• GildorInglorion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate strongly dislike that they are using the word ‘extinct’ for an animal that is not.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Local extinction (extirpation) is a legitimate concept that is heavily studied in ecology. Just because an animal is still alive somewhere it doesn’t mean that its absence from a region it has historically lived is irrelevant.

      • blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The audience for Newsweek is lay people not ecologists. It’s completely predictable that this usage of the word would create misunderstanding. Seems like misleading clickbait to me with a cover of plausible deniability.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Obviously, but that doesn’t mean they don’t interview ecologists or biologists. “Extirpation” is way less layman friendly than “locally extinct,” and the article makes it extremely clear that this is an animal that hadn’t been seen in a specific region for years. Skimming the headline and deciding it means “they thought it was completely extinct” is a problem with the reader, not the headline or the term “locally extinct.”

          • blackbrook@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The title doesn’t say “locally extinct”. Do you really not understand how click bait titles work and why they are shitty?

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You know I guess you have a point, if they’re writing for people who are too dim to realize “locally extinct” and “extinct in region” are the same concept.

    • Tehgingey
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I thought the same. How hard would it have been to add “thought to be” behind that.

    • reallynotnick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a bit weird because it’s “in a region”, which begs the question if I capture a creature from a different region and move it to a region where it was extinct, is it extinct anymore? (There being only one also means it will quickly become 0 again.)

      Idk, just a weird thought.

    • yeather
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well when you think the animal is extinct for over 100 years it’s generally the word you use.

      • cnnrduncan@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They didn’t think that the animal was extinct for over 100 years though. There are threatened populations in QLD, NSW, tassie etc.; they just hadn’t been seen in the state of SA in 100+ years.