They are like jellyfish, but not quite. The sting from a box jellyfish, on the other hand, is said to be so painful, victims scream in pain even while unconscious.
The pain from the sting is bad, but that is not what kills you. The venom kills the victim by causing cardiovascular collapse if you are not treated quickly enough. In North Queensland you cannot swim in the ocean for 6 months of the year because of box jellyfish. Avoid choosing river estuaries as an alternative place to swim, too. You may end up as lunch for a salt water crocodile.
Not necessarily specifically four, but yes - a colony. They're much less venomous than a PMOW, though. They're often considered a single animal, though, because they couldn't survive alone, due to separate organs, etc...
Bowerbird should also be accepted for New Guinea bird with spectacular markings and elaborate mating displays. Many have spectacular markings and have some of the most interesting mating displays of any bird.
But they're not that closely related. Certainly nowhere NEAR as closely related as chimp and bonobos, anyway. Chimps and bonobos split off from each other, evolutionarily speaking, around 2.5 millions years ago, while chimps and baboons split off from each other around 28 million years ago. Heck, since humans and chimps only split off from each other around 6.5 million years ago, baboons are exactly as closely related to us as they are to chimps, and "baboon" probably wouldn't be your first choice for "close relative to humans," would it? [Source]
I think your timing may be a little off, the oldest known baboon fossil was discovered in 2015, and it was 2 million years old. Give or take a week or so.
I'm not saying that baboons came into existence 28 million years ago, I'm saying that the line that eventually produced chimps and the line that eventually produced baboons split apart from each other about 28 million years ago. In other words, their last common ancestor was about 28 million years ago.
Oh, trust me, that clue doesn't give Americans an unfair advantage. State animals aren't really common knowledge to anyone living outside of the state in question. But I agree that there are tons of other clues for badgers. Like a mascot of the yellow house of a certain School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. But that would also be hard, most likely.
the bobcat isn't just a close relative of "the" lynx, it is a species of lynx, it's Lynx rufus and therefore belongs, like the canadian lynx, eurasian lynx and iberian lynx to the genus lynx.
We all know that Bison aren't technically "Buffalo." They were called Buffalo by early settlers/explorers who thought they resembled actual Buffalo and the name stuck. For the next few hundred years, the species of human who starts sentences with "Actually" or "Technically" hadn't evolved yet, so this incorrect alternate for Bison had become part of the American vernacular. This has nothing to do with being "grossly misinformed." The National Park Service will use Bison/Buffalo interchangeably, you wouldn't call them grossly misinformed, would you? Besides, "Bison Bill" would have just sounded silly.
If you ever find yourself in a situation where you have either a buffalo or a bison charging at you and looking a bit ticked off, I’d wager that you’re immediate thought will be along the lines of “damn, get out of the way of the the crazy, giant cow!”
Kansas native here!! Our state animal is the American Bison/American Buffalo. They are the same thing, pretty much. The words are interchangeable. With all due respect, as someone who has lived in Kansas their entire life, I think I know what I’m talking about.
The distinction between ‘that’ and ‘which’ is a rule of formal American English and is not strictly observed in British English or in informal English of any type. The meaning is clear enough. As for the minor spelling error: making these quizzes is laborious enough, perhaps people shouldn’t bother if the people visiting the site are going to show their gratitude for the effort by whingeing about tiny infractions, THAT make no difference whatsoever?
When I make a quiz I appreciate errors being pointed out or corrections and get to it when I can.
As far as which/that… yes, I’ve seen that British news seems to use that and which willy nilly, but why? Is it really logical to just use the words interchangeably when their proper use can very much change the meaning? The box jellyfish, which kills swimmers, is deadly. This says that as a group, box jellyfish kill humans. The box jellyfish that kills swimmers is deadly. This is exclusive and implies that a singular box jellyfish is a serial human killer. Why would we choose ambiguity in our language? American usage easily wins in this case.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141119-the-barmy-courtship-of-bowerbirds
Fun quiz. :)
The distinction between ‘that’ and ‘which’ is a rule of formal American English and is not strictly observed in British English or in informal English of any type. The meaning is clear enough. As for the minor spelling error: making these quizzes is laborious enough, perhaps people shouldn’t bother if the people visiting the site are going to show their gratitude for the effort by whingeing about tiny infractions, THAT make no difference whatsoever?
As far as which/that… yes, I’ve seen that British news seems to use that and which willy nilly, but why? Is it really logical to just use the words interchangeably when their proper use can very much change the meaning? The box jellyfish, which kills swimmers, is deadly. This says that as a group, box jellyfish kill humans. The box jellyfish that kills swimmers is deadly. This is exclusive and implies that a singular box jellyfish is a serial human killer. Why would we choose ambiguity in our language? American usage easily wins in this case.