When is a tail a limb?
Rich Ulrich
"Why Fish Came Ashore: Gene Defect Suspected"
The end of the short science report says,
"The earliest known land-dwellers, based on fossil records, had
eight limbs rather than the five that most animals today have.
Further research may shed more light on how and why this
occurred, she said."
Five, today? Was this just a think-o?
I find a few references that describe certain prehensile
tails as "like another limb," but I wonder if there are
specific, concerned scientists who make this general.
It seems sensible enough, if they want to, but I haven't
been aware of it.
This NY Times article starts out by referring to a
"class of animals known as tetrapods...." -- which
successfully evades the point.
--
Rich Ulrich
John Dean
OED notes that limb once meant "Any organ or part of the body" but has that
as 'Obs. exc. dial.'
Most recent cite for that meaning:
1880 W. Cornw. Gloss. s.v. Limb, 'Your daughter looks well'. 'No, she's but
slight; her face is her best limb'.
But then it has
a. A part or member of an animal body distinct from the head or the trunk,
e.g. a leg, arm, wing.
I confess I wouldn't have described a tail as a limb but the idea seems to
have a decent pedigree. However, I'd reserve the usage for those tails which
function, or notionally *could* function as an arm or leg. So the tail the
meerkat balances on is, for me, a limb as is the tail a monkey wraps around
a branch. A horse's tail is not a limb, neither is the stubby little piece
of gristle you get on a boxer dog.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Ray OHara
"John Dean" <john...@fraglineone.net> wrote in message
news:894jrv...@mid.individual.net...
Tails are for balance even humans has a "tail bone" that has muscle
attachments that allow for the quick shifting of weight.
Peter Moylan
> I confess I wouldn't have described a tail as a limb but the idea seems to
> have a decent pedigree. However, I'd reserve the usage for those tails which
> function, or notionally *could* function as an arm or leg. So the tail the
> meerkat balances on is, for me, a limb as is the tail a monkey wraps around
> a branch. A horse's tail is not a limb, neither is the stubby little piece
> of gristle you get on a boxer dog.
A horse brushes the flies off with its tail. I have to use my arm or
hand to do that.
A boxer's tail is stubby, indeed, but the boxer's ancestors probably had
fully functional tails. As Ray says, tails are mainly for balance, but
some animals use them to stand on, and some even use them as very
effective fighting limbs. (Don't ever get into a fight with a kangaroo.)
Tails are very important for reptiles, the remote ancestors of mammals.
I seem to recall that four-limbed animals are now common because the
limbs evolved from the four side fins that many fish have. If we're
going to count fins as limbs, though, we have to notice that a fish's
tail-fin is as much a fin as the others.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
D. Stussy
news:5a4q26hsokiv1frbp...@4ax.com...
It's not, but what the article is talking about are digits (fingers/toes),
NOT arms/legs.
A tetrapod has FOUR feet, so clearly it wasn't referring to legs, which is
what limbs are.
John Holmes
>
> A boxer's tail is stubby, indeed, but the boxer's ancestors probably
> had fully functional tails.
So did the boxer itself, before it was docked. That's illegal now in a
lot of places.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Evan Kirshenbaum
> NY Times, June 29, 2010. D3:
> "Why Fish Came Ashore: Gene Defect Suspected"
>
> The end of the short science report says, "The earliest known
> land-dwellers, based on fossil records, had eight limbs rather than
> the five that most animals today have. Further research may shed
> more light on how and why this occurred, she said."
>
> Five, today? Was this just a think-o?
or a typo or (most likely) a poor edit. Looking at the story on the
website, it now says
Fossils of some early land dwellers show eight digits at the ends
of each limb, rather than the five that most tetrapods have today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/science/29obfins.html
So fingers and toes, which do [looks at hands and feet] appear to
number five.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most
|punctilious compliance with the
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do
(650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking
|well.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> NY Times, June 29, 2010. D3:
>> "Why Fish Came Ashore: Gene Defect Suspected"
>>
>> The end of the short science report says, "The earliest known
>> land-dwellers, based on fossil records, had eight limbs rather than
>> the five that most animals today have. Further research may shed
>> more light on how and why this occurred, she said."
>>
>> Five, today? Was this just a think-o?
>
> or a typo or (most likely) a poor edit. Looking at the story on the
> website, it now says
>
> Fossils of some early land dwellers show eight digits at the ends
> of each limb, rather than the five that most tetrapods have today.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/science/29obfins.html
>
> So fingers and toes, which do [looks at hands and feet] appear to
> number five.
Looking at those two passages, it's also interesting that
the earliest known land-dwellers, based on fossil records had
has become
fossils of some early land land dwellers show
It looks as though somebody took a second look and decided that they
couldn't justify them necessarily being the earliest fossils or that
it was conclusive based on the fossils that they actually had that
many. And while they were making changes, "land-dwellers" lost its
hyphen and "today have" became "have today".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> A boxer's tail is stubby, indeed, but the boxer's ancestors probably
>> had fully functional tails.
>
>So did the boxer itself, before it was docked. That's illegal now in a
>lot of places.
It appears to be mostly illegal here since 2007.
<quote>Since 2007:
Bans on the docking of dogs' tails came into force across Britain in
March and April 2007. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act,
passed at Holyrood in 2006, deems the operation a "prohibited
procedure".
Legislation for England and Wales, the Animal Welfare Act 2006,
differs in allowing tail docking for certified working dogs in their
first five days of life. The law in Northern Ireland has not changed
since 1993 - vets there can still dock.
No such exemption exists in Scotland. Taking an animal out of Scotland
for the procedure is itself an offence. There are also restrictions on
exhibiting a dog with a docked tail.
Penalties for allowing or conducting tail docking include fines of
£5,000 and up to six months imprisonment.</quote>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/outdoors/articles/taildocking/
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Brooks
>
>
> No such exemption exists in Scotland. Taking an animal out of Scotland
> for the procedure is itself an offence. There are also restrictions on
> exhibiting a dog with a docked tail.
>
> Penalties for allowing or conducting tail docking include fines of
> £5,000 and up to six months imprisonment.</quote>http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/outdoors/articles/taildocking/
>
still allow circumcision.