Here is a better IUCN source which clearly details historic range in desert areas. I added this to the original post.
AFAIK, the only plains bison in Eurasia and Alaska tundras are introduced animals, meaning they do not have historic presence there. Now, I said this is highly debatable, because there is new evidence that suggests plains bison are much more closely related to the ancient steppe bison than previously thought, but I don't know enough about that subject, and when I know I'm not properly informed, I try not to comment or take a side one way or another.
Plus there's the fact that in-game bison are modelled after the plains bison. Tundra would only apply to wood bison so I don't mind it being excluded. I was just interpreting the sources you shared.
Btw, the lowland interior meadows of Alaska mentioned in the new source = tundra grasslands of the IUCN Red List page I think.
- Introduced populations would not count (but reintroduced would), therefore Alaskan and Siberian populations for the plains bison would not count.
- Historic populations may or may not count depending on Frontier's position on the topic. Although that would result in quite a few changes in several animals (e.g. Grizzly bear and Nile monitor). Inclusion of biomes from historic ranges would even validate temperate broadleaf forest trees for the plains bison.
- It is still vague whether the game classifies alpine tundra as 'Tundra' or not, because of conflicting choices (e.g. Himalayan brown bear and polylepis tree have the 'Tundra' tag, but llama and puya plant don't, despite all 4 being alpine tundra species). There is an interesting thread on this very topic if anyone's interested.
Taking these principles into consideration I would make the following assessment:
The Zoopedia uses the trinomial name
Bison bison bison (plains bison), meanwhile education boards have the binomial name
Bison bison (American bison, which includes wood bison). Although I wouldn't pay much attention to education boards, as their Zoopedia profile seems to be consistent in terms of the generalization used for many subspecies/subpopulations/ecotypes in the game (e.g. Queensland koala). Additionally, the in-game bison is clearly modelled after
Bison bison bison. Based on all this information, I would say it is safe to assume the in-game bison is intended to be plains bison. In that case:
- 'Taiga' biome tag is a definite yes, no matter the subspecies/ecotype, as temperate coniferous forests and subalpine forests are classified as 'Taiga' in the game (e.g. Formosan black bear and giant panda).
- 'Tundra' can go both ways, depending on how alpine tundra is really classified. Plains bison do not occur in the Arctic tundra (naturally), therefore the in-game animal should only receive the 'Tundra' tag if alpine tundra is considered 'Tundra' in the game. This is a topic that should really be resolved by Frontier, because it is creating a ton of confusion over several animals and plant assets.
- 'Desert' and 'Temperate' can only be considered if historic populations are intended to have an effect on the in-game biome selections. However, I think desert could be a bit too marginal, as their existence in the desert really depends on grazing availability, therefore they are found more so in semi-deserts with xeric grasslands.
Now I would like to add something that really bothers me. As I've mentioned earlier, many subspecies in the game indeed use generic species names (e.g. Koala and American bison) to be used in the game in various menus/filters/titles. This is perfectly fine, since the generalization is consistent across the board and the Zoopedia specifies which subspecies the animal is in the body (both scientific and common names). However, there are two animals in the game that are not consistent with the rest: North Sulawesi babirusa and African bush elephant. Both of these are their own species (they are not subspecies/subpopulations/ecotypes), yet their species names are not used properly. This is the same thing as calling tigers, lions, jaguars and snow leopards "panthers", or grizzly bears "brown bear". It is clear from other examples that the game intends to use complete species names (e.g. Colombian white-faced capuchin monkey, not to mention the word monkey there is redundant - same thing as Japanese macaque monkey). Therefore I would really much like to see the African bush elephant and North Sulawesi babirusa's common names fixed.
