▲ 49 points
back
46 comments
> turtles had the misfortune in the nineteenth century of pleasing the palates of wealthy Europeans and Americans, who found the gelatinous “green fat” under the turtle’s shell a particular delicacy [...] Wealthy men in New York expressed their passion for turtle meat by joining “turtle clubs,” convening each season for meals in which the reptile’s flesh formed the center of every course—soups, steaks, chowders, and salads
Wow, what an interesting fad. I'm curious about what turtle tastes like, and if it has any comparisons with fatty tuna (otoro) or wagyu.
Edit: Like veal, apparently: https://reason.com/2010/03/09/sea-turtle-tastes-like-veal/. Also, according to the article, farming may be a sustainable source of sea turtle meat.
> Green sea turtles have a relatively slow growth rate because of the low nutritional value of their diet. Body fat turns green because of the consumed vegetation.[61] This diet shift has an effect on the green turtle's skull morphology.[63] Their serrated jaw helps them chew algae and sea grasses.[64] Most adult sea turtles are strictly herbivorous.[61]
They might not be very efficient for farming for food without some breeding perhaps.
During the Age of Discovery, live sea turtles were captured and stored in the hulls of ships as a source of fresh protein. Because of their slow metabolism, turtles can live a long time while tightly packed in the hull.
Sailors would gather female turtles when they nested on shore. It is my understanding that some coral fringed islands that served as turtle nesting sites had a channel blown out of the reef using explosives. These channels are still used for the main pier and modern boat traffic.
Same story in China, where turtles disappeared millenia ago after being hunted for making dishes. Interestingly, they were also used as a writing support.
If you post something intriguing, such as about being a "writing support", please provide a link! It's sounds so interesting.
How The Giant Tortoise Got Its Name... not turtle but you know
Another BBC QI clip:
The article is an excerpt from a new book. However, this is only made clear at the very end of the article.
So, once more, I'm led to read an advertisement for somebody's book under the guise of well, something that's not an advertisement.
..It gives me an idea for a film script, where the protagonist has a chance encounter with an attractive person, goes through a series of mishaps and life-changing adventures that bond them together, then at the end finds out that it's all been sponsored by ACME Corps to sell him toothpaste.
Well, now you're doing it... (advertising your next movie) :P
You might also be interested in the 2010 movie The Joneses ...
Warning: link contains spoilers
You might also be interested in the 1957 movie "A King in New York" ...
not a film script, and no advertising, but you may enjoy "if on a winter's night a traveler"[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_on_a_winter%27s_night_a_tra...
Yeah that's on my to-read list. When I'm dead, I'll read ten thousand books a day.
I like this clip from a QI episode where they discuss if there is such a thing called as fish (as per Stephen Jay Gould)
Particularly like David Mitchell and Sean Lock (or as a comment spells his last name Locke)
Yes! This is where the No Such Thing as a Fish podcast derives it’s name. Interesting, fun facts/discussion.
That’s nothing
How many people know what Kingdom a barnacle, a sponge, coral, or kelp belongs to.
Goose barnacles are a fun example, because they were used to claim that the goose was fish rather than fowl and hence it was the only meat to be allowed during lent.
The catholic church also classified beaver as a fish for the same reason.
No one ever will if people will continue to invent new kingdoms: the answer for the kelp changed a few years ago.
Barnacles obviously came from Xen after the Resonance Cascade
Obviously turtles are partially insects because they have exoskeletons. /s
Quote attributed to Freeman Dyson (of "Dyson sphere" fame):
> When I was a boy in England long ago, people who traveled on trains with dogs had to pay for a dog ticket. The question arose whether I needed to buy a dog ticket when I was traveling with a tortoise. The conductor on the train gave me the answer: "Cats is dogs and rabbits is dogs but tortoises is insects and travel free according."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7236984-when-i-was-a-boy-in...
Why /s?
Anyway, turtles float. Spaceship re-entry vehicles float. Coincidence? There are no sharp edges on turtle shells, showing they've evolved to produce a detached shock front. I think that makes a convincing case that turtles are from space. Nothing else looks like them[0] on this planet, further buttressing my argument.
[0] Tortoises don't count.
Insects are animals too.
Or are they fish?
No, fish are insects.
Counterpoint for downvoters, the Silverfish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverfish
Note that while you correctly point out that the Silverfish is a fish, its close relative the woodlouse is in fact a type of wood, and therefore part of the vegetable kingdom.
Turns out ontologies are confusing and probably can be some of complete, consistent, coherent or correspond to common sense but not all of the above. Whenever these types of debates come up (eg "Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?" or indeed any "Is x a type of y?") I'm reminded of Borges[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevole...
The title reminds me about myself in first grade in school , I asked the teacher if a bat is a bird or animal and she responded "it is a mammal" but she failed to explain what it mean and in my mind I thought that mammal is something that is half bird half animal.
I'm sure taxonomists would agree that a turtle on land is an animal whereas a turtle in the sea with fin type legs is a fish.
Fish are animals.
No taxonomist agrees with that.
As the article notes, the title comes from a newspaper piece of the time that reflected "confusion about some basic biological concepts".
Are fish not animals? Thanks a lot American Public School System.
If you read through the entire article, that is part of the point. It's an interesting take on how the judicial system was used in the 1800s with animal cruelty.
Fish don’t actually exist ;)
Wonderful book on the topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50887097-why-fish-don-t-...
...or "fish" is synonymous with "chordata". I'm happy to call myself a fish.
I teach my kids this. its the only reasonable interpretation.
Plus "reptile" is "amniota", making us reptiles.
Well, I thought it was just the crappy reservation school that miseducated me, but I guess we both get to blame government classification for tradition and economics. A scarier subject you will not find. One of my favorite threads on HN has government classifications run to the absurd [edit] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12781157 [/edit]
Extending animal rights laws to fish would be a pretty impactful decision.
So would extending them to farm animals. (I'm aware there are ostensible protections for farm animals, but they offer very little protection even if they were consistently enforced. Animals raised for food are often explicitly exempted from animal protections.)
As do the bulls in bullfighting. They have no rights or protection against torture. All those laws are only good as long as they do not interfere with human behavior. They only have rights as long as it is not uncomfortable for us.
Sounds like the Human Rights Act in New Zealand, and probably lots of countries. You're not allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, age, etc. except for all the cases where people routinely do discriminate in those ways. It pretty much just encoded the existing societal norms rather than actually changing anything.
Impact meaning, good for the environment? I hear again and again that some parts of the sea are nearly empty.
As the article that you didn't read notes, the title comes from a newspaper piece of the time that reflected "confusion about some basic biological concepts".
Fish are actually made from soil. When it slips from the riverbank into the water it, becomes a fish. At least, this theory plus history is the reason catholics may eat fish on their no-meat Fridays.
I thought the fish eating was economic policy to support the fisherman.