[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
For what it's worth, I think Bakker is an asset to palaeontology. He does
tend to tell media people his latest theories, without these people realising
that they have not been carefully tested. I don't mind this myself, and
overall I doubt that it harms dinosaur palaeontology. However it could be
very dangerous if researchers in some other fields (e.g. medicine) behaved
And Allan said:
> My most recent understanding is that the skull that has been labeled
>Cope's, and made into the type specimen for _H. sapiens sapiens_ is NOT
>Cope's...Essentially, Bakker managed to
>get a generic skull labeled the type specimen for humanity.
Hmmm. I bet Bakker knows whose it really is.
And Dave wrote:
>...Is he really terrified of snakes as was suggested
>in The Lost World? If so, what a wussy. He should have his macho maverick
>rebel-without-a-clue hat taken away.
But Roy Chapman Andrews and Indiana Jones were (non-coincidentally) both
ophidiophobes (if that's the word).
Then Darren hoped:
>Hopefully everyone who is interested in
>dinosaurs is enough interested in other animals, like snakes, to at
>least know the difference between a harmless _Lampropeltis_ and a
>venomous elapid (like _Micrurus_ and _Micruroides_, the coral
I must test this one. You see 3 smallish, almost cylindrical snakes, all
striped red, yellow and black:
A: ...R Y B Y R Y B Y R Y B Y...
B: ...B R Y R B R Y R B R Y R...
C: ...Y B R B Y B R B Y B R B...
Which is dangerously venomous, which is harmless, and which is new to
science? Answers OFF-LIST to me, please. I'll add up correct and incorrect
answers, don't-knows and anyone who disagrees with the question. If I get
more than 2 or 3 replies, I'll reveal the results.
All the best, and don't foget to check your boots for snakes,