Humanity's knowledge base of species is nowhere near complete.
Absolutely true Toouk - although most new species which are discovered these days are insects, rather than large land mammals.
the link was very interesting. There have been several cases where a species previously thought extinct has been found in a very remote habitat - the prehistoric fish (whose name I can't spell so I won't type!) which was caught off the coast of South Africa is another case in point
The unicorn, however, is not a parallel case to this, not being an extinct creature - there is no evidence that it ever existed.
There is every possibility that unicorns may well have existed, even in the absence of any evidence to date.
I think the difference in the way we choose to phrase these things is interesting, Stefan. We would both agree that one cannot completely rule out the possibility that unicorn remains may be found somewhere, somewhen - open-minded to the possibility of future discoveries which contradict current accepted wisdom. However, the complete absence of any evidence at present leads me to say "let's proceed on the assumption that they did not exist, until evidence is found to suggest that they do", whereas the same datum leads you to say "Because there is no proof that they did not
exist, it is quite acceptable to suppose that they might." (forgive me if I paraphrase you in a way you find unacceptable).
This seems to be a specific example of the differences of approach between skeptics and "believers" (note the inverted commas - B-word used as a convenient shorthand only - let's not go through all that again
BTW, none of the above is to say that I am not interested in unicorns as a myth, or as a symbol. Things can have a value in these senses whether they actually existed or not - rather like the distinction which some theologans draw between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of Faith".