Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #547385
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds |
| Date | 2016-01-23 02:25 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <bt4bnc-392.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <nc-dnaNE5pSpGz_LnZ2dnUU7-VmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <c4610f13-3764-49d0-9f9e-bbb6db6d7ce7@googlegroups.com> |
reber g=emc^2 <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds >> > http://phys.org/news/2016-01-zebra-stripes-camouflage.html >> >> >> > If you've always thought of a zebra's stripes as offering some type >> > of camouflaging protection against predators, it's time to think >> > again, suggest scientists at the University of Calgary and UC Davis. >> >> > "The results from this new study provide no support at all for the >> > idea that the zebra's stripes provide some type of anti-predator >> > camouflaging effect," Caro said. "Instead, we reject this >> > long-standing hypothesis that was debated by Charles Darwin and >> > Alfred Russell Wallace." >> >> -- >> >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > When driving through Nevada on a very straight flat road on a hot day in the distance about 6 miles were black wavy lines.It zebras were walking along this horizen no lion could see them.That has to tell me something. Do I believe imperial thinkers or my own eyes? Get the picture TreBert To see a horizon 6 miles away, you have to be 24 feet in the air. Get the picture? -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 13:42 -0600
Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:52 -0800
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:23 -0500
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 21:05 +0100
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-22 20:27 +0000
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:17 -0600
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:21 +0000
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 14:39 -0600
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-22 14:09 -0800
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 16:08 -0800
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-22 17:04 -0800
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 02:25 +0000
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 11:04 -0800
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:49 +0000
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 14:05 -0800
Re: Zebra stripes not for camouflage, new study finds jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 22:58 +0000
csiph-web