HOME | DD

Description
So, here is an etymological question:
The starsign cancer.

Which animal is it supposed to be?
In Norwegian the zodiac sign is named “krepsen”.
Which translates into “the crayfish”.
And indeed, that is how it is often illustrated.
To the point where I have often found myself react to the other instances where it is illustrated as a crab.
“Cancer is not a crab!”

Isn't it though?

The ancient Greeks named what is still one of the worlds deadliest deceases, by the name of cancer. They did so, because the way a cancer-growth spreads when unchecked, looks a little like the limbs of a crab.
So it is clear how they saw the constellation.

In zoology Cancer is a genus of the family Cancridae. It contains eight extant, and three extinct species of marine crabs.

Even the Norwegian name “krepsen” checks out, since the Crustacea family of which both crabs and crayfish are part, is in norwegian often called “kreps-dyr”. “Crayfish-animals”.
Calling a crab as such, would be a little like calling a human a primate.

And then comes the problem of star charting.
One I have mentioned a bunch of times before.
When drawing the lines of astrology, which stars do you include?

Word splitting aside. The most recognised charting of the constellation cancer, clearly looks like a crayfish.
So much so, one hardly needs employ ones imagination to recognise said crustacean in the sky.
In fact it is one of the clearer, more recognisable zodiac signs out there.
It also is, so far, the one of the ones I have looked up with the least disparity in its charting.

Faced with this, one could ask oneself…
“Why was this constellation named after a crab?”

Then of course, if one were to dig deeper, another version can be found.
One with an extra star.
Suddenly the whole constellation takes on a more crab-like appearance.
Suddenly it all makes sense.

So, which stars does one include?
Or rather, which ones does one exclude.
And does said exclusions have anything to say for the understanding of the constellations?

Description
So, here is an etymological question:
The starsign cancer.

Which animal is it supposed to be?
In Norwegian the zodiac sign is named “krepsen”.
Which translates into “the crayfish”.
And indeed, that is how it is often illustrated.
To the point where I have often found myself react to the other instances where it is illustrated as a crab.
“Cancer is not a crab!”

Isn't it though?

The ancient Greeks named what is still one of the worlds deadliest deceases, by the name of cancer. They did so, because the way a cancer-growth spreads when unchecked, looks a little like the limbs of a crab.
So it is clear how they saw the constellation.

In zoology Cancer is a genus of the family Cancridae. It contains eight extant, and three extinct species of marine crabs.

Even the Norwegian name “krepsen” checks out, since the Crustacea family of which both crabs and crayfish are part, is in norwegian often called “kreps-dyr”. “Crayfish-animals”.
Calling a crab as such, would be a little like calling a human a primate.

And then comes the problem of star charting.
One I have mentioned a bunch of times before.
When drawing the lines of astrology, which stars do you include?

Word splitting aside. The most recognised charting of the constellation cancer, clearly looks like a crayfish.
So much so, one hardly needs employ ones imagination to recognise said crustacean in the sky.
In fact it is one of the clearer, more recognisable zodiac signs out there.
It also is, so far, the one of the ones I have looked up with the least disparity in its charting.

Faced with this, one could ask oneself…
“Why was this constellation named after a crab?”

Then of course, if one were to dig deeper, another version can be found.
One with an extra star.
Suddenly the whole constellation takes on a more crab-like appearance.
Suddenly it all makes sense.

So, which stars does one include?
Or rather, which ones does one exclude.
And does said exclusions have anything to say for the understanding of the constellations?