aesmael: (tricicat)
Stolen from [livejournal.com profile] metaquotes:

Cutlery and Utensils: A Brief Taxonomic Study of the Evolution of Eusociality in the Kitchen
Trojanhorse Heales-Shadowfax, BSc (Hons)


The oldest known members of the Order Utensillida (Kingdom; Objecta, Phylum; Kitchenae, Class: Preparata) are those of the Family Incisidiformes; the Knives. Today the only common extant genus of incisids is the nominate genus Incisa, which are brood parasites.
From basal incisids arose the two groups of higher utensils; the nominate family Utensillidiformes, which includes the rarer and more solitary forms such as Whisks (Miscidae), the Slicers (Egg-Slicers, Ouefcoutidae, and Cheese-Slicers, Fromagecoutidae), and the predatory Meat-Tenderisers (Carneidae) and Garlic-Presses (Alliumsativumidae); and the large family Plataeiformes, or Spoons. The plataeids have two basic modes of life; monogamy (practised by the Spatulidae) and eusociality (as seen in the Plataeidae). The tendency for the more advanced plataeids to be smaller than their less specialised cousins is well documented.

Incisa cuculia, the Steak Knife Cuckoo.

Incisa cuculia is the most common of the incisids. Adults form colonies living in wooden blocks, and may be highly diverse in form. In general, females are slender, gracile forms known as boning or filleting knives. Males are heavier, and dominant males may become cleavers in later life. Juvenile forms are steak knives and seek shelter in the cutlery drawer amongst colonies of Plateus eusocialus, the spoon-bee, where they masquerade as soldiers until maturity.


Misca misca, the Common Whisk

This utensil is a parasitoid, ultimately responsible for the demise of any utensil drawer or jar. It draws nourishment from entangling other utensils and may end up snarling so many hapless victims in its maw that it can no longer function itself.

Meat tenderisers, garlic presses, cheese and egg slices, (genera Carna, Alliumsativum, Ouefcouta and Fromagecouta)

Most utensil drawers will have only one or two of these hermit utensils; they do not cohabit easily and there is usually fierce competition between them until their numbers are reduced to a sustainable level in any one kitchen.

Spatula pisca; the Faithful Spatula

Technically, the spatula is the female of the species, where the fish-slice is the male form. This level of sexual dimorphism is responsible for their being placed often in separate species by early taxonomists. Interestingly, this genus practices live birth of young; young spatulas resemble the female closely but will be smaller and more rubbery, thus making them both easier to give birth to, presumably, and more useful to the cook.

Plateus eusocialus; the Spoon-Bee

These are an indispensible kitchen organism, eusocial with the ladle as queen, knives as soldiers, spoons of various types as workers, forks as drones and teaspoons being the larval stage. The spork is a sad hermaphrodite mutation, the increase of which is probably due to increased use of pesticides in food. Often, cooks will find measuring spoons (Plateus sucraetcetera) in spoon-bee colonies; thi is an example of symbiosis; by using the measuring spoon the cook is giving it more food, and the use of it for the task of measuring means more time in the hive (cutlery drawer) for the teaspoon larvae. If there is more than one ladle in the drawer, they will fight to the death and often wreck the drawer at the same time. This fight to the death may take years; it works by one ladle being pushed towards the front of the drawer, inducing the cook to use it more often and thus wear it out faster.

More research is being conducted as this article goes to press.

This is the kind of thing which prompts me to try and restrict delicious postables to other such gems[1]. Perhaps interestingly, biology is blue while chemistry is white and physics yellow.

[1] Although 'gems' is privileging the value of inorganic matter over organic as something to be treasured I did not find a suitable alternative. At least they are both reducible to impure carbon.
aesmael: (friendly)
Here is a video demonstrating yet again that mutation and selection can produce complexity without design.

I find evolutionary algorithms fascinating and hope someday to play around with and write some myself.
aesmael: (friendly)
    This comic makes me happy.
aesmael: (friendly)
    *falls over*

    *laughs some more*

    Oh, I am sorry I missed it.

Edit: This was well said and worth saying.
aesmael: (probably quantum)
    Something else from class. We were being shown the way some items were catalogued in the TAFE library and looking at The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. One of the copies had listed under 'other titles' The Chronicles of Narnia bk. 2, but no series title. It struck me as very odd that someone could read that on a book cover and conclude it to be a title of the book rather than an indication that this book is in fact the second volume of a series. Odd, but also familiar.

    Cut for Doctor Who series three (and the finale of series two) spoilers )

    So, yes. It puzzles me that some people, no matter how strong the evidence, seem to flat out refuse to make connections between what they see and instead treat each case as a separate, entirely unrelated entity.
    Yep, that catalogue entry reminded me of Creationism. Somehow, someone took the words 'The Chronicles of Narnia, book 2' from the cover of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and concluded that this was an alternate title for the book, not the series name and volume number. In fact it is an alternate title for the book. It is also a very clear indication that this volume does not stand alone, but has continuity with what came before and after.
    Of course, closer examination reveals that the Narnia books are not a simple ordered series. They were not published in the chronological order they are presented in, and were written in yet a different order. But, one needs to investigate to discover this - the manner of connection is less obvious than the fact.
    Reading through the 56th Skeptic's Circle I had an epiphany near the beginning of Tara C. Smith|Aetiology's entry Skiff: long on rhetoric, short on light. When she wrote:
"Presenting a typical creationist background ("I was raised to be a
'Darwinist'"), Skiff began by documenting his early educational
history, where he claimed he was "trained to see religion as an
obstacle to knowledge" and then became a Christian after reading the
Bible in college."

    I had not realised until I saw them both mixed in together but the conversion stories that make up the standard presentation are very similar: "I was once a sinner" vs. "I was once a Darwinist [whatever that is]". I suppose that goes along with the equally standard and also silly claim that evolution is a religion, which apparently is a bad thing when that religion is not Christianity.
    This sort of story is not going to have much effect on anyone who knows what's what except to annoy them but I believe it can be powerful for swaying the uninformed. If a person pretends they were once a whole-hearted supporter of something but later changed their mind after learning more about it, well, it sets them up as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, someone honest about their position, someone open-minded enough to give things a chance before rejecting them, an independent thinker. People love following independent thinkers.
aesmael: (sudden sailor)
    Kristine (whose blog I only just started reading tonight, to my regret) has a delightful post about evolution and unequal selection pressures. Not only is the topic fascinating, she presents it in a very readable manner too.

Profile

aesmael

May 2022

S M T W T F S
12345 67
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2026-01-09 02:22
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios