Science desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 26[edit]

Genetics: Focal amplification[edit]

What does focal amplification mean?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue down quark (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In genetics, "foci" (plural of focus) are specific genes. Amplification is a type of gene duplication that causes the gene to overexpress itself. The term is usually used in reference to cancer cells; cancer is basically a somatic cell which is reproducing like crazy, and many common types of cancer are linked to specific sorts of gene amplifications. See Gene duplication, Gene expression which have some explanations of these concepts. Focal amplification just means a specific amplification of a specific gene. --Jayron 32 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to have an article on gene amplification; what happens with something like MYC (or DHFR, in a different context) is far beyond what you usually think of as "duplication", because there's a process of natural selection for increased numbers of copies, and the presence of arrays of identical DNA may tend to make it easier for further changes in copy number to occur. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral sensitivity[edit]

What optical spectral sensitivity is been more high, of the human eyes or optical (magnetic-optical) devices, and why?--85.141.234.131 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we have cameras that can see ultraviolet, infrared, at night, and a single photon, I'd have to say the machines beat the human eye. On the other hand, the human eye has the advantage of being connected to the optical processing center of the human brain, which can do amazing things that computers still have trouble doing. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Any optical medium at first and foremost is always been magnetic environment, so I thinking that the conductivity of electric current of the magnetic environment is always been determines any spectral sensitivity, is I’m right?--83.237.197.16 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I’m think that the conductivity of electric current, which is always been Ampere Force, is always been determining any spectral sensitivity of optical mediums. Is it right?--83.237.197.16 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the conclusion that in any cases, the physical phenomenon of the photoelectric effect which been discovered by Albert Einstein, is always been observing in all optics. Is it right?--83.237.204.115 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that’s, the all Laws of mechanics (optical mechanics) of the Isaac Newton are always been right, because the phenomenon (phenomena) of the photoelectric effect of Albert Einstein is always been observing in all optics.--85.141.237.52 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thus this, I concluding that Ampere Force always been determining all properties of optics, which always including (optical) properties of quantum mechanics (quantum physics). Is it been right, so?--83.237.206.127 (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think optics necessarily has anything to do with electricity or magnetism. Film cameras existed for over a hundred years before digital photography. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What be if an optical laser been done as electromagnet, I’m think, that it been done a plasma (plasmic) optics (laser).--83.237.201.58 (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a MASER ? StuRat (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m understood so, that MASER been a cool’s plasmic’s (optical) light, something like as a plasma reaction in the Sun.--83.237.210.18 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The space cosmos is colder's.--85.140.137.119 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the laws of mechanics are been identical to the laws of other sections of physics?[edit]

Did the laws of mechanics been identical to the laws of other sections of physics, if the Law of conservation of energy is always been universal, that is be, if some of physico-mathematical values of mechanics is always been directly proportional to the same (identical) physico-mathematical values of other sections of physics?--83.237.197.79 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to ask this question on a Wikipedia reference desk or other question-answering website in your own native language. Your English usage is so poor, that it's almost impossible to even understand your questions, and I have doubts that your English language comprehension is good enough to understand our answers fully, if we were to give them. Really, there are smart people in whatever language you grew up speaking. Seeking them out and asking them questions would be better for everyone involved. --Jayron 32 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've known native English-speakers to ask similarly baffling questions. —Tamfang (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interdisciplinary approach to engineering that looks at the similarity in how mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems work (is it called systems engineering ?). For example, an electrical transformer has a mechanic equivalent in a lever. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meaning that in physics, for example, the value of mechanical work is always been equivalent to the value of work of electric current, isn't it?--83.237.222.10 (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so also, electric power (Watt's) is always been identical to mechanical power (Watt's), and so on.--83.237.222.10 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are the same watts. Other "equivalents" are less clearly defined. You might be interested in articles such as Hydraulic analogy. Dbfirs 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your English would be easier to read, Alex, if you completely avoid the word "been" (though just occasionally you might need it e.g. for Uses of English verb forms#Been_and_gone). Dbfirs 22:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't be such a been-counter. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I have repeatedly advised this guy to brush up his English, to no avail. It's getting wearisome. I fear an improvement in his English might reveal just how bad his physics is, though. He's allegedly banned from Russian Wikipedia already. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all! Ultimately, in all sections of physics (in all physics) are been existed only the same (identical) mechanical movements which are been existing in mechanics (mechanics of Isaac Newton).--83.237.219.81 (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If according to the mathematical version of the Law of conservation of energy, the energy potential is always been proportional by the physico-mathematical units which expressed it, so then what is being the mechanical potential of energy (energy of mechanics)?--83.237.202.144 (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

42. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth considering why physics and chemistry for explain the physical and chemical phenomena used the mathematical theory which had not been proved by applied (practical) ways, this been leads to a false theory of physics and chemistry.--85.140.132.185 (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the lead pipe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free access to education (reliable educational information), that is no secrets to the reliableness (authenticity) of educational information is always being the key to the success of any society - humanity.--83.237.195.144 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mairsey Doats and Lambsey Doats? μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dozy doats. Lambzy divey. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: Liddle ambsey divey. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major revelation: They prefer milk. Since the sag of sheep boobs isn't directly proportional to the height of the lamb, they must mechanically adapt. As their distal region extends toward the sun, like a delicious forb, they must pray proportionally harder for less energy.

This is why they eventually die. Too much ambition. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalosauroidea[edit]

Are all dinosaurs canivore in this superfamily?--79.44.63.248 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to to Benson et al 2010 (see ref in article you linked to) almost all large-bodied predators belong to either Megalosauroidea or Allosauroidea after the Middle Jurassic. So not even all large-bodied carnivores were in that superfamily - this doesn't cover any small-bodied carnivores or any carnivores before the Middle Jurassic. Mikenorton (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the OP's question as being equivalent to "Were any Megalosauroidea not carnivores." Sadly, I don't know the answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes;I mean if all species belonging to this superfamily are carbivore.--79.44.63.248 (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misunderstanding the question. As far as I can tell, and it is a question that's tricky to prove absolutely without checking out each individual genus, all of that superfamily are carnivores. There are a few herbivores (and ominivores and insectivores) in the Coelurosauria, another part of the dominantly carnivore fossil theropods, so it's conceivable that there could be some in the Megalosauriodea as well. Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are humans instinctively able to ensure that the phallus goes into the correct orifice for successful mating?[edit]

I am not sure if the penis-vagina intercourse is supposed to be instinctive. Do men guide their penises with their hands during sexual intercourse, or do they allow their penises to become erect by themselves? I mean, I've seen a dog mating with another dog, and the male dog does not seem to care where the penis is. Is this what goes on in the human mating process? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data would indicate that successful mating has occurred in the human species. I don't feel the need to link to anything, as you and I are here, which is evidence enough that it works. --Jayron 32 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That just proves that mating occurs, not that it's instinctive. In other animals, they likely just watch older animals to learn how. But, since people mate differently (usually face-to-face) and in private, watching other humans may not have historically been possible. With the advent of widespread porn, it now is. Sex education is another way to learn. And, of course, it's only the case of two virgins where not knowing the mechanics might be an issue. But, given enough time, I'd expect two virgins with absolutely no knowledge of sex would eventually figure it out on their own. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to your last statement, the fact that we're all still here means that humans can successfully mate, even if they weren't taught how to by porn or formal sexual education. Those things have only existed for a tiny fraction of humans for a tiny fraction of history. And we made it through thousands of years of human history before we got to the point where porn and sex ed classes existed. That's evidence enough that people have figured out, all on their own, how to put tab A in slot B. --Jayron 32 15:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back far enough, adults wouldn't have had sex in private (before there were houses with individual rooms, doing so would have been difficult), so children would have learned that way. StuRat (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, do men hold the penis or not during copulation? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some do and some don't. There's lots of ways to have sex in the world, and it's all probably happening right now. If you can think of it, people have done it. --Jayron 32 15:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, humans don't have an evolved method? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the human vagina is part of evolution, you might like this article on the evolution of the mammalian vagina [1]. Humans do tend to have sex a bit differently (and with more variation in positioning) than other primates [2], in part due to differences in angles and hip structure. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article about sex positioning very informative, SemanticMantis. In addition, I have read that the female can become impregnated without penetration at all, as long as the semen is somewhere close. So, this may give some hope to those who can't seem to conceive. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do humans have to take off their clothes during sexual intercourse? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the relevant bits of clothing. I get the impression people might have left more clothing on in the olden days, when taking off all a women's clothes could take an hour (this might also explain the bodice ripper stereotype of tearing off the woman's clothes in a fit of passion). Also, when it's cold, people might tend to keep more clothes on. StuRat (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see Temple garment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop and think about it, only a virgin and/or a resident of central Ohio would be asking all these questions sincerely. (As in "Nudge-nudge, wink-wink... What's it like?") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the occurrence of instinctive behavior in humans is a serious, and extensively debated, issue. The sad part is that, due to certain ethics impediments where it comes to raising babies in isolation cells, we really don't have any good experimental methods to use to get to the truth of it. But we do know that when making, say, germ-free mice in a way that involves separation from their non germ free parents, they seem able to figure it out. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't The Blue Lagoon (1980 film) adequately explain the matter? Jim.henderson (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never hurts to bone up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflicts) While I can't point you to specific references right now, I can tell you that that I once attended a talk given by someone who, amongst other things, provided counselling to couples (in the USA, I believe Texas) who had failed to have children. She asserted that in a significant percentage (at least 10%, but I can't recall precisely) of these cases, questioning established that the couples involved had not, in fact, been having sex involving penile penetration of the vagina, because they had never received sufficiently specific advice in the matter. The unsuccessful targets involved included between the thighs (most commonly), the navel, and in at least one instance the urethra.

This suggests that the necessary manoeuvres of sexual intercourse (as opposed to the general desires) are not instinctive in humans. Regarding your observations of dogs, I also know, from conversations with dog breeders, that inexperienced male dogs not infrequently need physical guidance: dogs are of course domesticated, and some biologists argue that humans can be regarded as self-domesticated, which might be of some relevance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, really, conception is a matter of trial and error. Since it's easy to miss the target, this may also explain the prevalence of anal sex and the replacement of the opposite-sex partner with a same-sex partner. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the story of a couple that had been married for several years but without children. When asked, the husband said, "Well, we've tried, but she never can seem to swallow that stuff." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The urge to embrace seems to me to be pretty universal, and everything else leads on from there, and you only need to get it approximately right to reproduce, if you do it enough times. The alignment of anatomy means that PIV sex is quite a lot easier than the alternatives. 100% success is not necessary to propagate the species, as not everyone needs to reproduce for the species to survive. -- The Anome (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that historically, brother-sister incest has happened and produced babies. Certain body parts smell good, and rubbing them together is pleasurable. I can't think of any famous child incest cases, but of course we know it does occur, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to segregate pubescent children who haven't been given explicit instructions on producing babies.

μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weird question that sounds like it's coming from a person that doesn't realize there is another person involved that also has instincts. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's if the other person involved realizes the weird person is involved. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buried by time[edit]

Might be a silly question. When archeologists dig ground to uncover ancient settlements or other artifacts of ancient societies they have to remove a few feet of dirt and other material. The same is true for paleantology. Where does this matter come from? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a silly question at all, but rather a fascinating and important one. The best articles to look at are Law of Superposition, Stratigraphy (archaeology), and tell. They come from layers of sediment that build up over time. You can sort of think of them as being like rings in a tree. They help us to date stuff and determine how different pieces of material evidence relate to each other. We also have times when people have put modern top soil over a site (which is as annoying as it sounds). We don't always have to dig deep though, sometimes things are close to or on the surface and we just have to remove an inch or two of top soil and then we get to the good stuff. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 17:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some useful information about a specific and accelerated type of this phenomenon at Tell (which I personally think should be spelled 'tel', but what do I know). --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct spellings. Tel is a Hebrew transliteration, whereas Tell is an Arabic one. They're used interchangeably in archaeological publications and it's not uncommon to see both spellings in the same article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 17:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never could tel. --Dweller (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also material placed there by later generations of people. In many cases, they build a structure on top of an old one. At other times, it's a trash heap, with pieces of broken pottery and food residue (with seeds, bones and shells still remaining). Then there's human excrement, which turns into dirt. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked above don't really answer the question. I think this tells you a lot more. It's things like: decayed vegetation (especially leaves), wind-blown soil, sand and other debris, silt washed from higher ground during floods, volcanic ash etc. etc. Richerman (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a mixture of excrement and melted mudbrick in some cases. Often we lick bones to determine if they are in fact bones (if your tongue sticks it's probably bone or pottery) and try not to think about the excrement aspect. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 18:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of tells, it's also melted and decayed mudbrick. The thing is we're also talking about different types of sites here. I'm referring to cities built on tells that range from Bulgaria to the Punjab which have little vegetation initially, and I think what you're referring to is more European sites. I think we both might be forgetting that there's a lot of variability in archaeological sites. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 18:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the site, and at risk of stating the obvious, the "stuff" comes from other places. It gets to the site via Aeolian_processes#Transport, and Fluvial processes, and also a tiny bit from things like animal transport (e.g. zoochory and excrement). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to my use of stuff in your quotes, in both cases my use would encompass finds such as material remains, architecture, coprolites (fossilised poop, which smells like chocolate oddly enough), faunal remains (animal remains), flora, etc. so it's easier to say stuff, haha. One of the problems with discussing your own field is that you sometimes forget to specify terms that would seem obvious to you, but aren't to others as you're far too used to them. The end result is that you cause more confusion than clarification... Also, I realised I directed this topic away from palaeontology. Sorry about that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just meant the same stuff you did. Whether it's soil, plant, animal matter, etc, the stuff gets their mainly by aeolian and fluvial processes, with a bit of animal (including human) transport mixed in. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though in the case of tells, it's mostly human activity (building, filling, warfare that destroys the city) and rain. James Mellaart found the latter out the hard way when he was excavating Çatalhöyük and the mudbrick walls of the areas he had excavated started to melt during the winter (destroying some lovely bull murals in the process). They built shelters after that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 8 Adar 5775 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the traces that archaeologists find often started off underground anyway; it's often only the foundations of a building that survive. In the UK, it was common for later generations to recycle the stones and bricks from older structures, sometimes digging them out right down to the footings, leaving only a robber trench. Alansplodge (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin had other ideas on this question; see his The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms --catslash (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the UK. This is common practice everywhere, and not just in buried archaeological sites. The Pyramids of Giza look as they do today because of limestone being robbed off them in the construction of Cairo, and I think it's not uncommon for churches in Italy to have bits and pieces of old Roman temples. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Adar 5775 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If whales were fish[edit]

"Fish" in the modern, scientific sense (Osteichthyes, or Pisces if you want to be old-fashioned) in a paraphyletic group, because it excludes tetrapods.

How would you describe, taxonomically, the pre-modern definition of "fish" that included cetaceans?

Is it polyphyletic? The acticle on Polyphyly gives two definitions, the first of which would apply to "Pisces + Cetacea" ("phenotypes which have converged or reverted so as to appear to be the same but which have not been inherited from common ancestors").

The second definition ("multiple ancestral sources") doesn't though, as the most recent common ancestor of fish and whales was also fish. How then, if you use this definition, would/could you describe to the group "Pisces + Cetacea"? Iapetus (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a large-prey eating whale (an orca) was a fish, it would be a shark (most kinds). If a filter feeding whale was a fish, it would be a whale shark. The only type of whale which (I believe) lacks a shark equivalent seems to be the group that scoops up large quantities of fish in a mouthful. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would just call pre-modern "fish" (i.e. Pisces + Cetacea) a polyphyletic grouping and call it a day. Nobody is going to say that you're wrong, and if pressed, yo can explain. Really, Pisces + Cetacea is about the same as nocturnal primates, the example of poyphyly given in the article - because a dolphin and a tuna both swim, but the dolphin has plenty of ancestors that didn't swim. Also, while the MRCA of Pisces and Cetacea may well be a pre-modern "fish", I don't think that really matters in terms of the cladistics, because the whole point is that this grouping is not a clade. You might be interested in the recent phylogeny described at Sarcopterygii#Phylogeny. If you like, you can consider your group polyphyletic and paraphyletic, the latter since we can form pre-modern fish by lopping off several monophyletic chunks from the clade formed by the MRCA of Pisces and Cetaceans...

The main point is, unless you're speaking at a technical conference for systematists or something, polyphyletic is a fine label. If you are presenting at a technical conference for systematists, ask your colleagues or advisers, because they surely know more than us :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "fish" (old sense) being a habit (biology). It seems a bit odd to put it like that, mostly because the actual uses as given in the article are more specific and, well, technical-sounding. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a habit isn't a grouping, it's a concept (e.g. a behavior, growth form, etc). Looking at the definition of polyphyly given in monophyly, pre-modern fish are definitely polyphyletic, because the cetaceans did not inherit their swimming habit from a common ancestor with Pisces. Probably the definition in polyphyly should be subtly changed to match the language in monophyly. Another option would be to say that pre-modern fish are a type, just as the modern sense of fish is, as explained in that article. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the question of who's doing the classifying PIE has various fish words, and *(s)kwalos means shark and whale in various dialects. The *peisk- root is believed to be related to a word for spotted, referring to species like the trout. *dhghu- (ichthys in Greek) seems to be a more general term with a wider Eurasiatic etymology.

"Fish" in the biblical sense basically refers to any sea creature, including turtles, crabs, etc. There, kosher law defines only fish with scales and fins to be edible. The whale and the crab might be fish in this sense, but lacking scales they are not kosher. Sea turtles actually do have scales and fins, and at least for Catholics they were edible on Fridays as "fish" when normal meat was forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by medeis (talk • contribs)

Any sort of scientific taxonomy is a relatively recent innovation. Herman Melville wrote the best part of a whole chapter in Moby-Dick, debating whether a whale was a fish or a mammal. He decided in the end that it was definitely a fish. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but Linnaean_taxonomy predates Moby Dick by over 100 years...by the 1758 edition of Systema_Naturae, Linnaeus had placed whales in Mammalia. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melville was aware of the Linnaean taxonomy, and the differences between whales and (other) fish - he just didn't think those differences were sufficient to change the English language. As far as he was concerned, "fish" simply meant "creature that lives wholey in the water" ("but the walrus is not a fish, because he is amphibious"), and the fact that some fish breath air, bear live young, and have horizontal tails was irrelivent to the definition. (Relevent chapter here. Google Translate has a rather... fruity interpretation of the Latin text)Iapetus (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biologicaly, the most recent group including at least some fish and the whale is the Sarcopterygii, which also includes lungfish and the Coelacanth. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)±[reply]

Pronunciation of "agRP"[edit]

I'm making a video and I need to know how to pronounce the abbreviation for agouti-related protein (i.e., "agRP"). In the video, I also talk about POMC, CART, and NPY, and I'm only using the abbreviations. I tried to find a pronunciation on Google, but somehow Google didn't know what I meant. I would appreciate any suggestions.162.40.209.100 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just of the top of my head: Over reliance on abbreviations can be sometimes be a problem when spoken. If you pronounce it əˈɡuːti RP , (or agoo tee RP) then people in that discipline (which you are addressing in the English speaking World) will understand perfectly. [3] Agrp is not a memorable sound in English regardless of how it is pronounced. It sounds too much like Klingon (my apologies to any Klingon readers here – I think you language is wonderful – when spoken on your own planet!). Keep your language clear, simple and unambiguous. Reliance on abreviations requires the listener to realize that this is not a word but an abbreviation.... and then.... remember what it stands for. As a communicator, one should short cut that extra brain-work in order to keep one audience’s attention. I learnt this when I studied Industrial Communications.--Aspro (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using an abbreviation without ever defining it seems like a bad idea to me. When people want to pronounce things like agRP, they usually insert a schwa. So something like /agərp/ or /agrəp/ might work. But I have to wonder how you know what these things are without ever having heard someone else talk about them... SemanticMantis (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have it the nail on the head of what I'm saying. I became an expert in instrumentation and other things once; much of what I knew came from text books, research papers etc. When I had first found I had to talk to a audience (managers and the CEO) I was lost for how to say the abbreviations - I'd never heard many of them voiced. In these instances, one needs to take a step back and talk in the clearest prose and vocabulary as possible. In print, one can quickly scan back to find out what an abbreviation means but in a verbal presentation one has to carry the whole audience along with you – all at the same time. If they have trouble following your presentation, it is not because they are stupid (some had enough degrees to get a job as a laboratory thermometer) but it due to one's lack of speaking in a vernacular that they understand and can comprehend.

I'm puzzled why you don't just say it as it's written, ag R P, in three syllables/letters, as everybody else does. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AG is the root. AG can stand for other things as well. Too much brain work involved to just say AGRP.--Aspro (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with just spelling out A G R P; I'd avoid splitting between a full name (agouti) and an acronym (RP) unless RP were some sort of "action" done to agouti, which isn't the case. Even then you wouldn't usually mix and match (not "estrogen R" or "E receptor", not "IRF-4 BP" or "I binding protein") though I imagine you could find a counterexample with enough looking. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this 2011 Youtube video, Richard Palmiter from the Allen Institute for Brain Science pronounces each letter individually, saying A G R P neurons. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your ideas!162.40.209.100 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I was making a presentation, I would probably just say the full name, "agouti-related protein". That's just about as easy as reciting the initials. If I needed something shorter, I would probably say "agouti" unless that's ambiguous, and explain it the first time I did it. In any case the main thing to remember is that your goal is to be understood by your audience, not to be formally correct. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a tree in Miami[edit]

Here's a picture of a tree in Miami, Florida: http://i.imgur.com/f5Fl6zp.jpg

What is the name of this tree? This may be too easy for those who live there, but I don't have such trees near where I live. (Never mind the squirrel on photo.) --91.79.24.255 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a gumbo tree? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea

It's very hard to tell without seeing the leaves, flowers or fruit. American sycamores and eucalyptus have bark that peels in this way, but from what you can tell the leaves are not like eucalyptus and the growth form of the trunk is unusual for the very upright and tall sycamore. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Could also be really large crepe myrtles. Again, without leaves or flowers, or the like, we're just throwing darts blind, though. --Jayron 32 02:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think that's a good guess, looking at these pictures, although, strangely enough they are common in South Jersey and I have never noticed such peeling bark, but they don't tend to grow too big because snowfall breaks off branches and splits large trunks. It may be the crepe myrtles up north don't get so large or lose their bark. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bird identifciation[edit]

My parents' birdfeeder has drawn that attention of some large black passerine birds, presumably corvids. They are as long as crows, but not so robust. Strangely, they look like Brown-headed cowbirds in reverse. Their heads are black with a strong navy blue sheen, and the shoulders of their wings have a bronze highlight. So the contrast is not a striking as the cowbird, but the blue and bronze on black is quite clear.

I've read List of birds of New Jersey and the bird is not included, presumably it is a transient. Any suggestions as to the identification? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know the common grackle, right? That's what it sounds like, but it's a very common bird, and resident to NJ year round... Boat-tailed grackle would be very distinctive with the long tail. What type of feeder are they using, how many do you see at once? Are they otherwise foraging on the ground? Any note on eye, beak, or leg color? SemanticMantis (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I knew of the name and had seen the birds very rarely, but as I have mentioned earlier, the birdfeeder my mother got for Christmas 2013 has been so successful we have seen dozens of species. I am fairly sure it is indeed the common grackle, however, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]