Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 August 28

= August 28 =

Spider silk
After watching a spider lower itself from the ceiling, I got to wondering. What happens to such a strand after the critter is done with it? Does it hang there until it disintegrates or somebody comes by? Or does the spider have some way to reel it in and recycle it? Spider silk answereth not. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See spider web —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.196.178 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It says "It is not uncommon for spiders to eat their own web daily...", but how would a spider do that with a single strand when there's no other strands to move about on, unlike a web? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is original research but I find that any time I do something dusty (like sand wallboard or saw wood in the garage), a lot of "left-over" spider silk gets revealed by the dust that it traps. So my assumption is that spider silk hangs around until disturbed by external forces (like the wind or your vacuum cleaner). Once on the ground, doubtless some biological process breaks it down.


 * Atlant (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What eats starfish?
What kinds of animals are predators of starfish? The starfish article mentions predators in at least two places, but does not elaborate. -- Dominus (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Human. They taste really weird... --antilivedT 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Anything else?  -- Dominus (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This says "sharks, manta rays, and large bony fish", as well as other starfish. This turgid bit of academic writing supports the fishy notion. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gull. They're difficult to swallow whole (Google images has some wonderful pics if you plug in 'gull starfish') but they are definitely considered food if they happen to be there at the same time as the hunger. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both! -- Dominus (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding manta rays, the Wikipedia article about them says they are filter feeders, which rules out eating starfish. Maybe that source meant some other kind of ray instead. -- Dominus (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having dissected a starfish in biology lab, I'sd about as soon eat a Dobie pad: "A white nylon/polyester mesh wrapped around a yellow urethane ...". Edison2 (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why you should never assume that something is good eatin' just because the gulls seem to be enjoying it... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Do today's dyes weaken fabrics still?
My mom just told me that back in the days, yellow (I think!) clothing ripped most easily because yellow dye weakened the fabric. Is that true? Is it still true? What about other colors? Thanks. 67.243.6.204 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the damage that I am aware of is not from the dyes themselves but from the mordants and other chemicals used to make the dye strike and color evenly. Yellow can be made from a number of different dyes (partly depending on if you are dyeing plants like cotton or animal fibres like wool) so it is hard to imagine a blanket statement could be correct. Rmhermen (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FWIW, I'm concerned with cotton here. 67.243.6.204 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ELISA kit aging
Hi guys. Do you know any sources that tell us how to conduct an accelerated aging test on ELISA kits? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely that such information exists - at least publically - which means you probably won't get a decent answer here. Presumably these kits come with a "use by" date - and the manufacturers must have used some technique to estimate that date.  If the lifespan of the kits is short then it's possible they didn't need to do accellerated aging - they may have simply been able to use the kits to test samples with known properties and see how good the test is after aging naturally.   If they know that the lifespan is at least long enough to be acceptable to their customers then the manufacturer may just put an arbitary cutoff date on them.  It's true for many drugs that the manufacturer knows they last at least (say) three years - and puts three years on the label just to be safe.  There are cases when the US Military has tested drugs that are much older than the "use by" date and found them to be perfectly usable.   It's therefore far from certain that anyone has ever even thought of using accelerated aging techniques to estimate the lifetime of these test kits.  (For others who might know about accelerated aging, an "ELISA kit" is an "Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay" (ELISA).  They measure antibody counts.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the link, Steve: &rarr; ELISA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect the poster meant accelerated aging disease test, which sounds like something that might be accomplished with ELISA, though I don't know where to get procedural info. Dragons flight (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah - that would maybe make more sense. I made the fatal mistake of following the link that the OP provided. SteveBaker (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're right Steve, I was talking about the kit's lifespan. An industry expert said that they require at least have a verifiable 1-year shelf life. This gave us a "no go" signal for a university- invented ELISA kit as we don't have data regarding its shelf life. I was thinking of doing an accelerated aging test to this kit so they can be convinced to manufacture it. But judging from Steve's post, I think it's better to do a 1-year waiting game (my pity goes to the undergrad who unluckily gets this thesis).-- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sliding filament theory

 * 1) How many ATP molecules are consumed per cycle of "sliding"? I believe it to be one, but would like a confirmation.
 * 2) When I'd learnt about it (around 6 years back), it was believed that the ATP molecule was required to detach the "flexed" myosin head from actin. But, the the 20th (2001) edition of Ganong's Review of Medical Physiology said that there was a controversy surrounding the exact stage at which the ATP bound to the myosin head, and the 22nd edition says that ATP bindng is required for the actual flexion of myosin head as well as for detachment. The advantage of the previous theory was that it so beautifully accounted for rigor mortis (flexed myosin heads required ATP to detach, which gets depleted, so the muscle remains contracted). Now, rigor mortis is believed to be due to accumulation of calcium ions in the cytosol as its sequestration back into the sarcoplasmic reticulum also requires ATP.

So, it would be nice if some one could comment on this confusion, and I'd appreciate it further if some updated source is cited, too.

Thanks in advance!

 —Ketan Panchal t aL K   07:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Metaphase of mitosis
At the end of metaphase, are there 46 or 23 pairs of sister chromatids at the equator (in humans)? I feel it should be 46 pairs (homologous chromosomes will not be attached to each other), but am not sure of this assumption. My idea is that in the new daughter cells, there have to be 46 chrmosomes in all, so at metaphase, there should be 46 pairs of ("to-be-chromosomes") chromatids. The doubt is if the homologous chromosomes (of respecitve paternal and maternal origin) are also attached to each other by the kinetochore/centromere, or if they (pairs of homologous chromatids) remain widely separated?

If I'm sounding confusing (as am myself confused), let me give an example. Let's say, chromosome 7. A diploid cell is suppose to have a maternal and a paternal copy each of chromosome 7. Now, no doubt during metaphase two copies each of a maternal and paternal chromosomes would be present, which can be for convenience called maternal chromatids 7 (2 copies attached to each other) and paternal chromatids 7 (2 copies attached to each other), 4 copies of chromosome 7 in all. Now there are two possibilities&mdash; situation 1 : the two pairs of chromatids remain attached to each other, in which case we'll get 23 copies of "chromatid-complexes" at the equator, and the other possibility&mdash; situation 2 : the two pairs remain detached, meaning the two copies of maternal chromatids (which are attached to each other), remain separate from two copies of paternal chromatids (which are also attached to each other), in which case we'll get 46 "chromatid-complexes" at the equator. So, my doubt is which situation, 1 or 2, describes the event correctly?

Thanks in advance!

 —Ketan Panchal t aL K   08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Human cells have 46 chromosomes that can be divided into 23 homologous chromosome pairs. During mitosis, each chromosome is duplicated, resulting in 92 chromatids distributed in 46 chromatid pairs (i.e. sister chromatids).


 * I think that is what you were saying, but frankly, I stopped trying to read what you wrote. Dragons flight (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, I understood your answer that the homologous chromosomes are not attached to each other. It'd be nice if you could cite some source to support this. If you're finding the doubt too bothersome to understand, could you please go through specifically the second paragraph in which I've ginen an example to explain my doubt?  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   09:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In reference desk answers, it is considered sufficient to refer you to Wikipedia articles rather than to supply hard references. If you click through to the articles that User:Dragons flight linked to - you'll find references to the facts therein. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Name that plant
[]

Would like to load it on Wikipedia, but don't know what it's called! Joshua.c.j (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you identify it, put it in commons, not wikipedia. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very attractive plant. If you get no joy here, I suggest that you show the picture to experts at your local museum or botanical garden. Fleebo (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Flying cats
Can anyone explain what may be the cause of this?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very probably a genetic mutation.. Leptictidium (mt) 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's assuming the condition is real and not a hoax, of course. Perhaps I'm too suspicious, but considering that the only person named in the article is some cat owner "only identified as Feng" and she wasn't talking to the Telegraph, but to a local paper (meaning that the reporter who wrote this up is very unlikely to have personally confirmed the existence of these cats), and the research into this has allegedly been conducted by unnamed scientists and equally unnamed "veterinary experts", and that even the place this happened in is only identified as "Sichuan province", an area roughly the size of Spain, my first thought certainly isn't "gee, that that winged cat story sounds really, really believable". The picture's lack of detail doesn't help things any. Not that I'd be shocked to hear that it's true, but you don't exactly get a plethora of reliable sources and convincing details from the article. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was something very similar in Fortean Times a couple of years back, Here. Oh, and we have an article on winged cats! — PhilHibbs | talk 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IF we believe the report (and maybe we don't) - the claim is that this only happens to male cats. That pretty much ensures it's a genetic thing.  But these "wings" develop later in life - they aren't born with them - and we're told that a whole bunch of male cats started growing them at more or less the same time.  That somewhat suggests it's not genetic. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that the picture clearly shows a calico, which is nearly always female (a male calico would have to be XXY). --Joelmills (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! Beautiful!  Thank you Joel!  A wonderful piece of detective work. BUSTED! SteveBaker (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think we're done here. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That winged cat article of ours is pretty interesting in that it claims that this whole thing with this Feng and her cat actually happened in 2007, in another province. That doesn't improve the original poster's news item's credibility (but of course, that may merely be a case of bad journalism by the Telegraph). The citations in the article are pretty vague, so they don't help us a whole lot on this particular case -- or, actually, at all, because the latest reference listed appears to be from 2003... But wait! The External links section includes a link to this unfortunately undated article, which also includes a little better picture, the same one as in the Fortean Times (always the most credible of sources!) article -- though unfortunately that one's pretty much worthless as proof; the bits she's holding up could be glued on, or even completely unattached; there's just no way to tell from the picture. That link was added on May 26, 2007, well over a year ago. All in all, this strikes me as a case where it's kind of hard to know whether there's any truth to the story at all, let alone what the cause of these "wings" in this instance is. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Who would win?
OK, I know this may seem like a soapbox question or a joke, but I am serious and would like to keep the debate with scientific arguments: Who would win a fight to death, a fit adult man or a fit adult Velociraptor?.

Velociraptor is perceived by the general public as one of the most lethal dinosaurs ever. Yet, the fact that it is only turkey-sized, and the fact that The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs says that the dino's infamous claw was more a grappling device than a killer weapon, make me doubt. A human could break a Velociraptor's neck, or could sent it reeling with powerful kicks to vital organs... But the dino would still have its sharp teeth.

So... More or less, what are the scientific arguments for and against a human beating a Velociraptor in a fight to death? Leptictidium (mt) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some OR needed. Get a turkey, fit it with very sharp claws, teeth etc and then start to annoy it. Report findings back here.--79.76.200.98 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about dinosaurs, but I think it's reasonable to assume that they couldn't be more deadly than anything currently alive of about the same size, after allowing for the hunting-out we've done of large predators. That wouldn't apply to something the size of a turkey. So, it'd probably be comparable to a wildcat or small wolf, or maybe one of the more dangerous reptiles like the komodo dragon. A fit human could, with some damage, take out any of those, so probably could beat a small dinosaur. Black Carrot (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the aid of a firearm, I'd assume that human's could essentially kill any dinosaur that previously existed. Without firearms, I don't know. Velociraptors were fast and had incredibly sharp claws. It's essentially like a dog running up, jumping at you, knocking you down and then slashing you to pieces. Who would win that? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's not scientific but a picture comes to mind of a full speed approaching velociraptor and a human sticking out his spear, uttering "kebab" 93.132.167.145 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it helps modern humans sleep better to belittle dinosaurs equipped with formidable claws and fangs, so be it. I'd bet on the raptor. He also might not come to the fight alone. He might choose his battles so as to have numeric advantage. Edison2 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Human against more than 2 Velociraptor = humans is dead.--mboverload @ 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing only just barely reached up to you knees...it's like a small dog. Please!  Jurrassic Park has a lot to answer for! SteveBaker (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Deinonychus would probably be a better match, all things considered. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you, by any chance, an xkcdian? Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line  05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How small is small? According to the Velociraptor it had a height of 0.5 metres and estimated to weight around 15kg. This compares to the lower end of the range of the American Pit Bull Terrier. This is a dog which has killed people, of course not all of these are fit and some of them may not have wanted to kill the dog and probably all were not prepared for a fight and indeed a number would have been surprise attacks. But definitely I would say it's going to be a rather difficult fight for an unarmed fit humans against a (smallish) pitbull intending to kill with the fight starting from close range. I would say it's probably even worse with a velociraptor. While there's still a lot we don't know (and may never know) about them, they are likely to go for either the throat or the stomach and neither of these are particularly well protected in humans (it's primary a matter of if it can find them). I'm not saying the velociraptor is guaranteed victory but I definitely don't think the human comes close to being guaranteed victory either. Even more when there are multiple of them. Of course if you are talking about an armed human with the fight starting from long range, with a spear or something and perhaps some rocks then things become much better for the human. And with a gun even more so. Remember in wildlive terms, humans aren't exactly good predators unarmed. Our intelligence allows us to make weapons and come up with clever strategies to win (with a velociraptor the smartest thing may be to just ignore it unless it's making problems for you, why risk injury when you don't need to? And if you did want to kill it, since I don't think these could climb, you may want to get a bunch together and attack it from above or just set some sort of trap for it)


 * We don't know anything about what sort of temperament Velociraptors had. They may have been the sort of creature that was brave against small prey but immediately turned tail and ran away as fast as their legs would carry them as soon as something bigger than them (or approximately the same size) took one step towards them whilst looking annoyed. Much like a housecat, for instance... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "More or less, what are the scientific arguments for and against a human beating a Velociraptor in a fight to death?"
 * There isn't one. This isn't a scientific question, its fanwankery based on Godzilla and Pokemon. ;) Clearly, individual circumstances will always come into play, so there can never be one answer. It's like asking "who would win in a fight: Mike Tyson or Evander Hollyfield?" Clearly... it depends on the fight. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

cryptozoology and biology
I've always had an interest in cryptozoology and the interesting creatures that come up. Recently, I was watching a program about some "researchers" who were looking for a new species of giant octopus (octopus gigantius with a tentacle span of 200 feet) in the Pugent Sound, Washington area. Their rationale was that since the Sound is so deep, it could easily hide one of these creatures. No surprise: thery found absolutely no evidence!

My question is this: from a biological point of view, is it POSSIBLE for such a creature to exist and what would the parameters be (i.e food supply, effects of the water pressure at depths of 700 feet or so, longevity, etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.16.106 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about theoretical octopi, but the sperm whale can dive as deep as 2,200 meters (7,200 feet). Giant squid have been captured at a depth of 1,000 meters (3,280 feet).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtherDave (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's not enough for the Puget Sound to have room to hide one of these creatures. There doesn't appear to be any means for the creatures to sneak into and out of the sound without being noticed - a 200' creature in water that's 175 feet deep in such a busy shipping area is going to get noticed.  If they aren't sneaking in and out then there would have to be room for an entire breeding colony with sufficient genetic diversity to suvive...maybe a hundred octupi that size...plus a food supply large enough to support such a vast colony.  So, I'd say no. SteveBaker (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's get hypothetical here. ;-) Octopuses generally die a short time after mating; it would seem a small change (genetically) to turn off that endocrine trigger that kills them. How large could they get if they didn't die after mating? We don't know yet because there are complications regarding feeding behaviour, but lobsters for example (who are not closely related at all), exhibit "negligible senescence" and can simply keep growing and growing. Maybe you're not looking for a whole breeding colony of monsters, you're looking for a population of normal octopuses that sometimes throw the genetic dice the right way for a monster to show up. It could happen maybe, but it's still a long way from could to is. Matt Deres (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

humidification operation
air at atmospheric pressure has a wet bulb temperature of 80 degree Fahrenheit and a dry bulb temperature of 150 degree Fahrenheit. 1.estimate the humidity,molal humidity, relative humidity and dew point of the air. 2.calculate the weight of water in 100 cubic feet of entering air. 3.the air is heated to 150 degree Fahrenheit and cooled adiabatically to 115 degree Fahrenheit.estimate the humidity,percentage saturation and dew point of the air41.205.166.241 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refer the questioner to the relevant articles, rather than merely scolding him for asking you to answer his homework, That is what a Real Life Reference Librarian would do. That is what Ref Desk volunteers should do. So to the questioner, this is an encyclopedia. Please read the Wikipdeia articles Relative humidity, Psychrometrics , Dry-bulb temperature , Wet-bulb temperature and Dew point. Feel free to ask a further question if needed. Thanks. Edison2 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refer the questioner to the relevant articles, rather than merely scolding him for asking you to answer his homework, That is what a Real Life Reference Librarian would do. That is what Ref Desk volunteers should do. So to the questioner, this is an encyclopedia. Please read the Wikipdeia articles Relative humidity, Psychrometrics , Dry-bulb temperature , Wet-bulb temperature and Dew point. Feel free to ask a further question if needed. Thanks. Edison2 (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeti and Bigfoot
Is it possible they are similar species?--79.76.200.98 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, although it should be noted that virtually anything is possible within the realm of imagination. Should both prove to be real, however, it's entirely reasonable to expect them to be related. &mdash; Lomn 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well, that depends on what you mean by "similar". A book on primate cryptids notes categorises bigfoot into "neo-giants" (human-like footprints) and yeti into "unknown pongids" (big toe out at an angle). This suggests that if they exist then yeti might be more closely related to the skunk ape. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say they are both of the genus-species Homo sapien, but one in a snowy environment in a white fur suit and another in the forest in a brown fur suit. -- MacAddct &#xF8FF; 1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So how many 9 ft tall humans do you know who go prancing about in gorilla suits in the forest of North America or the frozen heights of Tibet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.200.98 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So how many 9 ft tall Yetis and Bigfeet (?) do you know? Fribbler (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They both appear to be Primates, so if they're both real they're going to be pretty similar. How similar are you looking for (Do you consider a Chimp similar to a Gorilla?). There are arguments either way. They have some pretty different territories though, the most recently they could have possibly interbred would be the last Ice Age. Still, that's not that long ago for a primate, and they both seem to share the startling evolutionary adaptation of being completely impossible to prove the existence of, so perhaps they're even the same species separated from each other for thousands of years.  The only real way to know for sure is in-detail genetic tests or seeing if they're capable of interbreeding.  When you catch one of each let us know. APL (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You could also be interested in the Gigantopithecus article. --jjron (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Yeti article states that “The Yeti can be considered a Himalayan parallel to Bigfoot (Sasquatch).” The b_jonas 20:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am agree with MacAddct. Both Yeti and Bigfoot are Homo sapiens, one in white suit other in brown suit.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

spider web sacs in trees?
Hi. Recently I came upon some spider-web like sacs in trees. The trees were all decidous, and I live in Southern Ontario. The material was likely spider webbing, but it also resembled thisn plastic bags or fine mesh nets. There were roughly 2 - 30 cubic ft in volume, and roughly 2 - 10 m off the ground. There was also some dark plant like material in the "webs", which were roughly elliptoidical, which might have been leaves, bark, dirt, etc. I didn't see any spiders present, but they reminded me of birds' nests, except larger and nearly transparent. I also came upon spider silk on another low-lying tree close to another one which had one of these web sacs. Any idea what it might be? Is there such thing as a "tree spider" (no article), and if there is, do they exist in Ontario and how large are they? Or, could this have been made by something else? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tent caterpillars or Fall webworms? DMacks (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are able to check those trees again, you may find some or all of the leaves eaten, or perhaps find caterpillars busy eating the leaves. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

what is animal.
Link title[Bold text] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.73 (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Animal is a character on The Muppet Show. -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a wikilink for you. Dragons flight (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Animal? -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Animal" is also a clue given in the quiz game Twenty Questions. In that game, "animal" generally means an animal or something created from some part of an animal. Eg, a leather saddle is "animal", a shark's tooth is "animal", a ivory carving is "animal", a wooden carving is "vegetable", and a meershaum carving is "mineral". Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See credit card. --99.237.101.48 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Might as well quote the dab page:


 * An animal is a taxonomic member of the Kingdom Animalia. Animal may also refer to:
 * A.N.I.M.A.L., an Argentinian heavy metal band
 * The Animals, a British rock band
 * Animals (album), a 1977 concept album by Pink Floyd
 * "Animal" (song), the name of several songs
 * Animal (video game), a video game by Microtime
 * Animal (book), full title Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to The World's WildLife, a 2003 non-fiction book by David Burnie and several co-authors
 * ANIMAL (image processing), an interactive software environment for image processing
 * The Animal, a 2001 film starring Rob Schneider
 * Animal, a 2005 film starring Ving Rhames and Terrance Howard.
 * Animals is an episode of The Vicar of Dibley.
 * Animal (Muppet), a drummer in the Muppet Show's Dr. Teeth and The Electric Mayhem
 * George Steele, professional wrestler nicknamed "The Animal"
 * Joseph Laurinaitis, professional wrestler nicknamed "Road Warrior Animal"
 * David Batista, professional wrestler nicknamed "The Animal"
 * Animal, nickname of Takeshi's Castle regular character, played by Japanese/American baseball player Brad Lesley
 * Animal, nickname of Brazilian association footballer Edmundo.

There - now we have all the bases covered. SteveBaker (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary has a few more... Jessica   Thunderbolt   20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

BIOLOGY
PLEASE I WILL LIKE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT (THE ROLE OF MICROORGANISMS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ANTIBIOTICS). FOR MY PROJECT. THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.32.5 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, STOP SHOUTING (using capital letters), it's considered rude on the internet.
 * Secondly, we can't help directly with your homework, but we can give you hints. Check out Antibiotic and Production of antibiotics. If you have any more questions that are more specific (remembering that we can't give you direct answers), then do feel free to come back. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have an project now? You Nigerians have a strange schoolyear.  --99.237.101.48 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the northern hemisphere schools that have strange school years that don't align with the calendar year. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually a number of northern hemisphere schools do have school years that partially or completely align with the calendar year. It's only those in temperate regions that have to follow the silly weather Nil Einne (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You might also want to read Biochemical engineering, Biopharmaceuticals, andPenicillin --Shaggorama (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Spider eggs?
Ages ago, there were these little cotton wool like things (about the size of the cotton on a cotton bud, only more spherical) in about groups of four and just about smaller than a pea, outside in a little crack by the front communal door. I assumed them to be spiders eggs, only they were a little big. Any idea what they are? I'm in the UK. Thanks, 86.148.47.145 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right - spiders wrap their eggs in web silk and roll them up into large balls. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At a certain point of its development, if you carefully slit it open, you might see tiny spiders running around. At a later stage of development, spiders of some species can extrude strands of web which act like kites to carry them to remote locations, where by virtue of their small size they can enter a dwelling through the most minute cracks. Edison2 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

dog
has a dog really ever eaten maths homwork? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.102.247 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although, even more amazingly, the dog ate a USB memory stick, not paper. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey - no homework questions! SteveBaker (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If a human infant can eat large portions of a newspaper (original research)and a dog can eat a paper bag containing a ham sandwich (original research) then it is plausible (WP:SYNTHESIS) than a dog could eat math homework. Especially if food had ever been near it. Edison2 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Edison2: If you are doing this type of research with an infant, may I suggest you do not publicize it. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no problem, because the paper was still readable once it was extracted from the infant's mouth, dried out a bit and sorted back to the pages it had been torn from. Edison2 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When my wife was in vet school, her cat ate the budget for the Animal Behavior Club. That was a tough one to explain.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My Peach-faced Lovebird once shredded my homework. She worked from the top of the paper down, chewing it into little strips. Luckily, there was enough of it left to show the teacher the next day, so I was given the benefit of the doubt... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't remember if it was maths or not, but our dog genuinely ate my homework on more than one occasion. — PhilHibbs | talk 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

has our buddy broke his leg?????
Algebraist 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information on effects of neutering dogs
There is a conflict of info on the effects of neutering of dogs with respect to the likelihood of contracting prostrate cancer. The article on castration directly contradicts the article on neutering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.164.121 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guarantee that neutering has no effect whatsoever on prostrate cancer. Prostate cancer is another matter, and I have no information about its incidence in dogs.  — OtherDave (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, every source I can find on Google says that neutering a dog reduces it's risk of prostate cancer. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Common misconception. Neutering a dog does about double the risk of prostate cancer.  I didn't know the castration article was covering this, but I'll fix it.  --Joelmills (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just checked the castration article - it actually said it reduces the incidence of prostate disease. This is true, since benign prostatic hypertrophy is much more common in dogs than prostate cancer, and neutering does eliminate the risk of it.  I did clarify the point about cancer in the article.  --Joelmills (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might have missed the joke in OtherDave's post. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, probably :( It was late and I'd hate a few beers... (any excuse!) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)