[Babase] Re: Ositeti groups vs subgroups

Karl O. Pinc kop at meme.com
Fri Feb 5 10:56:35 EST 2010


On 02/05/2010 08:49:29 AM, Niki Learn wrote:
> A recap and a new approach to the third "group":
> 
>  
> 
> Everyone seems to agree that Jill's group and Latin's are distinct,
> fully
> fissioned groups that we should call 6.1 and 6.2.  I need to pick a
> date for
> these groups to start and 6.0 to end, right?

Yes.  FWIW, neither the start date of 6.1 or 6.2 group needs to
be the same date as the end date of the 6.0 group.

There are 3 dates, start, end, and permanent. The latter is the
date the group stopped being a subgroup.  The only rules are
you can't be in a group before the start or after the end date and
you can only be in one group on any given date.  Note however
that if you're in a subgroup, on a date before the 'permanent
date', you're also automatically considered to be in the
supergroup. (This can be queried using the supergroup() function,
which returns the supergroup if there is one on that date and
the group itself otherwise.)

>  The group was last seen
> all
> together on 24 Jan 2009 and were back in the smaller groups in early
> Feb.  I
> would propose using 1 Feb 2009 as the start date for Jill's and
> Latin's
> groups.  That's when I'll start 6.9, "an unidentified Ositeti group"
> too.
> 
>  
> 
> Karl's objection to using the negative numbers and Lacey's point 
> about
> Kernel's group seeming to be a subgroup of Jill's group kept running
> through
> my head.  As far as we can tell the main part of Jill's group and the
> part
> with Kernel in it are still mingling.  I kept thinking about this as 
> I
> was
> going home yesterday and realized that with the study groups such a
> subgroup
> would just be listed as part of the main group and then it would get 
> a
> subgroup note.  (Which also made me realize that I'll need to remove
> some
> subgroup notes on Jill and Latin from the subgroups file since we are
> calling them real groups now.  I guess someday we have to talk about
> how to
> integrate the subgroup notes into babase.)  When the team finds both
> subgroups of a study group in the field they mark them all present on
> the
> census and just note which baboons are in one of the groups.  So I am
> proposing we mark Kernel and anyone with him as part of Jill's group
> on the
> census (through demog notes), noting that there are two subgroups. 
> This
> would also apply to any subgroup sightings prior to Feb 2009 for
> Jill's and
> Latin's groups when they were still officially part of Ositeti.  And
> we
> could save the negative numbers for those old splits!  

This should also moot the subgroup notes too, right?  The
individuals are put into CENSUS in their subgroup so there's no
longer a need for a note that says who's in what subgroup.
Right?

Karl <kop at meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                 -- Robert A. Heinlein




More information about the Babase mailing list