The Lemon Fool

I wonder where he is?

MrCPFG (or whatever my monicker is these days).

Asleep?

MrCPFG wrote:I wonder where he is?

MrCPFG (or whatever my monicker is these days).

Jumbo Shrimp Kebab?

According to Wiki ,"Any small crustacean which resembles a shrimp tends to be called one" & "Larger shrimp are more likely to be targeted commercially, and are often referred to as prawns, particularly in Britain"

The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) determine the categories and terminology used in the reporting of global fisheries. They define a shrimp as a "decapod crustacean of the suborder Natantia" As I'm sure you are already aware, the Natantia only includes decapods.

The FAO has some light reading matter on the subject here:-

http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/ac477e/ac477e00.htm

The wiki page is also particularly helpful, and includes dramatically titled tables such as "Major shrimp groups of the Natantia" & "Principal commercial shrimp species" and have a useful section you might find illuminative entitled "Shrimp versus Prawn"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp

Para 3.

A lot of confusion surrounds the scope of the term shrimp. Part of the confusion originates with the association of smallness. That creates problems with shrimp-like species that are not small. The expression "jumbo shrimp" can be viewed as an oxymoron, a problem that doesn't exist with the commercial designation "jumbo prawns"

They reference Warren S Blumenfeld for this particular quote:- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_GT ... sc=y&hl=en

However, the Jumbo Shrimp does not appear to have its own classification as a decapod crustacean within the suborder of Natantia, nor is it a principal commercial shrimp species, so perhaps Mr Blumenfeld is mistaken as shrimp are indeed small, and jumbos are in fact elephantine and therefore the expression is an oxymoron.

This then makes it a pretty good user-name for anyone that isn't too much of an oxy.

Who are you calling an oxymoron and, purely of academic interest, are they widely exported by our Afghan friends, to replace better known products?

Talking of Afghanistan and keeping off-topic, they and another are the only two fully accredited Test status nations never to have lost a Cricket Test Match.

James.

PinkDalek wrote:Who are you calling an oxymoron and, purely of academic interest, are they widely exported by our Afghan friends, to replace better known products?

Talking of Afghanistan and keeping off-topic, they and another are the only two fully accredited Test status nations never to have lost a Cricket Test Match.

James.

Have we taken to signing off as 90s indie bands? If so I didn't get the memo.

Sincerely,
Radiohead

MrCPFG wrote:

PinkDalek wrote:Who are you calling an oxymoron and, purely of academic interest, are they widely exported by our Afghan friends, to replace better known products?

Talking of Afghanistan and keeping off-topic, they and another are the only two fully accredited Test status nations never to have lost a Cricket Test Match.

James.

Have we taken to signing off as 90s indie bands? If so I didn't get the memo.

Sincerely,
Radiohead

Neither did I.

Charlatans

Bink333 wrote:

MrCPFG wrote:

PinkDalek wrote:Who are you calling an oxymoron... ...Test Match.

James.

Have we taken to signing off as 90s indie bands? If so I didn't get the memo.

Sincerely,
Radiohead

Neither did I.

Charlatans

Everybody Knows (Except You)

The Divine Comedy

Apparently touring again. Books can't be selling well.

Sleeper