Furthermore, the following publication is at least close enough to start
on. I don't have access today.
@article{forster1781natural,
title={Natural History and Description of the Tyger-Cat of the Cape
of Good Hope. By John Reinhold Forster, LL. DFR and AS},
author={Forster, J.R.},
journal={Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London},
volume={71},
pages={1--6},
year={1781},
publisher={JSTOR}
}
Alan
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Alan E. Davis <lngn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, the full nomenclatural information is:
>
> *Pygoscelis papua* (J.R.
> Forster<http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/J.R._Forster>,
> 1781). So there is a publication by J. R. Forster in 1781, describing this
> penguin.
>
> Alan
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Alan E. Davis <lngn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth (possibly nothing), from Wikipedia:
>>
>> The application of *Gentoo* to the penguin is unclear, according to the *
>> OED <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OED>*, which reports that *Gentoo* was
>> an Anglo-Indian term, used as early as 1638 to distinguish
>> Hindus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu>in India from Muslims, the English
>> term originating in Portuguese
>> *gentio* (compare "gentile <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile>"); in
>> the twentieth century the term came to be regarded as
>> derogatory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogatory>
>> .
>>
>> This needs to be followed up. One interesting publication would be
>>
>> @article{calaby1999european,
>> title={The European Discovery and Scientific Description of Australian
>> Birds.},
>> author={Calaby, JH},
>> journal={Historical Records of Australian Science},
>> volume={12},
>> number={3},
>> pages={313--329},
>> year={1999},
>> publisher={CSIRO}
>> }
>>
>> to which I do not have access. However, this investigation is not over.
>> The scientific name of the Gentoo Penguin is *Pygoscelis papua. It should
>> not be difficult to find the original description?*
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan Davis
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@arcor.de>wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/21/2011 04:59 PM, Joshua Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:32 AM,
>>>> LinuxIsOne<reallife@hmamail.**com<reall...@hmamail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Daniel Troeder<dan...@admin-box.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Also (ir)relevant: bug report concerning the mascot Larry the cow:
>>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_**bug.cgi?id=27727<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27727>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But your links shows untrusted connection in my browser!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That would likely be because cacert.org isn't a "trusted' authority by
>>>> default and that is the issuer for B.G.O., making the certificate
>>>> throw up a red flag if you choose not to add cacert.org to your
>>>> trusted authorities.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What sucks is that you can't even get rid of the warnings even if you
>>> accept and add the cert to Firefox. Every time you click on an attachment
>>> in a bug, you get presented with a warning dialog again, and again, and
>>> again, and again, until you get mad and start shooting bunnies. That's
>>> because the domain changes with attachments (for some reason, b.g.o. uses
>>> subdomains instead of URLs to link to attachments.)
>>>
>>> So it's either add cacert.org to your trusted authorities, or live in
>>> hell when browsing b.g.o. IMO that's just stupid. I want to trust just
>>> b.g.o, not every site out there that has a cacert certificate. Stupid.
>>> Just stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
