The chestnuts are vestigial scent glands also, and horses, upon meeting each other will sniff each others chestnuts located on the forelegs. I have observed that horses will even examine a humans legs, by the inner knee, as if seeking chestnuts. When a mare is in season, the stallion will usually approach from the side and gently nibble the chestnuts on her hind legs to see if she is receptive. If she tolerates this attention without hooves flying, he will then escalate his courtship routine. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't suggest that this is a useful or safe technique with the female of the human species. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I read the scent theory in a google search. I also read that you can identify a horse by its chestnuts. There aren't two alike.
Possibly vestigial toes with a function. There's no certainty about their history, but plenty of evidence from observing horses closely, by those who worked with them in more natural settings. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In December, roasting on an open fire? My chestnuts arrive in the produce department a couple of weeks prior to Christmas. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can't help being bad; I'm drawn that way. (Points for successful reference identification. No points for imagining me in such an outfit. Unless it turns your crank.) AHA! I've just found a reason to move this to Bio and Genetics - which I will submit to Herc, and he will read, at some point. IF the ergot is - as appears to be the classical view - vestigial, and if it also functions in scent release...is this not then a spandrel? I ask because of some of the bitching a few years ago about the existence of spandrels, by someone whom I cannot remember who. I'm taking up Gould's line here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
I know what rye grain ergot is supposed to do...want to try it sometime... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From the link posted by GeoffP The evolutionary path of the horse is far from decided, so the above theory is as credible as any other as to the origin and purpose of the ergot in the horse. Good post GeoffP, IMO. In regard to the image posted by MacGyver1968 The primary function of the mammary glands one would expect to be for the nurturing of the offspring. To that purpose, the size of the gland is not necessarily indicative of the volume or quality of the milk potential. The fascination, among some cultures, with this visual aspect of the female anatomy remains another mystery yet to be solved, lol....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think fascination for boobs is pretty much widespread. it get's intensified here in hypocrytical puritane white north where some old fucks decided certain naturally occuring structures are evil and looking at them leads to sin, but even where they're all hanging out everywhere, they're still very much appreciated. And have always been. Graphic, pornographic, evil prehistoric sculptures, some people may call art, tell that story.-
I have yet to see a comprehensive demonstration that women with bigger boobs have relatively bigger kids, although I'm willing to sample extensively to test it. Science needs to know. PS: damn you, Mac.
Would that theory include surgically enhanced boobs, if not, then you once again formulated a sloppy scientific hypothesis.
Of course it wouldn't include surgically enhanced boobs! If we were discussing surgical enhancements, I'd be more interested in whether such boobs allowed women to capture older richer mates.
I'm thinking of some sort of on-board spring-loaded apparatus here...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perhaps the breast tissue could be lifted and adhesive netting concealed underneath...compressed air propellant, of course.
