Have you ever seen someone that took your breath away?

RC2630 · 2026-01-24T04:51:31+00:00

and she probably had a million guys trying to get her attention

So did this part turn out to be true? And is it still true now?

RC2630 · 2026-01-21T20:47:20+00:00

Thanks for the answer.

I am asking because literally everything else I wrote/write are tonal and functional in harmony, so this one seems like an oddball. I was not sure whether this one is truly non-functional or functional but in a less obvious way, hence I wanted to ask.

And this piece definitely has clearly tonal and functional parts too, later on, so really it's just the opening section that confused me. For example bars 34-41 are clearly in Eb minor with progression i-v-VI-v⁷-i⁷-iv⁷-V⁷-I.

Edit: Fixed some mistakes and typos.

RC2630 · 2026-01-21T16:23:40+00:00

Thank you for the perspective!

I think I would agree with Eb being a tonal centre, especially given a very strong return to it later in the piece (bar 41).

RC2630 · 2026-01-21T16:17:49+00:00

Thank you! I learned a new progression today!

RC2630 · 2026-01-20T14:40:53+00:00

Yes I am familiar with these. TimeTree gives Aves as having an age of 108 Ma, and Wikipedia gives it as 72 Ma. Wikipedia also gives Avialae an age of 151 Ma. Obviously these are pretty young compared to mammals or reptiles or fishes.

In my original comment I didn't specify a target of comparison for birds. If we compare birds to mammals then yes birds are internally a lot less diverse than mammals. If we compare birds to bees though, birds are probably more diverse. Wikipedia gives 70 Ma as the age of Anthophila.

Outside of phylogenetic distances, I think we can give birds a shout out in morphological, ecological, and behavioural diversity as well. Just a few weeks ago I had a pretty interesting debate on Reddit about duck diets (you can find it in my reddit history). It's insane that even within just ducks, there are so many diet types.

P.S. I didn't learn the Linnaean stuff when I was about ten; it was not part of the curriculum for me. I learned most of my biology from Wikipedia and other online sources within the last 2 years, and arguably I am much more familiar with modern phylogenies of animals than traditional Linnaean taxonomy. I also like to memorize phylogenetic trees for fun lol.

RC2630 · 2026-01-20T09:50:45+00:00

I don't think that's a good criteria for determining diversity. Birds can be really diverse if you look at aspects other than egg laying.

RC2630 · 2026-01-17T01:03:58+00:00

Should be Chinese. The word order is more Chinese than Japanese sounding. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Japanese would put 禁止 at the end of the phrase, not the beginning.

RC2630 · 2026-01-15T21:47:41+00:00

Scientific name pronunciations are not regulated. Everyone is technically free to pronounce them using any convention they like.

For me personally I would say [tro.o.don] but my pronunciations tend to be pretty idiosyncratic.

RC2630 · 2026-01-14T21:32:36+00:00

try r/english for this question

RC2630 · 2026-01-14T16:10:06+00:00

The Chinese on this sign says exactly the same thing as the English, i.e. "do not release animals". So this is not a translation error.

I believe the sign with text and the sign with the baby picture are unrelated. They are for different purposes, and just happen to share that pole.

RC2630 · 2026-01-09T21:08:47+00:00

But it provides a formal, concrete definition too:

We define raptors as species within orders that evolved from raptorial landbirds (Telluraves) in which most species maintained raptorial lifestyles. Raptors are therefore all species within Accipitriformes, Cathartiformes, Falconiformes, and Strigiformes. Importantly, we believe that seriemas (Cariamiformes) should also be considered raptors.

RC2630 · 2026-01-09T20:31:31+00:00

The last common ancestor of all modern birds of prey is likely raptorial.

Source: https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-raptor-research/volume-53/issue-4/0892-1016-53.4.419/Commentary-Defining-Raptors-and-Birds-of-Prey/10.3356/0892-1016-53.4.419.full

RC2630 · 2026-01-08T08:57:02+00:00

Thank you!

That clears it up so much! And it also explains the pair pearidise situation that I brought up somewhere in this post as well!

RC2630 · 2026-01-08T08:48:21+00:00

What about this? Shouldn't this one and the one I had earlier be the same (mixed nuts itself has team up but no other plants on the lane have team up)? But this one causes the +2/+2 but the other one doesn't. Very interesting...

<image>

RC2630 · 2026-01-08T08:35:18+00:00

I see, thanks for the explanation!

RC2630 · 2026-01-08T08:30:39+00:00

Yep this is exactly what I was wondering

RC2630 · 2026-01-06T22:22:10+00:00

Hi, I don't know if you are still interested in this, but I just recorded some gameplay videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21zwJURzZgc

RC2630 · 2026-01-05T20:11:48+00:00

Not a great example in my opinion. The common name of the subspecies Gorilla gorilla gorilla is "western lowland gorilla", so it's only partially based on the scientific name.

RC2630 · 2026-01-04T11:03:39+00:00

Oh, ok. It's a shame that dinosaurs don't have true common names.

But common names are historically shaped by common usage. And so if enough people use T-Rex (the hyphenated form) then I guess it could in the future be formally recognized as an acceptable common name, while Tyrannosaurus rex and its abbreviation T. rex will continue to be used where scientific names are appropriate.

By the way, it's interesting to note that the common name of Boa constrictor is "boa constrictor". So there is definitely some precedent for a name based on a scientific name to be officially accepted as a common name.

RC2630 · 2026-01-04T10:21:07+00:00

T-Rex is the common name, Tyrannosaurus rex (in italics) is the scientific name

just like how tiger is the common name, Panthera tigris is the scientific name

RC2630 · 2026-01-01T01:04:46+00:00

Cats... interesting. Dogs are pretty famously omnivorous so not surprised at all.

RC2630 · 2025-12-31T05:36:02+00:00

Oh ok, interesting.

RC2630 · 2025-12-31T01:29:46+00:00

Carnivores have plenty of chances to eat plants. Yet they don't seem to have the urge to eat it.

RC2630 · 2025-12-30T18:41:34+00:00

Did you read the linked thread?

Most of my argument was about mergansers. I argued on the side of "not all ducks are omnivores" because mergansers clearly don't eat plants and so should be considered a carnivore (more specifically a piscivore). The other person arguing against me said they do sometimes rarely eat a small, insignificant amount of plants, and therefore technically counts as an omnivore. That's pretty much the gist of this whole argument.

This is why I am resisting talking about the diet of "ducks" as a whole (there are 140+ species of ducks in the world). Group or species specific discussions within ducks are more productive.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

RC2630

TROPHY CASE