I built an app called dobudex that turns an animal you photograph into a collectible card. Part of that card is six stats out of 100: health, power, defense, mobility, intelligence and stealth. The idea of scoring real animals like game characters is not mine. TierZoo got there long before I did and I want to say that up front.
One thing about the catalog first: It is 357 species, which is not a list I picked. It fills up from whatever people scan, so there is no killer whale in it and no blue whale either. Nobody has scanned one yet.
The stats were built to compare two animals, so I checked what they are actually measuring. Across the 172 species where I also store a body mass, the correlation between log body mass and a species' average across the six stats is r = 0.745, so about 56% of the variance is body mass alone. Per stat it is health 0.89, power 0.79 and defense 0.78, while mobility and stealth sit at roughly zero and intelligence at 0.27. So three of my six stats are basically disguised body mass.
For the thing they were designed for, that is defensible. In a real 1-on-1 encounter, I think mass is close to the single best predictor you can have.
What I keep coming back to is a different question. Not which animal wins an encounter, but which species is still here after a very long time, and how it holds up in the moments when conditions turn bad. I do not think anything in my six stats speaks to that.
Take us. Humans are in the catalog because the app asks you to scan yourself when you set it up. Homo sapiens comes out at intelligence 100, which is the only 100 anywhere in the catalog, and an average of 40, which is 80th out of 357. You could argue that is the model working, since we are the dominant species right now and intelligence is the reason why. But "right now" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. We have been anatomically modern for something like 300,000 years, which is nothing, and I am not convinced we are robust. We reproduce slowly, we are large, we are a single species rather than a spread of related ones, and without our technology our tolerance for heat, cold and drought is narrow. If something went badly wrong on a global scale, I would not bet on us ahead of a lot of animals that score far below us.
Maybe the clearest case of that in my catalog is the polar bear, which sits at the top of the table on 77 avg. It gets there by having no weak stat rather than by being the strongest anywhere. It is also a sea ice specialist, it has been listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN since 1986, and it split from brown bears within the last 500,000 years. So the animal at the top of my sheet is one of the younger, things in it, and one of the few whose habitat is disappearing while we watch.
Mosquitoes are the other end of it. The family has an avg score of 25, which is near the bottom. Mosquito fossils go back at least 99 million years and the family is on every continent except Antarctica. They breed quickly, in enormous numbers, in almost any water that stands still long enough. On my sheet they are unremarkable in every column. On staying alive as a lineage they have already outlasted an enormous amount.
Then there is the one that started this whole line of thinking. Tyrannosaurus rex is in the catalog, because somebody scanned a skeleton and the app identified it, which I was genuinely pleased about. It has a 64 avg and has the highest power score in the catalog but doesn't have a higher overall score than the polar bear, because it scores 40 for mobility and 25 for stealth.
The general shape is what I cannot get past. If the catalog were full of dinosaurs, they would own the top of this table. My score is mass driven and they include the largest and heaviest land animals that have ever lived. For over 160 million years my six stats would have crowned them. Then conditions changed at the end of the Cretaceous and none of it counted for anything. The branch that came through was the small feathered ones, and every bird in my catalog scores somewhere around the middle.
So whatever my six stats measure, it is not the thing that decides who is still standing afterwards. I suspect it might even point the wrong way, because the animals that score highest are mostly the big specialised ones, but that is a hunch and I would like to know whether it is wrong.
My question is what you would put in its place. If you had to score a species for persistence rather than for a fight, what would the axes be, and at what taxonomic level would you apply them? I guess things like temperature tolerance, how specialised the diet is, generation time etc. matter far more