Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!Make a forum zoo! |
| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Animal organisation. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 19 2017, 07:02 PM (1,850 Views) | |
| Burns | Jul 20 2017, 12:28 AM Post #16 |
![]()
King of Lemurs
![]()
|
Well the things around it are deuterostomes as chordates are deuterostomes as well. That doesn't group chordates in with invertebrates but instead shows simply how evolutionary history works. Back to the main argument, As a fellow invert lover I agree with you that they need more respect although I don't think that splitting up the invertebrates category would really do much. There's also the factor of how large it is, considering that the majority of the earth's animals are inverts. You could try to simplify it into more notable groups like many biology lessons in schools do, (porifera, cnidaria, echinoderms, worms, mollusks, arthropods) although that discludes many individual phyla such as water bears or a personal favorite of mine Onychophora. Basically what I'm saying is despite a need for more respect for our spineless friendos, the animal kingdom is too tremendously diverse to split up for the main public. One thing that does piss me off though is when people say insects and corals aren't animals. I think we can find some more common ground there.
|
![]() |
|
| Zoo Tycooner FR | Jul 20 2017, 12:31 AM Post #17 |
![]()
#Lithopédion
![]()
|
I'm not using that post in a taxonomic way, I'm saying that some ''invertebrate-centric'' people (I'm sorry, couldn't find a better term) think vertebrates are over-rated or too much represented and always try to demonize ''vertebrate-centric'' people/listing/whatever, when both are really, just interests (there are people who prefer invertebrates while others prefer vertebrates and so on); which is why some people (like me) prefer using the so-hated MBAFRI listing organisation because their interests are mainly vertebrates animals and because it does look more practical and other people (you, perhaps?) would tend to use the organisation you showed on your first post. Too long didn't read, there's no good way to list animals, it's up to you and your interests.
Edited by Zoo Tycooner FR, Jul 20 2017, 12:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 20 2017, 12:34 AM Post #18 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well, you guys make good points. But here's a question. Why seperate amphibians from reptiles? Mammals and birds I get, why amphibians? They aren't super distinctive at first glance, and they are rather low in number.
Edited by Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt, Jul 20 2017, 12:37 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Zoo Tycooner FR | Jul 20 2017, 12:37 AM Post #19 |
![]()
#Lithopédion
![]()
|
Actually some people do not separate Amphibians and Reptiles and class them as ''Herptiles'', I honestly prefer listing amphibians and reptiles separately as they're quite different (compare a tortoise for example to a salamander), I guess you could say the same thing for different ''kinds'' of invertebrates but once again we'd talk about the endless interests debate.
|
![]() |
|
| Burns | Jul 20 2017, 12:44 AM Post #20 |
![]()
King of Lemurs
![]()
|
I believe people separate reptiles and amphibians due to the fact that amphibians go through a metamorphosis. In the MBRAFI model, each "class" (+1 superphylum) has something distinct about it that makes it easy for people to understand at first glance. I don't think I need to go into detail as we are all well informed people on what makes each group special. The one thing that all non-chordates have in common at first glance is not having a spinal cord. |
![]() |
|
| Lgcfm | Jul 20 2017, 12:52 AM Post #21 |
![]()
The Download Lady
![]()
|
As a biology student, I see where you are coming from. However, the thing is we can't always use the most "taxonomically correct" way to organise life (referring not only to animals) for a variety of reasons, mostly practical. For example, categorizing the animals contained in a zoo will be very different than categorizing animals found on a research about marine seafloor. In one of them, vertebrates are more numerous and relevant than invertebrates. From an advertising point of view, it makes more sense for the zoo to use terms that most people will understand and relate to. However when studying seafloor you'll find mostly invertebrates and they will be more relevant to the study. Also notice I say "taxonomically correct" in quotations because there is simply no "right" way to group animals, as taxonomy is always changing and even at the same time, two studies might contradict eachother. Fungi were once considered plants, bats were once considered birds by Linnaeus, and at that time that was the "correct" organization even if it seems ridiculous nowadays. That's what usually happens with science! Vertebrates are often more recognized by the public for a number of reasons. They are bigger, and thus easier to notice by people not particularly interested in science. It's easy for anyone to tell the difference between a mammal and a bird (not so much between amphibians and reptiles though), however there are many more invertebrate groups, making them harder to remember and tell apart by anyone not interested in the topic. Not to mention the sheer amount of groups make it hard to find a "correct" organization for invertebrates. Because of this, grouping them as "invertebrates" makes it easier and removes internal controversy. Not to say there is no controversy about vertebrate groups though: Fish being a paraphyletic group is a big glare, however it's hard to tell people to stop using a word that's so engraved in our culture. I also consider the term "invertebrate" to be misleading. As a teacher once told me, in taxonomy you should always try to group organisms together by their common characteristics, not for a lack of characteristics (because if you want to get technical, if an invertebrate is something without spinal cord, then a tree and a table are invertebrates too.) However, it's used because it's easy for people to understand, instead of remembering the dozen of "non-vertebrate" taxa. I hope you take me seriously (and excuse my so-so English), as I find this topic pretty interesting to discuss. Edited by Lgcfm, Jul 20 2017, 12:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 20 2017, 12:56 AM Post #22 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
The thing people actually think of when they hear coral though is typically a pile of limestone formed of dead polyps and their excretes, so one could even argue "corals" are rocks if they really tried hard enough ![]() Most species also have symbiotic algae, so if people thinking they're plants is getting on your nerves just pretend they're being clever. There is way worse, plenty of people don't even consider non-mammals as animals. Edited by stargatedalek, Jul 20 2017, 12:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 20 2017, 12:58 AM Post #23 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well, I see where your comming from, and it's pretty reasonable. But something else came to mind. When was the last time you heard someone refer to an invertebrate as an animal? Probably never, or at least not often. People always refer to vertebrates as just animals, but other animals are labeled as invertebrates because people don't want to refer to them as animals for some reason. |
![]() |
|
| magpiealamode | Jul 20 2017, 01:03 AM Post #24 |
![]()
No good hero is a one-trick phony.
![]()
|
That has nothing to do with people's feelings, more it's based on their knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding animals. Such is life, we can't expect everyone to know as much about it as we do, especially if they're not half as interested as we are. On another note, Rayén your English is perfect how dare you call it so-so |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 20 2017, 01:04 AM Post #25 |
![]() ![]()
|
I mean, if you wanna go by first glance distinctive features, then... Cephalopods have tentacles Insects have six legs Tunicates have a tunic Tapeworms have a scolex Crustaceans have biramious limbs Velvet worms have slime glands Bivalves have hinged shells I could go on. I see what your saying, but this logic is very easily applied to a lot of invertebrates. |
![]() |
|
| magpiealamode | Jul 20 2017, 01:11 AM Post #26 |
![]()
No good hero is a one-trick phony.
![]()
|
I think Burns is hinting at phylogenetic nesting. Think of it like matryoshka dolls; each successive taxon adds something onto the last. So, Fish have vertebrae Amphibians add weight-bearing limbs Reptiles add amniotic eggs Then, mammals and birds are separate branches. Mammals add hair and mammary glands, birds add feathers. Anywho, that's off topic. Edit: Actually I think this whole thread is in the wrong forum, we've barely discussed the game at all Edited by magpiealamode, Jul 20 2017, 01:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
|
|
Jul 20 2017, 01:21 AM Post #27 |
![]() ![]()
|
Speaking of the game, is there models for things like flatworms and rotifers? |
![]() |
|
| Lgcfm | Jul 20 2017, 01:26 AM Post #28 |
![]()
The Download Lady
![]()
|
In a scientific field I hear it very often But I get what you mean, it really irks me when people don't consider insects ("bugs", or in Spanish "bichos") to be animals. I think that's more of a cultural issue, when you mention the word "animal" most people will first think of a cat or a dog, not arthropods even if they are the majority of the Animalia phyllum. The thing is words such as "animal" have been in human culture since much before modern taxonomy.Another thing I want to mention is that it's in human's nature to always consider themselves as the "top" being in comparison to other creatures. This has been a recurring problem for science, like when explaining that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, or that humans descend from not-so-handsome ancestors, which earned Darwin a lot of mockery. This can be seen as an issue when regarding animals too, as people subconsciously consider anything closer to man as being "superior", "more evolved" than our more distant relatives.
I would say amphians are kept a separate group because they are seen as a nice "transition" between fishes: aquatic life, fins, and reptiles: terrestrial, four limbs. This makes them very interesting in an evolutionary scale, whether the view is correct or not. However as you guys already mentioned they are sometimes grouped together with reptiles as "herps", which is another example of categorising life as best suits your needs. Also to "The one thing that all non-chordates have in common at first glance is not having a spinal cord.", I'll repeat that lacking something should not be a taxonomical characteristic, otherwise you could say "all plants lack limbs" and that would be also correct. I believe philosophy addresses this in some way but I didn't learn much about it at school
|
![]() |
|
| stargatedalek | Jul 20 2017, 08:41 AM Post #29 |
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
![]()
|
Velociraptor is such a great bird ![]() Safer to think or archosaurs, mammals, and reptiles as three separate branches, since the particularly early reptiles were pretty far removed from modern reptiles too, even compared to mammals and dinosaurs. I can understand wanting more recognition for invertebrates, but my problem there is that they don't often vary as much within "their groups" as vertebrates do. I can see any beetle and recognize it as a beetle, the most diverse group of animals (no, of life) on the planet, and yet a mouse and a squirrel can appear so different and completely foreign to each other if someone isn't already aware they're related. Look at a scarab and longhorn beetle, perhaps the most visually distinctive on "each end of the beetle spectrum". Now look at a crow and a Brachiosaurus. The two archosaurs are "technically" closer taxonomically than the beetles but you'd never guess it. This is why Sauropod and Corvidae are going to be used more often than Oxypeltidae and Scarabaeidae. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jul 20 2017, 12:57 PM Post #30 |
![]() ![]()
|
Question: is the discussion about how people split animals in their ZT2 related threads, or in real life in general ? If the latter, it shouldn't belong here under the ZT2 discussion section, but rather in the Pets&Wildlife section. If, however, you were talking about ZT2 animal lists, I'd say you need to consider what we have available; majority of the animals used ingame are mammals, followed by birds. Fish, amphibians and reptiles have decently good numbers but are usually ignored compared to their potential. Invertebrates, we have very few (not counting corals and other stuff that's used as foliage or scenery) and the majority of them in general wouldn't even make it into the game because they'd be too small to be useable and/or a pain to animate. Add to that the fact people usually aren't as interested in them as the previous groups, and thus most S&Ters usually don't bother splitting them in overly specific cathegories, most of which would remain empty anyway. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Discussion · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups
















