The "leopard" in the Dallas Zoo story is a Clouded "leopard," a very different kind of animal than a real Leopard, just like the Snow "Leopard" is a very different kind of animal from the real Leopard, and the "moutain lion," is a very different kind of animal from a real Lion. I was surprised to see "the mammoth" (presumably the "woolly" kind) and the Thylacine referred to here as "existing" animals. It is true that there are those who claim that the Thylacine, at least, still exists but that claim is dubious, to say the least.
I failed to clearly note that the Floe Foxon paper on Bigfoot=bears is NOT peer reviewed. It's a preprint. And it's not worth a real publication, IMO. Neither has this person's previous article about Loch Ness and eels. Again, it tells us zero new information. It feels solely like slap-dash clickbait stuff and it is irritating.
The "leopard" in the Dallas Zoo story is a Clouded "leopard," a very different kind of animal than a real Leopard, just like the Snow "Leopard" is a very different kind of animal from the real Leopard, and the "moutain lion," is a very different kind of animal from a real Lion. I was surprised to see "the mammoth" (presumably the "woolly" kind) and the Thylacine referred to here as "existing" animals. It is true that there are those who claim that the Thylacine, at least, still exists but that claim is dubious, to say the least.
Whoops. "existing" was supposed to read "extinct".
I failed to clearly note that the Floe Foxon paper on Bigfoot=bears is NOT peer reviewed. It's a preprint. And it's not worth a real publication, IMO. Neither has this person's previous article about Loch Ness and eels. Again, it tells us zero new information. It feels solely like slap-dash clickbait stuff and it is irritating.