October 15, 2003

"New" frog

According to an article at MSNBC.com, a new type of frog has been found. While I think this is interesting, and the frog sure does look pretty cool, a sentance in the introduction struck me as odd. Now I'm no authority on grammer/spelling, but I can realize when something is just stupid. Here's the part that I think shouldn't have been printed:

The small-headed creature belongs to a new family of frogs that scientists thought had either never existed or disappeared without trace millions of years ago.

Now here's my real problem with this, why is the fact that apparently no one ever thought these types of frogs existed mentioned? If know one had any idea they existed, wouldn't it also be impossible for them to disappear without a trace? I can think of many things which don't and probably never have existed. Does that mean all those fire breathing dragons really did exist, but they just vanished with out a trace?

I think it would have been much better to say an "undiscovered" family of frogs.

Now, I wonder how long it will be until I can buy one of the little buggers over the internet!

Posted by Cynan at October 15, 2003 02:16 PM

You are correct, You are no expert on spelling. Sentence, not sentance.

Posted by: Alex at October 17, 2003 02:54 PM
Webset © Blogfrocks
Image © Inertia