1259: "Bee Orchid"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

humanalien
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:11 pm UTC
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby humanalien » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:10 am UTC

drovek wrote:So that orchid is the Speaker of those bees?

(That reference just somehow hit me :P )



I am the orchid, I speak for the bees...
Image

I discovered a distance between two points that's shorter than a straight line! It's called a straight line segment.

http://www.abbyandnorma.com
http://www.erikahammerschmidt.com

mschmidt62
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:09 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby mschmidt62 » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:29 am UTC

The specificity of bee pollinators for Ophrys species is apparently controversial: http://www.kew.org/kewscientist/ks_33.pdf

There is an evolutionary lesson here: despite the complexity of nature, stories that have an emotional impact on humans are more likely to be transmitted, remembered, and illustrated by cartoonists, even if they may not be the most true. Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:55 am UTC

mschmidt62 wrote:Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.

Yes, we developed storytelling in order to attract giant story-loving beesnakes that would then pollinate us. Right?
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:31 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
mschmidt62 wrote:Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.

Yes, we developed storytelling in order to attract giant story-loving beesnakes that would then pollinate us. Right?


You won't laugh once the beesnakes return from their slumber...

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby StClair » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:53 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:Anyone remember the title or author?

I've read the story, and it's in my library somewhere, but I don't recall either offhand.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:53 am UTC

Klear wrote:
BlitzGirl wrote:
mschmidt62 wrote:Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.

Yes, we developed storytelling in order to attract giant story-loving beesnakes that would then pollinate us. Right?

You won't laugh once the beesnakes return from their slumber...

If we tell only awful stories, will that work as beesnake repellent?
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:02 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
Klear wrote:
BlitzGirl wrote:
mschmidt62 wrote:Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.

Yes, we developed storytelling in order to attract giant story-loving beesnakes that would then pollinate us. Right?

You won't laugh once the beesnakes return from their slumber...

If we tell only awful stories, will that work as beesnake repellent?

It might, but who would want to live in a world like that? We are truly doomed. Doomed by beesnakes.

Ptarr
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:06 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Ptarr » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

KarenRei wrote:It's great sentiment, but not accurate. As was pointed out, the flower still gets visited by bees
Well, that assumes that the comic takes place in the (outside) present. It might very well take place in the future, after the bees in question are extinct.

User avatar
JohnTheWysard
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:38 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby JohnTheWysard » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:23 pm UTC

Antior wrote:First of all, what do they mean by female bees? As far as I know, males (drones) only try to mate with the queen. Female worker bees aren't able to sexually reproduce.

Secondly, I think this is the first time Randall shows a realistic drawing since the first few dozen comics. And it looks good!


Honeybees are social, with drones and queens and workers; quite a few other species are too, though honeybees take it to an extreme. But most species of bees (including orchid bees) are solitary, with each female mating and laying her own eggs.

Mimicry is very common in the insect world, and pretty much always leads to rapid evolution, frequent extinctions and very bushy family trees.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
da Doctah wrote:
orthogon wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Reminds me of the Arthur C Clarke short story "History Lesson", in which space travelers arrive on Earth countless eons after humanity has died out, and are able to find only a single surviving reel of movie film (no fossils, no ruined cities, nothing) to tell them who we were and how we lived.

And at the end of the story, it's revealed to be
Spoiler:
a Mickey Mouse cartoon.

FTFY. Great story, but hiding spoilers is so what spoiler tags are for! (Who am I kidding, I would never have resisted the temptation...)
If you've managed to resist for the 64 years since the story was published, you don't deserve spoiler tags.
Managing to resist and just now learning the story even existed are two very different things.

Yes, you don't get to omit a spoiler tag for the ending of any literary classic because it was written between 200 and 2000 years ago because no one alive today was born far enough back to read it when it first came out.

Spoilers are a complex and emotional topic - on the one hand, there are things like the identity of Luke Skywalker's father, or the ending of King Kong that are just part of Western culture - there are even things like the meaning of "Rosebud" where more people know the spoiler than know the work it spoils... Then there are things like the fact Lester Burnham dies in American Beauty, or Romeo and Juliet both die in the Shakespeare play that never qualify as spoilers simply because they are revealed openly - in R&J, the 8th line of the play tells you that they die, and it's repeated a couple of lines later; in American Beauty, it's revealed in the introductory voice-over. And then there are things which are genuine shock twists, where knowing it in advance spoils it for you - how and why Lester Burnham dies; who committed The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

Wikipedia has washed its hands of spoilers after some editors got overzealous (possibly to make a point) - though there is still some common-sense applied in terms of requiring the spoiler to actually serve a purpose - while still acknowledging that there is a broader consensus online (and, to an extent, offline) that unmarked spoilers are unkind....

Personally, I try to be aware of what information might act as a spoiler, and avoid discussing it directly.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Klear » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:12 pm UTC

Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

Also, I think I'll start avoiding this thread from now on on the off chance someone decides to be an asshole =)

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Coyoty » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:22 pm UTC

mschmidt62 wrote:The specificity of bee pollinators for Ophrys species is apparently controversial: http://www.kew.org/kewscientist/ks_33.pdf

There is an evolutionary lesson here: despite the complexity of nature, stories that have an emotional impact on humans are more likely to be transmitted, remembered, and illustrated by cartoonists, even if they may not be the most true. Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.


Which do you prefer, the story of the tiger or the story of the brutish cook?

mircadius
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:05 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby mircadius » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:10 am UTC

Given that the flower most resembling the bee in question would receive the bee's visits, couldn't one argue that the flower is a self portrait? Painted by an extinct bee in the medium of a living plant...
Just as cool to me.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:34 am UTC

Ptarr wrote:
KarenRei wrote:It's great sentiment, but not accurate. As was pointed out, the flower still gets visited by bees
Well, that assumes that the comic takes place in the (outside) present. It might very well take place in the future, after the bees in question are extinct.

The comic describes self-pollination as a "last-ditch" strategy to delay their inevitable doom. But these flowers are already self-pollinating, so that description is still necessarily inaccurate. Besides, self-pollination isn't necessarily a bad evolutionary strategy.

The comic is just wrong. The portrait is still nice, though.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:04 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Ptarr wrote:
KarenRei wrote:It's great sentiment, but not accurate. As was pointed out, the flower still gets visited by bees
Well, that assumes that the comic takes place in the (outside) present. It might very well take place in the future, after the bees in question are extinct.

The comic describes self-pollination as a "last-ditch" strategy to delay their inevitable doom. But these flowers are already self-pollinating, so that description is still necessarily inaccurate. Besides, self-pollination isn't necessarily a bad evolutionary strategy.

The comic is just wrong. The portrait is still nice, though.


Self-pollination is like cloning - it works, and given enough time, it allows evolution as errors accumulate, but it loses to cross-pollination as an evolutionary strategy since the latter allows beneficial traits from multiple lines to be combined, rather than requiring all beneficial errors to occur in the same line of descent.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:17 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Self-pollination is like cloning - it works, and given enough time, it allows evolution as errors accumulate, but it loses to cross-pollination as an evolutionary strategy since the latter allows beneficial traits from multiple lines to be combined, rather than requiring all beneficial errors to occur in the same line of descent.
Which is why no organisms reproduce asexually, I take it?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Znirk
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:47 am UTC
Location: ZZ9 plural Z α

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Znirk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:13 am UTC

Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby orthogon » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:12 am UTC

Znirk wrote:
Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

My wife accidentally spoiled Fight Club for me when we were at the Hollywood Costume exhibition at the V&A. She was very apologetic: she thought I'd seen it and I didn't even know there was a twist otherwise I might have warned her not to tell me. I thought I might forget, which I did when somebody deliberately spoiled another film for me (I won't say which one because the twist is similar) - on that occasion I managed to watch the whole thing without remembering until the reveal.

I agree with rmsgrey that it's complex, and it's also quite personal. I have several friends who always flip to the back of a book to see how it ends; I can't see how they can do that and then plough through the whole book anyway. And I found this Guardian article on the subject quite interesting. It points out that even trailers often spoil their own movies these days; the idea seems to be that we don't expect to be surprised any more and watch films more like detached critics, knowingly admiring the screenplay, scenery and photography, rather than suspending disbelief and diving in. But, in spite of developing an addiction to tvtropes, I still consume fiction in the naive, old-fashioned way: I engage, the story takes on a kind of reality and I project myself onto the characters. I often don't even recognise the actors, even really famous ones. Often, somebody afterwards will say "I though Clint Eastwood was good", and I'll have to sheepishly ask "oh, which character was he playing?". So for me, spoilers really do spoil it. I don't really mind though, since there is far more fiction than I'll ever be able to consume; I'm just likely to cross Fight Club off my "Must See" list now. And whilst da Doctah might have overstated the case for the reasons others have pointed out, I do have some sympathy: when it comes to 2001:ASO, say, I should just watch the film already rather than keep putting it off and spending my time trying to avoid spoilers.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby elasto » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:35 am UTC

Znirk wrote:
Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

I think it's a classic, myself, one of the few films I've ever recommended someone to watch.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Kit. » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:37 am UTC

Znirk wrote:
Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

I wonder whether it's technically a spoiler...

elasto wrote:
Znirk wrote:If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

I think it's a classic, myself, one of the few films I've ever recommended someone to watch.

...oh, OK. So, it isn't.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby PM 2Ring » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:34 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:There's a SciFi short story out there somewhere in which humans land on some new planet and the first explorer (it's one of those planets which happens to have breathable air) finds a really really hot woman resting in some shrubbery. He has his way with her, but when he comes back for more, she's curled up and refuses any advances.

Turns out after a little, ahem, research, that it's a flower. And so on.

Anyone remember the title or author?


I remember that story. The plants emitted a hallucinogenic pheromone/odour so the mimicry didn't have to be very good. And IIRC, the story ended with a quote from a book by some famous naturalist about an orchid that's pollinated via pseudocopulation, although the insect might have been a beetle rather than a bee.

I think the author of that story might be Larry Niven. I've tried to confirm it with Google, but no luck so far.

...

Solitary bees are cool. We have beautiful blue banded bees in our garden, as well as European honey bees.

In most common hive bee species, worker bees are normally infertile, but not always. However, they lay unfertilized eggs. (Bees, like most other Hymenoptera, are haplodiploid: females come from fertilized eggs, males from unfertilized eggs).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laying_worker_bee
A laying worker bee is a worker bee that lays unfertilized eggs usually in the absence of a queen bee.
[...]
Even in a normal hive, about 1% of workers have ovaries developed enough to lay eggs. However the usual number of the laid eggs is very small. Only eight eggs (seven moderately and one fully developed) were found after examining of 10,634 worker bees[2] (strong colony contains about 100,000). Workers eventually lay significant numbers of eggs only in queenless colonies.

Development of a laying worker bee

Laying workers develop in the absence of open brood as produced by a healthy adult queen. Normally, pheromones from the brood – known as brood recognition pheromones – prevent development of the workers' ovaries. Laying workers can develop after the colony's queen has been lost to swarming,[3] or in the presence of a failing queen who has yet to be superseded. The process of developing a laying worker usually takes weeks after the loss of the original queen. In adult laying workers there is an anatomic (and physiological) trade-off between the sizes of their more developed ovaries and their less developed food glands.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:25 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Self-pollination is like cloning - it works, and given enough time, it allows evolution as errors accumulate, but it loses to cross-pollination as an evolutionary strategy since the latter allows beneficial traits from multiple lines to be combined, rather than requiring all beneficial errors to occur in the same line of descent.
Which is why no organisms reproduce asexually, I take it?

Except for Namekians.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Self-pollination is like cloning - it works, and given enough time, it allows evolution as errors accumulate, but it loses to cross-pollination as an evolutionary strategy since the latter allows beneficial traits from multiple lines to be combined, rather than requiring all beneficial errors to occur in the same line of descent.
Which is why no organisms reproduce asexually, I take it?

Lots of organisms produce asexually, but a lot of them have strategies for sharing genes with their peers too - the choices aren't "sex and nothing else" or "cloning and nothing else"...

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:33 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Self-pollination is like cloning - it works, and given enough time, it allows evolution as errors accumulate, but it loses to cross-pollination as an evolutionary strategy since the latter allows beneficial traits from multiple lines to be combined, rather than requiring all beneficial errors to occur in the same line of descent.
Which is why no organisms reproduce asexually, I take it?

Lots of organisms produce asexually, but a lot of them have strategies for sharing genes with their peers too - the choices aren't "sex and nothing else" or "cloning and nothing else"...

I think you're missing the point.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:59 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:when it comes to 2001:ASO, say, I should just watch the film already rather than keep putting it off and spending my time trying to avoid spoilers.
Again, though, it's like I said: There's a difference between knowing about something and putting off seeing it while still expecting people not to ever spoil it, and not previously knowing something existed and being disappointed that some jerk spoiled it the very first time you heard about it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby dp2 » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:19 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Znirk wrote:
Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

My wife accidentally spoiled Fight Club for me when we were at the Hollywood Costume exhibition at the V&A. She was very apologetic: she thought I'd seen it and I didn't even know there was a twist otherwise I might have warned her not to tell me. I thought I might forget, which I did when somebody deliberately spoiled another film for me (I won't say which one because the twist is similar) - on that occasion I managed to watch the whole thing without remembering until the reveal.

I knew a guy who was once watching a certain well-known film* with his girlfriend. It was his first time seeing it but not hers. Halfway through, he jokingly said, "It would be awesome if this ended with them just driving off a cliff and dying." His girlfriend said, "Hey, you HAVE seen this!"

* I will withhold the name of the film to avoiding being the spoiler guy

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby dp2 » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:28 pm UTC

AlbertR713 wrote:
squonk wrote:So...someone close to Randall that painted that picture is dying?

Wow... I hadn't thought of it like that.

You must be new here. Any time the comic has a dark edge, you are to assume either Randall is about to quit writing the comic or his wife, a cancer survivor, is dying. You will always be wrong, but it is important that you think that.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Znirk wrote:
Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

My wife accidentally spoiled Fight Club for me when we were at the Hollywood Costume exhibition at the V&A. She was very apologetic: she thought I'd seen it and I didn't even know there was a twist otherwise I might have warned her not to tell me. I thought I might forget, which I did when somebody deliberately spoiled another film for me (I won't say which one because the twist is similar) - on that occasion I managed to watch the whole thing without remembering until the reveal.

I knew a guy who was once watching a certain well-known film* with his girlfriend. It was his first time seeing it but not hers. Halfway through, he jokingly said, "It would be awesome if this ended with them just driving off a cliff and dying." His girlfriend said, "Hey, you HAVE seen this!"

* I will withhold the name of the film to avoiding being the spoiler guy


They were watching Wayne's World 2? (warning: the ending for Wayne's World 2 names the film it blatantly rips off)

Blagonet
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:32 am UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Blagonet » Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:36 am UTC

Actually, I wouod have thought that the phrase about a painting by a dead flower is French Painter Hat Guy's misinterpretation of what the other person said, seeing as French Painter Hat Guy commonly misinterprets things (i.e., endless wings.)

QED.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3713
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby PM 2Ring » Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:37 am UTC

Blagonet wrote:French Painter Hat Guy

Beret Guy.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:50 pm UTC

Beret Guy gets most things wrong (see also 1117,) but he doesn't introduce the scientifically inaccurate parts here. I don't see what he's '"misinterpreting." It really is just a poetic way of putting what he's just been told.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Ephemeron
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Ephemeron » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:49 pm UTC

squonk wrote:So...someone close to Randall that painted that picture is dying?


I think I heard once that Randall's wife is called Rose.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Angelastic » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

Ephemeron wrote:
squonk wrote:So...someone close to Randall that painted that picture is dying?


I think I heard once that Randall's wife is called Rose.
Same here, but roses are not orchids; however, in medicine and ancient Greece, orchid means testicle. Oh me yarm Randall's testicles are dying! The jokes about [playpen] balls are only going to get worse!

ETA: Teehee, I didn't even realise it was my 600th post, and it wasn't even in the OTT, but I still said 'testicles'.
Last edited by Angelastic on Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby BlitzGirl » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:30 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:
Ephemeron wrote:
squonk wrote:So...someone close to Randall that painted that picture is dying?

I think I heard once that Randall's wife is called Rose.

Same here, but roses are not orchids; however, in medicine and ancient Greece, orchid means testicle. Gee Willikers Randall's testicles are dying! The jokes about [playpen] balls are only going to get worse!

I guess that means no more semencoffeebaconbabies...
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:30 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:Gee Willikers Randall's testicles are dying!

Either that or his wife's testicles are dying.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby addams » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:36 am UTC

mschmidt62 wrote:The specificity of bee pollinators for Ophrys species is apparently controversial: http://www.kew.org/kewscientist/ks_33.pdf

There is an evolutionary lesson here: despite the complexity of nature, stories that have an emotional impact on humans are more likely to be transmitted, remembered, and illustrated by cartoonists, even if they may not be the most true. Homo sapiens' preference for such stories probably tells us something about our own evolutionary history.

Yes. Story telling does tell us something about ourselves.

It is a mushy subject.
Lies get people laid and that does tend to stir up the genetic pool.

There are other kinds of stories, too.
The stories sing to the best of what we might be.

The stories the people of the US tell one another, frighten me.
They heard the stories on Mass Media and then transmit the stories.

Each teller of a story leaves a little of him or her self inside the story.
With such passion The People tell stories of Vigilantie Injustice.

A little romance does people a lot of good.
A portrait of a companion that is long gone.

The painting is done by a creature that can not know what it has done.
We can know. It means nothing to the Flower. It means nothing to the Bee.

It will leave an Adult Man with tears running down his face.
I know it is a simple Psychological Phenomenon. It is called Transference.

Where those tears fall on the earth, A Red Fern Grows.

Where do you think Ferns come from? You didn't know?
It is nice to be quite and think inside the Fern Forest.

Each kind of Fern is the Physical Manifastation of Human Grief.
The Sword Fern are a strong and sturdy kind of grief.
LIke Gettysberg.

The smaller more delicate Ferns come from a more delicate grief.
shhh. Even the air is brittle.

The Red Fern is a rare Fern. Treat it with respect.
Spoiler:
Silly; It's just a stupid plant.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby BlitzGirl » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:35 am UTC

addams wrote:The Red Fern is a rare Fern. Treat it with respect.
Spoiler:
Silly; It's just a stupid plant.

Spoiler:
It feasts on the bones of beloved hunting dogs. I'd watch out for those red ferns.
Last edited by BlitzGirl on Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:35 am UTC

Alice Hoffman spoiler.

Spoiler:
Or beloved bears. And babies.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby addams » Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:56 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Alice Hoffman spoiler.

Spoiler:
Or beloved bears. And babies.

“The weak are cruel. The strong have no need to be.”
― Alice Hoffman, The Foretelling
Said a different way:
"It takes great strength to be gentle."
HSU Nursing Staff

We have wandered Off Topic.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1259: "Bee Orchid"

Postby bmonk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Znirk wrote:
Klear wrote:Off topic: I haven't read or seen Fight Club yet, I know there is a twist, I know that everybody knows it, and somehow I've avoided spoiling it for myself. The trouble is, I'm never in a mood to watch the movie or read the book, but I intend to at some point.

If you're up for advice: Don't bother. Both the book and the movie are pretty lame.

My wife accidentally spoiled Fight Club for me when we were at the Hollywood Costume exhibition at the V&A. She was very apologetic: she thought I'd seen it and I didn't even know there was a twist otherwise I might have warned her not to tell me. I thought I might forget, which I did when somebody deliberately spoiled another film for me (I won't say which one because the twist is similar) - on that occasion I managed to watch the whole thing without remembering until the reveal.

I knew a guy who was once watching a certain well-known film* with his girlfriend. It was his first time seeing it but not hers. Halfway through, he jokingly said, "It would be awesome if this ended with them just driving off a cliff and dying." His girlfriend said, "Hey, you HAVE seen this!"

* I will withhold the name of the film to avoiding being the spoiler guy


Once I called the killer on a popular murder mystery show even before the show started. I jokingly said, "I'll bet it's the gardener." Then, for some reason, I added, "But that's too simple. It will turn out to be a long-lost relative." As it turned out, it was the gardener, who was a lost sister of the victim...


But to get back to the topic, more or less: Orchids were named that because of a certain resemblance of the flowers to human (female) organs, or so I am told. But that still does not explain how they evolved....
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests