Sorry, forgot to add this to the end of the last post.
 
I am getting suggestions for some historic ferret stuff I didn't mention,
such as Gengis Kahn, the Mayflower, etc.  I WANT to use these, but can't in
a reviewed paper without access to either the original source or the source
that cited them.  Same with the Egyptian stuff.  The problem is I haven't
found the original reports describing them.  I have found articles making
these claims, but not supplying the sources.  If anyone knows the sources, I
would greatly appreciate them.
 
Many famous people have been called on citing non-existent sources, and I
plan on doing my best NOT to be one of them (not indicating I will be
famous).  I might occasionally cite a second party, but I hate it, and only
do it if the original source is impossible to obtain.
 
Why I don't do this is best illustrated with the following hypothetical
example.  Suppose a behavoralist in 1970 studied ferrets and wrote, "The
polecat, hybrid, and ferret, when attacked by a dog or other carnivore, will
aggressively attack the nose and eyes of the predator, and usually inflict
more damage than sustained." In 1980, this portion was used in a different
paper by a naturalist, who wrote, "Mustela putorius, including polecats,
ferrets, and their hybrids, will aggressively attack dogs and other
predators." In 1990, an anti-ferret F&G wrote, "Ferrets are aggressive, and
will violently attack dogs and other animals." Because each statement is
based upon the prior statement, none are actually false.  Still, the last
statement does not agree with the first statement.  While this example is
hypothetical, I know of many situations where it is true.  I NEVER trust
second-hand accounts, and always refer to the original source, as my file
cabinets and copying costs can testify.
 
Why is this important?  Because the only to fight F&G idiots is by using the
highest scientific standards of writing.  With the original sources in hand,
if is fairly easy to refute the bozos, plus you have the added benefit of
injuring their scientific (or otherwise) reputation.  Original sources can
knock down arguments, illuminate poor science and research, and bring to
light original biases (a problem with many original sources, BTW).  For
example, I am currently reading old legistative files from California to
find the recorded reasons for originally making the ferret illegal.  Think
they might be useful?  Have you ever read something like, "The ferret is a
violent animal, and will aggressively attack people, pets, and livestock,
and was outlawed in...." Being able to PROVE the reason for the ferret being
outlawed was not because of any cruel nature, but because it was easier to
outlaw ferrets than regulate ferreting completely destroys their argument,
because the two statements were foolishly linked to create a false
impression.  Boy, do I love debate!
 
Bob and the Jury of 13
 
PS: Several posts asked why I use putorius instead of Deborah Jeans'
putori_o_us. Easy; hers must be a typo or other mistake. It is spelled
p-u-t-o-r-i-u-s, all lower case, and in scientific nominclature all
letters are pronounced (depending on your vowels, something like
poo-tow-re-us, but fast). (This from a guy that once spelled public as
pubic, but at least I did it only once.  ;-) )
[Posted in FML issue 1411]