Mammoths

Mister Paul

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Now, a more pertinent question is, can we shear wooly mammoths? I reckon they'd make a more efficient use of resources than sheep, llama and all the other fibre providing animals!

Nah - it's about surface area for wool vs. food requirement : a herd of sheep have a greater wool-producing surface area, weight for weight than a mammoth would have.
A mammoth would eat as much as, say, 100 sheep but only produce 40x the wool.

However, they could perhaps be farmed in Siberia or Greenland or somewhere which is currently under-utilised by intensive factory farming methods.

Would the farmers be called mammothboys (cowboys) or mammothherds (shepherds) ?

- mammothboys sounds like it might already be a registered website address but I daren't look...

It sounds a good idea, and a mammoth-fur jumper might be quite a valuable, saleable commodity - however I don't think it would become mainstream because:
1) mammoths would be unlikely to be able to be herded by your bog-standard german shepherd. This, I believe, is your main sticking point. It would probably be scared off because mammoths are many times bigger than it - that's if the mammoths didn't beat it up or trample on it first. A mechanical herding device could be invented, but it would be expensive - a tractor wouldn't be able to be used because it isn't manouevrable enough, they would run rings round it and the noise of its engine would probably make them stampede. You could train lions to do it, but they might revolt during training and try to herd the trainers instead, besides there isn't that many of them - although they could be bred specially. At the moment, this is looking like the best option - although a mammoth is still a good 2 or 3 times bigger than even a lion so the lions might still get scared, especially because they wouldn't have ever seen a mammoth before.

2) Space. Mammoths are huge, you would need a big, enclosed, field. Sheep can be kept anywhere, including just in generic countryside, and places where humans will also be as they aren't dangerous - however you wouldn't want mammoths getting on footpaths as they might be a danger to humans. Also sheep are ok with rocky / mountainous terrain, mammoths would not be used to this and may struggle. Fences would also be an issue, they would probably be able to batter down your standard farmer's fence quite easily, so a better method of enclosing them would have to be devised.

3) Shearing them - I wouldn't be the first to volunteer They would have to be held still by a pretty big and strong device while they were sheared. This device would have to be pretty strong but be able to hold the mammoth still without hurting it.

Anyone else having flashbacks to storywriting time at primary school?

Did they all live happily ever after?

formerlyknownasbonj

andy_wrx wrote:

Also if you think that "a mammoth is still a good 2 or 3 times bigger than even a lion" you're either seriously underestimating the size of a mammoth or think a lion is the size of a car.

if you think about it, a fully-grown male lion is about the size of a small car.

Mister Paul

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

Also if you think that "a mammoth is still a good 2 or 3 times bigger than even a lion" you're either seriously underestimating the size of a mammoth or think a lion is the size of a car.

if you think about it, a fully-grown male lion is about the size of a small car.

A very narrow, low small car maybe. But not anything like the small cars around here. Or anywhere on our planet for that matter.

Yorkshireman

Bond Bug, Sinclair C ... Sorry ... Cars you said :twisted: .

andy_wrx

I'd rather be run over by a Sinclair C5 (doesn't seem likely, I agree : assume I was trussed-up and tied to railway tracks like in a Buster Keaton film) than by a lion (I have cycled in Kruger NP and was a bit nervous...)

Bonj wouldn't know what a Bond Bug was.

formerlyknownasbonj

Mister Paul wrote:

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

Also if you think that "a mammoth is still a good 2 or 3 times bigger than even a lion" you're either seriously underestimating the size of a mammoth or think a lion is the size of a car.

if you think about it, a fully-grown male lion is about the size of a small car.

A very narrow, low small car maybe. But not anything like the small cars around here. Or anywhere on our planet for that matter.

Granted its body isn't as wide as a car, but think of its mane - if you include its mane it's probably as wide as say a micra. And it's just as tall when it's got its head up, and probably as long.

formerlyknownasbonj

andy_wrx wrote:

I'd rather be run over by a Sinclair C5 (doesn't seem likely, I agree : assume I was trussed-up and tied to railway tracks like in a Buster Keaton film) than by a lion (I have cycled in Kruger NP and was a bit nervous...)

Bonj wouldn't know what a Bond Bug was.

I'm guessing it's a mini battery powered car that james bond used?

andy_wrx

See

alecstilleyedye

andy_wrx wrote:

Bonj wouldn't know what a Bond Bug was.

don't know why when they had one in hollyoaks

Mister Paul

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Mister Paul wrote:

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

Also if you think that "a mammoth is still a good 2 or 3 times bigger than even a lion" you're either seriously underestimating the size of a mammoth or think a lion is the size of a car.

if you think about it, a fully-grown male lion is about the size of a small car.

A very narrow, low small car maybe. But not anything like the small cars around here. Or anywhere on our planet for that matter.

Granted its body isn't as wide as a car, but think of its mane - if you include its mane it's probably as wide as say a micra. And it's just as tall when it's got its head up, and probably as long.

So it's not the size of a car then?

Unles you squash it flat on the ground, use hair straighteners on its fur and whiskers, and pull its legs out as hard as you can.

Can we all gather round and watch you try?

whyamihere

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

1) mammoths would be unlikely to be able to be herded by your bog-standard german shepherd. This, I believe, is your main sticking point. It would probably be scared off because mammoths are many times bigger than it - that's if the mammoths didn't beat it up or trample on it first. A mechanical herding device could be invented, but it would be expensive - a tractor wouldn't be able to be used because it isn't manouevrable enough, they would run rings round it and the noise of its engine would probably make them stampede. You could train lions to do it, but they might revolt during training and try to herd the trainers instead, besides there isn't that many of them - although they could be bred specially. At the moment, this is looking like the best option - although a mammoth is still a good 2 or 3 times bigger than even a lion so the lions might still get scared, especially because they wouldn't have ever seen a mammoth before.

If I learned only one thing from cartoons, it is that members of the elephant family can be effectively herded by a mouse.

Nigel-YZ1

If one of these critters walked by on your left would that make it a 'mammoth undertaking'?

andy_wrx

What's your opinion of mastodons, Bonj ?

Yorkshireman

andy_wrx wrote:

What's your opinion of mastodons, Bonj ?

Stand by for the `homily` on Self Abuse, Eyesight and the Hairy-palm Syndrome .

formerlyknownasbonj

andy_wrx wrote:

What's your opinion of mastodons, Bonj ?

I thought it was a mammoth - is it not just another namefor one?

Peyote

Nigel-YZ1 wrote:

If one of these critters walked by on your left would that make it a 'mammoth undertaking'?

Ouch!

andy_wrx

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

What's your opinion of mastodons, Bonj ?

I thought it was a mammoth - is it not just another namefor one?

Excellent !

It's another 'sort'. Browsers not grazers.

Crapaud

Originally posted by whyamihere:
If I learned only one thing from cartoons, it is that members of the elephant family can be effectively herded by a mouse.

Are you maybe confusing 'herded' with 'paniced'?

Mister Paul

Bonj

I think that woolly mammoths probably had breath that smelled of Texan bars, and probably always referred to each other in the third person. After all, they had hooves the size of the international space station. Legally anyway.

Would you agree?

formerlyknownasbonj

Mister Paul wrote:

Bonj

I think that woolly mammoths probably had breath that smelled of Texan bars, and probably always referred to each other in the third person. After all, they had hooves the size of the international space station. Legally anyway.

Would you agree?

I wouldn't agree they had hooves, no - they may have had feet the size of the international space station, but they are not hooved animals. Hooves are horseshoe-shaped feet such as are on e.g. the obvious one being horses, but also bulls, goats, etc.

I'm not sure why they would have referred to each other in the third person or how you come to that conclusion but I'm prepared to accept that they might have done.

Tourist Tony

Hyraxes have hooves, Bonj, and they're related to elephants. But they don't have tusks. Or trunks. Or floppy ears. And they're smaller than a car.
Which horse hooves are you on about---Eohippus, Mesohippus, etc, or Equus?


"There's no proof they (the fish) were there before they were discovered".


RAFLMAO!

Jaded

Tut, tut, Tony.

Next you'll be telling us that Hydraxes are the same as Dassies.

andy_wrx

"There's no proof they (the fish) were there before they were discovered".

Must admit I'm struggling with this too.

Do you lean towards Creationism or Darwinism, friend Bonj ?

Tourist Tony

Bonj is cryingvoice-based.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/index.html


I love that website.....

formerlyknownasbonj

andy_wrx wrote:

"There's no proof they (the fish) were there before they were discovered".

Must admit I'm struggling with this too.

Do you lean towards Creationism or Darwinism, friend Bonj ?

well, I think Creationism is intrinsically false. Darwinism is correct, although I think Darwin himself was probably trying to claim his theory was a completely separate doctrine when in fact he was just piggy-backing evolution theory which was already known, and all he was actually doing was drawing a few observations from it.

pdm

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

just seen this on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6284214.stm

apparently they're going to try and knock one up.

I came to this one late - who exactly is going to try and "knock one up" - its not the same b*****d that knocked up my sister when she was 16 is it? - that said, he was obviously fairly successful and shares the same neanderthal lineage

andy_wrx

Bonj ! He's calling you a neanderthal !

Tourist Tony

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

"There's no proof they (the fish) were there before they were discovered".

Must admit I'm struggling with this too.

Do you lean towards Creationism or Darwinism, friend Bonj ?

well, I think Creationism is intrinsically false. Darwinism is correct, although I think Darwin himself was probably trying to claim his theory was a completely separate doctrine when in fact he was just piggy-backing evolution theory which was already known, and all he was actually doing was drawing a few observations from it.

Hmmmm. Amazibg insight, O Enlightened One.
Whose evolutionary theory was it he was drawing a few observations from?
I am of course sure that Darwin would have been humbled by your endorsement.

You really DO know nothing about natural history, biology, natural selection, evolution, history of science....
Tell me, Maestro, which species of fish do you think evolved overnight into the forms you have studied in sych depth? I would also welcome further revelations about the family tree of proboscids. So much more limited than biologists ever imagined!

BigWomble

Tourist Tony wrote:

Bonj is cryingvoice-based.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/index.html


I love that website.....

I love it too.

"God created the human race in the person of Adam. He formed Adam, the first man, then created Eve, the first woman, out of Adam, thus the whole human race comes from one man."

Er... Genesis 1: 26-31, 2:7+

Basic mistake. :roll:

I've always thought that the Bible was made for reading, not waving. If it was made for waving, it would have been stick shaped.

Noodley

andy_wrx wrote:

Bonj ! He's calling you a neanderthal !

I'd imagine there will be a few pi55ed off neanderthals