Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts

20.9.10

Was the Tricerotops a baker?

Q: On a recent Scout hike, a heated debate developed during our woodly wanderings. Proudly standing on one side was a 12 year old insisting that grass did not exist during the era of the dinosaurs, and didn' t appear until after the great meteorite that brought mass extinction. On the other were several boys and leaders insisting that common sense pointed to the fact that grass did exist. There is honor, a little money and participation in future Scouting events riding on this. So. Did grass exist at the time of the dinosaurs?
The Vegan Raptor

A: Dear Poaceaen Minded,

It sounds like your adolescent dinophile is fairly caught up on the early eras of the earth and the development of land animals and plants. Or fairly so. You may not like the answer, but technically the 12 year old is right, and wrong. (What a safe cop-out). And until 2005 or so, he was mostly correct. Let's explain.

Grasses - specifically of the poaceaen or gramineae family - are a branch of flowering plants, even part of a greater group of monocotelydons (single seed leaf) that include pineapples, palms, orchids and lilies. We know grasses as things that produce food we eat - ryes, wheat, etc - and things we decorate with, i.e the lawn. The family includes bamboo, rice, and corn, and includes 9-10,000 species.

But this plant family that dominates our lives and cuisine, is relatively new. Lets describe the history briefly, as understood up through 2004, best summarized by Elizabeth Kellogg. Using rDNA studies of the chloropast genome (a sub-cell structure in plants) scientists can begin to create a family tree of grasses to show their development. You have to go pretty far back to find a common ancestor of rice and corn (maize). Scientists also use fossil evidence in conjunction with atomic dating to start fixing the early descendants. Specifically they look at pollen fossils and for specific grass features (look for channels that go through the outer but not inner pollen walls). Earliest examples are found at 60-55 million years ago. They have found some examples of pollen from 70 million years ago, but they cannot confirm it actually comes from grass.

Your brief dinosaur history: Dinosaurs were the dominant land vertabrates from the late Triassic to late Cretaceous period - roughly 230-65.5 million years ago. Science generally points to several mass extinction events taking place at the end of hte Cretaceous period to kill off the dinosaurs and allow mammels to dominate. This later time is a time of thriving for dinosaurs, including the Tyrannosaur. And some mammels were around at this time. But you can see that with dinosaurs dying off in 65.5 million years from asteroids and/or volcanos, grass wasn't around according to the fossil and genetic record. So before 2004 scientists declared, "Dinosaurs did not eat grasses".


A type of titanosaur sauropod
 But dinosaur poop saves the day! (Didn't expect that ever!) In 2005, a Science article discussed that they have found evidence of grasses in corprolites (the polite word for fossilized poop). Specifically they found that 5 different taxas (major species groups) of grasses were eaten by dinosaurs. (In this case titanosaur suaropods in India) This points to the fact that grasses were somewhat widespread and developed before the catastrophes of 65.5 million years ago.


A TV lie! He may have had the hammock, but not the lawn.
 So...both sides are right. (Keep in mind the the exact dating and science here is a bit nebulous and often dependent on what we are lucky enough to find in someone's backyard). Grasses did exist to a good extent during the time of the dinosaurs, but not for the majority of the time. So Fred Flinstone didn't have to mow the lawn. How you settle the bet is up to you.

HRB
Continue Reading...

21.1.08

Respect My Authoritah

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board:

2 Questions:

a. Who will win the 2008 presidential election? More importantly who will the VP be?(I'm thinking a Romney/Clinton ticket. ;/)

b. Why in heavens name does blogger need to have word verifications? What are their purpose? Why, oh, why must they be on the otherwise wonderful 100 hour board?

Finally, who decides what the verifications are? Computer generated or human- I've gotten some pretty funky ones.

I HATE WORD VERIFICATIONS-This has got to stop!!!!!

Regards,

"I Like Big [Turtle] Butts"

A: Dear Caboose Aficionado

My toddler pointed out to me that you did not ask 2 questions, but rather 6.

In light of this, the 100 Hour Board will take 600 Hours to answer your questions, exactly 25 days, luckily after Super Tuesday polling.

That being said, the 100HB is not a fortune teller, and cannot tell you what will be, however much that outcome is desired. As for political pundit, it seams the only requirement to be one is to not have a brain, so the 100HB cannot be that either. The Board does however offer you some insite:

a) The front runners right now are Obama for the Dems with 38 delegates (though Clinton is close with 36) and Romney for the Repubs with 72 (next is McCain with 38). The issues regarding state polling are key in each state, as they've helped generate surprises and uniqueness to the primaries. A cross-party ticket is unlikely, mainly because a candidate can't be of the party anymore to run on the other ticket. However the possible entrance of Bloomberg will be interesting. In the 100 Hour Board's opinion - the election will be between Clinton/Edwards and McCain/Romney. Although which is VP and P on the ticket is not clear.

b) From Blogger, "What [Word Verification] this does is to prevent automated systems from adding comments to your blog, since it takes a human being to read the word and pass this step. If you've ever received a comment that looked like an advertisement or a random link to an unrelated site, then you've encountered comment spam. A lot of this is done automatically by software which can't pass the word verification, so enabling this option is a good way to prevent many such unwanted comments." Those bloggers who are more senior and experienced (ie been blogging longer than October 2007, have had issues with spam comments. Word verification makes moderating easier. Please see previous posts regarding the 100 Hour Board and comment posting to help preserve the nature of the question/answer format.

Finally, word verifications come from the same place Family Guy jokes do (as referenced by South Park). Manatees in a giant tank select balls with letters on them in random order. Each sequence then becomes a word to verify against.

100HB
Continue Reading...

29.10.07

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board,
They say there is more than one way to skin a cat, but how many ways are there to do said skinning? Furthermore, for what practical reasons would one be required to skin a cat?
Regards,
Hannibal Lector

A: Dear Favabean and Liver Connoisseur,

I'm worried about you and your predilections for cruelty to small animals. I'm afraid that one day I'll wake up in some scary house of torture puzzles to try and escape from, only to find out that it was all one of your twisted games...ok enough Saw reruns.
"To skin a cat" is not a new idiom in the English language. Some claim that it comes from a Southern phrase referring to catfish - or cat for short - and hence is used in preparing lunch. But that just seems to be a local use of the phrase, history points to earlier use. It was recorded in John Ray's 1678 book of English proverbs (proverb? really? there's a difference between 'early to rise early to bed...' and skinning a cat). It has shown up in several books, including Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain, "she was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat”, that is, more than one way to get what she wanted. Apparently they needed fresh skinned cats back in 1889, or maybe that's medieval times, or who knows!

I've found multiple references to skinning a cat - including actual skinning a cat, step-by-step photo instructions. (As part of a standard dissection procedure, mind you!) But that's just gross - or too medical. I'd offer you one stanza from a poem of three ways on "How to skin a cat" by Sarah Willians but she's a little deranged. So...although I can't find a finite number, I bet there are infinite, hence the saying, I am assured there are at least 101 according to one list. My favorites:
  • Hold it by its tail. Shake vigorously
  • Wrap duct tape around it. Pull off quickly
  • Chemotherapy
  • Paint it white and take it to a sheep shearing contest

Although admittedly some of these suggestions are less about skinning and either just about shaving it or sadistic (use it as a lance or shield in a joust). And some of the actual entries are more about uses of a skinned cat, "shave a message in the fur and send it to an enemy." Apparently the use of a messaged cat is so frequent this must be a major reason to skin one.

As to actual uses, I'm sure there are a good deal them. In fact I'm certain that several countries serve cat much in the same way catfish is in the South. This is the primary reason - though rest assured that cat meat is hard to get in the US and illegal. But do watch out for Chinese restaurants that offer to 'walk the cat.' Or rather 'wok the cat.' But I offer some original uses.

  • To pass a regular cat off as Mr. Bigglesworth
  • To participate in the Body Worlds traveling exhibit
  • Nothing like a cat-skin stole to keep you warm

I don't want to get too creative in case you are inspired to make my kitties go missing.

Now, skinning the cat is also a jungle-gym move, involving hanging by your hands, raising your legs and feet up through your arms and flipping over. Although there is only one way to do this, so I don't think this is your intended idiomatic meaning.

Regards,

Protector of Felines

Continue Reading...

5.9.07

Round and Round We Go

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board,

If you are driving in a car at a constant speed. On your left side is a 'drop off' (The ground is 18-20 inches below the level you are traveling on), and on your right side is a fire engine traveling at the same speed as you. In front of you is a galloping horse which is the same size as your car and you cannot overtake it. Behind you is a galloping zebra. Both the horse and zebra are also traveling at the same speed as you. What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?

Sincerely,
Anonymous (Cause who would own up to a question like that?)

A: Dear 'Been-Watching-Too-Much-TV'

You offer quite an interesting dilemma. I think I may be able shed some light and wisdom on this sticky situation. There really are some major issues here, so we need to dissect this a little. Now I can make some assumptions about this from what you've asked. Since the horse is the same size as you, either the horse is eight feet across or you are in a clown car (I don't think a golf cart counts as a 'car'). If this is the case I'd just throw a couple other clowns out of the car who will trip up the zebra, flip the fire truck or at least build up a satisfying barrier to my left that I can crash into. Is the world any worse off with a few less clowns?
Or perhaps - in case that seems too improbable - we look at it a little differently. If the road drops off to the left, then you are either on a highway or, better yet, in Australia, England, New Zealand or some other Empire country. If this is the fact, then the firetruck, which may be traveling your speed, is going in the opposite direction (i.e driving on the left hand side of the road). In that case, wait a second and pull into the opposing lane to either pass the horse, or let the zebra go by.
This may be the case. But if you ask me, I'll just wait til the ride ends, and get off the carousel. (And yes...that I came up myself).
Solomon the Just a Little Wise
Continue Reading...

17.8.07

Unoriginal

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board,
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Sincerely,
No Imagination

A: Dear Simple Minded

It's unfortunate that you waste the incredible powers of the 100 Hour Board on such simple questions that can be answered with little research or real travail. But...I will stoop to that level because no body is asking real questions.

A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
or
Ms. Woodchuck recently saw religion and has decided that given the impending doom of global warming, that felling trees just for the sake of 'woodchucking' is a horrible idea. It will undoubtedly lead to an influx in CO2 in the air, warmer temperatures and perhaps the cataclysmic winter predicted by Hollywood (no coincidence it is 'wood'). So our friend has decided to actively take up environmental activism, even to a terroristic level, and is no longer chucking wood. It began lightly with relying on recycled chucked wood - or upchucked wood - but has since led to wood alternatives like soak (like a soy version of oak). It's no where near as flavorful but can be slightly nutritious. Following these moves, she has decided to join a woodchucking commune or kibbutz to further the cause of earth good will and woodchuck free-love. It was recently discovered by the USDA Forest Service that she is involved in enviro-terrorist activities. It includes dousing loggers with wood stains - they prefer blue - like my wife, as also the destruction of any post-commercial wood product. So if you see a woodchuck in your neighborhood, beware...she just make attack you for building a house of wood, using paper and frankly giving off CO2.

Now...for the other question...
The chicken first contemplated crossing the road in 1847 in The Knickerbocker monthly magazine. So apparently before this time roads didn't exist, chickens didn't exist or chickens didn't even consider crossing the road. However, from this time there has been an influx of philosophical discussions on whether poultry should consider it necessary to cross the road.
Now the answers, like all philosophical fried froth, are varied, and I offer my favorite. Just realize, before you, dear readers, get angered over no real answer, metaphysical conversations have no known answer, and I'm afraid that Cluckrates, Ploultro, Henselm and Thomas Achickenus will debate this forever via Harvard's Philosophical Journal. So no...no definitive - this is the reason - but some light shed on the questions.
S0 my favorite:
Central Intelligence Agency: "We can neither confirm nor deny any involvement in the chicken-road-crossing incident."
Others:
Karl Marx: "The chicken was driven by the lash of economic necessity."
Amelia Earhart: "She could have flown."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that one day chickens will be able to cross roads without having their motives called into question."
DR. SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road?Did he cross it with a toad?Yes, The chicken crossed the road,But why it crossed, I've not been told!
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die. In the rain. Alone
CAPTAIN KIRK: To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
FOX MULDER: You saw it cross the road with your own eyes! How many more chickens have to cross before you believe it?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What do you mean by chicken? Could you define chicken, please?
THE BIBLE: And God came down from the heavens, and He said unto the chicken, "Thou shalt cross the road." And the chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.
COLONEL SANDERS: I missed one?

Regards,
Thoroughly To Snide This Morning
Continue Reading...

12.8.07

Its all Bull

Q:
Dear All Knowing 100 Hour Board,

I recently read a news article on penguins fear of the color red, can you explain this phenomenon?

Regards,
80

A:

Dear My Monochromatic Friend,

I do not know where you get your facts, but you are clearly misled in this assumption. Bulls charge after the red cape - although interestingly enough it isn't because of the color (bulls are colorblind) but because of the motion. The idea that penguins are afraid of red is just, well bull.

Penguins eyes are attuned to life at sea, particularly underwater. It is disputed whether they are nearsighted on land or not (I've seen facts to both ends - although you can look at Sivak, J.; Howland, H. & McGill-Harelstad, P. (1987) "Vision of the Humboldt Penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) in Air and Water " Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 229(1257): 467-472). But it is universally acknowledged that the eyes are set to help them see prey and hunters underwater. This means the ability to define blues and greens well. Red is not a distinguished color for penguins. I.e - they do not see red or at least clearly. There is no evolutionary or biological reason to either. In fact evolution points to why they don't (or at least exploits that fact). That is most krill (a favorite penguin dish) is typically red, a color lost in the ocean blues and protects them from the penguins.
A recent Harvard experiment regarding egg-stealing in penguins, involved placing red painted 'eggs' in nests. They could track the eggs around the nests easily - as the penguins couldn't tell the difference.

So - no fear of ruby red slippers or anything. Just afraid of sharks and normal things. I guess they couldn't tell if another penguin got sunburned either - too bad for those Madagascar penguins.

Regards,
March of the Exploding Penguins
Continue Reading...
 

100 Hour Board Copyright © 2009 WoodMag is Designed by Ipietoon for Free Blogger Template