What Is Wrong With Those Idiots ?

[mahtin]

Hey that's a biologist that wrote that.

A theologian or a white supremacist would give you something different.

I have a Thai wife. I like biology.

[cowslip]

Subspecies is a taxonomic term (the branch of science concerned with classification). It refers to a distinct subunit of a species.

“a taxonomic rank below that of species, which recognizes individuals that have certain heritable characteristics distinct from other subspecies of a species. It also defines a group of related organisms that can interbreed and are geographically separated from others in their species.’

There has to be sufficient number of (genetic) differences between the animals to qualify as a subspecies. Humans do not show enough variation - some of course simply (over simply in some cases) think erroneously that a few casually observed outward physical signs that seem “different” are enough, thankfully this is not the case.

So the various subspecies of Tigers have more differences between themselves than any examples of the homo sapiens species can exhibit.

Let me quote the BBC on this.

“Subspecies are a rank of classification that is lower than a species. Related subspecies are less distinct than species of the same genus. Generally speaking, two related subspecies can successfully interbreed but two species cannot. If a subspecies can be shown to be different enough, it can be elevated to species status. There are several subspecies of tiger (Panthera tigris) including the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica).”

Subspecies will all have a Taxonomical - Latin type - name. - “In zoology, the nomenclature for the more commonly used ranks (superfamily to subspecies), is regulated by the "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature"

here are the Taxonomic rankings....

BBC again .....

“In biological classification, rank is the level in a taxonomic hierarchy. Examples of taxonomic ranks are species, genus, family, and class. Each rank subsumes under it a number of less general categories. The rank of species, and specification of the genus to which the species belongs is basic, which means that it may not be necessary to specify ranks other than these.

.

Life

.

Kingdom

.

Phylum

.

Superclass

.

Class

.

Superorder

.

Order

.

Suborder

.

Superfamily

.

Family

.

Genus

.

Species .....”

A species is an individual class of organisms that are distinctive from other animals, and unable to breed with other groups of animals. Members of a species are defined on the basis of their differences, which may be quite diverse or very minimal.

For instance Indian and African Elephants are separate species. (in fact it is generally accepted that there are 3 species of elephant, maybe even four. There are several subspecies too.

Subspecies can interbreed - Chimps and humans are separate species and can’t interbreed. (See my earlier comment - I thought that this was obvious but - apparently some didn’t understand that). I was of course referring to the minimal genetic differences required for separate species, let alone subspecies. ...... and how with humans looking “different” is often just a matter of how humans rely on their personal visual information to make judgments rather than using scientific observation.

“All Tigers look the same to me, but I can tell that man is Asian”

[cowslip]

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species, though it can be hard to believe reading some of the posts on this thread!

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species

Which is what?

I agree that terms such as europoid (actually, Caucasian), australoid (Aboriginal Australians and indigenous southeast Asian negritos), negroid and mongoloid are racial classifications.

Homo Sapiens

(or Homo Sapiens Sapiens)

not to be confused with any "bufo bufo" you might encounter on this thread.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cowslip

[Mozambique]

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species, though it can be hard to believe reading some of the posts on this thread!

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species

Which is what?

I agree that terms such as europoid (actually, Caucasian), australoid (Aboriginal Australians and indigenous southeast Asian negritos), negroid and mongoloid are racial classifications.

Homo Sapiens

No. The sub-species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The guy above me explained it all.

Home Sapiens is the species. We (the Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are the only remaining sub-species.

Or am I just a gigantic fool who's got it all hopelessly wrong?

Your input on this topic is superb, by the way. Good work, man! It's nice to read your stuff.

[cowslip]

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species, though it can be hard to believe reading some of the posts on this thread!

I must re-iterate that there is only one existing human sub-species

Which is what?

I agree that terms such as europoid (actually, Caucasian), australoid (Aboriginal Australians and indigenous southeast Asian negritos), negroid and mongoloid are racial classifications.

Homo Sapiens

No. The sub-species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The guy above me explained it all.

Home Sapiens is the species. We (the Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are the only remaining sub-species.

Or am I just a gigantic fool who's got it all hopelessly wrong?

Your input on this topic is superb, by the way. Good work, man! It's nice to read your stuff.

as there is NO currently existing subspecies the repetition is not needed. It is believed was a subspecies "Homo sapiens idaltu", but it became extinct about 160 000 years ago I believe.

Edited October 8, 2012 by cowslip

[anachack]

As usual you are defaulting to personal attack - perhaps you should have called yourself natterjack and I re-itterate: This has nothing to do with the temple but perhaps you could explain why bengal, indo-chinese, and sumatran and are not the same use of sub-classification as europoid, australoid, and mongoloid?

[StreetCowboy]

As usual you are defaulting to personal attack - perhaps you should have called yourself natterjack and I re-itterate: This has nothing to do with the temple but perhaps you could explain why bengal, indo-chinese, and sumatran and are not the same use of sub-classification as europoid, australoid, and mongoloid?

I think because there is much less interbreeding, since tigers are less well-travelled than you or I, and therefore have less opportunity for miscegenation.

SC

[cowslip]

As usual you are defaulting to personal attack - perhaps you should have called yourself natterjack and I re-itterate: This has nothing to do with the temple but perhaps you could explain why bengal, indo-chinese, and sumatran and are not the same use of sub-classification as europoid, australoid, and mongoloid?

I think because there is much less interbreeding, since tigers are less well-travelled than you or I, and therefore have less opportunity for miscegenation.

SC

explained above already.

[Kan Win]

Kan, this is your back yard what have you heard or witnessed? it's your town and a man I respect, so I would like if possible your thoughts.

Hi Mossfinn,

My Thai side of the family went there and did not like it, due to the entrance fee that they had to pay 500 Baht, a couple of years ago and it left them with a bad taste in the mouth so to speak. I did here that a lot of Thai's (Hi-So) that went there, felt the same.

When my wife and I went there many a year ago, my good lady went in Free (Thai) and I had to make a donation of 100 baht.

I did see photos of the great canyon which at the time I went was just being built. So some funds have been well spent on their new playground.

I have no intention of going there after all these years, I wish to keep my memories as they are/where of that place.

I did give a right rollerking to a handler (non Thai btw) with Tiger Cubs in hand by our most Famous Bridge over the River Khwae (Kwai) two or three years ago, so I did my bit,

Did you read my post #46

Temple tiger numbers face cut.

If not, please do so, all of you, as we are not allowed to post this link.

Win in Kan

[cowslip]

I don’t see any point in entering a gainsaying contest with the likes of Mr A.

Unfortunately, in his last posts - 109 and 111 he has made several points that are either wildly inaccurate or simply downright wrong.

I’m assuming that most people who have read his post already picked up on these. However if you do need to know more, please PM and I’ll be happy to reply to any bon fide questions.

To be honest, I thought he laid out his points fairly clearly, and answered the questions put to him. I thought he set an excellent example to you.

SC

"Tigers are classed as an 'Apex' predator. If they disappear, so will the environment they live in. Red deer breed according to its supply chain. If they are hunted, they will breed more prolifically to ensure survival. This increases demand on the environment so it in turn tries harder to survive. Where Apex predators have disappeared the areas have dwindled into scrub and rough fern occupied mostly by fungi and base spore material that does not process photosynthesis as good as trees and plants do. In one case the forest has taken over causing a green canopy that traps CO2 that poisoned life below that eventually led to the trees also dying. There is a consensus that we can't go on like this because we will poison the atmosphere. We know this has happened three times during the Earth's history so ignoring the possibility would be stupid."

Clearly? -

Please give us your thoughts on the points here then.........

1. Tigers are classed as an 'Apex' predator. If they disappear, so will the environment they live in.
   
2. Red deer breed according to its supply chain. If they are hunted, they will breed more prolifically to ensure survival.
   
3. This increases demand on the environment so it in turn tries harder to survive.
   
4. Where Apex predators have disappeared the areas have dwindled into scrub and rough fern occupied mostly by fungi and base spore material that does not process photosynthesis as good as trees and plants do.
   
5. In one case the forest has taken over causing a green canopy that traps CO2 that poisoned life below that eventually led to the trees also dying.
   
6. There is a consensus that we can't go on like this because we will poison the atmosphere.
   
7. We know this has happened three times during the Earth's history so ignoring the possibility would be stupid.
   

[circusman]

It both amuses me and irritates me to see so many comments from people who's only experience with tigers is from what they read or a zoo/temple they visited.

As for me, I worked with tigers for 20 years and have friends with many more years experience around wild animals in captivity. And even I won't comment on whats is or is not going on at the temple. I have not been there so no comment.

But, as far as breeding tigers at the temple, a bad idea. They can not be introduced to the Thai jungles. They would not survive for lack of prey and hunting skills learned from tiger mothers.

Edited October 13, 2012 by metisdead
: Oversize font reset.

[cowslip]

It both amuses me and irritates me to see so many comments from people who's only experience with tigers is from what they read or a zoo/temple they visited.

As for me, I worked with tigers for 20 years and have friends with many more years experience around wild animals in captivity. And even I won't comment on whats is or is not going on at the temple. I have not been there so no comment.

But, as far as breeding tigers at the temple, a bad idea. They can not be introduced to the Thai jungles. They would not survive for lack of prey and hunting skills learned from tiger mothers.

THe implication is that you "know a lot about tigers (I'm guessing in captivity and on show), but you're not going to say anything about the topic? - apart from the fact that you're "irritated" and "amused"

(one way or another this thread is attracting a lot of "newbies"..........)

[TwoDogz]

It both amuses me and irritates me to see so many comments from people who's only experience with tigers is from what they read or a zoo/temple they visited.

As for me, I worked with tigers for 20 years and have friends with many more years experience around wild animals in captivity. And even I won't comment on whats is or is not going on at the temple. I have not been there so no comment.

But, as far as breeding tigers at the temple, a bad idea. They can not be introduced to the Thai jungles. They would not survive for lack of prey and hunting skills learned from tiger mothers.

THe implication is that you "know a lot about tigers (I'm guessing in captivity and on show), but you're not going to say anything about the topic? - apart from the fact that you're "irritated" and "amused"

(one way or another this thread is attracting a lot of "newbies"..........)

A clowns experience with caged tigers should be documented.

[circusman]

It both amuses me and irritates me to see so many comments from people who's only experience with tigers is from what they read or a zoo/temple they visited.

As for me, I worked with tigers for 20 years and have friends with many more years experience around wild animals in captivity. And even I won't comment on whats is or is not going on at the temple. I have not been there so no comment.

But, as far as breeding tigers at the temple, a bad idea. They can not be introduced to the Thai jungles. They would not survive for lack of prey and hunting skills learned from tiger mothers.

THe implication is that you "know a lot about tigers (I'm guessing in captivity and on show), but you're not going to say anything about the topic? - apart from the fact that you're "irritated" and "amused"

(one way or another this thread is attracting a lot of "newbies"..........)

I did say something about the topic. Maybe it would be better if you acually read what people say before you speak ill of them.

[cowslip]

It both amuses me and irritates me to see so many comments from people who's only experience with tigers is from what they read or a zoo/temple they visited.

As for me, I worked with tigers for 20 years and have friends with many more years experience around wild animals in captivity. And even I won't comment on whats is or is not going on at the temple. I have not been there so no comment.

But, as far as breeding tigers at the temple, a bad idea. They can not be introduced to the Thai jungles. They would not survive for lack of prey and hunting skills learned from tiger mothers.

THe implication is that you "know a lot about tigers (I'm guessing in captivity and on show), but you're not going to say anything about the topic? - apart from the fact that you're "irritated" and "amused"

(one way or another this thread is attracting a lot of "newbies"..........)

I did say something about the topic. Maybe it would be better if you acually read what people say before you speak ill of them.

I think apart from repeating what has already been said you have indicated nothing to justify your irritability or amusement. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate?

[circusman]

It both amuses me and irritates me to see so many comments from people who's only experience with tigers is from what they read or a zoo/temple they visited.

As for me, I worked with tigers for 20 years and have friends with many more years experience around wild animals in captivity. And even I won't comment on whats is or is not going on at the temple. I have not been there so no comment.

But, as far as breeding tigers at the temple, a bad idea. They can not be introduced to the Thai jungles. They would not survive for lack of prey and hunting skills learned from tiger mothers.

THe implication is that you "know a lot about tigers (I'm guessing in captivity and on show), but you're not going to say anything about the topic? - apart from the fact that you're "irritated" and "amused"

(one way or another this thread is attracting a lot of "newbies"..........)

I did say something about the topic. Maybe it would be better if you acually read what people say before you speak ill of them.

I think apart from repeating what has already been said you have indicated nothing to justify your irritability or amusement. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate?

Still you didn't read all my post. Im not going to babysit you and point out my addition to the post.

[cowslip]

Looks to me like you are trying to avoid admitting that there is nothing there that hasn't already been said and you have nothing more to contribute.

There seems to be a lot of newbies who want to pass comment on the temple but when it comes down to it they actually have little to say.

Mostly because when they try to put pen to paper they realise they have no knowledge of conservation or animal husbandry or the situation at the temple. They just seem to think that gut feeling is sufficient.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cowslip

[driedmango]

Its a sad world, the large top of the food chain animals are going away fast almost everywhere. Their habitat isn't having a few sq miles, that is the problem all these animals face, logging roads, settlements, lack of prey, climate changes, pollution, poaching and the list goes on. The forests have been disturbed and degraded all over the planet and it is very soon there will be no more old growth or primary growth forests. I wish it would stop, but humans are like other being, they grow and expand as much as they can, rats can wipe out a ecosystem on a small island they are introduced to, humans are just to dam_n able to adapt and dominate, just look at google earth and start looking from space, human activity is as easy to see as mountains.

[StreetCowboy]

For me, human activity is more important than mountains

SC

[driedmango]

For me, human activity is more important than mountains

SC

I agree, mountains aren't really that useful to you, but I will tell you something you might not know, but is a fact , everything about your ability to live on the planet depends on the fine balance of an amazing web of nature. Now, you might not have kids and be one of those new breed of ME ME ME humans that only cares for their short little live being comfortable, but for all the decent humans out there that might care for others even a little bit it is very interesting how quickly we are using it all up.

[Rob8891]

For me, human activity is more important than mountains

SC

I agree, mountains aren't really that useful to you, but I will tell you something you might not know, but is a fact , everything about your ability to live on the planet depends on the fine balance of an amazing web of nature. Now, you might not have kids and be one of those new breed of ME ME ME humans that only cares for their short little live being comfortable, but for all the decent humans out there that might care for others even a little bit it is very interesting how quickly we are using it all up.

Must admit, I was going to take you to task SC, but for now, I think I'll just sit back and enjoy the show....

[HansVilder]

I agree, mountains aren't really that useful to you, but I will tell you something you might not know

...mountains are incredibly important to the secret populous living among us. The gravity they displace/exert on certain propulsion systems is phenomenal.. (i could be killed for expanding on this, i'd better shut up!)

[cowslip]

Its a sad world, the large top of the food chain animals are going away fast almost everywhere. Their habitat isn't having a few sq miles, that is the problem all these animals face, logging roads, settlements, lack of prey, climate changes, pollution, poaching and the list goes on. The forests have been disturbed and degraded all over the planet and it is very soon there will be no more old growth or primary growth forests. I wish it would stop, but humans are like other being, they grow and expand as much as they can, rats can wipe out a ecosystem on a small island they are introduced to, humans are just to dam_n able to adapt and dominate, just look at google earth and start looking from space, human activity is as easy to see as mountains.

Not an accurate assessment - we are part of the ecosystem

[cowslip]

For me, human activity is more important than mountains

SC

this is a joke, right?

[anachack]

there are without doubt some really weird assertions in this thread

There is no evidence to suggest that human life is in any way dependent on apex predators

Like it or not SC is entitled to his opinion. It is preposterous to propose that humans are part of the eco system. All we are capable of is making use of it. Those who put up an argument of 'damage the wildlife and we harm our own future' are naive creationist tree huggers caring more about their grand-children being able to see a real tiger while posting their fatuous comment on their iPhone via satellite. They have learned very little about humankind when they fail to see that the one remarkable asset man has is an ability to find a solution to problems.

Which probably explains your nonsensical arguments and solutions to the tiger temple

[cowslip]

"man has is an ability to find a solution to problems."

Yes he has - it's called "conservation" - read all about it!

[Berkshire]

there are without doubt some really weird assertions in this thread

There is no evidence to suggest that human life is in any way dependent on apex predators

Like it or not SC is entitled to his opinion. It is preposterous to propose that humans are part of the eco system. All we are capable of is making use of it. Those who put up an argument of 'damage the wildlife and we harm our own future' are naive creationist tree huggers caring more about their grand-children being able to see a real tiger while posting their fatuous comment on their iPhone via satellite. They have learned very little about humankind when they fail to see that the one remarkable asset man has is an ability to find a solution to problems.

Which probably explains your nonsensical arguments and solutions to the tiger temple

I must say, for someone who post so little, just about every one of your posts are well-written, sensible, and convincing. Which is more than I can say for your antagonist(s). Rock on.

[TwoDogz]

Hopefully he means the activity on the mountains...and less of it.

[cowslip]

http://zoonewsdigest.blogspot.com/2009/08/very-bad-news-tiger-temple-becomes-zoo.html

[driedmango]

there are without doubt some really weird assertions in this thread

There is no evidence to suggest that human life is in any way dependent on apex predators

Like it or not SC is entitled to his opinion. It is preposterous to propose that humans are part of the eco system. All we are capable of is making use of it. Those who put up an argument of 'damage the wildlife and we harm our own future' are naive creationist tree huggers caring more about their grand-children being able to see a real tiger while posting their fatuous comment on their iPhone via satellite. They have learned very little about humankind when they fail to see that the one remarkable asset man has is an ability to find a solution to problems.

Which probably explains your nonsensical arguments and solutions to the tiger temple

Humans aren't part of the eco system ? How dumb is that ? what air do you use, the ones from trees right ? What food do you eat ? Where do you think your crap goes ? What kind of stuff comes out of your lungs and what uses that ?

A human that thinks we are not part of the ecosystem is about as arrogant and dumb as a human could be.