Are Lobsters Ambidextrous? (26 page)

Scientists know quite a bit about how domestic cats react to catnip. Most cats do not begin responding to the plant until they are six to eight weeks of age, and some may not respond until they are three months of age. All of the research provided by the Cornell Feline Health Center indicates that cats’ reaction to catnip is independent of sex or neutering status. Susceptibility is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait—about a third of domestic cats have no reaction to catnip.

Two-legged mammals have not been immune to the charms of catnip. Veterinarian Jeff Grognet cites the historical use of catnip by humans; the versatile herb was used to make tea, juice, tincture, poultice, and infusions. Catnip was also smoked and chewed for its reputed therapeutic, hallucinogenic, or euphoria-inducing properties.

Scientists, like our reader, have also been curious about the effect of catnip on other cats, and other types of animals. In the largest study of catnip’s effect on a wide range of animals, Dr. N. B. Todd’s conclusion was clear: Although a few individual animals of almost every type reacted in some way to catnip, cats responded most often and most intensely.

Out of sixteen lions tested, fourteen had full household cat-type responses. Almost half of twenty-three tigers tested had no response at all, but many had incomplete responses: Some sniffed; fewer licked; only a couple chin-rubbed; and none exhibited head-over rolling. But young tigers had violently strong reactions to catnip. Most leopards, jaguars, and snow leopards had strong, full-cycle reactions to catnip. We know that bobcats and lynx love catnip, for the herb is sold commercially to lure these cats for trapping purposes.

Noncats, such as civets and mongooses, were mostly indifferent to catnip, although a few exhibited sniffing reactions. An
earlier study that predates Todd’s concluded that dogs, rabbits, mice, rats, guinea pigs, and fowls were indifferent to a powdered form of catnip that seduced domestic cats. Yet many dog owners report that their pets respond to catnip.

For some anecdotal evidence, we contacted several of the largest American zoos to see if they exposed their big cats to catnip. We found cat keepers almost as curious about catnip as the cats themselves.

We spoke to one cat keeper who fed jaguars catnip directly. “They like it,” he said. “They get goofy.” But the same keeper reported that a snow leopard wasn’t interested. Another keeper reported that tigers responded “to some extent.”

Rick Barongi, director of the Children’s Zoo at the San Diego Zoo, reports that although most pet owners usually spray catnip scent on a favorite toy of their cat, zoo keepers cannot. A jaguar or lion will simply rip apart and then eat the toy, so instead they spray a piece of wood or a log that a big cat can claw or scratch. Barongi shares the belief that all cats respond to catnip to some extent but that younger cats respond more than older cats, and that all cats react more on first exposure to catnip than in subsequent encounters.

After a thrill or two with catnip, the San Diego Zoo keepers have found that big cats are more entertained in the long run by scratch posts, boomer balls, larger cages, or—most expensive, but most satisfying of all—the pleasure of the company of a cage mate.

 

Submitted by Dave Williams of Ithaca, New York
.

 

Why
are there no purple Christmas lights?

We have read marketing studies indicating that purple is one of the least popular colors among consumers. But judging from all the purple stationery we receive from readers, purple is a popu
lar color among women, especially among young women and girls. So it is probably no coincidence that the two correspondents who posed this Imponderable were of the female persuasion.

Some Christmas sets do include magenta lights, but you will never see deep purple lights. The absence is not a matter of taste but of high school physics. Carla M. Fischer, public relations representative of General Electric, explains:

 

The reason there are no deep purple lights is because purple light has the shortest wavelength and is not visible to the human eye.

For instance, when you see a red light, it is a result of the transparent material filtering all wavelengths of light except the red. The same is true for the other colors of the spectrum (remember ROY G BIV?) [a mnemonic for the length of wavelengths, representing red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet].

…However, when the transparent material is purple, it filters out all other wavelengths of light except purple; since purple light is not visible to the human eye, you would only see black light.

 

Bill Middlebrook, a lighting applications specialist for Philips Lighting, concurred that purple bulbs emit a dim glow, indeed, while also making other low-output colors, such as green, look washed-out. Middlebrook added that even blue doesn’t really do its share of the illumination load and would probably be omitted from Christmas sets if it weren’t for its popularity. Philips has found that consumers prefer “the classics”: red, green, blue, and yellow. Of these colors, red and yellow provide by far the most illumination.

We asked Middlebrook if Philips conducted research to determine how to arrange the colors in the Christmas set. The answer: They are randomly arranged.

 

Submitted by Laurie Muscheid of Rocky Point, New York. Thanks also to Janice Flinn of Kemptville, Ontario
.

 

Why
do pet rodents drink water out of bottles instead of dishes or bowls?

Because we offer them bottles. Rats or guinea pigs would be more than happy to drink out of bowls or dishes as well. After all, in the wild, rodents have to fend for themselves, gathering water from lakes or ponds if they have easy access. More likely, their search for water will be more labor-intensive, involving extracting moisture from succulent plants or dew drops on greenery, or stumbling upon opportunistic puddles (the natural equivalent of a water dish).

Veterinarian David Moore, of Virginia Tech’s Office of Animal Resources, says that the practice of installing water bottles with sipper tubes was developed by researchers to promote the health of laboratory animals. When a rodent soiled the water in a bowl, bacteria grew and caused illness. On the other hand, it is anatomically impossible for a rat to defecate or urinate into a water bottle with a sipper tube.

Rodent owners have adopted the practice not only to safeguard their pets but to avoid the less than pleasant chore of cleaning soiled water bowls. Although dogs occasionally treat the toilet like a water bowl, luckily both dogs and cats can both be trained not to treat their water bowls like a toilet.

 

Submitted by Karyn Marchegiano of Newark, Delaware
.

 

Why
are there holes on the bottom of two- and three-liter soda bottles?

Technically, the holes are not on the bottle but on the bottom of the base cup. (The base cup’s function is to keep the bottle from tipping over.) The purpose of the holes is to allow the water that
accumulates in the base cup (during the rinsing process at the assembly line) to drain out.

Steve Del Priore, plant manager of the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of New York, told
Imponderables
that soda, when first entering the bottle, is at approximately 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The bottle is then placed in a container of warm water so that the soda rises to about 60 degrees Fahrenheit, causing condensation on the bottle, another way for water to seep into the base cup. If no drainage outlet were permitted, foul water might seep out of the base cup every time a consumer poured a drink.

Actually, we may not have holes in base cups to kick around too much longer. Margie Spurlock, manager of consumer affairs for Royal Crown Cola, told us that: “In the near future, base cups may be eliminated from these bottles as technology is in place to produce a one-piece bottle which has a base rigid enough to afford the necessary stability for the tall container.”

The main impetus for removing the base cups is environmental. The material used for base cups is not the same as that for the bottle itself, necessitating separating the two plastics at recycling centers, slowing down the process considerably.

 

Submitted by Carrie Schultz of Hinsdale, Illinois
.

 

Why
do drivers wire cardboard to their automobile grills during cold weather?

No, it isn’t to keep bugs from slipping under the hood. The cardboard is there to try to keep cold air from entering the engine.

When you drive, some kind of cooling fluid is needed to prevent burning fuel from overheating the car. The fluid is pumped through the engine and then the radiator, where the liquid is cooled by passing outside air over the radiator. The fluid then returns to the engine to remove more heat.

To gain efficiency in winter, some of the engine’s excess heat is used to warm the interior of the car, by routing some of the engine coolant through the heater’s coils and blowing inside air over the warm coils. Two experts we spoke to, one a Federal Highway Administration official who wishes to remain anonymous, and the other, automotive historian Keith Marvin, speculate that the cardboard is probably a makeshift attempt to compensate for the inability of the coolant to get warm enough to operate the heater effectively.

By putting the cardboard over their grills, drivers are blocking air flow to the radiator to decrease the ambient air’s cooling effect on the coolant. The theory: If the temperature of the fluid is raised, the heater can better withstand the demands of subzero weather.

Why wire and cardboard? Presumably because they are light, cheap, and easily available materials. But aluminum and twine would do the job, too, or any materials that will shield the grill and can withstand the elements.

 

Submitted by Mason Jardine of Russell, Manitoba, definitely cardboard-on-the-grill country
.

 

Why
do judges wear black robes?

American law is derived from English common law. English judges have always worn robes, so it follows logically that American judges would, too. But the road from English garb to American robes has been bumpier than you might expect.

Actually, there wasn’t such a profession as judge in England until the last half of the thirteenth century. Until then, high-level clergymen, robe-wearers all, arbitrated disputes and expounded law. But the church eventually forbade its clergy from the practice, and a new job category was born. From the very start, judges, like most important people, wore robes.

Not too long after the first judge donned his robe, Parliament enacted several laws (between 1337 and 1570) dictating just who could wear what kind of robe. Judges’ gowns were often elaborate affairs, usually made of silk and fur. (High judges wore ermine; sergeants, lambskin.)

Green was the most popular color for judges’ robes at first; later, scarlet gowns and, to a lesser extent, violet gowns, predominated. Black robes did not appear until 1694, when all judges attended the Westminster Abbey funeral of Queen Mary II dressed in black, as a sign of respect for the queen. The mourning period went on for years, and some, but by no means all, lawyers and judges wore black gowns into the next century.

Our founding fathers actually argued over whether our justices of the Supreme Court should wear robes at all. Thomas Jefferson railed against “any needless official apparel,” but Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr favored them and won the argument. At the first session of the court, Chief Justice Jay wore a robe of black silk with salmon-colored facing. By the early nineteenth century, Supreme Court judges donned black robes of the style worn today.

The solemn costumes of the Supreme Court were not necessarily mimicked by lower courts. Some colonial court judges in the eighteenth century, such as those in Massachusetts, wore gowns and powdered wigs. But in reaction to the Revolutionary War, most trappings of English aristocracy were banished. In fact, the wearing of robes was discontinued in Massachusetts until 1901.

Judges in the West and South tended to be a little less formal. In his book
The Rise of the Legal Profession in America
, Anton-Hermann Chroust described one of the first judges in Indiana as having a judicial costume consisting of “a hunting shirt, leather pantaloons, and a fox skin cap.” Most legal scholars believe that the majority of judges in colonial and pre—Civil War times did not wear robes at all.