Recently a mountain lion with teeth growing out of his head has been seen on the internet. All kinds of theories as to what could have happened. It appears to me that the lower jaw on the mountain lion is also deformed. Could this have resulted simply from a severe fetal injury that was not fatal? I don’t have a link but it is easy to find for those who have not seen it.
This photo, the teeth are clearly in front of the ear.
This photo, the teeth are in the middle of the head.
Very likely a partially reabsorbed conjoined twin. This is probably the most frequent cause of fragmentary appendages carried by animals. In a side show, I have seen cows and sheep with additional legs (non-functional), probably of this kind of origin. Here’s an example in a fawn.
Does the animals lower jaw also appear malformed? Like it is missing the piece that is now sitting on top of its head?
I don’t see any canines in the lower jaw, but it otherwise appears normal. It does not appear to me to be translocated from the lower jaw.
From an article about it:
In the last paragraph they seem to be conflating two separate phenomena: teratomas, which originate from an individual’s own tissues, with partial parasitic twins, which are of separate embryonic origin.
This was a big story a few weeks ago when it broke. We all agreed that he probably had nothing else wrong with him, or else his mother wouldn’t have cared for him.
Unlikely. You think if he was missing a tail that his mother would abandon him?
Human with extra mouth full of teeth.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=man+two+faces&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
Wild animals will abandon, or even outright kill, sickly young. Even domesticated animals do this.
That’s not at al the same as what you said earlier, which was incorrect. It would be easier to just admit the mistake and move on. Remember, this forum is about factual answers to questions.
John is right, animals do not always kill deformed young, they will even raise unrelated species at times. Sometimes they kill and eat healthy off spring, we don’t always know why they do what they do.
I don’t see what you think is the significant difference between nearwildheaven’s two statements. Animals frequently do abandon abnormal or diseased offspring (not always, but often enough that ‘probably’ is a factually valid statement). If the animal had truly had a gross malformation of the jaw in addition to the teeth on his forehead, as hypothesized earlier in this thread, it is unlikely he would have received maternal care. What “mistake” are you asking him to admit?
The first statement was absolute. One more problem, and the mother would abandon. The second statement was about a possibility. If the second was intended to be absolute, then it, too, was factually incorrect.
The first statement included the word ‘probably.’ When did that start making something absolute?
The “probably” did not apply to the mother’s care, but to the existence of some other defect. Go back and read the sentence.
I have read the sentence, and I think you are trying to read into it something that is not there (or not reading into it that which is logically implied).
The cub survived to adulthood, so obviously he received maternal care. The existence of that care is as close to established fact as is possible with a wild animal reared outside human observation, and there can no longer be any “probably” about it. With maternal care established, then the two possibilities are that he did or did not have anything else wrong (such as the hypothesized translocated lower jaw). On the balance of probabilities, he did not…
“We all agreed that he probably had nothing else wrong with him, or else his mother wouldn’t have cared for him” includes by implication the negation that “it is possible but improbable that he had another major deformity and his mother cared for him anyway.”
How are you reading it that this negation is not included, or what would be the “possible but improbable” flipside?
If you want to read it that way, go ahead. I’m confident most people would agree with my interpretation, and I’m not really interested in further debate.
I’m not interested in debating it–I’m trying to figure out what your interpretation IS. I’m trying to improve my ability to read and write English, which means asking questions when I don’t understand, and I don’t understand how you are reading the given sentence to include the mistake you want him to admit.
I agree with you: because of the nature of the statement, the probably modifies both the fact at issue and the result.