Many readers of this blog have encountered these; I certainly have, but I've never seen a macro photograph of them. Ponder what you think they might be, before seeing the answer below the fold...
These "trichomes" are projections on the surface of a cucumber; the little points are "40 times thinner than a sewing needle*" and contain cucurbitacin - a toxic substance that deters herbivores (and punishes gardeners who don't wear gloves).
* (I dislike phraseology that describes things as "X times smaller" or "X times less," but will defer discussion to some later date.
This photo received Honorable Mention at the 2011 International Science & Engineering Visual Challenge. Via The Guardian.
I knew trichomes as the lovely brown powder that collects at the bottom of your grinder.
ReplyDeleteI guess different plants have adapted them for different uses!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kief
:.)
DeleteWow! Do squash have these as well? Perhaps this explains the rash I inevitably get when working with my squash and cucumber plants!
ReplyDelete"I dislike phraseology that describes things as "X times smaller" or "X times less," but will defer discussion to some later date. "
ReplyDeleteI'm interested.
I don't like to hear, for example "Texas is two times smaller than Quebec," because there is no "one times smaller." It should be "Texas is half as big as Quebec."
DeleteSimilarly, "two times larger than..." can be interpreted as either twice as big or three times as big.
With a quick Google, I found this in a math text:
Since six is three times as much as two, it
is tempting to say that two is three times less than
six. Two is definitely less than six and their ratio is
definitely that of three to one. But if two were
three times less than six, then six should be three
times more than two. Recall that six is three times
as much as two – two times more than two. ‘Times
less than’ is an inverted form of ‘times more than’
– not ‘times as much’. This error is more common
in speech than in writing. This error is a variation
on error 6.
Maybe I'm being a grammar Nazi...
Ha! I agree completely, and love the example. An unnecessary confusion added to our spoken lives.
DeleteHOWEVER... I object to the bandying about of the term "Nazi"... it's a long time ago, I have no direct personal link to the events of WWII, but I'm still not ready for the "oh ho ho" when it comes to that part of history. Why, it makes me at least ten times more upset than bad grammar!
Sigh. About a week ago I received a polite but firm reprimand for using the word "rape" to describe the assault on our planet's oceans by fishing fleets -
ReplyDeletehttp://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/01/ongoing-rape-of-our-oceans.html
The best discussion of "nazi" snowclones I've seen is in Arnold Zwicky's blog:
http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/x-nazi/
He notes that the term reached the OED several years ago, defined as -
hyperbolically. A person who is perceived to be authoritarian, autocratic, or inflexible; one who seeks to impose his or her views upon others. Usu. derogatory.
I do understand your concern, however.
I believe hyperbolic references are a strong trend in our desensitized society unfortunately. And I agree, I have trouble with accepting casual references to things of such a serious and grave nature. It simply seems beyond hyperbole, reaching into the realm of too disturbing a reference to use.
ReplyDeleteThese are the trends of our lingo, and will exist, but I think it's worth making a notation, and hoping for something a bit less extreme in our common usage.
I think "rape" is used excessively in reference as well quite often, but things such as what you brought to light regarding marine life just may justify such provocative statements. Actually, I think they do, not just for the shock, but the for the truth of the matter being comparable in a moral / ethical sense.
So it seems like "than" means that you should be subtracting and "as" means you should be multiplying?
ReplyDeleteFascinating, I'd never thought of how this is abused in sloppy journalism. As if I needed more reasons to get up in arms! But now I'll be watching for this.
My objection is more to do with the cavalier assumptions on dimensions. If you say Alaska is twice as big as Quebec, it's pretty obvious you're talking about area. But if you wanted to take advantage of the ambiguity and essentially mislead your audience, you could compare width and come up with a different number. People are generally horribly sloppy when it comes to specifying whether they're talking about length, area, or volume, because there is an "assumed" unit that is appropriate to the object (states are generally though of as flat, like maps) but other sorts of objects are not obviously flat or 3D.
Then again, maybe "big" always means "area" ?? Maybe, but in a science article, even journalists writing for lay audiences should be more precise than that. It's not hard. You just need to think!