Organizational Announcement From The Tbrc

[slabdog]

Poor choice of words on my part...

"They are using different terminology"

[1980squatch]

I find the change from Texas to North American to be of more interest ... Bipto, care to expand on that?

[Guest]

My best guess would bet the fact that a bunch of the members aren't from Texas. Bipto lives up north, some of the guys are from Oklahoma, etc.

[Guest Silent Sam]

It is not as simple as this.

My question was directed to Bipto since this was his and his associate's classification.

It was a joke. There was this song. Never mind....

Bottom line is it's an ape.

[Guest DWA]

Correct, I think the premise is, a non-ape primate could evolve to look like an ape, or look like a hominid, and be neither, according to OHZoologist's premise of convergent evolution, if I understand it correctly.

http://www.scienceda...t_evolution.htm

Right. It does not have to be an ape, or a human. It could wind up in its own place on the primate tree. (Presuming, yeah, that it's a primate.) Bottom line is, without a specimen we won't know. But based on current evidence, "ape" is a decent educated guess. Edited March 17, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

They didn't concoct it (nor did they claim to have concocted it).

http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/mjm/whatrtha.asp

Correct! I was suprised and pleased to see the term had been used as far back as the sixties (though on my phone, I can't find the citation of that). We feel its a far better descriptor of the animal than the vernacular term "bigfoot."

I find the change from Texas to North American to be of more interest ... Bipto, care to expand on that?

Not at this time. Suffice it to say we're not planning any imminent expansion of our research area. In fact, the pervious name was actually pretty misleading since we have operated in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas and our primary research area is well known to be in Oklahoma.

Cool. Though the Texas Bigfoot merchandise was especially appealing to me, this decision makes sense.

If it makes you feel any better, the conference will remain the Texas Bigfoot Conference and all the associated merchandise will be branded as such.

Edited March 17, 2013 by bipto

[Guest]

Bipto- as to your statement of needing a type specimen to get a species classification is an out dated statement. please look at John Bingernails statements addressing that assumption. Nowadays complete DNa studies allow the scientists to come to definate conclutions as to morpholgy without a type specimen. I am only going on what I have read and certainly invite some of the genetists members to confirm tis information or not that a type specimen is nessesary or not. Aside from not knowing to the extent of what exactly your (TWAC) are shooting, being it certainly could be a close HSS, wouldn't the prudent approach be to

wait and see the results of the samples you sent to Sykes for evaluation? Agian I invite some of our genetists to address the issue of needing a type specimen or not to say there is enough data after a complete DNA study to classify.

[Guest]

My best guess would bet the fact that a bunch of the members aren't from Texas. Bipto lives up north, some of the guys are from Oklahoma, etc.

Sure, that too. We have members from all over the country now, though they're primarily from the original four state region.

[norseman]

Bipto- as to your statement of needing a type specimen to get a species classification is an out dated statement. please look at John Bingernails statements addressing that assumption. Nowadays complete DNa studies allow the scientists to come to definate conclutions as to morpholgy without a type specimen. I am only going on what I have read and certainly invite some of the genetists members to confirm tis information or not that a type specimen is nessesary or not. Aside from not knowing to the extent of what exactly your (TWAC) are shooting, being it certainly could be a close HSS, wouldn't the prudent approach be to

wait and see the results of the samples you sent to Sykes for evaluation? Agian I invite some of our genetists to address the issue of needing a type specimen or not to say there is enough data after a complete DNA study to classify.

go in and watch my david paulides video in the video section. the hair on these creatures doesnt have a medula like we have its intermitent making it hard to extract good dna.

we have waited a very long time for answers that are still yet not forthcoming to the detriment of the species in my opinion.

if an opportunity presents itself it should be taken with no regrets i feel, this is the surefire expediant approach to classification.

[Guest]

It was Bipto who said "we have adopted the term "wood ape" as a name for the animal because that's what all our observations and experiences tell us it is." And I have seen him say this several times in the other thread in the parts that I have read. However I have never seen him qualify this statement and that is what I want to know. To me, as a systemist, I see nothing in BF that reminds me of an ape. I would like to know what evidence there is that this is a Hominidae. To my knowledge the only way to do this decisively is by DNA hybridization and we have seen how that goes. There are other ways by comparative anatomy. That is what I am looking for from Bipto. Or maybe some other means in their physiology such as do females go through a menstrual cycle or an estrous cycle? The reason I am bringing this up is because unless we know for sure that BF is a Hominidae, then the common name "Wood Ape" may be even more ambiguous than Bigfoot because at least we know they have big feet. In fact, there is some evidence that they are not Hominidae

[Guest]

Nowadays complete DNa studies allow the scientists to come to definate conclutions as to morpholgy without a type specimen.

This is a really valid discussion to have but this is not the thread for it, I think, since our position on how the animal can be established is not germane to our name change decision.

All I'll say on the matter here is, yes, there are likely other ways, but every method has its own complications and pitfalls. At this time, the most efficient way of establishing them is a type specimen. If someone want to start another thread on the matter and point me to it, I'd be happy to expound there.

[Guest]

OHZ, if we reach a time when the DNA and anatomy of the animal can be conclusively analyzed and the term "ape" shown incorrect, we'll happily adopt whatever new term makes sense. However, these animals do a lot of the same things apes do. Therefore, based on our direct observations, we are very comfortable hypothesizing them to be apes.

Even if we find that they *aren't* apes and are instead some novel primate, we feel strongly that right now "bigfoot" is a poisoned word, at least insofar as our work is concerned.

[Guest]

Bipto- OK , but you say in post #4 on this thread that a type specimen is standard practice. You raised the issue so you( or more relitive your organization) adheres to that (outdated) practice; and why? The name change doesn't doesn't detract from the M.O.

thank you OHZoologist for your clearity and what about a complete DNA study? would that be enough data to proceed with classification?

[Guest]

Bipto- OK , but you say in post #4 on this thread that a type specimen is standard practice. You raised the issue so you( or more relitive your organization) adheres to that (outdated) practice; and why? The name change doesn't doesn't detract from the M.O.

thank you OHZoologist for your clearity and what about a complete DNA study? would that be enough data to proceed with classification?

You can't use DNA alone to describe a new species, you must have a type specimen. Preferably two, a Holotype and an Allotype

Edited March 17, 2013 by OHZoologist

[Guest]

Bipto- OK , but you say in post #4 on this thread that a type specimen is standard practice. You raised the issue ...

I was replying to something someone else said, I did not "raise the issue." I also said this wasn't the thread for that debate.