[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Possible interbreeding of HS and preexisting populations

Subject: Re: Possible interbreeding of HS and preexisting populations
From: "Paul Crowley"
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 08:46:18 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
"pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]

> ` "Lee Olsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> ` > Thanks.  Crowley claimed "nothing" grows in permafrost, so anything
> ` > green, grass or moss shows that it does.
> ` Permafrost is 'permanently frozen ground'.

> Paul, you really have no clue about this, and you are babbling
> without a trace of knowledge of the subject. Permafrost is indeed
> permanently frozen ground. However, the reference is to the
> ground more than one foot under the surface.

Not so.  Permafrosted ground can be on the
surface or a hundred feet down.  There is
no question what it is.

> Each year the
> surface layer thaws in the summer,

In SOME places in the arctic and sub-arctic.

> and because the frozen ground
> underneath prevents the growth of trees, the small plants on
> the surface have full access to the long hours of sunlight in
> the arctic summer, and they grow profusely, providing grazing
> for thousands of caribou.

Agreed. All this is well-known.

> The pocupine caribou herd feeds in
> the summer on vast tracts of blooming permafrost. Arctic honey
> is produced and marketed from the carpets of flowering groundcover.
> It's not like this information is hard to find...

Sure.  No dispute -- except that 'permafrost'
is one factor in such an ecosystem.  It is
certainly not to be _identified_ with those
highly fertile regions.  It is present in many
other areas, when it is often at the surface,
and where nothing grows.  It can be present
under trees in other regions. But animals do
not LIKE permafrost -- as such.  It makes
the ground hard and nothing grows in it,
nor can they make burrows in it.  All this
started with Lee Olsen saying something

> all those other permafrost loving animals around.

I have merely been correcting an obvious
mistake.  Maybe he meant something else
(along the lines you suggest).  But misusing
terms is no way to clarity.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>