Posted by:
vvaarraannuuss
at Sun Apr 25 14:29:35 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by vvaarraannuuss ]
FR wrote: "Academics in this context means, not applied to, aside from, is not used in practice. Applied information is information gained from the actual doing or actual observation of."
I do not know what this has to do with the original discussion of this thread, which, in case you forgot, is the description of a new species of monitor to science. Again, if you actually read the paper describing the species, you will see that the authors actually traveled to Sanana ("doing") and have spent weeks in the field studying and observing the species in the wild ("actual observation of").
So please, if your post is not meant to denigrate the authors of this new species, which I highly suspect it is, explain to us how their discovery and description of this new species does not qualify for, or meet the standards of your seemingly arbitrary definition of "applied information".
FR wrote: "As in, not done in the classroom, but done in a way that produces results. I say that because what folks here on a husbandry forum should be looking at is what is being applied and works. Again, something to think about. Cheers"
What does husbandry have to do with the description of a new species? Where does producing captive "results" fit in with the discovery and naming of a new species?
The original poster of this thread created this post to inform varanid enthusiasts that a really neat and fascinating monitor lizard was just formally described by science. Unlike other participants of this thread who have expressed interest in the actual species, you have decided to attack the scientists who put in the work to discover and describe this species, all the while resorting to the tiresome "should be applicable to, or based on captive results" argument?
That is flat-out crazy.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Also - vvaarraannuuss, Sun Apr 25 14:29:35 2010