I leave tomorrow for "The Field," an experience which allows
zooarchaeologists/evolutionary paleobiologists (and others of the field
experience ilk) to set in hot dusty fields, get mosquito bit, and drink lots
of beer while discussing things we will never be sure of until the lab work
is done a year hence.  Except for a few days travel time, I still should be
able to use the 'pooter, no doubt causing many of you to run for therapy (or
a snapping ferret and video camera).
 
For those of you who are still arguing with biocrats that the ferret is a
domesticated animal, here is a new reference which should be of help:
 
Gentry, Anthea, Juliet Clutton-Brock, and Colin P. Groves.
1996 Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on
wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on
domestic animals.  _Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature_ 53(1):28-37.
 
Without going deep into the paper (it should be available at any university
library), it basically is an offical application to the International
Committee on Zoological Nomenclature to preserve the different names of
domesticated species and their wild kin.  This is important to ferret people
for two reasons.  1) If accepted, the ferret will be _Mustela furo_ and the
European polecat will be _Mustela putorius_, and 2) these are the top
zoologists/archaeozoologists in the world, and they are in complete
agreement that the ferret is a domesticated animal.
 
The paper includes a chart (p.34) which lists the wild kin and the domestic
derivatives; only 3 carnivores were listed, and they are the cat/wildcat,
the dog/wolf, and the ferret/polecat.  In essence, the authors, as well as
the major players in the zoological community, recognize the ferret is just
as domesticated as the dog or cat.  A copy of the chart and bibliographic
reference would be a powerful argument against certain Ca-Ca biocrats
(biocraps?), or their out-of-state/mind biocrap relatives.  (You could also
suggest a 20-year-old degree without continuing education has less value than
holey toliet paper, which would explain why "the-ferret-is-a-wild-animal"
crap is so easily spread...)
 
Another portion of the paper discussed the critera for domestication
(breeding under human control, tame, provides a product/service useful to
people, and it has been changed from the wild type; the last is the most
important, and considered by many to be the only true characteristic).  Rest
assured; the ferret passes all criteria with bushy tails.
 
The coolest aspect of the paper is even if the committee decides not to
accept the application, or rules against it, it is still a proof of the
domesticated nature of the ferret; the paper is ONLY concerned with specific
nomenclature, and NOT with ferret domestication (The paper comes straight
out and says the ferret _is_ a domesticated animal).  I would personally
like the application accepted, but this isn't an issue where you can fax
your opinions.
 
I have long been an opponent of the designation _Mustela putorius furo_, and
have even stated publically that we should ignore it, and use _Mustela furo_
instead (A very common practice in Europe, BTW).  So, use the original
binomial, _Mustela furo_, and if anyone argues, toss a copy of the paper at
them (Or toss me at them--I'm Rabid Robert now...thanks BIG).  If the person
is a Ca-Ca biocrap, ask them if thier meager (and wasted) education is the
equivalent of the combined education and experience of the members of the
International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature.  They say our ferts are
domesticated, and they are the supreme court of zoology (well, not really,
but sounds cool, and the biocraps are too dumb to know the difference).
 
Bob and the 14 Stinky Thieves.
[Posted in FML issue 1616]