Inside Nature's Giants: polar bear special

More like this

Once again I'm going to do the advertising thing for those fantastic Inside Nature's Giants people. Sorry that notice is so short, but I only received the relevant information today (Wednesday 13th October). Tomorrow sees the premiere screening (here in the UK, on Channel 4) of a 75 minute ING…
You know me, I'm not one to brag. But... One of several interesting things I did over the weekend was attend a special cinema screening (in Clapham, London) of the giant squid special episode of Inside Nature's Giants. It was great, and the showing was followed by a Q&A session with David…
I don't want to get into the habit of advertising TV shows, but in this case I can make a definite exception. Thanks to the people at Windfall for sending what's known in the business as a TX card. For the Tet Zoo articles on series 1, see... Inside Nature's Giants: a major television event…
Earlier this year (in June), Channel 4 television here in the UK broadcast series 2 of Inside Nature's Giants (ING from hereon... titled Raw Anatomy in the US, you poor, poor people). You may have heard it here first. Hopefully you're familiar with ING series 1 - it looked at the anatomy of…

Subtitle for the first picture:

They tickled and tortured him till he could take no more, but Mr P Bear had the last laugh, as he took with him to his grave the secret of the glacier mints.

Alternate text:

They tickled and tortured him till he could take no more. Then he ate them.

A bit different from the previous programs - there was lots that was good about it, but this one was definitely more 'outside' one of nature's giants than inside.

Once again they had to include Dawkins, and his explanation of the absence of a baculum in humans was definitely a major comedy moment (to be fair he did make clear it was only a suggestion - but given that its Wimbledon fortnight, my only reaction could be "you cannot be serious").

By Mark Lees (not verified) on 01 Jul 2011 #permalink

What was his explanation?

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 01 Jul 2011 #permalink

Chimp bacula are vestigial aren't they? So there wouldn't seem to have to be any particular expansion but drift for humans' lack thereof.

By Andreas Johansson (not verified) on 02 Jul 2011 #permalink

What was Dawkins theory, and what's Wimbleton fortnight.

He starts at about 36:10 talking about penis bones (he never says baculum), and then moving on to sexual selection by females, and indicators of male health.

He also qualifies by saying that his idea is rather far-fetched, so don't take it too seriously.

@37:13 -
"What if... the ability to sustain a hard erection without a penis bone is a kind of blood-pressure meter; a kind of indicator of health. You might say: 'Any fool can sustain an erection with a penis bone, but only a really healthy male can do it without'."

I don't make this stuff up; I just report it.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 02 Jul 2011 #permalink

Maybe a baculum would get in the way when males run, considering humans may have evolved as endurance runners.

I suppose we could test this by seeing whether men used to wearing a koteka had lower speed, distance, or endurance than people running against them...

By heteromeles (not verified) on 02 Jul 2011 #permalink

darn, apparently that part about the baculum was cut out in youtube's version of the episode...
i know darren said that some parts of previous episodes had been cut out for the US version of the show; but what i watched was entiteled in its proper original title ''inside nature's giants'' , and not ''raw anatomy'' (the US name) so that's odd...
also, dawkin's other intervention about the isolating fur around the 25min mark was left in...
anybody know if anything else got cut out of what can be seen on youtube and where to watch an uncut version of this episode? i'm french so internet is the only way for me to follow this great program, i've been able to see all the episodes uncut so far and whould really like to see this one in full version as well...

By accipiter (not verified) on 03 Jul 2011 #permalink

"but this one was definitely more 'outside' one of nature's giants than inside."

Man, I hope this isn't true. The great thing about Inside Nature's Giants is its emphasis on anatomy. If it's about behavior and mostly features footage of live specimens, it's just another nature show.

Hang on - other great apes have decent-sized baculae? I'd thought all primates had missing/vestigial ones.