Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 17

Sex reassignment surgery, (male to female), questions

A male colleague has confided to my husband & other coworkers (all are supportive) that he is planning to transition (including surgically) to female. I have been reading Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) and Vaginoplasty, but have questions about the surgery.

• When the penis is inverted to form a vagina, what happens to the "two corpora cavernosa on the dorsal side and corpus spongiosum between them on the ventral side."? Are these tissues discarded?
• [This] article seems to state that the newly constructed "clitoris" is located at the new vagina opening. Am I understanding correctly? Is this constructed of the sensitive tip/foreskin/circumcised area of the head of the penis?
• In the photo in the above article, where is the urethra positioned?
• Is it considered likely that the patient will still be able to achieve an orgasm?

Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As there have been no replies, I feel that my question has been offensive or imprudent.. or violated the "no medical advice" directive. I offer sincere apologies for "crossing the line", and shall be happy when my stupidity is archived. Very contrite, please forgive me, I didn't wish to offend, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The question doesn't strike me as offensive, and certainly nowhere near the "no medical advice" bright-line. It's possible just nobody who read it has knowlege about the topic or any leads for whichi WP articles would give them. DMacks (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Searching some medical literature, PMID:17413887 discusses a certain vaginoplasty technique, noting "the clitoris is reconstructed from a part of the glans penis inclusive of a part of the corona", "85% of the male-to-female patients reported orgasm", "obtain orgasm after a vaginoplasty, the reconstruction of the clitoris from the neurovascular pedicled glans flap is essential". DMacks (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

DMacks Thanks for the reassuring & kind reply, regarding my worries about my question. I have a tendency to think that all WP editors are younger, more up-to-date, (than my grey hairs) etc, & thought someone would know the answers "right away", as a matter of course. (Foolish) Also thanks for providing the resource, this is very helpful. Will work towards doing a better job of researching on my own, in future, if the WP articles don't answer my questions. Best wishes to you, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Plant to be identified (3)

Hi, I found this one to look very similar to Knautia arvensis, but the article says that that flowers between July and September, whereas this photo was taken in early May. Growing on a roadside verge in southern England. Any ideas? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It could possibly be some kind of Thistle, but that's a rather broad category which often just means "medium sized purple Asteraceae". We tend to only think of common thistle, Cirsium vulgare, but there are a LOT of other varieties, and many of them look a bit like your flower. The other possibility is that it really is Knautia arvensis, which is blooming out-of-season; a thing becoming more and more common with climate change. I know that in my garden, I have perennial daffodils which for 9 of the past 10 years have broken their own record for their earliest blossom. About 15-20 years ago, the regularly bloomed around the last week of February/first week of March. For the past several years, they are opening up around February 1-2. --Jayron32 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It certainly looks very like a field scabious (knautia arvensis), the only really similar flower is devil's bit (succisa pratensis), but the leaves are quite different. Perhaps (as suggested above) this is a product of our spell of warm, dry weather at the end of April and the beginning of May? Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As a resident a little north of The Solent (rather than south as the OP evidently is), I have noticed in the last few years that plants in this region are developing at least a month earlier than used to be the case. This is doubtless due to climate change and most reference texts' datings will necessarily lag behind the current situation. In addition, the geographical situation of the Isle of Wight tends to advance such developments a little earlier than the adjacent mainland.

One needs to make allowances for these two factors when consulting reference works, particularly older ones. I suspect a great many of our articles could stand adjustments for the first factor; the second is too detailed for general species articles (doubtless other regions have similar local variations). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, while a website that I looked at earlier agreed with Wikipedia's "July to September", I have now found a couple of websites ([1], [2]) that do say May until August. So, ... ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is Scabiosa species (pincushion flower). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, would you hazard an opinion on the specific species? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@ITookSomePhotos I take it back... this could be a Knautia arvensis with more immature stigmas. Honestly it might be better to ask on Facebook's Plant Identification group. It's their literal hobby and many are botanists. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

An additional thought is that none of the Scabiosa species listed appear to be native to the British Isles. Alansplodge (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Plant to be identified (4)

This one in a churchyard in southern England. I have found that the flowers appear similar to Cardamine pratensis, but that is "40–60 cm tall", while the plant in the photo is a small and delicate plant nestling down at grass level. Any ideas? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of different kinds of bittercress. Based on what the Royal Horticultural Society say about it "sometimes growing just a few centimeters", hairy bittercress, I choose you. Your picture does not show the stems or leaves clearly enough for me to assess how hairy they are. If you're going to make a habit of this, have you considered taking photos of those parts of the plant useful for identification, alongside the pretty flowers?  Card Zero  (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have now. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

microplastics found in umbilical cord, so...

Scientists have found plastic in an umbilical cord.https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/531322-for-the-first-time-scientists-find-microplastics-in/amp/

So I have also read that microplastics might affect male fertility. So have scientists actually found microplastics in human semen(yet?)? thanks. Rich (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article in Int J Environ Res Public Health (for short) which says that endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as Bisphenol A, are the concern. From Health effects of Bisphenol A#Fertility, I quote Ubiquitous in environment through consumer products such as reusable plastics, food and beverage container liners, baby bottles, water resistant clothing. It has been identified as an EDC and found in urine, blood, amniotic fluid, breast milk and cord blood. So this is not just about microplastics, and not just about males, and the mechanism of action is not exactly by getting into the semen, but by mimicking a hormone (although I'm vague on which hormone and where in the body it actually takes effect - so alright, yes, presumably the gonads). Edit: I'm striking out "not just about microplastics" because of what the journal article says about microplastics coming out of plastic cups while you drink from them. I hadn't thought of such a direct route, I was imagining something more like "they're in the food chain". Also (because I've got to the end of the article now) in the conclusion they say: Data are still preliminary but suggest that ingested MPs bio-accumulate in mammalian tissue, including the testis, with outcomes on semen quality in rodents, as a consequence of inflammatory state and oxidative stress damage. So that's about inflammation, or "inflammatory state" (whatever that is), and not hormones in a more familiar sense. (I suppose "hormones" is a very broad category.) This may simply be because the experiment they did (feeding polystyrene to mice) had this result, not that it's the only possible mechanism.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Bisphenol A acts in the human body much like estrogen,^[3] the primary “female” hormone also used in feminizing hormone therapy as given to transgender women.^[4]  --Lambiam 10:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is also liable to affect female fertility (negatively), being a component of the pill.  Card Zero  (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning Paracelsus's first law of toxicology "The dose makes the poison". Which is to say that it isn't the presence of a substance that makes it harmful, it is its concentration; detecting the presence of something in the body does not necessarily mean it is harmful. Which is to say that Bisphenol A and other substances are known to be harmful, but noting the presence of such substances does not mean they are necessarily causing harm, if they are in such low concentrations that they could not cause harm. Also related is Correlation does not imply causation. --Jayron32 14:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That's true, all we have are suggestions.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(Well i just hope if plastic is ever discovered in semen, that even hyperconservative males like Tucker Carlson might care about pollution.) As far as the low concentrations in other body parts, wouldn't those concentrations possibly increase in the next few years? Rich (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

May 18

Tongue position and nasal breathing

In the ankyloglossia article, this is written: "When the tongue rests at the roof of the mouth, it enables nasal breathing." How is this? Why would tongue position make a difference? 2601:18A:C500:C00:C434:A6DB:419B:B5C1 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Because if/when the lips are open, breathing will draw in air through the mouth unless the tongue seals it from the throat. The usual way it does this is to rest on the roof of the mouth against the soft palate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph in our article has two references. The second, a journal article, does not mention the ankyloglossia condition, but confirms the importance of a proper tongue posture: "A broad smile, complete to the corners of the mouth, dramatically increases the patient’s chance of posturing their tongue firmly to the palate and making them more likely to be nose breathers." — "Ideal rest oral posture with nasal breathing should be achieved (or as close as is clinically possible). Ideal rest oral posture involves having the teeth together lightly (or very slightly apart), the tongue positioned firmly to the palate with the tip behind the upper incisors, and the lips together without strain." The mechanism by which this "ideal posture" facilitates nasal breathing is not further explained.
The first reference is an entire book on ankyloglossia. Apparently, the impact on nasal breathing can be much stronger than involving merely the tongue posture: "The hard palate is often high and narrow in children and adults who have a tongue-tie due to a low resting tongue posture while swallowing. Tongue-tied babies are born with a high palate from low posture during swallowing in utero as well."^[5] — "If the nasal cavity is narrow due to a tongue-tie or high arched palate, the septum is likely to deviate, the airway will be smaller than normal, and the nasal airflow will be compromised."^[6]  --Lambiam 10:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oil refining

Several questions about the Nelson complexity index: (1) Are auxiliary units (hydrogen production, sulfur recovery, wastewater treatment, etc.) included in the index? If so, how is their relative capacity calculated (is it based on primary distillation like for the product units, or on something else?) (2) How about byproduct integration -- are those units included as well? If so, is their relative capacity based on primary distillation or on something else? For example, if part of the product from the sulfur recovery unit feeds into a sulfuric acid plant, which in turn supplies a sulfolane plant, a synthetic detergent plant and a phosphate plant (the sulfolane and detergent plants also using hydrocarbon products from the refinery proper, and the others not), and the refinery complex also includes a vanadium smelter, are these included in the complexity index or not, and if yes, then how? And (3) if the refinery uses a feedstock other than conventional petroleum (for example, the Sasolburg refinery in South Africa), does the Nelson index even apply, and if so, are all the complexity indexes still calculated based on atmospheric distillation unit capacity, or are they calculated on some other basis (such as the capacity of the primary conversion units)? 69.181.91.208 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Did this destroy thousand lives

https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1526684981409480706

If the above is true, then are there any proven cases of wrong guys getting Nobel prizes for Physica, Chemistry, Biology, and Medicine? --Ivan Tsar (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So, "wrong guys getting" a Nobel Prize presumes that there exists some pre-determined list, perhaps written by God at the creation of the universe, on who should have gotten all Nobel prizes, and that we've somehow deviated from that list. The Nobel prizes are awarded to people whom, at the time, were determined by the Nobel committees to have merited such prizes. It's purely something where a bunch of people get together in a room and figure out who deserves it that year. It doesn't grant any sort of endorsement to their work as beyond future reproach, and it isn't useful to judge the actions of the Nobel committee based on knowledge they had no access to at the time. Now, if we broaden your question to a more reasonable "has there been other Nobel prizes awarded for work that has later been discredited", then yes there has, in each of the prize categories. (By the way, there is no Nobel Prize in Biology... The original prizes are for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. Economics was added later). Throwing out Peace and Literature, which aren't awarded based on scientific discoveries, some of the prizes awarded for work later discredited are listed Here. Of note, Enrico Fermi won his prize for discoveries that first were discredited, but later proven by Otto Hahn, who got a Nobel Prize for his efforts; basically Fermi got the prize for claiming to discover something he didn't; it was actually discovered later, and Hahn won the prize for that. --Jayron32 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, yes, a Lobotomy is unequivocally an absolutely horrifying thing, and is a VERY discredited medical procedure. It has been banned for decades in most parts of the world. --Jayron32 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(EC) The claims made in the tweet is "Hundreds of thousands of lives". However lobotomy suggests the number of people lobotomised in US+England+Norway+Sweden+Denmark (using the higher individual figures for the last 3 rather than the smaller combined figure) was 68005 and the number in Germany is small. And it sounds like the practice wasn't particularly popular in the Soviet Union. There are still a number of countries which had relatively advanced medical systems and sizeable populations at the time like France, Canada, the other parts of the UK, Brazil, Italy, Spain etc for which we don't have and figures, so perhaps the combined total may reach 100000, maybe even 200000. Such numbers may be way too high when the proper number should be zero, but hundreds of thousands seems a stretch from the estimates used in our article. Of course a lobotomy also affected children, partners and other family members of the person it was performed one, still if this what was being referred to the framing of that tweet is IMO not fit for purpose, which is also fairly silly. You can talk about the horrors of the lobotomy without needing to use questionable stats; or mixing the harm suffered by someone who had lobotomy performed on them, with the effect on their family and friends. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• For context, the author of this tweet seems to be an antivaxxer, or maybe a covid denier (I did not want to read enough tweets to be sure). They are therefore trying to push the idea that medical authorities should not be trusted. Having historical examples of things where medical authorities were definitely wrong helps to make that argument, and inflating the wrongness of this historical errors makes the argument more emotional.

The logical fallacy in that reasoning is of course not that medical authorities are always right (they are not). Rather, being "sometimes wrong" does not preclude being much less likely to be wrong that any other knowledge-gathering method. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is the failure caused by binary thinking. For people where the world exists in only two states "perfectly right" and "completely wrong", and who don't understand nuance, then it is easy to see that because "X" got one thing wrong once, that's the same as "Y" who gets everything wrong all the time. They're both just "wrong". Understanding that everyone gets something wrong sometimes, but that the scientific process gets the most things right should be sufficient for establishing its trustworthiness. Yes, in the past, medical science was wrong about some things. The important thing to remember is not that, but rather that it is righter about things more than anyone else, and it's also righter today than it was yesterday, and it'll be righter tomorrow than it is today. --Jayron32 11:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That same underlying apparent logical failure arose in an unrelated subject on VPPOL, where User:Spinningspark labeled it: "It's the fallacy of composition (the fact that experts were wrong about something else does not mean they are wrong about the relevant item) spiced with a large dollop of the historian's fallacy (assuming that experts would have reached the same wrong conclusion then even if they had the information we have now)." DMacks (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

And nirvana fallacy as well. 2601:646:8A81:6070:8805:AC9A:6203:9448 (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My mother-in-law suffered electroshock "therapy" (not a lobotomy, of course, but useful in this regard) back in the 1950s; I can attest that the negative impact was felt by much more than just one person. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

May 21

Chain of human ancestors

Beginning with modern humans and walking backwards, how close-grained do we know the chain of all our ancestors? It's modern humans <<< homo erectus (?) <<< what are the known links here? <<< LUCA? --Bumptump (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The farther you go back, the harder it is to ascertain that a fossil find is part of the chain of species, and not a node on a nearby side branch. The main reason is the increasing sparsity of the fossil record and the very incomplete preservation of ancient finds, making it often very uncertain whether two specimens are co-specifics or merely close relatives. The best scientists have been able to do can be found pieced together in Timeline of human evolution. Using the assumption that the average life span of a species (from emergence to extinction) is 5–10 My and that multicellular life has existed for 600 My,^[7] there should be some 80 nodes on the multicellular part of the chain. Not only does it fall far short of that, but most nodes do not indicate a concrete species, but rather the emergence of a clade. I don’t know if even Homo erectus can be identified with reasonable certainty as an ancestor species of Homo sapiens.  --Lambiam 18:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Our article on Homo is also pretty detailed in this respect. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The Homo article does not go back further than 20.4 My. That leaves a gap of some 3 to 4 billion years to LUCA.  --Lambiam 04:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

There's going to be variation in populations too, you might find Homo Neanderthalis ancestry in some people, Homo Floresiensis in others etc... It's fringe afaik but it's reckoned some of the Paracas (i think, maybe later Nazca) people could have descended from another Homo species with non-artificially elongated heads that were a higher caste if you will so people in later generations bound their children's heads in order to mirror the appearance of those high status people Zindor (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I can strongly recommend The Ancestor's Tale by by Richard Dawkins and Yan Wong. It cover exactly this question. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 09:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

May 22

What makes some daytime birds wake up so early?

Why do they sometimes tweet about 2 hours before sunrise and before astronomical dawn? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Well some birds are nocturnal, but others may be affected by light pollution and other disturbances, or maybe they just feel like tweeting. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Dawn chorus (birds) gives a vague hint with it is common for different species to do their dawn singing at different times. This might be saying that they're taking turns, basically, to stay out of the airtime of the other species, but that's a guess and the article lacks references and information, especially in the section Dawn chorus (birds)#United States.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If birds are going to spend some part of the day singing, during the night has the advantage that it does not take time away from when they might be feeding or doing other things that require better illumination. There have been quite a range of other hypotheses and experiments in the behavioural ecology literature concerning why dawn is an especially advantageous time to sing, such as because migrants tend to migrate at night so that the intended audience of unpaired females are commoner at that time, as are rival males looking for a territory. Another idea is that sound carries better in the still air of dawn. And another that some species are forced to sing earlier than they otherwise would because there are too many other species drowning them out at the ideal time. One influential hypothesis is that birds usually have a surfeit of fat reserves before dawn to expend on singing, because they have stored up fat the previous day to survive a worst-case cold night that rarely materialises. Generally explanations can be divided into those focussing on the special properties of dawn, and those resulting from the fact that there are dark and light parts of the day, with some processes favoured at the transition point between them. Most of the explanations are not contradictory. Lastly, be aware that birds have better low-light vision than humans, so it starts to get usefully light earlier for a bird than for us. The latest review is by Gil & Llusia (2020), available here. An example of my own modelling work on this topic is available here. Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That is some really fascinating computational bird modeling and it's really sparked a few insights into the finely-tuned and highly optimized complex system that is biologically-evolved behavior! Thank you for sending the link! To your knowledge, did anyone ever follow up with experimental observation to validate the modeling efforts? Nimur (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Since birds with 4+ cone types have UV cones maybe the light pollution here in New York City doesn't obliterate their zodiacal light? It's just sunlit solar system dust after all, if the dust reflects enough UV maybe they can see the triangle? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some considerations:

• Many birds, in particular those with small eyes, don't see very well at night. It's too dark to forage, but they can spend the time singing. Other birds don't forage at night because their prey is hiding.
• Lack of sun-driven convection means that there's less mixing of air close to the ground with the air higher up. Consequently, the wind speed at the surface drops and there's less rushing of the wind in tree branches, so less background noise.
• At night, humans are less active, so less background noise.
• At night, the air close to the surface is colder than a bit higher up, bending sound back to the surface. The sound reaches farther.
• Some predators may be less dangerous at night. Some can't see the bird or the tree branches where they're hiding, some are inactive as they're cold-blooded.

BTW, no astronomical dawn here this time of the year; the sun never gets below -18° less than a month from midsummer at 52°. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Aren't birds warm-blooded? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That's talking about some of the predators as I read it. Mikenorton (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly a cite, but round here the kookaburras arc up about 15 minutes before the songbirds dawn chorus. Greglocock (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The early 'burra catches the vermin. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Most diurnal birds have far superior eyesight to humans. They started up singing here about 20 minutes ago (can't sleep) and looking at the sky now, it's just starting to lighten a little bit. The sky does start to lighten before the sun appears over the horizon.

Fun fact - if you have a pet parrot and you forget to keep the curtains drawn at night, they do a dawn chorus too. But in this case, it's earsplitting 4am squawking, designed to carry over several miles of rainforest that doesn't stop until you get out of bed and show them that you survived the night. Iloveparrots (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

May 24

Do Mossad issue their agents with Desert Eagle pistols?

I was told this recently, but I had a search around and I can't confirm this.

Was under the impression that most Desert Eagle pistols, despite their reputation, were owned by private citizens and used for shooting targets or tin cans, or maybe for defense of a home, gas station or liquor store in the USA. And that the military/mumblemumblesomething ops groups had no use for them at all in reality. Anyone know? --146.200.128.101 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The Desert Eagle is listed as item 27 on this listing of weapons used by Mossad. The list includes past arms, so it may have been retired from active duty.  --Lambiam 06:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Insect fights

Somehow I was reading Wikipedia this morning and following links and I ended up on insect fights. I have a couple of questions...

- is it possible for a human to train up an insect for fighting? If so, how do they do it?

- is there some sort of 'open species kumite' where the people just find a bug somewhere that looks big and tough and enter them to fight? IOW, regardless of the species...

Not planning to do this by the way. I raced snails with my friends when I was 8, but I don't think I want to watch a ladybird fight a wasp to the death for beer money. --Iloveparrots (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Horse lip sound

How is it that a horse can do this, but I can't? 2601:18A:C500:C00:C47:6EE2:309F:9B11 (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Anatomy. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)