Bakker laureate

[Bill Adlam <wa105@mead.anglia.ac.uk>]

For what it's worth, I think Bakker is an asset to palaeontology.  He does 
tend to tell media people his latest theories, without these people realising 
that they have not been carefully tested.  I don't mind this myself, and 
overall I doubt that it harms dinosaur palaeontology.  However it could be 
very dangerous if researchers in some other fields (e.g. medicine) behaved 
like that.  

And Allan said:

>    My most recent understanding is that the skull that has been labeled
>Cope's, and made into the type specimen for _H. sapiens sapiens_ is NOT
>Cope's...Essentially, Bakker managed to
>get a generic skull labeled the type specimen for humanity.

Hmmm.  I bet Bakker knows whose it really is.

And Dave wrote:

>...Is he really terrified of snakes as was suggested
>in The Lost World?  If so, what a wussy.  He should have his macho maverick
>rebel-without-a-clue hat taken away.

But Roy Chapman Andrews and Indiana Jones were (non-coincidentally) both 
ophidiophobes (if that's the word).

Then Darren hoped:

>Hopefully everyone who is interested in 
>dinosaurs is enough interested in other animals, like snakes, to at 
>least know the difference between a harmless _Lampropeltis_ and a 
>venomous elapid (like _Micrurus_ and _Micruroides_, the coral 
>snakes).

I must test this one.  You see 3 smallish, almost cylindrical snakes, all 
striped red, yellow and black:

A:      ...R Y B Y R Y B Y R Y B Y...
B:      ...B R Y R B R Y R B R Y R...
C:      ...Y B R B Y B R B Y B R B...

Which is dangerously venomous, which is harmless, and which is new to 
science?  Answers OFF-LIST to me, please.  I'll add up correct and incorrect 
answers, don't-knows and anyone who disagrees with the question.  If I get 
more than 2 or 3 replies, I'll reveal the results.

All the best, and don't foget to check your boots for snakes,

                                                                        Bill