Posted by:
FR
at Sat Feb 23 11:36:56 2013 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by FR ]
Gregg, its all about context, again, my comments are about the ones around here, in the field. I mentioned that. Of course a Kansas hog is different from a southern Az hog.(only in very small ways) But not so in southern N.M. where it can get a bit confusing. And those differences are so much less. I also started with, I am new to hogs, so please, do not treat me as if I am a expert.
Back to the subject, of course the extremes are somewhat different, but the middle ground is not so much different. Then compare that to all other snakes. They are nearly identical.
My point is, a lay person can pick up a hog in kansas and one in Az and say, they are the same, compared to all other colubrids. Both are not going to be confused with gophers, or kings, or whipsnakes, or watersnakes, they the Kansas and the az hog, are nearly identical to eachother, again compared to all other colubrids. Yet, by S.N.(scientific nomenclature) they are different.
Now, of course they are different, if your an expert, you understand the differences in all manner of locals. And the taxo boys can indeed tell by genetics. Thats true, but S.N.(scientific nomenclature) is not exactly for you or the taxo boys, the experts do taxo for the laymen, not just eachother. What your talking about, is expert to expert. S.N. is to identify a unknown snake by the uneducated, not for the experts, your suppose to already know. Which is the point, S.N. is suppose to be a tool to teach the uneducated, not a tool for experts to converse to eachother. Its losing its utility, its losing its intended use.
In otherwords, in my opinion, they should stick to the bag principle. The last couple of names in S.N., should be able to classify a snake in a bag, not a snake in the lab. They should make field guides of use, not a lab kit. See, I am old fashioned.
Lets see, S.N. is the research and its not meant for a field person to look up 14 papers to explain, a hognose isn't a hognose.
I have to ask, you mentioned dna and other scientific stuff, what would that stuff be?
Again, 99% alike is not accurate, they are more then 99% alike. When compared to other species. Which is what naming is about(context my man) If you look at one single population, there is a huge amount of variation. On our study site, there are four different pattern types. And a huge range of colors. Yet folks here talk of them as one. You know, the hourglass blotches etc. Its about context.
What I ask of you is, Instead of calling me this or that, try posting HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT. That is what a forum is for, instead of calling names, try to educate me.
Let me repeat, this is a forum to discuss methods/opinions. If someone anyone, questions your methods/opinions, any methods any opinions, your suppose to defend your methods showing why your methods are appropriate. But you guys do not defend your methods/opinions, you attack the person asking the question, thats weak.
Keeping methods should always be questioned, as with S.N. which constantly question exsisting names. Science is to question science. Its not to believe in a paper, its to question all papers. So, I get crap because I question, hmmmmmmm again.
How about educating me, instead of name calling.
You saidBy the way, this is a public forum and I can interject my opinion if I fell the need. If you want to talk privately to one person, make a phone call or write an email.
Sir that goes for you and I, And, like other here your only attempting to tell me what to do or how to act here. Sorry Gregg, I am allowed to have a conversation with one person, and yes its open to the public to read, but whats said, IS NOT TO THEM or you. So don't go telling what to do to suit your fancy. Sorry ain't going to happen.
I think, you can talk to a single person, particularly if they have similar interests, which I think we do. read the TOS.
what your failing to observe is, context, when you talk to one person, or respond to one person, there is a context. When you intervein, you took what I said, and attempted to place it in your context, which is WRONG. It was not meant or aimed at you, or others.
All in all, your statement of interveining I think is an excuse to interrupt. Prove to me otherwise. That would be, talk about the animals, teach me, but to call names, weak on your part. best wishes
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: I have seen enough. - FR, Sat Feb 23 11:36:56 2013