Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ronald Pine's avatar

Did the original article about the numbers of mammal species yet to be named really say that this would include hundreds of kinds of members of the orders Carnivora and Primates? I find it hard to believe that it would say that and would cetainly disagree strongly if it did, especially in the case of the Carnivora. The popular article linked to here doesn't say that. I wanted to see the original scientific publication but didn't want to pay for it, although I still may. There certainly must be quite a few mammal specimens in museum drawers, that, unknown to everyone so far, actually represent unnamed ''new'' species, I've named some of that sort myself, but there are certainly plenty still out there that haven't been collected yet and will be recognized as ''new'' right away or very soon after they're collected. I disagree with the statement that small mammals are necessarily harder to recognize as ''new'' than bigger ones, because of their smallness. We routinely use dissecting microscopes to study the teeth and fine skull features of the small mammals collected and there are often external features that indicate that they are new anyway. And the utility of DNA analyses isn't affected by the size of the animal.

Expand full comment
Guerilla Surgeon's avatar

I once attended a talk by Professor of photography who showed us dozens of "ghost" pictures and a fair few "UFO" pictures. He then explained what caused them. In every case it was some sort of artefact of the camera – either a double exposure, or a reflection, or something tiny and out of focus close to the lens. I hadn't realised so many things could go wrong with taking a picture.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts