Before posting my rabbit photo on FB, I thought, I should see whether I can figure out its genotype based on the 11 loci I talked about in my last post. This seemed kind of daunting, but then I saw the photo -- a brown Dutch. This is easy!
A_bbC_D_E_enenduduVVSi_W_P_
(Note: the _ indicates that because the rabbit shows the dominant characteristic, it's not possible to know whether the other gene is the dominant or recessive version; the bun looks the same either way. Only the breeding will tell. Or, I suppose, gene typing.)
It's funny how after a couple hours on the internet, a person can know more about a topic like the genetics of rabbit fur coloration than like 99.999% of the population.
Note: I actually screwed it up the first time, despite the fact that it was easy. I was like the kid at the spelling bee so relieved to get an easy word that she isn't careful enough and blows it. Hah.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Dominant Bunny
Behaviorally, Leo was our dominant bunny and Katy the submissive (I always called her "phlegmatic") partner.
Genetically, who had the dominant genes? Let's investigate their fur coloration genes.
What follows is a basic explanation of the genes that affect fur coloration. I started reading about this tonight because of comments that have arisen in response to my daily rabbit postings on FB, and it's really interesting stuff. But I would understand if you want to skim over this part.
----
There are five series (loci) of genes, labeled A-E for reasons that will be clear below.
A=Agouti pattern. This refers to the presence or absence of banding on the hair shaft, which affects the pattern of coloration, not the color of the hair itself.
Dominant: A - agouti - the hair shaft has bands of color that give the bun the light-to-dark pattern over the fur. The bands are (moving from skin-end of hair to tip) white, gray, rufous (reddish orange), and black. This is the familiar "wild rabbit" look.
Intermediate: At - otter, aka tan - same as agouti only the main part of the body has hair shafts with a solid color.
Recessive: a - self - the hair shaft is a solid color so the rabbit has a solid coloration pattern over the entire body (and the fur is a solid color down to the skin).
Katy: Definitely had an agouti coloration. (Could be AA or Aa.)
Leo: ???
B=Black coloration. Affects the intensity of the black pigment.
Dominant: B - black
Recessive: b - brown (aka chocolate)
Katy: Definitely had a black coloration. (Could be BB or Bb.)
Leo: I think he also had a black coloration. (Could be BB or Bb.) The fact that he was bred to Katy further suggests this because typically people breed the same color together.
**Note that when you combine the dominant A (agouti) and B (black) genes, you get a rabbit like Katy who looks brownish, not black, because of the banding of the hair shaft given by the agouti gene. (Remember that one of the bands is a reddish color and that shows up in her pattern of coloration.) Only a self black, with no banding to the hair shaft, will look black.
C=Complete color. This affects the shading or albinism of the rabbit. There are five options here, listed in order of most to least dominant.
Dominant: C - complete - all pigments normal
cch3/cchd - chincilla - black is normal, yellow pigment becomes white
cch2/cchl - shaded - reduces the black pigment, eliminates yellow pigment
cch1/ch - himalayan or californian - color is restricted to the "points" (like on a siamese cat), the rest of the body is white, and eyes are red. What's weird/cool is that this is temperature sensitive! The color only shows up on the cool areas (the extremities).
Recessive: c - albino - no color and red eyes, aka red-eyed white (REW)
Katy and Leo: Definitely had a complete coloration. (Could be CC or C with another type.)
D=Dense color. Affects how much black or brown pigment (from the B locus) is present. Does not affect the intensity/chemical composition of the pigment itself.
Dominant: D - dense
Recessive: d - dilute - gives a faded look (black becomes blue, chocolate becomes lilac)
Katy and Leo: Definitely had a dense coloration. (Could be DD or Dd.)
E=Extension of color. Affects the quantity of black pigmentation. There are four options here.
Dominant: Ed - dominant black - will make any rabbit look black.
Es - steel - overproduction of black on the shaft makes the bun look darker.
E - normal extension ej - Japanese - the yellow and black pigments are in separate areas instead of on the same hair shaft, creates the brindled mix of colors of the harlequin/magpie.
Recessive: e - no black pigment at all, turns the rabbit red/fawn.
Katy and Leo: Definitely had a normal extension. (Could be EE or E with another type.)
So no wonder we see Katy-looking rabbits so often -- the castor rex is what you get when your bun has at least one copy of the dominant gene on each of the 5 loci!
But there are other genes that also affect the coloration pattern. Here is one that's important for my buns:
En=Broken factor (English spotting gene). Gives the rabbit that Leo look of the color "broken up" with white areas. Present in some breeds (such as mini rex).
Dominant: En - broken
Recessive: en - non-broken
A rabbit with two En genes (EnEn) is called a Charlie and has very little non-white color.
A rabbit with one En and one en (Enen) is a normal broken.
A rabbit with two en genes (enen) is non-broken.
Katy: Definitely had non-broken pattern. Must be enen. Recessive on both.
Leo: Definitely had a normal broken pattern. Must be Enen. Dominant on one, recessive on the other.
There are also plus/minus modifier genes that affect how much of the white and dark colors will appear on the broken colored bunny--whether it has the "blanket" of dark color or the "spots" of dark color (like Leo).
Others include Du (dutch factor--gives that sharp white triangle and other markings of the dutch rabbit), Si (silvering--creates silver hairs), V (vienna--creates a blue-eyed white rabbit), W (wideband--the yellow band of the hair shaft is larger), and P (changes eyes to pink). These are recessive, i.e., require two of the recessive genes to show up on the bunny, and neither of my buns had these them.
----
OK it looks like Katy was dominant on all genes (i.e., at least one of her pair for each loci must be the dominant version of the gene) except the broken coloration (10 out of 11).
Leo...harder to say. He was dominant on somewhere between 9 and 11 out of the 11 genes, but if I had to guess, I would say 11 of the 11.
It would not be implausible to me that Leo was an exceptionally dominant rabbit even where his coloration genes were concerned.
My thanks to the following web sites, from which I gathered the genetic information above and hopefully did not mangle it too badly in the process:
http://www.raising-rabbits.com/rabbit-coat-color-genetics.html
http://www.sleepyhollowrabbitry.com/genetics.html
http://www.3chobbyfarm.com/Rabbit-Genetics.html
http://mosaicrabbitry.weebly.com/rabbit-coat-color-genetics.html
http://rexrabbit.tripod.com/brokengene.html
http://www.threelittleladiesrabbitry.com/blog2/2011/04/06/the-en-or-english-spotting-gene-in-rabbits/
Genetically, who had the dominant genes? Let's investigate their fur coloration genes.
What follows is a basic explanation of the genes that affect fur coloration. I started reading about this tonight because of comments that have arisen in response to my daily rabbit postings on FB, and it's really interesting stuff. But I would understand if you want to skim over this part.
----
There are five series (loci) of genes, labeled A-E for reasons that will be clear below.
A=Agouti pattern. This refers to the presence or absence of banding on the hair shaft, which affects the pattern of coloration, not the color of the hair itself.
Dominant: A - agouti - the hair shaft has bands of color that give the bun the light-to-dark pattern over the fur. The bands are (moving from skin-end of hair to tip) white, gray, rufous (reddish orange), and black. This is the familiar "wild rabbit" look.
Intermediate: At - otter, aka tan - same as agouti only the main part of the body has hair shafts with a solid color.
Recessive: a - self - the hair shaft is a solid color so the rabbit has a solid coloration pattern over the entire body (and the fur is a solid color down to the skin).
Katy: Definitely had an agouti coloration. (Could be AA or Aa.)
Leo: ???
B=Black coloration. Affects the intensity of the black pigment.
Dominant: B - black
Recessive: b - brown (aka chocolate)
Katy: Definitely had a black coloration. (Could be BB or Bb.)
Leo: I think he also had a black coloration. (Could be BB or Bb.) The fact that he was bred to Katy further suggests this because typically people breed the same color together.
**Note that when you combine the dominant A (agouti) and B (black) genes, you get a rabbit like Katy who looks brownish, not black, because of the banding of the hair shaft given by the agouti gene. (Remember that one of the bands is a reddish color and that shows up in her pattern of coloration.) Only a self black, with no banding to the hair shaft, will look black.
C=Complete color. This affects the shading or albinism of the rabbit. There are five options here, listed in order of most to least dominant.
Dominant: C - complete - all pigments normal
cch3/cchd - chincilla - black is normal, yellow pigment becomes white
cch2/cchl - shaded - reduces the black pigment, eliminates yellow pigment
cch1/ch - himalayan or californian - color is restricted to the "points" (like on a siamese cat), the rest of the body is white, and eyes are red. What's weird/cool is that this is temperature sensitive! The color only shows up on the cool areas (the extremities).
Recessive: c - albino - no color and red eyes, aka red-eyed white (REW)
Katy and Leo: Definitely had a complete coloration. (Could be CC or C with another type.)
D=Dense color. Affects how much black or brown pigment (from the B locus) is present. Does not affect the intensity/chemical composition of the pigment itself.
Dominant: D - dense
Recessive: d - dilute - gives a faded look (black becomes blue, chocolate becomes lilac)
Katy and Leo: Definitely had a dense coloration. (Could be DD or Dd.)
E=Extension of color. Affects the quantity of black pigmentation. There are four options here.
Dominant: Ed - dominant black - will make any rabbit look black.
Es - steel - overproduction of black on the shaft makes the bun look darker.
E - normal extension ej - Japanese - the yellow and black pigments are in separate areas instead of on the same hair shaft, creates the brindled mix of colors of the harlequin/magpie.
Recessive: e - no black pigment at all, turns the rabbit red/fawn.
Katy and Leo: Definitely had a normal extension. (Could be EE or E with another type.)
So no wonder we see Katy-looking rabbits so often -- the castor rex is what you get when your bun has at least one copy of the dominant gene on each of the 5 loci!
But there are other genes that also affect the coloration pattern. Here is one that's important for my buns:
En=Broken factor (English spotting gene). Gives the rabbit that Leo look of the color "broken up" with white areas. Present in some breeds (such as mini rex).
Dominant: En - broken
Recessive: en - non-broken
A rabbit with two En genes (EnEn) is called a Charlie and has very little non-white color.
A rabbit with one En and one en (Enen) is a normal broken.
A rabbit with two en genes (enen) is non-broken.
Katy: Definitely had non-broken pattern. Must be enen. Recessive on both.
Leo: Definitely had a normal broken pattern. Must be Enen. Dominant on one, recessive on the other.
There are also plus/minus modifier genes that affect how much of the white and dark colors will appear on the broken colored bunny--whether it has the "blanket" of dark color or the "spots" of dark color (like Leo).
Others include Du (dutch factor--gives that sharp white triangle and other markings of the dutch rabbit), Si (silvering--creates silver hairs), V (vienna--creates a blue-eyed white rabbit), W (wideband--the yellow band of the hair shaft is larger), and P (changes eyes to pink). These are recessive, i.e., require two of the recessive genes to show up on the bunny, and neither of my buns had these them.
----
OK it looks like Katy was dominant on all genes (i.e., at least one of her pair for each loci must be the dominant version of the gene) except the broken coloration (10 out of 11).
Leo...harder to say. He was dominant on somewhere between 9 and 11 out of the 11 genes, but if I had to guess, I would say 11 of the 11.
It would not be implausible to me that Leo was an exceptionally dominant rabbit even where his coloration genes were concerned.
My thanks to the following web sites, from which I gathered the genetic information above and hopefully did not mangle it too badly in the process:
http://www.raising-rabbits.com/rabbit-coat-color-genetics.html
http://www.sleepyhollowrabbitry.com/genetics.html
http://www.3chobbyfarm.com/Rabbit-Genetics.html
http://mosaicrabbitry.weebly.com/rabbit-coat-color-genetics.html
http://rexrabbit.tripod.com/brokengene.html
http://www.threelittleladiesrabbitry.com/blog2/2011/04/06/the-en-or-english-spotting-gene-in-rabbits/
Friday, September 13, 2013
Brief Work Update
It's been a while since I've written anything about my job search, but it continues. So far this month, I've had 4 phone screens with HR -> 2 phone interviews with hiring managers (plus one scheduled for Monday) -> 1 in-person interview (plus one scheduled for next week). And I have also been invited for an in-person interview for a state job in two weeks without any phone interviews -- this is the first time that's happened. It seems that everyone else is doing phone interviews first.
The in-person interview next week comes as a big surprise to me. After getting off the phone with the hiring manager, I felt like I didn't do a very good job on the interview and thought I wasn't going to get a call back. (I called my mom to talk about it because it rattled me a bit.) But then it was easy to think of all the possible downsides of the job and I was OK with the situation. Now I'm in this weird place where I've sort of already talked myself into the idea that I didn't want the job anyway, but I am going to be interviewing for it (and seeming enthusiastic, etc., is critical on an interview). Well, I guess I have a little while to talk myself back into wanting, or at least being open to, the job.
I also got word this week, after my emailing the HR contact, that I'm not getting a job I had done a phone screen on and had found myself strangely attracted to. I did this phone call and I was supposed to hear back the next week, but I heard nothing for two weeks, and when I asked the HR person, she said that the hiring manager had gone on vacation for two weeks and she needed to follow up with him. The next day, she told me that the hiring manager had decided to hire a person that he had interviewed (in person) before leaving for his vacation. Um, OK. I know that hiring managers do this weird shit, but seriously, couldn't he have told the HR person before he left so that they could get moving forward with the paperwork? I hope (for their sake) that their candidate hasn't taken another job -- I suppose for my own sake I should hope that he/she has. Anyway, I think I was attracted to this job because the office location is extremely convenient to my apartment, and I had let myself think about how great it would be to live close by.
The moral of these stories is that there is really no upside to thinking too much about any given job, either before you apply for it or after. It's impossible to know, even after several rounds of interviews, what the job is really going to be like, so trying too hard to imagine it prior to that is just a waste of time, I think. It's too easy to get caught up on things like "oh, this is in a convenient location" or "maybe I wouldn't like working with that kind of data anyway" or whatever, and whatever you read in the job description is not at all going to give you a feel for what it's like to work in the specific environment, with the specific people, and all that -- indeed, the job description will probably even fail to tell you what the job itself is really going to involve and what the day-to-day duties will be for you to imagine it at all plausibly. It all seems kind of premature until you have received, if not an actual job offer with a dollar figure, etc., attached to it, strong indication that you are a very top candidate for the position.
This being said, it's difficult not to think a bit about a job you've started the interviewing process with, and that's fine. But in my view it's a mistake to get too emotionally attached or have strong feelings about a job (including feelings that might keep you from applying to a job that once you start learning more about it, will seem more appealing) until you are close to needing to make an actual decision about it. With most jobs, the probability of your needing to make a decision is close to 0. My (ideal) approach is just apply to the job, feel a sense of accomplishment when you put it on your Excel spreadsheet of job applications, and move on to the next opportunity.
The in-person interview next week comes as a big surprise to me. After getting off the phone with the hiring manager, I felt like I didn't do a very good job on the interview and thought I wasn't going to get a call back. (I called my mom to talk about it because it rattled me a bit.) But then it was easy to think of all the possible downsides of the job and I was OK with the situation. Now I'm in this weird place where I've sort of already talked myself into the idea that I didn't want the job anyway, but I am going to be interviewing for it (and seeming enthusiastic, etc., is critical on an interview). Well, I guess I have a little while to talk myself back into wanting, or at least being open to, the job.
I also got word this week, after my emailing the HR contact, that I'm not getting a job I had done a phone screen on and had found myself strangely attracted to. I did this phone call and I was supposed to hear back the next week, but I heard nothing for two weeks, and when I asked the HR person, she said that the hiring manager had gone on vacation for two weeks and she needed to follow up with him. The next day, she told me that the hiring manager had decided to hire a person that he had interviewed (in person) before leaving for his vacation. Um, OK. I know that hiring managers do this weird shit, but seriously, couldn't he have told the HR person before he left so that they could get moving forward with the paperwork? I hope (for their sake) that their candidate hasn't taken another job -- I suppose for my own sake I should hope that he/she has. Anyway, I think I was attracted to this job because the office location is extremely convenient to my apartment, and I had let myself think about how great it would be to live close by.
The moral of these stories is that there is really no upside to thinking too much about any given job, either before you apply for it or after. It's impossible to know, even after several rounds of interviews, what the job is really going to be like, so trying too hard to imagine it prior to that is just a waste of time, I think. It's too easy to get caught up on things like "oh, this is in a convenient location" or "maybe I wouldn't like working with that kind of data anyway" or whatever, and whatever you read in the job description is not at all going to give you a feel for what it's like to work in the specific environment, with the specific people, and all that -- indeed, the job description will probably even fail to tell you what the job itself is really going to involve and what the day-to-day duties will be for you to imagine it at all plausibly. It all seems kind of premature until you have received, if not an actual job offer with a dollar figure, etc., attached to it, strong indication that you are a very top candidate for the position.
This being said, it's difficult not to think a bit about a job you've started the interviewing process with, and that's fine. But in my view it's a mistake to get too emotionally attached or have strong feelings about a job (including feelings that might keep you from applying to a job that once you start learning more about it, will seem more appealing) until you are close to needing to make an actual decision about it. With most jobs, the probability of your needing to make a decision is close to 0. My (ideal) approach is just apply to the job, feel a sense of accomplishment when you put it on your Excel spreadsheet of job applications, and move on to the next opportunity.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Another Sally: A Castaway Tale
Yesterday, the level of Solitaire Blitz I played on Facebook featured a cartoon character named Sally (an octopus, I think). I was going to say that a Sally computer game character is a new one for me, but I have seen (though not played) the games Sally's Salon, Spa, and Studio. So I guess I'll say that the Sally octopus computer game character is a new one for me.
Like Gilligan, she is stranded on a deserted island.
Like the professor, she is good at figuring out how to make all kinds of stuff out of coconuts. However, she gets this knowledge the new old-fashioned way -- a distance degree program. (Indeed, she fishes it out of the ocean.)
After gathering all her necessary equipment, she puts her degree to work. Who says a doctorate isn't practical? You just have to make sure it's in an applied discipline.
....And when she gets back to civilization, she apparently returns to junior high, where her choice of term paper topic causes envy among her classmates on the next Solitaire Blitz level.
Such a Sally move -- to write a term paper on the topic of sharks, requiring an entirely separate literature review, when she no doubt could have re-purposed part of her dissertation on coconuts for this project.
THE END
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Labor Day Shopping
Confession: I bought so much stuff online last night perusing the Labor Day weekend sales that my credit card was blocked due to suspected fraud -- this happened once before when I bought a bunch of shoes on Zappo's in about 4 different orders, one right after the other. Fortunately, my retention to order ratio for clothes and shoes purchased on the Internet is something in the range of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 (depending on the category), so it's not as crazy as it seems.
I actually really like shopping online for clothes and shoes much better than in stores. My stamina for shopping is sort of low, so by the time I've picked stuff out to try on, I'm kind of tired of it all already, and the idea of going from one store to another is exhausting even to consider. But shopping online is fast, and travel time is a non-issue, and by the time the items start arriving (in a semi-staggered fashion over several days) next week, I'll be ready to start trying them on. I also love that I can try items on from different stores to compare easily side-by-side and that I can try them with things I already have. With shoes especially, I like trying them with the hose/socks (if used) that I would wear with them and doing things like walking up and down the stairs of my condo. (You can do this with things you buy in the store also, of course, but I have not historically approached shopping in stores this way. I think if I can find something that fits reasonably well, looks reasonably good, and is in my price range, I tend to pull the trigger on it right there and stop looking because it means not having to go to more stores, try on more things, etc. I just want to be done. But with online shopping, I go into it knowing that the majority of the things I buy I won't want and will either mail back or return to the store, so I am a bit more selective.)
Robert was really funny this morning when I told him about my (late-night) shopping spree -- he said, I hope you checked out the return policies before buying those things. It's a reasonable concern (though bruited somewhat late in the game, in my opinion) but seriously, this is not my first rodeo. I bought from stores that have either free return shipping or that it will be (relatively) easy for me to return items to (I say "relatively" because even though Macy's isn't that far, it will take me several trips to return the amount that I anticipate returning), with two exceptions. The first was Jones New York, who charges a flat $7.50 fee for returns by mail -- I am hungry, hungry for leopard print stuff and they had an awesome selection that I simply had to sample from.
The second was a very special situation -- I saw a blogger wearing a T-shirt from Out of Print Clothing and I was immediately compelled to go to their website and order one for myself. (I had recently noted a distinct absence of graphic T's in my wardrobe since the demise of my Rabbit Ambulance shirt and have been wanting to fill that hole -- I'm not into the dumb/aggressive messaged shirts, but I do like to have a few T's with neat images -- so it was very well-timed. The fact that they're also having a 20% off back to school sale made it easier to justify buying two shirts.) This company specializes in clothing based on books. Any guesses what two books I will be sporting on T-shirts in the near future?
Think, and then scroll..........
Come on, this one is too easy!
Here's the first, the one I saw the woman wearing and thought MINE. Not only do I have a gorgeous tinted print of this scene hanging on the wall of my office (a wonderful gift from Robert), I use a snip of this scene as my blogger avatar. Yep, here it is:
Not only is it Alice, it's even a scene with the March Hare, so it's doubly awesome. The only thing that could have been better is if they had a second Alice t-shirt with another of my favorite drawings from the stories -- the Cheshire Cat looming over the people arguing over whether he was to lose his head or not (given that his body had disappeared and he was, in fact, only a head). And well, there are a bunch of John Tenniel's Alice drawings I would like to have on a T-shirt. But I'm not going to get greedy here. They picked a very fine drawing to represent the Alice stories and I am going to love wearing it.
The second one is all about the buns.
How cool is that?
If you now feel compelled to buy an awesome book T-shirt for yourself (and really, who could blame you), note that they have both Women's and Men's/Unisex style T-shirts, and pay careful attention to the sizing guide because on the Women's side at least, they run small -- I had to order up from my usual size, and a person much bigger than I would be SOL on the Women's style shirts. Of course, because I haven't received the shirts yet, I can't comment on how they match up to my expectations from the sizing guide. I really hope they work out!
I had also been wanting a bird shirt recently, and satisfied that with a shirt from Nordstrom that ended up draping so well (and tucking and semi-tucking so nicely) that I bought it in several colors. This is the shirt -- sweet, isn't it? (I tried to make the image big so you could see the pattern -- it's green and white birds facing each other, beak to beak, that makes up the diamond pattern.)
But lest you think my weekend is all about shopping (and doing crossword puzzles, one of my big things today), tomorrow I will be laboring for Labor Day, getting ready for two phone interviews on Tuesday and sending in some more job applications. I know I have two "excellent" prospects to apply to and some others that are in the "good" to "very good" range.
I hope your Labor Day will be relaxing or exciting or productive ... or whatever combination of those things that you would like.
I actually really like shopping online for clothes and shoes much better than in stores. My stamina for shopping is sort of low, so by the time I've picked stuff out to try on, I'm kind of tired of it all already, and the idea of going from one store to another is exhausting even to consider. But shopping online is fast, and travel time is a non-issue, and by the time the items start arriving (in a semi-staggered fashion over several days) next week, I'll be ready to start trying them on. I also love that I can try items on from different stores to compare easily side-by-side and that I can try them with things I already have. With shoes especially, I like trying them with the hose/socks (if used) that I would wear with them and doing things like walking up and down the stairs of my condo. (You can do this with things you buy in the store also, of course, but I have not historically approached shopping in stores this way. I think if I can find something that fits reasonably well, looks reasonably good, and is in my price range, I tend to pull the trigger on it right there and stop looking because it means not having to go to more stores, try on more things, etc. I just want to be done. But with online shopping, I go into it knowing that the majority of the things I buy I won't want and will either mail back or return to the store, so I am a bit more selective.)
Robert was really funny this morning when I told him about my (late-night) shopping spree -- he said, I hope you checked out the return policies before buying those things. It's a reasonable concern (though bruited somewhat late in the game, in my opinion) but seriously, this is not my first rodeo. I bought from stores that have either free return shipping or that it will be (relatively) easy for me to return items to (I say "relatively" because even though Macy's isn't that far, it will take me several trips to return the amount that I anticipate returning), with two exceptions. The first was Jones New York, who charges a flat $7.50 fee for returns by mail -- I am hungry, hungry for leopard print stuff and they had an awesome selection that I simply had to sample from.
The second was a very special situation -- I saw a blogger wearing a T-shirt from Out of Print Clothing and I was immediately compelled to go to their website and order one for myself. (I had recently noted a distinct absence of graphic T's in my wardrobe since the demise of my Rabbit Ambulance shirt and have been wanting to fill that hole -- I'm not into the dumb/aggressive messaged shirts, but I do like to have a few T's with neat images -- so it was very well-timed. The fact that they're also having a 20% off back to school sale made it easier to justify buying two shirts.) This company specializes in clothing based on books. Any guesses what two books I will be sporting on T-shirts in the near future?
Think, and then scroll..........
Come on, this one is too easy!
Here's the first, the one I saw the woman wearing and thought MINE. Not only do I have a gorgeous tinted print of this scene hanging on the wall of my office (a wonderful gift from Robert), I use a snip of this scene as my blogger avatar. Yep, here it is:
Not only is it Alice, it's even a scene with the March Hare, so it's doubly awesome. The only thing that could have been better is if they had a second Alice t-shirt with another of my favorite drawings from the stories -- the Cheshire Cat looming over the people arguing over whether he was to lose his head or not (given that his body had disappeared and he was, in fact, only a head). And well, there are a bunch of John Tenniel's Alice drawings I would like to have on a T-shirt. But I'm not going to get greedy here. They picked a very fine drawing to represent the Alice stories and I am going to love wearing it.
The second one is all about the buns.
How cool is that?
If you now feel compelled to buy an awesome book T-shirt for yourself (and really, who could blame you), note that they have both Women's and Men's/Unisex style T-shirts, and pay careful attention to the sizing guide because on the Women's side at least, they run small -- I had to order up from my usual size, and a person much bigger than I would be SOL on the Women's style shirts. Of course, because I haven't received the shirts yet, I can't comment on how they match up to my expectations from the sizing guide. I really hope they work out!
I had also been wanting a bird shirt recently, and satisfied that with a shirt from Nordstrom that ended up draping so well (and tucking and semi-tucking so nicely) that I bought it in several colors. This is the shirt -- sweet, isn't it? (I tried to make the image big so you could see the pattern -- it's green and white birds facing each other, beak to beak, that makes up the diamond pattern.)
But lest you think my weekend is all about shopping (and doing crossword puzzles, one of my big things today), tomorrow I will be laboring for Labor Day, getting ready for two phone interviews on Tuesday and sending in some more job applications. I know I have two "excellent" prospects to apply to and some others that are in the "good" to "very good" range.
I hope your Labor Day will be relaxing or exciting or productive ... or whatever combination of those things that you would like.
One of These Images is Not Like the Others
...and no, I'm not talking about all the bunnies I've been posting on Facebook! (Robert is not the comment-on-FB type so I will share with you here his comment on today's picture when I explained that hotot is, per the collective wisdom of the internet, pronounced like hoe-toe: "So it's a hotot photo." Indeed.)
But please do enjoy this EQ Exclusive rabbit photo -- this is a very relaxed-looking English lop doin' the flop, and yes, her ears are supposed to be that long.
Now, onto the other images. I had a similar kind of WTF reaction to this Harper's Bazaar lay-out as Nicolette Mason. That woman is dressed like Harper's Bizarre, and not in a good, fashion-forward, making-you-think, challenging-your-eye kind of way. It's just embarrassing -- for the stylists, not for the model, who I think could be interpreted as giving a "hells no" to the way they made her up. (And the shoes! For the love of God, give the woman awesome shoes!)
The rabbits say, Two thumps to that!
But please do enjoy this EQ Exclusive rabbit photo -- this is a very relaxed-looking English lop doin' the flop, and yes, her ears are supposed to be that long.
 |
| All the better to ignore you with |
Now, onto the other images. I had a similar kind of WTF reaction to this Harper's Bazaar lay-out as Nicolette Mason. That woman is dressed like Harper's Bizarre, and not in a good, fashion-forward, making-you-think, challenging-your-eye kind of way. It's just embarrassing -- for the stylists, not for the model, who I think could be interpreted as giving a "hells no" to the way they made her up. (And the shoes! For the love of God, give the woman awesome shoes!)
The rabbits say, Two thumps to that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
