|
|
Post by kootenayspirit on Dec 2, 2007 12:45:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Dec 2, 2007 13:22:13 GMT -5
I agree that this is an important point! They ( the imprints ) would mean little, if discovered in downtown Kathmandu say...near the local Cineplexl!
Ovey! %-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2007 22:28:31 GMT -5
I am just geocentric concerning Sas. Just don't accept the Yeti or other areas that claim to see an animal like Sas. I think Sasquatch is an animal particular to northwest regions of North America. Any Sas - like animal outside of this region seems likely to be some different type of animal to me.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Dec 2, 2007 23:40:36 GMT -5
Why? Many other mammalian genera (families) have a transcontintental range, such as big cats, camelidae, bovids, etc. Why not this one? There might be slight physical variations such as comparing a cougar (N. America) to a jaguar (S. America) to a leopard (Africa), but still you are looking at the same kind of animal. As far as I know, for example, although there are slight differences in ear shape, colouration and size, cougars, leopards and jaguars are able to interbreed. Perhaps these bipedal hominoid creatures are similar, meaning they originated from a single population that has traveled, spread and subsequently become genetically stuck in certain localities, diversifying slightly in the process by such well-known mechanisms such as founder effect: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect |
|
