LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
You're just waiting for me or another skepchick to ask, "Evidence," aren't you?
You're just waiting for me or another skepchick to ask, "Evidence," aren't you?
Busted.
No it is you that is playing semantics. Given the definition of an eye lid it is incorrect to state that snakes have "fused eyelids". Snakes have a different structure that protects their eyes, some creatures have eyelids, some have brills.
Let me ask you a question that may help you understand why your statement was incorrect.
Do you have brills?
No it isn't, I suggest you check what I actually posted.
"Brille". And what do they do? They cover and protect the eyes.
What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.
No. I don't even have an aquarium where they can swim. Yes, my tongue is firmly lodged in my cheek. (Look up "brills")
Sure:
You didn't claim that The Sun isn't trustworthy? What am I missing here?
OK then I'll correct my spelling mistake and ask again:
Do you have brilles?
Nope I didn't claim that. You asked Rolfe:
"...So, the Sun is generally to be disbelieved? Why is that?..."
To which I replied with:
"...Because it has no reputation as being a "newspaper" that has high journalistic standards...."
I have protective covers of my eyes. Is there a difference?
Aha. So, what am I missing?
What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Origin of the word "brille" (var: brill). Enjoy the photo in this link:
http://www.hmag.gla.ac.uk/John/berylspex.htm
http://www.hmag.gla.ac.uk/John/berylspex.htm
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
You realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Since a brill is not "a thin fold of skin and muscle", but is, in fact, a modified scale. And scales are not skin, they are a completely different tissue made from keratin; and thus are more closely related to hair, fingernails, and hooves than they are to skin. And as previously stated, they're not fused, but are shed the same as any other scales.
But since you've never let facts get in the way of your pronouncements before, I certainly don't expect you to start now.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Scales are the pattern or structual formation of the skin of reptiles and fish; scales are also found on the legs of birds and in one group of amphibians, wormlike animals known as caecilians. The boney scales of caecilians are reduced in size, and are under the skin instead of on it.
The brill of a snake is a scale but it is also the outer layer of skin, yes a layer of keratin that is called the ectoderm. It is shed periodically as a snake grows or if it is injured, it is shed as part of the healing process. A quick review of the subject online will indicate to you that the outer layer of the skin or scales is still called skin. The brill is unique and it is incorrect to call it an eyelid.
The brill is definitely not a thin layer of skin and muscle since it doesn't move. Nor does it fold, nor does it move except as part of periodic shedding when its sloughed off with the rest of the ectoderm.
Here's one site that describes the process of shedding also called ecdysis:
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=17&cat=1831&articleid=1648
The brill or brille is not called an eyelid by any competent authority: zoology, anatomy and especially the branch of zoology called herpetology. Others have defined the term eyelid above and the structure covering a snake's eye does not fit that description. It has been called the brill or brille, the eyecap or eye scale and the spectacle. As also indicated above, the origin of the word brill or brille is that translates to spectacle.
Several people in commenting on the original story correctly surmised that snakes do not have eyelids.One individual disagreed or was cognitively dissonant on the subject after he was shown proof that it is incorrect to state that snakes have eyelids.
The newspaper whether a reliable source or not, allegedly quoted the person who accosted the snake. It may've been a reporter putting words in their mouth. I don't know. But snakes are an emotional subject with most people who have an inherent if unfounded fear (ophidophobia) of them. It is not surprising then to have someone blurt out that the snake opened its eyes and stared at me sort of thing. One would not expect a person unxpectedly finding a snake in a bag of produce to be anatomically correct in describing the encounter.
Last edited:
trvlr2
Muse
My last bag of broccoli had air holes in it(the bag).
Cflarson will never admit wrong.
Cflarson will never admit wrong.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Here is a group of pictures of the European Horseshoe Whip Snake. The last one, of a young specimen (about to shed -- look at the eye) fits the description/colors described in the article.
http://www.herp.it/indexjs.htm?SpeciesPages/ColubHippo.htm
http://www.herp.it/indexjs.htm?SpeciesPages/ColubHippo.htm
Please answer my question:
Do you have brilles?
Please show were I claimed that "... The Sun isn't trustworthy?"
All I have done is answer your question - in doing so *I* did not and have not made any claims regarding the trustworthiness or not of the Sun.
Already did: No, I have eyelids. That protects my eyes. So do brilles. Correct?
Now, please answer mine:
What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.
Sure you did: You dismiss the article because you say that The Sun hasn't a reputation for high journalistic standards. I'm asking what you base that on.
I'm glad you have started to understand the difference.
Eyelids - in English and in biological terms is not a generic term for structures that protect the eye. Eyelids refer to certain types of eye protection and in this instance it has been shown by several people with reference to a wide range of sources that the snakes eye protector - brilles - are not in fact anything at all like eye lids, they are of an entirely different type of structure.
It is simply incorrect to refer to brilles as "fused eyelids" in either the English language or biological terms.
I understand that you have located one reference that supports your view however I should point out that Wikipedia is known (as a result of a recent study) to have a high level of factual errors. Given that it appears to be at odds with the other sources quoted in this thread it could seem you have located another factual error.
There really is nothing more I can add to the argument. I and others have put the evidence in front of you.
Legs.
Again please read the thread - *I* did not dismiss the Sun article.
Why not drumsticks? Or members?
You cast doubt on the article by referring to The Sun's reputation. What do you base it on?
Come on Claus, prove some wrong and admit that you have been misled by the Wiki and are therefore miskaken.
Have you ever seen The Sun paper? If you haven't, I'll be happy to post you a copy so that you can find out for yourself first hand how truly awful it really is. It's the 'adult' equivalent of the Beano.
Have you ever seen The Sun paper? If you haven't, I'll be happy to post you a copy so that you can find out for yourself first hand how truly awful it really is. It's the 'adult' equivalent of the Beano.
Name a single animal that walks on drumsticks. Please.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
1. In the bottom material of a small brook. We deal mainly with aquatic oligochaetes. The brook rund through a valley stocked with bushes and whatnots imported from Japan and China, a part of the local botanical garden called the Rhododendron Valley. Upstream is the Japan Valley.
2. Ah, yes. "Fauna & Flora". It calls itself a "magazine for popular biology".
So, nothing The Sun says can be trusted?
Chickens.
All are allowed in the dictionary. Unless the dictionary is also wrong?
That's not my personal opinion. However, I do feel they embellish a bit and that a lot of what they report needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. So I wouldn't buy it to start with.
Was that the correct answer anyway? The Sun is the mistake?