I couldn't find an explanation of why one can't just put a real giraffe in a tank, fill it with water and "see what happens". (Obviously I suggest doing this in such a way that one can quickly rescue the giraffe in case it's not buoyant after all.)
It makes complete sense to me that most land mammals have at least rudimentary swimming capabilities, because it's probably selected for. Not very often, of course, but whenever there's a flood, all non-swimming animals in a region die at once, which is a lot of selection pressure.
I guess the trouble and expense outweighs the curiosity. In particular, I bet the intersection of people who have a spare giraffe and people who don't mind an ASPCA/PETA protest is very small.
Another example of an easily testable issue: Do people swim faster or slower in a more viscous fluid? Newton and Huygens, among others, argued back and forth over this, but no one bothered setting up an experiment until 2004. The paper went on to win an Ig Nobel Prize. (Answer: Viscosity doesn't seem to affect a person's swimming speed.)
He says: "In the case of the question "Can giraffes swim?", we just aren't able to use real giraffes, so our approach is - at the moment - the only one we can use to test it."
That made me laugh as well. I mean, you're right why don't they just put a giraffe in a tank? Of course that brings to mind imagery of a 19th (or earlier) century scientist that would likely not have any care for the animal's wellbeing.
I'd imagine it's a combination of two factors. Firstly cost and secondly public image. I'm guessing a giraffe tank would be quite unjustifiably expensive and I could well imagine a university funding board rejecting this idea purely from the bad PR potential of scientists killing of giraffes rather pointlessly.
A silly (& interesting) question, but good science journalism. What a difference it makes when the author actually knows and cares!
Is it just me, or are a lot of the animations and diagrams on Discovery channel just brain-dead? Very often, the geometry is wrong, or there are lots of places where the animator reveals subtle cluelessness. Contrast this to the diagrams in this article. The pictures themselves can spur "ah ha!" moments because they are based on real dynamics.
(Horses and dogs seem to exert effort to keep their heads above water. Here's why!)
Somebody told me when I was 17 that he was so smart he could "teach baby chickens to swim"
I spent 20 years wondering about chickens and their swimming ability, finally giving up. Why did I wonder so much? Because it was unsolved, it was a simple question, and everybody had a different opinion about the matter. You'd think that something that simple would be obvious. As Kahn said about a different thing He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up!
It is uniquely annoying.
During that process, however, which included blogging, diagramming various chicken breeds, and questions posed to experts, people told me that giraffes also could not swim. "You take a giraffe, drop him out of a helicopter over the ocean, and he'll drown"
I find this hard to believe, and without access to a helicopter or a giraffe, cannot say for sure. But scanning the article, I get to the end:
Unfortunately, we don't really know enough to be sure whether these distributional limits actually have anything to do with the ability or inability of giraffes to cross water.
I may get hit by a truck tomorrow, but at least I know that the computational fluid dynamics of giraffes, and perhaps chickens, will continue to be studied. One day, my friends, we will know the answer. :)
Wait, what? Twenty years of wondering and controversy and you didn’t even test it? It seems to me that you are rather interested in a good argument than a good answer :)
If I were to test this I would look at two things:
1. Can you teach chickens anything at all? (You want to explore the teachability of chickens first – if chickens drown in the second step and you find out that you can’t actually teach chickens anything meaningful you can already be pretty confident that teaching chickens to swim is impossible.)
2. How do “default” chickens behave when thrown into water?
2b. (If chickens drown when thrown into water:) How would you have to change their behavior if you wanted them to keep afloat? Is such a change within the scope of chickens’ teachability?
Seems like perfectly reasonable, straightforward testing to me. Something the Mythbusters could (should, actually!) do.
[+] [-] fh|16 years ago|reply
It makes complete sense to me that most land mammals have at least rudimentary swimming capabilities, because it's probably selected for. Not very often, of course, but whenever there's a flood, all non-swimming animals in a region die at once, which is a lot of selection pressure.
[+] [-] jcl|16 years ago|reply
Another example of an easily testable issue: Do people swim faster or slower in a more viscous fluid? Newton and Huygens, among others, argued back and forth over this, but no one bothered setting up an experiment until 2004. The paper went on to win an Ig Nobel Prize. (Answer: Viscosity doesn't seem to affect a person's swimming speed.)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040920/full/news040920-2.htm...
[+] [-] Tiktaalik|16 years ago|reply
That made me laugh as well. I mean, you're right why don't they just put a giraffe in a tank? Of course that brings to mind imagery of a 19th (or earlier) century scientist that would likely not have any care for the animal's wellbeing.
I'd imagine it's a combination of two factors. Firstly cost and secondly public image. I'm guessing a giraffe tank would be quite unjustifiably expensive and I could well imagine a university funding board rejecting this idea purely from the bad PR potential of scientists killing of giraffes rather pointlessly.
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dabent|16 years ago|reply
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Brown-et-al-2007_Gir...
I had always thought of all giraffes as having the same pattern.
[+] [-] stcredzero|16 years ago|reply
Is it just me, or are a lot of the animations and diagrams on Discovery channel just brain-dead? Very often, the geometry is wrong, or there are lots of places where the animator reveals subtle cluelessness. Contrast this to the diagrams in this article. The pictures themselves can spur "ah ha!" moments because they are based on real dynamics.
(Horses and dogs seem to exert effort to keep their heads above water. Here's why!)
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|16 years ago|reply
I spent 20 years wondering about chickens and their swimming ability, finally giving up. Why did I wonder so much? Because it was unsolved, it was a simple question, and everybody had a different opinion about the matter. You'd think that something that simple would be obvious. As Kahn said about a different thing He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up!
It is uniquely annoying.
During that process, however, which included blogging, diagramming various chicken breeds, and questions posed to experts, people told me that giraffes also could not swim. "You take a giraffe, drop him out of a helicopter over the ocean, and he'll drown"
I find this hard to believe, and without access to a helicopter or a giraffe, cannot say for sure. But scanning the article, I get to the end:
Unfortunately, we don't really know enough to be sure whether these distributional limits actually have anything to do with the ability or inability of giraffes to cross water.
I may get hit by a truck tomorrow, but at least I know that the computational fluid dynamics of giraffes, and perhaps chickens, will continue to be studied. One day, my friends, we will know the answer. :)
EDIT: Blog entry from five years ago this month: http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2005/06/can_chickens_...
[+] [-] ugh|16 years ago|reply
If I were to test this I would look at two things:
1. Can you teach chickens anything at all? (You want to explore the teachability of chickens first – if chickens drown in the second step and you find out that you can’t actually teach chickens anything meaningful you can already be pretty confident that teaching chickens to swim is impossible.)
2. How do “default” chickens behave when thrown into water?
2b. (If chickens drown when thrown into water:) How would you have to change their behavior if you wanted them to keep afloat? Is such a change within the scope of chickens’ teachability?
Seems like perfectly reasonable, straightforward testing to me. Something the Mythbusters could (should, actually!) do.
[+] [-] eande|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjmaxal|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forinti|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|16 years ago|reply
Really small ones would float.
NITPICK: They'd just skitter on the surface tension.
[+] [-] joshfinnie|16 years ago|reply