Reptile & Amphibian Forums

suppose this is actually with "wrong" forum, but did you folks hear about/see this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2007-09-27-two-headed-turtle_N.htm

wasn't thinking - it's easy enough to put it here

I�ll be honest...I�m not really crazy about mutant turtles. That�s not really even turtle...it�s a thing.

probably not really a mutant (unless you joking) - the one or two turtles in the pic are like human conjoined twins.

Nope...I said mutant and I meant mutant. I would also consider congenitally united twins an unfortunate mutation. What else is it?

A mutant is an organism that undergoes a mutation, aka a change in DNA, which would make it a heriditary condition. Conjoined twins would be an example of an abnormality, not a mutation, since no change in DNA occurs.

Here is an article about a similar conjoined turtle. In it Associate Professor of Biology Russell Burke of Hofstra University refers to it as a “mutation.”

Are you suggesting he’s wrong also?

At this point I’ll accept a simple, “I stand corrected.”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10022007/news/regionalnews/twin_turtle_shell_shock.htm

Actually, Russell Burke did not use the word "mutation" - the article's author did. I would hardly consider a writer at the NY Post an authority on the matter. From a biological standpoint, an incomplete division of the ovum is not a "mutation". And by extension, the resulting offspring is not a "mutant"...

Are you serious? It�s pretty darn clear that the information was directly from Russel Burke. But, ok, forget it. If that�s not enough this is from National Geographic News from December 26, 2006 in an article about reptilian evolution titled, �Two-Headed Reptile Fossil From Age of Dinosaurs Found.� In it Susan Evans an evolutionary biologist at University College London in England states,

"Two-headed mutants are fairly widely reported amongst modern reptiles...�

Yeah...and it�s in QUOTES. That�s right...two heads...two bodies...MUTANTS!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061226-two-heads.html

Actually, this is starting to annoy me a little bit. Lets just let it go, ok!? I�m right...that�s all. I�m also a little curious why some people are so hesitant to call a mutation EXACTLY what it is...a mutation.

A mutation by definition is a change in the DNA.
Twinning occurs when the DNA (over) replicate in the early stages of division. Twinning is not a mutation by definition. Co-joined twins are the incomplete replication of certain parts of the DNA and can be as simple as mearly sharing skin or as complicated as sharing vital organs. However the DNA did not mutate. The process of division went wrong somewhere in the DNA lattices and is thus an "incomplete cloning". The word mutation is used rather loosely when applied to explain incomplete cloning that the photo demonstrated. It is easier for the average person to understand and thus overused to try to explain things it doesn't.

I'm just a biology teacher, so correct me if you find this to be an error.

It�s amusing to me and a bit disturbing that the words of a renowned evolutionary biologist at a major university aren�t enough to settle this matter.

The claim that she was talking down to us little �average� people is just conjecture on your part. I personally don�t believe she was talking down to anyone when she used the word �mutant� especially considering the audience she was addressing. This wasn�t an article for People Magazine!

And yes, no offense, but of course I�ll take her words over those of an anonymous �biology teacher.�

But where are we going with this? Are we all supposed to call expert witnesses to the stand now? This is just ridiculous. OK...I�m striking the word �mutation� from the records! I never said it...let�s forget it. How about �aberration?� That two-headed thing is an aberration. I don�t like aberrations. OK? Lets all move on!

You would be well advised to heed your own advice and simply stand corrected. I think most of us would have let your comment slip without pointing out the inaccuracy if it weren't for your distasteful attitude.
Please note well that the word "mutation" is outside of Burke's quotation, it was not said by him. It's very clear. But this is neither here nor there, as someone else incorrectly using the word does not somehow then make it correct.
There is no room for opinion and subjectivity here. We have definitions for this very reason and conjoined twins are FAR outside of the biological definition of a "mutation". Why don't you look up the definition?
You are unquestionably incorrect. Deal with it.

...and please do not post anymore links of this word being incorrectly used as some misguided attempt at justifying your inaccuracies. Conjoined twins are not the result of a heritable genetic change and are thus not a mutation. End of story.

Here's a mutant for you:

OK,OK...I said FORGET about the word "mutation." Why can't we just move on? I was corrected for using the word but I think it's ridiculous to think that we can't speak casually around here. Do we all have to research every darn little thing we say? I REALLY meant "mutant" as a figure of speach. But who cares? I am now calling it an aberration because YOU are smarter (supposedly) than an evolutionary biologist at University College London in England who is consulted by National Geographic. Please don't confuse my being opinionated or inteligent,by the way, as having a bad attitude! Nice pic!

Sure, we should be able to engage in casual conversation here. The point where I took issue was when you said to another user, "At this point I'll accept a simple, 'I stand corrected.'" I found this incredibly smug and decided that it should be known that it is you who should be corrected. This has nothing do with your supposed intelligence, and everything to do with your poor attitude.
It is not a matter of who is "smarter," but the plain and simple correct usage of the word. I am a conservation biologist at the University of Guelph; does that make me "smarter"? What an asinine point to argue. But any intelligent person (be it a biologist in London, or in Guelph, or some anonymous old timer on an internet forum) would never argue that he/she is immune to making a mistake, and anyone who uses the word in this context is doing just that.
Moving on...

�Sure, we should be able to engage in casual conversation here.�
You might say that but you really don�t believe it. How can anyone just chat casually when self-appointed �smug police� like you are patrolling the beat. I was just sort of joking...I guess that doesn�t come through in type. You can call me smug but you come across rather sanctimonious yourself. Yes you do! Either way, for you to go on and on and on about it after I already showed that the use of the term was acceptable is just so unnecessary. Additionally, I find it very difficult to believe that you are biologist at ANY University. Well...than again...they gave Gore the Nobel Peace Prize so who�s to say that ANYTHING makes sense anymore. I don�t think my attitude is poor I just don�t think you like being challenged very much. Anyway, you�re not a bad person and I agree that we should move on. I already said that I would use the word �aberration� instead! Lets forget it. We just disagree and NOW we�re both starting to get a bit nasty...don�t you think?

If you stuck to the facts, you'd find there is very little room for argument. I think we have all seen that is not in your nature.

Why do you have to keep making little personal attacks? This isn’t about facts it’s about you trying to hang me on a technicality for some reason. For SOME reason it’s very important for you to prove to me that you are right and I’m not sure why. It comes down to this... if it’s not ok for me to use the word “mutant” meaning that thing is a freak or an oddity than why not? Why should I have to be corrected for speaking casually? I’m not applying for my doctorate in herpetology. Isn’t it possible for people who don’t care to sound like living text books to use a little hyperbole carte blanche without nerds like you correcting them? I mean I said forget about it anyway . . . I said I’d use a different word in the future when referring to mutants like that. Why isn’t that good enough for you? What is your problem for heaven’s sake!?

This is not about me, or any of the other users who took offence to your responses, being correct. This is about how you chose to belittle �Steve_5201� who was, in fact, correct. I realize he could have come to his own defence but this is a public forum and I am within my rights to take issue with your arrogance and stop the spread of misinformation. As mentioned, none of us would have kept this going if it weren�t for your belittling attitude.
�At this point I�ll accept a simple, �I stand corrected.��
�I�m right...that�s all.�
��I�ll take her words over those of an anonymous �biology teacher.��
Get the point? It�s your attitude that is at issue, not the fact that you are also incorrect. Stop playing the victim, as if we were the first to come out with the rude remarks.

I just can’t accept the fact that my little comment, "At this point I'll accept a simple, “I stand corrected”” Would get you THIS riled up. I already said I was just sort of joking...do you actually read my posts? I’m a little sarcastic sometimes. Does that me a bad person? And you ARE an “anonymous biology teacher!” I don’t know anything about you! We’re ALL anonymous to a degree. Why should THAT upset you? I don’t know your name...I can’t prove what you say is accurate. If you don’t like being called you “anonymous” than list all your personal data here...that’s simple enough! You’re a VERY egotistical person, apparently, who is intolerant of being challenged by anyone! I find it unlikely that a real biology teacher...or at least a decent one would get this wrapped up in such a silly debate. I would think you would have let it go a long time ago. I was using the word “mutant’ conversationally and so have many others in many places...hobbyist, writers and biologists. YOU, I guess, know better than ANY of them, right!? Or is it just that YOU are the one with the bad attitude. If you had a GOOD attitude you would have just agreed that it’s ok for me and several others to use “mutant” and you would have just moved on and not made a big fuss over it. Now just FORGET IT ALREADY! Go grade some biology papers or something!

...

:.:.

I'm sorry that you chose to make personal attacks on others for their insistence on the correct use of words. I did feel a bit "disturbed" by your comments, but I chose to ignore them until now.

RMD and Steve also tried to correct your out of context quotations. As teachers that is what we do. Hope you'll post something new on a different topic that will contribute positively instead of playing "victim" over this.

Steffke, I didn't know you were a biology teacher! That makes three of us in this forum who have biology-related degrees (RMB, you, and me).

What you guys think - or guess - that the digestive looks like or works like?

I can imagine any number of combos that would be possible. It would be fascinating to see an x-ray and a CATSCAN. I would love to have seen a plastron view as well. But we can't have everything......

2 headed red eared sliders aren't that rare really unless they live for any significant length of time. There are several preserved hatchling specimens offered every year on ebay.

The article didn't say if both heads feed. Sometimes only one will eat. It is interesting though. Thanks for posting it. I am going to show it to my students who are always fascinated by such oddities. We are just getting into meiosis and mitosis. Ideas of cloning and incomplete cloning are always hot topics! If you find any more articles like this send them my way.

Hmmm. I think it would be difficult to speculate. I would imagine that each turtle has a significant amount of separate upper digestive tract, but perhaps share some of the lower system. It would be neat to see it from different angles.

I think the little guy is incredibly cute! Is that the same pic that was in the GR Press recently?
-----
0.1.0 ornate box turtle
1.0.0 eastern box turtle
1.0.0 Yellow belly slider
0.1.0 Red belly cooter
0.1.0 Australian shepard
1.11.0 chickens
1.0.0 Dutch(rabbit)
3.2.0 children (do I still count the married ones?)
1.0.0 husband

I didn't see that one, but the USA Today article was from Norriston PA.

If you find an online link to the one you mentioned I'd like to see it too.

Yup, golfdiva, I first saw it because my dad clipped it our of the GR Press. I then did a little online search to find, I think, the very same article.

Gosh I posted that I'd seen all those 2 headed RES and THEN I saw this thread.
I actually wondered if both heads eat food & darn it I didn't think to ask the man who owned them when I was there. I wish I had.
I did however see one that looked like one turtle- it had one body, 4 legs then 2 heads.... I saw one head yawn & the other didn't.

Some of his turtles looked like the one in the photo, as if they were almost 2 turtles if you could just cut that carapace apart.

I also didn't ask the man why he wanted to have these animals maybe partially for the bucks- maybe for the joy of pet keeping? I dunno but to me the man looked like he was nearing 80 years of age.
Because he kept them in such wonderful condition I thought possibly he simply felt like if they can have a good life then they should be given one. It was very interesting to see them.
-----
PHRatz

I'm so envious that you actually saw them! I'll forgive you for not asking the questions, I think the shock of the sight of them all would have thrown me too.