Subject: (urth) Marble's prophecy

From: maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:19:09 +0000

Has a prophecy ever failed to have two meanings in Wolfe?  Someone pointed out 
that the beast with three horns is instantly discredited by the narrator.  I 
have two words for you:

UNRELIABLE NARRATOR

The dude doesn't even know who he is for sure, nor the name of his kids with 
any consistency. Just because he thinks the prophecy has already been 
fulfilled means nothing - you still have to account for the special treatment 
that Hoof receives from Babbie at the astral scene in Chapter 17/19 or Return 
to the whorl.  First Babbie is mad at everyone, then when he hears the name 
Hoof he gets all happy and hugs him and picks him up and comforts him after he 
gets wounded.  Hoof is another UNRELIABLE NARRATOR because he doesn't question 
why Babbie would treat him that way.  And the narrator does seem to be Babbie 
for a second at the end of On Blue's Waters.  You should try to account for 
this rather than stating that the narrator's discredit to the prophecy is 
enough.

I have determined that Wolfe never writes with Occam in mind - let's face it, 
he likes to complicate things. ... and isn't that picture of the frog from my 
previous post pretty cool? Now that I look at it again, I see the one one the 
left is 2N, the one on the right is 4N.  Note that the front limbs of the frog 
also have three little digits that should be one (like three psuedo-hands or 
something)  If you click on the arrows at the bottom of that page of the 
presentation, you can see the whole 31 slides.  There are other hybrid species 
produced through polyploidy, including lizards and flies.  The flies also have 
a doubling of the hind legs that is pretty interesting if you advance a few 
slides.

Marc Aramini

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:41:59 +0000

--- maa32 <maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> Has a prophecy ever failed to have two meanings in Wolfe?

That's a reasonable point (though I think the answer is probably "yes").

> Someone pointed out 
> that the beast with three horns is instantly discredited by the
> narrator.
...

I think you misunderstood.

> he likes to complicate things. ...

Actually, you should be in favor of the literal Occam's razor--that
entities shouldn't be multiplied unnecessarily--because in your
theory there are fewer entities (two planets instead of four, one
large female submarine creature instead of two, etc.).  However, I
think that your theory involves more explanations than the other.

> and isn't that picture of the frog from my 
> a doubling of the hind legs that is pretty interesting if you advance a
> few slides.

Thanks for the information about polyploid animals!  I learned something
already today.

However, on the subject of multiple limbs, I think you're
misinterpreting.  The tetraploid _Xenopus laevis_ has a big hind foot
with a translucent web connecting four toes--not four separate legs.
You can see the four toes at
<http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/uac/iacuc/xenopus/xenopus.shtml>.  Note
that the web can look transparent or opaque depending on the lighting.
As for the front legs, they have four digits in the picture of the
diploid _X. tropicalis_ at <http://www.xlaevis.com/>, which also
shows that the anatomy of _X. laevis_ and _X. tropicalis_ is much
the same.  Finally,
<http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4966/info.html> has a lot
of information about _X. laevis_ from a pet owner's point of view,
but nothing about doubled limbs.

The flies in that lecture weren't hybrids or polyploid; they were an
example of speciation in progress caused by recent ecological change
(the introduction of apples in North America).  They didn't have extra
limbs, either.  I think you must have been interpreting marks on the
wings as legs.  The left hind leg of the fly in the picture (there's
only one picture, repeated in several slides) is visible between the
wing and the abdomen.  It's just as thin as the other legs, not thick
like the wing markings.  The right hind leg is hidden or missing.

So all the polyploid animals I've seen so far have normal anatomies,
with the normal number of limbs.

Jerry Friedman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

--

---

From: Dan Meliza <meliza at ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:40:52 +0000

Hi Marc,

I haven't had a chance to look at the pics (qualifying exams, alas), but
Xenopus laevis is naturally polyploid (making it difficult to make
transgenic animals, for anyone who cares), and N varies greatly between
species in the genus (something like 12N for one of those buggers).  I think
it might be a little spurious to claim that simply doubling the number of
chromosomes would double limb count.  Development is a lot more complex than
that.

best,
dan

-----Original Message-----
From: maa32 [mailto:maa32 at dana.ucc.nau.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:19 PM
To: urth at urth.net
Subject: (urth) Marble's prophecy

[snip]

Now that I look at it again, I see the one one the
left is 2N, the one on the right is 4N.  Note that the front limbs of the
frog
also have three little digits that should be one (like three psuedo-hands or
something)  If you click on the arrows at the bottom of that page of the
presentation, you can see the whole 31 slides.  There are other hybrid
species
produced through polyploidy, including lizards and flies.  The flies also
have
a doubling of the hind legs that is pretty interesting if you advance a few
slides.

Marc Aramini

--

--