Env_broad scale examples too specific?

Hey,

aren't the env_broad scale examples from the Human_bioEnv too specific, e.g. "gut wall" and going explicitly against MIxS recommendations for host-associated examples? The general examples in MIXS are also broader (e.g. rangeland biome)

This high specificity also overlaps with the `host_body_site'. Wouldn't users re-use same or similar terms for both fields then? Not that this is not okay, but we couldn't distinguish if the sampled person is from an arid or humid environment for example (in case this makes a difference for skin-associated samples.

More examples that would point in favor of broader terms are:

1. The pre-filled input in the Qiita/Qiime extension for the human host environment package for the colon mucosa sample type (see screenshot below); it's not got but hopefully you understand what I mean:
   
2. our animal-associated examples are quite broad, e.g. we state "aquatic biome" as an example
3. as well as the column help for broad-scale environmental context on the NDMC submission portal (although not human/ animal specific example)

Read Biological_Environmental/Human_BioEnv_Metadata.md, especially the env_broad and host_body_site examples, and compare them with AnimalAssoc_BioEnv_Metadata.md and the linked MIxS recommendations. Done means reaching agreement on appropriately broad human-associated examples and updating the affected documentation consistently.