| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2003 02:53:29 PM · #26 |
*whimper* Drat, I'm in the middle of the city darn it. Maybe I can find a rat...
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 03:07:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by carsten:
I´m a teacher. When we teach our students here in Sweden about fauna and flora we certainly don´t mean humans, pets or garden flowers. So folks let´s try to stick to what this challenges are all about - a little "wildness". |
I find this a really confusing statement - why do you think it has to involved 'wildness' ? The words certainly don't imply it or state it. The flora and fauna in a particular area are the animals and plants that inhabit that area. So, for example in an inner city region the local flora and fauna would quite rightly consist of people, pets and their decorative plants. We are not somehow above or outwith the ecosystem that we inhabit. We don't have some mystical position higher than other animals on the planet that means we aren't considering living things, right there along with apes, birds, cats and dogs.
I realise quite wrongly that this will start treading on religious issues for some people, but humans are just animals like all the other animals on the planet and thus part of the faunula in a particular region.
Message edited by author 2003-04-14 15:10:32. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 03:40:26 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I find this a really confusing statement - why do you think it has to involved 'wildness' ? The words certainly don't imply it or state it. The flora and fauna in a particular area are the animals and plants that inhabit that area. So, for example in an inner city region the local flora and fauna would quite rightly consist of people, pets and their decorative plants. We are not somehow above or outwith the ecosystem that we inhabit. We don't have some mystical position higher than other animals on the planet that means we aren't considering living things, right there along with apes, birds, cats and dogs.
I realise quite wrongly that this will start treading on religious issues for some people, but humans are just animals like all the other animals on the planet and thus part of the faunula in a particular region. |
This is going to cause more confusion than any previous topic I think...while I totally agree with you in that humans shouldn't be separated from any other animals by an sort of scientific classification, biota (flora and fauna) is an ecologists'/naturalists' term, and the science typically makes a conscious effort to separate the native species in an ecosystem/biogeoclimatic region from invasive species like humans who may modify the environment sufficiently as to not resemble the initial ecosystem in any way. If you're talking about the biota in a region, it's typically the flora and fauna adapted to the particular biogeoclimatic zone that you're referring to. It's a sticky thing, to be sure, so as I said before I'm personally going to take it as any plant or animal for the sake of voting, even if it's a real stretch to consider a non-native, domesticated canine 'fauna'.
Message edited by author 2003-04-14 15:45:35. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 03:50:47 PM · #29 |
But surely, by extension, if invasive species modifies the environment sufficently as to not resemble the initial ecosystem in any way, then they have created a new ecosystem with its own particular flora and fauna ?
I realise I am being pedantic about this and I certainly don't think that humans, pets or domestic plants will score well, but they are certainly part of the flora and fauna of the ecosystem that probably 90% of the photographers entering this challenge do happen to inhabit. Every week we get these threads trying to needlessly and incorrectly restrict the challenge meanings, like the thread last week saying that the sun or sunlight wasn't weather - I just don't quite get the point of them.
The most literal interpretation of the 'mainline' commonly accepted meaning of the challenge will always give the best average results. Interpretations that stretch or challenge the viewer while being probably a whole lot more satisfying and also tending to score really highly with those that 'get it' as a fresh and unusual view of the topic, will also tend to score badly with a larger proportion of people who didn't get it or just dismissed it. You can go for artistic license or excellent execution to the populist interpretation, but I know which side I'd bet on doing well on - given equally good photographs. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 03:57:28 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
But surely, by extension, if invasive species modifies the environment sufficently as to not resemble the initial ecosystem in any way, then they have created a new ecosystem with its own particular flora and fauna ?
I realise I am being pedantic about this and I certainly don't think that humans, pets or domestic plants will score well, but they are certainly part of the flora and fauna of the ecosystem that probably 90% of the photographers entering this challenge do happen to inhabit. Every week we get these threads trying to needlessly and incorrectly restrict the challenge meanings, like the thread last week saying that the sun or sunlight wasn't weather - I just don't quite get the point of them.
The most literal interpretation of the 'mainline' commonly accepted meaning of the challenge will always give the best average results. Interpretations that stretch or challenge the viewer while being probably a whole lot more satisfying and also tending to score really highly with those that 'get it' as a fresh and unusual view of the topic, will also tend to score badly with a larger proportion of people who didn't get it or just dismissed it. You can go for artistic license or excellent execution to the populist interpretation, but I know which side I'd bet on doing well on - given equally good photographs. |
As I said before, it's a naturalists term. To define something is inherently human, and we have in turn stratified sciences to deal with the study of built environments. I just thought I'd throw my 2 bits in. I agree that the restriction of challenge topics is unfortunate, but in turn the topics should perhaps be worded more openly. There is a difference between 'fauna' and 'animal' and 'plant' and 'flora' and I think I outlined that above. Maybe they should have been 'plant' and 'animal' challenges ;). |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 04:04:50 PM · #31 |
Well, my understanding of the words "flora and fauna" goes like this: They are commonly used together to represent the indigenous (native)plants and animals of a particular area. The "wildness" is implied in this definition... referring to the undomesticated, non-introduced plants and animals of the region.
I believe the term was most commonly used by explorers and scientists when referring to things other than people. How many times have you heard of an indigenous group of people described as "fauna"? I've never heard of the terms being used in that context... ever.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 04:06:54 PM · #32 |
As a wildlife biologist, flora and fauna are terms used in "wild" non-domestic terms. Unless the animal has escaped and has become established, i.e. a wild dog "Dingo", a Key West chicken, or feral cat. I know their are some wild humans, Manson types, but I don't think they count.
So, I probably will reduce scores on non-wild animals, including humans, unless they are watching a bird or something.
I think zoo animals are fine, since most professional use them and make loads of money off them.
Just my thoughts.
Van
Adapt, migrate or die! |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 04:25:32 PM · #33 |
| Carsten is right, give the flowers a day off |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 04:34:37 PM · #34 |
I must say this: I have nothing against photos of humans, pets or garden flowers. On the contrary. But I don´t think the should be in this week´s challenges. And if they shall - let the world now that DPC people have a new way of looking at the words "fauna" and "flora".
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 04:34:47 PM · #35 |
Hmm, after reading this thread I wonder if flora includes humans :)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 04:45:17 PM · #36 |
Hmm.. I think everyone is too uptight :) Just relax and enjoy whatever photos come out next week :)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 05:04:40 PM · #37 |
.
Message edited by author 2003-04-14 17:05:27. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 06:01:56 PM · #38 |
| A better description probably would help with this week's challenge. Not many people use words as such anymore. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 06:04:05 PM · #39 |
| Don't bash the cats, dogs and kids pics. Afterall, Hallmark is full of all of it and that companies banks mucho dinero. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 06:06:03 PM · #40 |
Images that sprung to mind when i first saw the challenge were of wild animals tbh (well as wild as you can get in the north of England; usually kids on a friday night :) but the differing views expressed here certainly indicates a wide variety of pictures will be seen. It will be a fun challenge and *hopefully* I will find something to shoot.
Good luck to all. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 06:47:20 PM · #41 |
Do Zoo animals count? Because they're not wild :)
I think if there is just a FLOWER/ANIMALS challenge, then it's more clear perhaps.
We're going to get a ton of cat photos.... be prepared.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 07:48:03 PM · #42 |
Hmm....animals on a college campus....lets see, there's squirrels, and more squirrels, and maybe an occasional bird here and there, this one's gonna be tough for me.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 07:52:34 PM · #43 |
People, please leave your houses and apartments and at least try to understand what is meant by flora and fauna. Go out in the woods, not a zoo, and take some pictures of "wild" plants and animals. Thats not too hard to understand. Is it?
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 07:56:04 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Do Zoo animals count? Because they're not wild :)
I think if there is just a FLOWER/ANIMALS challenge, then it's more clear perhaps.
We're going to get a ton of cat photos.... be prepared. |
sure zoo animals do.. fauna is animals, especialy animals from a particular region or period.. so wild or not, they are still animals.. :o)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 08:40:58 PM · #45 |
Now I'm really confused. :D
Just when I think I understand that ideally the subject would be a wild animal indigenous to your area, I see in the same post "zoo animals" are OK. Problem: Zoo animals are not wild, nor indigenous (most of them) to the area they are in. Or maybe "to the area they are in" wasn't part of the meaning. But if it is NOT part of the meaning, then what purpose does saying "indigenous to a certain area" mean? All animals come from somewhere so it has no real meaning.
I think the purpose of the challenge is: Wild (preferably) animals that are indigenous to YOUR specific area (again, prefereably). Right? And same with flowers. I think this is how I'm going to interprete the meaning of the challenges.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 08:51:16 PM · #46 |
| Right, Chris. I think there was a reason why the challenge was worded the way it was. Everyone should do a little bit of research and then make their own interpretation, but flora and fauna doesn't automatically mean any plant or animal. I think the spirit of the challenge was meant to photograph things that are native to the environment in which you live, rather than generic things found in urban areas, such as people, dogs and cats. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 08:57:59 PM · #47 |
Follow up... there's really no wrong picture but some would be better then others if you take the meaning of Fauna litterly.
We'll use a Cheetah for the example: The best picture would be a wild Cheetah curled up with cubs in the middle of the African plains, under a shaddy tree. However most people won't get this shot unless they happen to live in a hut in the middle of the African plains or on a Safari. So the second "best" would be a wild Cheetah in someones backyard in East LA. Although that won't likely happen unless you know someone with a Cheetah as a pet. So the third "best" would be a Cheetah in a Zoo. It's third best because neither wild nor in it's natural habitat.
Same thing would be a wild Eagle. If you could capture a wild Bald Eagle in Wyoming that would be very good most likely! We don't have wild Eagles where I live so I'd have to go to Zoo for this. We'll see, I think this is going to be a very fun challenge! Now I'll just pray for sunny weather this week. :)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 09:07:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Now I'm really confused. :D
Just when I think I understand that ideally the subject would be a wild animal indigenous to your area, I see in the same post "zoo animals" are OK. Problem: Zoo animals are not wild, nor indigenous (most of them) to the area they are in. Or maybe "to the area they are in" wasn't part of the meaning. But if it is NOT part of the meaning, then what purpose does saying "indigenous to a certain area" mean? All animals come from somewhere so it has no real meaning.
I think the purpose of the challenge is: Wild (preferably) animals that are indigenous to YOUR specific area (again, prefereably). Right? And same with flowers. I think this is how I'm going to interprete the meaning of the challenges. |
oh sorry about that chris.. I was just reading the dictionary and saw that it was "animals".... then it said "especially from a specific region or period".. but let us remember also that "especially" does not necessarily suggest anything completly definitive... all it suggests is that the most important or most common fauna are those from a specific region or period... which in turn leaves room for the least common or least important fauna, which in turn could be caged animals or domesticated pets........ :o)
|
|
|
|
04/14/2003 09:31:26 PM · #49 |
| Anachronite, right I totally agree. It's all on how you interpret "Fuana". I never even knew what it meant until yesterday. :D Pretty cool tho, I think it'll be fun. |
|
|
|
04/14/2003 09:32:13 PM · #50 |
How would one know if the animal I photographed was indigenous to my area if no one knew who took the photo and where that person lived?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:48:30 PM EDT.
