Hello, i just deleted this entry entirely, it just didn't feel right. If one would accurately describe what happened in 1927, whatever that might be exactly, such a changed entry would likely no longer feel notable to me.
There are very few entries related to zoology in the first place, like, photographic analysis of horse gallop, the demise of Darwin's turtle - and, er, hummm, do we count Nessy as "zoology"? So having such a rather dubious one among those very few felt bad. On top of all that, the official ICZN name of the Giant Panda is Ailuropoda melanoleuca (David, 1869) see for example https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=621845 which doesn't square all that well with being discovered in 1927 either. I'm not a zoologist, so i'm not entirely sure what i'm talking about here, but here is the official description still valid today: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13953952#page/293/mode/1up Nota Bene, published in 1869, unless i misunderstand. And then two Syntype Specimens appear to still exist, both of which, if i understand correctly, still form part of the definition of what a "Giant Panda" is today, and that have been collected in China in 1869: https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/4419981327 https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/4419981328 So, no, i'd go as far as saying that species wasn't discovered in 1927. There really aren't any hard and fast rules how to maintain these files in OpenBSD, we are not a history project. It's more like "whatever some developer feels is interesting or entertaining or has some traditional roots in classical BSDs". But i think having stuff in there that is at least biased and misleading and maybe even outright wrong is not good. Yours, Ingo Fletcher Porter wrote on Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 10:27:16PM +0300: > So doing a little research of my own, I think "Trailing the Giant Panda" > by Theodore and Kermit Roosevelt (sons of the US President) is where the > 1927 date comes from, though I can't get access to the book myself, > though related texts seem to point to a 1929 expedition. A contemporary > review in "The Geographic Journal" Vol. 75 No. 2, Feb 1930 > (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1784124) says of the book "It is written > for people who have never been at any rate in China, nor will the > average Asiatic traveller learn anything new from it" (though query what > the reviewer knows of the experience of Asiatic travellers). > > Then there's a 1934 expedition to document pandas for the American > Museum of Natural History documented in "Notes on the Giant Panda" from > Journal of Mammalogy (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1374303), which notes > that local guides were important to locating pandas for study (though > the author discards their knowledge offhand, alas...). > > Based on this, I don't think that it's reasonable to, without > qualification, say that pandas were discovered in 1927. Western > discovery, perhaps, though even then, the World Wildlife Fund claims > that a French guy got his hand on a panda skin in 1869, and then they > have a different date for the Roosevelt expedition > (https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?13588/History-of-the-Giant-Panda). I > wasn't able to confirm anything about this 1869 date, however. > > I don't know what the standard is or should be to change listings in BSD > calendar, but I feel that, at a minimum, this one should be clarified. > On 2024-09-08 19:31, Rob Schmersel wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 18:47:55 +0300 > > Fletcher Porter <m...@fletcherporter.com> wrote: > > > >> |/src/usr.bin/calendar/calendars/calendar.history:436| reads > >> > >> |11/09 Giant panda discovered (?!), China, 1927 | > >> > >> I'm wondering if there's a citation for this? It seem a bit > >> unbelievable that people and pandas would've coexisted nearby to each > >> other for thousands of years without ever coming into contact. > >> Indeed, to the extent that it can be trusted, Wikipedia > >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Early_references) claims that > >> a 1st century BCE Chinese empress was buried with a panda skull. 1927 > >> could be around the time that there was a European discovery of > >> pandas, but I don't see that particular date corroborated anywhere, > >> and that's anyway not what this line claims. > >> > >> I wonder if this line could be qualified to whatever "discovered > >> (?!)" actually meant to the author of this line ("first published > >> about in an international journal", "first seen by Europeans", etc) > >> or removed since I'd reckon it's more likely than not that this is > >> incorrect. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> Fletcher Porter > > No reputable links, but: > > https://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1927/november_9_1927_87078.html > > https://husheduphistory.com/post/132902471923/proof-of-pandas > > https://www.facebook.com/TheEconomist/posts/bad-at-sex-picky-about-food-the-giant-panda-was-discovered-in-china-on-this-day-/10153722470389060/
