It's just a matter of definition. Reptile in the traditional usage would not include birds, but if you wanted to define it as a monophyletic clade it would have to. Which to use is just personal preference.
I stumbled across a conceptual problem when caused me to abandon a reply to Faith, and was hoping someone with more genetics knowledge would be able to help.
How is it that people can be said to have a specific haplotype at any locus for a mitochondrial gene. You don't only inherit one mitochondrion from your mother, but several. These will presumably accumulate mutations as they go, causing the mitochondria within a single cell to diversify. I can understand a selective sweep homogenising the cell's mitochondria again, but does this happen often enough that there's never time for diversity to establish itself?
Does GMT even exist anymore? The term still gets used, just as locals still call the old WWII Naval Air Station Santa Ana lighter-than-air base the "LTA" even though it was a Marine Corps helicopter station from the 1950's to the 1990's. Or how some will still use the verb "tape" when they take a video. We get too attached to old obsolete terminology.
The historical use of GMT leads to a mildly confusing ambguity today. Here we use Central European Time. In the summer, CET changes by an hour. Through an incredibly sensible piece of international agreement, all of Europe changes their clocks simultaneously. In Portugal, which keeps the same time as the UK, West European Time changes by an hour at exactly the same time as CET does. However, due to the historical legacy of GMT as an international reference time, GMT does not change. Instead the UK switches to BST (British Summer Time). This kind of technicality bothers no one most of the time, except when a client based outside the UK asks me to call them at 15:00 GMT in June, and I'm left baffled if they mean British time or UTC.
Good Question. In the past with limited mobility the planet's human population was probably broken up into several smaller effective populations with limited gene flow between them. E.g. pre Columbus there was not much flow between America and europe. Although the world is still somewhat separated people are much more mobile these days and there is more gene flow possible. Just think about the recent mass migrations from the Middle east and Northern Africa to Europe. I think the effective population today would be the total world population of 7 billion people.
That's not what effective population size means; and there is more than one. The effective population size needs to be relevant to some statistic or other. The effective population size is the population size you would expect based on that statistic in a idealised Fisher-Wright population.
A Fisher-Wright population is of a constant size, has discrete generations that only reproduce once and is made up of diploid hermaphrodites who mate randomly. Humans are of course very different to this, so our effective population size should be significantly smaller than the actual population.
I am not good at telling frogs apart and not having much luck finding helpful guidance on the interwebs. I've ordered myself a field guide, but for the time being, any helpful herpetologists able to identify this little fella? Photographed in North Holland:
I've never thought of it as a Python specific phrase, but I am younger than the series so not really qualified to judge.
Google ngrams is interesting. Neither of the phrases 'nudge nudge wink wink' nor 'wink wink nudge nudge' appear in their corpus. However, 'wink wink' and 'nudge nudge' both do. 'Nudge nudge' appears rarely in the 50s and 60s; then takes of exponentially in the early 70s, which implies a big influence from Python.
'Wink wink' was more common; popping up sporadically in the 19th and early 20th centuries; having a huge surge in popularity in the late 30s/early 40s which for some reason died out at the end of the war; then taking off exponentially at the same as 'nudge nudge'.
Note that many of the cases found prior to Monty Python are in the American corpus; so I don't think this is necessarily a distinctive Britishism.
You're misremembering or misinterpreting something
You saw a menu written by an idiot.
There are different conventions in different parts of Europe regarding the units used for measuring different drinks (for example, it's common here to order 2 decilitres of wine, while that word is never seen in many countries - they would order 20 cl or 200 ml). But nowhere does cl mean litre nor an l mean millilitre.
Are you sure the glass was 0.9 litres? That's pretty unusual in and of itself. I've never seen a 900 ml glass of beer anywhere.