[zimpenfish]

If you only wanted "highlight" animals and plants, you could probably get away with a list of 150 (or less - I'm struggling to think of 150 off the top of my head) but they definitely wouldn't be as easily distinguished as the Pokemon.

Found the study - they used 100 common species.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.477...

[randomstudent]

Cool, thanks. That definitely answers my questions. They really should link the study!

The part about distinguishing the animals from one another is still a problem, but I think that if Pokemon were actually real animals kids would distinguish them just fine anyway.

[zimpenfish]

I'd also venture that Pokemon are almost certainly deliberately designed and focus tested to be recognisable and distinguishable because, well, that's how you market stuff and that makes this a bit of a dumb study.

Mother Nature, alas, does not have this luxury.

[lucozade]

> that makes this a bit of a dumb study

Only if you assume no intent on the part of the study's authors. For example, I wonder if they would have had quite a different result if they'd used, say, 14 year olds. Or a mix of ages.

I wasn't overly encouraged that two of their citations were for the Biophilia Hypothesis. An interesting book, for sure, but not exactly rigorous science.

I was left with the definite impression that this study was as much about politics as science. To that end, maybe not dumb just not particularly impartial.

[zimpenfish]

> I was left with the definite impression that this study was as much about politics as science.

I suppose if they were trying to force a conversation about (say) getting children to zoos, it wasn't dumb.

But in the sense of extending the human race's knowledge, it was dumb.