I'm a vivisectionist

[muninnhuginn]

Or almost. Technically, my subjects will be dead, so that's not vivisection. On the other hand, I'll be directly responsible for their deaths.

 

I've been threatening it for ages, despite Looby Loo's squeamish reaction to the suggestions. I've caught two wee beasties. They've been in an airtight jar for over two days, climbing over a couple of strands of hair. (It's like a tiny zoo exhibit really.) They've finally expired (two days plus) and I'll be putting 'em on a slide and sticking 'em under Looby Loo's microscope. Since I needed to keep them intact, I couldn't put them out of their misery, and they are immensely hard to squash anyway. So a slow starving and/or asphyxiation was their necessary fate.

 

I'm quite looking forward to what we'll see.

 

(I suppose we ought to attempt to catch the odd cat flea, too, next time we've itchy cats.)

 

All in the name of science, right?

Comments

[armb.livejournal.com]

> Since I needed to keep them intact, I couldn't put them out of their misery

Drown them in meths? I have no idea whether that's a better death for a louse than starvation or not, but since ticks apparently let go if dabbed with meths, presumably it's not good for them.

But doesn't vivisection require that you cut them up? So that's not vivisection on two counts.

[muninnhuginn]

Why do you think I saved two? I wouldn't want to spoil the only specimen.