Re: "New" large terrestrial animal
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Wed, 3 May 95 14:52:00 -0500
Rt> j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) writes:
Rt> >Jo> > New species are discovered all the time, including "large
Rt> >Jo> > terrestrials."
Rt> >
Rt> >Jo> I, among others, would appreciate an example of a "large
Rt> >Jo> terrestrial" discovered in the previous two decades. And please, a
Rt> new
Rt> >Jo> species within an established genus doesn't count.
Rt> >
Rt> > [...]
Rt> >
Rt> >As for such an animal, however, there is the example of the
Rt> >"pseudo-oryx", discovered (or "discovered";-) in SE Asia in 1992.
Rt> >It was of course known to locals, but then what isn't?
Rt> >
Rt> What really bothered me about this part of the thread was the phrase
Rt> "all the time". Define "all the time". An example from 1992 is
Rt> "once in a while", or "occaisionally", but not all the time...
Rt> +---------+ Rich Travsky RTRAVSKY @ UWYO . EDU
Did my saying "first let me say that 'you know who's' statement was
ludicrous" just pass you by? Or when I later said "That statement
would of course be as ludicrous in its own way as the one you were
replying to"? I hope your editing of my post that removed these
statements was inadvertent; I was, I certainly hope, clear in saying
that the statement that new large terrestrial species are being
discovered "all the time" was ludicrous. I even said it twice to make
sure it sunk in. Guess that wasn't explicit enough; here goes:
The statement that new large terrestrial species are being
discovered "all the time" was and is ludicrous.
Now that that's done, allow me to restate ... No, I'll just append the
unedited post to make sure people can see my unedited statements.
If I seem to be over-reacting, I am sorry; I hope you will forgive
me for being annoyed, but your editing of my post made it seem
(to me) that you were claiming that I made a statement that I in fact
said (twice!) was ludicrous.
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
********
Jo> > New species are discovered all the time, including "large
Jo> > terrestrials."
Jo> I, among others, would appreciate an example of a "large
Jo> terrestrial" discovered in the previous two decades. And please, a new
Jo> species within an established genus doesn't count.
Jo> Joe Beaver
First let me say that "you know who's" statement is ludicrous, but,
as I mentioned in a previous reply to this, there is no good reason to
exclude "a new species within an established genus". Nor to exclude
"animals known to locals". Excluding either of those makes it possible
to say that no new large terrestrial species has been discovered for
hundreds of years. That statement would of course be as ludicrous in
its own way as the one you were replying to.
As for such an animal, however, there is the example of the
"pseudo-oryx", discovered (or "discovered";-) in SE Asia in 1992.
It was of course known to locals, but then what isn't?
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
*************
* Q-Blue 1.0 *
|