Hi all, > In other words, the technology is not as reliable as some had hoped, and > thus neither is some of the evidence for the continued existence of this > species.
The technology is reliable. Being able to sample continuously for weeks is impossible otherwise. The problem lies in the part behind the keyboard. As with many other techniques, some kind of check or corroborating evidence has to be collected and used to validate the results. Cornell has relied heavily on the technology (ARUs and the fuzzy videos) without corroborating evidence, this has been their mistake. This is not enough, otherwise Bigfoot and Nessie should be described as new species... Luis J. Villanueva-Rivera San Juan, Puerto Rico [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://research.CoquiPR.com http://www.CoquiPR.com
