Source 1

Mason, Kenneth A. Losos, Jonathan B. Duncan, Tod. Biology. 13th ed. New York: McGraw Hill,
2023. Print.

Relevancy: This book is the basis of my knowledge on Kingdom Animalia. My topic is all about
the animal kingdom, and the first place I learned about it was in my biology class, and the
information came straight out of this book.

Accuracy: I believe it is as accurate as it can be. Science is never the same, because they are
always discovering new things, but since this particular book is a 2023 edition, I don’t think it
can get more accurate.

Currency: Again, it is a 2023 edition, so this is as current as I can get, other than new stuff that
has just come out within the last few weeks.

Authority: Mason, Losos, and Duncan have quite a bit of authority. With textbooks they take the
old editions, and just update them. So a lot of the information has been published multiple times
already, and has gone through numerous publishers, writers, and scientists.

Purpose: The purpose of this book is for students to use. It was required for my biology class,
and I got it from the ESU bookstore.

Rating: I won’t pretend like I read the entire thing like a real reading book, but I would rate this
a 5/5. I like to go back to the book after some lectures to get a better understanding of the topic
we discussed, and to resolve any confusion I might have, or to learn even more in depth. I think
it is very easy to read, some textbooks are just a pain. Like huge paragraph after paragraph,
which makes it harder to learn. This one has a lot of picture examples, and gives such a good
visual. It is also just written very well, and makes the stuff I need to learn easy to understand.

Source 2

Myers, P. 2001. "Animalia" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed March 06, 2023 at
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Animalia/.

Relevancy: Considering this article is older than me, it doesn’t have much relevancy, but the
information in it isn’t anything that will ever change. It’s just facts that were proven, and are still
taught today.
Accuracy: It is very accurate. Again, it is mostly just the basic principles of how the animal
kingdom works, the same stuff still being taught.

Currency: It might be a little outdated, I’m not sure if the number of species has gone up at all.
Nine to ten million seems a little low, and it has been twenty two years.

Authority: I believe Phil Myers is qualified to be writing about this. It says he works in the
museum of zoology, and he went to the University of Michigan Ann-Arbor, I guess that means
he got a degree in zoology. Though I’m assuming he wasn’t a doctor at the time, that feels more
authoritative to me, but a degree still proves his authority nonetheless.

Purpose: I can tell he had one singular purpose with this, and that was to give the most absolute
basic, foundational information in the world. He could have gone more in depth, but it was to
really tell you what kingdom animalia is, what makes up the species in the kingdom, and a few
stats to really make you believe he knows what he’s talking about.

Rating: The more I evaluated, the more I started to dislike it honestly. At first I read it and
thought “ok yeah this is pretty decent,” but then I analyzed it and it was just bad. I feel as if there
is hardly any information at all, and if I didn’t already have a good understanding of it, I
would’ve been sooo confused. It also just feels kind of cheap and lazy. 2/5

Source 3

Ritchie, Hannah. “How Many Species are There?” Our World in Data, 30 November 2022.
Accessed 6 March 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-species-are-there.

Relevancy: This was published less than a year ago, so it still has a lot of relevancy. It doesn’t
have as much relevance to my topic specifically, but I was curious to see if the information I was
questioning in the previous source was actually true or not. So one thing leads to another, but
there are definitely things in this article that can be used for just kingdom animalia.

Accuracy: I believe it is pretty accurate, it has a lot of charts, and other sources.

Currency: It was published in November of 2022, so it is still super current. Most information
from 2022 is probably still being used since we are only at the beginning of the year.

Authority: I’m not sure how much authority the author has, but they have seven sources listed at
the end, so I think that proves the authority.
Purpose: The main purpose was to dive into how many species there are in the world. There are
two ways to do that. Either calculate how many we know there are, and have been named, or
how many there are entirely.

Rating: I would rate this a 5/5. It went a little off topic of my real topic, but I just had to know
how many species there really are. This one says that there are 2.13 million we have described,
but as a whole, there are estimated to be somewhere from 5 to 10 million. So I guess Kenneth
Mason wasn’t too far off.

Source 4

Lynn Margulis, Kingdom animalia: The zoological malaise from a microbial perspective,
American Zoologist, Volume 30, Issue 4, November 1990. Accessed 6 March 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/30.4.861.

Relevancy: I think this one has a lot of relevancy to my topic, it also talks about botany, and how
plants play a big part in the lives of animals. Which I like because my major is botany.

Accuracy: I think it is very accurate. It has all of the things I’ve been learning so far, which is
good because this one is very old. But when I sorted the articles by relevance, it was one of the
first ones, so I assumed it had to be good if it was still being used frequently.

Currency: Again this is much older than the other sources I found, it’ll be 33 years old this year.

Authority: It says the author worked in the department of botany at University of

Massachusetts, and the botany professor at our school is the most amazing person I’ve ever met,
so I’ll just assume that they are all a similar type of person. Just by reading this I can tell the
level of knowledge and understanding they have, and that it is very high.

Purpose: I think the purpose is to explain the animal kingdom from the very beginning, and to
people that have no other prior knowledge. I haven’t read the entire thing, but I think I’ll take the
time to at some point. There is so much information that I haven’t been taught, and I think it
could really benefit me.

Rating: I rate this a 5/5. It’s probably my favorite source I have.

Source 5
Nikoh, Naruo, et al. "Phylogenetic relationship of the kingdoms Animalia, Plantae, and Fungi,
inferred from 23 different protein species." Molecular biology and evolution 11.5 (1994):
762-768.

Relevancy: This one is less of an informant style, like the others so far. It is mostly just a study.
And studies are always relevant, they are really helpful for understanding how we got to where
we are now in science, and for people who are conducting similar studies to have something to
refer to.

Accuracy: I looked into the study and tried to understand it, I think it might be past my level of
expertise currently, so I can’t judge exactly how accurate it is, but I trust that it is.

Currency: More current than the previous source, but honestly works like this one never really
become uncurrent. We still use studies and tests that were conducted when science was first
becoming a thing.

Authority: This has a lot of authority. There are five contributors, and they are in the department
of biophysics, and the faculty of science from Kyoto University.

Purpose: The purpose was most likely for them to conduct research, and publish it for a part of
their career, and it was also one of the most relevant along with the previous article. That makes
me assume people are still reading, and using it today.

Rating: This wasn’t the best one. It was pretty much just a study, and stats. Though I’m sure it is
more useful to other people that need it more than I do. I”ll give it a 2.5/5.

Source 6

Tustin, Jimberlake (amphetamemeee). “Fun fact: the capybara, on top of being the largest rodent,
is the most likely of all of kingdom animalia to pull up and hop out at the after party.” 20
February 2023, 7:42 AM. Tweet.

Relevancy: This one needs a lot of context, it was posted with a picture of a capybara wearing
sunglasses and a lei. That is extremely relevant though, just trust me.

Accuracy: Capybaras are in fact the largest rodent in the animal kingdom, so 100% accurate.

Currency: It was posted less than a month ago, so still current, though it wasn’t a very popular
tweet, it only has 5 likes, and 434 views.
Authority: I truly doubt this user has any authority over anything science related, its’s more of
a satire account, hence the name.

Purpose: The purpose was to show off a cool picture of a capybara, while also throwing in a
little fun fact, and because of that, now everyone who has seen it will remember that they
are the largest rodent.

Rating: Obviously I’d rate it a 5/5. Social media is hard to find things that actually pertain to a
certain topic, but this one made me laugh a little, so I figured I’d put it in.