Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....

H. M. Hubey (
29 Oct 1995 14:19:33 -0500

David Froehlich <> writes:

>On 28 Oct 1995, H. M. Hubey wrote:

>> >Why can't you understand that savannah indicates an environment
>> >intermediate between EF and G. If you continue to use savannah as an
>> >equivalent statement for grassland
>> Savannah=grassland=steppe.

>Where is it written that whatever you believe is fact? You may equate
>S=G=Steppe but I don't. In fact, Grassland does not equal steppe.
>Steppe is a habitat that only occurs in mid to northern latitudes (colder
>climates, more c3 grasses.

Your memory seems to suffer too. I already know that in some
fields the big trick is to make up Latin names for everything
to confuse those who are familiar with the territory into
thinking that there's something very important and scientific
going on.

In other fields the confusion is of a slightly different kind.
They use the same English words that are in use for very
specific things so that although the reader thinks that he's
understanding everything, he doesn't. For example words like
matrix, momentum, inertia obviously mean very specific things
to those in physics and math.

Now you are claiming that 'savannah' is of the same kind.

If it is, then what is this "mosaic savannah" business? Plainly,
it was made up exactly because savannah means grassland and
the 'mosaic' was added to be able to add whatever other components
i.e. woods, water holes, etc need to be added.

So it is after all, for nothing that arguments like this continue.

That's what I said; verbiage.

I asked for numbers, and I didn't even invent it. See CEHE for
various kinds of ground cover.

If you want to avoid verbiage fights (and I do) make sure
you give clearer descriptions (i.e. precision is needed)next time.

Be good boy. We'd never had to go through this if you had
paid attention the first time. And you would have paid attention
if you had not had such an exaggarated sense of self importance.


Regards, Mark