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

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
28 Oct 1995 19:34:43 -0400

David Froehlich <eohippus@curly.cc.utexas.edu> writes:

>Why can't youunderstand 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.

If you don't like it write to the dictionary publishers.

And if that weren't true there'd be no need for "mosaic savannah"
would there?

Is this the best you can do?

PS. You can change the meaning of savannah, if you like.

PPS. It still doesn't change the fact that chimps are forest
animals.

fuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

PPPS. Do you remember my earlier posts on 'verbiage'?

What's really funny is seeing you and Duncan argue against
the arboreality of chimps, after arguing about the arboreality
of Lucy because of its foot :-)...

-- 





				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey