The habitat section is short, but it is asking the question the longer replies keep avoiding. Hot conditions exist in many places. The sightings stay concentrated in places where there is already an explanation for a giraffe being there.
If temperature is the explanation, why does the explanation need a separate list of permitted places?
The habitat section is short, but it is asking the question the longer replies keep avoiding. Hot conditions exist in many places. The sightings stay concentrated in places where there is already an explanation for a giraffe being there.
If temperature is the explanation, why does the explanation need a separate list of permitted places?
−+Collapse or expand reply by brickwork
When there is one somewhere else it is described as an escape. That puts it back inside the zoo explanation even while it is outside the zoo.
−+Collapse or expand reply by metricsea
No report and no animal are not the same observation. But I agree that a map of reported sightings would be more useful than repeating “Africa”.
−+Collapse or expand reply by cansleeve
Temperature is not the only condition in a habitat. Food, water and other animals matter.
−+Collapse or expand reply by rustred
Then the descriptions should stop beginning and ending with the temperature.
−+Collapse or expand reply by windowseat
And put ticketed places on that map differently. It is still a claim about where somebody was allowed to look.
−+Collapse or expand reply by kestrel
Are we counting places without them, or places nobody here has checked? Those are not the same list.