[HN Gopher] Biologists discover four new octopus species
___________________________________________________________________
Biologists discover four new octopus species
Author : chapulin
Score : 178 points
Date : 2024-02-19 08:00 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| j13n wrote:
| Nueva Pescanova is already sizing up cages.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59667645
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| I find it weird that people won't eat meat and poultry, but
| still eat fish and seafood and sometimes cite environmental
| reasons.
|
| Most fish are caught and some sea based farming efforts have
| been pretty terrible for the environment.
|
| I reckon if you want to eat meat still you should mostly be
| eating chicken.
| lukan wrote:
| "I reckon if you want to eat meat still you should mostly be
| eating chicken. "
|
| But favorably chicken that has seen the sun and real soil to
| pick in, not only on the way to the slaughterhouse.
|
| And there is nothing inheritently wrong with fishing, it is
| just that the way it is usually done, is quite horrific. But
| there is somewhat certified ethical fishing. Or local
| fishermen.
| meyum33 wrote:
| At this point wouldn't it be easier to artificially select
| for traits that make the chicken mind more tolerant of poor
| conditions? Like if we can have consciousless chicken then
| it wouldn't matter the condition they grow under?
| abound wrote:
| Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has you covered here,
| with sentient cows engineered to be ecstatic about the
| thought of being killed for meat.
| Filligree wrote:
| This seems problematic in a different way.
| mywacaday wrote:
| Like this guy
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken
| Applejinx wrote:
| That is one heck of a story. Salient to discussion about
| consciousness: to what extent does the ability to _act_
| like awareness, count as awareness for the purposes of
| outside observers?
| c22 wrote:
| You would need a clearer working model of consciousnes to
| be able to know whether your efforts were succeeding. But
| this is the idea behind lab-grown meat, just don't grow
| the brain at all and you don't have to worry as much.
| lukan wrote:
| It sounds way easier, to continue to pretend, that
| animals don't have feelings. And in general not know too
| much of the meat factories. Which is why many people
| choose this approach.
|
| Also like the sibling comment said, not really possible
| with our tech and knowledge. Lab grown meat would be the
| way to go to achieve it.
| frereubu wrote:
| This guy is way ahead of you:
| https://www.wired.com/2012/02/headless-chicken-solution/
|
| I imagine the meat would be pretty tasteless though.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| The massive problem with fishing is that the fish are wild.
| They need to get replaced by nature. You can't scale up the
| operation. Add to that pollution, warming seas, and you're
| disturbing a system way too much.
|
| What's the plan once the oceans are messed up permanently?
|
| At this moment, I think factory farmed chicken would have
| less impact on the environment.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| because people feel less close from fish and seashell than
| birds, and less close than birds than mammals.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I think it's more to do with us being able to empathize more
| easily with other land animals because we're biologically
| similar. Fish can't scream in pain or show basically any
| emotion we'd recognize at all. They're so different it's like
| looking at a wiggling steak, so it's trivial to dismiss them
| as simple automatons.
| hammock wrote:
| >Most fish are caught
|
| Overfishing aside, I guess you would most often find people
| that believe hunting /fishing for your food is more ethical
| than farming it
| ArtDev wrote:
| Which is absurd when you realize that commercial fishing
| kills up to half or more than what it catches.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Hunting/fishing for food was really more ethical many
| millennia ago, when humans were fewer than wild terrestrial
| vertebrates.
|
| Nowadays, there are many more humans and domestic animals
| than wild terrestrial vertebrates, so hunting could not
| sustain any non-negligible fraction of the humans.
|
| The modern methods of fishing are much too wasteful, so
| neither fishing has any future.
| graemep wrote:
| There are other reasons than environmental for eating fish
| but not meat.
|
| I used to be pescatarian and my main reason for that was
| factory farming. Once reason I now eat meat is that it has
| become a lot easier to buy meat that has been well treated.
| ArtDev wrote:
| Before I was a programmer, I was a marine biologist and also
| worked as a fish farmer.
|
| By virtually all metrics, intensive land-based animal farming
| is much harder on the environment. Also, in terms of animal
| welfare, its super sketchy even with animals labeled organic.
|
| The misinformation around fish farming is absurd. I think
| people want to believe in the myth that commercial fishing is
| a couple guys in a wooden boat; when its actually a floating
| factory discarding up to half or more of what it kills.
|
| There are many aquatic things I won't eat but mostly it is of
| the "wild fish" variety (overfishing, pollution, mercury,
| bycatch). I worked a single season as a fisheries observer in
| Alaska. The destruction was maddening.
|
| I put wild fish in quotes because many times they are raised
| in a hatcheries then released into the wild. Which has ruined
| the gene pool of salmon in places that do this.
|
| After a few years raising chickens at my home farm, I became
| pescatarian. I drew an arbitrary line at intelligence where I
| wouldn't eat anything as smart or smarter than a chicken.
|
| Anyhow, avoiding farmed fish while eating land meat is really
| misinformed. I think the meat industry and commercial fishing
| industries have managed to completely misinform the American
| public (and a few well-meaning but misleading documentaries
| on the subject).
|
| America doesn't not farm very many aquatic things besides
| oysters, trout and catfish. Which are all very very green
| industries. I like to bring these ones up in conversations
| about this topic.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| At the moment my line of thinking is "what's easier to
| engineer around?"
|
| I'm not saying we should eat "land meat". I'm saying
| specifically chicken. I believe they are the most cost
| effective of the meats.
|
| Of the farmed fish, did you single out trout and catfish
| because they are green, or has the industry in general
| improved?
| anthomtb wrote:
| I refuse to eat Octopus based on its level of sentience.
|
| I regularly eat pig despite a higher level of sentience. And
| despite having had far more interactions with pigs compared
| to Octopus.
|
| Point being, we humans really are not rational with our food
| choices.
| LazyMans wrote:
| It takes some effort, but you can buy responsibly
| raised/caught seafood.
| https://www.seafoodwatch.org/recommendations/download-
| consum...
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Nueva Pescanova is already sizing up cages.
|
| Please don't make false accusations about a third part without
| a minimum understanding of the matter first.
|
| Nueva Pescanova has nothing to do with this case, and I doubt
| that they would be interested at all in breeding a deep sea
| (and, most probably, non edible) species.
| bertil wrote:
| Nothing to do with the controversy, just curious: Why would
| deep-sea octopuses not be edible?
| pvaldes wrote:
| Deep sea cephalopods accumulate ammonia in their body as a
| buoyant device. This way, they don't need to spend so much
| energy swimming. Ammonia is fairly toxic, so they would
| taste either like pee, or like poison. I had touched some
| of this animals and the smell of rancid fat and urine last
| for days in your hands
|
| Also if you put this animals at the surface they will
| literally burst from inside and turn into a mushy mess. I
| had explained this yet a few times before, but for some
| reason this particular Muusoctopus nursery is a recurrent
| history on HN.
|
| Octopuses are benthic, so they could store a different
| amount of ammonia, but my bet would be that such partially
| disintegrated octopus product would look and taste awful.
| None of the other species of deep sea octopuses are fished
| commercially.
| adolph wrote:
| The ammonia content of Greenland Shark doesn't prevent
| them from being a treat:
|
| _The traditional method begins with gutting and
| beheading a shark and placing it in a shallow hole dug in
| gravelly sand, with the cleaned cavity resting on a small
| mound of sand. The shark is then covered with sand and
| gravel, and stones are placed on top of the sand in order
| to press the fluids out of the body. The shark ferments
| in this fashion for six to twelve weeks, depending on the
| season. Following this curing period, the shark is cut
| into strips and hung to dry for several months. During
| this drying period, a brown crust will develop, which is
| removed prior to cutting the shark into small pieces and
| serving._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl
| Swizec wrote:
| From your link:
|
| > Those new to it [Hakarl] may gag involuntarily at the
| first attempt to eat it because of the high ammonia
| content.
| shard wrote:
| Joke's on you, we're into that:
|
| Hongeo-hoe is a type of fermented fish dish from Korea's
| Jeolla province. Hongeo-hoe is made from skate and emits
| a very strong, characteristic ammonia-like odor
|
| Skates (hongeo) are cartilaginous fish that excrete uric
| acid through the skin, rather than by urinating as other
| animals do. As they ferment, ammonia is produced, which
| helps preserve the flesh and gives the fish its
| distinctive, powerful odor.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongeo-hoe
| pvaldes wrote:
| I know that some sharks and rays had a more or less
| strong pee taste. I personally dislike it. Skate is the
| only dish that I would classify as dog food grade. The
| line between tasty and nasty is very thin in those fishes
| and requires a skilled chef.
|
| But I'm perfectly fine with the idea of some people
| loving the pee taste, or eating rotten shark meat, or
| urinating in other people's mouths while eating carp
| croquettes. As long as those people is not me, good for
| them. I'll pass. Thank you.
|
| Feel free to eat this new discovered octopus before any
| other human and tell us about your experience. My bet is
| that will be memorable for all the wrong reasons
|
| In any case, skate meat should be forbidden by
| conservation issues. Their populations are very fragile
| and on a sharp decline, and to eat this animals is very
| irresponsible.
| airstrike wrote:
| I just wanted to say I thoroughly appreciate your
| contribution to this thread. Equal parts intellectually
| interesting and belly-laugh worthy
| flir wrote:
| Wait, that can't be right, you must be talking about some
| particular species, they're everywhere in Briti-- oh.
| Common Skate is critically endangered.
|
| It's also about PS8.50 for 500g.
|
| ffs. We are, collectively, utter morons aren't we?
| graemep wrote:
| I think its pretty obvious the comment you are replying to
| was a joke.
| plasma_beam wrote:
| Come now, it wouldn't be a normal HN conversation on
| octopuses if we didn't debate whether to eat them or not.
| u32480932048 wrote:
| TYFYS, doing your part to Stop The Spread of dis-and-or-
| misinformation!
|
| I usually accept any given internet comment as unimpeachable
| truth, and was just about to fire off a bunch of angry hate
| mail to Nueva Pescanova because of this specific thing!
|
| Gosh, would I have felt silly to find out that they're not
| literally building cages for this particular species!
|
| Do you have a source for your claim that nobody in this
| company is currently planning to build cages 10,000'
| underwater for a species that was just discovered?
| piombisallow wrote:
| From an ecological perspective, farming is probably better than
| fishing wild species no?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Nah fishing wild is better assuming your catch rate is
| sustainable for the population. Farming means taking acres of
| natural area with a careful web of ecological interactions
| that took millions of years to develop as such, and replacing
| all of that with a temperamental monocrop sometimes as far as
| the eye can see. It would be like if we fished by first
| sterilizing the ocean and then growing up some goldfish.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Those who claim there is little left to discover on Earth clearly
| haven't bother to look. This is awesome.
| mykowebhn wrote:
| There'd be a lot more if it weren't for the shenanigans of a
| certain bipedal species.
| asah wrote:
| Deploy a fleet of unmanned drone subs with cameras, then use AI
| to filter for possibly-new creatures? Seems like you'd find
| 1000s...
| BelleOfTheBall wrote:
| It's not exactly that simple, especially the part where AI
| would somehow differentiate extremely visually similar species
| from each other, while in near-complete darkness and on the
| move.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > especially the part where AI would somehow differentiate
| extremely visually similar species from each other
|
| We have an AI for this exact task now, Seek by iNaturalist.
| It keeps getting rave reviews.
|
| The only problem is that it's terrible at identifying things.
| I have a picture of an elephant seal that it is certain
| actually shows a clouded monitor lizard.
| justincormack wrote:
| Seek is not "by" iNaturalist. It does use models generated
| from their data.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Seek is not "by" iNaturalist.
|
| This is one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen. The
| app is provided by iNaturalist, and its name is,
| literally, "Seek by iNaturalist".
|
| Check it out: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/seek_app
| BelleOfTheBall wrote:
| I've used Seek and, yes, if this is what the current
| capabilities are like, we are not ready to use AI for new
| species discovery.
| melagonster wrote:
| watching video is not bottle neck. but if is helpful that
| scientists get more budgets.
| pompino wrote:
| Its a good idea in theory, but visibility is poor below 1000m
| or so, cameras are useless without light, and flood lights have
| limited range.
| begueradj wrote:
| We know more about the Moon than about the seas and oceans.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| This might sounds snarky, but I'm serious when I say if we want
| to know more about the oceans, Hollywood is going to have to
| come up with a better ocean competitor to Star Trek than
| 'SeaQuest DSV'. For better or worse, public interest is driven
| by popular entertainment, and there's maybe one interesting
| under the water movie once a decade.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| We see the stars every night, but rarely dip below the
| surface of the ocean.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| It's also easier to get to the moon than it is to get to the
| deep ocean. And once you're there, the environment is more
| welcoming.
| CarRamrod wrote:
| We know more about the Sun than melanoma
| pompino wrote:
| That is an interesting opinion, what sort of knowledge are
| referring to ?
| twic wrote:
| Well at least we know exactly how many species of octopus on
| the moon.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I can't understand why all these billionaires keep funding
| rockets instead of lidar equipped submarines
|
| Explore Earth before exploring outside Earth
| michelb wrote:
| Money. Billions are not enough apparently.
| Xeyz0r wrote:
| Totally agree. While space exploration is an exciting endeavor,
| it is essential to prioritize the exploration of Earth first.
| By understanding our own planet, we can develop the knowledge,
| technologies, and inspiration necessary for responsible and
| successful exploration beyond Earth.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| All these lidar projects keep finding ancient ruins and
| structures in the Amazonian rainforests. Imagine what a
| planet wide lidar project would find, especially in coastal
| regions that are now underwater.
| DarkNova6 wrote:
| Because it is not about science.
| snet0 wrote:
| I think rockets have this unmatched spectacle, especially for
| those born in a certain time. Submarine exploration is _really_
| cool, but I don 't imagine the launching of a new submarine
| explorer is going to match the momentous-ness of the launch of
| a new rocket.
|
| There's also just a kind of social narrative issue, where space
| is cool because sci-fi and aliens and astrophysics, while the
| deep oceans are scary because dark and unknown and shipwrecks.
| I guess it's like "if we explore space, we might find alien
| life; if we explore the oceans, we might find a really weird
| fish".
| devsda wrote:
| Yeah, space and oceans have always had these contrasting
| images.
|
| Space is equated to future(potential expedition target for
| humanity leaving earth) while oceans remind us of the past
| i.e. submerged & lost cities, ships etc. and honestly very
| few people are excited to explore the past.
|
| Space is also out there and oceans are here. You can point to
| the sky and say that's what we are aiming and people will
| relate compared to "we are planning to explore xyz trench 500
| miles north of abc island".
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| I recall a billionaire dying recently in their submarine
| project.
|
| Of course, the rocket billionaires don't generally ride on the
| rockets themselves. So that's safer for them personally.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Well going into space has clear advantages for our species.
| Firstly, it provides a backup in case something happens to
| earth, like if it gets hit by an asteroid. It could also
| potentially be untouched by a nasty war on earth, but odds are
| it would get dragged into it. Secondly there are commercial
| possibilities like mining in space, or space real estate .
| Thirdly, astronomy is one of two ways we expand our knowledge
| of physics (the other being particle accelerators), and new
| physics can lead to good things down the line.
|
| There are benefits of exploring the oceans too, like maybe
| finding some missing link species and learning about biology
| maybe some geology. But they seem much lesser to me.
| stetrain wrote:
| There are economic and political incentives to build rockets
| and space infrastructure.
|
| Less so for submarines exploring the depths of the ocean, even
| if the latter is equally or more interesting from a scientific
| exploration perspective.
| ouraf wrote:
| it's easier to make a case for exploiting space without any
| nation nagging at you about borders and sovereignty than it is
| for deep sea.
| u32480932048 wrote:
| Submarines? whaddabout the children? whaddabout the climate?
| whaddabout Ukraine?
| Xeyz0r wrote:
| The discovery of these new octopus species contributes to our
| understanding of the diversity and evolution of cephalopods. It
| also highlights the importance of ongoing research and
| exploration to uncover the hidden wonders of the marine
| environment.
| jounus wrote:
| Hello ChatGPT
| Xeyz0r wrote:
| I'll take that as a compliment
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| Can you explain the navier stokes equation using a simple
| analogy? I will tip $20 for a good answer
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| It really did read like a trivial claim made by a backlink
| blog spammer.
| verisimi wrote:
| > News that the world's first commercial octopus farm is closer
| to becoming reality has been met with dismay by scientists and
| conservationists. They argue such intelligent "sentient"
| creatures - considered able to feel pain and emotions - should
| never be commercially reared for food.
|
| I really don't get the dismay. Sheep, cows, fish even, feel pain
| and probably feel emotions. So why stop now? It's such an
| arbitrary line.
| yreg wrote:
| Any line is arbitrary by definition.
|
| However, the current consensus is that consciousness/sentience
| is a gradient. The higher the sentience, the higher the ability
| to experience (anything, including pain and emotions).
|
| We believe humans to be more sentient than octopi, which are
| more sentient than cows, which are more sentient than fish,
| which are more sentient than yeast.
|
| We might be wrong of course. It's probably impossible to even
| ever find out. But no one cares about hurting yeast.
| tbitrust wrote:
| Imagine human beings farmed for food by an alien civilisation
| that has "debates" on whether it's ethical or not to eat homo-
| sapiens.
|
| They have centuries and centuries to settle the question while
| rearing and killing billions of human beings each year.
|
| N.B. The price of baby meat is higher because it's more tender
| or whatever.
| c22 wrote:
| Imagine an ecosystem where living things don't eat eachother
| and live in full cooperation and harmony. No chance to ingest
| the biological building blocks created by other organisms. No
| evolutionary pressure to develop defenses or hunting
| strategies, etc...
|
| Now ask yourself if the level of _sentience_ that develops in
| this environment is satisfactory. Is there even a chance of
| developing thinking matter that can have a debate about
| ethics?
| datameta wrote:
| I recently read a sci-fi short story that describes an
| alien forest that has no predation, only vicious instant
| scavenging the moment something dies. The colonists wear
| light-suits to prevent brutal death because only the dead
| indigenous lifeforms create no light.
| pvaldes wrote:
| "Mum nature is so wise that made babies leak shit, and smell
| like shit, as a clear warning that we aren't supposed to eat
| them". (pvaldes 2024)
|
| Fortunately we could teach this aliens about the delicacy of
| octopus farming.
| 8jef wrote:
| Traditions (old habits + time passed) and rationalizing make
| people comfortable with eating most animals.
|
| Then, it's easy to grow a conscience when confronted to trendy
| newish things like so-called sentient animals we never really
| ate before.
|
| This is a good thing. Growing the masse's consciousness through
| new fads and phenomenons is a great way to create cognitive
| dissonance that contribute to changing old habits. Even if one
| will always encounter resistance to change.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > So why stop now? It's such an arbitrary line.
|
| Speaking personally, I wish we'd stopped sooner. I'm not here
| to say all meat is bad and everyone should be vegan, but I
| don't feel it's out of bounds to be dismayed that we're
| expanding the barbarity to new animals that clearly appear to
| have a form of higher intelligence.
|
| I'm not the arbiter of truth on this, but I'm sad when I see
| pigs in factory farms, and I'm every bit as dismayed to see us
| expanding this to cephalopods just the same as if we expanded
| this to domestic canines.
| lolinder wrote:
| To anyone else who got confused--this isn't a quote from TFA,
| it's from the article linked by another comment:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39427703
| verisimi wrote:
| Oh sorry!
| globular-toast wrote:
| Two wrongs don't make a right. There are also some other
| arguments in TFA.
| crawancon wrote:
| I think it's because they are very intelligent vs fish or
| sheep. The arbitrary line seems to be intelligence but I am not
| saying it's a good line.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Fishes can be very intelligent in fact. Many are more clever
| than mammals of its same size for sure.
|
| They can do basically anything that a bird does, but
| underwater, and also a lot of tricks that we can't do.
|
| There is not a single bird or mammal crystal transparent, or
| electrical, or bioluminiscent, or that could change their
| color at will in seconds. If I remember correctly, the
| vertebrates with the biggest brain/body weight ratio, or the
| fastest movement registered, are fishes.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Who is to say a plant does or doesn't like getting ripped apart
| either? You can take this logic further and realize its all
| just culural biases. Life is life at the cellular level, we all
| have mitochondria and similar fundamental metabolisms. Yet when
| those cells become a complex organism we start to get a sense
| of bias toward complex life. Even more so when we start
| considering concious thought. All that being said its still
| just bias towards one specific niche of life, that of a
| multicellular organism with a human centric definition of
| thought or consciousness. I'm sure many a vegetarians still
| swat at flies without considering how ironic that is.
| ArtDev wrote:
| Pigs are really smart, too. It's just more of a mainstream
| thing to see on a menu.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Scientists estimate that there are nearly 9 million species
| currently living on Earth and far less than a third of them have
| been identified.
|
| https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/biodiversi...
| lupusreal wrote:
| How many of these unidentified species are animals scientists
| gave seen before, but previously considered to be members of
| another very closely related species? It seems like that is how
| most new species discoveries work; not the discovery of an
| animal never before seen but rather the discovery that one
| previously documented species is actually two species.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Which calls into question the actual point. Perhaps species
| as a category is too fine-grained.
| iteratethis wrote:
| A species' discovery is never about first "seen", it's first
| described. There's no way to know whom first saw it.
|
| Your assumption regarding splitting known species is wrong as
| it comes to numbers. It often happens for birds but this
| doesn't move the needle as there's only 10K birds.
|
| Almost every species on this planet is an arthropod and most
| are not described. It's trivially easy to "discover" new
| ones. Go to a bio-diverse area (say a jungle) and fill a
| wheelbarrow with soil. Filter the dirt and describe anything
| you find. It will take you forever but there will be dozens
| if not hundreds of "new" species. The main bottleneck is not
| finding them, it's describing them, which is very time
| consuming.
|
| Put some specialized lights up in the same area at night. One
| remote site I attended in Colombia discovered on average 20
| new species of moth every single day. There's expected to be
| 150K moth species, which still may be an underestimation.
|
| And this doesn't even describe the truly tiny organisms
| living in soil and rivers and oceans.
|
| As it comes to species, the public has a bias for mammals and
| birds. Combined they're about 17-18K species only. Not even a
| drop in the ocean. You can split each of them into 10
| separate species and this still doesn't do anything to
| inflate the total amount of species.
| pompino wrote:
| Its a mostly made-up number, until all of them are actually
| identified.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| It's made up, but definitely a better estimate than both
| 2^100 and the current number of known species. I imagine one
| way to obtain a coarse estimate would be fitting the number
| of known species over time to a curve like N-e^-kt curve and
| then using N as the estimate. Coarse, but not terrible if you
| can quantify the expected error.
| bo1024 wrote:
| Of course any estimates that scientists make are "made up".
| But estimating the number of unseen species is a very old
| problem in statistics with a lot of rigorous research,
| including an important approach by Alan Turing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseen_species_problem
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good%E2%80%93Turing_frequency_.
| ..
|
| For intuition of how this is possible, imagine you sample k
| butterflies independently and all of them come from different
| species. By the birthday paradox, if there were less than
| k^2/2 different species, you would expect to see at least one
| pair from the same species, so you can estimate that there
| are more than k^2/2 different species.
| pompino wrote:
| With statistics you can estimate anything and everything,
| in multiple ways. I'll start giving due importance to this
| approach when the 9 million number is shown to be accurate.
| Until then, color me skeptical.
| fatkam wrote:
| octopus are great... so far from humans in the evolution tree and
| yet so smart.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-19 23:01 UTC)