1/10/2006: Cyclops kitten born
This AP news wire image was suggested by three different IotD readers, thanks! (Don't assume I've already seen something or that it's already been submitted... you never know.)
Can't possibly be true, I thought when I saw it -- it looks entirely fake. But it's a wire service image, and so it's has gone through *some* degree of real journalistic review. It became Yahoo's most popular image within hours.
They say this kitten was born this way, with one centered eye and no nose. They say they named it "Cy". They say it lived a day and then died. They say it was one of a litter of two and that the other kitten was normal and lived. They say the picture was "provided by the owner".
Snopes has yet to weigh in.
I don't know, and so this is presented with the thought that somebody has put together a pretty strong hoax, but... what do you think?
Let's hope the story doesn't end up like that of Polyphemus who was the son of Poseidon and the nymph Thoosa. He was the one-eyed giant Cyclops famous from the Odyssey, who imprisoned Odysseus and his men in a cave. Since Polyphemus was eating Odysseus' men, Odysseus was under some pressure to figure a way out, which he did. Odysseus tricked Polyphemus, poked out his eye, and got his remaining men out of the cave and into safety.
:eek:
Here's what he ended up like.
It sure looks fake to me, but I saw it in two different newspapers, so it must be true.
Let's hope the story doesn't end up like that of Polyphemus who was the son of Poseidon and the nymph Thoosa. He was the one-eyed giant Cyclops famous from the Odyssey, who imprisoned Odysseus and his men in a cave. Since Polyphemus was eating Odysseus' men, Odysseus was under some pressure to figure a way out, which he did. Odysseus tricked Polyphemus, poked out his eye, and got his remaining men out of the cave and into safety.
:eek:
Its not likely to because its a cat and its dead already, but well done for remembering your Greek history! :D
Aren't all kittens born with blue eyes?
Normally. But then, they're normally born with two eyes, as well. I'm still waiting on snopes' take.
A mixup at the sperm bank with Homer Simpsons 'genetic material'?
Aren't all kittens born with blue eyes?
and closed, too?
Blimey - I thought it was too soon to look on snopes to be honest. I'm finding it less creepy and more sad now that I know it's real....
It *was* too early to check Snopes - they posted their item between 9 and 11 am Eastern!
I didn't know this could actually happen, but it does give some context to the Greek legends, doesn't it? Weird-ass mysterious creature with one eye is born somewhere, tales of it filter around, pretty soon it's worked into the mystical stories as well.
Highjack. Are all white cats with blue eyes deaf? I know someone who had 2 and both
were deaf.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blue+eyed+cats+deafbusterb-yes.
I feel so sorry for that thing. Kind of reminds me of Leela...poor cyclops orphan girl.
busterb-yes.
Actually, busterb's link contained the answer...
[font=Arial][size=2]It is evident from those studies that blue eyed whites exhibit a higher incidence of deafness than do orange/green eyed whites or non-white cats! But not all blue eyed whites are deaf and here's why:-[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]There is a known link between white coat color, blue eyes and deafness - but since the coat and eye color can be caused by different genes it means that only some blue eyed whites are deaf. There is a gene/gene complex which causes white coat, blue eyes and deafness, but not all cats get their white coat and blue eyes from that particular gene, so not all white cats will be deaf. [/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]If the cat is a Foreign/Oriental White, it carries the gene for 'Siamese Blue Eyes' which is not linked to deafness (the gene for Siamese Blue Eyes is linked to cross-eyes instead). Siamese blue eyes have a reflective tapetum, but this is depigmented because the Siamese colour is caused by albinism. This depigmentation gives the red-eye with flash cameras. Random matings can mean that this gene sometimes appears in non Oriental-looking cats which have colorpoint cats in their ancestry.[/size][/font]
I didn't know this could actually happen, but it does give some context to the Greek legends, doesn't it? Weird-ass mysterious creature with one eye is born somewhere, tales of it filter around, pretty soon it's worked into the mystical stories as well.
I've also heard that the myth could have been started by
elephant skulls, which have a forehead socket where the trunk attaches.
It is *extremely* rare for deformities in mammals to be this perfectly symmetrical. I wouldn't be so amazed by a cyclopic cat that had one eye kind of slightly off to one side, sloped a bit or otherwise misshapen, but this one is too *perfect*.
I thought cats were born with their eyes closed?
The snopes article addresses that.
But the part of my brain that assesses "normal" and "okay" is insisting that the picture looks 'Shopped.
Oh please, let it turn out to be 'Shopped, so that I can sleep.
The snopes article addresses that.
But the part of my brain that assesses "normal" and "okay" is insisting that the picture looks 'Shopped.
Oh please, let it turn out to be 'Shopped, so that I can sleep.
What is really disturbing is that it occurs in 'mammals'. I have never heard of this in humans. Of course, I really don't want to.
It is *extremely* rare for deformities in mammals to be this perfectly symmetrical. I wouldn't be so amazed by a cyclopic cat that had one eye kind of slightly off to one side, sloped a bit or otherwise misshapen, but this one is too *perfect*.
It probably depends on how early the mutation kicks in. If it happens before the sides differentiate, left and right both receive the same incorrect instructions.
What is really disturbing is that it occurs in 'mammals'. I have never heard of this in humans. Of course, I really don't want to.
Too bad! See near the end of
this article:
It is also possible that the rare but occasional birth of malformed childs affected by [color=#0000ff]cyclopia[/color], a rare congenital [color=#0000ff]cephalic disorders[/color], could have inspired the legend.
The eye looks way to big. kittens eyes are nowhere near that size. They are tiny, blue, relfective, closed and even if thats two eyes mutated together it couldn't be that big!!
surely he should have frozen the kitten corpse for proof and study.
The eye looks way to big. kittens eyes are nowhere near that size. They are tiny, blue, relfective, closed and even if thats two eyes mutated together it couldn't be that big!!
I think it's more that the head is too small--I think the poor thing's just missing most of his skull and body, which happens to include one eye. It looks like he might be missing the other two legs as well.
I've seen a real cyclopic human baby, pickled in a jar. It was similar enough to this kitten picture to convince me that the kitten picture is real.
Considering how complicated the process is, between the sperm/egg and the finished product, it's a miracle any of them turn out "right". :3_eyes:
True. creation is amazing and complicated.. its ineviatable that it should stuff up sometimes. I just read that snopes thing said that the big eye thing is a symptom of the cyclops deformity(or whatever it is).
<i>It is *extremely* rare for deformities in mammals to be this perfectly symmetrical.</i>
And ....
<I>creation is amazing and complicated.. its ineviatable that it should stuff up sometimes. </i>
Actually I think the word you wanted to use (i.e. the word I would have use if I were you) was "evolution". As in "evolution is amazing and complicated". I realize that our difference in expression may be due to differences in political thought.
Howere, if we can agree to disagree about the proper word use in this instance (i.e creation/evolution), then I am in complete agreement with your statement.
[o.k. but seriously,have you read <a href="http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf">this opinion?</a> [warning! pdf]. It is AMAZING LAW, imho.]
I wonder if Ripley's wound up with the corpse.
Actually I think the word you wanted to use (i.e. the word I would have use if I were you) was "evolution". As in "evolution is amazing and complicated". I realize that our difference in expression may be due to differences in political thought.
I'm no expert on birth defects, but my understanding is that there are genetic birth defects (which you could call evolution) and birth defects caused by other factors like exposure to certain toxins during pregnancy. One of the links in the Snopes article says that this particular condition in farm animals is cause by the mother eating a certain plant during pregnancy. Such a birth defect wouldn't change the DNA of the fetus, it would just interrupt its development. Without a DNA change, the defect wouldn't be passed along to the offspring of the fetus (assuming the fetus lived and could reproduce.) It's not genetic, so it's not evolution.
[o.k. but seriously,have you read this opinion? [warning! pdf]. It is AMAZING LAW, imho.]
Meanwhile, on the other side of the
pond....
Im no expert either, but it seems to me that it is missing indeed like a strip of skull in the middle of the head! Thats propably why the eye is so big and there is no nose! Maybe even a part of the brain ....There are surely humans born like this, look at the years that came after the Tsjernobil disaster...we didnt get to see all those "things" that wer born...
There is a documentary called "
Chernobyl Heart" that shows a lot of the malformed children born after the meltdown.
I saw it on HBO. I have a very high tolerance for stuff, but this was difficult to watch.
edit to add:
HBO's description is much more comprehensiveIt's not genetic, so it's not evolution.
Well, there is such thing as a genetic succeptibility to outside factors. Allergies, for example.
My point is more along the lines of:
If you cut a dog's tail off, and then breed it, it will not produce puppies with short tails.
If a dog wears plutonium underwear, it may get a mutation of its sperm's DNA, and may have puppies with short tails.
In this case, according to the Snopes linked article, after many weeks of gestation, the fetus "has its tail cut off" when the mother is exposed to toxins which interrupt the development of the fetus. The DNA isn't altered, so the changes aren't a mutation that can be passed along to the next generation, the way evolution works.
Huge mistake: I did an image search for "cyclopia". The nightmares are going to last for weeks.
<i>It is *extremely* rare for deformities in mammals to be this perfectly symmetrical.</i>
And ....
<I>creation is amazing and complicated.. its ineviatable that it should stuff up sometimes. </i>
Actually I think the word you wanted to use (i.e. the word I would have use if I were you) was "evolution". As in "evolution is amazing and complicated". I realize that our difference in expression may be due to differences in political thought.
Howere, if we can agree to disagree about the proper word use in this instance (i.e creation/evolution), then I am in complete agreement with your statement.
No, the sperm/egg combining to make a new critter is creation. The changes to that type of critter over generations is evolution.
Unfortunately those two words have become so politically charged they are both being misused way too often. :)
Unfortunately those two words have become so politically charged they are both being misused way too often.
(Bruce)
I tend to avoid both terms. Both interesting but way too broadly opinionated.
True. I only use (used) the word creation as just that.. something being created. No political or spiritual meaning behind it.
Evolution i dont see coming into this, i doubt that any day soon we will evolve into cyclopic races of humans, goats and felines. But a sixth digit on our hands that acts as our car key perhaps.. longer thumbs for text messaging... Molar teeth strong enough to open that stuck on nail polish bottle lid.... a can opener bone developed into our wrists for easy baked bean access on the road.. now THATS what I'm talkin bout!!
And a finger long enough to find the G-spot. :blush:
As a quick note to defend my original point. The definition of "cyclopia" that Snopes links to includes this bit.
Cyclopia and milder forms of the same developmental disorder result from holoprosencephaly which is a failure of the embryonic forebrain to subdivide properly. (The embryonic forebrain is normally responsible for inducing the development of the orbits.) Chromosome abnormalities (such as trisomy 13) and gene mutations can disrupt this process.
further research reveals this tidbit.
What causes holoprosencephaly?
The cause of HPE is currently unknown. Often, no specific cause can be identified. Suggested risk factors include maternal diabetes, infections during pregnancy (syphilis, toxoplasmosis, rubella, herpes, cytomegalovirus), and various drugs taken during pregnancy (alcohol, aspirin, lithium, thorazine, anticonvulsants, hormones, retinoic acid). Women with previous pregnancy loss and first trimester bleeding are also more likely to have a child diagnosed with HPE.
Although many children with HPE have normal chromosomes, specific chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in some patients. There is evidence that in some families, HPE is inherited (autosomal dominant as well as autosomal or X-linked recessive inheritance).
Several genes have been identified that play a role in holoprosencephaly.
[<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/hpe/about/">source</a>]So I think it's safe to say there there is a non-zero chance that what we've seen here today is one of the many, many, many failures along the road to more robust organisms.
As to conception being creation, well, we can parse words all day long...but let's not.
And I realize that the original writer of the word did not mean to use it in a religious manner, but I had just finished reading that opinion when this pic popped up in my RSS feed, so the connotation was very top of mind in my own personal universe.
The fact that this seems to be a mammalian disorder would seem, IMHO, to give more weight to a genetic element, as all us warm bloods share common traits (i.e. DNA), and I don't know many pill-popping alcoholic cats.
peace,
-W
so if evolution is going to come in to the equation, wouldn't that mean that it would, by definition, have to start happening more often? because THAT is a scary thought.
Only if it conferred some advantage. Which doesn't seem likely.
Anyone think it may be a by-product of evolution? throw a stone in a pond and nothing in it is left undisturbed in some way. The same rules apply in the genome of any animal. Whatever gene is next to the one that gets broken/switched/lost that causes this may be related to the one that's getting passed down through mammals that survive. Hell, there are diseases caused by a piece of DNA breaking off of one allele and getting attached to another. It all happens in patterns.
In time, bloodlines will either stomp this out, or cycloptic kitties will be saved, nurtured, and stabilised by intrusive humans, and become the next American celebrity pet fad.
That's exactly it, though it could also involve an evironmental factor interacting with the genetics. For example, as mentioned previously, the mother eating a plant that contained a certain toxin.
The ways evolution could be involved in that case are, for example:
1) Animals who dislike the taste of the plant reproduce more successfully, eventually most of the population avoids it.
2) Animals which are less succeptible to the toxin reproduce more successfully, eventually most of the population can eat the plant without problems
Welcome to the Cellar, flesh golem.
My point is more along the lines of:
If you cut a dog's tail off, and then breed it, it will not produce puppies with short tails.
If you cut off the tails of 100 generations of 100 lines of the same breed of dog, wouldn't they eventually start evolving shorter tails? I thought that was one of the basic tenets of evolutionary science -- that the environment can make us change over time. Like back when we were apes, we started standing upright to see over the tall grass, and it stuck.
I'm really not joking.
No, the tail size is written in the DNA. But if you neutered the dogs with long tails, and only bred the short-tailed ones, after a few generations, they would all have short tails. If you tried to breed them for shorter and shorter tails, eventually they would have no tail.
All dogs are the same species -- even the chihuahua and the great dane. They've simply been bred for specific purposes for a few hundred years. But if the dane has sex with the huahua, they will have a litter of dogs.
snip~
If you tried to breed them for shorter and shorter tails, eventually they would have no tail.~/snip
yeaaaaah, but then we'd all have to look at their assholes all the time, and what fun would that be? I mean really.
Don't you have cats at the Lumberjinx homestead?
* * *
But if the dane has sex with the huahua, they will have a litter of dogs.
As long as the dane is the female. Otherwise, there may be some rupturing issues.
If you cut off the tails of 100 generations of 100 lines of the same breed of dog, wouldn't they eventually start evolving shorter tails? I thought that was one of the basic tenets of evolutionary science -- that the environment can make us change over time. Like back when we were apes, we started standing upright to see over the tall grass, and it stuck.
I'm really not joking.
No matter how many generations of women get their ears pierced, they won't be born with the holes. For evolution to happen, the change has to be in the DNA, and DNA isn't affected by injuries (radiation excepted, not that radiation effects are predictable). Evolution happens if a dog happens to have a short tail, and that somehow lets it have more babies. The next generation of dogs would then have a slightly larger percentage of short-tail dogs in its population, who would have a few more babies than average, further increasing the percentage of short-tail dogs in the next generation population. Eventually, they are the vast majority, and the species has evolved.
Here's a thought experiment relating to your example - Let's assume a predator that loves dog tail. If it sees a pack of dogs, it tries to bite off a tail. If it succeeds, that dog has a chance of getting an infection and dieing. Therefore, dogs with long tails attract more attacks, and have a correspondingly high death rate. Short tails are hard to get a hold on, so they fare better, and a mutant dog with no tail will escape unscathed.
But in a clinical trial, if you snip off the tails of some dogs, and then make sure each one survives the procedure and has the same number of babies, those babies will have roughly the same range of tail sizes as the parent generation, no matter how many generations you continue the experiment for.
As long as the dane is the female. Otherwise, there may be some rupturing issues.
Like
this?Yeah, but a great dane is considerably more than twice the size of a chihuahua, and dogs have multiple births as a general rule...
...And someday, thousands of years from now, anthropologists will assume that as a society we worshipped a mythical cyclops cat, whose all-seeing eye governed our daily lives.
...And someday, thousands of years from now, anthropologists will assume that as a society we worshipped a mythical cyclops cat, whose all-seeing eye governed our daily lives.
you mean we don't?
D'OH!
you mean we don't?
Of course we do!
And who modded IotD down on the educational scores. I've learned more useless greek info (unless there are hot greek girls reading this) and bio / genetics in the last few moments than I picked up in school.
Maybe you could offer the BS in IotD as a degree program.
Well, lt that be a lesson to you. :smashfrea
I can clearly see that it's fake. Beside, kittens that young don't even have their eyes open, simple fact. The originator of the hoax should be turned into a cyclops.
Welcome to the Cellar, AureliusVin. :)
You're saying you don't buy all the explanations of why the eye is open, like no eyelids?
I can clearly see that it's fake. Beside, kittens that young don't even have their eyes open, simple fact. The originator of the hoax should be turned into a cyclops.
Maybe you'll believe it
now ;)
Yes hello everyone, happy to be here! I guess the Capn is right, cool then!
Welcome to the Cellar, AureliusVin.
[From the Boston Globe:]
Famous one-eyed kitten to go on display
April 5, 2006
GRANBY, N.Y. --The one-eyed, noseless kitten that inspired an international debate last year over whether it was a hoax is coming to a new museum of oddities in central New York.
The museum founder, who believes in creationism, said the kitten is meant to launch another debate about how science and religion intersect.
The Oregon woman who owned the kitten said she turned down Ripley's Believe it or Not! and sold the remains to John Adolfi of Granby because she liked his religious reasons for wanting them.
"We didn't want Cy becoming a joke or part of a personal collection," Traci Allen said. "But John was so heartfelt, you could tell he was genuine and sincere."
Adolfi would not say how much he paid for the kitten, named Cy, for Cyclops. He said he plans to have it embalmed Wednesday at a local funeral home.
The kitten died in December, a day after being born. Veterinarians in Oregon said it suffered from a rare disorder called holoprosencephaly.
Cy will be displayed in a glass jar in the Lost World Museum, which Adolfi hopes to open in nearby Phoenix this fall.
Other exhibits will include giant plants and eggs, deformed animal remains and archaeological finds, Adolfi said.
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/04/05/famous_one_eyed_kitten_to_go_on_display/?p1=MEWell_Pos2The museum founder, who believes in creationism, said the kitten is meant to launch another debate about how science and religion intersect.
Huh? Does he think it was caused by witches? Isn't that the standard religious explanation for deformed animals?
:fsm:
"We didn't want Cy becoming a joke or part of a personal collection," Traci Allen said.
Yeah Tracy didn't want their precious kitten to become a joke but named it Cy.
The kitten was a special part of the family so she sold it.
Cy's not the joke, Tracy is. :eyebrow:
Don't forget; first she preserved it somehow for three months, then she sold it.
@jinx
When I was a little girl. We had a white cat with blue eyes. She had 3 black polka dots on the top of her head. When she had a litter of kittens they were white and born with either 1,2 or 3 black polka dots on the top of their head.
I remember because I kissed every one. Was the oddest sight.
I hesitate to post
this, because it's a bit gross, but there was a recent birth in India of a human cyclops. The baby was still alive after 7 days, and doctors thought it might survive.
The Indian cyclops baby was still alive as of 11 days old. Wired magazine has done an
article about it. They think the mom took some cancer medication that is known to cause birth defects when she went to a fertility clinic for fertilitytreatment. The story is a little unclear, but the plot line is similar to The Constant Gardener, where drug companies do unethical clinical trials in poor people in the third world in exchange for basic healthcare.
Here's a very
hi res picture of the baby. I won't post it into the thread, because it's disturbing. Poor thing.
I've seen that kid's
Father. :mg:
![hi res picture]("http://blog.wired.com/oneeyed_child/IMG_0535.JPG"){kind=link}