An arctic fox was recorded moving from Norway to Canada via arctic ice in 76 days.
An Arctic Fox’s Epic Journey: Norway to Canada in 76 Days
An Arctic Fox’s Epic Journey: Norway to Canada in 76 Days
Where has it been "corrected"? The number of days from leaving Spitsbergen (26 March) to reaching Ellesmere Island (10 June) was 76 days. That's the period during which the fox was moving from Svalbard to Canada. Until 26 March the fox had never left Spitsbergen. The four months which you've seen as a "correction" was just the larger period discussed in the paper (linked below), from 1 March to 1 July - but that isn't the length of time the fox took to travel the distance.It's been corrected, it was 4 months, not 76 days. Still!
But the "correction" is wrong (in-as-much as it is confusing the tracking period with the actual length of time the fox took to move between Spitsbergen and Ellesmere Island). That specific article in your link, for example, says the fox arrived on Ellesmere Island on 1 July while the actual paper quite clearly says that it arrived there on 10 June. The 1 July date is when the tracking period ended, not when the fox arrived there.Ah, it's the way you weirded the post. Most articles have a correction on them (example: Arctic fox walks more than 2,700 miles from Norway to Canada).
But the "correction" is wrong (in-as-much as it is confusing the tracking period with the actual length of time the fox took to move between Spitsbergen and Ellesmere Island). That specific article in your link, for example, says the fox arrived on Ellesmere Island on 1 July while the actual paper quite clearly says that it arrived there on 10 June. The 1 July date is when the tracking period ended, not when the fox arrived there.
The 2,737 miles in the headline was traveled over 4 months.
Have you read the actual paper?The 2,737 miles in the headline was traveled over 4 months.
I also explained why the article I referenced, and many others out there, did issue a correction. But sure, continue to attack me.
It's not coming across that way. I'm aware of what it's reporting. Most articles originally say the 2,700 miles was done in 76 days, which resulted in corrections being issued.
Have either of you read MY posts? I already apologized and said the way you worded it, didn't need a correction. I also explained why the article I referenced, and many others out there, did issue a correction. But sure, continue to attack me.
It's been corrected, it was 4 months, not 76 days. Still!