specifically:

Tropical North Australia: 2 habitat species
Arid Central Australia: 2 habitat species
Temperate Eastern Australia (including Tasmania): 3 habitat species
Temperate Western Australia: 1 habitat species

 

[yoav_r]

I can’t agree that , for Australia, it’s really ‘possible to create a dedicated area in a zoo’. The best that is possible, if species are to share the some part of their distribution, is 3 habitat species (koala, dingo and, now, platypus) in temperate eastern Australia. In all other regions, only two (or fewer) species are in-game. Central Asia and Central America / Mexico are both much better represented than any part of Oceania. IMO Australia would need (excluding flying birds) at least:

Emu
A wallaby
A wombat

to be able to make a realistic Australian zone.

To be fair, Australian regions in the rankings, should be split, as has been done for all other continents. Specifically:

Tropical North Australia: 2 habitat species
Arid Central Australia: 2 habitat species
Temperate Eastern Australia (including Tasmania): 3 habitat species
Temperate Western Australia: 1 habitat species

I thought a lot about Australia. Let's review the habitat animals:
1. Kangaroo - iconic and common around the world
2. Cassowary - exotic and relatively common
3. Saltwater crocodile - iconic and common in certain regions
4. Koala - iconic, highly specialized, and very rare in zoos
5. Platypus - iconic, highly specialized, only found in Australian zoos and SDZ
6. Dingo - somewhat derivative and uncommon in zoos, but still a famous australian animal

With 6 habitat animals, which are mostly iconic and endemic to the region, I can't say you can't build a dedicated australian area, and it's in a much better state than the middle east, Sahara or non-tropical SA, which are practically empty.

The main problem with Australia starts when you look for realism. We are missing common zoo animals which are much more 'basic' and less specialized than the one in the game. For me these would be:
1. Emu
2. Wallaby (any)

This means that no matter how many more specialized animals we get, (for example; echidna, tassie devils or tree kangaroos), without these 2 species the realism problem will remain.

So by the criteria of the list, the problem is with a few specific missing species, which puts it in the second tier.

And I don't want to split australia to sub regions, because that would require splitting much larger and climatically diverse countries into sub regions, like China and the US.

I split the regions based on a combination of climatical and cultural lines, and based on how biodiverse they are when it comes to zoo animals.

 

[ElectricMonk]

With 6 habitat animals, which are mostly iconic and endemic to the region, I can't say you can't build a dedicated australian area, and it's in a much better state than the middle east, Sahara or non-tropical SA, which are practically empty.

Why do other get to be separated off whilst Australia treated as a single homogeneous unit? Non-tropical SA has (I think) at least 4 habitat species (cougar, Jaguar, anteater, llama) which is more than any region in Australia.

And I don't want to split australia to sub regions, because that would require splitting much larger and climatically diverse countries into sub regions, like China and the US.

.

But you have split other continents into subregions- I can’t see why political borders have any relevance - biological representation should (IMO) be based on biogeographical reality rather than artificial political/historical borders. To split by countries automatically skews the results against Australia since, uniquely, it is both a continent and a country.

 

[yoav_r]

Why do other get to be separated off whilst Australia treated as a single homogeneous unit? Non-tropical SA has (I think) at least 4 habitat species (cougar, Jaguar, anteater, llama) which is more than any region in Australia.

But you have split other continents into subregions- I can’t see why political borders have any relevance - biological representation should (IMO) be based on biogeographical reality rather than artificial political/historical borders. To split by countries automatically skews the results against Australia since, uniquely, it is both a continent and a country.

First of all, I did split the continent Oceania to New Zealand, Australia, New guinea.

A better climatical split however could likely be:
1. new guinea and tropical australia
2. Temperate Australia
3. Arid Australia
4. New zealand

The problem with that, and the reason I took culture and borders into account, is that this analysis aims at creating realistic dedicated zoo areas to regions. I have never in my life seen a zoo where the australian area has been split to australian sub regions, neither in Europe nor the US (this is of course based on my own experience and could be incorrect).

I aimed at areas which could be made to feel complete until the end of support while covering the entire globe. So if we take your division, tell me what species would each region need for "complete" reprentation in game?

 

[yoav_r]

Why do other get to be separated off whilst Australia treated as a single homogeneous unit? Non-tropical SA has (I think) at least 4 habitat species (cougar, Jaguar, anteater, llama) which is more than any region in Australia.

And another thing to add, is how iconic and relevant an animal is to a region. While there technically a few species found in the outskirts of the middle east, there are no species actually iconic and culturally relevant to the middle east. Same goes for new zealand, the Pampas and Patagonia, with the Andes and central asia faring just a bit better.

So it feels like these regions are only represented on a gepgraphical technicality, unlike australia for which all species in the game are iconic and culturally relevant.

 

[ElectricMonk]

First of all, I did split the continent Oceania to New Zealand, Australia, New guinea.

A better climatical split however could likely be:
1. new guinea and tropical australia
2. Temperate Australia
3. Arid Australia
4. New zealand

The problem with that, and the reason I took culture and borders into account, is that this analysis aims at creating realistic dedicated zoo areas to regions. I have never in my life seen a zoo where the australian area has been split to australian sub regions, neither in Europe nor the US (this is of course based on my own experience and could be incorrect).

That’s fair and I have little experience of zoos outside Australia. However, my guess would be that, in ‘Australia’ sections in zoos in other countrie, species would tend to be from one region of Australia. For example, in colder areas of NA and in European zoos I’d expect most species to be from temperate Australia (3 choices in game, including the platypus) whilst, in warmer regions I’d expect tropical species (2 available and/or) arid species (2 available). I.e., in each zoo the Australia section would not be spout into subregion but would represent only a single subregion (which Is effectively impossible in-game, since no more than 3 in-game species share a subregion). I’ve never seen anything other than Asia split into subregions in a single zoo - and that split greater Asia from SEA which confirms to biogeographical realms

I aimed at areas which could be made to feel complete until the end of support while covering the entire globe. So if we take your division, tell me what species would each region need for "complete" reprentation in game?

Necessary (minimum required):
Emu (arid and temperate)
A temperate macropod (e.g., grey kangaroo, red-necked wallaby - temperate)
Additional species to bring Arid , Temperate and tropical zones to at least 4 species and at least one (probably temperate) to at least 6 species.

this could be done by adding:
Emu
Red-necked Wallaby
Echidna
A tree kangaroo
But optimally further species would /could be added.

 

[ElectricMonk]

And another thing to add, is how iconic and relevant an animal is to a region. While there technically a few species found in the outskirts of the middle east, there are no species actually iconic and culturally relevant to the middle east. Same goes for new zealand, the Pampas and Patagonia, with the Andes and central asia faring just a bit better.

So it feels like these regions are only represented on a gepgraphical technicality, unlike australia for which all species in the game are iconic and culturally relevant.

I could say the same about Tasmania. If the Pampas counts as a region…. You can only make the statement because you’re treating Australia, unlike South America or Asia, as a single region. Are there ‘iconic and culturally relevant’ South American or Asian species? Yes.

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

I would suggest one last category: Domestic animals
Domestic animals dont really fit into the area discussion at large, because while all 2 (3 if you want to head canon the water buffallo as not wild like most seem to do) do fit into an area, domestic animals at large wouldnt. For example if we ever get a domestic donkey, thats not region bound, thats international and while this isnt really true for the camel, you can defenetly argue this about the lama and the water buffallo.
So i think in this one case it would be fair to include this regional but status based group in this list, where i would put them into red and orange as you can build a petting zoo with these 3 animals if you would really want to, but they are defenetly atleast major animals missing (mostly the donkey, goat and a domestic bird, but i would also argue a pig to be Borderline essential).

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

That’s fair and I have little experience of zoos outside Australia. However, my guess would be that, in ‘Australia’ sections in zoos in other countrie, species would tend to be from one region of Australia. For example, in colder areas of NA and in European zoos I’d expect most species to be from temperate Australia (3 choices in game, including the platypus) whilst, in warmer regions I’d expect tropical species (2 available and/or) arid species (2 available). I.e., in each zoo the Australia section would not be spout into subregion but would represent only a single subregion (which Is effectively impossible in-game, since no more than 3 in-game species share a subregion). I’ve never seen anything other than Asia split into subregions in a single zoo - and that split greater Asia from SEA which confirms to biogeographical realms

Necessary (minimum required):
Emu (arid and temperate)
A temperate macropod (e.g., grey kangaroo, red-necked wallaby - temperate)
Additional species to bring Arid , Temperate and tropical zones to at least 4 species and at least one (probably temperate) to at least 6 species.

this could be done by adding:
Emu
Red-necked Wallaby
Echidna
A tree kangaroo
But optimally further species would /could be added.

As a german with the luxury to live near duisburg, one of europes zoo with the biggest australia sections i can confirm that they are mostly birds, wallabys and kangaroos. In most zoos you can narrow it down to something red or gred kangaroo, emus, benett, swamp or parmas wallaby, budgeys, maybe kookaburras and some exhibits like bearded dragons. Most of the time half the animals can be aquired from a petstore and duisburg only really deviates from that with adding wombats, koalas and edchidnas that chare one building, tasmanian devils, a mixed aviary and some smaller relativly unknown but very endangerd ratkangaroos. In the future there will also be a walkthrough with birds and yellow footed rock wallabys, but thats it. Biggest australia section in germany btw