[CdM] "hone in"? **bang!!**

[Raak] ooops...

[Raak] Although... maybe I was just demonstrating my command of fluent American for INJ. According to the M-W Dictionary of English Usage

The phrase [hone in] seems to have become established in American English, and is apparently beginning to be used in British English (Garner has a British example). If you use it, you should be aware that some people will think you have made a mistake.

Not surprisingly, the folks at Language Log have have also discussed it quite a bit. One of the interesting things is that though the verb to home has been around a long time, home in and hone in are both recent coinages. None of which is meant as a serious defense in my particular case, by the way; had I noticed it, I would have certainly chosen home in in preference.

[Kim] Folklore? - NO

[CdM] artiswtically represented - NO (except for fairly wide definitions of 'artistic' and 'representation')

[Kim] Species? - The answer would technically be a species, but it is known by a single example

Not an "adult" film, you understand. Just an adult film.

(We now know that this animal is fictional, but not from a book, children's film, or known from an artistic representation...)

[CdM] Film for adults - NO
[Kim] Dino? - NO
So, by a process of elimination....

Building on CdM's summary, if I have this right, the individual animal has never actually existed but is a human construction, represented not in books or artistic representation (which I take to mean painting, drawing, sculpture, etc) and not in any film made for children, adults or teenagers but in some other artistic form; moreover, the species to which the animal belongs is a real species, but the species does not exist in the world today, nor is it what we would call a "dinosaur".

[Kim] Subject of poem? - NO *some chuckles in the audience*
[G3] Trojan Horse? - NO
[CdM] TV - YES *sighs of relief*
The summary is correct, except around the 'species' (and this is my fault). It's probably best to say that the genus is real and current, but this particular creature isn't. After all, it doesn't exist, so has never been classified, so I'm extrapolating here - is it a species or a sub-species - search me. However, I suspect that you would probably think of it as part of an existing species.

(e.g., Flipper the wonder horse, Lassie the bush kangaroo) (I'm assuming not, because otherwise I think INJ would have led with Animal rather than Abstract ... but INJ's original definition did seem to leave the door open for lots of things.)