they could have been introduced slowly

deadbison  asked:

Do we have a fossil history of chickens?

The best part about chickens is that WE DON’T NEED ONE!

Let me introduce you to the red junglefowl.

“OH, YOU’RE A FUNNY ONE,” you might say. “PLEASE. THOSE ARE JUST THE BORING, REGULAR KIND OF CHICKENS, YOU JOKESTER” And you’d be so wrong! But also right, I guess? Anyway.

Modern chickens - subspecies Gallus gallus domesticus to the red’s Gallus gallus - are known to have been domesticated from the red junglefowl ~3000BP (before present), but the actual start of it probably began earlier (and possibly involved some hybridization shenanigans with the grey junglefowl - scandalous). The red junglefowl’s range is in Southeast Asia, and based off of DNA sequencing of fossil chicken bones from a multitude of human settlements around the world, there were likely several Asian domestication centers that slowly brought chickens around the world.

To go a bit further back, though, junglefowl are in the family Phasianidae (which I think is Latin for “good for shooting at I guess” - aka pheasants, partridges, peafowl, etc), a clade whose earliest fossil traces (Palaeortyx sp.date from the Late Oligocene (~25MYA). The first fossil attributed to the Galliformes - “wildfowl” - order (Austinornis lentus) was from the Late Cretaceous(~70MYA). And, of course, the earliest birds evolved ~150MYA ago in the Late Jurassic.

I could keep going on this wondrous journey through time, but easiest is to leave it at everything else, as they say, is 4.1 billion years of very complicated history.

SOURCES

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

So, we all know Hook has no real purpose on the show. Do you believe that in the way he was introduced in season 2 he couldn't be anything more than a a love interest ? Was he doomed from the start to follow Emma around and slowly kill her as a character or could he become interesting and relevant with a better storyline ?

Well of course he could’ve been more, much more. He did have a relatively solid story to start with, the tragically lost love and future with her, and the feud and the vengeance pursuit he’d set himself onto–against the person he blamed for her death. Granted, that’s not a really original ‘solid start’ because it’s just a version of Regina’s story, and the stem of everything—with Snow White, which as result still makes him nothing more than a “male version” of Regina… the tragic past that made her a villain, the antagonism, the ‘sparks’ with the Saviour,  because it was difficult to come up with something better for Emma’s LI? And why he was probably inserted just as some kind of ‘balance’ lever against an all-female leads central to the storyline (and also, straightwashing?) They DID said quite a few times he was only meant to be in a few episodes but proved popular, so basically here just because of demographics?

But, yes. Despite being unoriginal (and too much Regina-like) he still could’ve been given more justice, and decent development. He could’ve been a proper ‘gentleman’ (a person coming from a noble, military background—who’d fallen off that track for a better reason than privileged, spoiled spitefulness) and not a cheap and sleazy scoundrel, who’d sell you out for a flask of rum. And of course, his charm being based solely on his rascally handsome looks? And then.. *mock gasp* ..imagine if he’d been given some actual purpose in a plot, like–something with actual depth, that would allow him to have profound, undeniable connection/ dynamics with any of the MAIN characters–instead of multitudes of plotdevice-characters he’d just randomly encountered (and screwed over, like Ursula, Ariel, etc) in his lifetime? Then just imagine, if he held some importance that would allow leeway for a credible buildup even of his relationship with Emma? But NOT via this “incendiary sexual tension” based on degrading and misogynist comments aimed in her direction (unless, of course their purpose is to illustrate that one tends to make poor choices when one has been told that they are worthless their entire life?) and followed by obsessive, borderline-sick stalking–seeing her as a prize for turning ‘good’ again. No. He himself could’ve gone back over his history, admitting to everything and becoming a fallible human being–before parking himself in a sort of a friendzone with Emma. Because his and Emma’s logic as ‘friends’ (who have some sort of understanding at least, to start with) makes more sense if we know about all the shit experience from her past (being treated as lesser, being shunned, misunderstood and rejected) that led to her building those walls?

(Not that any of that would be way too original again because that’s what she has with Regina once again–but hey :)

So if he say acknowledged that that he ‘loves’ (is obsessed with) her but she isn’t in love with him, and him accepted it–because due to his past (which at this point could’ve been understood, and not simply justified—and he’d be relatable, in that human kind of way?) he’d still be ‘beneath’ Emma, but the dynamics would be significantly different? So say, perhaps his ‘buddy’ ship with a thing that Emma loves the most, her son–could be an important part of him doing things the right way? You know, instead of this blank validation/approval/absolution that Henry’s been used for, so far? Imagine them clicking on that ‘lost boys with lost daddies’ level, and him actually growing into a proper father figure, for Henry–setting the foundations for what Emma needs most? Then yeah, the same way he could’ve grown into a proper LI for her too?  

(Again, not that we don’t already have Regina in that role, because Henry already has two parents and doesn’t really need a ‘father’ as well–but hey :)

So yeah, if he’d been written differently he still could’ve had that those elements of tragedy, but could’ve been set on a proper path of redemption. It could’ve been about himself and for himself, not about this self-serving obsession he has for the Saviour. He could’ve faced everything he’d ever done and could’ve been feeling genuine regret for all he’s ever done in the name of his blind, obsessive selfishness. His ‘man-pain’ didn’t have to be romanticized, it could’ve been honest. Because had he not been so sexist/misogynistic, he could’ve been genuinely relatable–to all of us? And then he might not be too much beneath Emma Swan?

Again, not that it’s still make him better (or even close to) Regina as Emma’s LI, but hey… that one simply stood out–all by itself. The parallels, the similarities, the organic development, the way they just complement and deeply understand and accept each other.. so much that everything else just pales in comparison, no? Sooo…

:)

Henry Talbot isn’t ready to settle down–he’s not going to choose a woman hellbent on maintaining an estate to pass on to her son from a previous relationship over his fast-paced life of travel and adventure. If he had been introduced a couple seasons ago I could see this as a greater possibility–we could have seen Mary mould him into the caretaker of an estate and convince him to live life more slowly. With 4 episodes left, however, having these two get married would be a clumsy way of wrapping up loose ends.

If only there was a man who has been here since season 1, has shown that he is ready to settle down and raise children from previous relationships, can share in Mary’s pain of losing a spouse, and has demonstrated his willingness to devote his life to the care of the estate. But where on earth could we find such a man?