• Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    2 days ago

    Which only mean they aren’t a frog nor a pig, they’re an entirely new species where the male have a frog-like form and female have a pig-like form.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Maybe it’s a form of xenoparity like Messor ibericus, where one species is giving birth to an entirely separate species alongside its own.

      • jimmux@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        I never heard of xenoparity before, this is fascinating.

        Supposedly it only evolved about 5 million years ago, and some colonies still rely on external populations? Nature is constantly finding new ways to undermine our attempts to think we know how shit works.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Or they’re all chimeras, but the frog part is hemizygous (so has to express the gene) and the piggie part is X recessive heterozygous (so has another allele that can suppress the gene), and the gene controls which end of chimeric scale (frog to pig) the body tips

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        First, thank you for pointing this out. I had to go and fill my brain hole with a bunch of information about this absolutely fascinating discovery. I really thought you were discussing some science fiction concept initially.

        Second, what in the actual fuck did I just read?!?

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      2 days ago

      A form of sexual dimorphism. Honestly compared to real examples like the angler fish it’s not even that weird.

  • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    First off, Hank Green, it’s The Muppet Christmas Carol. Second, it is the best film version of A Christmas Carol hands down. I will die on this hill. Finally, we pretty much kicked any scientific accuracy to the curb, starting with pretending that Gonzo is Charles Dickens.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 day ago

      Got the most actual quoted lines from the book of any film version, plus you’ve got all of Dicken’s direct-to-reader moralising delivered by Gonzo. And as well as being very faithful to the book, it is a superb film as well.

      Michael Caine excels as Scrooge, too. I wouldn’t say that he was better than Alastair Sim was in his version - that’s a performance that would take some beating - but there’s not much in it.

    • Old Scratch Johnson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I prefer my Dickens to be as dour and melancholy as possible. Which is why I’ve always liked the George C. Scott version the best myself. Other than sound volume issues with the blaring horns of doom I think it’s great. But that’s just me.

  • tankplanker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    May be they couldn’t have kids because, i don’t know, being entirely different species, so they adopted.

    • optissima@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      Or they’re sexually dimorphic. They all do seem to have a single cloacal-like cavity…

  • fox2263@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sometimes this happens with dogs though doesn’t it. Maybe they just took it to the extreme for puppets