Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by Rygian on Monday December 05, 2022 @04:17AM
(#33863243)
"Tusked elephants breed less than tusk-less ones due to poachers" (63 chars)
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by akvadrako on Monday December 05, 2022 @04:21AM
(#33863279)
You are just describing how an evolutionary response works, not being more accurate.
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by Rygian on Monday December 05, 2022 @06:15AM
(#33864093)
I would specifically argue that the word "response" is itself contextually inaccurate, in the sense that it triggers ambiguity as to whether the change in reproductive rates is _intentional_ or not. My headline removes that ambiguity.
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by Rygian on Monday December 05, 2022 @06:17AM
(#33864104)
A different attempt: "Tusked elephants breeding less than before due to poachers. Tusk-less ones unaffected" (85)
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by piskerpan on Monday December 05, 2022 @04:45AM
(#33863442)
“Tusk-less elephants outbreed tusked ones”
But that wouldn’t be as catchy and as misleading/misunderstood as the original. Anyone reading that one will assume that elephants are purposefully being born without tusk, but it’s just a ratio consequence of tusked elephants dying early.
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by Aissen on Monday December 05, 2022 @05:10AM
(#33863604)
You did not mention poachers' potential impact.
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by piskerpan on Monday December 05, 2022 @05:30AM
(#33863733)
“- due to poachers”
Re:Elephants born without tusks in ‘evolutionary response’ t...
by johannes1234321 on Monday December 05, 2022 @11:39AM
(#33867870)
"Poachers cause evolutionary benefit for tusk-less elephants"
Now with a challenge: try writing a more accurate headline, in as many characters or less.