(no subject)

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!