Hi Whomever you are,

Here's the deal, something was said, I then said my piece. Then you attack me. Good on you. Jobi was right, some things never change.



If you knew how to read, you would have noticed, my post is something to think about. To think about, to consider, to ponder. That is something that is very educational to do. I did not say, to believe, to take as 100% hard fact. I said To consider.



The problem appears, you and some others may not have ability to think and form your own views. You seem to want to read something and either believe it or discount it. To believe someone elses stuff(academic again)Sir, that is your problem and thank god not mine.



You lost your direction when you ended with the statement about the "discovery" of a new species. The error is, as you mentioned, its the description of a new species, not the discovery. As you pointed out, the locals already named it. Which I believe is my point.



I do have an important question for you. What makes it more important, the locals who named it, or the recent renaming of it by current science? What I find funny is, our science will in all probability rename it time and time again, yet the locals will still know the animal by their useful name. Or what good will science naming it a new species, be to the animal. Will it help the animal in any way, other then bringing more attention to collectors, poachers, prod and pokers???? Will science renaming it, help the animal in any way? Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]