tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post1988375936470759175..comments2023-07-15T05:32:20.508-07:00Comments on Frontiers of Zoology: Booger BearsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-45355177559986113362013-01-16T14:19:39.345-08:002013-01-16T14:19:39.345-08:00Hello Mr. Drinnon!
Okay, this is out there but I h...Hello Mr. Drinnon!<br />Okay, this is out there but I had recently developed a possible theory as to what Justin Smeja shot. I understand that he left after shooting the creatures, and found the "steak" later so that probably explains why the DNA of the "steak" was of a black bear. But he did say that the steak seemed similar to the flesh of the creatures he shot, and it got me thinking. What if what Justin Smeja shot were not Sasquatch, but actually some kind of genetic mutation of a black bear. I have heard of genetic mutations which make animals have features of prehistoric ancestors (like the four flipper dolphin found and the chicken embryos with teeth) so what if a black bear had mutations that made it look like an Arctodus? When Justin first came out with his story, he referred to the creatures as "weird looking bears" and he described the alleged babies as crosses between a bear and a gorilla. It sounds unlikely, but what if a black bear had acquired a genetic mutation that made it similar to an Arctodus (with the short face which would give a gorilla like look) and also passed it on to its cubs? I realized too that the "steak" didn't have the appearance of the fur of a usual black bear, even of one that was of a browner color. I wonder if Justin's story was blurred by everyone telling him that what he shot were Sasquatch, when he actually shot what he said they were originally: very weird bears! Just a theory of mine, and I thought I would share it with you to get your opinion.Jay Cooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300702399539846543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-30069171018297738172012-01-13T18:08:59.598-08:002012-01-13T18:08:59.598-08:00A lot of people have stated that it sounds peculia...A lot of people have stated that it sounds peculiar and it is a strange coincidence (including Karl Shuker) However, nobody has actually come right out and said that it means the creature itself is a hoax. And if there is somebody that calls such a creature a "Paddington" they are probably going to be about right--Paddington was supposed to have been a South American bear originally.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that the spelling used by the press is to some extent arbitrary-- the name does not have to be <i>spelled</i> the same way as the name of the author of the Winnie the Pooh books. And if that is so, there is no real connection, because the only thing that connects the unknown bear and the author is that their names are <i>spelled</i> the same way.<br /><br />The word is given as Arawak in origin. It would be pronounced "Mill-Nee" or "Mill-Nay." A.A. Milne's name is of course <i>not</i> pronounced exactly the way it is written: English has a silent e and that is different from <i>most</i> other languages in the world. And the "Official" languages of Latin America, Spanish and Portugese, also do <i>NOT</i> pronounce "Milne" the same way as people in England pronounce the name of the author.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-54638497636728512562012-01-13T17:40:38.319-08:002012-01-13T17:40:38.319-08:00Dale,
I thought the Milne had been debunked as a ...Dale,<br /><br />I thought the Milne had been debunked as a hoax-AA Milne being the author of the Winnie The Pooh stories? I'm sure I've read that in someone's book!<br /><br />GaryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-61662691772244775102011-06-01T10:37:50.436-07:002011-06-01T10:37:50.436-07:00Surprise! we have a conflict of experts here. The ...Surprise! we have a conflict of experts here. The Bjorn Kurten material herin quoted calls the Arctotherium an obsolete genus name and sinks it into Arctodus: this is indicated on one of the maps. Furthermore the issue of poor rreconstructions goes both ways: far too many reconstructions make much too long of a snout on the beast given the actual shortness of the snout on the skull.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-84135833173103391822011-06-01T08:19:49.713-07:002011-06-01T08:19:49.713-07:00Hi Dale,
Just to point out, the picture you used ...Hi Dale,<br /><br />Just to point out, the picture you used at the top to show the scale of "_Arctodus_" compared to a human does not show _Arctodus_. This is _Arctotherium_ (from Soibelzon and Schubert (2011)), the largest bear yet discovered, so be aware that the two are very separate animals.<br /><br />Also, have a look here: http://www.thelordgeekington.com/2011/02/interlude-of-poorly-reconstructed-bears.html<br /><br />Max.Max Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04332693810023441000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-66876571102265111442011-06-01T03:20:21.617-07:002011-06-01T03:20:21.617-07:00One of the websites that spoke of the shortfaced b...One of the websites that spoke of the shortfaced bears said that they were designed to run on their hind legs. That would be carrying things too far. They are designed to run like an outsized chimpanzee and perhaps walk on their hind legs better than most bears. But I don't think they would <em>run</em> very well on their shorter pair of legs.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com