Posted by Not-Extinct, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm

> The checkerspots were extinct in the area by 2003.

There was a time that most of us expected the word “extinct” to mean that all forms of this particular life form was not to be found anywhere—rather than in a small regional area. “Extinct” has such a tone of finality—which is not really true in this case.

It’s a shame that people claiming to be scientists are so readily amenable to the politicization of the normal ups and downs of regional ecology. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that “by 2003 the checkerspots were not to be found in this particular location—due to the disappearance of grasses upon which they subsist”? The checkerspots are not “extinct”—just no longer via at that location.

Posted by Mateo Park, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2012 at 10:09 am

"The checkerspots were extinct in the area by 2003"

vs

“by 2003 the checkerspots were not to be found in this particular location—due to the disappearance of grasses upon which they subsist” (otherwise known as "extinct in the area")

Reasonably valid point reagding definitions, except you followed with your argument about "politicization" by "people claiming to be scientists"??

Not-Extinct, just curious, do you believe in evolution?

Should be beautiful up in Edgewood this weekend, absolutely gorgeous next weekend after some rain.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2012 at 7:55 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Is the checkerspot really a species, or just a sub-species?

Or is it akin to the redlegged frog "endangered" except in the 44 counties where it is still plentiful?