Science desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 29

Where do drug names come from?

Back in August I had a minor heart attack, and was prescribed an anticoagulant drug called Ticagrelor. Apparently it's an updated version of something called Clopidogrel. I'm also prescribed Ramipril and Bisoprolol. I'm just wondering where these names come from.

I know there are IUPAC names (Ticagelor is, God help us, (1S,2S,3R,5S)-3-[7-[(1R,2S)-2-(3,4-Difluorophenyl)cyclopropylamino]-5-(propylthio)- 3H-[1,2,3]triazolo[4,5-d]pyrimidin-3-yl]-5-(2-hydroxyethoxy)cyclopentane-1,2-diol, for instance) and trade names (ticagrelor is "Brilique" in some parts of the world), but why ticagrelor? Why not boffinokpum or gluponifen? Why four syllables? Why is ticagrelor not called "numptum" or "bonktyrumptimbul"?

I'm aware that some drug families have similar names (-pril indicates ACE inhibitor and -olol means Beta blocker) but why (for instance) "bisoprolol" rather than "bogolol", why "ramipril" rather than "nobbipril"?

Same goes for statins. They seem to have names (and again, I'm not talking trade names like "Lipitor") of the form thingvastatin, such as Atorvastatin (ironic, given its similarity to Atora), Simvastatin and Lovastatin.

I can see why systematic names such as IUPAC designations are assigned, trade names come from some completely barmy marketing outfit (and I'd like to meet the chap who decided that "Brilique" was just such a super name for a platelet inhibitor to be prescribed following heart attacks) but where do half-way houses, neither systematic nor marketing, such as "ticagrelor" come from? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only rules (in the US) are officially described here. If it doesn't break a rule, they can call it whatever the hell they want. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Nonproprietary Name. DMacks (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of different considerations. First there's the difference between the chemical itself and the brand name it's marketed under. Minoxidil, 6-piperidin-1-ylpyrimidine-2,4-diamine 3-oxide, is the active ingredient of Rogaine. The chemical name is ultimately arbitrary, but suggests diamine oxide, with the NO group suspected of being the active site. The name Rogaine was originally suggested as Regaine, for obvious reasons, but was rejected by regulators as too suggestive. Atorvastatin, the chemical in the brand Lipitor, is a statin class drug with cardiovascular benefits. 'Lipitor' is obviously something powerful (think "terminator") that has to do with fighting lipids.

Beyond such associations, drug companies don't want to pick a name that is offensive or has bad connotations in other languages, such as the case of the Chevy Itdoesn'tgo. They want the name to be different enough from other names that the two are not confused, but not so different that it is hard to pronounce or remember. People have been killed by drug name confusions, see the ref below. Names with C, P, V, X, and Z are popular, frankly because they sound powerful and a little magical. Our article Brand name didn't lead anywhere useful, but this very good article gives all the basics: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53208. Sometimes I have fun with the pharmacist, and ask if they filled my prescription for fratastatin, or generic dammitol. But I wouldn't do something like that if she were busy or we weren't on a first name basis. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Chevy Nova#Urban legend? Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I assumed the main article would link to it, but thanks for the direct link. I should also mention there have been many deaths linked to accidental dispensation of a drug confused with the one actually prescribed due to similarities in names. The medicinenet link I gave above documents some. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did mention it. Forgot to take my GleeMONEX. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you (or possibly I) have missed the point. I am not talking about trade names like "Brilique". This is the registered trade name for (see IUPAC name above). Trade names can be anything.

I'm wondering about is why it's also called "ticagrelor". Why, come to that, is 3-piperidin (and so on) called "Minoxidil". Why not "Boggyplonk"? There would appear to be three names to any given (prescription) drug. A IUPAC name which is, far from what μηδείς suggests, particularly exact, not "arbitrary". The chemical name is an exact description of the compound. Then there is a name whose nature this question is trying to ascertain (such as Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel). Then, finally. there is a trade name such as Brliique or Plavix. Why three, and what generates the "non trade" name? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been misunderstood. By chemical name I meant the one assigned to the item patented, not the IUPAC formula. I referred to minoxidil as the chemical name above which suggests the amine and oxide of the IUPAC formula. That one is indeed arbitrary within the obvious parameters of pronounceability and the ones I gave, a unique, memorable, non-offensive name that may suggest the class of drug, etc. The company that patents the drug names it, then usually markets it under a trademark name that is more customer than industry oriented. Both are made up. There are no set rules. It's no different than inventing something with specific dimensions, say a 10"-diameter pressed aluminum cake pan, patenting it under the industry name 10DPACP, and marketing it under the trademark name Frisbee. What you are calling the trade and non-trade names are the trademark and patent names. Both are used in trade. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier (and others also stated in various ways), the generic drug-name, which you identify as the "non trade" name, is made up, but does follow some set patterns based on various biochemical and/or structural properties (as you also noted). The parts that are patterned follow published rules (INN, BAN, USAN, etc.), but the exact combination and details that are not part of the pattern rules are arbitrary (but tend to follow patterns again based on structure or activity). To answer one of your specific cases ("bisoprolol" rather than "bogolol"), bisoprolol appears to have two isopropyl groups and bi/bis is a common chemical prefix for "two". And "3–4 syllables" is one of the published standards (I'm sure the standards-bodies have reasons for making that declaration...ease of remembering and writing, I guess?). So if you say "we have this new beta-blocker that has as one of its distinguishing structural characteristics a 'bis-isopropyl'", contract that down to a two-syllable prefix for the '-olol' class. DMacks (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Yes, I'd misunderstood your use of the term "chemical name", μηδείς. I can't see "clopidogrel" or "amlodipine" being "chemical names" in any meaningful sense, to be honest. "Generic name", fine. And there are published standards for these names, per DMacks, who also says they're sometimes contractions of a more precise chemical name (Ibuprofen is a good example of this, the name coming from iso-butyl-propanoic-phenolic acid). Thanks, all, for your contributions (but I still think "ticagrelor" sounds like one of Dr Who's more unpleasant foes). Tonywalton ^Talk 09:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, chemical name is obviously ambiguous. One thing that isn't clear is whether the various regulatory bodies actually propose generic names for newly approved drugs, or if the just approve those suggested by the patent holder as I asserted. See United States Adopted Name which DMacks mentions as USAN. That article also has a link to this excellent list of several hundred stems used in naming new medications], which is what I assume you have really been looking for. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generic names are proposed by the company/organization that files the New Drug Application (or equivalent in other jurisdictions). The name has to fit within the guidelines noted above, and then must be approved by the relevant regulatory agencies. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanism of Coldness and sore throat ?

what is happening in coldness (from feeling the right amount and time of cold, windy or not), and why our body's tend to develop sore throat (a very annoying situation) as for it. why not something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.153.70 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cold air can't hold much humidity, and that dry air dries out the throat. Add to this the thermal shock of inhaling cold air, and damage is caused to the lining of the throat, making it sore and vulnerable to infection. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wow thanks ! enlightening.. ! what did you mean by "Lining" of the throat?, and why is soreness (redness?) accumulates infection?,, Blessings. 79.182.153.70 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The throat (both esophagus and trachea) are lined with mucus, which keeps them moist. This mucus provides a barrier to bacteria and viruses, since, in the time it would take for them to migrate through, they might be coughed up or swallowed and killed by stomach acid. We don't have skin inside, to protect the tissue, but this serves a similar function. Also, when we swallow things which would normally irritate the esophagus, like acidic sodas, the mucus keeps it away (the stomach lining also has mucus to protect it). When the mucus layer is reduced, then bacteria and viruses find it easier to infect our tissue, where they cause inflammation, apparent as redness and soreness. StuRat (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's another possibility. When it's cold, the temperature of the body surface can drop dramatically, and immune responses are slowed considerably in cold tissue. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which has to do with vasoconstriction in the extremities of the body. This happens especially when the person in question is not only cold but also wet, because the water takes away a huge amount of heat as it evaporates. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't low temps also reduce the activity level in the baddies ? StuRat (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Computer in Matrix movies

I am currently writing a paper on virtual reality, and referencing Bishop George Berkeley's work on idealism and how his views today can be seen clearly exemplified in movies such as "The Matrix". I saw all three movies in the series when they came out. Now, I am wondering if the massive computer that keeps the Matrix in operation is, in the movie, itself conscious. Because if it is not, then it would mean that you need more than just enormous complexity to attain consciousness. This makes it a very different computer to the one in sci fi movie "The Thirteenth Floor", in which conscious entities exist but are not bound to bodies. They are, in that movie, fully conscious beings which exist as avatars of the computer in which they reside. This is a far more complex situation than the one in Matrix, I believe.

I myself do not agree with the strong AI position on this, as I think that while complexity is a necessary condition for consciousness, it is not a sufficient one. But then, I do not know what WOULD comprise such sufficient conditions. But I am not alone in this. As long as we don't know what makes us conscious, we cannot say with finality what conditions are necessary to achieve that state. And the "hard problem" of philosophy remains. Myles325a (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is, but if you're looking for resources, the "conscious computer" trope is a well tapped field for science fiction. Two that jump to mind as particularly notable and famous is "Mike" from Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and "HAL 9000" from the 2001: A Space Odyssey film, book, and various sequels thereof. The idea of consciousness being unbound from a body is also a well-used trope, the character of "The Dixie Flatline" from Neuromancer is a particularly seminal use of it. More recently, John Scalzi's Old Man's War makes use of the idea of mind transfer to transfer the consciousness from one body to another. If you're looking for the philosophical tradition that underpins the Big Questions regarding consciousness in general, Wikipedia's article consciousness is a good start, as is the Mind–body problem and if you want to get really nuts, dig into the Phenomenology philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger. --Jayron32 06:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Terminator (franchise) also comes to mind. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently advanced computers may be indistinguishable from a human in their responses, but that doesn't automatically mean they are conscious. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't 'distinguish' conciousness, what is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we get into philosophy, and the idea that I really don't know that anyone else in the universe in conscious. StuRat (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a good definition for consciousness. But imagine this thought experiment: Program a computer to simulate a bunch of neurons. This is clearly technologically possible for small-ish groups of neurons even now. A program/computer that did this would be dumb as rocks, certainly neither intelligent nor conscious. Now, suppose we could somehow scan a human brain, tracing every connection and measuring everything. That's difficult with present technology - but it doesn't seem to be impossible from a fundamental science standpoint. Now dump all of that data into our neuron simulator and start it running. If we have a sufficiently powerful computer to run all of that software in realtime - and if we connect the simulated brain to microphones and cameras via simulated ears and eyes - and to an audio jack via a simulated larynx - then what should happen is that the brain should behave pretty much exactly like the person you scanned. Every possible external test for consciousness would succeed. We ask the neural simulator "Are you conscious?" and it would reply "Yes!" - if you asked "Is it OK for me to shut down the software now?" and it would presumably reply "No!! Please don't kill me!"...and so forth. Should we say that this is "consciousness"? Notice that we didn't change the "dumb as rocks" software or the computer to do it - we just gave it more data. So is the consciousness somehow "contained" in that long stream of numbers? It's not a scientific question, it's a philosophical one.

That's one of the reasons why we don't have a good definition of "consciousness". SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we presume for argument's sake that we are conscious, then would it follow that animals are also? They would not say yes to the Q "are you conscious"165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether consciousness is just piling on more connectivity or not. We really don't have a good sense as of yet how the human brain works except in the most basic terms. Going from a basic neurological description to a qualitative description of consciousness is still pretty far out there. I'd put our understanding of cognition in the single digits percentage-wise at this point (and I take that assessment from neurologists/cognitive scientists). Whether just simulating the neural wiring in and of itself will produce anything that acts like a human brain is still unclear to me; there's more than just wiring in there. There's still a lot of "scientific questions" there beyond the philosophical ones. I'm not saying its unanswerable — I think the consciousness must ultimately have a material basis, obviously, and presumably will yield to systematic analysis upon continued investigation — but I don't think we're really in a position to say, "oh, just pile on more complexity" and have that be compelling, yet. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much thinking, overanalysis. "Consciousness" is simply "awareness of your own existence" on some level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Awareness"? "On some level"? What does that mean, precisely? Is my laptop "aware of its existence on some level"? (About This Mac --> I self-refer, therefore, I am?) The reason that philosophy spends so much of its time doing "too much thinking" is because flip answers yield no results upon attempts to actually use them for anything. Once you start trying to use said results to answer the questions people are actually interested in (much less the questions philosophers are interested in), you start having to refine them down, "overanalyze" them, "think too much". ("Physics" is simply "how the world works" on some level.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: physics is simply "how the world works." But, consciousness is not a question of physics. The methods of physics (and, by extension, the other natural sciences) can be used to explore mechanisms that are related to consciousness, but it's really in the domain of philosophers to define what consciousness is - because natural sciences don't even attempt to answer that type of question. If you undertake a well-rounded study of the entire body of knowledge on the topic of consciousness will, of course, learn all sorts of things that we do know through physics (or bio-physics, or biology). We've learned incredible things about the way neurons operate; how they grow and interconnect; the neurochemists can explain how neurons signal, and neurologists can describe all that we've measured using the electroencephalograph. But none of these explorations have ever answered the question, "what is consciousness." That is not the way experimental science works; and for all that we learn about the mechanisms of our world, the scientific method never address the motives of the universe. So, natural science will never put the philosophers out of a job; for all we conclude about "how" the world works, we still need them to address the issue "why." Nimur (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point in invoking physics being "how the world works" is that such isn't a very useful definition of it if you actually want to do something with physics — if people had stopped there we wouldn't know very much. As for consciousness in general, I don't think consciousness is only a question of philosophy; I disagree that it is a "why" question. There is a hugely significant "how" question at the center of human cognition. Once we understand that better — how you go from a lump of cells to a seemingly unified awareness, one capable of generalizing inquiry to such a degree that it can even sit around asking itself why it thinks about itself so much — I think we'll have a much better understanding of what we physically mean by the term "consciousness." I find both the assertions that "we basically understand it, just scale up what we know about neurons" to be inadequate; I find the "don't think about it, it's just a problem for squishy philosophers" to be even more so. Fortunately there are plenty of people who are actually doing the work to try and figure out how the mind works out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Maccs are aware of their existence, That's why they started to call themselves iMac. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker has almost the correct answer. If you just take into account that I can't be aware of the exact data in my head and consider how I should (in general) consider the abstract space defined by the possible data sets consistent with it representing me, then that's pretty much the answer. Count Iblis (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to lead to the conclusion that there are now, and always, Platonic abstractions that are not only conscious, but conscious of every possible quale. I find that — let's say unlikely. --Trovatore (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness is usually used to mean awareness of one's surroundings, like "regaining consciousness". What's being talked about above is usually called self-awareness, although Julian Jaynes, whom everyone should read (albeit with a shaker of salt), used consciousness in this latter sense. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I find is that people often say self-awareness when they just mean awareness (in the sense of qualia — mechanical devices are "aware" of their surroundings in the sense that they have sensors capable of responding to them, but we rarely posit that they experience actual phenomena). I am not sure how the self- part snuck in there, because it's really not about a sense of self; it's just about a sense of anything, period. Phenomenal consciousness is another term that's better than self-awareness for the concept under discusson, and also illustrates the distinction with awareness of surroundings (for example, I am phenomenally conscious when dreaming, but not conscious of my physical surroundings). --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Awareness" is the common element there: of one's own existence and of one's surroundings. In short, "alive". Does a mechanical device such as a toaster, a car or a computer have an "awareness" of its surroundings? Yes, to the extent that it's been programmed to. But does it have awareness of its own existence? A sense of "self"? Maybe. But where's the evidence? Matrix is an interesting (while highly derivative) story. Have we been "programmed"? If so, by what? A computer? Natural evolution? God? Or all the above? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest news on AI seems to be this, from just up the road from my house. "Spaun can recognize numbers, remember lists and write them down. It even passes some basic aspects of an IQ test, the team reports in the journal Science." Matt Deres (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with consciousness is that we are not independent witnesses. If we were only allowed to use the evidence measurable with scientific instruments of the people around us - ignoring our own built-in biases completely - I think we could conclude that there is nothing special that human brains can do that couldn't be programmed into a highly complex and (presumably) non-conscious computer. Occams' razor would tell us that there is no such thing as consciousness. The HUGE problem with that conclusion is that each of us as individuals is seeing their own personal consciousness "from the inside". That (IMHO) is the only evidence that there is anything at all special going on here. We have no definition for what this "experience" is. We can only infer that people other than ourselves have this "thing" because they seem to say the same kinds of things about the experience as we do - and since we're all members of the same species, it seems likely that we're all more or less the same in this regard. So how could we possibly tell if some other animal or computer were to be conscious in the sense that we feel ourselves to be? Without a definition, or a way to quantify and measure it - it's kinda difficult to come up with any kind of science-based response. SteveBaker (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, which is exactly why the whole area of phenomena/qualia is so problematic for your "scientistic" world view, Steve. There are folks like Daniel Dennett who more or less explicitly reject the whole field for exactly this reason, and they can come up with very clever ways of framing this rejection, but it's still (IMO) a willful refusal to deal what's in front of their noses (or behind their noses, or in their noses, or you get the idea). We clearly are phenomenally conscious, and science's attempts at "explaining" this are all category errors. In my view they always will be, and this will remain a fundamental limitation on science. Don't get me wrong; I love science. But I don't think it can explain phenomenal consciousness. --Trovatore (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very suspicious of someone who did not believe that they themselves were conscious. It raises questions of their self-worth, self-respect, regard for the well-being of those around them, and ultimately trustworthiness and believability.165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denying one is conscious, has free will, or exists, or can be certain of anything, is a fashionable form of contrarian sophistry. Philosophical skepticism was encountered in ancient philosophy and is found today. (There was a Greek who would supposedly walk into ditches, doubting they were there. Doubting he ever existed, I won't name him.) It doesn't require that you argue convincingly in favor of anything, but allows a form of pseudo-sophistication, a way to claim you are on equal ground with people who actually do know things. For very smart people like Dennett, whom I have read and somewhat enjoy, this is often a game, or a complicated matter of definitions and tactical retreat when pushed. I can assure you that if you swing a punch at people who deny they are conscious, exist, etc., they will flinch and then get angry at you before they remember to laugh at themselves, if they do. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate open minded skepticism about one's own existence is this tour de force by the Mad Revisionist. Gzuckier (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excipients and generics

When substituting a brand name for a generic drug, could it happen that the latter is less efficient due to a wrongly chose excipient? Are any real cases known? For what I understood, some substances are not easily absorbed unless they are mixed with another appropriate substance, so the excipient is also somehow part of the medicine (not just there to bulk up the real active medicine). OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on generic drugs notes that most regulatory regimes call for some test of measured bioequivalence to the brand name drug that they imitate. That article's footnotes will guide you to more specific criteria (which in any case will depend on the particular drug's route of administration, intended use, and so forth) but will almost always include things like measurement of the amount of active drug in the bloodstream at various times after administration. In the U.S., the FDA requires generics to pursue an Abbreviated New Drug Application prior to approval. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there can be differences in absorption in certain circumstances/individuals, but also in delivery; for instance, although generic time release drugs are equivalent in the actual drug chemistry, the time release mechanism itself is likely still under patent and the generic might well use a totally different technology, which is not equivalent. Which brings us, serendipitiously, to the recent case of generic Wellbutrin 300 XL. Since the 150 mg time release generic had been tested and passed, the 300 mg version got accelerated approval; but post-marketing report gave evidence of frequent failure, which was reversed when the patients switched back to the brand name version, implicating failure of the time release technology for the 300 mg generic, though the point of failure is unknown, so the generics were pulled from the market. [1]. Gzuckier (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

electronic multivibrator repetion rate

i wish to build (for a modelling project) a DC circuit thst will alternately flash 2 lights. An integrated circuit called a 555 timer is capapble of doing this. The input for such device is an RC network, and I wish to have a repetition rate of about 0.3 to 0.5 Hz. at the output.

The MAIN question is how to calculate the proper input resistor/capacitor values in order to control (change) the repetition rate. A corollary question involves the output voltages. (I can utilize either 1.5, 9 or 12 voltlamp bulbs) Perhps I should ask an IC manufacturer/else consult an (unknown) application book. Thought that Wikipedia would be a good place to start. If I had an address, I could send a prliminary schematic of what I will be doing.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Edmund 71.200.89.43 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 555 timer IC article has some equations regarding RC values and oscillator frequency, and also some specs about source/sink power. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try using LEDs as they draw way less power than a bulb.Staticd (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Bird in Neighbours

About a minute into today's Neighbours episode, there was a brief shot of a black and white bird on a chimney. Usually I don't have too much of a problem identifying the birds featured in the show, but this one has me stumped. One of the writers suggested that it might be a Magpie, but the shape of the head and the markings don't seem quite right to me. Did anyone catch the episode or can ID the bird from this blurry screenshot [2]? - JuneGloom Talk 21:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - but it would be a good idea to ask over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. The guys on there are really good at this - in fact, they spend much of their time identifying birds in photos. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the same state in Australia that Neighbours is filmed and other then the magpie, the other very common black and white bird here is the Magpie-lark, was it that? Vespine (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see the photo on my work computer, but I looked at your screen shot on my phone and I'm pretty sure it's the 3rd bird I would have guessed: a Grey Butcherbird, (not to be mistaken for Butcher Bird). The photos here looks more like your screenshot then the photos in our article. Vespine (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a magpie, the beak is quite short, and looks hooked to me. That suggested a raptor, so I browsed List of birds of Australia... after also looking here [3], my best guess based on coloration is the Australian Hobby, perhaps a juvenile. It also seems to be about the right size (hard to get scale from the screenshot), and our article says the Hobby is common in urban parks. That being said, I have no specific expertise in this area, and might be way off :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the Magpie suggestion, I did think Grey Butcherbird or maybe Pied Butcherbird. But their beaks appear to be too long. - JuneGloom Talk 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my first impression was raptor and Semantic Mantis seems to have it. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's NOT a raptor. It's sitting on a house brick which has a length of 230mm, even a juvenile hobby is longer then that. My 4th guess: Willie Wagtail, fits the size, but i'm just not 100% sure about the white marking, it looks like it's coming just slightly up the shoulders, the only photos I can find of a wagtail it seems more of a distinctly chest patch...Vespine (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the wagtail, whose throat is black, and beak is different, it looks just like the hobby. And you can't judge the size given the tail is obscured and the bird's angle is foreshortened. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my estimation, this is not identifiable without further information. It is not Grallina, not Cracticus, not Gymnorhina. It is also not any sort of Wagtail. It is also not an immature Pycnonotus jocosus which has a visible white malar slash not evident here. The undertail is white, and this eliminates a whole lot of possibilities. The tail is also relatively long, and this eliminates the possibility of it being one of the black-headed races of Daphoenositta. It is, however, obviously a Passeriformes, and certainly not a Raptor. What can I not eliminate therefore? I can't eliminate, at least not on this poor photo, some sort of immature Myiagra though the head jizz seems wrong to me for that bird group. The bird appears to possess, however, an evident eye-ring even as bad as this photo is. I am also not sure that it might not be, as somebody mentioned above, one of the hooded races of Pycnonotus barbatus, perhaps an immature, perhaps an escape. Because of the eye-ring there might be another group that should be looked at, and that is somethng from Melithreptus though I can not discern here the peculiar whitish nucal half-collar usually associated with the genus even when juvenile. So, take it from one that has analysed bird photos for ID for almost thirty years, this is not identifiable with no further information, and from just this one bad photo. Anybody telling you that it is certainly this, or that, is just talking through his hat. Only possible ID's can come from this and based on pure conjecture.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well! We got told. :) Great reply, thank you.. Not a raptor:PVespine (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to those species would be useful, this is the reference desk. Without that it's just alot of handwaving. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here has claimed to provide a definitive answer, and I agree that a blurry photo is not enough to get a rigorous ID. In the spirit of edification, can you tell us why you rule out Raptors, and are so sure of Passiformes? Is it an overall "feel", or are there certain characteristics that you are using to key? I think many of us are genuinely interested in getting better at this sort of thing, and I for one would appreciate more detail from an expert. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, to Medeis. I came over and took a rather large amount of time to give an answer, at the request of somebody from the Reference Desk, and though I am certain that the Reference Desk has a certain agenda, it is not necessarily my purpose to further the interests of the Reference Desk. Therefore, hand-waving if you like!

SemanticMantis, I appreciate your tone, and I will respond. The reasons are that the bill is not discernible, so I have to infer from what I can see, and from what I know about possibly ranging Aussie raptors. The presence of an eye-ring, and the general shape of the head, were I to hypothesize a raptor of any sort it would by necessity and experience be some sort of Falco sp. (i.e., a Falcon). Several range here. However, here we have two problems, and they are that this bird presents a hooded appearance, a whitish belly, and from what can be seen of the undertail immediately inferior to the crissum (the crissum is the collective term for the zone of the vent (the cloaca) plus the undertail coverts) it can be seen to be whitish, and to be a clean white, that is not broken up by any sort of transverse barring. Of all the possibly ranging Falco sp, only the Nankeen Kestrel might in a pinch approximate this sort of undertail clean whiteness, however, this is obviously not a Nankeen Kestrel for other reasons, notably the blackish hooded caput (the head). All other ranging Falco species have either dark undertails, or visbly barred undertails, and this includes any possibly ranging Peregrine races (the only one that might approximate this sort of hooded appearance). Further, and before somebody suggests other possible raptors, Falco longipennis - Australian Hobby - are never whitish ventrally, even when immature, they are brownish, or russet, and they have visible darker belly streaking in all life phases, they also have "sideburns"; Falco hypoleucus - Grey Falcon - even with the bird in the photo not having a discernible bill we should see a yellowish blob here if this species because this species has an extensive yellow cere which extends into a concolourous yellow bill, plus this species has belly streaking, and the bird in the photos does not; Falco berigora (light morph) - Brown Falcon - this has brown culottes (i.e., tarsal feathering), it has a visible moustachial, and visible sideburns, plus the undertail is visible barred; Accipiter novaehollandiae - Grey Goshawk - both the grey morph, and the white morph have clean white undertails, however, neither has this hooded appearance; genus Elanus - two can range - axillaris (Black-shouldered Kite), and scriptus (Letter-winged Kite, both have whitish undertails. However, the adults have either pale grey crowns, or white crowns, and the immatures have brown pectoral zones which in axillaris is streaky, plus the immatures of both species have whitish faces delimited superiorly by brownish (not blackish) crowns.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Steve, since I think your answer is wrong, I guess you could just look on it as a bit of rejectable charity on my part to suggest that if you want readers actually to follow your suggestions you should take the time to type a few brackets and linkify them. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, the Reference Desk is your bailiwick, not mine. I simply responded to a request from this Desk for an opinion and I have already dedicated considerable time doing so. I have absolutely no desire of making proselytes. However, if you wish to motivate an accurate rationale for what you feel is a raptor I will consider your argument and respond.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special authority here or on birds, although I do have some education in biology. What I am suggesting is that you look at Semantic Mantis's first response above where he provided links in his response to our articles on raptors, the birds of Australia, the Hobby, and an external article. Looking at the image of the Hobby in the link he provided seems to me rather conclusive evidence that is the bird (head shape, coloration, beak shape) unless there is a very close relative or a passerine so similar it would count as a mimic. But the identification's not my point. My point is that your very long and obviously effort-loaded response is very difficult to evaluate or use as a reference because you have not provided any links either to our own articles or to outside sources. What would be extremely helpful would be if you would go back and edit your response to WP:LINKIFY all the species and sources you have mentioned, such as Falco hypoleucus, for example, by putting paired square brackets around them in the edit box (e.g., [[Falco hypoleucus]]) so that when yo save the edited response these will show up as linked items. Then we can all (us and future reference desk readers) easily follow your arguments, see the evidence, and judge for ourselves. I would actually really like to read the articles on the items you have linked to, but searching myself, rather than clicking on standard links is prohibitively time consuming. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, excuse me if I have seemed rather curt with you. This is a question of how you and I view this particular subject (meaning this particular photo). For me, and I field hundreds of ID requests a year, this particular bad photo should never be the subject of anything other than passing interest, and certainly because of its not lending itself to any sort of definitive ID, in my view, it simply would never pass muster for being used as a reference for anything. It is simply not worth the hassle. If, in the future, somebody asks me from this desk to look at a bird photo for which it is possible to give a definitive ID, then I will be happy to provide explanatory links. This is, in this case, simply not possible. Anybody who is adept in the discernment of bird species from graphic media, photo, video, etc., will tell you that there is always a certain percentage of birds for which no definitive can be reached. The media is just not good enough, and the accompanying annecdotal information not helpful. Therefore, and I think you probably see my point in this case, it is a waste of time to attempt some sort of justification when any outcome can never be satisfactory because any possible result is just so conjectural.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that has what to do with adding links to your prior answer? μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Med I think you're being an ass. It sounds like you're just bitter that the guy who came here and dedicated his time to help didn't agree with your naive guess. I for one also think it looks nothing like a raptor. You might want to check out our articles on confirmation bias and pareidolia. Maybe you're looking for features that confirm your belief and ignoring the evidence that contradicts it. Vespine (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well fuck you, Vespine. I don't necessarily disagree with Steve, I have just asked him to linkify his response so I can evaluate it. That you and he have a problem with this request strikes me as absurd, and that you continue to argue with and even insult me is bizarre in the extreme. Steven may be right, but he hasn't given us any way to determine that or not. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I insult you? Telling you I think you're being an ass is not actually an insult. Now I think you're being a major ass. Vespine (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means a bird expert, but after a quick look at the screenshot provided and a quick search, I came up with the Hooded Robin. Not 100% sure by any means, but it seems very close to me. douts (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man… if you are so interested, you can search the links for yourself

We are not paying him to work for us, so he don’t have the obligation of doing anything that, in fact, we can do

Instead you should give thanks to him for so an detailed and time consuming answer

And why start insulting people??!!Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who started insulting people? If I called you a bitter ass, would you find that normal ref desk behavior? I am quite happy with my own opinion, but was actually interested in cuckoo's. But I am not entitled to edit his contributions. My advice to him was good advice to all. He's wasting his time by posting here without providing links, and I don't find my friendly and repeated suggestion he do so problematic in the least. It's real a shame all his effort is wasted. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you a bitter ass, I said you were acting like an ass and that it came across like you were bitter about being wrong. Steve wrote three or four replies explaining what he thought in detail, instead of thanking him for his time, in a fairly blunt and ungrateful manner you tell him you think he's wrong and badger him for links. Which if you were interested you could easily look up for your self. He even explained that he was asked as a favour to come here to comment and is not usually a contributor to the ref desk, so linkifying things might not be something he could do easily or quickly, especially after the effort he has already put in. When several people tell you you're not being very gracious, you take it personally and crack the sads. I called it how I saw it, I think your behaviour was not very accommodating, I suggested you're seeing what you want to see (there is no way you can honestly say from the blurry blob that the bird has a hooked beak, for example) and I thought you were being an ass about it, which I actually think is a very mild jibe, I'm sorry it escalated that way. Vespine (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic, it's a Common Myna - introduced and common as muck...it looks more clearly myna-like in the video than the photo.... :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On line degree of medical science

I would like to learn and earn degree: Bachelor of medical science (with curses of biochemistry of course), but it's important for me that it will be from base (mainly in chemistry), and that all the degree I will learn OnLine. Where is it a website like this? 95.35.67.215 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of on-line degree programs are not widely respected. If you think about taking one of them, I would strongly advise that you check with a variety of medical schools that you might subsequently apply to, to find out if they accept that degree from that particular on-line institution as a qualification for admission. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt a complete online accredited medical degree exits at all. You can make a descent bacherol in other science at some serious online college, but medicine no. Comploose (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]