A query
I read a book, Burn Unit, which contained a most marvellous factoid: One thing we do know is that scarring is unique to mammals, though the reasons for that are lost in the evolutionary past. (Alas, there was no reference here.)
Now, I don’t know how we define scarring, exactly, but brief googling about fish and stuff suggested (well, to a friend, who was more assiduous in fact-checking than I could be bothered to be) that this is not true. So, biologically astute readers (like, um, PZ Myers? Hey, I convinced my father AND one of his friends to give evolution a chance): true, or sadly false thing that *sounds* true, like the words for snow?
September 21st, 2005 at 6:36 pm
It’s not true. I’ve done surgeries on frogs and fish, and yeah, it leaves scars. I’ve also seen reptiles with scars.
Animals that regenerate very well (such as salamanders) may not have much detectable scarring, though.
September 21st, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Now that is unfortunate. My experience with animals informs me that cats scar, and that fish and chicken taste good, and get prepared in such a way that I don’t actually see any scars. I wonder where that came from, and now I am distrusting all the info she gave in the book. (Which is reasonable: her info on chemical burns wasn’t exactly stellar.)
Thanks for the response. I had wondered. The internet is such a wonderful place to go to get these sorts of questions answered, with people who will share expertise, just because they can. (And, alas, those who make up expertise and share it.)