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]