How FaunaHub uses sources
Behind each animal page is a repeatable workflow: gather authoritative sources, word claims cautiously, verify image licenses, and run duplicate and safety checks before publishing. This page describes that process so readers can see how the site is put together.
Multiple sources per profile
A profile is built on more than one reference where possible, drawing on a set of 22 institution-backed source families described across this cluster — peer-edited species accounts, taxonomy databases, conservation assessments, and government or museum resources. Using several reduces the chance that one out-of-date page shapes the whole summary.
Source-backed, cautiously worded
Taxonomy, range, and conservation status are taken from named sources and worded carefully: ranges are “found in parts of” rather than exhaustive, statuses are “assessed by the IUCN as” rather than permanent, and group-level claims carry caveats. The aim is to be accurate about uncertainty, not to sound more definitive than the evidence allows.
License-checked images
Every image is checked against the image-licensing rules before use: a permitted license, a preserved author and attribution, an optimised local WebP copy, and an honest caption that discloses captive or specimen contexts. Images that fail any of these are not used.
Duplicate route and record checks
Before a new page is added, FaunaHub checks that it does not duplicate an existing route or represent the same species as an existing page under a different name — a check driven by the scientific name, as the taxonomy guide describes. Continent and category records are de-duplicated against the current data set, not just against whether a page exists.
Safety-claim checks
Pages that touch venomous or toxic animals, dangerous wildlife, or sensitive topics are reviewed so they stay calm and educational: no sensational “deadliest” framing, no invented potency or attack statistics, and no medical, first-aid, handling, or pest-control instructions. Such concerns are routed to qualified professionals or official authorities, as set out in the care-boundaries guide.
How future pages should be verified
The same steps apply going forward: gather and cite credible sources, word claims cautiously, verify image licenses, run duplicate and safety checks, confirm schema and accessibility, and build before publishing. The coverage roadmap tracks what is planned, honestly labelled as representative rather than complete.
Limitations and update risk
Even with this process, FaunaHub is a secondary educational summary, not a primary database. Sources change, some species are thinly documented, and any page can fall out of date. Readers should treat FaunaHub as a starting point and confirm anything important against the current page of the underlying source.
Frequently asked questions
- How many sources does a FaunaHub profile use?
- Profiles are built on more than one authoritative reference where possible — typically at least three credible, institution-backed sources covering taxonomy, ecology, and conservation, so no single page is the only basis for a claim.
- How does FaunaHub keep facts honest as sources change?
- By wording claims cautiously and attributing them. Taxonomy, range, and conservation status are described as current best answers from a named source, with language that invites checking the source's current page rather than treating a fact as permanent.
- How are new pages checked before publishing?
- Each batch goes through automated and review steps: source checks, image-license verification, duplicate-route and duplicate-record scans, safety-claim review, schema and accessibility checks, and a build. Issues are fixed before anything is published.
Last updated: