• Re: Insensibly-graded transitional forms

    From Robert Carnegie@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 24 05:08:12 2024
    I'm not addressing your topic directly, but I want
    to say that I have a definite impression that let's say
    when I was born, "marsupials" weren't considered
    to be "mammals". Now, they are.

    I was born before 1976, but I may be only describing
    my own confusion and ignorance. I used to think
    that dogs are male and cats are female - of course
    that's before I received a version of an understanding
    of why there are males and females, and it seems to
    be a common mistake. I still misgender dogs and cats
    sometimes. I don't often associate with them socially,
    so it isn't a big problem for me.

    The marsupial thing may be mine or intellectual
    society's mistaken tendency to see evolution as
    a teleology leading up to the appearance of ourselves.
    We are placental mammals, and they come later,
    and so we think that they, we, are better. But in fact
    many mammals are not good citizens. Still, I think
    some of us may regard marsupials as embarrassing
    cousins that we prefer to overlook. I think I would
    like to find that professional scientists did not
    suffer from this bias and misunderstanding.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ernest Major@21:1/5 to Robert Carnegie on Wed Jan 24 14:46:53 2024
    On 24/01/2024 13:08, Robert Carnegie wrote:
    I'm not addressing your topic directly, but I want
    to say that I have a definite impression that let's say
    when I was born, "marsupials" weren't considered
    to be "mammals". Now, they are.

    I was born before 1976, but I may be only describing
    my own confusion and ignorance. I used to think
    that dogs are male and cats are female - of course
    that's before I received a version of an understanding
    of why there are males and females, and it seems to
    be a common mistake. I still misgender dogs and cats
    sometimes. I don't often associate with them socially,
    so it isn't a big problem for me.

    The marsupial thing may be mine or intellectual
    society's mistaken tendency to see evolution as
    a teleology leading up to the appearance of ourselves.
    We are placental mammals, and they come later,
    and so we think that they, we, are better. But in fact
    many mammals are not good citizens. Still, I think
    some of us may regard marsupials as embarrassing
    cousins that we prefer to overlook. I think I would
    like to find that professional scientists did not
    suffer from this bias and misunderstanding.


    Systema Naturae (1735 edn) has Didelphis (Linnaeus's only marsupial)
    within Quadrupedia (= mammals) and Ferae (Carnivora, Insectivora and Chiroptera). (In that edition whales and manatees are placed within fish.)

    Cuvier (1816) places marsupials (including herbivores like kangarooos)
    among Les Carnassiers (Chiroptera, Insectivores, Carnivores and Marsupials).

    I thought that it might have been Huxley (1880) who was first to
    recognise the distinction between marsupials and placentals, but I now
    find "The threefold division of living mammals into monotremes,
    marsupials and placentals was already well established when Thomas
    Huxley proposed the names Metatheria and Eutheria to incorporate the two
    latter groups in 1880" (Wikipedia - Prototheria).

    I'd be surprised if any zoologist had narrowed Mammalia to exclude
    marsupials, but I can't guarantee that none did.

    --
    alias Ernest Major

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Burkhard@21:1/5 to Robert Carnegie on Wed Jan 24 08:29:04 2024
    On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 1:12:49 PM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
    I'm not addressing your topic directly, but I want
    to say that I have a definite impression that let's say
    when I was born, "marsupials" weren't considered
    to be "mammals". Now, they are.

    I was born before 1976, but I may be only describing
    my own confusion and ignorance. I used to think
    that dogs are male and cats are female - of course
    that's before I received a version of an understanding
    of why there are males and females, and it seems to
    be a common mistake. I still misgender dogs and cats
    sometimes.

    It's very common, and has been studied by cognitive
    psychologists. Here a pop sci
    version:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/canine-corner/202201/why-people-think-all-dogs-male-and-all-cats-female

    In languages with grammatical genders,
    "dog" is typically male, "cat" female - as e.g. Mark Twain
    observed for German:

    "Surely there is not another language that is so slipshod and
    systemless, and so slippery and elusive to the grasp. [..] To
    continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are
    female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male,
    cats are female -- tomcats included, of course"

    Twain is wrong though to think that German is unusual in this respect.
    For dogs and cats, the same pattern is is found e.g. in Czech and Slovak.
    Pes (dog) is male, and kocka/macka (cat) is female.

    In Welsh, ci is masculine and cath is feminine. As
    can be seen when an adjective is added - that then shows in
    the feminine gender soft mutation of the first consonant:

    Ci mawr = a big dog
    Cath fawr = a big cat

    In Scots Gaelic however, "cu" and "cat" are both
    masculine (though piseag, kitten, is feminine, and
    cuilean, puppy, is masculine) .

    In romance languages, names for animals that live in close
    proximity to humans often have two forms, so that biological
    sex and grammatical gender align more - cattus/catta in Latin,
    perro/perra and gatto, gatta in Spanish etc . "Canis" by contrast
    IIRC in Latin is epicene, that is is used for both male and female
    dogs (just as "felis" is female but used for male and female (wild)cats)
    But the gender becoems visible again with the adjectives and
    their gender agreement, so "canis laetus" and "canis laeta" for
    male and female dogs respectively.


    I don't often associate with them socially,
    so it isn't a big problem for me.

    The marsupial thing may be mine or intellectual
    society's mistaken tendency to see evolution as
    a teleology leading up to the appearance of ourselves.
    We are placental mammals, and they come later,
    and so we think that they, we, are better. But in fact
    many mammals are not good citizens. Still, I think
    some of us may regard marsupials as embarrassing
    cousins that we prefer to overlook. I think I would
    like to find that professional scientists did not
    suffer from this bias and misunderstanding.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ernest Major@21:1/5 to Burkhard on Wed Jan 24 20:38:45 2024
    On 24/01/2024 16:29, Burkhard wrote:
    In romance languages, names for animals that live in close
    proximity to humans often have two forms, so that biological
    sex and grammatical gender align more - cattus/catta in Latin,
    perro/perra and gatto, gatta in Spanish etc . "Canis" by contrast
    IIRC in Latin is epicene, that is is used for both male and female
    dogs (just as "felis" is female but used for male and female (wild)cats)
    But the gender becoems visible again with the adjectives and
    their gender agreement, so "canis laetus" and "canis laeta" for
    male and female dogs respectively.


    In the past, I've seen people being amused by French soldiers changing
    gender when injured - un poilu to une invalide (but invalide is epicene
    in modern French), which leaves me wondering when if ever the oddness
    existed.

    --
    alias Ernest Major

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)