Comments on: Sasquatch Scientific Names

By: obastide

obastide — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:23:06 +0000

It isnt a Paranthropus, or a Gigantopithecus, not after 500,000 years. I still like Borealopithecus Americanus.

By: Tengu

Tengu — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:35:18 +0000

What did Carl Linnaeus call the wild man of the woods?

Homo silvanus, I think (dont quote me)

Yes, ok, it was a new world creature with many human attributes, and so would be a homo

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:07:31 +0000

So, conceivably, we could find ourselves in a position where a confirmed BF gets the nomenclature of Gigantopithecus blacki, and then subsequent fossil finds establish that there are indeed significant morphological differences between the 2 species, at which point presumably canadensis would be dusted off to differentiate them. Interesting…

If Mokele Mbembe is ever proven to be a living sauropod (Not holding my breath there), maybe we could re-use the now defunct Brontosaurus genus? After all, it’s simply too cool a name not to use somewhere…

By: Sergio

Sergio — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:19:00 +0000

silvereagle - there’s nothing “paranormal” about it, except in your mind. The paranormal claims are absolutely totally ridiculous. By and large (probably 99.9% of them), witnesses describe nothing paranormal or supernatural about their encounters. The paranormal aspects come from the looney bin where you and a few other looney tunes dwell.

For your education, “Paranthropus robustus” does not mean paranormal man. It is described in the primate glossary of the Online Learning Center as “the southern African robust hominid, dated from 2.2 to 1.5 mya. It was marked by robust chewing features, although they were less robust than in either P. aethiopicus or P. boisei. The postcranial skeleton and the brain size remained similar to those of Australopithecus. It is sometimes included in that genus.”

By: silvereagle

silvereagle — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:39:03 +0000

If “Paranthropus robustus” means large paranormal man, I can get behind that handle. Albeit, waaaay behind it and preferably upwind as well.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:51:56 +0000

sschapter,
True, if they are in fact the same species. The first modern coelacanth species was deemed sufficiently different from its fossil relatives to merit a new genus as well as species. The possible sasquatch fossil species did not “disappear” for as long a time - only hundreds of thousands of years - and might indeed be deemed so like fossils that the species can be considered an unbroken line. That might be a gray area in cases like Gigantopithecus fossils, where we have only fossil teeth and jaws to compare with the new specimen.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:10:15 +0000

If we find living examples of animals already named from fossils, wouldn’t they get the name of the already named fossil form?

By: MattBille

MattBille — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:42:40 +0000

We don’t necessarily need a whole sasquatch, dead or alive, but the minimum standard is probably the one used a few years ago for the Bulo Burti shrike from Somalia. Since the researchers who captured it thought the bird so rare that taking a single specimen from the wild might affect the species, they settled for photographs of the captive bird and a blood sample taken for DNA. Then the bird was released. This was accepted.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:12:20 +0000

Some of the above cited zoologists and anthropologists might disagree with Gordon Rutter, as the standards for “type specimens” for zoology vary, evolve, and change. They are definitely different than those for plants, as animal mobility is considered in the “discoveries.”

For example, a specimen taken and then lost may count, and that is what Bernard Heuvelmans felt occurred with his naming of Homo (neanderthalensis) pongoides. If something that appears to look like the Minnesota Iceman is “found,” Heuvelmans has made a good case for his name for it being formally registered first.

In other cases, photography has been used in zoology to achieve the standards for identification of a new species, and thus the Patterson-Gimlin footage, along with DNA from hair samples and fecal material, could apply…if it wasn’t Bigfoot we were talking about.

But as I have mentioned before, due to the overt negative skepticism given to the entire Bigfoot-Sasquatch question, I sense formal zoological/anthropological classification of these unknown hairy hominoids is being held to a much higher standard.

By: gordonrutter

gordonrutter — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:58:28 +0000

Firstly I will admit I am not as familiar with the code for naming animals as I am with the code for naming plants, and I know there are differences. By publishing a name for a new species but by not following the full set of rules - and in this case there is no type specimen - that could make the name invalid and no longer available, so it could be (and I stress the could) that these names are now invalid, it would ultimately fall down to how these things were worded in the appropriate works.

Gordon