Share Animal Pictures: For Animal Lovers

  • Thread starter Thread starter micromass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Animal
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
3,073 replies · 328K views
Here is a clip from Jeremy Wade in River Monsters (my daughter (field biologist) used to love this show) catching a Goliath Tigerfish. It is one of the scariest freshwater fish.

 
Reply
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark and DennisN
Physics news on Phys.org
BillTre said:
Here is a clip from Jeremy Wade in River Monsters (my daughter (field biologist) used to love this show) catching a Goliath Tigerfish. It is one of the scariest freshwater fish.
What a monster! :smile: I had never heard about it.
 
_nc_ohc=R9kzl2L49l4AX_vW4vL&_nc_ht=scontent-fra3-1.jpg
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Rive, collinsmark, Bystander and 3 others
These are baby caecillians. Limbless, tailless amphibians.
The picture is from this NY Times article on them.
Screenshot 2023-10-17 at 1.28.25 PM.png


I used to keep some of these. I was trying to get them to breed.
They fertilize internally. Some species have a 21 month gestation period.

They are weird and interesting pets. They are strong worm-like things and great escape artists (making them a challenge to keep).
Some are terrestrial, but those available through the pet trade are usually aquatic species. Caecillians also shed their skin, somewhat like snakes (not related). They are now difficult to get because it has become a hassle to import them, especially since they are "weird" and a lot of people don't know what they are.
I had some that grew too about 2.5 feet.
They are excellent for sending to school with a kid for show and tell. Harmless, very active when picked up and have a slimy skin. (Beware, some teachers might freak out).
 
Reply
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark and DennisN
BillTre said:
These are baby caecillians. [...]
Aren't those a Klingon delicacy, seen occasionally on Star Trek?
 
Reply
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Ibix and BillTre
Ibix said:
I've heard of bookworms. Bookdogs are new to me...
You've never dog-eared a book? :oldwink:
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jtbell, Ibix, DennisN and 1 other person
My Thai girlfriend loves her cat
1697760280077.jpg
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark, DennisN and strangerep
morrobay said:
My Thai girlfriend loves her cat
The cat doesn't seem quite as keen...

Caption for the cat: "Oh dear lord! I know I have to put up with this, but... sheesh!"
 
Reply
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: DennisN and Point Conception
Anybody else think the eagle on the right is saying "One more squawk out of you, young man..."?
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: BillTre, DennisN and berkeman
Part of my drive into work this morning. I had just dimmed my lights for a car ahead...

 
Reply
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: DennisN and Ibix
morrobay said:
You really are better off programing your self to hit the deer. https://www.thesilverlining.com/safety-tips/deer-vs.-car-collisions
Well, not necessarily hit the deerbie, but do your best to brake in a straight line to minimize any injuries or damage. And the corrollary is to always follow other vehicles at a safe distance so you can brake and avoid a collision if they slam on their brakes for a reason that you don't immediately see. Don't ask me how I know this... :wink:
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds and BillTre
berkeman said:
Well, not necessarily hit the deerbie, but do your best to brake in a straight line to minimize any injuries or damage. And the corrollary is to always follow other vehicles at a safe distance so you can brake and avoid a collision if they slam on their brakes for a reason that you don't immediately see. Don't ask me how I know this... :wink:
It also depends on the mass and shape. E.g. collision with a horse can be deadly, and a deer with big antlers crashing through your windshield? I don't know, doesn't sound like a good idea. The advice is because people crash with trees trying to escape the situation which is definitely worse than crashing with an animal.

A pilot once said to me: Airplanes are actually very safe as long as you have sufficient altitude. And driving cars through their territory is safe as long as you are sufficiently slow.
 
berkeman said:
And the corrollary is to always follow other vehicles at a safe distance so you can brake and avoid a collision if they slam on their brakes for a reason that you don't immediately see.

In Sweden I've been taught a "three seconds" rule/guideline, which basically means you keep a minimum distance (to the car in front of you) which corresponds to three seconds, in order to give time for reaction and braking.

You measure the time by taking a mental note when the car in front of you passes a certain thing (e.g some line on the road, a sign, a tree or something). Then you count "1001, 1002, 1003" and note when you pass the same thing. If you pass the thing before "1003" you are too close to the car in front.

I don't know if this is a widespread guideline, but I thought I could share it.

Regarding close calls, I remember we once were very close to colliding with a moose who had decided to cross the road during twilight. Luckily my father had quick reactions and good control of the car. It was darn scary, the moose was BIG.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and strangerep
DennisN said:
You measure the time by taking a mental note when the car in front of you passes a certain thing (e.g some line on the road, a sign, a tree or something. Then you count "1001, 1002, 1003" and note when you pass the same thing. If you pass the thing before "1003" you are too close to the car in front
On motorways (~110 kph) in my part of the world, some/many drivers instinctively use the rule "1, oh that'll do". :oldfrown:
 
DennisN said:
In Sweden I've been taught a "three seconds" rule/guideline, which basically means you keep a minimum distance (to the car in front of you) which corresponds to three seconds, in order to give time for reaction and braking.

You measure the time by taking a mental note when the car in front of you passes a certain thing (e.g some line on the road, a sign, a tree or something. Then you count "1001, 1002, 1003" and note when you pass the same thing. If you pass the thing before "1003" you are too close to the car in front.

I don't know if this is widespread guideline, but I thought I could share it.
Our rule of thumb is "half the tacho", e.g. 60 meters at 120 km/h. Well, that was before ABS and alike. Now that I think of it, your 3 second rule wouldn't work on our highways. No chance.

DennisN said:
Regarding close calls, I remember we once were very close to colliding with a moose who had decided to cross the road during twilight. Luckily my father had quick reactions and good control of the car. It was darn scary, the moose was BIG.
I once had a colleague who regularly practiced a turn on the spot (with the help of the handbrake). This transforms the linear moment into a circular moment. But you have to learn it.
 
Here in Silicon Valley, 3 seconds is a bit too much. 2 seconds of stopping distance is more practical.

For those of us that ride sportbikes, remember that if the car in front of you rear-ends the car in front of them, they will stop VERY quickly...
 
Last edited:
strangerep said:
in my part of the world, some/many drivers instinctively use the rule "1, oh that'll do".
Something like this? 😅
 
strangerep said:
On motorways (~110 kph) in my part of the world, some/many drivers instinctively use the rule "1, oh that'll do". :oldfrown:
Come on over and practice! I have heard that there are travel agencies that offer visits to Germany only to drive on our highways.

I remember when I came back from the US, I tried to drive the same way and obeyed the rules - for two days. I was a moving obstacle. On day three I decided to become a comoving observer again.