Homer Posted April 5, 2002 #1 Share Posted April 5, 2002 We have just recently discussed the newly discovered Giant Squid and even more recent Giant Octopus, but it appears in Southern California scientists have discovered at least a half-dozen new insect species, among them the largest bug ever found in the region. For more information CLICK HERE [glow=blue,2,300]Homer :sj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted April 5, 2002 #2 Share Posted April 5, 2002 Thanks Homer, Thats one ugly looking bug! :s9 Tommy :sh (needed this post to stay ahead of KC ;D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 5, 2002 Author #3 Share Posted April 5, 2002 What I don't understand is how did they overlook the largest bug in the region? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceyKC Posted April 5, 2002 #4 Share Posted April 5, 2002 Go ahead Tommy! I love a challenge! Now I'd better read the article!! ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceyKC Posted April 5, 2002 #5 Share Posted April 5, 2002 A silk-spinning cricket? I just can't see it! I thought crickets were the dinner the spiders packed away! Ah, the tables are turned!! :s02 Oh, and I never knew coyotes ate bugs! KC (at least I'm still in the race, right Tommy?) :s04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurpleStuart Posted April 5, 2002 #6 Share Posted April 5, 2002 *hides behind homer* ****, i hate bugs *shiver* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonboy Posted April 5, 2002 #7 Share Posted April 5, 2002 [blue]I guess if they missed a few new species in California, it speaks volumes about the chances of overlooking Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest.... ;D [/blue] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 5, 2002 Author #8 Share Posted April 5, 2002 Bigfoots are cool 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonboy Posted April 5, 2002 #9 Share Posted April 5, 2002 [blue]...that's "Bigfeet" to you...[/blue] :sg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 5, 2002 Author #10 Share Posted April 5, 2002 Oops! I meant Bigfeet. Bigfeets are cool 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted April 6, 2002 #11 Share Posted April 6, 2002 You're on KC! :s04 But a race would imply that it finishes somewhere... :s6 But anywhoo, back to the thread: "The newly identified insects, still unnamed scientifically..." might I propose the name 'the ugliest bug in the world' :sr I can't even tell which end his head is it! :s2 Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurpleStuart Posted April 6, 2002 #12 Share Posted April 6, 2002 Too busy running away to note which way that bugger was facing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 6, 2002 Author #13 Share Posted April 6, 2002 Tommy, You said you can't tell which end the bugs head is at, unfortunately I've been told the same thing about me :s2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted April 6, 2002 #14 Share Posted April 6, 2002 :s2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikman Posted April 6, 2002 #15 Share Posted April 6, 2002 Although they rate it as a 'discovery', I think the meaning is related more to an exact scientific classification, rather than the species never having been physically 'seen' or encountered before. There is an enormous difference between reclassifying types of insects previously thought to be inclusive of a known 'group,' and discovering something entirely unknown. This is from the article; "Previously, scientists believed all Jerusalem crickets in California represented a single species.""You suddenly have a lot of things that everyone thought was the same thing," said Fisher... I would guess the thinking was a cricket is a cricket until this detailed, thorough study. There are millions of insects, it will be awhile before they have them all sorted, in my opinion. I don't think this case lends itself well to the supposition that this 'discovery' makes the existence of 'bigfoot' any more plausible, however. Its pretty difficult to overlook a seven foot tall, 500 pound, hairy, smelly 'beast', even given the vastness of the Pacific Northwest. Some of the area may have been remote and inaccessible 30 or 40 years ago, but I really don't think those deterrents apply that much anymore. The creature loses more and more 'mystique' every year as we encroach into its territory and fail to find any concrete evidence of its viability. Still, its our 'Loch Ness Monster', and there will always be those who believe. Magikman :sg * - Just to tease you a bit, this is one of the latest photo's thought to be of a bigfoot (taken in Oregon); Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonboy Posted April 6, 2002 #16 Share Posted April 6, 2002 [blue]...erm....I was joking...I think... [/blue] : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 6, 2002 Author #17 Share Posted April 6, 2002 Ummm...me too, Loonboy...I think... However, not including Bigfeet, this is still an important discovery and leads one to think that if new species can be discovered/identified in an urban area, just imagine what's waiting to be discovered/identified in rural areas, or better yet, areas that have yet to be populated at all. The Amazon has new discoveries on a relatively frequent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted April 6, 2002 #18 Share Posted April 6, 2002 Well you guys might have been joking, but to me, the ugly bugger looks symmetrical! :s01 :sf Tommy :s9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 7, 2002 Author #19 Share Posted April 7, 2002 Tommy, We were joking about Bigfoot/Bigfeet, not about the bugs. The bug thing is for real and I agree with you, the creepy bugger looks symmetrical all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikman Posted April 7, 2002 #20 Share Posted April 7, 2002 Damn you Brits and your dry, indecipherable wit. ;D I see I'm going to have to dust off my old "Python" tapes and immerse myself in them again just to keep up with the humor and double-entendres. :s03 Magikman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonboy Posted April 7, 2002 #21 Share Posted April 7, 2002 [blue]...or was I ?...[/blue] :s1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted April 7, 2002 #22 Share Posted April 7, 2002 LOL, ;D sounds like a good idea Magik! :sg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted April 8, 2002 #23 Share Posted April 8, 2002 Brainwave! :sr Maybe it’s a Siamese bug! :s6 Tommy :s4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 8, 2002 Author #24 Share Posted April 8, 2002 But Tommy, I thought Siamese Bugs weren't supposed to be re-classified until next year ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIZZIE Posted April 8, 2002 #25 Share Posted April 8, 2002 It certainly gets an invite to "The ugly bugs ball" :s2 :s2 or both of them do ;D Baldrick could have made a feast out if it had it been discovered in World War 1 :s01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now