Stunning photographs of animals inside womb
These amazing embryonic animal photographs of dolphins, sharks, dogs, penguins, cats and elephants are from a new National Geographic Documentary called “Extraordinary Animals in the Womb”. The show’s producer, Peter Chinn, used a combination of three-dimensional ultrasound scans, computer graphics and tiny cameras to capture the process from conception to birth. They are the most detailed embryonic animal pictures ever seen.
If you would like to see more baby animal photos, you should take a look at these frozen semen test tube pandas.
Wow this is amazing! Beautiful actually…
Dec 15, 2009Elephant is so cute..all of them are so cute! :X
Dec 15, 2009Awww they're ADORABLE…?
Dec 15, 2009There’s the small issue that fish and birds don’t ever exist in a womb… but other than that.
Dec 16, 2009Sharks and Dolphins do exist in the womb and are delivered. But I would say these are not all actual pictures since like the elephant is an awfully high up picture to be in the womb.
Dec 16, 2009Stunning images! thumbsup!
Dec 16, 2009That’s why they are in eggs…
Dec 16, 2009Dolphins and sharks both give live birth, sharks are different because they hatch from eggs and then exit the mother, but live birth nonetheless.
Dec 16, 2009Ummm.. I believe the egg counts for the theme, and please check your resources on sharks and dolphins. but other than that.
Dec 16, 2009Except thats not a fish, it’s a shark and a dolphin, and those are a certain type of penguin. Loser.
Dec 16, 2009Haha these are actually all real. Apparently some one has never heard of 3D and 4D ultrasound.
Dec 16, 2009Haha idiot Sharks are fish!
Dec 16, 2009dolphins are mammals.
Dec 16, 2009Of course these images are computer generated. If we had the technology to see through things like wombs and other material with this level of detail the applications would be innumerable. Of course you and I would never know it existed because I’m sure that good ol’ uncle Sam would sanction the technology and make sure that no one knew it existed because this could be a danger to ourselves and its much better if only the government has the capabilities to look through your walls at home and watch you take a S*%t to make sure that you haven’t been to gluttonous lately and fine you if you have.
Dec 16, 2009The penguin’s in an egg, mate. Dolphins and sharks are as stated before. Let’s be nice, folks; no need to resort to name calling.
Dec 16, 2009Is this real? Do dolphins really have umbilical cords??
Dec 16, 2009that’s the least real thing i’ve seen in a while. and i use the internet.
Dec 17, 2009I've just finished my degree in Animal Science, and this is definitely real – I've seen the actual show, it's not that recent, we watched it in Animal Breeding class last fall. These aren't 'shopped unless they faked the whole video, because on the actual program you see the video footage of the fetal animals moving and shifting in the womb. It also covers the various stages of their development – you see the elephant get larger, the trunk elongate, and the hair develop, you see the golden retriever puppy's fur and claws appear, you see everything. It's a really cool show.
Dec 17, 2009If we can’t get clear pictures like that on a human pregnancy how are we expected to believe the perfect pictures above are real!
Dec 17, 2009As someone else mentioned, to get a pic as clear and perfect as that it would be like looking through walls!
Um you can see human pregnancies like this, it’s just incredibly expensive and the technology is rare, but my friend had it done, amazing.
These are real haven’t you ever seen the pictures of babies in the womb, on discovery channel, etc, exactly like this.
Btw, Dolphins are mammals, Sharks are fish and the penguin is quite clearly in an egg but penguins incubate their eggs in pouches above their feet, very like a womb. It’s stretching it but I think it’s a valid inclusion.
Anyway, just enjoy these beautiful pictures already and stop bickering!
Dec 17, 2009This is 100% real.The camera is not "looking through walls" like many of the comments are saying. These photos are taken with a scope that is actually inside the uterus.
Dec 17, 2009none of them real… they say in the text they use 'computer graphics'…
Dec 17, 2009There is no machine that can take pictures of the womb out like this out there right now. It is probably more likely that all of these animals are dead. Pictures were taken after the mother’s died for research.
Dec 17, 2009They DO have this technology for human embryos. But it is crazy expensive and unnecessary for diagnosis or treatment. So unless you're Brangelina you probably aren't going to get one.
Here are some more pics from the documentary
Dec 17, 2009http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1077492/It-aint-half-snuggly-Mum-The-ground-breaking-pictures-animals-capturing-life-womb.html
Actually, on further review, it seems that some of the images were made through computers and models. They were based upon the detailed information they got from the scans and cameras, but they are not directly the images from them.
Dec 17, 2009pretty cool
Dec 18, 2009Im pretty sure Liz and Dan just came to an intelligent conclusion. These pictures were taken, redone, and modified to be more artistic. This type of thing is entirely possible without killing the mom or fetus first. So congrats to Liz and Dan for being educated on the subject and helping to stop immature arguments and name calling.
Dec 18, 2009the womb size must have been vastly enlarged to make these look good. Dags and cats ( i don't know about elephants)grow in an embrionic sac that is tightly fitted to their bodies, they aren't floating around like that star baby from 2001 A Space Oddessy. lol. still good recreations.
Dec 18, 2009Clearly Photoshopped
Dec 18, 2009Yeah, im glad im pro life. human babies are beautiful too. especially in the womb
Dec 18, 2009nice picture
Dec 18, 2009errrm. probably has been said before, but dolphins are NOT fish
Dec 18, 2009really rare and wonderful pics.
Dec 18, 2009What, no inflammatory abortion comment yet?
Dec 18, 2009they used models and cgi for this documentary. The did a making of program on it. Get your facts right lol
Dec 18, 2009does anyone else find it odd that dogs are born without hair and yet in the womb they have hair? =))
Dec 18, 2009Dogs /are/ born with hair, Nate.
Dec 19, 2009Incredible….
Dec 19, 20094D time-lapse confocal imaging will be one of the spectacular gifts for an artist inext decade.
Dec 19, 2009Funny, how whether or not cgi is used anyone can tell what picture is an elephant and what picture is a dog. Even though the Thing in the womb is not FULLY developed(such as the dolphin) we still can tell what species is what species. Just goes to show you that a dolphin in the womb is a dolphin, an elephant in the womb is an elephant, A BABY IN THE WOMB IS A BABY!!!
Dec 19, 2009Fake, and I only say this because I have never known of any dog or cat to have a single pup in the womb. However, fake or not, the images are awesome and provide an extraordinary insight.
Dec 19, 2009Amazing!!
Dec 19, 2009good lord, internet-people 9_9 I love how people who so obviously have no idea about the animals they’re talking about try to call out National Geographic about it.
If you take note, the description said computer graphics were used. You could not get this clear of resolution with ANY form of simple imaging. There are many fluids within the uterus during pregnancy and you would not be able to rupture the fetal sacs without aborting the fetus (which I’m not saying they didn’t do, but I would hope they did not).
They used a combination of techniques. They said this in the description. It is plain to see they used imaging technology and then enhanced the images with computer graphics.
Dec 19, 2009Funny how we all think these are cute, yet most Americans (North Americans) think it’s okay to abort an equally, cute human being. Think about it.
Dec 19, 2009So, since everyone else seems to have an opinion, here’s mine; These pictures were taken and enhanced for your enjoyment. Not to be criticized. If people would just realize that someone spent an enormous amount of time and effort to create these images for your viewing pleasure, there wouldn’t be so much pointless arguing. Enjoy the pictures, people. That’s what they’re here for.
Dec 19, 2009Oh; And puppies are, in fact, born with hair. Haven’t you ever witnessed the miracle of a bitch giving birth? You should. You might learn something.
Dec 19, 2009Not all Americans believe in abortion so stop generalizing. And It looks to me like these pictures may have been made with radar. They send the waves in and then receive them back (like an ultrasound) in order to get the shape and then they just make up their own color for each different wavelength received back. Its called a false color image. But who knows for sure?
Dec 20, 2009I hope they didn't harm any of these animals or fetuses to get these pictures.
Dec 20, 2009They are pretty amazing, so hard to believe their real
Dec 20, 2009so sweet!!!
Dec 20, 2009beautiful!
Dec 20, 2009Simply amazing
Dec 20, 2009Everyone claiming that these are real live photos must be retarded, anyone claiming that these pictures are not real haven’t got the full picture either. It’s obvious that the team that put these pictures together did so based on very real data (from techniques like ultrasound and microcameras) and then used computer graphics to create these images BUT the images created are meant to represent what it is really like in the womb, not just guessing. So in a way they are real and at the same time their fakes, they kind of did take a photograph, but indirectly. However the technology to see through walls does exist, it’s just not been made widely available and again it just gives you data to extrapolate whats on the other side… not some magic glasses that actually let you look through. The technology is based exactly in the same way that ultrasound is based, but instead of high freq. sound other bands of the EM spectrum are used… so for instance, what do you think night vision goggles are? they are just infrared radiation detectors so you can see in the dark…. what type of EM radiation goes through walls? well… acually, about half of the spectrum so that gives you a hell of a lot of EM data to make a picture out of… those who don’t believ eme, i dont care, get an education and then believe yourselves, those who do… good.
Dec 20, 2009WOW! quite breathtaking…
Dec 20, 2009It's OK to abort "cute" humans because there are so dang many of them. One more or less won't make a difference. As for eggs not being wombs, eggs are indeed a type of womb.
Dec 21, 2009the comments were more interesting than the pictures.
the level of retardation on the internet is truly awe-inspiring :-L
Dec 21, 2009oh wow. a post designed to stir the emotions of right-wing anti-abortion nut jobs.
Dec 21, 2009these are all pictures from national geographic series in the womb. they ARE NOT REAL. there is a disclaimer at the start of each episode stating that they are part models and cgi. no one watches informative tv anymore i guess.
Dec 21, 2009If it was real they’re all aborted, otherwise the thin membrane around the fetus wd be punctuated, causing severe damage to the life form. Let’s hope they R fake ’cause of that.
‘Wish no harm to anything peaceful’
Dec 21, 2009wow
Dec 21, 2009Why do people care if they're fake or not. They're still fascinating and beautifully composed.
The article never stated, 'THIS IS ENTIRELY REAL!' it stated that many 'techniques' were used.
Dec 22, 2009to imagine the amount of passion some people have towards animals in the womb – some even legally protected from harm, then sadly our own species are allowed to be murdered on a whim…
Dec 22, 2009fabulous!!!
Dec 22, 2009Great pictures… thank you, for this blog post !
Dec 22, 2009These photos are absolutely amazing. Thanks for sharing.
Dec 23, 2009this IS stunning
Dec 23, 2009There are photos like this of humans in the womb. I forget the type of photography it’s called, but Google it. (And no, it’s not 3D ultrasound–those don’t look very real, and they’re not actual cameras with lenses, as these are). Just because it’s incredible doesn’t mean it’s fake. And to the jackass who dissed America: if you hate it so much, get the hell out instead of wishing to change it by voting in Socialists with Communists czars hellbent on systematically destroying the economy.
Dec 23, 2009Gorgey!
Dec 23, 2009beautyful thank you .gilles g.
Dec 24, 2009some of these comments are really unintelligent…
most sharks are ovoviviparous, but there are species that lay eggs.
dolphins are mammals, and don’t lay eggs.
puppies are born with fur, unless they are hairless.
we have the technology to see inside the womb, its called an ultrasound.
we also have 3D and 4D ultrasounds.
although they don’t look as good as these images,
but i’m sure these images were manipulated, but so what, many brilliant photographers edit their pictures, it doesn’t make them any less brilliant.
and to the anti-abortion comment,
Dec 24, 2009that was completely uneccessary. idiot.
very nice work who CARES about all the other drivel! LOL
Dec 24, 2009OMG READ THE TEXT YOU IDIOTS!
Dec 24, 2009These are real photos edited with computer graphics.
Wow!!These pictures are really pure and beautiful.
Dec 25, 2009I like them!
Actually even if you read the text it’s wrong. Yes, they are from National Geographic, but they are all COMPUTER GENERATED! If you draw a picture on photoshop, it is computer generated. Therefore these are, for internet argument sake, SHOPPED
Dec 25, 2009“Of course these images are computer generated. If we had the technology to see through things like wombs and other material with this level of detail the applications would be innumerable…”
Really? I mean, really people? Do your research before posting. Perhaps try reading a book or two.
Dec 26, 2009pretty neat photos..cant figure the last one though! is that a shark?
Dec 26, 2009lovely!!!![:)] simply amazing!!![:)]
Dec 26, 2009they’re just pictures of just born animals with a background shopped in.
Dec 26, 2009Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!!!!!!
Dec 26, 2009it is an amazeing site
Dec 28, 2009we all had tails in the woumb u kno
Dec 28, 2009I need to know where gluttonous is because anon said he’s going there and I want to go as well
Dec 29, 2009Beautiful images. Thanks for sharing it.
Dec 29, 2009"There's the small issue that fish and birds don't ever exist in a womb… but other than that."
thats wrong about fish, some cartilaginous fish such as hammerhead sharks do give birth to live young, meaning that the embryo does develop inside a "womb"
Dec 29, 2009we all start out as cell (egg)and to my understanding that has been the way from the beginning and we do have the technology to take these type of photos
Dec 31, 2009jm
Very intriguing, and somehow it's easier for me to see these than a human fetus.
Jan 2, 2010Wow, I wasn’t expecting such a funny and controversial discussion under these amazing photos. When I first looked at these last night, it didn’t really enter my mind to wonder as to whether they were photoshopped or not. I’d say regardless of how these images were created, there’s a truth in them. They’re beautiful, as beautiful as any image taken of the stars or galaxies or nature. It’s another perspective on the world that helps us to better understand ourselves by deepening our complexity of what we see. I would hope these photos foster awe and compassion for all life, multiple jewel sentences. Breathtaking…
Jan 2, 2010Amazing images! Thank you for sharing these
Jan 4, 2010These are simply stunning. I find it interesting how detailed they are, and quite educational!
Also, to be immature: heheh penguin butt!
Jan 4, 2010Wow !! Unbelievable !! Way Too Cool !!
Jan 5, 2010These aren’t animals, they’re “masses of cells.”
Jan 6, 2010Who cares if this is completely legit or not? Regardless of if they're actual photographs, this IS what these animals look like in the womb/egg. And it's beautiful. Made me cry, actually. ;;)
Jan 6, 2010LOVE IT <3 :X. LOVE animals sooooooooo much, there like my life
Jan 6, 2010That people think these, or human babies, are ‘cute’, isn’t a good enough reason to keep the babies. Mind you, many fetuses haven’t proceeded to this stage before most people abort. If everyone who got pregnant kept their baby, I think pro-lifers wouldn’t be so confident in their assertions, which are just opinions. Often, the people who decide to abort are ill-equipped to carry, deliver, and/or care for the baby, economically, emotionally, mentally, or time-wise. Or they’re too young or too old. They could give it away, but sometimes it may be out of the question to birth the child; they may be living in a social situation where they and heir baby could be harmed as a result. Of course, forethought could prevent the majority of these situations, but even with forethought and planning, things happen. See past your world, people. It is the only thing that can save us.
Jan 6, 2010These are beautiful and haunting. It's a good thing, I like being haunted.
Jan 6, 2010Wow!
This is totally amazing! How do they get these pictures?? That is really amazing!
);));;):D;);):p:):X:-o:-*8-}:)]:-t x(
Jan 7, 2010Amazing!
(
Jan 8, 2010Go to the website. It says they’re computer-generated pics. Even some cool pics of the models they used to re-create the embryonic process. Just goes to show how gullible or hopeful some people are without doing research. fyi, new ultrasound and digital camera techniques can be used to get photos close to this quality, but the embryo is more compacted and appears squished inside the uterus, and pups have other pups of the litter surrounding them. if there was that much fluid to let an elephant trunk float freely in the embryonic sac, the mommy elephant couldn’t walk from the huge back of fluid dragging on the ground.
Jan 8, 2010Oops. I take back my earlier comment. I'm a fool.
Jan 8, 2010Ridiculous. You idiots need to get lives. This was done to gain an understanding….not to commence some idiotic argument about what is real and what isn’t. Morons.
Jan 10, 2010“The show’s producer, Peter Chinn, used a combination of three-dimensional ultrasound scans, “COMPUTER GRAPHICS,” and tiny cameras to capture the process from conception to birth.”
I hope the quotes and caps cleared it up for some of you idiots.
Jan 10, 2010Baby Sharks <3<3<3
Jan 11, 2010wishes people would get a life and stop being so politically correct. it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re shopped (as a few people have mentioned earlier) people who make rude remarks ARE shopped, so go back and have a think about what you have just said, and THEN return with a comment that isn’t judgemental.
Jan 14, 2010These have been photo shipped. Fake…
Elephants don't have a nose until 3 days before delivery.
Jan 14, 2010How on earth did they take those crazy photo's?
Jan 15, 2010I work as a freelance sculptor/model maker and actually worked on this program. I hate to burst all of your bubbles but absolutely none of these is real. They are either CGI or models placed in fake wombs. We must’ve done a pretty good job though ’cause you lot totally fell for it!
)
Jan 18, 2010These are photoshopped.
Jan 19, 2010Who’s to say the elephant picture wasn’t taken three days before delivery ? and who cares if the photos were shopped ? i certainly don’t. they’re merely for people to enjoy. they’re cute, and interesting. stop ruining it for everyone. even if they were shopped, they portrayed the image of the baby in the womb spectacularly so cut the guy some slack. it’s a creative idea and i highly doubt anyone of you could “shop” a photo in this way.
Jan 28, 2010Wow, the comments on this page are hilarious! Thanks for the laugh! My personal favorite is the one about elephants not having trunks until three days before birth!!! My day is off to an awesome start. Thanks again!
Jan 28, 2010these are not real animals. they are made of silicone. i’ve seen a documentary about it on tv and the creator showed all the objects again, explaining how he used the light, camera etc. he said though that they were very close to reality.
Mar 12, 2010Nice.
Mar 25, 2010awesome!!
Apr 16, 2010These pictures are a wonderful combination of extremely cute and rather creepy. It is taking nature photography in a very strange direction. Weather this is Photoshop or not or not it is obvious the window technology gives us to the different levels of the beauty of life. The color is wonderful along with all of the strange textures. It does have an oddly pro-life feel to it even though I am not sure if it is supposed to. Highlighting for me that aesthetics shouldn’t be the major influence of moral decision making. Regardless, I quite enjoyed these images and would like to see more animals.
Apr 17, 2010Wow ! These pictures are amazing !
Apr 18, 2010i really needed to see this today. thanks.
Apr 20, 2010In the show that these seem to be from, they do mention in the fine print(so to speak) that the videos were computer generated. Gorgeous, but not real. Also, sharks are fish. Loser.
Apr 21, 2010It’s really lame to call people idiots in comment sections. Even where people do fall for things, in this e-world, it can be difficult to tell fact from fiction with a well-designed page, and sometimes people just don’t take the time to look into things.
In this case however, i think that the naysayers are not just acting like douches, they’re out to lunch. The photos clearly say that they are photo shopped, so pointing it out over and over doesn’t make you look smart. But photo shopped can mean any number of things — from made-up to enhanced. This is a National Geographic product. NG is a pretty credible source in photographic journalism. The pictures are clearly enhanced, but that doesn’t mean they are hoaxes. And the makers readily admit they supplemented the pictures with some model pieces where the cameras would not get a clear enough shot.
From ecorazzi (http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/03/12/extraordinary-animals-in-the-womb-stunning-photos-from-nat-geo-film/):
What really caught my attention are the scenes the filmmakers managed to put together using new advances in scanning and imaging technology. The footage is actually a combination of digital photography, scans, and computer-generated models — but the work is so seamless that it’s very hard to tell what’s real and what isn’t.
“There is no intention to deceive, and we are clear about just how far our cameras can go,” said the show’s producer Peter Chinn. “But the picture we’ve been able to build up goes further than my wildest dreams.”
It’s worth noting that none of the animals — or their embryos — were harmed during the filming. Whatever could not be captured in great detail using scanning cameras was meticulously rendered to represent what a close-up would look like on the inside.
Apr 21, 2010These are really cool pictures! Thanks for sharing
Apr 26, 2010totally fake.
Apr 29, 2010Who ever heard of such creatures as an ELEPHANT or a PENGUIN. nonsense
nice!!! very ambiguous! [rolling eyes]
yeah, definitely stunning.
credits to innah for sharing the link…absolutely a geek!!!
Apr 29, 2010So how are these baby animals but a child in the womb isn’t a baby human? Abortion makes no sense.
Apr 29, 2010I bookmarked this link . Thank you for good job !
May 1, 2010How is it even possible for an elephant to be floating in the womb??? The womb, wit a baby in it, is tightly surrounding the baby to make sure it is not harmed in labor. IEATBABIEZ!! <3
May 8, 2010just makes u realize – all life is so precious & beautiful.
May 9, 2010Lovingly done is well-advised b wealthier than spectacularly said.
May 9, 2010Lovingly done is sick than spectacularly said.
May 10, 2010What do you think concerning adding some more illustrations? No offence, site is really great. Just as I know visitors acquire information much more efficient when they see some useful pics.
Steaven Page
May 10, 2010theses aren’t baby animals, they are just groups of cells, blobs of flesh
May 11, 2010I would abort all of them
Sorry, just wanted to post something equally biased, pro-lifers.
In any case, the show about these photos is absolutely amazing. Given what we still have to learn about development, both in the womb and out, studies like this are vitally important.
May 13, 2010These are not real pictures
May 13, 2010There are reel pictures
good work
I dont like the….. last…. 2nd of the last…..and some dogs
May 13, 2010So amazing!!
May 13, 2010unbelievable
Jun 6, 2010COMPUTER GRAPHICS.
Jun 11, 2010Real or fake they’re great pictures and interesting to think about. You don’t need to know that everything is real, but just that something could be there.
Jun 20, 2010Truly remarkable.
Jul 11, 2010There are beautiful realities, and more natural just really.
Jul 13, 2010i wanna believe these are real. theyre absolutely amazing.
im only curious though, dont cats and dogs give birth to around 7 pups at a time? why is there only one in the womb? unless they edited the others out to just have a more clear view of a single.
the elephant is the most extraordinary! so adorable
Jul 14, 2010Very cool stuff.keep em coming… Cami Cueto
Jul 20, 2010No use to call people idiots … but what to do you do if they really are? If they obviously don’t know how to use their brains or have none to use in the first place?
Aug 7, 2010Images like that are fake and recreated! They CANNOT be real images from living animals!
Why?
Guess what: how big is a whom? How does a camera work?
A womb is a crammed space, idiots! And it’s filled with fluid, by the way.
To do a photograph from THAT DISTANCE to an embryo you would need to blow up the womb to ten times its volume! GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
And the “space” would be foggy from liquid, no free sight air! And the animals would be wet – and not dryly furred!
Any other clues?
Maybe
“A team of model-makers was enlisted to recreate the embryos at various stages. ‘These guys had an incredibly difficult job to do,’ says Peter. ‘Their background is in creating gremlins and the like for movies, but for us they had to produce incredibly accurate representations of embryonic animals.”
Grow a brain! There is no technology to do such images other then model making in CGI.
And if you claim such technology would exist, you’d better get your facts straight and know what you are talking about than to blabber humbug.
super nice
Aug 9, 2010What I’m confused about is why the puppy has fur and the penguin has feathers… I thought those developed post-natal?
Aug 12, 2010Many things here:
To all those saying the pictures are fake:
Of course they aren’t real. The writer never ever claimed that the pictures were 100% real. It clearly states that they “used a combination of three-dimensional ultrasound scans, computer graphics and tiny cameras”
Cammila you say “Fake, and I only say this because I have never known of any dog or cat to have a single pup in the womb.“
In fact many small breed dogs, first time mothers, as well as older mothers (if they are still breeding around 10 years of age) do in fact have only one or two young at a time. I had a dog that for her last 3 litters only had 1 pup per litter and she was an older large breed dag. I also had a cat that only had 1 kitten during her first litter.
Jack you say that “If there was that much fluid to let an elephant trunk float freely in the embryonic sac, the mommy elephant couldn’t walk from the huge back of fluid dragging on the ground.”
Who says it is floating freely? Unborn creatures do in fact have the ability to move their body parts. I am not saying they do it well or with complete control but they can do it.
To all those who say that the elephant can not possibly be floating in the womb.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the mother was actually laying on her side, and therefore causing the baby to be laying on it’s side, therefore allowing the baby to appear to be floating?
Pacman you say that “Elephants don’t have a nose until 3 days before delivery.”
I am sorry to say that you are wrong, their trunks do not suddenly sprout from nowhere during the last three days. It develops during the entire pregnancy just like every other body part.
Patricia you asked “Don’t cats and dogs give birth to around 7 pups at a time?”
Depending on the breed, dogs can have anywhere from a single pup to a very large litter of 12 or more. The current record is 23 pups born in a single litter. 3 different dogs currently hold that record. An American foxhound bore her pups on June 19, 1944; a St. Bernard gave birth to 23 – of which 14 survived – in February 1975, and a Great Dane had a litter of 23 in June 1987.
Cats average a litter of 3 to 5 kittens while the record for the largest litter is 19 kittens born to a Burmese/Siamese cat from Oxfordshire on 7 August 1970.
Confused, you asked “What I’m confused about is why the puppy has fur and the penguin has feathers… I thought those developed post-natal?”
Fur bearing mammals are born completely covered in fur unless they are of a hairless breed that does not have the genes for fur. Depending on the type of bird, some do hatch already completely covered in feathers while others don’t. For example baby robins are not fully developed when they hatch and therefore do not have feathers. They are blind and helpless, relying on the parents to care for them. The parent birds continue to sit on them as they develop outside the egg. Birds like chickens, ducks, and geese are born completely feathered and completely formed. They can get up and move on their own within an hour of hatching, relying on the mother bird to teach them how to survive as they follow her around. Penguins (and other cold weather birds) are fully formed and therefore fully feathered upon hatching because of the climate they live in.
To those people saying that all life is precious and should not be killed no matter what.
Aug 14, 2010Lets say that a 10 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant. Are you saying that this child that is already here should put her life in danger (and possible lose both mother and child) and should not be allowed an abortion simply to give the new life a chance?
I am not saying that abortion is right in all cases but should instead be viewed on a case by case basis and a decision arrived upon by the person who will be affected by the birth or termination of an unborn child. If I ever found my self in a position to make the decision for myself, I would have to sit down and decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. My factors would base on my age at the time and the risk of the pregnancy, the stability of my home life, and the amount of money I could set aside to raise the child.
I am currently 25 with a loving husband, both of us with full time, well paying jobs. If I were to become pregnant at this time then yes, I would gladly be willing to bring a child into this world. If I was a 45 year old woman going through a divorce at the time with a part time job or no job at all, I would not feel that I would be able to raise a child in the type of environment that would be crucial to both the child’s physical and mental well being, and yes I would abort.
Seriously the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen!
Aug 21, 2010Leave a Reply