🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:16:43 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
<dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:

>Awwww....

>What is it about baby animals, of many species, that triggers our "soooo
>cute" reflex?

IIRC, Gould thought it was because the proportions resembled human
neoteny.

					Dan, ad nauseam

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
> What is it about baby animals, of many species, that triggers our "soooo
> cute" reflex?

Big eyes, large head, soft fur. And, of course, props.

Kip W

In article <slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu>,
Daniel Silevitch  <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>
>People with cats might also appreciate this:
>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html

Oh, well, if you want *cute*:

http://www.lpzoo.com/articles/new_arrivals/index.html

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:05:57 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu>,
> Daniel Silevitch  <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>>
>>People with cats might also appreciate this:
>>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html
>
> Oh, well, if you want *cute*:
>
> http://www.lpzoo.com/articles/new_arrivals/index.html

I saw the baby gorilla at the Lincoln Park zoo when it was just a few
weeks days old (last summer). I haven't been back there since; maybe
it's time to for another visit.

Gorilla photo here: http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/gorillas.jpg
(apologies for the sucky lighting; this was the best of a poor lot of
pictures)

The sand cat kitten certainly is cute, though.

-dms

"Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu...
>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>
> People with cats might also appreciate this:
> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html

Both quite good. Thank you. I won't say that this photo is cuter, but it
is pretty far up there on the scale.

http://members.shaw.ca/karljohanson/Cute.htm

Karl Johanson

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:10:12 GMT, Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu...
>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>>
>> People with cats might also appreciate this:
>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html
>
> Both quite good. Thank you. I won't say that this photo is cuter, but it
> is pretty far up there on the scale.
>
> http://members.shaw.ca/karljohanson/Cute.htm

Awwww....

What is it about baby animals, of many species, that triggers our "soooo
cute" reflex?

-dms

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:41:07 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
<dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:

>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html

We see pictures of Tai Shan frequently here; I particularly like the
ones where he's playing with Mom.

>People with cats might also appreciate this:
>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html

Ah, our adolescent cheetahs!
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:10:12 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:

>"Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu...
>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>>
>> People with cats might also appreciate this:
>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html
>
>Both quite good. Thank you. I won't say that this photo is cuter, but it
>is pretty far up there on the scale.
>
>http://members.shaw.ca/karljohanson/Cute.htm

I thought that was going to be chickens!

I only count 9 total, though.  I was thinking the mom was in the front
with the kids in the trunk, but I only see 8 in the trunk.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

At Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:22:35 -0500,
Kip Williams <kiptw@comcast.net> strode forth and proclaimed:
> Daniel Silevitch wrote:

> > What is it about baby animals, of many species, that triggers our "soooo
> > cute" reflex?
>
> Big eyes, large head, soft fur. And, of course, props.

And the short little noses.

Whole minefields of cuteness here: http://www.kittenbreak.com/ and
http://www.puppybreak.com/


--
    /
Petrea Mitchell    <|> <|>         <pravn@m5p.com>   <mitchep@osm.com>
"If it can't be done quickly and with a lot of collateral damage, it
isn't worth doing."        ---James Nicoll

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> Exactly.  Just as (as T. E. WHite and others have pointed out)
> all embryos look very much alike, so baby critters (particularly
> mammals) look to some extent like human babies, whom we're
> programmed to like and protect.  Of course that programming, like
> much of our other programming, can be overridden.

Hmmmm, something to think about. Some, someway, my programming was
changed to "cherish old cats that few others would want".

In article <m7er129prt29dfk24ci1oabqrloump3e2o@4ax.com>,
Daniel R. Reitman  <dreitman@spiritone.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:16:43 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
><dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>>Awwww....
>
>>What is it about baby animals, of many species, that triggers our "soooo
>>cute" reflex?
>
>IIRC, Gould thought it was because the proportions resembled human
>neoteny.

Exactly.  Just as (as T. E. WHite and others have pointed out)
all embryos look very much alike, so baby critters (particularly
mammals) look to some extent like human babies, whom we're
programmed to like and protect.  Of course that programming, like
much of our other programming, can be overridden.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:00:45 -0500, Marilee J Layman <marilee@mjlayman.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:41:07 GMT, Daniel Silevitch
><dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>
> We see pictures of Tai Shan frequently here; I particularly like the
> ones where he's playing with Mom.

Unfortunately, the pandas weren't all that active for the 15 or so
minutes that I was there. Tai Shan shifted position on his tree branch a
couple of times, Mom rolled over in her sleep once, and Dad sat up once
or twice. Other than that, it was panda Nap Time.

-dms

"Marilee J. Layman" <marilee@mjlayman.com> wrote in message
news:eqvr12prlt0ii062u881o8e438ct4fiaj2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:10:12 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>news:slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu...
>>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>>>
>>> People with cats might also appreciate this:
>>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html
>>
>>Both quite good. Thank you. I won't say that this photo is cuter, but
>>it
>>is pretty far up there on the scale.
>>
>>http://members.shaw.ca/karljohanson/Cute.htm
>
> I thought that was going to be chickens!
>
> I only count 9 total, though.  I was thinking the mom was in the front
> with the kids in the trunk, but I only see 8 in the trunk.

Beside the three puppies on the left is the 9th one. He's harder to see
than the others. You just see part of his black snoot.

Karl Johanson

In article <1142830418.453069.258360@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
Amethyst <adoptsoldcats@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> Exactly.  Just as (as T. E. WHite and others have pointed out)
>> all embryos look very much alike, so baby critters (particularly
>> mammals) look to some extent like human babies, whom we're
>> programmed to like and protect.  Of course that programming, like
>> much of our other programming, can be overridden.
>
>Hmmmm, something to think about. Some, someway, my programming was
>changed to "cherish old cats that few others would want".
>

But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face
shapes and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.  My
cat Promethea will be nineteen any day now and she's still cute.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:41:07 CST, Daniel Silevitch wrote:

> I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html

Not if that Panda's name is Genma.

Phil
--
Philip Chee <philip@aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.chee@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]What is a CRC and why did it fail? - PKZip FAQ
* TagZilla 0.059

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.

What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?

I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
with odor, or anything else.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 20 Mar 2006 23:16:50 -0500, Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
> I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
> with odor, or anything else.

Well, I was going to pick one of H.P. Lovecraft's creations, but someone
sent me this URL this morning:
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~kimuchi/cthulhu.html
and I had to drop that approach.

Komodo dragon, perhaps?

-dms

In article <dvnuni$bdn$1@panix1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
>What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
>I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
>with odor, or anything else.

No contest.  A baby parakeet.  Ugliest thing you can imagine.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?

Hagfish

--
Mark Atwood                 When you do things right, people won't be sure
me@mark.atwood.name         you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/   http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/

In article <m2r74wqspl.fsf@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>,
Mark Atwood  <me@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>>
>> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
>Hagfish

Opposums are pretty ugly as mammals go.

--
	Hal Heydt
	Albany, CA

			My dime, my opinions.

On 20 Mar 2006 23:16:50 -0500, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
> I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
> with odor, or anything else.

My vote would probably be for the blob sculpin (Psychrolutes phrictus).
You can make similar arguments for any number of other deep water fish.  In
addition, I think that Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), various
giant earthworms, Marabou Storks (Leptoptilos crumeniferus), and the
Matamata (Chelus fimbriatus) are kind of hard to see as being particularly
cute.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Ursula Vernon could manage.

--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Mark Atwood wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>>>and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>>
>>What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
>
> Hagfish
>

	Or lamprey. We have a winnah. These things are Lovecraftian.

--
				Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

Alter S. Reiss wrote:

> My vote would probably be for the blob sculpin (Psychrolutes phrictus).
> You can make similar arguments for any number of other deep water fish.  In
> addition, I think that Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis),

	I think the hellbenders and other similar giant salamanders are in
the "ugly, but in a cute way" category. Mark Atwood's suggestion of
"hagfish" I think pretty much does it all.


--
				Sea Wasp
                        /^\
                        ;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

On 20 Mar 2006 23:16:50 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
>What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?

Roadkill

>I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
>with odor, or anything else.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?

"Whatever it is, it's right behind you! RUN!"

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:dvnuni$bdn$1@panix1.panix.com...
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?

Spiders for me, I'd say. Why? Just a phobia. I'm no fan of liver flukes
either, but they don't give me the quaking goombies.

Karl Johanson

At 20 Mar 2006 23:16:50 -0500,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> strode forth and proclaimed:

> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
> I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
> with odor, or anything else.

My vote's gotta go to the banana slug. Redwoods and sequoias aren't the
only things that grow to majestic sizes in the forests of northern
California.


--
    /
Petrea Mitchell    <|> <|>         <pravn@m5p.com>   <mitchep@osm.com>
"Is science supposed to smell like banana creme?"                ---MST3K
      "A watched plot never thickens."               ---Boris Badenov

How about some active panda cubs - see
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id17

I've just noticed this dates back to 10 March, so apologies if everyone
has seen them!
Robin Johnson

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:01:42 GMT, Sea Wasp wrote:

> Alter S. Reiss wrote:
>
>> My vote would probably be for the blob sculpin (Psychrolutes phrictus).
>> You can make similar arguments for any number of other deep water fish.  In
>> addition, I think that Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis),
>
> 	I think the hellbenders and other similar giant salamanders are in
> the "ugly, but in a cute way" category. Mark Atwood's suggestion of
> "hagfish" I think pretty much does it all.

Blob Sculpin:
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/media/photo_gallery/photos/Cottidae/psyphrthree.jpg

Hagfish:
http://www.umich.edu/~bio440/fieldtrips98/HAGFISH.JPG

Although, I suppose that while the blob sculpin would win an ugly
competition, there might be grounds for "cute sort of ugly."

So, I suppose I'll switch my vote to the

Humpback Angler:
http://www.oceans.gov.au/norfanz/images/humpbackangler.jpg

(Of course, there are other choices that are good.  Marabou Storks and
Waldraaps, Isopods and hornets, so on, and so forth.)

--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

In article <1221ft27b9v1f49@corp.supernews.com>,
Petrea Mitchell  <pravn@parkstreet.m5p.com> wrote:
>At 20 Mar 2006 23:16:50 -0500,
>Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> strode forth and proclaimed:
>
>> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>>
>> I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
>> with odor, or anything else.
>
>My vote's gotta go to the banana slug. Redwoods and sequoias aren't the
>only things that grow to majestic sizes in the forests of northern
>California.
>
	The most Lovecraftian experience I ever had was the first time
I saw a banana slug crawling along a sidewalk in Sausalito (Specificially
along Carlos Ave, which is already a bit of an oddity for that town).

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

In article <dvrqvc$88m$1@reader2.panix.com>
	   jdnicoll@panix.com "James Nicoll" writes:

> The most Lovecraftian experience I ever had was the first time
> I saw a banana slug crawling along a sidewalk in Sausalito
> (Specificially along Carlos Ave, which is already a bit of an
> oddity for that town).

There must be a style joke in there but I'd rather not touch it.

Sidebar:-  Logically, if anyone had a respectably Lovecraftian
experience, they'd tend to suppress it with amnesia.  Nar?
--
Andrew Stephenson

In article <1143043690snz@deltrak.demon.co.uk>,
Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <dvrqvc$88m$1@reader2.panix.com>
>	   jdnicoll@panix.com "James Nicoll" writes:
>
>> The most Lovecraftian experience I ever had was the first time
>> I saw a banana slug crawling along a sidewalk in Sausalito
>> (Specificially along Carlos Ave, which is already a bit of an
>> oddity for that town).
>
>There must be a style joke in there but I'd rather not touch it.
>
	The oddity is the numbering. Most of the streets in Saualito
start their numbering down by the bay (I think: it could be up on
the hill) but Carlos Avenue does it the other way round. This is
apparently a great surprise to local cab drivers, whose faith
in the Unity of Sausalito Numbering Systems is apparently very
compelling.


--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

In message <slrne1rbgq.10a.dmsilev@bardeen.local>, Daniel Silevitch
<dmsilev@uchicago.edu> writes
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:10:12 GMT, Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Daniel Silevitch" <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> news:slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu...
>>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>>>
>>> People with cats might also appreciate this:
>>> http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html
>>
>> Both quite good. Thank you. I won't say that this photo is cuter, but it
>> is pretty far up there on the scale.
>>
>> http://members.shaw.ca/karljohanson/Cute.htm
>
>Awwww....
>
>What is it about baby animals, of many species, that triggers our "soooo
>cute" reflex?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/snakes/kids3.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/snakes/kids4.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/snakes/kids1.jpg

I couldn't possibly comment...


Apologies to dmsilev - I previously sent this as email when I meant it
to be a comment.
--
Marcus L. Rowland             http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
LJ:ffutures     http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/
   Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda

In article <IwDwtx.EtF@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <slrne1r2d2.mf.dmsilev@wireless-219-181.uchicago.edu>,
>Daniel Silevitch  <dmsilev@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>I believe I've discovered the Platonic ideal of cuteness:
>>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_4.html
>>
>>People with cats might also appreciate this:
>>http://ri22.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/wash_zoo/pages/page_6.html
>
>Oh, well, if you want *cute*:
>
>http://www.lpzoo.com/articles/new_arrivals/index.html

That is a remarkably cute sand cat kitten.

The cutest thing I've seen lately was somewhere on livejournal--I'm
hoping someone else will remember where to find the link.

The picture was of a very small kitten and someone's hand--not only
was the kitten doing the great big eyes thing, it had its tiny little
paw on the person's thumb. The only conceivable response was to give
that kitten everything it wants.
--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".

In article <IwEGI2.J8q@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>Exactly.  Just as (as T. E. WHite and others have pointed out)
>all embryos look very much alike, so baby critters (particularly
>mammals) look to some extent like human babies, whom we're
>programmed to like and protect.  Of course that programming, like
>much of our other programming, can be overridden.

It might also be absent in some cases.
--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".

In article <i0ug7snb507b.xz9nnrjs1ki6.dlg@40tude.net>,
Alter S. Reiss <asreiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2006 23:16:50 -0500, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>>
>> What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>>
>> I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
>> with odor, or anything else.
>
>My vote would probably be for the blob sculpin (Psychrolutes phrictus).
>You can make similar arguments for any number of other deep water fish.  In
>addition, I think that Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), various
>giant earthworms, Marabou Storks (Leptoptilos crumeniferus), and the
>Matamata (Chelus fimbriatus) are kind of hard to see as being particularly
>cute.
>
>Though I wouldn't be surprised if Ursula Vernon could manage.
>
Quite possibly--her work is delightful.

Home page:
http://www.metalandmagic.com/

An illustrated story about cute evil:
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/uvernon/littlecreature/series.php?view=archive&chapterF02&mpe=1&step=1

The result of her taking a look at some surrealism:
http://www.metalandmagic.com/modules.php?set_albumName=weirdfruit&id=bitingpear&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php
--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".

In article <aar31kq7m9nf$.lvi52n8f2m7l$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Alter S. Reiss <asreiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:01:42 GMT, Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Alter S. Reiss wrote:
>>
>>> My vote would probably be for the blob sculpin (Psychrolutes phrictus).
>>> You can make similar arguments for any number of other deep water fish.  In
>>> addition, I think that Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis),
>>
>> 	I think the hellbenders and other similar giant salamanders are in
>> the "ugly, but in a cute way" category. Mark Atwood's suggestion of
>> "hagfish" I think pretty much does it all.
>
>Blob Sculpin:
>http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/race/media/photo_gallery/photos/Cottidae/psyphrthree.jpg

Unfair--most of us become considerably less cute when we're dead.

>Hagfish:
>http://www.umich.edu/~bio440/fieldtrips98/HAGFISH.JPG
>
>Although, I suppose that while the blob sculpin would win an ugly
>competition, there might be grounds for "cute sort of ugly."
>
>So, I suppose I'll switch my vote to the
>
>Humpback Angler:
>http://www.oceans.gov.au/norfanz/images/humpbackangler.jpg

That one wouldn't be much improved by being alive, I think.
--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".

In article <dvnuni$bdn$1@panix1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> But even old cats look cute.  It's in details of their face shapes
>> and eye settings that don't change as the grow older.
>
>What is the *least* cute kind of animal, and why?
>
>I'm only counting appearance, not learned associations with behavior,
>with odor, or anything else.

As a general thing, parasites aren't especially good-looking. There's
a book called _Parasite Rex_--the pictures were a clue for where the
aesthetic for Alien came from.
--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".

In article <e0gnjj$q6m$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Nancy Lebovitz <nancyl@panix.com> wrote:
>The cutest thing I've seen lately was somewhere on livejournal--I'm
>hoping someone else will remember where to find the link.
>
>The picture was of a very small kitten and someone's hand--not only
>was the kitten doing the great big eyes thing, it had its tiny little
>paw on the person's thumb. The only conceivable response was to give
>that kitten everything it wants.

I do hope everyone reading this thread knows about http://cuteoverload.com/.
(Sounds like that photo ought to be submitted.)

--
   David Goldfarb          | "Questions are a burden to others.
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |  Answers are a prison for oneself."
goldfarb@csua.berkeley.edu |     -- _The Prisoner_, "Dance of the Dead"