http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/cornwall_news/4208730.Giant_worm_found_in_Cornwall/
Creepy, yet fascinating.
That's pretty awesome, but I was mildly bummed that it didn't turn out to be a new species of giant earthworm. :(
Australia even has bright blue ones!
http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2008/05/giant_blue_earthworms_and_frie.php
Washington has white ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Palouse_earthworm
My garden just has regular earthworms, but some of them are a foot long and as big around as my pinkie. We're friends.
Those are good worms to have in a garden.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_slug
SLUGGIES!
I don't have any banana slugs in my garden... they like woodlands better. I do, however, have these guys:
(http://sinmonkey.com/files/little%20slug%20friends.jpg)
I don't know what kind they are, but they're about 4-5 inches long.
Yay for annelids and gastropods!
Its actually a shame about the native earthworm species in North America. They're being pushed out by the common european species.
Also, slugs are awesome. :)
Yay, someone posted an invertebrate thread besides me! :D
When I was 14, I had pet slugs named Dave and Teri. I loved those guys.
QuoteStaff eventually lured it out with fish scraps – but not before it bit through 20lb fishing line.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Quote from: Richter on March 20, 2009, 01:37:18 AM
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_slug
(http://www.alumni.ucsc.edu/img/bluegoldblack400.jpg)
Slurms MacKenzie approves this thread.
(http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/8/80/Slurm-1-.jpg)
I had one of those in my reef tank once (it's pretty rare not to get some of them with your live rock) that was about 7 or 8 inches long. that freaked me out enough because they will bite the shit out of your hand when your working in there.
i much prefered getting nudibranchs as hitchhikers..... even the bad ones still look pretty at least
I seriously doubt anyone could provide me with a compelling reason why slugs should be allowed to continue to exist.
Quote from: Nigel on March 20, 2009, 02:23:58 AM
SLUGGIES!
I don't have any banana slugs in my garden... they like woodlands better. I do, however, have these guys:
(http://sinmonkey.com/files/little%20slug%20friends.jpg)
I don't know what kind they are, but they're about 4-5 inches long.
They look like dog eggs. :(
Quote from: Dirtytime on March 21, 2009, 09:57:22 PM
I seriously doubt anyone could provide me with a compelling reason why slugs should be allowed to continue to exist.
How about:
I've got better things to do with my time than slug genocide.
Quote from: Dirtytime on March 21, 2009, 09:57:22 PM
I seriously doubt anyone could provide me with a compelling reason why slugs should be allowed to continue to exist.
They are incredibly fun to salt. You just shake the cellar, and watch them turn inside out. you can imagine the horrid suffering without feeling the guilt of inflicting it on anything without mammalian cuteness.
that's worth something.
Quote from: Felix on March 21, 2009, 10:02:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 20, 2009, 02:23:58 AM
SLUGGIES!
I don't have any banana slugs in my garden... they like woodlands better. I do, however, have these guys:
(http://sinmonkey.com/files/little%20slug%20friends.jpg)
I don't know what kind they are, but they're about 4-5 inches long.
They look like dog eggs. :(
DOG EGGS!!!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Dirtytime on March 21, 2009, 09:57:22 PM
I seriously doubt anyone could provide me with a compelling reason why slugs should be allowed to continue to exist.
Because they're CUTE?
Have you ever looked at a slug's face?
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/52/slug1mn3.jpg)
LOOKIT THAT SHIT! He's all "wut?"
This thread needs more invertebrate sex. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tZLWIo9nY)
Quote from: Vene on March 22, 2009, 05:36:03 PM
This thread needs more invertebrate sex. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tZLWIo9nY)
:x
Quote from: Vene on March 22, 2009, 05:36:03 PM
This thread needs more invertebrate sex. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tZLWIo9nY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh2dTIRReXU&feature=channel_page
posted this in irc
this is actually incredibly pretty
Quote from: Dirtytime on March 21, 2009, 09:57:22 PM
I seriously doubt anyone could provide me with a compelling reason why slugs should be allowed to continue to exist.
QuoteThe last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: 'What good is it? If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.
I disagree with that quote. it seems to be a 'best of all possible worlds' type argument, but are we not better off eliminating certain diseases? Then why not certain 'pests', even if they do serve some beneficial function? My cost benefit analysis of mosquitos says that bats and swallows can learn to eat some other damned thing...
Because you never know what you're going to find. Who knows, maybe mosquitoes produce an enzyme that is life-saving. The bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes makes an enzyme known as streptokinase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptokinase) and it is used to break up potentially fatal clots. Mind you, this is the same organism that can cause serious post-surgery infections as well as strep throat, pneumonia, and meningitis. Even when smallpox was eradicated small samples of it were kept for study. This is all ignoring potential ecological harm from going out and killing organisms we perceive as pests.
Yeah. the small sample for study purposes makes sense. the paralyzing fear of "what could happen if it goes wrong?!" just doesn't work for me. It sounds like the guys that are paranoid about the LHC. (admittedly not as bad, though) I say we do a cost benefit analysis and go where that leads us.
hopefully to a world without mosquitoes and the cockroaches that infest houses.
fuckem.
Quote from: Dirtytime on March 21, 2009, 09:57:22 PM
I seriously doubt anyone could provide me with a compelling reason why slugs should be allowed to continue to exist.
Using them to assassinate immunologists from the inside, like on Fringe:
(http://www.fringebloggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/111sluggy.jpg)
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2009, 03:25:30 PM
I disagree with that quote. it seems to be a 'best of all possible worlds' type argument, but are we not better off eliminating certain diseases? Then why not certain 'pests', even if they do serve some beneficial function? My cost benefit analysis of mosquitos says that bats and swallows can learn to eat some other damned thing...
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. (//http://)
Both quotes were from Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. He was a far greater person than you or I, and he
got it.Leopold was less appealing to what you are talking about Vene and more appealing to ecological health, because who knows really how ecology works, or what hinges on what? Considering how often we fuck ecology up, and how arrogant we are as a species, its a good perspective to have.
He was more or less the founder of modern environmentalism. Not the PETA bullshit, but the real deal conservation and natural resource practices for the health of the land and all its inhabitants. Land ethic, what he called it.
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2009, 08:21:23 PM
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. (//http://)
Both quotes were from Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. He was a far greater person than you or I, and he got it.
So, should a thing run afoul of this criteria and be 'wrong' due the course of natural events, should we work to change or eliminate it? Or does that only apply if it is directly the result of our actions in the first place?
See, i would say that mosquitoes detract from the 'beauty' of the biotic community. A mosquito entomologist may disagree, as may bats, though.
what is stability in the arena of life? isn't life dynamically
unstable at all times? don't prolonged periods of environmental stability lead to speciation and specialization that then makes the creatures (usually rendered more interesting and beautiful for it) to be more susceptible to destruction by smaller changes in said environment?
I guess i'm saying that his quote sounds nice, but delineates nothing. But i guess i don't
get it.
mosquitoes and roaches and ticks all. fukem.
why destroy when you can control? http://www.mosquito-netting.com/predators.html
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2009, 08:21:23 PMLeopold was less appealing to what you are talking about Vene and more appealing to ecological health, because who knows really how ecology works, or what hinges on what? Considering how often we fuck ecology up, and how arrogant we are as a species, its a good perspective to have.
Yeah, I caught that (and fully agree). Messing with things we don't fully understand is just dangerous. We've caused more than enough harm to our planet and its ecology, I see no reason to seek out ways of causing damage. I just think that there are other reasons that show how something we see as intrinsically harmful to us can be beneficial.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2009, 08:49:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2009, 08:21:23 PM
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. (//http://)
Both quotes were from Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. He was a far greater person than you or I, and he got it.
So, should a thing run afoul of this criteria and be 'wrong' due the course of natural events, should we work to change or eliminate it? Or does that only apply if it is directly the result of our actions in the first place?
See, i would say that mosquitoes detract from the 'beauty' of the biotic community. A mosquito entomologist may disagree, as may bats, though.
what is stability in the arena of life? isn't life dynamically unstable at all times? don't prolonged periods of environmental stability lead to speciation and specialization that then makes the creatures (usually rendered more interesting and beautiful for it) to be more susceptible to destruction by smaller changes in said environment?
I guess i'm saying that his quote sounds nice, but delineates nothing. But i guess i don't get it.
mosquitoes and roaches and ticks all. fukem.
Yeah, lets get rid of all mosquitoes, never mind that they are important filter feeders in lentic habitats as larvae and a food source for all kinds of things, vertebrate and invertebrate. Lets get rid of all roaches, never mind that only a very small number of species are associated with people, the rest being nondamaging and beneficial, but lets get rid of a whole order of organisms anyway. And ticks? I honestly don't know much about them, besides what you hear about vectors of disease and the synapomorphy of them all being ectoparasites. However, I don't dismiss them. Keeping all the cogs and wheels is important, cause you don't really know how it works. You start taking things out here with pesticides (which incidentally, pesticides seldom if ever target single groups; a -cide is usually broad spectrum that fucks up everything) and you don't know what will happen. Not that you could. I think you'd quickly find that even if it was a good idea to destroy a "pest" species or group, it wouldn't work out, and at the end you'd have super pests and lots of collateral damage.
Humans, all. fukem.
See, I can do it too.
The role of ectoparasites ecologically is often to weaken prey items to predation and disease. I say role, but of course ecology is all incidental (which doesn't mean it doesn't WORK). It works against overpopulation, as parasites and disease congregate where host densities are the highest. Otherwise we'd all over run with deer. All organisms except the autotrophs are predators (or parasites) of another organism. herbivores are plant predators, carnivores are predators of animals, parasites are predators that don't immediately kill their hosts, if at all. Who am I to judge which is better, or right, or more important? The termites rend cellulose into detritus but also cause ruin to houses. The dung beetles expertly clean up the droppings of large mammals (and if you don't think thats important, read something about this problem in Australia before dung beetles were imported), yet they also damage turfgrass. Ants aerate the soil but also invade our houses and cover our lawns with mounds of stinging. Fungi cause the rot thats necessary for all things, yet they also cause disease and damage.
Humans have an amazing intellect and capacity for creative construction, yet we tend to fuck up ecology to where our soils are barren, our waters on fire and our air caustic. Its not just the direct effects of polution either, its that and the ecological fuckup.
So, I'm more than content to keep the cogs and wheels and opt for preventative control rather than wholesale destruction.
Quote from: Vene on March 23, 2009, 11:08:09 PMMessing with things we don't fully understand is just dangerous one of the things that makes Science FUN.
fixed.
cause really. that's humans. we mess with things we don't fully understand. it's what we
do. it's what got us where we are now. which doesn't mean it's always right, but it does seem to WORK.
I object to the 'cogs' analogy in that it implies intelligent design, and a static system. you of all people should have caught that. besides that, it separates us from the system as if we are passive observers, which you know not to be the case. all elements of life continuously change the environment to some varying degree. We humans have developed the ability to profoundly change the environment in many ways. I believe that it's a genie in the bottle thing, and we had better own up to our ability so that we can do it in a way that most benefits us. now don't get your hackles up about that. i also believe that we should go about it mindful of the long term, and cognizant of the complex interconnectedness of everything, etc.
With that in mind, i think we could and should do our best to eliminate pests that make life shitty for us. why would you object to that?
also, i would like to point out that i specifically called out the roaches that infest our houses, not the awesome hissing ones that are very useful for dumping on david letterman etc....
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 24, 2009, 05:00:24 PM
Quote from: Vene on March 23, 2009, 11:08:09 PMMessing with things we don't fully understand is just dangerous one of the things that makes Science FUN.
fixed.
cause really. that's humans. we mess with things we don't fully understand. it's what we do. it's what got us where we are now. which doesn't mean it's always right, but it does seem to WORK.
:lulz:
That too, but there is a difference between messing with things in a lab and wholescale extermination. Not that it's perfectly safe in a lab, oh hell no.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 05:26:58 PM
I object to the 'cogs' analogy in that it implies intelligent design, and a static system.
Eat a dick. No, srsly, eat a dick.
Then go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Kai on March 24, 2009, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 05:26:58 PM
I object to the 'cogs' analogy in that it implies intelligent design, and a static system.
Eat a dick. No, srsly, eat a dick.
Then go fuck yourself.
Why are you flying off the handle?
Maybe because you're proposing something that would cause major ecological destruction or maybe because you're bringing up creationism, a subject that makes any biologist go into a blind rage.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 24, 2009, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 05:26:58 PM
I object to the 'cogs' analogy in that it implies intelligent design, and a static system.
Eat a dick. No, srsly, eat a dick.
Then go fuck yourself.
Why are you flying off the handle?
Accusing BMW of Creationism thinking, perhaps?
Quote from: Vene on March 24, 2009, 06:35:15 PM
Maybe because you're proposing something that would cause major ecological destruction or maybe because you're bringing up creationism, a subject that makes any biologist go into a blind rage.
Yeah, the terminology being used implies design, which is why i objected to it. i figured he might backpedal on the phrasing and explain his ideas in some other context. but i got 'eat a dick' instead.....
nice.
Riiight, using a metaphor to make a point clearer implies design. I'm with Kai, eat a dick.
"Look at that dick. Look at the way it fits perfectly in your hand! Look at the way it fits perfectly into your mouth! Surely, God designed it that way so you could eat a dick!"
\
(http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/topicimages/k/ki/kirk_cameron.gif)
Quote from: LMNO on March 24, 2009, 06:58:27 PM
"Look at that dick. Look at the way it fits perfectly in your hand! Look at the way it fits perfectly into your mouth! Surely, God designed it that way so you could eat a dick!"
\
(http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/topicimages/k/ki/kirk_cameron.gif)
ANAL?
:lulz:
that was pretty good, actually...
but, goddamn. don't get so buthurt about it.
i fuckin stand by what i said. he's talking about 'cogs' and the associated imagery of removing cogs and breaking the 'machine'. There's no way you can say that those terms don't imply design. So i said so. I wasn't calling anybody here an ID proponent. i was just pointing out that he's using that kind of terminology in his argument. I didn't jump him for it. he could have taken the opportunity to say, 'yeah. that's not what i was meaning to imply. i meant that the system has intricate reliances between its parts that can lead to systemic failure if one part is removed.' We could have continued the debate from there.
but no, instead he told me to eat a dick.
Quote from: LMNO on March 24, 2009, 06:40:49 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 24, 2009, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 05:26:58 PM
I object to the 'cogs' analogy in that it implies intelligent design, and a static system.
Eat a dick. No, srsly, eat a dick.
Then go fuck yourself.
Why are you flying off the handle?
Accusing BMW of Creationism thinking, perhaps?
Bingo.
Besides, if fuckface had actually read the quote, then he would have noted the words "biota, in the course of aeons", which is really not something a creationist would say; I damn well wouldn't use creationist bullshit anyway, or associate myself so strongly with their retoric as I do with Leopold.
So yeah, dipshit, eat a dick. Leopold a creationist....ffs, they don't teach kids anything about metaphor in schools these days do they?
ESAD
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 07:09:34 PM
:lulz:
that was pretty good, actually...
but, goddamn. don't get so buthurt about it.
i fuckin stand by what i said. he's talking about 'cogs' and the associated imagery of removing cogs and breaking the 'machine'. There's no way you can say that those terms don't imply design. So i said so. I wasn't calling anybody here an ID proponent. i was just pointing out that he's using that kind of terminology in his argument. I didn't jump him for it. he could have taken the opportunity to say, 'yeah. that's not what i was meaning to imply. i meant that the system has intricate reliances between its parts that can lead to systemic failure if one part is removed.' We could have continued the debate from there.
but no, instead he told me to eat a dick.
There's no way you can say those terms don't imply design if you're so conditioned you can't contemplate the operations of a machine without considering the creator of the machine. But that's a fault of your conditioning, not of the metaphor; you are extrapolating based on your conditioning.
what?
It's Cogswell's Cogs, goddammit.....
you can't just call me 'conditioned' and excuse the implications of the terms...
Quote from: LMNO on March 24, 2009, 06:58:27 PM
"Look at that dick. Look at the way it fits perfectly in your hand! Look at the way it fits perfectly into your mouth! Surely, God designed it that way so you could eat a dick!"
\
(http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/topicimages/k/ki/kirk_cameron.gif)
I'm using this the next time someone bashes sodomy and promotes Intel. Des. in the same conversation.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2009, 07:19:29 PM
what?
It's Cogswell's Cogs, goddammit.....
you can't just call me 'conditioned' and excuse the implications of the terms...
No, its Leopold's Land Ethic. A Sand County Almanac is the seminal text of modern environmental ethic, written in the 1930's and published after his death in the 1940s. This was back when being an environmentalist wasn't touchy-feely lets hug a tree and save the wales and be coffee shop intellectuals, a far cry from the bullshit of today. This was before Singer, Naess, and all this PETA nonsense. Its definitely before the dumbass JETSONS, you moron.
c'mon man.... :cry:
reference to kids cartoon was a bit of levity. i don't understand why you're taking such personal affront at this. :?
y'know what.... i was just debating the issue and touched a nerve with you, so you got real personal, real quick. I didn't call you, or your reference a creationist at all, but you took my criticism of the terminology used as such, and for what it's worth, i apologize for not making it perfectly clear up front.
so... i didn't mean to step on your toes, and i'm not going to hold your comments against you. I'm certain that you would not have behaved in the same way if we were discussing face to face, as you would have seen that i meant no ill will. you seem a decent fellow, and the board is better for your presence.
I'll just back away here...
I just don't like creationists/ID/YEC. Creationist retoric is one of my biggest pet peeves (and I have many).
Someone telling me I'm spouting creationist rhetoric on a bad day has bought themselves a shit sandwich. On a good day, I'll just never take them seriously again.
People who think I'm an apologist for creationism in the slightest haven't read my rant on Intelligent Design, or are simply unobservant.
Speaking of control:
http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/2009/03/mosquito_laser.php
MOSQUITO LAZERS