Science desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

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 8

stillborn dog

(Warning, a slightly gruesome question in a veterinary way.) A few decades ago, I had a dog that gave birth to three puppies. The first was twice as large as the other two, which were normal size (she'd had litters before), and the third was not small, but was stillborn. I had to bury it, and the odd thing was it seemed very undeveloped, basically a limbless, faceless bag of fur. Is this a common thing with animals that have litters? Is there any name for this? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Runt is the usual term, but our article on the subject is absolutely appalling; I would advise anyone against reading it. This article, although not exactly a model of scientific rigour, concerns runt puppies and actually contains some information (unlike ours). Tevildo (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this wasn't a runt in the normal sense. Let me clarify. The first puppy was huge, easily two or three times the mass of any other pup the mom had ever borne. The second puppy was normal in size for her pups and in all other respects. The third puppy was dead, and perhaps even a little bigger than the second puppy, but basically just a sack of fur. (The mother was a blonde Shepherd, the father a Black Lab, the living puppies black, and the stillborn puppy chocolate brown, in case that's relevant.) She had partially buried it in her doghouse, and it was only when I went to remove it (and to take her and the living puppies indoors) that I realized it wasn't afterbirth. (Unless maybe there is some sort of skin that actually forms around placenta in some cases?) I am very familiar with normal runts, which are small and sometimes deformed, but this was just odd, as if it had never developed a solid skeleton. I can certainly accept that might be some sort of wierd uncommon mutation, but I am wondering if it is some other sort of result of litter births. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly speculative, and some would probably say I shouldn't do veterinary diagnosis on the Refdesk (I will state clearly, it should not be used as such!). But my guess is that the ball of fur was a teratoma. There might be some connection between it and the large puppy, as both of them could conceivably have carried a mutation in a proto-oncogene that would allow them to grow bigger and increase tumor risk. (something like KRAS [1] - just an example; I haven't thought over all the possibilities carefully) Wnt (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that there was a problem with the umbilical cord which should have gone to the stillborn puppy, and it instead went to the huge puppy, which received all the nutrients which should have gone to both. StuRat (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too suspect there might be something like a teratoma going on, or maybe a mutation in the skelatal system. But this was a separate puppy, not a tumor of one of the other pupies, with a different fur color, and weighed probably 3/4 of a pound. It must have had a working umbilical connection or it would have aborted at a much smaller size. Like I said, the normal puppy was slightly smaller than the dead puppy, while the huge puppy probably weighed at least a pound and a half. The two living puppies maintained that difference in size through maturity, with the same proportions, but the large one weighing twice as much as the small one. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teratomas can occur in the placenta or umbilical cord (it's uncommon in humans, but I'm not so sure about dogs) Wnt (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome would align with the idea of one abnormally large compared to one nearly un-grown. But if the fur colors are noticeably different, they don't sound monozygotic. The whole idea of "received all the nutrients which should have gone to both" sounds like^{[original research?]} it would be limited to "both" being supplied by the same placenta. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it had a canine version of hypophosphatasia -- apparently humans born with it can appear to be boneless[2]. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My first hypothesis was that this was not something rare or special. But if it's not common in litter-bearing animals, some sort of bone-forming malady was my default assumption. Thanks for the link. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the more complex side of things, could this simply be an uneven separation of the fertilized ovum? One part larger than the other, resulting in the huge puppy and the stillbirth? I would imagine it does happen. If it doesn't, ignore me. 80.4.147.13 (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would have resulted in identical twins, but they were different colors. The very early embryo could have split unequally, but the size difference would have disappeared over time as the fetuses were fed by the uterus. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brownish spike-like object in my shoe

I was out walking in gravel/grass today. When I got home, I noticed a light-brown spikey/spiny object stuck to my sock. It was very hard to pull off, and even with folded toilet paper between it and my hand, I was poked by it and bled a little. Does this spikey object have a name? How did it get it my shoe (which is extremely tight), and how did it get all the way down to the tips of my toes and stay there until I took it off without me noticing? -- Tohler (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given sufficient information. A picture would be good. What country/locality are you in? If you are in Australia, or Africa, or perhaps the USA, it could be a douuble-gee or related species. See Wikipedia article on Emex Australis. Nasty things, particularly for dogs. Some variations have barbs. 124.178.58.238 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I'm in southeast Arizona, United States. I have no picture since I threw it away and flushed it (I was in the bathroom when I noticed it). -- Tohler (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking bur. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The general class of these things is a bur. I'm not sure which bur you've found. There's hundreds. Where I grew up in New Hampshire, we had similar burs that would get stuck on our clothes all the time when we played in the woods. Where I live now in North Carolina, there aren't as many plants that have burs, excepting maybe the sweetgum. --Jayron32 02:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Ragweed. Ask a local dog groomer about them. They're not like a cactus needle in the skin but when the get into the dog fur, the fur is usually cut to remove it. They can get between their toes as well. Usually a dog that wonders into the desert gets them in their coat so groomers deal with it a lot. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your last question, I've noticed that, while even the tiniest bump or crease may be noticeable on the sole of your foot, it's also quite possible to have stuff stuck there, unnoticed, for quite some time. An individual bur, for example, may lie quietly for some time and then a twist of your sock or a shift of your balance suddenly gets you to thinking there's a rogue balrog in your shoe. To put it more simply, if burs were instantly and constantly annoying, they wouldn't be doing their job very well at all. It could be you picked this thing up while in your stocking feet (say, in the arch between the ball of your foot and your toes) and only noticed it much later. Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Physical contact in platonic friendships

Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that physical contact stengthens platonic friendships regardless of gender? Is it dependent on the person? 82.132.225.228 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plenty. I suggest you take a look at Haptic communication and the many links and references you will find there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article doesn't really talk about strengths of friendships in relation to this though. It focuses more on romantic or sexual relationships. 194.66.246.118 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall several articles about how members of the US government touch each other much more frequently than "normal" people (sadly, I can't find a reference to that right now) - and that there is some kind of indication of rank and allegiances from the way this happens. You can certainly see it in video where they'll frequently touch each other on the shoulder or something. I presume they do this to strengthen their political ties - which would certainly be a case of using body contact to promote platonic friendships - and mostly between people of the same gender. Obviously it is dependent on the person. People (like me) with Aspergers syndrome frequently find body contact unpleasant, except in the most intimate situations. I really hate being hugged, clapped on the shoulder or shaking hands with people of either sex that I don't know extremely well. I'm sure such minor revulsions are not uncommon. SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that "members of the US government" and "normal people" are two separate entities?

~E

Reminds me of how I often hear ads say "This testimonial is from a real person, not an actor !". This makes me wonder if all actors are really like Max Headroom. StuRat (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

He probably meant "everyday" people, although he might be making a point. :) As regards actors, one way to say it might be, "I'm not a real person, but I play one on TV." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome physical contact releases oxytocin, the effects of which are largely beneficial physically and psychologically. I am not sure if one would describe holding children and pets as platonic per se, but it is great non-sexual experience for most people. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of engaging in touchy-feely stuff requires "knowing your audience". Everyone has a "space" around them that they might or might not like having invaded. I don't think you need to be an Aspie to cringe when someone invades your space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might look into non-verbal communication. I recall being taught that even a subtle touch during a sales situation can be favorable (e.g. while passing change) -- and subconsciously prompts a more positive review of the person. Presumably this was based on one or more studies (no clue where to find it, though). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A strategy like that could severely backfire if the target doesn't like being touched by strangers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]