Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Animal organisation.
Topic Started: Jul 19 2017, 07:02 PM (1,852 Views)
Dylan
Member Avatar


Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 21 2017, 11:58 AM
Even at a purely superficial and completely layman level, they all share no basic, practical similarities. Crickets and sponges are as completely different from each other as you can get while still being animals.
They all don't have a backbone. No backbone = invertebrate. Thus they share a similarity.

It is also easier to learn about invertebrates, fish, reptiles and Amphibians (herps), birds and mammals. The easier something is to learn, the more will remember it. So "layman" can remember inverts easier if they are lumped together
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Member Avatar


Dylan
Jul 28 2017, 07:46 AM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 21 2017, 11:58 AM
Even at a purely superficial and completely layman level, they all share no basic, practical similarities. Crickets and sponges are as completely different from each other as you can get while still being animals.
They all don't have a backbone. No backbone = invertebrate. Thus they share a similarity.

It is also easier to learn about invertebrates, fish, reptiles and Amphibians (herps), birds and mammals. The easier something is to learn, the more will remember it. So "layman" can remember inverts easier if they are lumped together
By that same logic, I could say that tapeworms and humans are both similar in that they don't have stinging cells. Thus, they are uncnidarians. I don't think you get what I'm saying. For example, let's compare inverts to herps.

Take a lizard and a salamander, both are "herps". They exhibit many differences if you look closer, but they look kinda similar. They are both ectotherms, they walk on four legs, have a similar general shape, and they have naked looking skin. So herptile is not a monophyletic group, but it comes in handy sometimes.

Now, look at a snail and a dragonfly. Unlike the first example, the differences are there first glance. What are the practical similarities. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Even when trying to be unformal, there is almost no context where "invertebrate" would come in useful.

And the only reason the MBAFRI model is "easier" to understand is because we learn it at a young age. If we learned the NHCMC model instead (Nonarthropods, hexapods, chelicerates, myriapods, crustaceans) we would think that is easy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zoo Tycooner FR
Member Avatar
#Lithopédion

Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 29 2017, 05:40 PM
And the only reason the MBAFRI model is "easier" to understand is because we learn it at a young age.
Ah yes, I remember when my 1st grade teacher told me about how the MBAFRI model was useful and how I should use it to list zoo animals when I get older.

[/sarcasm]
Edited by Zoo Tycooner FR, Jul 29 2017, 05:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Member Avatar


Zoo Tycooner FR
Jul 29 2017, 05:48 PM
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Jul 29 2017, 05:40 PM
And the only reason the MBAFRI model is "easier" to understand is because we learn it at a young age.
Ah yes, I remember when my 1st grade teacher told me about how the MBAFRI model was useful and how I should use it to list zoo animals when I get older.

[/sarcasm]
Not that specifically. But when we are young, we generally learn animals as verts and inverts. Even when we find out the truth, a lot of people still hold on to this mentality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Imperator Furiosa
Member Avatar
Chaos Theory

What truth? You're acting like this is some grand conspiracy, when we've explained time and time again that people are more comfortable and more familiar with the MBAFRI system since its more commonly used. The general public doesn't really have much knowledge about taxonomy to begin with, so you can't expect them to relearn everything they know because you want our classification system to change. And generally speaking, vertebrates (particularly mammals) have a much broader appeal than invertebrates.

Beyond a lack of public interest there are some issues with trying to completely overhaul our modern organization system to favor invertebrates. Invertebrates make up a majority of life on earth, living and extinct. Several of these extinct species either lack affinities with known living groups or are so bizarre that its hard to classify them. And I believe it was Lgcfm who said MBAFRI is easier to remember than the various classes of invertebrates. Yes there are some major differences between them and Linnean taxonomy does differentiate between them, but for common use it isn't really practical. Not everyone is a biologist, and not everyone in biology specializes in zoology.

I also feel that its fair to point out that invertebrates aren't the only group of animal that gets generalized and lumped into one nondescript category by the general population. Amphibians, lizards, rodents, and primates are all examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure most animals are. Every primate (excluding humans) is a monkey and every rodent with a tail is a rat to the general population. You can do a lot more good by explaining to people how the different groups of invertebrates differ from each other rather than complaining about how the way the general population organizes animals. If you explain to them what makes those groups different they'll actually learn something, complaining and saying "no, you're wrong" pushes people away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Member Avatar


Mononoke-hime
Jul 29 2017, 07:31 PM
What truth? You're acting like this is some grand conspiracy, when we've explained time and time again that people are more comfortable and more familiar with the MBAFRI system since its more commonly used. The general public doesn't really have much knowledge about taxonomy to begin with, so you can't expect them to relearn everything they know because you want our classification system to change. And generally speaking, vertebrates (particularly mammals) have a much broader appeal than invertebrates.

Beyond a lack of public interest there are some issues with trying to completely overhaul our modern organization system to favor invertebrates. Invertebrates make up a majority of life on earth, living and extinct. Several of these extinct species either lack affinities with known living groups or are so bizarre that its hard to classify them. And I believe it was Lgcfm who said MBAFRI is easier to remember than the various classes of invertebrates. Yes there are some major differences between them and Linnean taxonomy does differentiate between them, but for common use it isn't really practical. Not everyone is a biologist, and not everyone in biology specializes in zoology.

I also feel that its fair to point out that invertebrates aren't the only group of animal that gets generalized and lumped into one nondescript category by the general population. Amphibians, lizards, rodents, and primates are all examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure most animals are. Every primate (excluding humans) is a monkey and every rodent with a tail is a rat to the general population. You can do a lot more good by explaining to people how the different groups of invertebrates differ from each other rather than complaining about how the way the general population organizes animals. If you explain to them what makes those groups different they'll actually learn something, complaining and saying "no, you're wrong" pushes people away.
Your acting like you have to be a specialist to understand anything about inverts. You don't. You don't have to be a biologist to know that snails should not be grouped with insects beyond being animals. And your last point also falls flat. These other nondescript groups are not a good comparison.

All the miscellaneous rodents we call "rats", while not directly related, all look pretty similar. "Herptiles" all look generally similar at first glance. Same for fish, primates, etc. But this is NOT true of invertebrates. This is why, even as a general informal category, invertebrates still does not work. And again, the only reason why are more comfortable doing the vertebrate centric model is because that's the one we where taught and the one we know. If we grew up with a mollusk or arthropod centric model instead, we would use that.

And what about my analogies? It's like making mollusks and "unmollusks" or echinoderms and "unechinoderms". And distinguishing between several broad groups is not rocket science. It isn't THAT hard.

Here is some basic differences between arthropods and mollusks.

Mollusks have a trochophore larvae, arthropods don't
Mollusks have a calcium carbonate shell (which is lost in some groups), arthropods have a chitin exoskeleton
Mollusks have camera lens type eyes (if they have eyes), arthropods generally have compound eyes
Mollusks have a radula, arthropods have a complex set of mouth parts
Mollusks move via a muscular foot, arthropods move with jointed legs
Mollusks generally have no segments, arthropods do

I could list a ton more. The differences between mollusks and arthropods far outweigh those between birds and mammals by several orders of magnitude. And that is no exaggeration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireplume
Member Avatar
Snok Snok Snerson

TBH unless you're working specifically with said creatures IDK if you even really need to care while other groups [birds and mammals] certainly have common, everyday use.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SLGray
Member Avatar


Because all animals do have things in common, they are called animals. The organization of the animal kingdom is based on characters that are similar to different animals. Usually the comparison is based on many characters, not just one.
Edited by SLGray, Jul 29 2017, 08:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Imperator Furiosa
Member Avatar
Chaos Theory

Quote:
 
And your last point also falls flat. These other nondescript groups are not a good comparison.

All the miscellaneous rodents we call "rats", while not directly related, all look pretty similar. "Herptiles" all look generally similar at first glance. Same for fish, primates, etc. But this is NOT true of invertebrates. This is why, even as a general informal category, invertebrates still does not work.

How exactly is it not a good comparison? Both are generalizations, and you yourself are making similar generalizations to the ones you claim to dislike, just about different groups of animals. You have to admit that to the naked, untrained eye some types of inverts look too similar to really distinguish between them. Most people can barely tell the difference between a squid and an octopus, or an insect and a spider, or clams and mussels.
Quote:
 
If we grew up with a mollusk or arthropod centric model instead, we would use that.

You aren't wrong, but this could be applied to literally everything. Even non-science subjects.
Quote:
 
Your acting like you have to be a specialist to understand anything about inverts.

Yes well you're acting like anyone who doesn't know the minute differences between certain groups of superficially similar invert groups is ignorant. You can't expect everyone to know everything that you do or to share your views even if they have experience with inverts. And your average person won't know much about invertebrates, they simply aren't discussed a lot in school. I took Honors and AP biology in high school, I barely remember hearing anything in those classes about inverts. Even in elementary school I never learned much about them other than a select few like butterflies and oysters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt
Member Avatar


Mononoke-hime
Jul 29 2017, 09:06 PM
Quote:
 
And your last point also falls flat. These other nondescript groups are not a good comparison.

All the miscellaneous rodents we call "rats", while not directly related, all look pretty similar. "Herptiles" all look generally similar at first glance. Same for fish, primates, etc. But this is NOT true of invertebrates. This is why, even as a general informal category, invertebrates still does not work.

How exactly is it not a good comparison? Both are generalizations, and you yourself are making similar generalizations to the ones you claim to dislike, just about different groups of animals. You have to admit that to the naked, untrained eye some types of inverts look too similar to really distinguish between them. Most people can barely tell the difference between a squid and an octopus, or an insect and a spider, or clams and mussels.
It's not just because I don't like it. I feel like your not really understanding the scale I'm talking about. Confusing snails for clams? Sure. Octopus and squid? Sure. Insects and snails? Now that's absurd.

Like I said. A lizard and salamander are not directly related, but they have a similar out appearance may not be easily distinguishable at first. And insect and a snail could not be more different, even to an untrained eye.
http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/images/emwebbiihp.jpg
http://www.californiaherps.com/salamanders/images/dtenebrosusmrw.jpg
They aren't closely related, but you can see the resemblance.

http://www.joyofanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/cricket1-700-c.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Grapevinesnail_01.jpg
Even to an untrained eye, these two have nothing in common without prior knowledge. Where's the resemblance?
Edited by Insect Illuminati Get Shrekt, Jul 29 2017, 09:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PrimevalBrony
Member Avatar
Youtuber. Combat robotics fan

Okay I've stayed away from this topic for a while as I didn't want to deal with this, but seriously? Firstly, wrong forum to post this in, what does any of this have to do with Zoo Tycoon 2? Secondly, you may be an expert on inverts, but not everyone else is. You don't see me saying "Why is it just dinosaurs and not Ornithoscelida (encompassing Theropoda, Thyreophora, Ornithopoda and Marginocephalia) and Saurischia?" Because the general public don't care. Biologists do, but Mrs Miggins does not. The mainly vertebrate classification is used as it is rather simple. Besides, there's enough diversity given to the inverts anyway in the general classification; with Arthropoda not being just one group but we separate it into insects, arachnids, crustaceans, millipedes etc.

TLDR; just because YOU want to see inverts be more diverse instead of the vertebrates, does not mean that the whole world should.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stargatedalek
Member Avatar
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!

Not trying to start any fights here, but apes (including humans) ARE monkeys, in the same way that dolphins are whales and toads are frogs.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SLGray
Member Avatar


Apes, dolphins, and humans are mammals because of many characteristics.

1. breath air
2. live birth
3. milk
4. hair
etc.
Edited by SLGray, Jul 30 2017, 12:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4