Actually, the fuss began with Du Chaillu's publication of "Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa; with Accounts of the Manners and Cus- [p. 283] toms of the People, and of the Chase of the Gorilla, Crocodile, Leopard, Elephant, Hippopotamus, and other Animals", by Paul B. Du Chaillu, with Map and Illustrations. Harper & Bros., 1861.
Again, have you read Groves' paper?
Here's the link again:
http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Gorilla Biology.pdf
Its very relevant to the "gorilla" discussion, since its about the evolution of its taxonomy. Its clearly stated that there was no fuss about their presentation to "mainstream science" in 1847. No refutation, no skeptcism, no BS, nothing. Oh, BTW, no mention to Du Chaillu ( who returned to New Your in 1859 and published his book 1861) as a major player in the controversies that followed, that were actually related to evolution and the number of gorilla species, and not to the definition of the genus.
This not to say he faced no problems. This is merely to say the problems he faced were not actually related to the discovery of gorillas
per se. We'll talk about it a bit later.
The silliness intensified with the debates between Owen and Darwin's hatchet man Huxley. The issue has grown beyond Scopes into ID vrs. "science".
It's all the epitome of stupidity; ideology gone wild.
Incorrect. Gorillas were involved in the evolution discussion because it was the study of their brains that allowed Huxley to demonstrate Owen was wrong in his claim that humans brains were completely unique in structure. This controversy, again, happened years after the gorilla genus was described. The "presentation" of the species was smooth. Please, read Groves.
On a sideline, Owen and Matschie (some of the anti-evolution hatchet men) got their @sses kicked, and science progressed, religion-based theories were dumped, and religion "thanks to god" lost a lot of influence on science. But I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic.
There was major controversy within mainstream science (evolution), and the gorilla was part of it, and there was wild skepticism from the American public regarding everything Du Chaillu, including the discovery of the gorilla.
See above and below.
BTW, what was the skepticism source? The "American public" or "mainstream science"?
Because of the same denialist attitudes that we see today with sasquatchery.
I'll write again: What you call "denialist attitudes" are triggered by the weakness of the presented evidence, the constant involvment with hoaxes, and the attitudes of some bigfoot buffs when it comes to propper data handling.
Its a completely different situation from the gorilla description (that caused no fuss) and the posterior evolution x steady state debate. The analogy you are making is not valid.
That's because they were in the possession of the gorilla carcasses Du Chaillu brought out of Africa.
Yes, there was, especially on the American side of the Atlantic, who weren't the recipients of the specimens.
Huntster, read Groves.
The genus was presented by Wyman at the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, after Savage obtained the specimens in Africa specimens and made description of them. Wyman also presented gorilla bones at the presentation. Thus, specimens were avaliable at USA before the Du Chaillu published his book. Savage himself brought specimens to USA that nowdays are at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Owen's 1948 publication was also based in specimens provided by Savage. These specimens can nowdays be found at the Natural History Museu of London, former British Museum (Natural History). See? Specimens at both sides of the Atlantic and the species were already known to science before Du Chaillu started his jorney to Africa in 1856.
Lets review some key conclusions:
-There was no controversy regarding the existence of gorillas by the time the genus was presented to science.
-There was controversy regarding the evidence provided by study of gorilla's brains that indicated the human brain is not as unique as claimed by Owen. The controversy, thus, was related to the evolution debate, and not to the existence or not of gorillas.
Du Chaillu's book reception was not because he said gorillas exist, since the species were already known to science. The very link you provided (
http://www.erblist.com/erbmania/duchaillu.html) indicates clearly the reason for the reception was:
Du Chaillu was only 26 when his first book was published. He was unable to answer satisfactorily the storm [p. 284] of questions hurled at him; consequently nobody believed him, except Harper and Brothers in the United States and the Royal Geographical Society in England, both of whom valiantly and vigorously defended his truthfulness.
He wrote not only about gorillas, he also wrote about
fierce cannibal tribes, the Fans, who filed their teeth to keep them sharp; of the ravages of the Baskouay ants, which marched in dense columns miles in length, and who were marshalled by officers and generals; of hunting elephants with pitfalls; of a new variety of snake, less than four feet long and six and eight inches thick, which lies in the open places in the woods and whose bite is instantaneous death, and of many other equally wonderful sights.
Cool guy, eh?
Aniway, to say he endured severe critics because he wrote about gorillas is not correct (IMHO its also unfair to his book, given the number of different subjects he touched). The main reason for the reception seems to have been the large amount of little known subjects he wrote about and his failure to counter the critics. It was not because he was the first to describe and present gorillas to science.
Someone picked gorillas to mock him. This person could have chosen cannibals, ants, snakes, etc.
What's the threat all about?
Getting sore, Mr. BadAss Scientist?
It was not a threat. It was a fair warning.
Let me make it -again- more clear: Continue presenting information, arguments and reasonings that will not provide any backing to the claim and are mistaken (such as the comparsion in question as well as the "unidentified" DNA, coelacanth, Architeuthis and "the negatives were not tampered" lines) and all you will keep getting will be the "those folks don't have a clue" reaction.
Got it now, Mr. BadAss Hunter?
