CHURCHMICE
Created | Updated Feb 27, 2015
</HEADER> ( Back up copy)
</BR</BR>
<CENTER>
<BOLD><I> Churchmice
</I>
</BOLD>
</BR>
<BOLD>
This entry is exerpted entirely from "The Last Churchmouse Just Died"
</BR>
by the soon to be highly celebrated author John W Fulton (aka ~jwf~)
</BR>
via the auspices of Stand and Deliver, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
</BR>
All rights reserved including but not limited to denial of its existence
</BR> or creation when faced with issues of copyright usages.
</BOLD>
</CENTER>
</BR>
</BR>
</BR>
The Churchmouse is a very interesting species - one of only a few deserving of our intellectual study for having direct and compelling evolutionary and historical connections to the evolution of our own species. Study of these creatures is currently critically underestimated but worthy of much greater understanding and meaningful appreciation.
</BR>
The nominclalure 'Churchmouse' comes from the kind of real life observation, experience and conclusions made by early scientists and thinkers and can therefore have no real modern "scientific" creditation - such as the crudely formulated 'homo erectus' or Modern Man as a sub-species descended from a more generic hominid grouping. While the classification is unscientific by current academic systems it has what most modern Science lacks - a human touch.
</BR>
</BR>
The name came from the real life observations of early writers, thinkers, poets, priests, philosophers and kings who had developed new media that improved upon labour instensive stone tablets and clay impressions of assorted stylus styles and variations. These media were mostly organic and edible for mice.
</BR>
</BR>
The early scribes had begun using sheepskin hides, papyrus scroll and rice papers as their new media for storing and disseminating information. Their brave new whirled (sic) of discoveries, observations and philosophical thought has led us to the modern overly-organised classifications of species now in general usage.
</BR>
</BR>
But Churchmice are well named - a Churchmouse did what it said on the label - being a new breed of mice who took up their living off the newly developed media being used by these earliest scribes. The media consisted as a foodstuff of seeming constant availability, quality and value and just as easily portable and storable as food bits for them as they were as information storage units for the thinkers who wrote on them. By creating a lighter more portable media they created a whole new environment. Long term storage in dry environments was intended as well as lightness and portability - the collatoral benefits to mice in general cannot be ignored.
</BR>
</BR>
Churchmouse is a name therefore useful and most refreshingly rewarding in how it is the most appropriate nomenclature demonstrating at once why the species has existed so successfully in parallel with our own modern evolutionary development. (The word progress will never be used in this context by this writer.)
</BR>
</BR>
If as is now believed our own last great burst of evolutionary development occurred between ten and fifteen thousand years ago with the advent of agriculture. It seemed a more satisfying way of living than scavenging for berries and nuts and killing wild beasts while roaming about on great energy-consuming and dangerous migratory journeys in constant search of reliable new food sources and shelter. In much the same way as most wild animals including the generic Field Mice are dependent on good fortune, keen hunting skills and finding shelter.
</BR>
</BR>
</BODY>
===============
<center>
<bold><I> Churchmice
</i><bold>
</BR>
<bold>
This entry is exerpted entirely from "The Last Churchmouse Just Died"
</BR>
by the soon to be highly celebrated author John W Fulton (aka ~jwf~)
</BR>
via the auspices of Stand and Deliver, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
</BR>
All rights reserved including but not limited to denial of its existence
</BR> or creation when faced with issues of copyright usages.
</BOLD>
</bold>
</center>
</BR>
</BR>
</BR>
The Churchmouse is a very interesting species - one of only a few deserving of our intellectual study for having direct and compelling evolutionary and historical connection to the evolution of our own species. Study of these creatures is currently critically underestimated but worthy of much greater understanding and meaningful appreciation.
</BR>
The nominclalure 'Churchmouse' comes from the kind of real life observation, experience and conclusions made by early scientists and thinkers and therefore have no real modern "scientific" creditation - such as the crudely formulated 'homo erectus' or Modern Man as a sub-species descended from a more generic hominid grouping. While the classification is unscientific by current academic systems it has what most modern Science lacks - a human touch.
</BR>
</BR>
The name came from the real life observation of early writers, thinkers, poets, priests, philosophers and kings who had developed new media beyond that improved upon labour instensive stone tablets and clay impressions of assorted stylus styles and variations.
</BR>
</BR>
They had begun using sheepskin hides, papyrus scroll and rice papers as their new media for storing and disseminating information. This brave new whirled (sic) of discoveries, observations and philosophical thought has led us to the modern overly-organised classifications of species now in general usage.
</BR>
</BR>
But they were well named - a Churchmouse did what it said on the label - being a new breed of mice who took up their living off the newly developed media being used by the earliest writers, thinkers, poets and philosophers and kings. The media consisted as a foodstuff of constant availability and value and just as easily portable and storable as food bits as the information storage units which the thinkers who wrote on them were trying achieve. Long term storage in dry environments was intended which encouraged. It is a name therefore useful and most refreshingly rewarding in how it is the most appropriate nomenclature demonstrating at once why the species has existed so succesfully in parallel with our own modern evolutionary development. (The word progress will never be used in this context by this writer.)
</BR>
</BR>
If as is now believed our own
