The last animals added are: 2015 — Eastern Cougar, Puma Concolor Couguar 2013 – Formosan Clouded Leopard, Neofelis nebulosa brachyura 2012 — Pinta Island Tortoise, Chelonoidis abingdoni 2011 — Vietnamese Rhino, Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus
2009 — Christmas Island Pipistrelle, Pipistrellus murrayi 2007 — Chinese Paddlefish, Psephurus gladius 2007 — Yangtze River Dolphin, Lipotes vexillifer etc, etc. If you want to visit this sad list, here is the link: Here's Every Single Animal That Became Extinct In The Last 100 Years As a meta-analysis, a study
published by experts from Stanford, Princeton and the University of
California-Berkeley declared the world’s vertebrates are going extinct
114 times faster than the natural rate of extinction.
I
understand that, with clades, birds are dinosaurs, but when considering
clades, birds are fishes, cnidarians, et cetera. This distinction is
next to useless for the general purposes of language, where calling
everything a bacteria would be meaningless. Thus, for the purposes of
casual language, are birds really dinosaurs?
Another question of Quora, if you read these entries you already know that I considered the site interesting before they chose quantity (traffic) instead of quality. They also have a politic of top writers (those who attract more readings) that has made havoc with the level of answers related to animals and ethology.
However, I once wrote on Quora this text. Enjoy...
_________________
Birds are dinosaurs for both systems of classification.
Birds
are dinosaurs from both viewpoints, although it carries some problems
for Linnean classification (1). And don't missunderstand me, I do really
like Linnean classification and prefer that it be the first one to be
taught to children because it is a great description of the world as we
see it, such as Cladistics can't be by definition, because they have to
include features of extinct organisms. Here in Spain children are
introduced to classification overly early, in the first grades of
Primary, and how could they understand the links between reptiles and
birds that Cladistics bring when they are under 10 years?.
Coming
back to dinosaurs, it is a group that was not defined on the range of
characters we can observe on a living animal that include external
features such as appearance, skin traits (having fur, feather, glands,
layers...), metabolism traits (such as weter they could maintain a level
of internal temperature independently of enviromental conditions or
not, chambers in the heart, etc), skeletal morphology and others. It
wasn't possible because the description was made from the fosil remains
that only depicted skeletal features (2), hence all the group was typed
from some few relevant skeletal traits. There is not way of comparing
how they descripted mammals, birds and reptiles with the way they did
with dinosaurs.
What
happened is that accordingly with that key skeletal features, birds
must be included into the dinosaur group (from a Linnean viewpoint) or
are in the dinosaur clade (from a Cladistic one). Birds fulfill all the
"must to" to be named dinosaurs by their own and not as derived from
dinosaurs. Of course that there is a lot of polemics sorrounding this
point, for some anatomist birds display very original adaptations to
flight that would tell them apart from more "primitive" dinosaurs (3).
Some even maintain that they could derive from an earliest ancestor that
was only related to dinosaurs, but was not a dinosaur (4). I think that
the scientits that defend those viewpoints have failed to demonstrate
that birds lack the skeletal characters that make them dinosaurs, so far
at least; in fact the critics I link bellow are debunked. Probably we
will see more of this polemic in the following years, and this is the
kind of discussions I like, because in spite that they can be really
boring for taxonomists, for general public show some really interesting
features of the animal studied. And also, it is like a real scientific
soap opera on the internet.
But for the purpose of casual language, birds can be called birds, and we can forget for a while that they are dinosaurs.
Finally,
in our dayly life, as far as we are not interested in the evolutionary
history of some organism or some feature in some organism, I think it is
more useful, and amazing, talking about them in the way we see and
experience our present world, and here is where Linnean classification
makes the best role. Do you see those beautiful long legged horses as
fishes?. Indeed, nobody does. The insistence of calling birds dinosaurs
come from the fact that the polemics between supporters and the
remaining detractors of birds as dinos still continues, nothing is more
noisy than a battle field.
__ Links and an
introduction to some problems and controversies derived from dinosaurs
classification. I only recomend point 1 and 4 to dino freaks.
(1)
Well, this point is annoyingly long, I agree. But as I have seen so
many people confused with the idea that dinosaurs are birds, I like to
explain why they feel so stranged with it.
The
problems that Linnean classification must face due to that birds are
actually dinosaurs derive from that dinosaurs include animals that
highly resemble reptiles and others that, well, are birds.
For
the lay person the problem can be post as "So when we think about the
term dinosaur, what are we thinking about a bird or a reptile, or
both?". In fact the matter reminds me the Necker cube , an optical illusion in what we can see the same drawing of a cube looking up, down or both alternately.
Regarding
dinosaurs, there is not such dilema, as I have told in the text,
dinosaurs were defined on different basis than any living animal Class
(reptiles and birds are Classes accordingly to Linnean classification),
so there is not contradiction in that dino groups animals from both
Classes. It is a little uncomfortable for Linnean supporters, but not a
nuclear misile that will destroy the concept.
Cladistics
supporters, on the other hand, have more strong feelings about the
Linnean Class reptilia (i.e reptiles). Some schools of thought would
like to redefine it in a way that includes birds. But they also have to
face their own problems, because it is not clear how to group the
different extant types of reptiles accordingly to evolutionary
characters. For the moment reptiles are a nightmare for evolutionary
biologists and cladistics zealots, good for the old brave scaled
animals. Who wants that their children are told that birds an reptiles
are the same at the tender age of seven?. I don't.
In fact dinosaurs are not the only group that defy the traditional Linnean grouping, just the most popular. If Synapsid
would have been so know as dinos, we would have assisted to a long and
vively discussion about wether they are retiles or mammals or what.
Finally synapsid were split from reptiles.
I
have brought about the example of synapsid to talk about the complexity
of classifying extinct animals that depict characters that make them
close to two different Linnean Classes, species or whatever. In the end,
making classifications is drawing borders that looked from an aerial
perspective seem to be very clear, but the closer you get to these
borders, the more artifitial and debatable they appear. This is the
lesson that we, lay people, can draw from the problems with classifying
dinosaurs.
(2) What is the scientific diagnosis of what is a dinosaur, and what is just another archosaur?
Several skeletal characteristics are currently used as diagnostic
dinosaurian features. You may also view a large-screen picture of a dinosaur skeleton for a lesson in anatomy : Morphology of the Dinosauria
(4) Longisquama
(debunked. But I really find Longisquasma amazing, in spite that I only
see the head half of an animal skeleton over some feathered thing).
I love this question on Quora because I love animals. I find it uplifting, so let's have a nice moment. Enjoy... _____________
1) Mzee is a Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea), a species which habitat is in the Seychelles. Owen is exactly what you could expect from a hipoppotamus.
Let's start with one of the most surprising pals I had never expected.
Because one of them is a reptil, and the other a mammal. You may think
that in this case the bond could only flow in one direction (from mammal
to reptil), very probably, but it was fundamental for the well being of
the young mammal. Owen and Mzee
They live in the Haller Park in Kenya. In
December 2004, tthe terrible tusnami separated Owen, then a juvenile
hippo, from his herd. he was rescued and carried to the Haller Park
Rescue Center. Having no other hippos to interact with, Owen immediately
attempted to bond with Mzee, whose large domed shell and brown color
resembled an adult hippo. They formed an odd friendship that continued
until 2006, when it was determined that Owen had grown too large to
safely interact with Mzee. Today they live in separated enclosures, and
Owen is doing a great job in socializing with other hippos, which
reveals that the effect of the perceived bonding with the tortoise was
very positive for the young mammal.
2)Whales interacting with dolphins: Sperm Whales 'adopt' a deformed dolphin, and whales giving dolphins a lift.
These kind of bondings can occur in the wild. Despite they can be
temporal, we can't deny that they defy our understanding of humans as
the only ones that can understand another species's animal suffering and
help them, and also...what puzzles me more...that they enjoy playing
with another species.
Let's start by an amazing example, this
video depicts a very rare interaction between sperm whales and an
adult bottlenose dolphin with a spinal malformation (i.e. scoliosis).
This represents the first time this type of non-agonistic (friendly)
interaction has been recorded for sperm whales. We published a
description of these interactions in the scientific journal "Aquatic
Mammals".
Surprising, isn't it?. But what if I tell you that
scientists have filmed whales playing with dolphins...playing, not
harrasing or bullying.
Whales give dolphins a lift.
Many
species interact in the wild, most often as predator and prey. But
recent encounters between humpback whales and bottlenose dolphins
reveal a playful side to interspecies interaction. In two different
locations in Hawaii, scientists watched as dolphins "rode" the heads of
whales: the whales lifted the dolphins up and out of the water, and
then the dolphins slid back down. The two species seemed to cooperate
in the activity, and neither displayed signs of aggression or distress.
3)Adopted pets can form bonds incredible strong,
because they know what is not to have them. When there is a disability
included in the equation, the bondings are truly impresionant.
I've talked about wild animals in a rescue center, and wild animals in
the wild, but the greatest source of these unthinkable bondings are just
average people homes Pwditat the rescued straycat and Terfel the blind dog:
And,
on the other hand, Murdock the blind adopted cat and the family dog who
adopted him as his best friend (the name of the dog wasn't mentioned in
the article).
4) There is an entire channel of NatGeo dedicated to tell this kind of stories. http://channel.nationalgeographi...
Here is the story of a ten y.o hen and a very handicapped toy dog, that are best buddies:
Ok, some questions on Quora are incredibly funny. And, ah, oh, yes...some field studies too bizarre. This is one of the first things I wrote on Quora, be patient with my English, I was starting, and also forgive me some typos...but poo throwing chimps and intelligence, is there anything more exciting?. ________________
Are there -not handycapped- chimps that can't poop throw ?. The paper says that better poop throwers were more intellegent becaus:
After
making their discovery regarding the parts of the brain that appear to
be involved in better throwing in chimps, the team tested the chimps
and found that those that could throw better also appeared to be
better communicators within their group, giving credence to their idea
that speech and throwing are related. Interestingly, they also
found that the better throwing chimps didn’t appear to posses any more
physical prowess than other chimps, which the researchers suggest
means that throwing didn’t develop as a means of hunting, but as a form
of communication within groups, i.e. throwing stuff at someone else
became a form of self expression, which is clearly evident to anyone who has ever been targeted by a chimp locked up in a zoo.
- It has been hypothesized that neurological
adaptations associated with evolutionary selection for throwing may
have served as a precursor for the emergence of language and speech in
early hominins.
-These results suggest that chimpanzees that
have learned to throw have developed greater cortical connectivity
between primary motor cortex and the Broca's area homologue. It is
suggested that during hominin evolution, after the split between the
lines leading to chimpanzees and humans, there was intense selection on
increased motor skills associated with throwing and that this
potentially formed the foundation for left hemisphere specialization
associated with language and speech found in modern humans.
In
a nutshell, the development of precisssion in poop throwing is
associated with the cortical connectivity in brain structures essential
for language in humans.
The easy joke is language came from the appropiate use of poop.
----------------------------------------------
But,
if you ask me, the study goes very far in use of chimp natural
behaviour to analyse early human development. As chimp can´t not use a
very structurate group of sounds, due to morphology issues, for me there
is a human biass in analyse their behaviour in this study.
"Evolution
selection of mammals are done by selecting the males. Such
circumstances made polygamic male mammals significantly stronger and
possibly smarter than their female counterparts.This is observed in
chimps, lions etc"is this true?Because I'm not sure people who say that
are against equality
The question as it was posted.
______________________________
Someone requested me to anwer this bizarre question. Well, not so bizarre if you think on a female student whose teacher of biology is taking advance of his position to impose a distorted vision of the role of sex and gender among animals. Pure garbain. I really got upset when some stupid quoran told this anonyme question maker that they was being childish.
My answer, go to learn about animals and you will discover that your rules are not universal and that the role of sex is far more complex that you thought. And fire that stupid teacher.
Dicho de otro modo, que despidan a ese profesor, y que alguien mande a la mierda al gilipollas que insultó a quien quiera que hiciera esta pregunta. Creo que ese alguien voy a ser yo...mucha gente que pretende escribir en Quora dándoselas de estudiante, licenciado, etc...son gilipollas.
_______________
A message for the anonyme op who a2aed me this:
I
know you have unfollowed your question, and all I can do is to imagine
what you had in mind. The quote has a grammal mistake, and also you
could have explained your point more clearly, but I won't give it too
many importance, not everybody here was educated in English, I wasn't
educated in English, either. But I don't know wether you think the quote
makes sense or not.
It doesn't.
If
you are a young female student and have had to endure some stupid
sexist insinuations in your biology tuitions, think on this, you are not
the first one. Question your proffessor's intenttions. Stay strong and
cold minded. And if you like biology, go on. It is incredibly varied and
interesting, it has surprises for all of us, and it is experimenting a
revolution in the way of regarding female mammals in the last years.
__________________
First
off, Biology is not nature, it is a science that studies a part of
nature, life and living organisms branched in numerous subdisciplines
that are defined by the scale at which those organisms are examined.
Nature, on the other hand, is is the natural, physical, or material
world or universe, it is life and the physical world at the same time.
It is very important to make this distinction, which is in fact the
cornerstone of this answer. You may not confuse our natural world with
the science that studies it.
A science is a is a
methodical system of acquiring knowledge, that seeks to explain the
events of natural world in a reproductible way by other researhers
working under the same conditions. In the case of Biology, the main
stages of this method are observation and experimentation, and interpretation of the data acquired.
Although
observation and experimentation are not free of flaws and assumptions,
it is interpretation the most problematic part, because the uncoscious
preconceptions, bias and assumptions afect it in a degree we can not
predict.
Biology, biologists and description
of the observational data made by biologists is not rid of assumptions,
especially when it comes to matters that are important for our
conception of the world, and the two main ones are the role of sexes
(sadly, for some even of races) in human society and the connection of
humans with the rest of animals. Put it in another words, you won't read
more vivid discussions and more arrogant asumptions regarding biologic
topics than in those two themes. Nobody will give so much thinking and
energy to the way of feeding of mites or the reproduction of lichens.
But when it comes to these two cathegories everybody seems to have
something to say, no matter how much they really know about the science,
the natural world, and all the incredibly intricated kind of
complexities the study of animals, and mammals has.
I
repeat, nobody is aware of how much their assumptions interfere the
conclussions they make about the data proportioned by observations, and
very few have take the job of looking for when did this theory of male
rivalry conducting evolution started. It results that it started in the
very writings of Darwin, who was assuming the preconceptions of the
society he lived in:
Less
widely known is that many evolutionists, including Darwin, taught that
women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men. The
intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and
females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to
classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as homo frontalis and females as homo parietalis.Darwin
himself concluded that the differences between male and female humans
were so enormous that he was amazed that ‘such different beings belong
to the same species’ and he was surprised that ‘even greater differences
still had not been evolved.’
Darwin concluded that males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection. In
contrast, war pruned weaker men, allowing only the strong to come home
and reproduce. Men were also the hunting specialists, an activity that
pruned weaker men. Women by contrast, ‘specialized in the “gathering”
part of the primitive economy.’
Sexism is not absent in the story of teaching of the evolution theory.
The female inferiority doctrine is an excellent example of the armchair
logic, a logic derived from our assumptions imposed to the
interpretation of data. Do you see that what Darwin theorized based
upon his own preconceptions is exactly the core of the phrase quoted in
the question?. Can you see it?.
Darwin
taught that the differences between men and women were due partly, or
even largely, to sexual selection. A male must prove himself physically
and intellectually superior to other males in the competition for
females to pass his genes on, whereas a woman must only be superior in
sexual attraction. Darwin also concluded that ‘sexual selection depended
on two different intraspecific activities: the male struggle with males
for possession of females; and female choice of a mate.’
In Darwin’s words, evolution depended on ‘a struggle of individuals of
one sex, generally males, for the possession of the other sex.’ (Darwin,
C., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 1897 edition, D. Appleton and Company, New York, p. 108, 1859.).
Those
old victorian sexist prejudices absorbed in the understanding of
biology of so many generations and appearing now, as of 2016, in this
stupid phrase and in this interesting question. Memes. Dawkins had it right. Memes percolating in our collective unconscious.
Now
that I have stablished the difference between nature and its study, the
existence of unconscious bias in our way of understanding data acquired
by observation of experiments, and he origin of assumption of that
evolution is driven by selecting males...which is way much more than the
former answers have done, I will take a time for a laugh. The rest of
the answer is as painfully long and complex to explain as this part, so
let's make a stop.
"[...]
Such circumstances made polygamic male mammals significantly stronger
and possibly smarter than their female counterparts.This is observed in
chimps, lions etc". This is pissing, isn't it?. Absolutely!
Oh,
you think that this is not fair...just cherrypicking?. What do you
think that people propossing that selecion of males drives mammal
evolution do?. Cherrypicking, no more. Worse, they can't give you a
single study carried out on all poligamic mammal species that shows that
evolution is made selecting males. NOT A SINGLE STUDY THAT BACKS THIS CONCLUSSION. Cope with it. There are not such studies.
Let's go again with the boring explanation.
"Evolution
selection of mammals are done by selecting the males. Such
circumstances made polygamic male mammals significantly stronger and
possibly smarter than their female counterparts.This is observed in
chimps, lions etc"
I'm going to be very clement
here, and assume that the first phrase refers to polygamic mammals as
well. It is more difficult to make a case against the phrase assuming
that we are talking about polygynic species than in any other
possibility, and I going to refer to this case. Also, I will forget
about the pissing part of smarter males from now on.
To
start off, we are talking about mammals. What all mammals have in
common is that every single individual depends on their mother in the
first part of their lives. We could think that those mammals produce
equal number of male and female offspring, and that they invest the same
work in rearing them up. But this is not always true.
Within
species, mothers also often subtly adjust sex ratios to advantage
themselves. Since the variance in male reproductive success is usually
higher, it makes sense for mothers to produce more sons when they expect
to have highly successful offspring, and more daughters when they
don't. Boars, for instance, produce extra extra sons in small litters (when the mother can invest more) and extra daughters in large litters. Mother marsupials, including antechinus and brushtail possums, are thought to produce more sons to avoid competing with their daughters. Female bighorn sheep produce more sons
when they are older and conditions are poor, but only breed every
second season. The net outcome of this sort of individual-level bias is
usually still a 50:50 sex ratio.
Here
we examine the extent to which parental investment in red deer (Cervus
elaphus) and other polygynous mammals matches these predictions. We
conclude that, in several mammals, mothers invest more heavily in
individual sons than daughters.
So
we have here some evidences that point that parents make different
choices accordingly to the possible reproductive success of their
offspring accordingly to its sex. And they can favourite male over
female or viceversa in function of the ecological factors. Parental selection of both sexes.
The
matter is even more complicated, although infanticide commited by males
due to sexual conflict is very estudied and divulgated (Infanticide (zoology),
it is the known case of males killing the cubs when entering in a
pride) there are other kinds of infanticide such as those commited by
non maternal females due to sexual and resource competence (female rats will eat the kits of strange females for a source of nutrition, and to take over the nest for her own litter (wikipedia Infanticide (zoology).
Mother rats also kill their own if they are deformed or wounded, to
allow them to allocate resources to their other offspring. Why killing infants can benefit animals.
Dominant females meerkats are known to kill subordinates' young, and
they too have been known to kill a top female's young if they have a
litter of their own. But male meerkats do not get blood on their paws. Why killing infants can benefit animals). Those killings don't select males, they kill all the youngs, if you follow my reasoning.
The
pression of intraspecifical agression to youngs has lead to different
strategies in order to protect the offsprings, one of them used by many
female primates is paternity confusion where female primates mate with
multiple partners so the males don't know who is the father. But they
also have to have a look upon nearby females:
The
adaptive function of copulation calls in female primates has been
debated for years. One influential idea is that copulation calls are a
sexually selected trait, which enables females to advertise their
receptive state to males. Male-male competition ensues and females
benefit by getting better mating partners and higher quality offspring. We
analysed the copulation calling behaviour of wild female chimpanzees
(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) at Budongo Forest, Uganda, but found no
support for the male-male competition hypothesis. Hormone analysis
showed that the calling behaviour of copulating females was unrelated to
their fertile period and likelihood of conception. Instead, females
called significantly more while with high-ranking males, but suppressed
their calls if high-ranking females were nearby. Copulation calling may
therefore be one potential strategy employed by female chimpanzees to
advertise receptivity to high-ranked males, confuse paternity and secure
future support from these socially important individuals. Competition
between females can be dangerously high in wild chimpanzees, and our
results indicate that females use their copulation calls strategically
to minimise the risks associated with such competition.
With
all these facts together, similar enviromental selective pressure,
gestation and lactation periods, parental choices, female infaticide and
female-female competition...the question is how can anybody say that
selection is made only on males?. Is Higher male variance in
reproductive success enough to contrarest all the above pressures and
make the selective pressure on females insignificant?. There is only a
way to make a case for it. A great study with the sufficient number of
species and individuals to demonstrate it. And do you know what?. Nobody
has done it.
So the believing in a greater
selective pressure over males is just that, a believing. The theory was
coined in the very first years of the evolution theory debate and it has
never been properly demonstrated.
______________
There are only two exceptions in which the statement of a higher selective pressure over mammals males make sense:
- Harmful mutations on the X chormosome.
-
Poultry and cattle: Where the asumption of "evolution done selecting
the males" has some sense, is specifically in my speciality, agronomy.
In fact I was also taught this same concept, but it is false. What it is
true is that under non natural circumstances, where the animals can't
make their own choices of reproduction, i.e. cattle and factory farm
animals, it is more efficent to select the sperm of the males that have
had very productive offspring (milky cows, meat cattle, egg laying
chicks...), because you can very cheaply collect it, filter it in the
way you can obtain many doses out of the original one, conserve it and
sell it. This is the sense of this concept for an agronomist, and it
makes sense. But it is not the real world under natural selection :).
___________
Final worlds about equality in humans and finally about nature:
So what? Equality of the sexes does not mean that women want to be as strong or as large as males on average! It means equality of rights and opportunities.
Biology and evolution has nothing to do with human rights. A male lion
that dethrones the king of the pride kills his cubs. It's what lions do:
infanticide. If a bigger man kills a woman's husband so he can marry
her and then kills her children, it's a crime. My point is, don't go
invoking biology as justification for human behavior considered
criminal, immoral or unacceptable. It's not going to help you much.
Here's an undeniable fact of human biology: we are highly social animals
with complex and changing culture.
Does
nature take care about equality?. No. In fact there are terrible
reproductive strategies for both males and females in nature.
Do
we humans have to care about equality?. Yes, this concept is a product
of our social evolution which is a product of our evolutive history, as
it is the science of Biology. Nature is the whole picture, like the
cosmos, biology is our way of making cosmology. (sorry, I needed to give
some visual reference, I have a sort of visual brain).
Very interesting question. It is obviously
due to a evenly distribution of melanin between the two eyes. In
huskies it always includes one eye blue (1).
The reason is that
this breed was developed by inbreeding together with the standards of
the breed allowing blue eyes, and also heterochromia (for example
malamute's standard is brown eyes, and heterochromia is not allowed), so
the condition is not restricted by those standards.
Genetically,
there are four ways of getting blue eyes in dogs, three of them related
to the color of the coat causing white spots, patterns or diluted
patterns, and only one that it is not linked to the coat. This last form
is what huskies have and hence the color of the eye doesn't interefer
with the normal pattern of the breed. Breeders say that this is
caused by a single gene, but i don't see they prove it in any way,
because they don't tell wether it is a dominant character, codominant or
recesive. So, i just tell what they say, but i don't give it entire
credit. This is the explanation given:
Lastly, blue eyes can be inherited as a completely separate gene,
unaffected by coat colour. This gene is, however, rare. It occurs
occasionally in the Border Collie and similar breeds, but mainly it's
seen in the Siberian Husky. Huskies can have one or both blue
eyes, regardless of their main coat colour, ranging in shade from
almost white to sky blue. This is particularly striking when seen on
black dogs.
Now,
this only explains why do they inherit blue eyes independently of the
pattern of the fur, but not why they have different eye color. And this
last is very important, as they have the same genes in all their body,
it seems that the development of the melanin is inhibited in one eye,
and not in the other. This is not that strange (2). But what factor
causes this inhibition is what remains unexplained, and I have found
information regarding this issue.
----------------- (1) Blue eyes are due to the Tyndall scattering of light in the eye, a phenomenon similar to that which accounts for the blueness of the sky called Rayleigh scattering. There are not blue pigments in the dogs eyes. Eye color is thus an instance of structural color and varies depending on the lighting conditions, especially for lighter-colored eyes.
(2)
Heterochromia is very frequent in cats that have some form of albinism
(there are various genes that lead to complete or partial inhibition of
color in cats). This seems indicates that the "enviromental" factors
opering during the development of both eyes are independent, although
coat patterns tend to be very simmetrical. I find this exciting to
study the development of the fetus, and perhaps it could give us some
ideas to understand some newborn defects such as cleft palates. -------------------------------------- As i told it is a very-very interesting quesion and I wish I knew more about this.
From s