Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....Phil Nicholls (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 01 Nov 1995 06:16:24 GMT
email@example.com (H. M. Hubey) graced us with the following
>David Froehlich <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>Why can't youunderstand that savannah indicates an environment
>If you don't like it write to the dictionary publishers.
Dictionaries provide information on word usage more than anything else
Savannah's are not treeless. They are very different from steppes or
>And if that weren't true there'd be no need for "mosaic savannah"
>Is this the best you can do?
Yes, there is. Savannah mosaic refers the transitional zone between
>PS. You can change the meaning of savannah, if you like.
>PPS. It still doesn't change the fact that chimps are forest
Chimpanzees are primarily forest animals. Some of them ALSO venture
>PPPS. Do you remember my earlier posts on 'verbiage'?
>What's really funny is seeing you and Duncan argue against
They are not arguing against the arboreality of chimps. However,
"Habitat: Tropical rain forest, forest savannah mosaic and deciduous
Now I know you mathematicians don't like dealing with actual data, but
Phil Nicholls email@example.com