#clade family
Text
My whole life, I worked so hard to be the exact opposite of my dad. And, uh, looks like I ended up just like him. I just wanted so badly to build you a legacy you could be proud of. But I might’ve got a little bit caught up in it.
#strange world#strange world 2022#parallels#clade family#searcher clade#ethan clade#jaeger clade#fathers and sons#generational trauma#i really love the parallels here#because searcher isn't his dad#he's genuinely trying his hardest to be a good father#but he's repeating toxic patterns because he doesn't know how not to#but also#jaeger reacts to this by leaving#searcher reacts to this by changing
626 notes
·
View notes
Text
some more parents that make me wish my parents were as good as them
#i’ve only known lunella’s family for 2 episodes#but i already love them all#my text#hilda#hilda netflix#strange world#moon girl and devil dinosaur#transformers earthspark#transformers#hilda johanna#meridian clade#searcher clade#james lafayette#aria lafayette#dot malto#dorothy malto#alex malto
303 notes
·
View notes
Text
it's so funny how Nathan and Pickles went from feeling incredibly insulted when Charles called them the "most responsible" of the band, to them not even flinching when Knubbler called them band dads. they are like yeah bitch we're PARENTS, and???
that's character development me thinks
#embrace the found family trope: the movie#clade talks#metalocalypse#aotd spoilers#army of the doomstar spoilers
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
they're everything to me actually
#clade family my beloveds <3#idk something abt searcher being so against adventuring and danger but immediately pulling his family close#when there's a SMIDGE of badness around them#and even though ethan's probably still annoyed#he still tucks himself into his dad#like excuse me while i cry over them#yes i am finally watching strange world#strange world#searcher clade#meridian clade#ethan clade
52 notes
·
View notes
Text
Say something about this family!
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
So I just saw Strange World last night
Me: I am absolutely fascinated with the worldbuilding of this story, I wish there had been more time to delve into the biology side of things and have a more research based approach than exploration/farming. I want to go back now that I know the Big Reveal and try and figure out how it all works
Also me: so can we agree that by the end Jaeger is in a polycule with Penelope and Sheldon, and Searcher and Meridian are dating Callisto
#strange world#spoilers#text#jaeger clade#searcher clade#meridian clade#callisto#mine#anyway it's a really cute and heartfelt story#absolutely loved the family dynamics and working through their issues together#Ethan is best boy#and visually it's really fun and interesting and colourful and pretty
83 notes
·
View notes
Text
hang on this is techically a reply to joelle abt owl metazooa but its my own. More information than needed quick wiki look up soooo
looks like. tyto and strigidae. both owls. within strigiformes. and thats still owls. and the only thing between that and just. Aves. is
Telluraves (also called land birds or core landbirds) is a recently defined[2] clade of birds defined by their arboreality.[3] Based on most recent genetic studies, the clade unites a variety of bird groups, including the australavians (passerines, parrots, seriemas, and falcons) as well as the afroavians (including the Accipitrimorphae – eagles, hawks, buzzards, vultures etc. – owls and woodpeckers, among others).
^which. guessing on that its recent genetic thing. and that i did guess vultures and it didnt connect them as related. im assuming metazooa just doesnt yet reflected the relation!
#some shit#wifi at the zoo#I WILL. continue to talk about the metazooa WITHOUT knowing what family. genus. clade. and etc means. btw. sorry.#they are just points of relation that branch out to me. sorry. i didnt take bio i took chem.#only think i know about is pundit sqaures cause im friends with funny ppl who like horses
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why do Evolutionists believe in conservation? they believe that the formation of life is inevitable, that mass extinctions have happened 5 or 6 times and that every time life bounces back as diverse as ever, that all species are fundamentally of the same blood and can change into one another; whereas creationists believe that every kind* is uniquely created by God distinct and irreplaceable and if they die off that's it.
#*not species but usually associated with the family level#although evolutionary clades have really screwed with logical taxonomy
85 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Strange World (2022)
#strange world#disney#the clades#clade family#jaeger clade#searcher clade#meridian clade#ethan clade
566 notes
·
View notes
Text
I feel split on the Disney villain situation
On the one hand, yes, great villains can be fun, dynamic and even leave an impact on what they try to achieve with their ambitions.
On the other hand, they can be easy for conflict in some movies where it feels like we need this bad person doing bad things so a good person can do good things to stop them.
By contrast, this "no villain" style of movies feels like we don't have some evil mastermind trying to ruin the world but puts the focus on people.
Because while there are people in power trying to screw us over, society's woes don't stop or end at them nor are they so on-the-nose evil. I like that it forces the characters to deal with themselves internally.
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
scared a coworker by (loosely) explaining the whole 'not all trees are closely related' thing. like pines vs oaks. miiiles apart. not even sort of alike except for Tall.
#evolution is awesome#trying to remember like... families and clades and etc is too much for my little brain though
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
TLDR: If you’re the type of person who would boycott a film because of a gay character, you also wouldn’t enjoy the story Disney is trying to tell in Strange World.
I love Strange World even if I know it isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea. I feel like Disney was smart in how they depicted Ethan’s storyline. Sure it was cathartic to see a mixed race gay kid dealing with feeling awkward around his crush with an incredibly supportive family. But more so he was a good litmus test. If you can’t root for Ethan, you probably won’t resonate with the other messages the film is trying to convey. Environmental degradation, power instability and sacrifice for the legacy you want for your children all play crucial roles in the plot. It deals with intentional versus unintentional impact of our actions. It takes so much climate change anxiety and repackages it with fun colors to make it seem like a children’s movie. Sure, it could be heavy handed with its message at times, but it’s trying to get everyone on the same page of a complicated issue.
#strange world#searcher clade#ethan clade#meridian clade#splat#the best little family who I love and adore
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Don’t want to clown on an otherwise perfectly good post but not every clade is universally defined solely by empirical phylogenetic/genetic evidence. For example, the foremost authoritative taxonomy of amphipods is based entirely on morphology-based cladistic methods, which nearly every recently published phylogeny has disrupted, and yet still remains because it takes time and peer review to update official linnean names for higher taxa. This is the case for a whole lot of groups of organisms where funding for genetic resource acquisition is low, or whose taxonomy has been dominated by a few stubborn old morphologists…
#that last point deserves a paragraph all its own#source: I study a group with poorly-developed genetic resources#it’s getting better but there are some people who seem to call the shots on taxonomy and they haven’t historically put in the effort#to define clades phylogenetically#don’t get me wrong their work has been super formative and presents a lot of interesting hypotheses to test#but it’s frustrating when you see a family that everyone knows is paraphyletic still listed on WoRMS#sorry I didn’t know I had this all inside me#Collin does science
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
Mr Frog guy, what is the different between a frog & a toad?
This is probably the second most common question I receive, after "what's your favourite frog".
There is no difference, because this is a false dichotomy. It is not a comparison of equal categories. Toads are one of the ~55 frog families. Toads unequivocally are frogs.
If you want to know the difference between toads and some other family or clade of frogs, you would either have to be more specific, or identify features that are unique to toads—synapomorphies of Bufonidae. These are the differences between toads and all other frogs.
Synapomorphies of Bufonidae include the parotoid glands (but not present in all toads), some funky muscular arrangements, a weird bone in the skull, and the Bidder's organ, which is basically a backup ovary in male toads that allows them to become reproductively active females if their testes are damaged or removed surgically.
#frogs#toads#the more you know#anura#amphibians#zoology#herpetology#graphic design is my passion#answers by Mark#infographic#weepingwillows-sweethibiscustea#anon#anonymous#the list of countries without ANY frogs or toads of any kind is VERY short indeed#so Anon is either from Greenland or Iceland#or from a tiny or remote island somewhere#some lists say Qatar has no frogs but this is a lie#UAE has almost no frogs#but still some in some areas
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
Apes are a kind of monkey, and that's ok
This is a pet peeve of mine in sci comm ESPECIALLY because many well respected scientific institutions are insistent about apes and monkeys being separate things, despite how it's been established for nearly a century that apes are just a specific kind of monkey.
Nearly every zoo I've visited that houses apes has a sign somewhere like the one below that explains the supposed distinction between the two groups, focusing on anatomy instead of phylogeny.
(Every time I see a graphic like this I age ten years)
Movies even do this, especially when they want to sound credible. Take this scene from Rise of the Planet of the Apes:
This guy Franklin is presented as the authority on apes in this scene, and he treats James Franco calling a chimpanzee a monkey like it's insulting.
But when you actually look at a primate family tree, you can see that apes are on the same branch as Old World monkeys, while New World monkeys branched off much earlier.
(I'm assuming bushbabies are included as "lorises" here?)
To put it simply, that means you and I are more closely related to a baboon than a baboon is to a capuchin.
Either the definition of monkey includes apes OR we can keep using an anatomical definition and Barbary macaques get to be an ape because they're tailless.
"I've got no tails on me!"
SO
Why did all this happen? Why did we start insisting apes are monkeys, especially considering the two words were pretty much interchangeable for centuries? Well I've got one word for ya...
This the attitude that puts humans on a pedestal over other life on Earth. That there are intrinsically important features of humanity, and other living things are simply stepping stones in that direction.
At the dawn of evolutionary study, anthropocentrism was enforced by using a model called evolutionary grades. And boy howdy do I hate evolutionary grades.
Basically, a grade is a way of defining a group of animals by using anatomical "complexity". It's the idea that evolution has milestones of importance that, once reached, makes an organism into a new kind of thing. You can almost think of it like evolutionary levels. An animal "levels up" once it gains a certain trait deemed "complex".
You can probably see the issue here; that complexity is an ephemeral idea defined through subjectivity, rather than based off anything truly observable. What makes walking on 2 legs more complex than walking on four? How are tails less complex than no tails? "Complexity" in this context is unmeasurable, therefore it is unscientific. That's why evolutionary grades suck and I never want to look at one.
For primates, this meant once some of them lost their tails, grew bigger brains, and started brachiating instead of leaping, they simply "leveled up" and became apes. Despite the early recognition that apes were simply a branch of the Old World monkey family tree (1785!), the idea of grades took precedent over the phylogenetic link.
In the early years of primatology, humans were even seen as a grade "above" apes, related but separated by our upright stance and supposed far greater intelligence (this was before other apes were recognized tool users).
It wasn't until the goddamn 1970s that it was recognized all great apes should be included in the clade Hominidae alongside humanity. This was a major shift in thinking, and required not just science, but the public, to recognize just how close we are to other living species. It seems like this change has, thankfully, happened and most institutions and science respecting folks have accepted this fact. Those who don't accept it tend to have a lot more issues with science than only accepting humans as apes.
And now, we come to the current problem. Why is there a persistent idea that monkeys and apes are separate?
I want to make it clear I don't believe there was a conscious movement at play here. I think there's a lot of things going on, but there isn't some anti-monkey lobby that is hiding the truth. I think the problem is more complicated and deals with how human brains and human culture often struggle to do too many changes at once.
Now, I haven't seen any studies on this topic, so everything I say going forward is based on my own experience of how people react to learning apes (and therefore, humans) are monkeys.
First off, there is a lot of mental rearranging you have to do to accept humans as monkeys. First you, gotta accept humans as apes, then you have to stop thinking in grades and look at the family tree. Then you have to accept that apes are on the Old World monkey branch, separate from the New World monkeys.
That's a lot of steps, and I've seen science-minded zoo educators struggle with that much mental rearranging. And even while they accept this to an extent, they often find it even harder to communicate these ideas to the public.
I think this is a big reason why zoos and museums often push this idea the hardest. Convincing the public humans are apes is already a challenge, teaching them that all apes are monkeys at the same time might seem impossible.
I believe the other big reason people cling to the "apes-aren't-monkeys" idea is that it still allows for that extra bit of comforting anthropocentrism. Think of it this way; anthropocentrism puts humans on a pedestal. When you learn that humans are apes, you can either remove the pedestal and place humans with other animals, OR, you can place the apes up on the pedestal with humanity. For those that have an anthropocentric worldview, it can actually be easier to "uplift" the apes than ditch the pedestal.
Too make things worse, monkeys are such a symbol of a "primitive" animal nature that many can't accept raising them to the "level" of humanity, but removing the pedestal altogether is equally painful. So they hold tight to an outdated idea despite all the evidence. This is why there's often offense taken when an ape is called a monkey. It's tantamount to someone calling you a monkey, and that's too much of a challenge to anthropocentrism.
Personally, I think recognizing myself as a monkey is wonderful. Non-ape monkeys are as "complex" as any ape. They make tools, they have dynamic social groups, they're adapted to a wide range of environments, AND they have the best hair of all primates.
I think we should be honored to be considered one of them.
3K notes
·
View notes
Text
If you were to host a blacklight party in the taxidermy wing of a natural history museum, most of the mammals would fit right in with their eerie fluorescent glow.
That's what Kenny Travouillon, the curator of mammalogy at the Western Australian Museum, found when his team shone ultraviolet light on 125 species of mammal in the collection.
The luminous effect wasn't restricted to platypuses and wombats, which were identified as biofluorescent species a few years ago. Every species of mammal they examined emitted a green, blue, pink, or white hue under UV light.
The inside of a red fox's pointy ears turned shocking, fluorescent green. The polar bear lit up like a white t-shirt under a blacklight, as did the zebra's white stripes and the leopard's yellow fur.
The wings of the orange leaf-nosed bat became a stark white skeleton, while its fur glowed pink. And the ears and tail of the greater bilby shone "bright like a diamond," as Travouillon described in 2020.
The study showed that fluorescence is present in half of mammalian families, almost all clades, and in all 27 orders.
Continue Reading
2K notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
storms-center
Untitled
leclerclvrs
lazlo
24zo
You Need Happiness
pabrikmesineskristalindonesia
Pabrik Mesin Es Kristal
restrictivelungdisease
Why Did My Dad Name Me Skylar