The last Nazi newsreel before the end of WWII, with the last video of Hitler

April 8, 2026 • 10:30 am

This video showed up as a “suggestion” when I was watching YouTube (no, I’m not a Nazi), and I was curious to see what the last German propaganda newsreel of WWII showed. Among other things, which are explained in the 12½-minute clip, is the last video taken of Hitler, showing his left hand shaking violently (5:34), a symptom medical historians have attributed to Parkinson’s disease. (This bit wasn’t shown in the final video.) Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945—just five weeks after this newsreel appeared in German cinemas.

The footnotes show the direct translation, but there’s English narration of what’s going on in the video beginning 48 seconds in.

There’s a Wikipedia article on the newsreel series called, Die Deutsche Wochenschau, and here are two paragraphs from it:

Die Deutsche Wochenschau (German for ‘The German Weekly Review’, lit. ‘The German Weekly Look‘ or ‘The German Weekly Show‘) is the title of the unified newsreel series released in the cinemas of Nazi Germany from June 1940 until the end of World War II, with the final edition issued on 22 March 1945. The co-ordinated newsreel production was set up as a vital instrument for the mass distribution of Nazi propaganda at war. Today the preserved Wochenschau short films make up a significant part of the audiovisual records of the Nazi era.

. . . Among the many notable scenes preserved by the newsreel are the Nazi point of view during the Battle of Normandy, the footage of Hitler and Mussolini right after the 20 July plot, and the last footage (No. 755) of Hitler awarding the Iron Cross to Hitler Youth volunteers in the garden of the Reich Chancellery shortly before the Battle of Berlin. Its last documentary, Traitors before the People’s Court, depicted the trial of the accused in the 20 July plot, and was never shown.

It’s fascinating to see how, with the Russians closing in on Berlin, the German people were not told of it but instead were misled to think that they might successfully resist the enemy.

Ducks (and turtles) at Botany Pond

April 8, 2026 • 9:00 am

Please allow me to show you pictures of my children, which this year comprise a pair of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and a pair of wood ducks (Aix sponsa). The latter don’t seem to be breeding here as they’re on the pond most of the day, and because female wood ducks nest in tree holes, and we ain’t got any.

The female mallard, named Vashti, is nesting nearby, but I’m keeping her nest location as secret as I can as I don’t want people disturbing her while she’s incubating her clutch of seven eggs. I expect a hatch about April 19 or so.  The male mallard, named Armon, patiently awaits Vashti, who comes down to the pond once a day to have a big feed and a bath and preening session. Those sessions last about 15 minutes, but Armon, a lovesick drake, patiently patrols the pond for about 23 hours and 45 minutes per day.

The wood ducks are absent in the mornings but then are at the pond most of the rest of the day, which tells me that the wood duck hen is not sitting on eggs.

But have a look at these gorgeous wood ducks: feathered jewels. I’ve added a few photos of our resident turtles, red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans). Of the five we put in last fall, I’ve seen two or three. The other turtles must have either died during hibernation or simply walked away from the pond.

Below: the wood duck pair, whom I haven’t named as no names suggested have seemed appropriate. This is an example of extreme sexual dimorphism, as you can clearly see. Why females chose males with those patterns, colors, and a crest is something we don’t understand. But it’s clearly another example of sexual selection in birds, something that ultimately devolves to the difference between the sexes in gamete size and investment. (Yes, there are two sexes in all of these animals.)

Do click on the photos to enlarge them.

The male.  I can’t get enough of seeing him and marveling at his beauty. The only other wild duck to rival this phenotypic glory is that of the male mandarin duck (Aix galericulata), a species found in East Asia. Wood ducks, however, are natives here.

He has satanic red eyes, but really is very gentle (also quick and much smaller than a mallard):

Here’s a video of the male and female wood duck having their lunch at Botany Pond:

Wood ducks seem quite romantic to me. They are always very close to each other and sometimes the male nuzzles the female.

I need names! The hen:

They are quite plump, as I ensure that they never go hungry.

Armon doesn’t really like the wood ducks, but somehow knows to chase them halfheartedly, as you see him chasing the male wood duck here.  When an undocumented drake flew into the pond last Saturday, and began chasing Vashti off her nest (he was clearly eager to copulate), Armon went after him big time.  With the help of Armon, a lot of running and yelling, and my trusty Super Soaker, I finally managed to expel the intruder. Here Armon goes after the male wood duck, who is much faster and more agile.

This is my favorite picture of the pair. They both have their heads cocked, probably looking at something above like a hawk.  Ducks have eyes on the sides of their heads, and so must cock them if they want to see above. It’s very cute when they do that, and rare to see a pair do it simultaneously:

The hen has iridescent feathers, too, but they’re less conspicuous and usually covered by the wings. They are probably byproducts of the colors that are exaggerated in males. You can see some of them below:

Have another picture of my boy:

The male woodie standing on one leg, doing his flamingo impression. (Ducks do this to conserve heat, and this was a chilly day.)

As I said, Vashti is incubating her eggs, but she comes down to the pond for about 15 minutes per day for a nosh and a bath. Here’s part of her preening session, which is quite vigorous. Shortly thereafter she flew off to her nest. Note that Armon stays nearby, as he gets only a few minutes per day with his mate and lady love.

And we mustn’t forget the turtles! On warm days they come out of the water to soak up sun on the rocks, extending their limbs to get as much heat as possible. We call this “turtle yoga.”

The long claws tell us that the one below is a male (they use the claws in courtship):

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ theodicy

April 8, 2026 • 8:00 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “create”, came with this caption:

In which the boys return to the devilishly tricky P of E.

I assume the artist means “problem of evil”, which of course clever theologians have found a way to rationalize (there’s nothing these people can’t explain).  But Mo is unable to come up with his own theodicy.

Wednesday: Hili dialogue

April 8, 2026 • 6:45 am

Welcome to a hump day (“வாரத்தின் நடுநாள்” in Tamil): Wednesday, April 8, 2026, and National Empanada Day. Here’s one I bought on the street in Santiago, Chile in 2019, right before my first trip to the Antarctic:

It’s also Dog Farting Awareness Day (?), National Dog Fighting Awareness Day. and Zoo Lovers Day. I am not a fan of zoos or public aquariums, and recommend that you read H. L. Mencken’s 1918 essay “The Zoo“. It’s splenetic, of course, as is all Mencken, but there is some truth in it, like this:

But zoos, it is argued, are of scientific value. They enable learned men to study this or that. Again the facts blast the theory. No scientific discovery of any value whatsoever, even to the animals themselves, has ever come out of a zoo. The zoo scientist is the old woman of zoology, and his alleged wisdom is usually exhibited, not in the groves of actual learning, but in the yellow journals. He is to biology what the late Camille Flammarion was to astronomy, which is to say, its court jester and reductio ad absurdum. When he leaps into public notice with some new pearl of knowledge, it commonly turns out to be no more than the news that Marie Bashkirtseff, the Russian lady walrus, has had her teeth plugged with zinc and is expecting twins. Or that Pishposh, the man-eating alligator, is down with locomotor ataxia. Or that Damon, the grizzly, has just finished his brother Pythias in the tenth round, chewing off his tail, nose and remaining ear.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the April 8 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*Trump’s deadline for Iran opening the Strait of Hormuz expired at 8 p.m. yesterday. But instead of destroying Iranian civilization, he announced a two-week ceasefire that apparently will open the Strait of Hormuz.  Now both Iran and the U.S. are proclaiming victory.

The United States and Iran announced a two-week cease-fire and plans to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday evening, hours before President Trump had threatened that Iran would see its “whole civilization” destroyed if it did not allow free transit through the vital waterway.

The agreement that was brokered by Pakistan was hailed as a victory by both countries. Mr. Trump said a 10-point plan from Iran was a “workable basis on which to negotiate” a lasting end to the war after demanding Tehran’s “unconditional surrender” for weeks. Iranian officials were triumphant, with Mohammad Reza Aref, the country’s first vice president, saying on social media that “the era of Iran” had begun after Trump failed to destroy the Islamic republic’s government. Iran also said it would fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for oil and natural gas shipments, while negotiations take place to secure a permanent deal.

In Lebanon, the Israeli military said that the cease-fire did not cover its offensive against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon. It was also unclear whether word of the nascent deal had reached Iranian local commanders, as fresh Iranian attacks were reported in some Persian Gulf countries early Wednesday morning.

Investors welcomed the cease-fire after the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran caused an energy crisis and weeks of turmoil for global markets. The price of oil tumbled, with Brent Crude, the international benchmark, down almost 15 percent to trade at about $95 a barrel, and global stock markets soaring.

Global relief at the pause in fighting was tempered by confusion over what comes next. Many challenges remain if the United States and Iran are to achieve a permanent deal to end the war, especially given that both seem to be claiming to have achieved their goals. Shipping companies also signaled that they were cautious about resuming transit through the Strait of Hormuz immediately. And restarting operations at refineries, storage facilities, and oil and gas fields that have been damaged in the war will take time.

So if this cease-fire holds, will anything have changed? Do we expect Iran to stop trying to produce nuclear weapons, stop exporting terrorism, and to give freedom to its people? I don’t think so. And if these things don’t change, what is the difference from before the war? All the U.S. gets is the Strait of Hormuz open again, which it was before we attacked iran.

*Yesterday’s war news from It’s Noon in Israel.

It’s Tuesday, April 7, and the thirty-ninth day of Operation Roaring Lion. The global price of oil has reached $111, up 1 percent since yesterday. Here are the latest developments that occurred while you were asleep:

  • As Trump’s ultimatum enters its final hours, unconfirmed reports have emerged of multiple explosions on Kharg Island, Iran’s critical oil export terminal. The strikes appear to be American, but it remains unclear if they are intended as a warning shot or the opening salvo of an invasion.
  • The New York Times published Iran’s 10 conditions for ending the conflict: a permanent end to the war—not a temporary ceasefire—with a guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again by the U.S. or its allies; cessation of Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon; a halt to fighting against all Iranian-backed forces in the region; the lifting of all U.S. sanctions on Iran; and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under new rules of safe passage. Iran is also demanding that each vessel transiting the strait pay a toll of approximately $2 million, with revenues shared with Oman and used in part to fund reconstruction of war-damaged infrastructure.
  • An exchange of fire near the Israeli consulate in Istanbul this morning left three people dead, two of whom were reportedly the assailants. According to the Turkish government, one of the attackers had ties to ISIS. The consulate itself is almost always closed due to the currently tense state of Israeli-Turkish relations, hence no Israelis were injured.
  • Yesterday, the Israeli Air Force struck Iran’s largest petrochemical facility in Asaluyeh, at the South Pars gas field. Defense Minister Israel Katz said the strike, combined with last week’s hit on a second major facility, has eliminated the capacity to process roughly 85 percent of Iran’s petrochemical exports, inflicting what he called tens of billions of dollars in economic damage. Katz said the petrochemical industry is a key financier of the IRGC and warned that continued aggression against Israel would lead to the “collapse” of Iran’s capabilities.
  • The Gaza Board of Peace has given Hamas until the end of the week to accept a new disarmament proposal. High Representative Nickolay Mladenov is set to meet Hamas officials in Cairo on Friday, and a follow-up meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.
  • The IDF has completed its deployment along the “anti-tank line” in southern Lebanon this morning—Israeli forces now control the line of commanding ridges from which they can prevent anti-tank fire toward Israel’s northern towns.

Note the penultimate item about Hamas disarming.  The chances of that happening by the end of the week are about zero, and if they don’t disarm, what will the Board of Peace do about it? As far as I know, they have no enforcement powers.

*In an editorial board op-ed in the WSJ, that conservative paper takes Trump to task for threatening to punish the Iranian people in pursuing his war aims.

This directs all eyes to Mr. Trump’s Tuesday night deadline for Iran to reopen Hormuz. He could always delay it again, but at his news conference he laid out what he’d need to see. “We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me,” Mr. Trump said, “and part of the deal’s going to be we want free traffic of oil and everything else.”

If not, “we have a plan,” the President said, “where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night. Where every power plant in Iran will be out of business.”

We will soon find out who’s calling whose bluff, but don’t expect Iran’s regime to care much about what strikes like those would do to its people. Taken literally, Mr. Trump is proposing to hit many targets that would harm Iranian civilians, which could spark a refugee crisis.

Striking indiscriminately at critical infrastructure would be wrong as well as unwise, punishing the Iranian people we need on our side. “They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” Mr. Trump said. Regime mismanagement has already left Iran’s grid in a permanent state of crisis, but such an attack could give Iranians all the suffering with none of the freedom. It could also erode support for the war at home and abroad.

The obvious solution is to discriminate between types of infrastructure. Bridges can be legitimate targets, but it depends if they have any military use of note. Otherwise, why punish the people?

Energy sources can also be legitimate targets if they have a particularly notable military nexus, such as providing fuel for missile launchers. But not every energy target will meet that standard, and the military benefit doesn’t justify plunging 90 million people into darkness.

One yardstick by which to judge any U.S. escalation is this: In addition to increasing “pressure,” which may never be enough to sway Iran’s regime, will it help prepare an operation to reopen Hormuz? The U.S. has a strong interest in causing chaos for Iran’s military, and targeting can allow it to do so without bombing every power plant in the country.

This is all good advice.  And of course bombing civilian targets, which is a war crime, will turn most people except for diehard MAGA-ites against the war.  My own priorities are regime change that frees Iranian citizens, and a guarantee (effected through complete dismantling of sites and surrending enriched uranium to the U.S.) that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons.

*Jonathan Kay at Quillette reports on some mendacity in Canada: “The IOC is protecting female athletics. Canada’s Secretary of State for Sport isn’t happy about it.”

On 26 March, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced a new policy that ensures female Olympic sports categories will be reserved for actual female athletes, as opposed to trans-identified men. Under the new policy, women will be required to prove their eligibility with a cheek swab or blood test—a simple one-time procedure that’s less intrusive than the drug-testing regimens that Olympians have submitted to for decades.

The new policy will be warmly greeted by the substantial majority of ordinary people—on both sides of the political spectrum—who embrace the common-sense view that men should not be allowed to steal roster and podium spots from women. As the IOC notes in its new policy document, at high levels of competition,

there is a 10–12 percent male performance advantage in most running and swimming events… a 20+ percent male performance advantage in most throwing and jumping events, [and a] male performance advantage [that] can be greater than 100 percent in events that involve explosive power, e.g. in collision, lifting and punching sports.

Unfortunately, this common-sense majority view isn’t the fashionable one—at least not in Canada, where former prime minister Justin Trudeau turned the slogan “trans women are women” into state policy. Even now that Trudeau’s gone, his social-justice postures are still embraced by Canadian activists and academics; many of whom went apoplectic in recent months, following the decision of Alberta’s provincial government to finally step in and protect female sports categories—something Ottawa has refused to do.

Numerous researchers have tried to argue that the male competitive advantage in sports is a “myth.” Egale, a state-funded group mandated to support what Canada now calls “2SLGBTQI people,” suggested that excluding trans-identified men from female sports is really just a “grotesque” (and possibly even prurient) pretext to scrutinise young women’s bodies. Meanwhile, the CBC, Canada’s state-funded national broadcaster, has spent years instructing Canadians that the whole idea of separating humans into male and female categories is fuzzy to begin with—juxtaposing discussion of a “hermaphroditic ginger plant” and “sex-changing clownfish” with social-justice lectures from (human) “trans historians.”

. . .On Facebook, the Secretary of State for Sport went on something of a rant, accusing the IOC’s defenders of succumbing to the “notion that scary drag queens are winning women’s volleyball games”—an idea that he called “a stupid conservative pseudo fantasy.”

Van Koeverden also claimed that efforts to protect female sports categories are actually misogynistic, because they are about “policing women’s bodies.” And lest readers accuse him of mansplaining this whole issue, he said that he constantly meets female athletes who say they agree with him.

To quote the national anthem, O Canada!

*NASA has a gallery of images and videeos from Artemis 2. Here are a couple of shots (there’s also a flyby gallery).

Crescent Earth (April 3, 2026) – A sliver of Earth is illuminated against the blackness of space in this photo taken by an Artemis II crew member through an Orion spacecraft window on the third day of the mission.  Image Credit: NASA

Orientale on display (April 6, 2026) In this fully illuminated view of the Moon, the near side (the hemisphere we see from Earth), is visible on the right. It is identifiable by the dark splotches that cover its surface. These are ancient lava flows from a time early in the Moon’s history when it was volcanically active. The large crater west of the lava flows is Orientale basin, a nearly 600-mile-wide crater that straddles the Moon’s near and far sides. Orientale’s left half is not visible from Earth, but in this image we have a full view of the crater. Everything to the left of the crater is the far side, the hemisphere we don’t get to see from Earth because the Moon rotates on its axis at the same rate that it orbits round us.  Image Credit: NASA

Artemis 2 in eclipse. Captured by the Artemis II crew during their lunar flyby on April 6, 2026, this image shows the Moon fully eclipsing the Sun. From the crew’s perspective, the Moon appears large enough to completely block the Sun, creating nearly 54 minutes of totality and extending the view far beyond what is possible from Earth. The corona forms a glowing halo around the dark lunar disk, revealing details of the Sun’s outer atmosphere typically hidden by its brightness. Also visible are stars, typically too faint to see when imaging the Moon, but with the Moon in darkness stars are readily imaged. This unique vantage point provides both a striking visual and a valuable opportunity for astronauts to document and describe the corona during humanity’s return to deep space. The faint glow of the nearside of the Moon is visible in this image, having been illuminated by light reflected off the Earth. Image Credit: NASA

A setting Earth.

(April 6, 2026) – The lunar surface fills the frame in sharp detail, as seen during the Artemis II lunar flyby, while a distant Earth sets in the background. This image was captured at 6:41 p.m. EDT, on April 6, 2026, just three minutes before the Orion spacecraft and its crew went behind the Moon and lost contact with Earth for 40 minutes before emerging on the other side. In this image, the dark portion of Earth is experiencing nighttime, while on its day side, swirling clouds are visible over the Australia and Oceania region. In the foreground, Ohm crater shows terraced edges and a relatively flat floor marked by central peaks — formed when the surface rebounded upward during the impact that created the crater. Image Credit: NASA

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili takes Andrzej’s words to heart:

Hili: What does life teach us?
Andrzej: That nothing is ever certain.
Hili: I’m not sure about that.

In Polish:

Hili: Czego uczy nas życie?
Ja: Że nic nie jest pewne.
Hili: Nie jestem tego pewna.

*******************

From Give Me a Sign:

From: Cats Doing Cat Stuff:

From Things With Faces, a most excellent catch:

Masih tells Trump not to destroy the civilization of Iran, which he threatened to do.

A post from Maarten Boudry about a Jewish professor at Antwerp who is quitting because of antisemitism in her university. Read the whole thing:

From Colin Wright, a new paper showing that you should teach biology, even if it’s misguided, so long as it makes the students happy (you can find the original BioScience paper, which exemplifies the meaning of “tendentious,” here).

From Luana, a result that will rile up progressives:

One from my feed; Science girl asks the inevitable question:

One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:

Two from Matthew, both involving “Astro Christina”, Christina Koch, who’s still in space aboard Artemis 1. She’s a Wikipedia editor and corrected her own article!

this wikipedia editor is orbiting the moon right now!

— depths of wikipedia (@depthsofwikipedia.bsky.social) 2026-04-07T16:37:49.411Z

a few years ago she corrected a few details about her own spacewalk! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:As…

— depths of wikipedia (@depthsofwikipedia.bsky.social) 2026-04-07T16:37:49.412Z

Paul McCartney’s abysmal new song

April 7, 2026 • 12:30 pm

Paul McCartney was—and I use the past tense—one of the two greatest songwriters of the era that comprised the apogee of pop music. (The other was John Lennon; I’m excluding Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell as were folkier).  Sadly, he’s still making music, and, save for George Harrison, each of the Beatles immediately lost their touch after they went solo.

Here’s a McCartney song touted in the NYT as the “What’s New” in music we should pay attention to. It’s from a new album he’s releasing in May. Their blurb:

Paul McCartney, ‘Days We Left Behind”

“The Boys of Dungeon Lane,” to be released May 29, will be Paul McCartney’s first solo album since 2020; it’s named after a Liverpool street in the neighborhood where he grew up. In “Days We Left Behind,” a cozy ballad carried by acoustic guitar and piano, he sings about places and memories as both fragile and lasting; he mentions Forthlin Road, the street where he lived and wrote early songs with John Lennon. “Nothing stays the same,” he muses, but he also insists, “No one can erase the days we left behind.” His voice is shakier than it once was, only making things more poignant.

Listen for yourself. Yes, his voice is shaky, a mere shadow of his voice from the Sixties. Worse, the song is lame in both melody and lyrics, though the melody is worse than the lyrics, which are at least tolerable (I give them below).

I realize that Macca was made to create music, and probably can’t stop doing it.  And this song is still better than a lot of the dreck that passes for pop/rock music these days, but compared to the earlier McCartney, well, it’s sad.  If you leave the video on, you’ll see a horrific AI-generated video in which all four Beatles are stuck in.

Lyrics:

Looking back at white and black
Reminders of my past
Smoky bars and cheap guitars
But nothing built to last

Nothing ever stays
Nothing comes to mind
No one can erase
The days we left behind

See the boys of Dungeon Lane
Along the Mersey shore
Some of them will feel the pain
But some were meant for more

And nothing stays the same
No one needs to cry
Nothing can reclaim
The days we left behind

We met at Forthlin Road
And wrote a secret code
To never be spoken
I stand by what I said
The promise that I made
Will never be broken

Nothing ever stays
Nothing comes to mind
And no one can erase
The days we left behind

In the skies the skylarks rise
Above the sounds of war
Since that day I knew they’d stay
With me for evermore

’Cause nothing stays the same
And no one needs to cry
And no one is to blame
For the days we left behind
The days we left behind

An evolutionary biologist lists and discusses the ten most influential books in the field

April 7, 2026 • 11:00 am

I would have missed this video had reader Doug not called my attention to it. It’s a very good half-hour discussion by evolutionary biologist Zach B. Hancock, a professor at Augusta University, in which he recommends the the top ten most influential books in evolutionary biology. Since Hancock is a population geneticist, the books deal largely with evolutionary genetics, but not all of them.

I slipped in at #10 with my book on Speciation with Allen Orr, but I won’t be too humble to claim our book wasn’t influential, for, as Hancock notes, it’s the only comprehensive book on the origin of species around. (Darwin’s big 1859 book was about the origin of adaptations, and had little that was useful about the origin of species.) Hancock regrets that Allen and I aren’t going to do a second edition, but Allen refuses to, and I don’t have the spoons (I do have 200 pages of notes on relevant papers that appeared after our book came out, but that will go nowhere.)

The rest of the list is stellar, and shows a keen judgement about the field. I’m not sure I would have put Lack’s book on the Galápagos finches in there, as it’s pretty much out of date. It should be replaced by a very important book by Ernst Mayr, his Systematics and the Origin of Species or the updated version in 1963,  Animal Species and Evolution. It was Mayr who codified the Biological Species Concept and paved the way for experimental and observational studies of speciation, and hence my book with Orr. 

I’d expect every graduate student in evolutionary genetics to have read  most of these books by the time they get their Ph.D. In fact, when I was on prelim hearings, judging whether students could be admitted to candidacy after a year or two, I and my colleague Doug Schemske made a habit of asking students to name the major accomplishments of several of the authors listed below. My impression is that the history of the field is not given so much weight now, so I wonder if students could still explain the major accomplishments of say, Theodosius Dobzhansky or Ronald Fisher. The books are of more than historical interest, for they raise questions that are still relevant. (I spent a lot of my career trying to understand the phenomenon of “Haldane’s Rule,” explained by J.B.S. Haldane in 1922. The paper was completely neglected until I read it in the early eighties and started a cottage industry of explanations [my own was largely wrong]).

Hancock’s explication of each book is excellent.  If you’re an academic teaching evolutionary biology, you might see how many of these books your students have read.

One commenter on YouTube gave the list and the time points in the video where each is discussed (the links go to those time point).

2:26 #10 Speciation – Jerry Coyne & Allen Orr
4:50 #9 Darwin’s Finches – David Lack
6:59#8 Evolution: The Modern Synthesis – Julian Huxley
9:15 #7 The Origins Of Genome Architecture – Michael Lynch
11:23 #6 Chance & Necessity – Jacques Monod
13:26 #5 The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins
16:54 #4 The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution – Motoo Kimura
19:34 #3 Genetics and the Origin of Species – Theodosius Dobzhansky
22:20 #2 The Genetical Theory Of Natural Selection – Ronald Fisher
26:35 #1 On The Origin Of Species – Charles Darwin

Two “Times” obituaries for Robert Trivers

April 7, 2026 • 9:45 am

Reader Simon called my attention to a new obituary in the Times of London of Robert Trivers, a giant in evolutionary biology (and a notorious eccentric) who died on March 12.  Because his death wasn’t announced immediately after he expired, this was bit late, but better late than never—especially given Trivers’s importance in the field. It’s a good obituary but the gold standard was Steve Pinker’s “in memoriam” article about Trivers published in Quillette on March 25.

Click the screenshot below to read, and if that doesn’t work,the article is archived here.

An excerpt:

In a burst of creativity in the early 1970s, Robert Trivers published a series of scientific papers that earned him a claim to being among the most important evolutionary theorists since Darwin. He was the first to fully appreciate how a gene-centric view of natural selection could explain some of the most puzzling and fundamental patterns in social life: the function of altruism, why males and females differ so much, the underpinnings of sibling rivalry and the delicate dynamic of conflict and co-operation that exists between parent and child.

Brilliantly original, Trivers was also an academic misfit: a foul-mouthed, pot-smoking individualist with a notable tendency to get into violent scrapes and an ungovernable character that eventually strained his relationship with the academy to breaking point.

Why do we ever behave altruistically? That is, why would an organism ever promote the reproductive success of another at some cost to its own? Since the work of the great evolutionist WD Hamilton, it had been appreciated that “kin selection” could explain why close relatives help one another out: doing so promotes an organism’s “inclusive fitness”, a measure accounting not only for an organism’s own genes but for copies of the same genes likely to be present in relatives. But why help non-kin? To Trivers, it was an obvious fact of life that we sometimes give priority to friends, and even strangers, over direct relatives.

Persuaded of the misguidedness of “group selectionist” theories that were fashionable at the time — according to which organisms sometimes sacrifice themselves for the “good of the species” — Trivers gave the central explanatory role to the gene. In his landmark 1971 paper, The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism, Trivers argued that altruism depended on the possibility of reciprocity. As long as helping a non-relative is not too costly, and there is sufficient probability that the favour would one day be returned, genes coding for altruistic dispositions spread.

. . . Frustrated by the Harvard biology faculty’s delay in granting his tenure application in the late 1970s, he abruptly left with his young family to take up a position at the University of California, Santa Cruz, a decision he came to regard as a “once in a lifetime” mistake. There, he befriended Huey Newton, co-founder of the paramilitary Black Panther political party, who was a doctoral student at the university. They co-authored a paper on self-deception, and Trivers made Newton his daughter’s godfather. He joined the Panthers for a period and later confessed to doing “an illegal thing or two”, before Newton removed him from the group for his own safety.

In fact, what I recall in 1977 is that Harvard’s biology department recommended tenure for Trivers, but that recommendation was overturned by President Derek Bok.  I was there at the time and can vouch for that. Others say that Trivers asked for early tenure and was denied that, and then decided to leave Harvard. I also heard, and I can’t vouch for this, that Richard Lewontin (my Ph.D. advisor) and Dick Levins, both Marxists who despised sociobiology, went to President Bok to lobby him to deny Trivers tenure.  What we do know is that Trivers then moved to Santa Cruz, and later to Rutgers, where his academic turmoil continued:

. . . In 2015 he was suspended by Rutgers University for refusing to teach a course on human aggression, a field he claimed he was not expert in (despite its being a personal forte of his). He quit university life for good shortly after. Later, he was among the set of high-profile intellectuals pilloried for maintaining financial and social links to Jeffrey Epstein, even after the latter’s conviction for sex offences. Far from apologetic, Trivers, who accepted funding from Epstein to study the relationship between knee symmetry and sprinting ability, vouched for his integrity; in Trivers’s view, Epstein’s imprisonment was punishment enough and his crimes less “heinous” than they were made out to be.

It is testament to the depth and generality of Trivers’s discoveries that they could be applied so readily, as he unsparingly conceded, to his own case. As he understood, natural selection has built us, and it is to natural selection we must return “to understand the many roots of our suffering”.

Compared to Pinker’s piece, the Times obituary is light on Trivers’s scientific accomplishments, but all in all it’s pretty good.

Below is a NYT obituary, also delayed, that appeared on March 27 (click to read or find it archived here):

An excerpt (David Haig, who’s quoted, has written his own remembrance of Trivers, as the two were good friends; but I don’t think it’s yet been published):

“Robert Trivers was unlike any other academic I have known,” David A. Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, wrote in a remembrance of Professor Trivers for the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. “In another life, he might have been a hoodlum.”

Raised by a diplomat and a poet, and educated at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., and Harvard University, Professor Trivers thrived on challenging scientific orthodoxies, calling the field of psychology a “set of competing guesses.” (He also scorned physics, noting that its utility was “connected primarily to warfare.”)

In the early 1970s, as a graduate student at Harvard and later as an untenured professor there, he published a series of papers applying Darwin’s theory of natural selection to social behavior, arguing that science had failed to connect evolution to an understanding of everyday life.

“I was an intellectual opportunist,” he wrote in “Natural Selection and Social Theory: Selected Papers of Robert Trivers” (2002). “The inability of biologists to think clearly on matters of social behavior and evolution for over a hundred years had left a series of important problems untackled.”

The paper does a decent job in outlining Trivers’s contributions, the most important of which was his evolutionary explanation of “reciprocal altruism”, but again, see Pinker for a fuller explication.  A bit more about the situation at Harvard:

During this creative burst, Professor Trivers struggled with mental health issues and was hospitalized at least once for bipolar disorder. He applied for early tenure at Harvard, but the decision was postponed because of concerns about his mental health.

“He could be a brilliant and wonderful colleague,” Professor Haig said. “In a different mood, he could be unnecessarily hostile to those around him.”

That’s enough for now, save one I just found in Skeptic, a remembrance by Trivers’s only graduate student ever, Robert Lynch. Click below to read:

It ends this way:

One of the last times I spoke with Robert, a fall had left his right arm nearly useless. He described it as “two sausages connected by an elbow.” He was a chaotic and deeply imperfect man, but also one of the few people whose ideas permanently changed how we understand evolution, animal behavior, and ourselves. Steven Pinker wrote that “it would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that [Trivers] provided a scientific explanation for the human condition: the intricately complicated and endlessly fascinating relationships that bind us to one another.”  That seems just about right to me.

His ideas are some of the deepest insights we have into human nature, animal behavior, and our place in the web of life. The mark of a great person is someone who never reminds us of anyone else. I have never known anyone like him.

I’ll miss you, Robert. You asshole.