trees14

<p>A garble of the whole</p><p>-</p><p>Pretty images and short personal text posts. Say nice things to me.</p><p>-</p><p>Fully experience yourself in a state of strength and clarity, and imagine taking this experience into your daily life when you encounter stressful or difficult situations. </p><p>-</p><p><a href="https://trees14.tumblr.com/about">ABOUT</a> <a href="https://trees14.tumblr.com/ask">ASK</a> <a href="https://trees14.tumblr.com/submit">SUBMIT</a></p>

total posts: 18539
updated: 5.4 hours ago

trees14
Posted: 6.9 hours ago
architectureofdoom: Aurland III kraftverk, 1979
trees14
Posted: 7.9 hours ago
shrekfanspacejam98: nentuaby: Oh, oh! But that’s not all. So in modern taxonomy there’s a concept called a “type specimen.” This is a preserved corpse, image, or detailed description which defines a type (species or genus). All the other attributes of a type definition basically amount to “is this close enough to Type Specimen XYZ to be called the same thing as it?” In the event that thinking on where the boundaries are set changes (and that happens ALL THE TIME) whatever’s on the same side of the new boundary keeps the old type; anything placed on the other side needs a new name. (And a new type specimen is selected for that new group.) Now, this is a fairly recent innovation– older taxonomical systems going back to Linnaeus thought things would be more static than that, so they didn’t feel the need to have a system for what to do in the event of changes. Now, the rule for type specimens is that they have to be one the person who originally came up with the species knew / got to examine. For most of the species Linnaeus described, he’d worked from a specific specimen anyway, and at least a detailed description was preserved, so that was OK. Problem was Homo sapiens. His description of us amounted to, well, “dis us.” So the modern taxonimists trying to retrofit THAT to up-to-date standards had to sit down and have a good think. And what they came up with was “Well… There’s one specimen of humanity we know for absolute certain Linnaeus examined in great detail. And there are images preserved, and we know where the remains are.” So Carl Linnaeus is not just human… Carl Linnaeus is the one person who, no matter what the heck weird changes may happen in taxonomy, is human by definition. so what you’re telling me is, this is the ideal male body. you may not like it, but this is what peak humanity looks like
trees14
Posted: 8.0 hours ago
vintar: if you’re ever angry at yourself for screwing something up please think of the time that the russian military spent years trying to breed the ultimate water rescue dog only to end up creating dogs that swam over to drowning people and then mauled them instead
trees14
Posted: 8.8 hours ago
bustakay: The Big Cabbage in Liaocheng, Shandong.
trees14
Posted: 9.3 hours ago
topmatter: John Zabawa Line Study, 2017 Found Paper 8.5in x 11in
trees14
Posted: 29.2 hours ago
nocterm: Nicopanda Spring 2016 by Paolo Musa
trees14
Posted: 30.7 hours ago
pagewoman: November evening in a Welsh wood ~ James T. Watts (c.1890)
trees14
Posted: 32.8 hours ago
2othcentury: Kraftwerk - Die Mensch·Maschine (Kling Klang, 1978)
trees14
Posted: 56.8 hours ago
chimaeraman: Nautilus gossip circle
trees14
Posted: 57.1 hours ago
scavengedluxury: Lifts & Stairs, Welbeck Street car park. London, August 2017.