Comments on: Secret science

By: supersonic

supersonic — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:49:09 +0000

Wikipedia has only two short paragraphs about antireticular cytotoxic serum. Somebody has to do something about this.

By: The Rev. D.D.

The Rev. D.D. — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:58:18 +0000

I am indeed glad to hear it!

I think if anyone tried to take The Brain/Head That Wouldn’t Die seriously, I’d recommend immediate psychiatric help.

Coming from me, that’s saying a hell of a lot.

By: lyzard

lyzard — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:16:32 +0000

Actually, I think six comments on a possible typo in a seventy-five year old movie are probably sufficient.

Hopefully you’ll be glad to hear that there is more SITRW coming up. I guess the point is, those films are only here because of their science, so that’s what gets scrutinised; and because they are “realistic”, I’m obliged to take them more or less seriously. But then, the same is true of a hard SF film like Destination Moon.

The Brain That Wouldn’t Die, not so much.

By: The Rev. D.D.

The Rev. D.D. — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:36:32 +0000

Now that I’ve killed the lively conversation with my fatigue-induced prattling, I would just like to say that these little “SinRW” reviews are a bit of a treat, with their bigger-than-usual focus on the science in the films. They almost seem more…serious, somehow; less jokes, more down-n-dirty criticism on the science. They’re a nice counterpoint to your more traditional reviews, and as an unabashed science geek I always look forward to one of them.

By: The Rev. D.D.

The Rev. D.D. — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:14:45 +0000

“(Excuse me: they’ve been working on this how long? And it didn’t occur to them until now that the ticks’ hosts must have a natural immunity? And they call themselves scientists!)”

Hey! She (almost) said the title!

*cough*

I’ll just show myself out now.

By: Read MacGuirtose

Read MacGuirtose — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:21:30 +0000

Actually, yeah; on further consideration, that was almost certainly the intent; otherwise it’s far too much of a coincidence that their misspelling just happened to correspond to the correct Greek and Latin plurals. I’m still not convinced that it was ever really normal to pluralize scientific names, but even if it wasn’t, the fact that they actually managed to get those Greek and Latin plurals right wins them some points.

(By the way: in my investigation to double-check whether those were really the correct plural forms (which, as far as I can tell, they are), I looked up the component words and found they have a rather unusual meaning. It seems that Dermacentor venustus translates to something along the somewhat oxymoronic lines of “charming skin-pricker”…)

By: lyzard

lyzard — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:53:07 +0000

Because of the fact that one of the other spotted fever tick species (can’t remember which) was apparently once known as Dermacentores whatever, I went straight past the obvious interpretation, but Will is surely right about them meaning “there’s more than one in here”. I’ve never come across that usage either, but it may have been something accepted at the time.

By: Read MacGuirtose

Read MacGuirtose — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:32:11 +0000

(Whoops… technically that should be Homines sapientes… sorry; Latin declensions aren’t exactly my specialty…)

By: Read MacGuirtose

Read MacGuirtose — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:26:20 +0000

Besides, is it really common practice to pluralize scientific names like that? I mean, I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Homos sapientes or Tyrannosauri reges...

By: lyzard

lyzard — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:58:54 +0000

That’s the obvious reading, I guess, except that there do seem to be early instances of the use of Dermacentores as a genus in and of itself, although in different species.