World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /  
 

Connection suggestion

 
 
Page  Page 54 of 56:  « Previous  1  ...  53  54  55  56  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#796 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 08:50 | Edited by: Solivagant 
elsslots:
Thanks! I have added the connection, and tied a few more WHS to it.

So - where does that leave us on Invertebrates? Perhaps @Alikander99 could help us as he seems to know about these things!

Of the major (?) Invertebrate Phyla - we now have either in name or in major part
Molluscs - all
Cnideria - We have Corals covered. Jellyfish are currently missed out
Arthropods - Possibly the next one to be worth looking at? Covers - Insects, spiders, centipedes, millipedes and crustaceans including @Alikander99's Amphipods and Ostracods in Baikal - just a shame that the Baikal OUV is so badly described - but they may be in other WHS! I saw examples of more "well known" crustaceans in the Criteria descriptions as I searched for Molluscs so there will be some of those at least. Might be too many of this "large" phylum in which case we could split - but I doubt it.
Nematoda and Annelida - could be looked at together to cover what the "ignorant" simply call "Worms!??
Porifera and Echinodermata - covers Sponges, Star fish etc - can't see them being very common in WHS criteria.!!! Can address it if they are.

Actually it isn't that big a job to find WHS with them -as long as one knows what they are!!. There are 218 sites with Natural criteria and these tend to be mentioned primarily under Crit x - and that is "claimed" by just 161 WHS.

Then we could move on to Amphibians............! Those Smoky Mountain Salmanders need more "recognition"

Author Jurre
Partaker
#797 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 09:01 
Solivagant:
Add to Fish
Talamanca
Crit x "a remarkable 115 species of freshwater fish"

I'm not sure if this should be added? It is similar to the ones I proposed, which were rejected.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#798 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 09:13 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Jurre:
I'm not sure if this should be added? It is similar to the ones I proposed, which were rejected.

I hadn't picked up on that- it is indeed similar to yours in that it "merely" specifies that there is a "large" number of fish species in the WHS.
They could of course all be very common fish - even though the Criterion claims the number in the one place to be "remarkable"!
It is Els's "call". When I came up with the proposed "strict" definition I was trying to exclude sites with statements like that for the Wadden See which states that there are fish there ..... well there would be in the sea wouldn't there!!!
We now have a better idea of how many sites are likely to get for the Connection.... would it be too many if it were extended to cover statements referring to a significant number of *unnamed" species? A judgement call!

Author Jurre
Partaker
#799 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 09:24 
Solivagant:
We now have a better idea of how many sites are likely to get for the Connection.... would it be too many if it were extended to cover statements referring to a significant number of *unnamed" species? A judgement call!

I feel we need to specify the description of the Connection to be really clear about which sites we include and wihich not.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#800 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 09:50 
Jurre:
I feel we need to specify the description of the Connection to be really clear about which sites we include and wihich not.

Then suggest an improvement which doesn't open the floodgates and still helps clarify what is "special" about a particular site in relation to its fishy fauna!

Author Jurre
Partaker
#801 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 11:04 | Edited by: Jurre 
Solivagant:
Then suggest an improvement which doesn't open the floodgates and still helps clarify what is "special" about a particular site in relation to its fishy fauna!

How about this:

1. Excluding the sites having a lot of species:
WHS of which the OUV/Criterion statements include Fish "speciation" or endemism. The OUV/Criterion statements mention high fish endemism and/or talk about (a) specific (important) fish species present in the WHS. This excludes statements that only refer to the presence of a high number of fish species.

2. Including the sites having a lot of species:
WHS of which the OUV/Criterion statements include Fish "speciation" or endemism. The OUV/Criterion statements mention the presence of a high number of different fish species with possible high endemism and/or talk about (a) specific (important) fish species present in the WHS.

Which of the two options has preference?

Author Jurre
Partaker
#802 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 11:10 
Connection: Molluscs

The Sundarbans - Crit x: "43 mollusks species"

Author Jurre
Partaker
#803 | Posted: 20 Nov 2022 12:14 | Edited by: Jurre 
Connection: Famous Bells

Belfries - The St. Rumbold's Tower in Mechelen has several named bells, of which Salvator is the biggest. The bells used to be set in motion by foot by the tower keeper and his helpers to be rung for the celebrations in the cathedral and also in emergency situations such as fire or in time of war. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Connection: Leaning Tower

Belfries - The belfry of Bruges is 83 meters high and leans slightly (87 centimeters towards Wollestraat). In the 13th century, the tower started to lean in a south-easterly direction, perhaps as a result of a filled in watercourse. A westward correction was applied to the elevation of the tower. To prevent further sagging, the corners of the tower were reinforced in 1554 with heavy pillars. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Connection: More than 500 steps to climb

Belfries - There are 515 steps to climb in the northern tower of the Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp. There are more steps leading up, but those are only accessible to staff. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Connection: Napoleon was here

Belfries - Napoleon ascended the St. Rumbold's Tower in Mechelen in 1803. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Connection: Renaissance

Belfries - Antwerp City Hall is a "Renaissance building [that] incorporates both Flemish and Italian influences". (Wikipedia)

Connection: Rococo

Belfries - City Hall of Lier is in the Brabant rococo style. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Connection: Sieges and Battles

Belfries - "Completed in 1565, [Antwerp City Hall] lasted hardly a decade before being burnt to a shell in the Spanish Fury of 1576." (Wikipedia)

Author elsslots
Admin
#804 | Posted: 21 Nov 2022 00:31 | Edited by: elsslots 
Jurre:
Which of the two options has preference?

The first, as we are not looking for enormous lists. Advantage of named species is also that you can go look for them.

Have updated the connection text.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#805 | Posted: 21 Nov 2022 14:50 | Edited by: Jurre 
Qestion about the "Urban fabric" connection. Does the phrase "urban fabric" have to appear in the first part of the description, or can WHS also be included in the connection when the phrase only appears in the OUV? It is not entirely clear to me what is meant by "brief description".

Author Jurre
Partaker
#806 | Posted: 21 Nov 2022 19:38 | Edited by: Jurre 
Connection: Dragon

Belfries - The weather vane on the spire of the Belfry of Ghent is a gilded copper dragon. Symbolically, the dragon protected municipal liberties. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Connection: Sundial

Belfries - The belfry of Aalst has a sundial dating from 1600 on its front. (Dutch Wikipedia)

Author Alikander99
Partaker
#807 | Posted: 23 Nov 2022 15:45 
Question. What do we do with vague descriptions? It is a pity that old entries don't get included into this connection simply because their files look half empty. For example garajonay's entre says: "...and an estimated 40-60% of the invertebrate fauna is endemic"
A quick search Will lead you to see that the canary islands have over 200 endemic species of molluscs. At least 10 in the Genus Hemicycla are endemic to the island of gomera. So...the site does comply with our requirements, but the description doesn't actually say the word "mollusc" once. I would arguee that garajonay's rich invertebrate fauna is one of the things that got It into the list, so It seems fitting that It would be included in the mollusc category.
The idea that lake baikal wouldn't appear in any of these connections doesn't sit right either. Afterall It's description says: "The lake contains an outstanding variety of endemic flora and fauna, which is of exceptional value to evolutionary science"
Once again light research Will show that they mostly mean invertebrates and particularly crustaceans. That IS crustaceans form the backbone of lake baikal's exceptional value to evolutionary sciences, so It seems fitting It would be part of an arthropod connection. I Guess?

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#808 | Posted: 24 Nov 2022 03:15 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Alikander99:
It is a pity that old entries don't get included into this connection simply because their files look half empty........... The idea that lake Baikal wouldn't appear in any of these connections doesn't sit right either

I agree.
As well as providing a bit of harmless "fun", the "purpose" of "Connections" is to highlight significant aspects about WHS and to identify/explore the wide range of subjects which they encompass.
The fact that Garajonay doesn't get into our "Mollusc" Connection and that Baikal doesn't get into that for "Fish" or one (if we had it) for "Arthropods" because their Criteria descriptions don't specify the species is "unfortunate" and, without getting too serious about the matter, "degrades" the value (such as it might be) of those "Connections".

But I am still not sure how to frame objective rules to "allow in" the "worthy" Connections whilst excluding the "unworthy". If we don't "insist" on referencing the (often limited) UNESCO criteria and descriptions and allow in other sources then I suspect that we could find "learned papers" about the Mollusc or Arthropod species present in almost every natural WHS (and there are those of us who would do that 😁!!). Even the current rules allow in WHS where the species list isn't really significant - we all know that Nomination papers "big up" the slightest aspect of a site to make it appear more important than it really is - specifying the number of species present for each of the major Taxa seems to have become the norm for Natural sites and, in many cases doesn't highlight something which is that "significant". E.g The Sundarbans "Crit x 43 Mollusc species". For all I know my local beach has as many!!! There is no particular merit in adding too many examples to a "Connection" if we are grinding too small and losing the "wood for the trees". and even less so if we are, at the same time, missing out significant examples.

I guess there are 2 things we are trying to tease out -
WHS which, for a particular Taxum, have present
a. A particularly large number of species
and/or
b. A significant degree of Endemism

But how much larger than the expected average number of species does "particularly large" have to be and how much "Endemism" is significant - 1 species... 2...3... ?? And how do we (mostly "amateurs" in these fields) even know these things in the first place?

Author Jurre
Partaker
#809 | Posted: 24 Nov 2022 09:41 | Edited by: Jurre 
Solivagant:
But how much larger than the expected average number of species does "particularly large" have to be and how much "Endemism" is significant - 1 species... 2...3... ?? And how do we (mostly "amateurs" in these fields) even know these things in the first place?

As for endemicism, I think one endemic species would already be sufficient, seen as some sites are inscribed/want to be inscribed based on a specific endemic species (thinking of the ringed seals). If it would suffice for one site, it should suffice for all sites.

I maybe would accept more than just the OUV for endemicism. If a reputable source mentions specific endemic species, than I think it should be eligible for the Connection.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#810 | Posted: 26 Nov 2022 05:20 
Connection: Historical Food Remains

Rome - Archaeologists found seeds of fruits such as figs, grapes and melons in the drainage system under the Colosseum in Rome. Traces of olives and nuts were also found. These were probably eaten by the spectators as snacks. (Source)

Page  Page 54 of 56:  « Previous  1  ...  53  54  55  56  Next » 
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Connection suggestion

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑