Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Bingley Of Mice and Elephants - 02/02/06 04:48 AM
I was reading the section on elephants from Pliny the Elder's Natural History the other day, and came across this:

Of all other living creatures, they cannot abide a mouse or a rat, and if they perceive that their provander lying in the manger, tast and sent never so little of them, they refuse it and will not touch it.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny8.html

I'm sure we've all seen cartoons of elephants terrified of mice. Have any experiments been done to see if it is actually true that elephants hate rodents?
Posted By: Faldage Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/02/06 12:03 PM
When in doubt snopes it.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Of Mice and Elephants - 02/02/06 02:06 PM
I've always found it funny that Ganesha's divine vehicle is a mouse.
Posted By: Bingley Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/03/06 03:31 AM
It's interesting that the snopes article says that it may be the sound of something that they can't really see very well running round their feet that spooks elephants. Ancient sources also claim that elephants do not like pigs' squeals.

The ancient sources are very clear in indicating that pigs were used to deter elephants in battle. Pliny writes “elephants are scared by the smallest squeal of a pig; and when wounded and frightened, they always give ground (VIII, 1.27).” Aelian says that “it was by these squealing pigs, they say, that the Romans turned to flight the elephants of Pyrrhus and won a glorious victory (1,38).” The most frequently told tale concerning pigs as a counter weapon to elephants may be represented by Aelian and Polyaenus: when Antigonas Gonatas was besieging Megara, the Megarians succeeded in routing the besiegers’ elephants by dousing pigs in oil and igniting them and then turning them loose against the elephants. One might object that this is hardly a fair test of the elephant’s reaction to pigs per se; but both authors specifically state that the beasts were startled by the squeal rather than by the fire. The flames were simply a means of guaranteeing a satisfactory squeal. As a final instance of the effect of pigs on elephants in battle, it is feasible to examine Procopius’ account of events at Edessa. The city was being besieged by Chosroes, and an elephant with many soldiers on its back was driven up to the city wall and towered over it. The resourceful inhabitants thrust a squealing pig over the wall and into the face of the looming elephant. The result was panic and retreat.19 Altogether the pig seems to have been quite an effective weapon against the elephant, although its use does not appear to have been widespread in the ancient world.

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/elephants-war-greek.htm
Posted By: themilum Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/04/06 01:38 PM
I have a good buddy (Britt Thompson) who was an elephant trainer at the Denver Zoo for several years and I asked him if his elephants were afraid of mice. He said no, his elephants weren't afraid of mice, his elephants were afraid of nothing in this world but his hook.

I told him I thought hooks were cruel and he said I was a dumbass and said that sharp, steel, 3" long, hooks were necessary to penetrate their tough, thick, skin in order to get their full attention.

Britt attested to their remarkable, but selective, memories, but doubted that the squeals of mice were even heard. Elephants, he said, can hear sounds phenomenally well in the lower tonal ranges (beyond what we can hear). Low frequencies carry best at long distances and low-pitched calls allow the elephants to keep in touch with other elephants many miles away. Sorta like whales.

Note: (This information was remembered by me from a conversation I had 25 years ago. I have a memory like an elephant.)
Posted By: belMarduk Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/05/06 07:07 PM
Wow Bingley, it seems that those folks were overly fond of firing, and flinging, pigs. I don't know enough about elephants to say for sure, but I'd think that the elephants would have been frightened of any animal tearing towards them in flames or flung towards their face.


Milum, I saw a documentary on elephants that told of this ability to hear sound in the low frequencies. It was interesting how they found herds miles apart communicating with one-another.
Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/05/06 07:18 PM
the cool thing is that part of the sound of an elephant voice is below what humans can hear. them and rhinos, hippos, and gators, I think.
Posted By: belMarduk Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/05/06 07:42 PM
Maybe it's the barrel chests. I mean, hippos and rhinos all have that big barrel of a chest and deep sounds come from the chest. I don't know how crocs fit in though.
Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: Of Mice and Then … - 02/05/06 07:56 PM
actually, I would think it has to do with the size of their vocal apparatus.
Posted By: Poss Re: Of Mice and Then … - 06/28/06 07:34 AM
Hello all. I've just found this great forum and the topic piqued my interest. I work in a zoo and I don't think any of our elephants have problems with rodents. The keepers have found squashed rat and mice carcasses in the bedding straw.

Some of our orangs, on the other hand, are terrified of rats and possums.
Posted By: consuelo Re: Of Mice and Then … - 06/28/06 11:42 AM
Welcome aBoard, Poss. Work in a zoo, do you? Funny, most of my workplaces have had a strong resemblance to zoos.
Posted By: of troy Re: Of Mice and Then … - 06/28/06 02:47 PM
Re: Funny, most of my workplaces have had a strong resemblance to zoos.

consuelo, it just such usage of the word zoo that is leading the NY Zoological society to avoid the use of the term ZOO --they are actually trying to change the name of NY's zoos.

its a pretty thankless task, (every one says bronx zoo, not the NY Zoological society park
---------------------------------------------------------
elephants, in zoos collections, are becoming a rarity. most enlightened zoos realize that elephants are social animals, and keeping only one or two elephants borders on cruelty. most zoo's don't have the facilities to have a herd--(for most of my life the bronx zoo has always had at least 3 indian elephants, often as many as 8) and most zoo's are not replacing elephants (as they die) or trading them away while still in relatively good health, to zoos that can maintain groups.

Tus was the matriarch for a while, at the bronx zoo.(i used to know many of the elephants by sight (and name). i don't go to the zoo as often these days, and some of the animals (siblings) have been traded to other zoos to prevent inbreding.
happy and grumpy (sibling) are gone.
Posted By: Bingley Re: Of Mice and Then … - 06/29/06 04:19 AM
If one says oases rather than oasises, algae rather than algas, criteria rather than criterions, and bureaux rather than bureaus, why not orang-orang rather than orangs?
Posted By: Faldage Re: Of Mice and Then … - 06/29/06 09:15 AM
Because we are at least vaguely familiar with the languages that give us the plurals oases, algae, criteria, and even, heaven forfend, bureaux (although most folk I know don't use *that plural). Some of us know enough Japanese to know that the plural of haiku is haiku but you will still find a lot of people who use haikus.
Posted By: musick Re: Of Mice and Then … - 07/10/06 12:58 AM
This makes me want to go hear operae. A whole ring full.
Posted By: Faldage Re: Of Mice and Then … - 07/10/06 10:46 AM
Quote:

This makes me want to go hear operae. A whole ring full.




Except opera is already a plural. The singular is opus.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Of rats in hats … - 07/10/06 01:05 PM
Except opera is already a plural. The singular is opus.

Except in English where opera is singular, and its plural is operas. (Cf. virus and viruses: in Latin there is no plural of virus.)
Posted By: musick Of ropes and opes - 07/10/06 05:33 PM
From Snopes :

Yet another group of Latin nouns in -us follow different rules. If you're still taking notes, these form another subset of the third declension. Typically in these cases the singular does not include the full root. The plural of genus is genera (not genuses and certainly not geni). In English the plural of opus (meaning a creative work) is opera (or opuses). In Latin, opera was originally the plural of opus, but in both Latin and English, opera can correctly be treated as a singular. In English the plural of opera (the thing that ain't over till the fat lady sings) is operas. When opera is used as a singular in Latin (where it meant more of less the same thing as opus), the correct plural is operae, but this is rarely if ever used in English.

Just trying to make operae a little less <ahem> rare, fellas.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: ops de opere - 07/10/06 06:12 PM
In English the plural of opera (the thing that ain't over till the fat lady sings) is operas. When opera is used as a singular in Latin (where it meant more of less the same thing as opus), the correct plural is operae, but this is rarely if ever used in English.

I stand corrected. I should've known. Some neuter plurals in Greek are treated as singular in form. There's still no plural in Latin for virus 'poison' or pelagus 'sea'.
Posted By: Faldage Re: ops de opere - 07/11/06 10:01 PM
One of the definitions for opera in Lewis and Short is pains. Pretty much what it means in English, as far as I see it.
© Wordsmith.org