Join our zoo community
Giant Panda

Spot the Error(s)

The other side of the sign had the arthropod subphylum "Miriapoda". Given zoogiraffe's comprehensive coverage, I won't upload my exhibit photos. If anyone has any requests, though, let me know.

Spot the Error(s)
Giant Panda, 22 Sep 2016
    • Giant Panda
      The other side of the sign had the arthropod subphylum "Miriapoda".

      Given zoogiraffe\'s comprehensive coverage, I won\'t upload my exhibit photos. If anyone has any requests, though, let me know.
    • Chlidonias
      I can't be bothered reading through all of that!

      I am wondering though, if this is their own work or if they have obtained it elsewhere. I have some small confusion as to whether they are promoting Creationism (or at least non-evolution) through this particular sign, because it clearly has a sentence for peripatus starting "These tiny "caterpillars" found in early Cambrian..."
    • Giant Panda
      Fair enough! I only skimmed it, but noticed the phylum "Cnetophora" (Ctenophora) and, most bizarrely, Chordata listed as containing only the cephalochordates and hemichordates. Apparently we verts don't exist.

      As for the creatonism stuff, this was part of those displays but it's all rather self-contradictory, under the guise of presenting different viewpoints. I think the general idea is that Noah's flood marked the base of the Cambrian around 100mya and washed away all evidence of mankind's Antediluvian existence. Before that, God seeded the earth with the ancestors of today's "kinds", which diverged (not evolved) into the species we see today, hence how they could all fit on the ark. Apparently, the progenitors had all the genes necessary for this divergence to take place, ie. no mutation. I think I've represented their, ahem, viewpoint accurately.
    • Chlidonias
      so they are using the same time-scale as actual science (in millions of years)? Or just using the wording and structure but reducing the time-scale to fit with the thousands of years of the Bible?
    • Giant Panda
      They argue that it was longer ago than the Biblical timescale, but shorter than it actually was. I think they said 100 million years. Might've been 100 thousand. Something like that.
    • Chlidonias
      skimming through the content I think the sign is fine in general. There are things that could be nit-picked, like "Cnetophora" (twice) and sp instead of spp, but they are simple spelling errors. There may be basic factual errors as well, but I didn't pick up on them. I think it pretty clear that they know vertebrates are chordates, because they actually say right there on the sign "Phylum Invertebrate Chordata" which may be clumsy but the sign is solely about invertebrates after all.

      I do think it a little unnecessary in a zoo setting to have a sign covering all the invertebrate groups in this fashion - nobody is going to stand there and read all through the sign and say "oh, so those are the distinguishing features of the Chaetognatha!", and I'd wager 95% of the visitors wouldn't understand a lot of the terms used in the explanations ayway - but I actually appreciate the effort they put in to even having it in the first place (even if it is aimed at the end-result being the promotion of Creationism).

      I mean, compare it to Chester Zoo's recent Islands efforts in the gallery with a common and scientific name and not much else - and even then they still make errors (as in their "Nepenthes ssp"). Almost zero educational content.
    • Giant Panda
      I hadn't even noticed "sp". As for ignoring the vertebrates, the impression I got from this and the surrounding displays was that each phylum was meant to constitute a different created "kind", and verts were a separate kind to Chordata. Actually, many separate kinds. So the sign was trying to make it clear that Chordata is an invertebrate phylum - possibly more erroneous than you give credit for!

      This was one of many posters on a range of topics: plants, birds, mammals, apes, bacteria, various phylogenies, the origins of Earth and the universe, etc. All were aimed at the promulgation of creationism, with biodiversity education epiphenomenal at best. Nonetheless, I agree that zoos should aim to combat, rather than contribute to, the homocentrism with which we (ZooChatters included) view nature. London's BUGS is the only other exhibit where I've seen a list of phyla, for instance, and despite sometimes feeling like a first year Biology textbook, it's far more accessible, accurate and interesting than this effort.

      I wouldn't usually be so inclined to nitpick a collection's graphics. Since you brought up Chester as an example, I have one of their guidebooks that misspells countless Latin names. It's irksome but forgivable. However, given that Noah's happily ignores or misrepresents the foundations of modern Biology, I'd have thought they'd at least get straight the facts they agree with. Certainly I'm not above mocking the scientific illiteracy of creationists, and if you can't point out incorrect IUCN statuses on ZooChat, where can you do it? :D
    • Chlidonias
      mm, I was just going off one sign of course, without all the surrounding content - but now that you point it out I guess it should actually be obvious that they couldn't include "invertebrate chordates" with "vertebrate chordates" because that would make no sense at all in terms of Biblical "kinds". So it is sort of like they have to use scientific terms to give "equal scientific merit" but at the same time have to deliberately misrepresent or ignore what the terms actually encompass.


      I have no problem pointing out errors on signs either (although it does seem very nitpicky, even to myself when I do it, especially when it is just to do with font or missed punctuation). Signs are important because they are one of the few physical informational aides in a zoo for most visitors (aside from presentations ... er, are there presentations at Noah's Ark? I dread to think), and really it isn't hard to check spelling and punctuation and facts. I think it's a lot easier to mock a Creationist zoo or a roadside zoo than it is a mainstream zoo like Chester or London, but really I think the latter are the ones which you shouldn't have to mock for poor content on their signage - they should have it right already. (I'm not sure that whole paragraph made sense, or if it even said what I was trying to say, but never mind).

      As an aside there is a thread or two on Zoochat devoted to mocking Creationists, especially with regards to Noah's Ark (the boat, not the zoo), and some Americans got upset because they didn't know the difference between a Creationist and a Christian.
    • Giant Panda
      It absolutely made sense. I think incorrect signage is one of those things that's really annoying, but you can't quite put your finger on why. Even with the lemur example, pretty much everyone who'd want the Latin name to be there would know it was wrong. Having said that, the range of inaccuracies (from minor to major) gives the general impression that they a) don't know, and b) don't care. From a practical standpoint, though, including the Latin (and getting it right!) does make a real difference when visiting foreign language zoos.

      I only saw the elephant presentation at Noah's but, to give them their due, it was pretty good. They demonstrated target training and discussed contact systems, among other topics. Entirely secular.

      Oh, and since we're combining religion with invertebrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sINQtCFGdJA
    There are no comments to display.
  • Category:
    Noah's Ark Zoo Farm
    Uploaded By:
    Giant Panda
    Date:
    22 Sep 2016
    View Count:
    2,032
    Comment Count:
    9

    EXIF Data

    File Size:
    392.9 KB
    Mime Type:
    image/jpeg
    Width:
    1200px
    Height:
    1600px
     

    Note: EXIF data is stored on valid file types when a photo is uploaded. The photo may have been manipulated since upload (rotated, flipped, cropped etc).