Cubism

Having just read the article in full then rereading Starling's post......I'm pretty sure he also didn't read it (...or at least understand it).

No stress Zelly....according to the good folk at Project Camelot Jesus will be here in 1 to 5 years to clean up all Nibiru's mess ;o

Geez MO. Starting at 99 cents??? Can't you set a higher reserve price? I know you'll get a few bids but just to cover your ass?

Some root grafts... Zellys LW Texana Astro asterias f/nudum Astro asterias struggling to break through the callous

Me too......TPC x Juuls

Tried but I don't have access to that site/journal

All my seedlings died off at a couple of centimeters, which would have been entirely through my lack of skill unfortunately. If you have enough to spare I'd love another crack at these too Glaukus. Great work and well done on your success with these mate!

Oh fuck no. Always such a cool guy to converse with. We've lost another of the good ones....be in peace brother.

Look forward to seeing the progress pics whatever you decide convergence, gonna be an interesting loph either way.

Mine took something like two months to sprout I think, I assume theyre just slower than caapi. I can't imagine the wings matter much as in nature they aint gonna have anyone to clip them off for them, and they've survived up until now, and the wings would assist in spreading seed further anyway. Theyre cool plants though and my one seems to grow quicker than my caapi seedlings too. Well done though mate, hope ya get a nice chunky vine from em.

Hey EG. There's a few pics of Paradeyes on the previous page in this thread.

Happy bro.... it's a FREE giveaway. Have patience ;) I can personally vouch for Horsey being an absolutely top bloke who has sent me a few things from the UK to Oz for no other reason than he's such a nice guy. I'm sure many other members would agree with me on that too.

Doesn't indica have the three pronged leaves, rather than the heart shaped ones in the pic???

I know fuck all about Australia Post but I do know that xmas time is pretty bloody busy at post offices. Hopefully all the missing letters are just mixed up with the shitloads of christmas cards and stuff also getting delivered right now and will turn up in time for a nice xmas surprise. As for my seeds, got pretty much 100% germination except for lumberjackus x TPM which is taking a lil longer but getting there nonetheless. Thanks again Nitro!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Much praise to our God of the Freaks!!!

Update Seems to be anything upto 7 or 8 pups forming (2 main ones and lots of small periphery ones) And heres another done at the same time. Was perfectly upright, but in the last week started tilting and now has a hair just poking through the most bulging part of the union (not visible in pic)

Could also be a polygenic trait too eg. where the TPM genetic contribution is what pushes it past the threshold for phenotype variation, which makes it much harder to analyse compared with a simple monogenic trait.

There's also an oz company selling predatory nematodes if your interested. No too expensive either. Can't remember the company name but if you Google the product name "gnatnem" you'll find it.

Por favor

All good dude. I ain't even close to being a scientist either. I just like brain stuff

Haha was just typing out a long response when you posted this. Wouldn't have a clue about the university but thats not entirely relevant, the research methods and integrity are what matters. It is standard practice to use students and course credits. Apart from being prohibitively expensive to source outside participants every single study )Unis have dozens if not hundreds of these studies at any one time), it is also one of the standards in Psych faculties that all 1st year students participate in research in order to learn about the process and be introduced to the world most psych non-clinicians will be working in, so thats not dodgy at all. Same goes for paying participants. Sample size could have been bigger sure, but all studies have limitations, funding and time is limited, and really 2 or 3 hundred participants is not such a bad sample. 20 participants would be an unreliable sample size. And either way, neither reason you state gives cause to label it pseudo science. If they were an issue, which they aren't, it would simply be a flawed study and widely rejected (which it still may end up being) (This is what I was about to post before I saw your reply DB) Just read the whole article so heres my 2 cents. 1- It is perfectly valid psychological research with no glaringly obvious flaws. It is however a correlational study, so no where are they saying "this" causes "that", they are simply investigating relationships between differences in cognition and being receptive to statements from the likes of Chopra. 2- Cognition is not intelligence, although they are intrinsically related, but it is not judging people or calling them stupid for their beliefs, it's just a way of further understanding thought processes in regards to how we recieve and evaluate the information we take in from our environment. 3- It clearly distinguishes the differences between generally bullshitting with your mates and "pseudo profound bullshit". 4- To put it simply, its just a study of how different levels of analytical/critical thinking skills impact how receptive we are to certain information - in this case Chopra style "new age" statements. 5 - An extreme real life example of how this might be relevant to people - a parent of a child suffering from, say, cancer, refuses to take doctors advice on treatment and instead follows the advice of fasting, herbal teas, coffee enemas etc etc from their "spiritual guru" and the child, who could have been treated and possibly cured, instead dies an agonising death. 6- A less extreme example would be to go to somewhere like a Chemist Warehouse any day of the week and look at the huge numbers of people wasting money on vitamins (which usually contain far higher doses than your body is capable of meabolising, if indeed effectve at all) I think the problem with these things is that people tend to take it as a threat to their beliefs, attitudes, understanding or whatever without truly understanding the point of the research, especially when fairly insignificant research such as this makes it into the news, simply because journalists, I assume, know that half the people will latch on to this as some sort of proof to their beliefs, and the other half who disagree will use it to reject science, psychology [**insert almnost any other analytical discipline***] etc etc etc. Finally just to emphasize, correlational research investigates relationships, not causes. Nowhere does it say "you must be dumb to believe bullshit" and neither does it comment on the value (or lack thereof) of pseudo profound bullshit. It's just investigating how the mind works and how different forms of cognition lead to differing beliefs. And to finish, research in psychology isn't about labelling things as bullshit or anything else, its simply about attempting to further understand how the mind works, which is very much a grey area. **Sorry for the long winded reply but I'm a Neuroscience and Psych Science student so I love this stuff.

DB - can you explain why you think its a pseudo scientific study? (honest question, still haven't got around to reading past the second page of the article yet)

Just read about this last night. Thx for posting the article yeti.

Pretty cool cross for your first successful graft. Good on ya mate, congrats!

I farken love bioanthropology sagi. My personal fave early hominid has gotta be Paranthropus boisei, bit of an oddity but cool as. Here's a link to the text we used at uni. Heaps of good stuff and a good introduction to genetics, Mendelian inheritance, and microevolution etc too which might be interesting for some of the cactophiles here who seem to love dropping the word "gentics" into every second post ;) http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=487d9970797e310419ec8f501f484b61 Be warned though, you'll end up thinking of every primate as a mini human, even cute little tarsiers

I do get your point, and agree it is interesting, but...... ...this has nothing to do with genetic inheritence. Being that they are offshoots, they are all exactly the same genetically, as they are the one and the same organism. As the name implies, for 'genetic inheritence' you require interaction of the gametes (are they called gametes in plants?) of one parent plant fertilising the other, allowing "genes to be inherited". Or more simply, clones are clones, they don't inherit anything. Anywhoo convergence, I agree that it is very interesting, and if my knowledge was better, I might even understand why it is interesting but I dont hehe. So sorry if I distracted from the point you were making, just wanted to clear up the inheritence issue.