Ship of the desert

In October, Professor Jean-Marie Le Tensorer of the University of Basel announced the bones of a previously unknown species of camel – standing three metres tall, as big as an elephant or giraffe – were discovered in central Syria. Rather than making use of it as a beast of burden, it seems men were hunting this animal.

What do we know about camels? Little bits and pieces mostly, backed up by some up-close and personal experience at Oaklawn Farm Zoo. Fascinating and ungainly, and, according to the National Geographic video “Arabia: Sand, Sea and Sky,� scarcely able to mate without the help of their herders.

Getting ready to teach the stories of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph to children, I picked up a few more details about camels. It’s unlikely people could have ever crossed the desert without them, because they are so perfectly designed for the sere environment. But Abraham herded them not only for this; their milk is more nutritious than cow’s - and produced with less effort. Camels only need to drink every other week or so, and can live well on thorny desert plants. Camel droppings are so dry, herders save them for fire fuel.

These are some of the qualities that earned for the camel that noble title, “Ship of the Desert,� but there are more! As uncomely as those sponge-like feet are, their usefulness as sandshoes (like snowshoes) makes the camel able to carry heavy loads without sinking up to its knees in sandslide. When the wind blows that sand around, a camel can keep it out of its eyes with a second, see-through eyelid. The slitted nostrils also seal to keep out blowing sand (though how they then breathe is a secret I’ve not discovered – perhaps through the ears?)

With all these facts in mind, you will understand why, when I heard the phrase “The camel is a horse designed by committee,� I was much shocked because of the disapproval voiced in the comment. Look at the creature: The only thing that could be improved upon is its appearance... and perhaps its temperament!

Wikipedia approves of this camel comment, and the attitude, adding “needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality and lack of unifying vision� are earmarks of design by committee.

If humour is not part of your vision, it is possible to see the camel as a vision of unloveliness, but it is not a banal creature, nor is it needlessly complex for survival in the desert. May I nominate another ungulate – needlessly complex, logically flawed and lacking evidence of a unifying vision - as “horse designed by committee?� I nominate the giraffe.

Any seconders?