Things.

Aug 13, 2010 15:17

A few quiet moments this afternoon! And since the real-life stuff feels like too much to attempt to cover, here's some random Stuff I've been collecting.

* If you thought fandom was the only place where people spent astonishing amounts of time losing all sense of perspective in rabid battles about things that don't really matter when you look at Read more... )

science, video, plants, dinosaurs, nature

Leave a comment

Comments 25

padawanpooh August 13 2010, 20:31:32 UTC
Amazing, fascinating video! I studied a little bit about mosses in my Open University course last year on the emergence of life so this was great for me.

Aww...poor old dinosaurs...there have been a few cases like this over the years from what I can remember.

(BTW, Hubby and I are planning to go and see the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs tomorrow - Victorian era models that predate On the Origin of the Species and the oldest dino models in the world, in London. I promise to take pics if we get there!!!)

Reply

rustydog August 13 2010, 20:44:15 UTC
Victorian era models that predate On the Origin of the Species and the oldest dino models in the world

That sounds AMAZING! I am jealous and look forward to your pictures, if you get to go. :)

And now I kind of want fic where Charley Pollard sees those models and then the Doctor takes her to see the real thing, or vice versa. *g*

Reply

padawanpooh August 13 2010, 20:49:20 UTC
LOL! You've just reminded me I NEED TO PACK MY CAMERA!!!

That fic idea is absolute genius....I wish I had time/brainpower/creative energy to write it!

Reply

rustydog August 22 2010, 04:05:23 UTC
I wish I had time/brainpower/creative energy to write it!

I really shouldn't have when I should be working on my Big Bang, but I couldn't resist! Eight takes Charley to see the Crystal Palace Dinosaurs.

Reply


jheaton August 13 2010, 20:42:41 UTC
Well, I don't know about you, but that whole Mustelidae/Mephitidae thing is when I gave up on taxonomy altogether. Something that says a skunk isn't a weasel is something I want no part of, thank you very much.

Reply

rustydog August 13 2010, 23:45:31 UTC
It's barely worth learning the names at all, if they're going to keep changing them, isn't it?

I was pretty excited to learn about Mephitidae, of course. Skunks are special! :)

Reply

jheaton August 14 2010, 19:44:20 UTC
Yeah, they're pretty good. They're no Dasypodidae, of course.

(And is it weird that in small doses I kind of like the smell of skunk odor?)

Reply

rustydog August 14 2010, 20:10:20 UTC
They're no Dasypodidae, of course.

Nothing is, definitely! At least since the sad demise of the glyptodonts.

is it weird that in small doses I kind of like the smell of skunk odor?

I don't think so. In small doses, I kind of like the smell of chicken litter. :)

Reply


ejg25 August 13 2010, 20:58:00 UTC
They should definitely choose Triceratops for the overall species name. Whenever two companies merge, they know to keep the name with the greatest brand recognition.

Reply

rustydog August 13 2010, 23:35:16 UTC
I agree, and I expect that's the actually the reasoning they're going to go with. Maybe they learned from Brontosaurus. "Apatosaurus" got precedence because it was the first name given to a specimen, but clearly people still haven't given up their loyalty to the Brontosaurus name.

Reply

jheaton August 14 2010, 19:40:48 UTC
Tell that to ValuJet. :-)

Reply

rustydog August 14 2010, 20:10:49 UTC
Ah, or Enron I suppose.

Reply


donutsweeper August 13 2010, 22:09:37 UTC
I'm still bitter about the whole brontosaurus thing...

Reply

nutmeg3 August 13 2010, 23:23:50 UTC
Me too! He was my first great dinosaur love, and I think it's rude and unfair to take him away from me. But I don't care what anyone says. He'll always live in my heart.

Reply

rustydog August 13 2010, 23:41:51 UTC
Oh dear. Maybe you can help me understand this! The animal brontosaurus still exists (well, existed), it's just known by a synonymous name now. Why do people feel like brontosaurus was taken away from them? Is the name itself a construct that includes the animal, so without the name, the animal is conceptually nonexistent?

I feel like this is like a kid who comes home from college and tells his parents he's going by his middle name, now, so they have to call him "George" instead of "Patrick," and then they go into mourning because they've lost their son. ...? Does that make sense?

Reply

nutmeg3 August 13 2010, 23:46:44 UTC
I guess it kind of is like that, except I have no problem with real people's names changing. I think it bothers me so much because he was so iconic, and now he's just not. And also it's all tied up with my childhood, and that somehow makes it more...something. I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than that, but it just really, really bugs me. Maybe it's like suddenly having to call John Wayne "Marion Whatever." It just seems...wrong, even though he's the same and it's totally legit (more legit than John Wayne).

Reply


nutmeg3 August 13 2010, 23:25:55 UTC
<< I can understand if it were a case of scientists realizing they had accidentally put two or three rhinoceros skull fragments on a hippo body and the whole triceratops thing was just a myth. >>

Exactly! I got really furious at the teaser on the news (or somewhere - I forget) and thought this exact thing.

Reply

rustydog August 13 2010, 23:43:27 UTC
The news *really* isn't helping! ::glares at it:: Heh.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up