Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:29:26 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
When I'm the field, I might put on camouflage face paint and fatigues...
but I also stick branches and leaves in my helmet band -- if I want to
really blend in. Maybe Xenophora have a paranoid streak? ("Everybody can
still see me!! Better cover up some more! I'm never safe!") Could be
they should be called Xenophoba.
Then again maybe they are into exterior decoration. :P "Ah, dahling, you
look mahvelous in the green..."
Here's a frivolous linguistic question for our taxonomic word-smiths:
Given that the words "specie" and "species" have two very different
meanings (the former being a technical term for currency), what is the
divergence in their linguistic development? One missing letter makes quite
a difference. Did the two derive from the same root or even the same
language? Is it just a coincidence?
Might be a better question for "English-L" or Webster, but I bet someone
here has a theory.
Jenny
----------
> From: Wesley M. Thorsson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Xenophora
> Date: Tuesday, 16 June, 1998 12:41 PM
>
> To me, the facinating thing about Xenophora and their attachments as a
> disguise in Guaymas, Mexico was the fact that most of them had a
> complete covering of grassy algae that hid everything. To find them you
> looked for lumps of algae.
>
> The same thing applies to other schemes that are generally taken as
> camouflage: If it is a disguise, why cover it up with something
> entirely different?
>
> Aloha,
>
> Wes
|
|
|