Re: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)

[Chris Campbell <sankarah@ou.edu>]

Jonathon Woolf wrote:
> 
> Chris Campbell wrote:
> 
> > > since CHRIS posted a list of horned and antlered animals where 2 out of
> > > 5 were sexually dimorphic so that fully half that species had no antlers
> > > whatsoever, I think CHRIS had better check his sources (like who said
> > > what) or wind up looking etc.
> >
> > No, only one was sexually dimorphic.  And I never said they weren't.
> > Elk and moose, FYI, are the same animal.  One's just a European name.  I
> > never said anything that was incorrect; you said that all of these
> > animals lacked horns (or antlers, as the case may be), which is not the
> > case.
> 
> I think you need to find some new sources.  The ones you have are giving you 
> bad
> information.  

No, it's giving good info, I just didn't read the entry on Wapiti
thoroughly enough.

> The animal that North Americans call a moose (_Alces alces_)  is
> indeed a.k.a. an elk in the Old World.  However, there is _also_ an animal 
> called
> the Red Deer or Wapiti (_Cervus elaphus_), which North Americans generally 
> call
> an Elk (note uppercase).  To a North American, a moose is a moose and an elk 
> is
> an elk, and never the twain shall meet.  And both species are dimorphic, with
> only the male having antlers (not horns).

Yes, WMotW confirms this.  Methinks this is a cougar/mountain lion/puma
thing.  American folks call red dear, or wapiti, elk and Europeans call
moose elk.  Which elk is the real elk?  The Europeans did it first, so I
just call Moose elk when I'm dealing with Europeans and call red deer,
uh, red deer.  I can't help it if my fellow Americans like to confuse
things.  :)

Chris