Do depictions of a particular species differ across time and space? If so, what are some of the hypotheses explaining these differences?

The research done by the Nazis and Imperial Japanese has been well documented, I'm wondering if the research resulted in anything useful.

I was re-reading the Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake and it mentions he buried provisions in a cove in S America expecting a return to the same hideaway to continue to plunder the Spanish. In general, what provisions would sailors bury that would be valuable but also worth the risk of losing? Along with the dangers of spoilage and rust, there isn't anything I can imagine that is worth burying. Is there any documentation out there that has a specific list of items? My google-foo has failed me. Many thanks for any answers.

Edit: Thanks for the answers. I really enjoyed both comments. I had no idea that meat could last that long without refrigeration. I remember reading a book about Magellan that made it seem like hunting was plentiful around there. I also like the idea of storing all excess repair parts, those seem like one of those "low risk-high reward" burial items I didn't think about.

I have always been curious about the inner workings of the USSR during the cold war. The Soviet premier was always a figure of some kind (think: Kruschev, Gorbi, etc.) but... there was always the Politburo. Didn't they appoint the premier? Did he fear them, or regard them as his superiors? Did they set his agenda? Who pulled the strings? I am trying to learn more about the powers that were behind the power in the USSR. The truth, I am starting to believe, isn't what we are told in the official history books. Anything?

I know that knowledge of the earth's shape dates back to ancient greek society and perhaps further, but the idea that scientists were executed for stating that the earth was round seems to be a popular belief. Does this stem from confusion with the idea of heliocentrism?

Besides breaking into song regularly, how does the movie compare with the daily lives of a small Jewish community? Would Tzeitel have ever been allowed to marry for love? Would there have been a matchmaker?

Obviously the British and the French had extensive colonies throughout the world, but even Germany and Italy, who were less than 100 years old had fairly large colonies extending into Africa and Asia.

Why does it seem like the United States didn't have an interest in expanding this way? or did they?

I hope the question is not too general... How we can evaluate how biased or objective the author of an anciant book was?

My history professor mentioned a joke made by Diderot about Jean d'Alembert that goes something along those lines:

"d'Alembert's mathematical genius makes him stand on the largest mountain, with his head high in the clouds, preventing him to look down into the valley".

Unfortunately my professor could not remember the original text and source. I would greatly appreciate if someone could help me out :)

Edit 0: I hope this does not fare as a trivia question. I actually could really make good use of the quote in my research paper.

Bows seem to be a way more reliable weapon than muskets of the day. Muskets misfired and gunpowder was dangerous to transport. Bows are also a lot faster to reload than muskets. So why weren't bows used instead of muskets?

I am not a historian but a student of economics. Within economics one uses models which include lending, yet this was not always the case. Within Christian, Islamic, and Jewish social doctrines are prohibitions on interest rewarding the lender. This has been posited, within economic circles, to inhibit the growth of economies by not using the funds necessary to those who wished to have them.

How have modern ideas, viz. lending being a good thing, supplanted older ideas about the practice of lending for a profit?

As related questions come in, I may edit this text to clarify my question.

During ancient times when ships had beer to drink for the crew since water would spoil, how was the matter handled on muslim ships since the religion bans alcohol.

This isn't the same old "was slavery the cause of the war" or "what was the civil war about" or "did the north go to war to stop slavery" question.

I'm literally wondering the answer to this question: why were the people of the north against the expansion of slavery prior to the civil war?

Today we (mostly) know and accept how horrific slavery is. However, I'm not about to take the step and say the people of the north were somehow morally superior to the people of the south and thought slavery was horrific, so it needed to go.

Nowadays you'd poll everyone: Are you against slavery? Which of the following reasons is the primary reason? Obviously this didn't happen back then.

So, was it about economics - the northern fear that the expansion of slavery would continue to put them on unequal footing with the south, who got low priced labor? Otherwise, considering racism in the north by the majority of people (as far as I can discern), the acceptance by the majority of the idea that black people are genetically inferior, etc, doesn't lead me to believe it really was some great moral crusade by the majority.

Obviously, different people have different reasons so there isn't one answer for every citizen of the north, but what was the most common reason?

And has anyone written about this or studied this in detail? Any books about just this question?

Additionally, what was the language spoken by the Egyptian population during the Islamic conquest of Egypt, and how were the invading arabs able to change the spoken language from the current language (I'm assuming Coptic) to Arabic?