you should not us th eintrnet
Antelope's horn(ling yang jiao) is used in traditional chinese medicine for fever. The horn is scraped into paper like stripes with a metal rule(or similar) and boiled in water. --184.108.40.206 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added the info to the article.Steve Dufour 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This statement is biased, according to whom is this true PETA,etc, etc. Use of animal horns is controversial, especially if the animal was specifically hunted for the horn as a hunting trophy or object of decoration or utility. Some animals are threatened or endangered to reduced populations partially from pressures of such hunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they are members of the deer family. Steve Dufour 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
someone edited the rhinosauros and i dont know if i should edit it back or not. 18.104.22.168 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not hair at all. But every time I delete the bit about it being hair someone puts it back in again. I'll try and find a reference --ChaosSorcerer91 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a documentd case of a human (named wong i think) who had a horn growing from the back of his head. i think theres a picture of it in some of the ripleys books.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are quite a few photos (some fairly recent ones) circulating on the internet that show human beings with horns growing out of the head. The paper by Tubbs is inaccurate and, I would argue, poorly researched.--Patriotic dissent (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice to have some practical information about horn as a material? Various strengths, hardness, water absorption, thermal expansion, even for one or two types. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Request for information
- See Bovidae, which says that there are lower canines, but no upper ones. I've never noticed them in the mouths of sheep or cattle, but this seems to be because they look like incisors. See this page (lower two photos). Richard New Forest (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "redirected". There is no such developmental process, but in adaptational terms the two could have similar functions, so when horns developed the need for functional canines would be removed, and they would become more useful as a further pair of incisors. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, there is no such developmental process. Teeth are teeth, and horns are horns. They have different developmental origins, different structures and are made of different materials. Teeth can develop into horn-like structures – but then they are tusks; they are still made of ivory not horn, and they always originate in the jaw like ordinary teeth even if they grow in a different direction. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yet where there are horns, there are no upper canine teeth and where there are upper canine teeth, there are no horns. According to Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, there must be some relationship.Lestrade (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
- Philosophy is not necessarily a good guide to science – very many things in nature have no reason... If you must have a reason, the natural selection one I gave above is perfectly sufficient; there is no reason to imagine anything further. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It may be a bit more complicated. An animal whose diet changes from being carnivorous to herbivorous will no longer require canine teeth. The horns that develop will therefore not be a replacement for the vanished
incisor canine teeth because nothing will be needed to tear flesh. Only biting and grinding teeth will be needed. My reference to Leibniz's principle was merely meant to be a way of saying that an observer would expect that there is a cause of the simultaneous, seemingly coincidental, replacement of incisor canine teeth by horns. Also, it seems significant that the upper canine teeth are the only teeth that become elongated in the case of elephants, walruses, and sabre–toothed tigers. Those are the very teeth whose absence is associated with the presence of horns. They are the teeth that display evolutionary variance. Lestrade (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
- I think you meant "canine" all the way through, not sometimes "incisor". However, in fact evolution is not as limited as that – the elongated teeth that form tusks are not always upper canines. In pigs they are both upper and lower canines, in elephants they are both upper and (in some prehistoric species) lower incisors, in hippopotamuses upper and lower canines and incisors, and in narwhals the single tusk is a left upper incisor. Many herbivores do retain long canines – for example fruit bats, pandas, and most primates (not one of the more carnivorous ones though: us...).
- Not really sure what the difference is between my sufficient reason and yours. I suppose the real point is that natural selection can only work with what already exists. I don't think horns ever replace canines directly. The process is much more likely to be that at some stage in the animal's history canines are not needed and so are lost (as in horses) or become ordinary teeth (as in ruminants). Then at some later point there is an evolutionary advantage to having some kind of weapon, commonly for fighting between males. Such a weapon then evolves from whatever the animal happens to have now – perhaps the canines again, or incisors, or knobs on the head (horns, antlers), knobs on the legs (as in the spurs of platypuses) or no doubt many others I can't think of at the moment. Very many animals of course do without any weapon altogether, or use unspecialised organs such as their ordinary claws and teeth. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my careless failure to use the "strike" option. I still think, à la Leibniz, that there must be a sufficient reason why every animal that has horns is also an animal that does not have canine teeth. Coincidences are uninstructive. There may be something like a genetic allele that acts like a toggle switch. When the canine tooth is toggled on, the horn is toggled off, and vice versa.Lestrade (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
- Now that is something that would need a reason to exist! A gene switch like that would have to evolve and be maintained, and could only do so if there was an evolutionary benefit throughout the history of the animal. How could the potential for horns in the future benefit an animal with tusks or canines now? It could not, and so such a gene could not be maintained, and this is not a possible scenario. Genetic "toggle switches" do exist in nature (for example swarming in locusts, or sexual reproduction in aphids, or indeed sex differentiation in very many organisms), but they benefit the organisms in every generation, or at least every few generations. The mechanism I suggested above is a perfectly sufficient reason without invoking time-travel magic.
- In any case, as I said above, it's much more likely that there would be a very long gap between the loss of one feature and the development of another.
- Actually I can't think of any examples of tusks developing after the loss of horns or antlers, though I also can't think of a reason why that should not happen. Teeth are more universal I suppose, so there are more animals to have lost them. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the following statement with certainty: "Every existing horned ruminant does not have upper canine teeth"? If so, then what is the relation between the presence of horns and the absence of upper canine teeth? There must be a relation that can be mentioned in the article. Not to "put words in his mouth," but Richard New Forest might claim that there is no relation and that the situation is merely coincidental.Lestrade (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
- Didn't we deal with all this before? Ruminants do not have upper incisor teeth either, and so the same question could be asked about that. Or paws, or fins, or all sorts of other things they don't happen to have. I don't think it is relevant to the article, except that horns and tusks can both be used in similar ways. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Unhorned ruminants have upper canine teeth. Paws and fins (and feathers, scales, bills, gills, etc., etc.) are not similar to horns. (Horns) X (Upper Canine Teeth) = 0.Lestrade (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
According to the Canine tooth article, the maxillary, or upper, canines have the deepest roots in the head. The Maxillary canine article states that they are the longest teeth. Having the deepest roots, they begin to grow more toward the upper part of the head. Being longest, they are more horn–like. Both of these characteristics make it more likely that maxillary (upper) canine teeth have evolved into horns in many ruminants, especially given the fact that upper canine teeth are always absent when horns are present.Lestrade (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
- Yes, but see above: teeth are teeth, horns are horns, and one does not, has not and could not evolve into the other. Don't confuse form and function. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
i have a ram...
i have a ram... i want idea how to grow the horn of him.. his horn is very small as compair to other ram of same age.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)