Humanities desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 2[edit]

(heraldy question) What attitude would be used for pterosaurs and raptors?[edit]

--Not-bot (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely rather low because birds first had to develope the needed, adapted skills and senses, like exeptional sharp sight and good isolation against cold, befor it could start to make sense to fly in high altitudes. --Kharon (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is this where you ment to put this? Not-bot (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Rereading the question i found i was lost and i still am, unable to make (my own or any)sense of it again. --Kharon (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In heraldry, the attitude is the position in which an animal stands, sits or lies on the coat of arms - things like rampant, couchant, etc. Any animal (or, more correctly, beast) could be put in any possible attitude, as long as it was acceptable to the family concerned and the court of heralds. Not that I have ever seen any prehistoric beasts so used (assuming that the raptors intended are the dinosaur kind, and not the modern birds). Wymspen (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But would the creatures I listed be considered birds or beasts in heraldic terms? Not-bot (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not-bot -- I don't see why the terms used for birds ("volant" etc.) couldn't be also applied to pterosaurs (see "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" Chapter 14). As for dinosaurs that stood on four feet, the same terms that apply to four-legged animals ("passant") could be applied to them (see "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" Chapter 12). The only special challenge that dinosaurs would pose, as far as I can see, is those whose basic normal standing posture was with two feet and the tail on the ground, but you might call that "rampant"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, could a pterosaur use the attitudes of beasts? Not-bot (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do eagles actually spread like spread eagles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that where you meant to put this? Not-bot (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You're asking whether a pterosaur could use some particular attitude. I'm asking the same about eagles. Where does it say heraldic creatures have to drawn with "realistic" attitudes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaurs were winged creatures, so I would assume that they could be depicted in the same attitudes that any other winged creatures are depicted. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no tail draggining in the Tyrannosauridae

The "dragging the tail on the ground" pose has been out-of-style since the Seventies, although you may still see it in popular fiction. Evidence shows that tailbones and supporting tissues were designed to hold the tail straight and erect, to balance the head, and perhaps, in certain sauropods and ornithischians, to serve as whips or weapons. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that two-legged dinosaurs didn't have their tails on the ground when moving, but I assumed that at least some of them would have the tail propped on the ground in a kind of minimum-energy standing rest position. If they didn't, then that would mean that two-legged dinosaurs could be a bit like wingless birds for the purpose of heraldic attitudes... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Segnosaurus, a Therizinosaur evolved for reaching high forage

@AnonMoos: I have seen depictions of Therizinosauridae, a singular group of highly-derived theropod dinosaurs which resemble giant sloths with giraffe necks, and which presumably grazed from high branches, reconstructed as propping themselves up on their tails when feeding. (For the scale of these giants, keep in mind that their claws were each a meter long.) A quick read through our articles on various members of the family did not address this directly. They seem to have walked like most therapods, but a tripod stance when reaching for forage seems an obvious strategy. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(heraldy question) What attitude is closest to 'wings on the ground'?[edit]

Not-bot (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting on eggs? --Kharon (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You’re asking about a heraldry term. The position an animal is emblazoned in is called its attitude. Some of the specific attitude terms apply to specific creatures, and most of them apply to beasts: creatures with four legs.

You may be asking about birds; but you also may be asking about mythological creatures with wings, like the griffin.

I am not aware of any position that places the wings on the ground. But the terms for bird wings include elevated (show wing tips up) and inverted (show wing tips tucked back)

I think you’re probably looking for inverted. - Nunh-huh 19:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is still thinking of the pterosaurs from the previous question, and the way they are depicted with wings folded and resting on the ground as forelimbs. The problem is that if something has never been used in heraldry, there is no agreed way of depicting it - so anything could be devised as long as the college of heralds (or whatever national body covers this) is happy with it. The closes current term would probably be "overt" - which describes a bird standing in its normal resting position on the ground - a pterosaur would look very different, but the position would be equivalemn. -- 22:25, 2 December 2017 Wymspen

(heraldy questions) What would a disarmed pterosaur look like? Can you have a bird perched on another perched bird? What would an ouroborus nowed look like?[edit]

Not-bot (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would it look like if you spelled "heraldry" correctly? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, heraldy here is an adjective, synonymous with the more common heraldish. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes! We should all have known that! Actually, the OED has it as an obsolete spelling of the noun, first used in 1390 (spelt heraldie) and last used in Fool in 1747. Dbfirs 22:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A disarmed pterosaur would look the same as any other pterosaur... only without the assault rifle. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the NRA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Rare-Bird Association? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blue spread-eagle is about as rare as they come. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to know that there is at least one example of a coat of arms featuring a (non-avian) dinosaur: http://www.ernestjournal.co.uk/blog/2015/6/23/the-maidstone-iguanodon Iapetus (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Heraldry question) Would a pterosaur supporter have its wings on the shield?[edit]

KingOfBirbs (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no extant or past college of heraldry (such as the English College of Arms) has any registerred arms regarding pterosaurs, this and literally all of your questions regarding the use of them in arms is literally unanswerable. If you want your answers, your just going to have to make them up. There are no rules at all. If you want some rules, then follow the standards set for other winged creatures, such as birds. Otherwise, there's no where to send you to find information because your asking about things which, as yet, do not exist. --Jayron 32 13:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this user is the same as Not-Bot, and his account name was changed by an admin as non-compliant, with the warning that further disruptive editting would lead to blocks. I have consolidated this question from below since it is by the same user on a live topic. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a comprehensive guide:[1]. 92.8.221.62 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the particular guide is based on the rules of English heraldry. Different traditions (French, German, Eastern European, Italian, Scottish, Irish, etc.) will have different rules. --Jayron 32 19:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a snap federal election in the US[edit]

Are there any circumstances in which a US federal election to Congress or the Presidency could be held outside the normal sequence, or would that be unconstitutional? I know there are special elections if an individual member of Congress needs to be replaced, but I'm asking about a snap election for many if not all the seats at once. Thank you. 82.53.56.191 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, snap elections do not exist in the US. All members of congress serve fixed terms. See Article One of the United States Constitution, which explicitly defines the terms of representatives (2 years) and senators (6 years). Billhpike (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, special elections to U.S. Congress do occur when a member leaves mid-term, see Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_4:_Vacancies. A a current example of this is Jeff Sessions being appointed Attorney General, resulting in the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP already mentioned that. He's talking about general elections, like they do in the UK or other parliamentary systesm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And belated apologies to Billhpike for the incorrect correction.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is likewise no such provision for the president. United States presidential line of succession discusses the general topic, but the succession law's constitutionality is disputed, and there's no direct provision for what happens if everyone possibly in line dies at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for "the succession law's constitutionality is disputed", in view of Article II, Section 1, paragraph 6, which is still in effect to the extent not superseded by the 25th Amendment. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article I linked, and you'll find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "disputed" in the article. I should have searched for "raised questions", thanks. Also, the concerns only refer to some aspects of the law, not the whole of it. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some over-the-top Democratic pundits [2] have suggested that Roy Moore could be removed immediately after being elected by a Senate expulsion by 2/3 vote. To me this appears to invite a slippery slope to an out-and-out constitutional crisis where, if any one party gets more than 2/3 of Senate seats, they move to immediately expel all others from the Senate. The original writers of the constitution did not foresee partisanship, so there would seem to be no way to prevent this from becoming an ongoing situation where all members of any other party are expelled before being seated. (The Senate only puts 1/3 of its membership up for election each two years. Supposing a backlash and decreasing popularity for the party that owns the Senate, it is not clear to me whether the expulsions could legally be juggled to keep seating and expelling Senators in a staggered pattern, but given the corruption of one-party rule and noting the Senate role in seating Supreme Court justices, I would speculate that the whole system could indeed degenerate into worthless special elections and purges.

That invites the other situation, a Constitutional Convention (United States), which has already been called for by some states, and which could occur and do, well, anything. Of course, in such a toxic partisan environment -- or even the slightly less toxic partisanship we have now -- I would not expect them to do anything good. Wnt (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's always bothered me too, in the abstract, that either house could start expelling members just because they don't like the way they expect them to vote. But no system is ever going to be foolproof against that sort of thing. Perhaps remarkably, it does not seem to have ever happened, yet. (Once a procedure with such implications gets started, there's a clear correlation between how members vote and whether they agree with the subject politically. But so far there's always been some plausible excuse for getting it started, even the impeachment of Andrew Johnson — the Tenure of Office Act has been adjudged unconstitutional in retrospect, but I'm not sure it was so clear at the time.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"that either house could start expelling members just because they don't like the way they expect them to vote. ... Perhaps remarkably, it does not seem to have ever happened, yet." Observation by a non-American. Partisanship aside, neither major party in the United States is homogenous, and there were always variations in ideological stance between party factions or between the regions the politicians were representing. The likelihood of everyone within a party co-operating to pull this off is quite diminished, when it requires political rivalries and in-fighting to cease for a lengthy period. Dimadick (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my perception from the U.S. There have been a large number of party line votes lately; it is an exception for even one or two Senators to defect from what they are told. Especially in the Republicans, a long-time and apparently well-regarded Senator like Arlen Specter can end up being tossed aside for a faceless replacement after just one or two dissents. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specter was "tossed aside" by the people of his state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to search for old news, but my recollection is that after one or two key votes the Republicans began talking about pulling financial support from Specter, leading him to take the rather desperate tack of trying to switch parties completely, at which point he ended up as middle-of-the-roadkill. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utter bollocks. Spector was not "tossed aside" by the Republicans. He switched parties with gusto; saying it himself in this video in the first 10 seconds! "My change in potty will enable me to be ree-eh-leck-tehd." This is up there with Bud Dwyer's on-air suicide and Nixon's "I am Not a Crook" moments in Delaware Valley politics. I'd mention some NJ governors eternal moments of shame, but they are all still alive. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specter's problem was that he had grown too moderate for the Republican party, but a lot of Democrats had never forgiven him for his role in helping force Clarence Thomas onto the supreme court... AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specter was always seen as a RINO, and he had not become more "moderate" in any way. What broke the camel's back was his becoming the 60th vote, and only Republican vote in favor of bringing the Obamacare bill to cloture. See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215379-specter-says-obama-ditched-him-after-he-provided-60th-vote-to-pass-health-law. Specter's own polling showed he would lose to a Republican primary challenger, hence his craven "My change in potty will enable me to be ree-eh-leck-tehd" strategy. With his naked ambition revealed by his total lack of principle (important to the GOP base) and loyalty (important to the Democratic leadership) no one trusted him and he went down in flames he himself had lit. He didn't lose in a general election because the GOP abandoned him. He abandoned the GOP and never got to the general election. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, he would have died in office had he been elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would a "RINO" have defended Clarence Thomas so staunchly [I should have said "vigorously"]? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't answer a question that requires comments on a BLP. Your assumption is that if an opportunist or grandstander like Specter is occasionally principled, he's not an opportunist; but grandstanding was Specter's specialty. It's simply not possible to be consistently evil/unprincipled/skeptical/irrational. In any case, a verbatim search "Arlen Specter" "RINO" gets 57,900 GHITS. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specter is dead. In any case, I gather that you're saying he wasn't necessarily a Thomas supporter, he merely saw an opportunity to make a bigger name for himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specter is dead, but Thomas isn't, and your mentioning him meant you saw that as a special case, one which I can't address without commenting on living people. But yes, Specter was a grandstander, like other living people whom I also won't mention. His story reminds me of the foolish King Lear who fell for his fawning daughters, or of Richard III as both betrayer and betrayed. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better analogy is the advice to secretaries who want to wed their married bosses; if he'll cheat on his wife with you, he'll cheat on you when you're his wife. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or as the saying goes, "When a man marries his mistress it creates a vacancy." 92.8.221.62 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some would see Specter as a voice of reason toward the pursuit of sound investment of science as was done in bygone days, rather than as the creature of a party management. Really, I think that the current batch of Republicans ought to be made to wear fry cook uniforms complete with dippy hats, to remind the irate voters who give in to the temptation to beg for mercy that they can only do what their owners tell them to. If you don't want your taxes to go up to give a billionaire heir an exemption, make a billion dollars and go buy your own Senator! Wnt (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is way off topic, but the issue was not whether one agreed with Specter on any policy, but the view by both parties that he was all about himself and could not be trusted. If we had a no-party system, that would be one thing. But we don't. So it's another. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]