Half-Male, Half-Female Fowl Explain Birds' Sex Determination 117
Kanan excerpts from a BBC report out of Scotland: "A study of sexually scrambled chickens suggests that sex in birds is determined in a radically different way from that in mammals. Researchers studied three chickens that appeared to be literally half-male and half-female, and found that nearly every cell in their bodies — from wattle to toe — has an inherent sex identity. This cell-by-cell sex orientation contrasts sharply with the situation in mammals, in which organism-wide sex identity is established through hormones."
Kanan also supplies this link to some pictures of the mixed-cell birds.
Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
So would one of these hermaphrodite chickens be called a half-cock?
I agree with the section "Clucking confusing."
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, when a flock of chickens suddenly loses it's rooster, the dominant female will sometimes act as a rooster. That isn't hormonal?
This does happen.
Apparently this is not all that common, that is, not every hen can become a henry, and perhaps TFA suggests the means by which this does happen when it does.
Apparently One in 10,000 hens can change sex [answers.com], usually in response to a gonad ceasing to function. One professor explained it this way: [angelfire.com]
"Yes a type of sex reversal does occur in poultry. Both a right and left ovary start to develop in the embryo but between day 7 and 9 of incubation the right gonad ceases to continue development. If in the adult, the left ovary is removed or fails to function the right gonad hypertrophies to become a testis-organ and thus "a male' instead of what was a hen."
The implication of this is with regard to TFA is that failure of one gonad cease development leads to the double expression of traits documented in the story.
So there is nothing new here that hasn't been known for some time with regard to chicken sex other than that the normal failure to enter stasis can lead to odd birds.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
So an XX or XY chromosome pairing in every cell of a mammal is nothing to do with gender?
Sex (noun) and gender are two distinct things. Sex is genetic, while gender is hormonal. Transgenered people are of one particular sex, and a different gender. Some animals can change, hormonally, based on non-genetic factors. They change their gender based on the presence or absence of certain members of a gender of their species being present in their population. Take out the males, and females become males. It's similar to the way that women living in the same home will eventually be on the same menstrual cycle. Non-genetic factors influence hormones, and gender is hormonal.
Have you ever noticed that in same-sex pairings, it is common for one member to act very masculine, and the other act very feminine, regardless of what the pair's actual sex is? It's my understanding that there is no hormonal difference, but one just adopts the behaviors of the other gender. This seems consistent with the idea of a chicken flock losing its rooster and a female acting as one without any hormonal changes. Now this is purely anecdotal, but I believe it to be accurate.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Sex (noun) and gender are two distinct things.
Well, no. Sex and gender identification are two different things.
Have you ever noticed that in same-sex pairings, it is common for one member to act very masculine, and the other act very feminine, regardless of what the pair's actual sex is?
Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. What you are speaking about is quite irrelevant to the discussion and has less to do with gender identification than emotional roles in relationships, which is an entirely different thing.
Why did the chicken cross the gender boundary? (Score:0)
To get to the other gestalt.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Funny)
If two sexually scrambled chickens get together, will one lay scrambled eggs?
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Since this seems to be the "joke" thread, allow me to put in my $0.02
I was on a farm doing research on genetic engineering and kept seeing something zip around at amazing speeds. I asked the farmer what it was and he told me it was chickens.
"See," he said, "the drumstick is everyone's favorite part of the chicken. So we engineered chickens with three legs. For every two chickens we sell, it's like we are selling three, leg-wise. It actually reduces waste since the factories don't find themselves with extra breasts and other crappy parts that they have to throw away or turn into chicken nuggets."
I said, "WOW!!!! That's amazing. How do they taste?"
He replied, "Hell if I know. We haven't been able to catch one yet!"
________________________________________________________
Please, tip your waitress.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
{{Citation needed}}
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
About one in every 10,000 chickens is gynandromorp (Score:5, Interesting)
That's somewhat close to the rate of intersex conditions in mammals, including humans.
Re:About one in every 10,000 chickens is gynandrom (Score:1)
I wonder if this is true for dinosaurs as well and if certain events affecting reproduction contributed to their extinction.
Dinosaur extinction (Score:4, Funny)
Are you suggesting that the Gay Agenda was what wiped out the dinosaurs?
I suspect the real events that affected their reproduction involved Mass Quantities of Death, and the difficulty in getting Zombie Dinosaurs to reproduce.
Re:Dinosaur extinction (Score:2)
They're still reproducing - we just call them politicians.
Re:About one in every 10,000 chickens is gynandrom (Score:2)
> That's somewhat close to the rate of intersex conditions in mammals, including humans.
Yeah, there are chimeras:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) [wikipedia.org]
Re:About one in every 10,000 chickens is gynandrom (Score:2)
gynandromorphs? (Score:2, Redundant)
Object-sex-oriented? (Score:5, Funny)
Whereas mammals have a global static variable where SEXUAL_ORIENTATION = MALE or FEMALE.
This is interesting because I thought we all inherited from a common ancestor. Was sexual orientation not defined in the root class?
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:0)
Sex != sexual orientation.
or to put it another way, sex is what you have between you legs, sexual orientation is what you want between you legs.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex is what you have between your legs.
Gender identity is what you want between you legs.
Sexual orientation is what you want between someone elses legs.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be silly.
Sex is what you want but can never get enough of.
Gender identity is what lets you pick out cross-dressers and transvestites.
Sexual orientation is how you're oriented during sex, i.e. missionary, doggy style, reverse cowgirl, Saskatchewan Swinging Simian power retrograde style, etc.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sexual intercourse is what you have been genetically programmed to do with what you have between your legs.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
Not always directly genetic, as in the presence of an extra X/Y or some other mosaic condition. It can also be caused by the hormones that the embryo is exposed to, possibly this is genetic in the mother but I haven't seen any study about it. Or by obvious or occult physical defect; exstrophies being an obvious one.
Or, to paraphrase the GP:
Physiotype is what you've got.
Karyotype is what your genes have.
Gender is what your brain has.
Sex is what you want to be having.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:1)
Much more complicated than that, but not a bad way of explaining it in simple terms :)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:1)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the common ancestor of all animals almost certainly reproduced asexually (as do many primitive animals today), so it would not be defined by the root class. There are of course more recent common ancestors between birds and mammals, but XY seems unique to mammals.
See ZW sex-determination system [wikipedia.org] and X0 sex-determination system [slashdot.org].
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
First, your link to the explanation of the X0 system is broken.
Second, I don't know for certain, but I think that the sex determination function is handled like Common Lisp inheritance (inherited from an instance, not an abstraction like a class definition, especially of a root class) rather than C++, Java, C#, etc. Evidently, said function was replaced in the mammalian line, just as color vision was (birds and reptiles have four primary colors, most mammals have only two, and pro-simians and primates have three (in general in all cases - at one company where I worked had about 1/4 male color-blindness).
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:3, Interesting)
that was meant to be a wikipedia link, something weird happened when I did a preview, edited again, and submitted (I had missed a closing quote before the first preview, but I think that caused slashdot to munge the URL, but I was going quickly). In any case you can search on that in wikipedia.
My point is there are lots of ways to do sex determination. Echidnas and Platypuses are particular weird in this way (and in every other way), even though they are mammal they don't use XY.
And of course, in the most literal real world sense, it is all inherited from instances.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:5, Funny)
In both cases, each cell has its own this.getGender() function.
In both cases, I would imagine the code looks something like this:
class cell {
int gender;
proteinFactoryBuilder asdf;
getGender() { /* I don't really have time to go back and fix this right now, but if I'd known I'd be making multicellular organisms with this shit I wouldn't have put this at the cellular level. Anyway, we're stuck with it, so for now I'm just returning the gender variable and I'll leave it to callers to figure out wtf to do with unexpected output. */
return gender;
}
}
Small wonder it's a little more confusing for birds.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
I'd imagine there is no written code involved in today's organisms. However, the very first cell had this:
int survival_chance_of_mutation = rand(); // who cares, it'll crash anyway
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
I would think it was more like machine code than even assembler, let alone LISP or C, unless you think God has a compiler. It is certainly a RISC computer, since there seem to be only four instructions that are paired to produce other instructions.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:1)
That's not a bug -- it's a feature. Some life forms (e.g. slime molds) have more than two [si.edu] "genders".
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:1)
My new gender is seven!
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:5, Informative)
This might go a long way towards explaining gynandromorphism in birds. In mammals, maleness is handled in a top-down fashion- the Y chromosome does not explicitly specify most aspects of the male phenotype, instead simply encouraging the cells that go on to make androgens, which then go on to produce a cascade of developmental effects throughout the body. In birds, the Z and W chromosomes both may have enough genes that sex determination can be handled from the bottom up, locally in each cell.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:3, Insightful)
...unlike the mammalian Y chromosome which has been paring down its genes so that it contains the sex-determining gene SRY, some genes necessary for sperm production, and little else. ...This might go a long way towards explaining gynandromorphism in birds. In mammals, maleness is handled in a top-down fashion- the Y chromosome does not explicitly specify most aspects of the male phenotype, instead simply encouraging the cells that go on to make androgens, which then go on to produce a cascade of developmental effects throughout the body.
Even so, with the XY chromosome - cutting off body parts and taking hormones does not make a man a "woman" any more than flapping one's arms makes one a bird. Mammals sex inheritance isn't as neutered as the interpretation of the article suggests - only that fowls goes a bit deeper into it than mammals.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
From what I gathered, in mammals it's more like all the cells are Observers and what they're observing are hormonal signals that indicate sex.
And as someone else observed, this is about sex, not gender identity or sexual orientation. This will get messy in a hurry.
Er... (Score:1)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
Apparently. Sex has to be specified in each single object through a getter/setter method.
But the root class has only one private method. All we know is if we inherit the class we're alive.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:3, Funny)
So each cell has it's own this.getSexualOrientation() function.
That’s Java right? Then, wouldn’t that be this.getFactoryFactory().getOrientationDeterminationFactory(this.getFactoryFactory().OrientationDeterminator.SEXUAL).getSexualOrientationDeterminator().execute()?
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
I'm sure you are aware that humans are mammals and humans do not come in 2 genders. There is such a thing called intersexed which is considered a 3rd gender. Maybe people should stop being ignorant and look it up sometime. (Referring to yours and another child post off yours.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex [wikipedia.org] It is more common than you think.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:2)
So each cell has it's own this.getSexualOrientation() function.
Whereas mammals have a global static variable where SEXUAL_ORIENTATION = MALE or FEMALE
Actually, no. Mammals, even humans, can have XXY and XYY genes. There are mammals, even humans, born with both penuses and vaginas, and others with both testes and ovaries.
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:1)
Re:Object-sex-oriented? (Score:1)
"Whereas mammals have a global static variable where SEXUAL_ORIENTATION = MALE or FEMALE."
Or both or neither or something else entirely :P
(I'm presuming by 'sexual orientation' you mean either sexual or gender identity, as opposed to who they are attracted to)
n00bs (Score:5, Funny)
They're not the first ones to be checking out a nice-lookin' bird and then see from another angle that "she" is really a man.
Re:n00bs (Score:2)
Re:n00bs (Score:2)
But don’t you know about the bird? ;)
Because everybody knows about the bird.
Ba-ba-ba baa-baa-ba baba-baba ba, baba-baba-ba baba-baba-ba,
ba-ba-ba baa-baa-ba baba-baba ba, baba-baba-ba baba-baba-ba,
don’t. you. know. about. the. biiird?
Everybody knows about the biird...
Ba-ba-ba baa-baa-ba baba-baba ba, baba-baba-ba baba-baba-ba,
ba-ba-ba baa-baa-ba baba-baba ba, baba-baba-ba baba-baba-ba,
Ba-ba-ba baa-baa-ba baba-baba ba, baba-baba-ba baba-baba-ba,
ba-ba-ba baa-baa-ba baba-baba ba, baba-baba-ba baba-baba-ba.
Lends more to the old paradox chicken or the egg (Score:2)
Now you'll have a fresh material to argue which came first...
How to Sex Chicks (Score:2)
Re:How to Sex Chicks (Score:2)
Re:How to Sex Chicks (Score:2)
"Man, yesterday I spent all day sexing chicks. After ten hours of sexing I was pretty beat."
"Yeah, I know. And sometimes you stuff 'em into the box and some manage to get out and you have to go after them..."
"Worst thing is, it turned out half of them were male. What do we do with three hundred male chicks?"
"Well, you could sell them to that cat food factory."
What took so long? (Score:1)
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
Re:What took so long? (Score:1)
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
The main problem is that when they got a sample of these chickens, they always arrived just before lunch, so they had a barbeque instead of inspecting them. With the recent budget cuts at the Post Office, the deliverys now arrive after lunch.
Re:What took so long? (Score:1)
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
What they're saying is that the development of cells seems to be independent of the hormones that are present in the bloodstream. In mammals of mixed sex, the development of the entire body depends on the mix of hormones, you do not see distinct male and female parts of the body, even if the cells in those body parts are predominantly genetically of one sex. With these chickens the opposite is the case, and you could not infer that from studying a normal single sex bird.
Re:What took so long? (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
Yeah you can see that their sex chromosomes are different.
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
Because to notice this you have to specifically study the birds who have cells that are mixed between male and female, and then notice that the sexual characteristics vary over the same organism in accordance with which cells are male and which female.
Otherwise, you're just observing that a chicken is genetically male or female, and has male or female traits. That doesn't distinguish between a per-cell sexual determination, and mammals' overall hormone-based one.
silly (Score:3, Informative)
Re:silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Birds on the other hand use Z/W chromosomes for sex determination, as do most fish, some insects and some reptiles. So the big eyed "Ooooh, who would've thunk that birds aren't handling it the way we mammals do?" attitude of the article seems kind of silly considering we've known about this striking difference for a long time.
Okay, but knowing that the nature of the sex chromosomes is different isn't the same as knowing that the overall mechanism by which the sex of the organisms is determined is different. The assumption was that it was still essentially the same -- sex chromosome in the egg cell ends up controlling the formation of male or female gonads, which then release male or female hormones, which then control the sexual characteristics of the organism as a whole. And this is pretty reasonable on its face, since chickens do develop male/female gonads which do release sex hormones. It's largely the same, right up to the point where those hormones are what determine sex for every cell or not.
In mammals that's the case. Every cell in your body could be carrying X/Y chromosomes, but if due to some disorder you aren't producing male hormones but instead female ones, you will acquire female secondary sexual characteristics.
Now we know this isn't the case for birds, that every cell has its own sexual identity independent of hormones, and no we have not known about this striking difference until now.
Re:silly (Score:1)
I see your point, but we've always known that there are many different mechanisms in play on the chemical level (like pH in some fishes), the genetic/chromosomal level, the cellular level and the organism level even within classes. Consider single cell organisms with "genders": at the most primitive level hormones have no role, whereas genetics does. Is it reasonable to assume that this could have carried over to some higher organisms?
I thought TFA even concedes that this very mechanism has been observed before in insects and some mammals. When Clinton says "We assumed that sex determination in birds would follow the mammal pattern" it makes me wonder why he made that assumption, or if it was just a convenient null hypothesis. Or if it just a buildup to how truly "amazing" the discovery is. Given the differences in chromosomal origin of sex between different animal groups wouldn't it have been equally reasonable to assume that the developmental patterns would diverge? In other words, given that we know that sexual differentiation is a phenomenon that has evolved at multiple times via multiple genetic mechanisms in multiple phyla, classes and orders why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical? Isn't it more intuitive that there would be differences? But finding the "unexpected" makes for a better article than finding the expected...
Re:silly (Score:3, Insightful)
why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical? Isn't it more intuitive that there would be differences? But finding the "unexpected" makes for a better article than finding the expected...
Nobody ever thought they'd be identical, and of course there will be differences. That's not the same as expecting it to be completely opposite.
Expecting some kind of difference is not the same as expecting this difference. This difference was unexpected.
You can't say that because a difference of some kind is to be expected, that therefore whatever difference actually shows up was also expected. That's what strikes me as silly.
Re:silly (Score:2)
In other words, given that we know that sexual differentiation is a phenomenon that has evolved at multiple times via multiple genetic mechanisms in multiple phyla, classes and orders why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical?
Do we know that it has occurred more than once (with the evolution of eukaryotes [wikipedia.org])? My impression was, despite the process of sexual differentiation being remarkably variable in its manifestation, there's no indication that it came about more than once.
Re:silly (Score:0)
Waitaminute... Hans [google.com], is that you?
Re:silly (Score:2)
It's probably also worth mentioning sex determination in reptiles, which is sometimes determined by the temperature the eggs were incubated at, rather than simply by what chromosomes were transferred. Biology can be a wild thing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-temperature-sex-determination-reptiles [scientificamerican.com]
Changing Sex (Score:2)
So I wonder if the applies to spices that can change sex at "will". I seem to recall that there are some fish, frogs and lizards that can do this.
Re:Changing Sex (Score:3, Informative)
No... I’m thinking those species would have sexes which were entirely hormone-driven.
That’s basically the exact opposite of the chickens, in which sexes apparently have very little to do with hormones, and are entirely based on the genetics of the cells.
Humans would be somewhere in between. A man will grow breasts if you give him enough hormones, but you’ll have to do something surgically to change the penis...
Re:Changing Sex (Score:2)
Humans would be somewhere in between. A man will grow breasts if you give him enough hormones, but you'll have to do something surgically to change the penis...
My gf showed me pictures in her biology text of what were genetically men who appeared externally to be completely female, including with vaginas. Internally they lacked a uterus.
Re:Changing Sex (Score:1, Informative)
> A man will grow breasts if you give him enough hormones, but you’ll have to do something surgically to change the penis...
The female is the base body type for humans. Everyone starts with a "female" body, but men produce chemicals called androgens that turn them into men. With things like AIS, people who are genetically male can end up with what appear to be female bodies.
So, basically, you have it backwards. The androgens make female-looking bodies into males. There's no reverse of that (e.g. you can't ungrow a penis).
You have it backwards, sir. (Score:1, Interesting)
Back in my Bible School I distinctly remember in the Book of Job around Chapter 27 that "His breasts are moistened with milk" to be a distinguished cause of how men are expected to raise female children from their breasts and the wives are to raise the male children from their breasts akin to correct the societal acceptance of gender. It is obvious that subconscious reasoning is established early in the attractions of developing minds to what they perceive as their drive.
On a related note, I am a hermaphrodite; I have both fully functioning male and female organs; My clitoris is at the tip of a shaft that many call a penis, but it's just something many people would imply usage to such fluid exchange. Even my girlfriends say that there is an ongoing study about how during certain conditions of diet and environmental factors their all-female body can produce viable fluids that would cause female ovaries to be fertilized when presented from one woman to another. There are even studies showing that the fertilization factors of fluid of men or women interacting with one-another is much to consider as more stimulation for non-receptive egg to begin dividing and incubating what was already inherent as to it's anchor upon the womb wall. This competes against male seminal fluids in the manner that what is thought to be non-competitive biological functions of the same species is actually an environmental trait not of this world that was introduced some time ago into all species to make their lives more redundant in retaining genetic health in any given species.
Evidence of it happening recently is in reduced populations of only reptilian organisms. Outside of reptilians, the obvious commemoration of fish behaviour is overrated. In reptilians, it is more a 3rd gender. What is seen in mammals today could be attributed to enumeration more-so as a complete 5th gender respective of Royal family lineage dating back to Germany and even some factors of Scotland. Consider how the base brainstem of man-kind, otherwise known as the Archon center, is identical to a primitive reptile; this follows the course of Bible Studies that suggest many of the de jure men documented in the Holy Bible would be sired in means of not self-preservation but interaction with a more functional gender not on this planet. This dates back to areas of Scotland and proto-Ireland concerning druidism and competition to the serpent race that makes various appearances in the Holy Bible. Islam if for the most part very silent on the subject in these anatomical forms, but considers surgical correction to be the common route, as opposed to Budhism that would rather accept this as evidence rather than anomaly and the gifted creature to appraise and harness oneself in look for another receptive creature like itself. Budhism follows into the Specie(al) isolation as a Garden of Eden approach for likeness of the matter to reveal a cause to rise from dormacy.
So the interchange of organs go, just as you would say; ovipositors only a dominant trait among non-mammalians and non-reptiles, whereas unusual lifeforms as reptilian or insectoid it's all kissing lips for fluid exchanges or beverage mixing just as what's happening between spontaneous perpetuation between tribal lesbians.
Re:You have it backwards, sir. (Score:2)
Back in my Bible School I distinctly remember in the Book of Job around Chapter 27 that "His breasts are moistened with milk" to be a distinguished cause of how men are expected to raise female children from their breasts and the wives are to raise the male children from their breasts akin to correct the societal acceptance of gender. It is obvious that subconscious reasoning is established early in the attractions of developing minds to what they perceive as their drive.
If you’re not trolling, you’re wrong. There are 42 instances of the word “milk” in the Old Testament. Only one of those is in the book of Job (10:10) and it is metaphoric: “Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese”. The passage you referred to does not exist, not in the book of Job or anywhere else in the Bible.
Re:Use AUTHORIZED VERSION, King James 1611. (Score:2)
LOL, oh, that’s what you’re going off on? Luckily, I’m pretty sure that you already know that in the English language, “man” can refer to mankind, both male and female. No further comment is really needed...
Re:Changing Sex (Score:2)
The androgens make female-looking bodies into males. There's no reverse of that (e.g. you can't ungrow a penis).
A woman cannot undergo hormone treatment to grow a penis either. So either the physical development is regulated at least partly by genetics, or hormones trigger development but genetics lock out certain development paths after the baby is fully developed.
So on the one end of the spectrum you’ve got certain lizards, which can produce hormones to change themselves into the opposite sex; you’ve got humans, who cannot, but who exhibit certain features of the opposite sex if they have hormones introduced into them; and on the opposite end of the spectrum you have fowl, in which hormones appear to have no effect on which sex is developed, that being determined by DNA alone.
Re:Changing Sex (Score:1)
Re:Changing Sex (Score:1)
Which spice section are you shopping in?!
Hurray! (Score:3, Funny)
Now we can produce twice as many chicken breasts.
I suppose we’d better not be going off half-cocked, though. More grant money!
Re:Hurray! (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:0)
I need an eggsample on that.
Re:Hurray! (Score:1)
Re:Hurray! (Score:2)
I'd be more impressed if they found a confused half-chicken half-buffalo.
Birds and the Bees (Score:0)
What does this mean for "the birds and the bees" now?
This thread... (Score:0)
really puts me in a fowl mood...
So... (Score:0)
Is Sam a straight cock with a confusing lesbian side?
Doesn't apply to Slashdot (Score:1)
Badly formed title (Score:1)
Oh great! (Score:2)
Another story about Al Gore.
Bi Bi Birdie (Score:2)
Any bird can teach you something about the birds and the bees, assuming of course, that you're not a bee.
I would have thought that (Score:1)
"Half cock"? (Score:2)
Scientifically, this headline.. (Score:1)
A similar thing can happen in humans. (Score:1)
Re:I call fowl (Score:0)
Prize for the least funny pun.
Re:I call fowl (Score:2)
I suppose I deserved to be subjected to bad puns just for opening this thread.
"Intersex Chickens" is just one of those topics one should avoid on Slashdot. What was I thinking? /me escapes before "chicks with..." jokes start.
Re:I call fowl (Score:2)
Re:I call fowl (Score:2)
Re:I call fowl (Score:2)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Chickens (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, the Overlords joke welcomes you....