The position of the eyes of a Macaw are as follows. Each eye is located on either side of the birds head. This is called Monocular vision, opposed to our eyes which are located in front of our head, adjacent to each other. Mono comes from the Greek root word meaning 'alone'. Making it understandable that, that type of vision is more limited. The operation of their eyes, view things differently in comparison to that of binocular vision (what we humans have). They have a more broad view but cannot judge distance or depth very well.
Hope this helps! If you have any other questions or would like further explanation just let me know! :)
Answer:
Hello =D
<em />
<em>Metabolic water refers to water created inside a living organism through their metabolism, by oxidizing energy-containing substances in their food</em>
Source:<em> https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Metabolic_Water</em>
Best regards
Answer:
When anyone is faced with a stressful situation they can easily have their emotions can run wild, which can alter their memories of the event. A witness to a crime like a robbery, where they most likely felt as if their life was in danger, would most definitely be feeling some strong emotions. These high emotions paired with witnessing a surprising event, like a robbery, would most likely form a flashbulb memory. Flashbulb memories are extremely vivid memories that are more often than not grounded in the emotions the person experienced at the time, rathern than the facts of what truly happened. Another, more discrediting, effect that the high emotions of a robbery can cause would be confabulation. Confabulation is an imagined but plausible memory that fills in gaps about what a person actually remember. This happens because when faced with a stressful and life treating event humans focus on protecting oneself at any cost, rather than every detail of what's happening. So after the fact when being questioned most people will try to fill in the gaps with what would make sense for the situation. For example the witness originally discarded the criminal as a tall man wearing a green hoodie. However in later questioning he added to his description by saying that the man was caucasian with blue eyes and light brown hair, which would make sense as most of the people who live in the surrounding area of the store fit this description. But just because that description makes sense, it doesn’t make it true. Without harder evidence pointing to my client or even someone who looks like him, the eyewitness testimony has little reliability.
True because of the greater mass
160lbs also WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD ASK SUCH A QUESTION!?!?!?
