(no subject)

[urbpan]

Among my interests is the semi-scientific pursuit of cryptozoology--the study of unknown animals. Many new animals are discovered every year, mostly small ones, but most cryptozoology fans hold out for a few big ones. We want to know just what lives in those big lakes, that have been scaring people (and attracting tourists) for years. We want to know if there are big cats in places that aren't supposed to have them, and what exactly a Chupacabra is. The most compelling questions have to do with unknown primates, particularly those that leave large footprints in places like the Pacific Northwest.

Unfortunately, cryptozoology is overpopulated by hoaxters, charlatans, Creationists and pseudoscientists of all kinds. I used to frequent cryptozoology.com (and met rwblackbird there) until I got tired of the same circular discussions and arguments. On the cryptozoology community, there was an an article about the Florida bigfoot (skunk ape). http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/southwest/orl-swswampape0405sep04,0,5355887.story

It included this outrageous (to me) quote, from "Scott Marlowe, a founder of the Pangea Institute in Winter Haven and instructor of an online class in cryptozoology": "Of all the species on earth, man is presumed to be the only one that has one example of its genus -- the only genus that has only one species still alive. All other species have more than one."

First of all, assuming this is true (it's not), so what? Taxonomy is capricious and artificial. If we were the only species that has one example of its genus, it would be meaningless. But suppose it does matter (it doesn't), IT'S NOT TRUE. When I first read it, I thought "Gingko." Not only the only species in its genus, but the only species in its family (and I don't know my botony, but I think it goes all the way up to order, or possibly higher.) But suppose Marlowe meant animal species (he didn't say he did, but let's grant him that). In about 5 minutes I came up with ten animal species alone in their genera. (If you've read to this point, I may as well list them: Ostrich Struthio camelus (ostrich), Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae, Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus , Aardvark Orycteropus afer , Silky Anteater Proteles cristatus, giant anteater Myrmecophaga tridactyla , alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii , hoatzin Opisthocomus hoazin , gelada
Theropithecus gelada ) I'm sure if someone wanted to devote a couple hours to this project you could come up with a couple hundred.

But as I said, it doesn't matter. It just bugs me to see such a flagrant falsehood trotted out like its a fact--a falsehood that would be meaningless even if it were true--by someone claiming to be an expert. Another blow to the respectability of the sasquatch and nessie hunters.


EDIT: I wrote a letter to the author of the article. It's my second email complaining about scientific inaccuracy in a news story in as many weeks (Fox News did a bit on fall allergies, talking about ragweed but showing pictures of goldenrod). I'm turning into Grampa Simpson!

Comments

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

There are a number of insect species that are the only ones in their genus. Hell, the new order Mantophasmatodea has several species that are the sole members of a family.

There are seven species assigned to the Homo genus: habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster, erectus, heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, and sapiens . Just because six of them have gone extinct doesn't make them any less valid (from a zoological standpoint).

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

I like that second point a lot. Thanks for that.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

i'm pretty sure it's the only one up to its class, possibly higher.

i love how the guy thinks it means something! humans are so funny.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_bazilisk_/]

Another blow to cryptozoologists, huh? They can barely take it. I also love cryptozoology, but it's annoying how closeminded the detractors- and occasionaly the supporters- are. Sigh.

[aspenparkland.livejournal.com]

Having only one species in a genus, family, etc. is common enough that there's a word for it - monotypic.

As for human being the only member of thier genus, it's because we killed off the rest of them.

Neanderthals went extinct about 32 000 years ago, Home erectus between 20 - 25 000 year ago, and an unnamed species from Sardinia less than 8 000 years ago. The Hobbit's were wiped out by a volcano about 12 000 years ago.

[momomom.livejournal.com]

Oh that ragweed/goldenrod thing bugs me too. Also lactose intolerance vs. milk protein intolerances ... I see this mixed up even from doctors, it amazes me.

Genus Comment

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, I was somewhat misquoted -- but that's life in the world of mass media.

What I said was that "I find it odd that we are the only living example of the genus 'Homo' when in almost all other instances in the animal kingdom there are more than one species in a given genus."

Scott Marlowe

Re: Genus Comment

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Thanks for stopping by, Scott, I appreciate it.

I'm sorry you were misquoted, it must be frustrating. Hopefully you can understand my reaction to the quote as it appeared.

It is odd that we are the only living example of the genus Homo, but we have done a very efficient job of eliminating the other species in our family and order, never mind genus. I'd love to think that there are relict Homo florensis in Southeast Asia, but I think the trail in Florida will end in crazy people and black bears. Good luck, I hope I'm wrong.