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

[Jonathon Woolf <jwoolf@erinet.com>]

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.  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).

-- JSW