3 ms·
Wikipedia should not be using that drawing for a Chondrocladia concrescens, it also on the main C. concrescens page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrocladi
by aaron695 3y ago
Wikipedia should not be using that drawing for a Chondrocladia concrescens, it also on the main C. concrescens page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrocladia_concrescens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrocladia_concrescens
Everyone knows when you bring deep sea creators to the surface they look different.
It's far more obvious from pictures taken in place - https://twitter.com/DrCraigMc/status/1366534723145781251/photo/1 https://twitter.com/DrCraigMc/status/1366534723145781251/pho... https://www.flickr.com/photos/oceanaeurope/15285657515 https://www.flickr.com/photos/oceanaeurope/15285657515
It's a shame they didn't see a Chondrocladia lyra in the original expedition, much better for lore, but I guess being pre-internet savages the lyra wouldn't even look like an antenna to them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3tAtXdaik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3tAtXdaik
- pyinstallwoes 3y agoYour examples don’t have the same angles as the Wikipedia article in question. I don’t see the same amount of appendages at all or in squared angle intersections. Furthermore to have 90 degree angles in water from drifting appendages all line up at a convenient moment seems absurd.
- GauntletWizard 3y agoThat drawing looks no more different to me than any other naturalist drawing of a plant showing a preserved sample to detail texture and shape compared to a life drawing version. I imagine anyone who's seen kelp in and out of water would get the correct impression
- groceryheist 3y agoThanks for pointing this out. It would be nice to have a public domain or creative-commons licensed image to use instead.
- pyinstallwoes 3y agoIf only there was evidence indeed