FERRET-SEARCH Archives

Searchable FML archives

FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Mon, 5 Feb 1996 02:31:42 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
While reading my last posting on the FML a few minutes ago, I noticed I had
made a really dumb and inadvertent goofie about the number of molars in the
ferret.  I said the ferret had four when it actually has six molars, two
topside and four below.  Part of the goof was just plain fatigue from
driving all day, part was from an attempt to be as brief as possible, and
the rest was because I tried to explain things without using the dreaded
"Scientific Terminology" and just plain goofed up.
 
When I said molar, I meant, and should have written, molarform--that is
teeth adapted for grinding.  In that respect, the ferret has four basically
molarform teeth, which are small and way in the back as I described.
Originally I wrote molarform, but decided it was too technical and/or
confusing, and changed it to molar with the intention of changing the number
of teeth to six, but forgot that technical detail.  The trick is, regardless
of specific morphology, the teeth behind the canines that have a deciduous
predecessor are called premolars, and those that do not are called molars.
(You can win a lot of money in bars by betting typical three-year-olds do
not have molars.  At that age, almost all only have premolars.  Tricky) In
carnivores, the lower premolars can be flat for grinding, sharp for cutting
flesh and bone, or some stage in between.  In the Carnivora, when a tooth is
primarily adapted for cutting flesh and bone, it is called a carnassial or
sectorial tooth.  This is the 3rd or 4th upper premolar, and the 1st lower
molar in most predatory carnivores.  It is clearly adapted for cutting, not
chewing, which was the point I poorly attempted to make.
 
Most people have a humanist point of view--that is, we interpret things from
a human perspective.  So the word "molar" is seen as a big flat tooth rather
than a tooth lacking a deciduous predecessor.  I should have taken the lines
to explain those differences, and I should have used molarform instead of
molar (BTW, do you know what they call those big flat teeth in cows?  Give
up?  Mooolars...).  I am sorry for any misunderstandings I might have
caused.  I will make up for my goofist attitude with a funny story in my
next posting.  I'm also sure I will get a few comments about the goofie, and
I deserve them.  All I can say is I'm not an idiot; just dumb.
 
Bob and the 13 Weaselform Doggies
[Posted in FML issue 1468]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2