the woolly/hairy mammoths

Question

The last mammoths that existed were the woolly mammoths, with larger species still alive around 6,000 BC and a smaller species existing as late as 2,000 BC.

Hi,
Is "woolly" in the above equal to "hairy?"
Besides, is "species" interchangeable with "speciesmen?" Thanks.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

.
Is "woolly" in the above equal to "hairy?"-- No, the name of the group is '[url=http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa032400a.htm] woolly mammoths[/url]'

Besides, is "species" interchangeable with "speciesmen?"-- I suppose you mean 'specimen'. No. A specimen is an individual; a species is a group of very similar individuals.
.
.

Angliholic · Answer

Mister Micawber.
Is "woolly" in the above equal to "hairy?"-- No, the name of the group is 'woolly mammoths'

Besides, is "species" interchangeable with "speciesmen?"-- I suppose you mean 'specimen'. No. A specimen is an individual; a species is a group of very similar individuals.
.
.

Thanks, Mister.

To make sure, doesn't "woolly" equal "hairy" at all? They are the same in our language, so could you tell the basic differences between them? Thanks.

Mister Micawber · Answer

.
Did you look at the link?
.

Angliholic · Answer

Mister Micawber.
Did you look at the link?
.

Yes, Mister.

I did know what a woolly mammoth look like. My problem is on the two words, woolly and hairy, because we use the same expression to refer to the two words in our language. But apparently, they are different to you, so I'd like to know the basic distinction between them.

Mister Micawber · Answer

.
Here, woolly mammoth is the accepted name of the beast, so no discussion of textures is necessary.
.

Angliholic · Answer

Mister Micawber.
Here, woolly mammoth is the accepted name of the beast, so no discussion of textures is necessary.
.

Hi, Mister.
You misunderstood my further question: do "hairy" and "woolly" amount to each other in meaning to you? For example, there are many hairy/woolly animals on this planet. Do hairy and woolly both fit in the example and convey a similar idea to you?

BarbaraPA · Answer

No, I'm afraid you misunderstand.

The NAME of the animal is "woolly mammoth." It does not DESCRIBE the mammoth. It's part of it's name. If there were a bird called the "crimson-throated bandersnatch" you cannot say "Can I call it the 'red-throated bandersnatch'?" If there were a lizard called the "Verdant-capped gila" you cannot ask if it can be called the "green-headed gila." Once it has a name, it has a name.

Angliholic · Answer

Grammar GeekNo, I'm afraid you misunderstand.

The NAME of the animal is "woolly mammoth." It does not DESCRIBE the mammoth. It's part of it's name. If there were a bird called the "crimson-throated bandersnatch" you cannot say "Can I call it the 'red-throated bandersnatch'?" If there were a lizard called the "Verdant-capped gila" you cannot ask if it can be called the "green-headed gila." Once it has a name, it has a name.

Thanks, GG.

I did know the fixed NAME, but my further question is whether woolly and hairy in other conditions coney a similar concept to you?

Nona the brit · Answer

Hi Angilholic, I get what you are after!

No, they don't mean the same thing. Oddly enough though, I would have said mammoths are hairy rather than woolly but there you go, I didn't get to name them.

It's easier to define woolly. A sheep's fleece is wool and anything described as woolly bears some resemblance to this. Pretty much everything else is hairy. People are hairy. Dogs are hairy. There is an odd breed of pig that is woolly (yep, honestly) but otherwise animals tend to be hairy rather than woolly. It's about the texture of the hair.

the woolly/hairy mammoths

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions