Huntster Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 4 minutes ago, Backdoc said: .........For those who see some major government involving in the issue, wouldn't a Freedom of Information Act request result in some level of information? Depends. First, I think such requests should start with county sheriffs. These guys are elected by the citizenry directly. They are not as controlled by city governments, and more importantly, are the first responders in the more rural areas outside of the cities and towns. Secondly, such requests should continue with state fish and game agencies. These are the government biologists closest to the population, and are the primary wildlife management agencies. I wouldn't bother with federal wildlife or land management agencies. I don't believe they can be trusted to hand over any information. This would include the Army (Ft. Lewis). But I might be wrong..............
georgerm Posted 6 hours ago Author Posted 6 hours ago 16 hours ago, Huntster said: Why would that be so? The feds have not been involved in the taxonomic classification of any other animal. I have asked for years who is the guy who decides. Nobody has an answer. I don't. Modern problems with scientific naming: Example – Bigfoot By Sharon A. Hill | November 18, 2024 2 Comments "An article advanced-published on 14 November 2024 in the Journal of Mammalogy calls out the problem with poor naming practices of proposed new species in our internet age. One of the most famous examples of poor practice was that of Melba Ketchum, et al., who not only did a terrible job analyzing DNA from “Bigfoot” but also used a pop-up journal to give Bigfoot another useless name."
Huntster Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 4 minutes ago, georgerm said: Modern problems with scientific naming: Example – Bigfoot By Sharon A. Hill | November 18, 2024 2 Comments "An article advanced-published on 14 November 2024 in the Journal of Mammalogy calls out the problem with poor naming practices of proposed new species in our internet age. One of the most famous examples of poor practice was that of Melba Ketchum, et al., who not only did a terrible job analyzing DNA from “Bigfoot” but also used a pop-up journal to give Bigfoot another useless name." Well, I'm not sure what to think of that reference. "By Sharon A. Hill" If you click on her name, you get: https://sharonahill.com/author/sharona/ Quote About Sharon A. Hill Strange Claims Adjuster and Spooky Geologist On Mastodon at @idoubtit@mstdn.social Her pic is a cartoon character.............like mine on this forum. That isn't an official anything. Frankly, I'm not sure what to think of Taxonomic Science. But it's clear that it isn't controlled by the U.S. government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology) Quote ........The "definition" of a taxon is encapsulated by its description or its diagnosis or by both combined. There are no set rules governing the definition of taxa, but the naming and publication of new taxa is governed by sets of rules.[8] In zoology, the nomenclature for the more commonly used ranks (superfamily to subspecies), is regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature(ICZN Code).[90] In the fields of phycology, mycology, and botany, the naming of taxa is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).[91] The initial description of a taxon involves five main requirements:[92] The taxon must be given a name based on the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet (a binomial for new species, or uninomial for other ranks). The name must be unique (i.e. not a homonym). The description must be based on at least one name-bearing type specimen. It should include statements about appropriate attributes either to describe (define) the taxon or to differentiate it from other taxa (the diagnosis, ICZN Code, Article 13.1.1, ICN, Article 38, which may or may not be based on morphology[93]). Both codes deliberately separate defining the content of a taxon (its circumscription) from defining its name. These first four requirements must be published in a work that is obtainable in numerous identical copies, as a permanent scientific record..........
georgerm Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 4 hours ago, Huntster said: Well, I'm not sure what to think of that reference. "By Sharon A. Hill" If you click on her name, you get: https://sharonahill.com/author/sharona/ Her pic is a cartoon character.............like mine on this forum. That isn't an official anything. Frankly, I'm not sure what to think of Taxonomic Science. But it's clear that it isn't controlled by the U.S. government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology) https://sharonahill.com/modern-problems-with-scientific-naming-example-bigfoot/ Modern problems with scientific naming: Example – Bigfoot By Sharon A. Hill | November 18, 2024 2 Comments An article advanced-published on 14 November 2024 in the Journal of Mammalogy calls out the problem with poor naming practices of proposed new species in our internet age. One of the most famous examples of poor practice was that of Melba Ketchum, et al., who not only did a terrible job analyzing DNA from “Bigfoot” but also used a pop-up journal to give Bigfoot another useless name. The “Perspective” piece by Ruedas, Norris, and Timm, titled “Best practices for the naming of species“, explains that there are set rules to effectively naming new species. Naming is governed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) based on the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturæ published likely in 1758. Linnaeus’s system of nature called a consistent use of two Greek or Latin words to denote genus and species. A person who wishes to designate an organism as a new species must publish the name and description according to the rules in the code of the ICZN. But that frequently does not happen as it should leading to “descriptions that fail to meet standards outlined in the Code” that “can create problems for years afterwards, with any number of unfortunate—and often unforeseen—consequences.” For example, when authors propose new names that fail to meet the standards in the Code, these names are unavailable. They are called “naked names” (singular = nomen nudum; plural = nomina nuda). The description and name is invalid. The real world effect of these errors is that, if we cannot clearly define the organism we are talking about, we can’t effectively study or protect it. Ruedas, et al. goes on to describe what makes a good naming process. Additionally, they note issues with electronic publications, which are more prevalent now than in… uh… 1758. The ICZN Code addresses that. It might be argued, they say, that an HTML version of the description can never be the version of record because it’s impermanent. When you don’t have an actual Bigfoot there is more to the article Edited 1 hour ago by georgerm more detail
norseman Posted 2 minutes ago Admin Posted 2 minutes ago 7 hours ago, NorCalWitness said: Norse, as you've stated, you believe that the government knows about Sasquatch. I agree with you. Given that fact, it stands to reason that they have already proved its existence with a body or two. Do you think this is a logical assumption? Not exactly. You’re putting the cart in front of the horse. Yes, I think they have remains. But they have obviously decided for whatever reason that they will not allow science to prove it’s existence to the public. And it’s not just our field. Check out the Giants community and the Smithsonian for example. People follow up on old reports of bones and it all leads back to the Smithsonian and a brick wall. And of course the Smithsonian is exempt from the Native American graves act. They don’t have to produce a single thing. Look at how long science clung to the Clovis first theory. And any one claiming that their dig was much older than 12,000 years old was a quack. The wrecked peoples careers over it. They were dead wrong. I still haven’t figured out motive yet. Is it just a knee jerk reaction? Is there some hidden history to the new world they don’t want us to know? I simply don’t know. But I do believe the narrative is slowly eroding away. I think people want the truth. I know I do.
Recommended Posts