Today Meltdown is doing dramatically better.  She's still not herself
really, very tired, weak, a bit chilly to the touch but still pink.  She is
neither dehydrated nor suffering from noticeable ascites or wheezing today,
in a better mood, stronger than she had been... We'll just have to take it
all in two hour spans for a while.  Right now she is in my flannel shirt as
I type this enjoying my warmth.  I'll probably get a back ache from stooping
so she can rest on my thighs, but that's okay.
 
I wondered about how Jeff, Bruce, Bob, and other knowledgeable folks would
react to a conclusion from some studies mentioned in yesterday's Science
Times of the New York Times (available at libraries).  It's long been known
that certain features of newborns such as low human birth weight are related
to large increases in diabetes and heart disease later in life.  Similar
situations have been seen in caviomorphs, rats, and sheep, perhaps in other
mammals.  The hypothesis mentioned is that the fetal environment, including
the maternal diet, might predispose offspring to some future illnesses or
disorders.  It sounds as if there are now some data suggesting that other
problems (including some in old age) such as diminished lung capacity, liver
difficulties, and neurological impairments could be also sometimes be
increased by maternal undernutrition, and that some types of
hormonal-related cancers could be increased by maternal over-nutrition or
obesity.  This is tentative, of course, but if it turns out that when the
data are processed some breeders' lines are more inclined to certain
illnesses, then it may be necessary to determine whether the problems are
actually genetic or might be related to the fetal environment created by the
breeder (by raising and breeding individuals of those strains under
different conditions).  This might sound like a real complication, but one
could imagine situations in which small breeders who have encountered
problems which fit the mold could vary the maternal conditions and then
observe the offspring for their lifetimes.  Such endeavors MIGHT hold VERY
tantalizing hints down the road.  (They could also be wash-outs, but there's
only way to know, isn't there?)
 
A while back someone mentioned the diastomae found next to canine teeth as
something which differentiates meat eaters from non-meat eaters.  Actually,
such spaces are not unusual in a wide variety of animals which eat many
types of diets and are more a reflection of canine size and shape.
Basically, they are parking garages for the canines, and it does not matter
of those canines are used for hunting, defense, territorial arguments,
sexual displays, or breeding fights.  We don't need them because most of us
have short and flattened canines which serve as auxilliary incisors for
slicing and scooping fruit and veggies.  (There are occasional humans with
large and pointed canine teeth -- more commonly male, but rarely a female.
Years ago we actually knew a female vet tech whose over-hung her lower lip
till she had them capped.) The teeth which best describe a carnivorous diet
are the cheek teeth (premolars and molars) which have become cutting blades.
Look up the term used.  Hint: it is related to a word for meat.
 
Sukie
[Posted in FML issue 1710]