#1 - smaller species

#2 - larger species

#3 - larger species

#4 - smaller species

#5 - larger species

#6 - smaller species

I KNOW you aren’t sexist, Loren. You know I’ve been a reader for several years now, and I wouldn’t have stuck around this long if I didn’t constantly find something interesting and thought-provoking on Cryptomundo on a regular basis.

As for “why” women who are interested in Cryptozoology AND are far above average in their physical attributes receive extra attention from the readers of this website - lets be honest for a moment. I work in research, and the majority of my peers (myself included) would not be described as “hot” unless your definition of hot included attributes such as paunchy, pasty white, and unkempt. As one of my female co-workers once said, “They don’t give Nobel prizes for pretty.”

And yes, Loren, I do know that you are both a feminist and a humanist, as I am (although I am more of a humanist in the stricter Renaissance meaning, than the more general modern definition), and I don’t think that you yourself meant any harm in your words. It was a good headline, but it still struck me that if it had been a male PhD who had found the gorgeous new manta, that line would not likely be used.

And here is the deal, Loren, and everyone else, what is interesting about this whole thing is that if Loren was a woman and had posted that same phrase, I don’t know if I would have reacted the same way. I might have–but not necessarily. It is like when Senator Obama called a female reporter “sweetheart,” or “darling,” I don’t remember which, and it at first made me bristle, and then I thought, “But, Barbara, -you- call men and woman you don’t even know “honey,” and “darlin’” all the damned time, both male and female, so what’s the problem here.

The problem is that historically speaking, not that long ago, women were nearly universally dismissed in public life and the professional sector, with condescending terms like “sweetheart,” and were judged primarily on their looks. (Many people mentioned the fact that Eleanore Roosevelt was not what one could call attractive, and many people, men and women both, judged her harshly based on her looks alone, not to mention that she was considered to be “uppity” because she worked for social change.)

That history is still there, in the backs of our heads. Times have changed, and great leaps have been made by women and men both, to create a truly egalitarian society, a culture that we can all truly be proud to have our children grow up in. But we are not quite there yet–there is still sexism, racism and all kinds of isms still left for us to struggle against, both within and without ourselves.

I mostly at this point find it interesting that if Loren had been a woman, it probably wouldn’t have struck me as forcefully. Even knowing that he did not mean any harm in it (and I did–you can’t have read so many books by a writer without knowing something of his character–and I don’t believe that there is an overt sexist bit to Loren’s personality), it still rattled me a bit. And when I realized that I might have used that headline myself in his place–well–what does that say about me as a woman?

I guess it mostly means that until we are truly in an egalitarian society, we all have to be careful with how we use our language in order to convey respect. Especially those who are/were of a privileged class of people. But we also need to cut each other a lot of slack.

All of that said, I wanted to post this hours ago, but I had to go to work, so I apologize, especially to Loren. I never thought that you meant any ill-will or harm in your words–they just tripped me up perhaps, especially because you are definitely not a sexist person.

Mantas have traditionally been assigned to one species (Manta birostris), although there are questions about whether the distinctly marked variant called “Beebe’s manta” should qualify as a species in its own right, and at least two other species (Manta ehrenbergii, Manta raya) have been proposed at various times. Now Dr. Marshall is convinced she has ended this confusion by determining there are at least two species, and there may be three.

As the S.O.S. news release puts it:

“The two species have mainly overlapping distributions, but their lifestyles differ greatly; one is migratory and the other is resident to particular areas along the coast. Other differences between the two species lie in their colour, skin texture, reproductive biology, and the presence of a non-functioning type of sting on the tail of one of the species.”

The commonly known species is the one tending toward (though not exclusively residing in) coastal zones. The migratory animal is larger, and very little is understood about it. SO it sees like this is the one for which she needs to propose a new name.

So here we have, in the 21st century, the discovery of one of the largest fishes on the planet. It can be argued that, when Dr. Marshall publishes her formal paper naming the new species, it will be a reclassification rather than an entirely new discovery, but this does not diminish the impact of her findings.

It’s interesting to note that this episode, with its determination of new species based in part on range and migration, is reminiscent of the debate over whether “resident” and “transient” orcas are members of the same species. In that case, too, there is speculation about a third, poorly understood, population which may qualify as a species. That a huge fish and a huge marine mammal raise similar questions is a thought-provoking hint about how much we still have to learn about the denizens of the sea.