[Babase] Group 99

Susan Alberts babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Tue, 3 May 2005 17:46:13 -0400


>9 is 'unknown'
>10 is 'alone'
>
>99 was used (almost?) exclusively before BABASE, when individual 
>males were getting their own personal number for a while when they 
>were alone.  In the groups table, 99 is indicated 'individual 
>males'.  It would seem that eventually, 99's would go to 10 after we 
>confirmed that this was appropriate.  The other numbers for 
>individual males must have been converted to 10 when BABASE was 
>created as no current entries in census or members has numbers 
>between 13 and 99 (catherine just checked).
>
>In any case, 99 is not appropriate for this situation.  I don't know 
>that we can assume that Mwezi was alone, even if we consider a mom 
>w/i alone.
>
>jeanne and catherine
>

I agree that we should abandon 99. I just re-checked all my original 
males files and confirmed that I never used 99, only 9, and I always 
assigned a male zero for alone - in my database, there was only a 
single integer value allowed for wherever the male was. So if it was 
used before babase it must have come from somewhere other than my 
files. And given that none of us remembers or quite understands it, 
we should jettison it.

Susan
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Alberts, Associate Professor 
Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC 27708 
phone 919-660-7272  fax 919-660-7293