Ericka: great story about Lewis and Clark!  I hadn't heard it before, but
since I have had some experince with their work, it wouldn't surprise me.
As for the accuracy of the story, I would like to see the source.  I kind of
doubt it, however, because the coyote was first described by Say who went on
"Long's Expedition to the Rocky Mountains" a couple of decades after Lewis
and Clark.  Say's account was published in 1823 in James's "Account of an
expedition to the Rocky Mountains....," and the coyote described was taken
in Nebraska.  Even if Lewis and Clark had goofed-up, their mistake never
became part of the record.
 
One of the common names of the coyote, and used quite frequently in accounts
published before the 1900's was "prairie wolf." Also used was "brush wolf."
"Coyote" is generally regarded as a degenerative Mexican Spanish form of the
Aztec "Coyotl," so that term has a different origin point than Lewis and
Clark.  As for the scientific name, _Canis latrans_, Canis means 'dog', and
latrans means "a barker", and together they are the Latin for 'a barking
dog.' referring to the coyote howl.  I suppose someone might have used
'prairie dog' as a name for the coyote, but have never personally seen it
used.
 
As for the prairie dog, it was first described by Rafinesque in 1817, who,
in an article in the American Monthly Magazine, gave an account of two
genera.  The first, _Cynomys_, is still used, and the second, _Anisonyx_,
was indeed based on an erroneous interpretation of a description by Lewis
and Clark, but the mistake was Rafinesque's, not Lewis and Clarks.  The
common names used by Lewis and Clark were "Barking Squirrel" and "Burrowing
Squirrel of Columbia," and they never applied a latin binomial (Lewis and
Clark, vol.  II, pp 173-175,1815).  As far as I can tell, the term "prairie
dog" was applied nearly half a century later during the European settlement
of the west and midwest when pioneers traveled through the midwest, and
refers to the whistle or barking sound made to warn the colony of danger
(very common among squirrels, BTW).
 
As for the reputation of ferrets, its easy to understand if you have ever
witnessed a tiny mustelid taking on a larger prey animal, or an even larger
predator.  European polecats are rarely found in the stomachs of the various
European predator species, and those that have been reported may have
originated as carrion (roadkill) or lost ferrets (the skeletons are
virtually identical.) Dog packs can kill them, but I have read many reports
of polecats beating up on individual hounds.  One account from the 1500s was
of a hunting dog that was killed by a polecat.  (It didn't say if the
polecat ate the doggie...) The common attack is for the polecat to go after
the nose and face of the attacker.  I've watched a long-tailed weasel race
up a wood post to get to a ground squirrel sunning on the top, grab the
about-three-times-larger-animal, and have it killed before they both hit the
ground.
 
Members of the weasel family don't mess around when it comes to food or
defense.  They move rapidly and aggressively, and with their quick speed,
low center of gravity, biting biomechanics, and needle sharp teeth, are
extremely successful predators.  When killing prey, they will whip their
massive necks back and forth, driving their teeth through the back of the
prey's skull, killing it almost instantly.  Many will emit loud growls or
squeels as they kill their prey.  If other prey are around, instinctual
killing behaviors take over, and they will kill all the moving prey they can
catch (most carnivores will do this, BTW).  The combination of noise,
aggressive posture, neck-whipping, and multiple kills have caused the more
sensationalist naturalists to describe them with such words as "frenzied,"
"murderous," "vicious," and "violent." The combination of Victorian
anthropomorphic and sensationalist science, chance encounters, and campfire
storytelling has created a stereotypic vision that is hard to fight.  Kind
of the like the Catholic Church's defense of Aristotle during the beginnings
of science.  Its hard to fight dogma.
 
Additionally, most science the public is exposed to is awful.  It is based
on poorly written books fostered on an unsuspecting public by desperate
professors searching for tenure (this excludes the 60 second sound-bites
most Americans use for science education; even worse science).  You have no
idea how many books are based on prior work rather than new research, so the
same mistakes are constantly being printed until they take on a life and
"truthfullness" of their own.  For example, we've all heard ferrets are poor
pets because of their vicious nature.  How do you know?  Because it has been
printed in numerous accounts.  How do they know?  Because they read it in
numerous accounts.  Did they ever go and look?  No, they collected all the
references and compiled them.  Often, 'numerous accounts' are nothing more
than the multiple retelling of a single story.  In the absence of thought, a
vicious circle of stories becomes "evidence" when in reality, they are
nothing more than "just-so stories."
 
Besides, as anyone knows, the definition of 'viscous' is, " 1.  The act of
biting toes through socks.  2.  Any act of play resulting in a ferret bite
to the webbing between the thumb and first finger of a human.  3.  A ferret
bite to the nose or lip."
 
Bob and the 14 Rug Monkeys.
[Posted in FML issue 1606]