• 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
      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
          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.