Captain Milt digs for razor clams

December 19, 2018 • 3:30 pm

I love razor clams (and I mean in the culinary rather than romantic sense), but these poor guys don’t have a chance against the expertise and fancy equipment of Captain Milt. Here he gets a good haul of Pacific razor clams (Siliqua patula). I once had them stir-fried with black bean sauce in a Vancouver Chinese restaurant, and it was a dish to die for.

It looks like he stomps around as a way of detecting the burrow entrances that make a slight depression when the Captain steps on them. I could watch a video like this for hours.

A new amphibian named after Trump!

December 19, 2018 • 1:15 pm

Ladies, and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, meet Dermophis donaldtrumpi, a newly-named species of amphibian, which has its own Wikipedia page even though the name was announced yesterday. It’s a caecilian, or legless amphibian, which looks for all the world like a worm. But it is an amphibian. Here it is:

The BBC report (click on screenshot below), which flaunts another photo of the creature defaced by bad hair (they didn’t need to do that; the animal is beautiful!), explains the naming:

The Dermophis donaldtrumpi [sic, no “the”], which was discovered in Panama, was named by the head of a company that had bid $25,000 (£19,800) at auction for the privilege.

The company said it wanted to raise awareness about climate change.

“[Dermophis donaldtrumpi] is particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change and is therefore in danger of becoming extinct as a direct result of its namesake’s climate policies,” said EnviroBuild co-founder Aidan Bell in a statement.

Wikipedia names the successfully bidding cmpany and gives some additional information:

Aidan Bell, owner of EnviroBuild, named the species after Trump to bring awareness to Trump’s policies on climate change and the danger they pose of causing the extinction of species. Bell said “It is the perfect name. Caecilian is taken from the Latin caecus, meaning ‘blind’, perfectly mirroring the strategic vision President Trump has consistently shown towards climate change.”

More from the BBC:

The small, blind, creature is a type of caecilian that primarily lives underground, and Mr Bell drew an unflattering comparison between its behaviour and Mr Trump’s.

“Burrowing [his] head underground helps Donald Trump when avoiding scientific consensus on anthropomorphic climate change,” [Bell] wrote.

The amphibian is not the first beast to be named after Donald Trump.

Last year, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, was discovered by biologist Vazrick Nazari in a collection of moths from the Museum of Entomology, at the University of California. The scientist said the moth’s unique head colouring reminded him of the president.

The moth’s head scales reminded Nazari of The Donald’s hair:

My view? Well, I don’t like political statements being inserted gratuitously into scientific papers, like the monkey dropping with Trump’s face, but this isn’t quite the same. The naming was done by someone who paid money to conserve habitats, and the scientists might not even mention the politics of that name when they write up the formal species description. Even so, 25K for conservation is 25K, so I’ll be a hypocrite for that.

The BBC gives other President-named creatures:

h/t: Simon

But, but . . . Santa Cruz is real!

December 19, 2018 • 12:00 pm

I’m used to being called a censor for decrying creationism taught in the public schools, published in scientific journals, or offered as a recreational event on a public school trip. But these critics don’t understand that, since creationism and its gussied-up twin Intelligent Design are seen by the courts as “religion”,  they can’t be taught as science in public schools. As American schools are an arm of our government, such teaching violates the First Amendment, and it’s meet and proper to call for its banning.  As for creationist papers in journals, I don’t demand their retraction, I ask that the publisher look at them and see if they’ve made an error, or at least refrain from passing off religion as “science” in the future.

That misguided construal of censorship is one reason I’m putting up Adam Ossmann’s response to my tweet to Springer’s CEO about their creationist paper. Ossmann, who isn’t exactly tearing up Twitter, commented on that tweet, and though I almost never look at responses to tweets (that’s a sure way to get gastric distress), I found the one below.

The main reason, though is that Ossmann seems to think that the California city of Santa Cruz is fictional. Where did he get that idea?

I’ve been to Santa Cruz, I’ve stayed in Santa Cruz, and believe me, Mr. Ossmann, I have empirical evidence for that town. I don’t take its existence on faith.

https://twitter.com/adamossmann/status/1075436421010391040

Here it is!

Real
Real
Not real
Not real

Package thief owned by tech geek

December 19, 2018 • 11:30 am

UPDATE (2019): Reader Bryan writes me that at least 2 of the 5 packages may not represent real thefts, but favors done by friends of the people who left the packages on their porch. This tweet tells the tale:

___________________

From C|Net and other sources, we hear of the cleverness of Mark Rober, a former NASA engineer who devised a clever (and diabolical) way to foil package thieves. In America, at least, this is the time of year when people steal packages left by delivery services on people’s porches: these thefts are almost a fixture of the nightly news. The thieves are hard to catch, even with porch camera video, as they often cover their heads.

Well, Rober developed a way to foil them by making fake packages that explode with glitter, emit fart smells and noises, and have phones in them to not only photograph the perpetrators, but send the video to a cloud. The phones also have GPS sensor that enabled Rober to recover the discarded packages and the phones.

Here’s what he did, and it’s way cool. Sadly, there’s no information about whether any of these thieves were caught; I suspect not.

Springer writes back, defending its publication of a creationist paper

December 19, 2018 • 9:45 am

Yesterday, after reading a ridiculous creationist paper in a Springer journal (International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology), I wrote both a post about the paper and a kvetching letter to the “general inquiries” address of Springer Nature. I got a reply within 24 hours, which is good, but the response was lame and evasive, which is not good.  First my letter (again), which was sent to General enquiries: info@springeropen.com.

Dear Springer,

I am writing to call to your attention to something you probably already know: the December issue of your International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology has published a straight-out Genesis-style creationism paper by Sarah Umer, “A brief history of human evolution: challenging Darwin’s claim.” (Link is at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-018-0014-2). Not only does the paper make a number of false statements about evolution, and misquotes prominent evolutionists, but also quotes the jailed Turkish creationist loon Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) in support of its thesis that humans and all species originated instantly at the behest of the “divine”. The editing is also dreadful: there are grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout. Did anybody whose first language is English even edit the paper?

I would like to know how this paper got published and what review process you used. Are you going to let the paper stand as is? Also, why was it so poorly edited?

This paper is an affront to all evolutionary biologists who do good work, as well as a tremendous embarrassment to Springer, who should have known better.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. In the meantime, I’ve posted a short critique–it would take pages to refute Umer’s misstatments and lies–on my website Why Evolution is True. That link is here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2018/12/18/creationist-paper-gets-into-a-springer-journal/

Cordially,
Jerry Coyne
Professor Emeritus
Department of Ecology and Evolution
The University of Chicago

Here’s Springer’s response, which comes not from the editor of the journal but from a “Global Open Research Support Executive”:

I have no idea what information I’m referring to that is also “a resource that the authors based their work on.” But the response is basically a self-exculpation, more or less saying that since the paper was submitted (DUH) and accepted after peer review, they can’t do anything about it. Note that they didn’t answer my questions about the terrible editing (I doubt, given the infelicities of writing and grammatical errors, that it was even edited.)

And of course there’s no point in contacting the author (there’s only one author), as she, as a creationist in Pakistan, is certainly not going to correct her article.

Well, I’m not giving up yet in trying to call Springer’s attention to this travesty. Springer’s management team has no email addresses listed (why is that?), and the CEO, Daniel Ropers, has only a Twitter site that he seems to never check.  Nor do the journal’s editors have any contact information. Nevertheless, I tried tweeting at the CEO. (Feel free to retweet it to @DanielRopers, though it’s almost certainly futile.)

I’ve written back to another “support” address I found at Springer, but really, it’s hard to find anybody in charge to talk to. Readers’ help here is appreciated. And if you don’t know whom to contact, you can give some publicity to Springer’s publication of this ridiculous paper and their non-response.

 

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ The Protocols

December 19, 2018 • 8:45 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “fits,” refers to the old forgery “The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion“, promulgated by the Tsarist secret police at the start of the twentieth century and then later in the U.S. by Henry Ford, who had 500,000 copies printed and disseminated. It’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory document purporting to describe a plan hatched by Jews to take over the world. It’s still promulgated by Hamas and apparently approved, as I’ll mention later today, by famed author Alice Walker (The Color Purple).  The author’s email came with this note:

This is what Henry Ford said about the Protocols:

“The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.”
Mo is just paraphrasing.

Readers’ wildlife photos

December 19, 2018 • 8:00 am

Bruce Lyon is back with his informative and lovely photo-and-science posts. This one’s about ptarmigans, their coloration, and why the males deliberately get dirty. Bruce’s notes are indented:

Dirty Ptarmigan

Here’s a second installment of “turkeys and their relatives” (order Galliformes). Today’s post will focus on one charismatic arctic-dwelling species, the Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus muta). [pronounced tarmigan, the p is silent].  In 1981, I was lucky to help Bob Montgomerie,  a professor at Queen’s University Ontario, with the first field season of his new research program on the behavioral  ecology of arctic birds. The study site was at Sarcpa Lake (red dot on map below), north of Hudson Bay and south of Baffin Island. During the Cold War, Sarcpa Lake was part of an array of a Distant Early Warning (DEW line) sites spread across the arctic to warn Canadians and Americans about imminent incineration by incoming nukes from the Soviet Union. We never got nuked and the station was eventually decommissioned and converted to a research station. Montgomerie did a 17-year study there of various arctic bird species.

Rock Ptarmigan were abundant at Sarcpa Lake during our first year (populations fluctuated from year to year). They were also very tame, endearing and interesting.

By way of background, there are three species of ptarmigan—one well studied species, the Willow Ptarmigan, is known to Europeans as Red Grouse. Many ptarmigan populations show the same striking regular population cycles seen in northern mammals like lemmings, hare and lynx. The population cycles of Red Grouse have been particularly well studied because these grouse are a valuable, managed game species in the UK. Populations fluctuate on a 4 to 8 year cycle. Parasitic nematode worms were long suspected of playing a role in the population cycles because population declines are often associated with high worm infestations. In a clever study, researchers were able to stop grouse populations from crashing by giving the grouse anti-worm medicine [Hudson et al. 1998 Science 282: 2256; pdf here]. This study is now a textbook example of how parasites can affect the population dynamics of their hosts. Ptarmigan have long been famous examples of camouflage—the focus of today’s post. Darwin discussed their camouflage in some detail. Ptarmigan are also unusual in having three feather molts per year (other birds have one or two molts).

Below: When we arrived at Sarcpa Lake at the very end of May, the tundra was still covered in snow. The photo below, taken on June 1, shows the crew exploring the snowy covered tundra in a Canadian limousine, piloted by fearless leader Bob Montgomerie. June 1 and all that snow! In the arctic, summer arrives late and the change from winter to spring seems to happen overnight. This rapid change provides a challenge for birds like ptarmigan that rely on camouflage. [Note: all images here are scans from slides—apologies for the crappy quality]

Below: In early spring, we often encountered ptarmigan walking around on the snow, still in their white winter plumage. They are very camouflaged against the snow and easy to miss. In one particularly memorable encounter, the wind had whipped the powdery snow into a sort of snow fog and a group of ptarmigan emerged ghostlike out of the snowy fog a mere ten feet from me, all but invisible. The ptarmigan at our site were also ridiculously tame; perhaps this goes hand in hand with camouflage as a defense against predators. Why flee if you are invisible? The sexes are similar in winter but by late winter large red combs above the eye indicate that a bird is a male, as the photo below shows.

Below: Snow melt happens quickly and this is what the tundra shown above looked like three weeks later.

Only females take care of the nests and eggs.  Given the lack of trees and shrubs as well as the abundance of egg predators like ravens, jaegers and foxes, camouflage is critical for nesting success. The sudden change from a white winter landscape to the dark tundra means that females have to quickly change from their white winter plumage to a breeding plumage that matches the tundra. The change seems to happen almost overnight. Below: a female ptarmigan part way through molt to her cryptic breeding plumage.

In breeding plumage, females are almost invisible against the tundra and their behavior matches this invisibility—they sit tight on the nest until almost stepped on (literally). This makes nests extremely difficult to find and we always felt lucky to find any nests.

When a colleague found our first ever nest, shown below, he marked the location with a couple of piles of rocks ten feet from the nest and then brought the rest of us back to show the nest. The only problem was that he could not find the nest again—the bird seemed to have vanished. Eventually, we found the sitting bird by combing the tundra in a tight line on our hands and knees—the female was practically invisible. In the photo below, the female is much more visible because she eventually became relaxed and raised her head and I took the photo from a low angle to show her profile. When females are trying to hide, the hug the tundra with head tucked low. Because nests are so hard to find, studies that need to find lots of nests have to use dogs specifically trained to sniff out sitting ptarmigan.

Below: The same nest showing the female about to sit back down on the eggs after a break from incubation to feed.

Below: A Rock Ptarmigan nest with eggs. The eggs have a feature that is unusual (unique?) for birds—the pigment remains wet and smear-able for a period after an egg is laid. The pigment can be smeared with a finger and there are reports of feather prints on eggs. It is not clear why the pigment remains wet.

Below. The eggs eventually hatched and we were treated to some pretty adorable chicks. Check out the cute fluffy toes on the chick. This photo was taken with a normal lens, showing just how tame this female was. She was not only tame but also seemed completely unstressed. A stressed or concerned parent would have given an alarm call to the chicks, causing them to dive for cover under their mom. She was content to have them wandering around and crawling on her back in front of me. I guess she considered me to be like a muskox or caribou—just another big dumb animal that would hopefully not step on her.

Below: Spot the ptarmigan chicks! A female with chicks a few weeks old and now in very cryptic plumage like their mom. How many kids can you spot?

Below: The story for males is very different. Males defend territories to attract females. While they do not help with nesting per se, males closely attend their mates prior to the onset of incubation. Mostly this is mate guarding but it might also be serve to protect females from predators. Most males are monogamous (i.e., pair with one female) but polygyny was fairly common at our site (35% of the males had more than one mate, typically 2 females but rarely up to 4 females). In our first year at the site, Montgomerie and I were struck by the difference between the sexes in the timing of the molt—unlike females, males did not change their feathers to match the changing landscape. Instead, once the snow melted, the white males became very conspicuous against the dark tundra, as shown below. In extreme cases, we were able to spot males from a distance of 2 km.

In most birds, males become conspicuous by growing colorful new breeding feathers. Ptarmigan, in contrast, become conspicuous by having the environment change, not their feathers. Note the nice fleshy red combs above the eyes on the male below. Montgomerie and his students Lynn Brodksy and Karen Holder found that comb size predicts mating success and, during fights, males go for each other’s combs to try to rip chunks out. Holder was also a coauthor on our ptarmigan plumage paper being described here.

Below: The males’ behavior also increases their conspicuousness—they perch on top of boulders or perform flight displays. The flight displays are wonderful to observe—a male launches himself into the air and at the apex of the display (in extreme cases 80 m above the ground), he stalls, then parachutes back to earth with wings bowed downward, all while calling loudly in staccato burp-like calls. The schematic below shows the sequence of a postures during a flight display. The drawing was made by Stu Macdonald (no longer with us), a naturalist who studied High Arctic birds for the National Museum of Canada and published the first detailed description of the breeding biology of Rock Ptarmigan (in Living Bird).

Below: Being so conspicuous after snowmelt likely comes at a cost for the males. Although absent at our site, Gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus) are major ptarmigan predators across much of the arctic, often specializing on ptarmigan and eating little else. From the ptarmigan’s perspective, the risk of being taken by a gyrfalcon is sometimes extremely high, particularly for males in the breeding season when they are most conspicuous. One Iceland study found that about a third of territorial males were killed by Gyrfalcons over a two-month period in the breeding season, when the males would be most conspicuous.

To put this in perspective, if this mortality rate were sustained year-round, less than ten percent of males would survive, likely the lowest survival for any adult bird. The study also found that males were taken far more than females during the breeding season, an indication that the plumage differences between the sexes affect risk of predation. The photo below shows a gyrfalcon with a pheasant, not a ptarmigan, but the impression is similar. NOT MY PHOTO (unattributed photo from the web). Gyrfalcons are popular with falconers so I expect this was a photo with a falconry bird.

The fact that males do not molt at the same time as females, and likely pay a price for being so conspicuous, got us curious about whether the conspicuousness serves a purpose (more on that in a bit). Or perhaps, males be constrained from molting—the sexual hormones needed for breeding behaviors like territory defense or flight displays might inhibit molt. Regardless, we soon discovered the males have another way of reducing their conspicuousness without molting—they get dirty. We initially noticed a few males getting dirty and did not make much of it but when it became clear that all males were getting dirty we realized that we had an intriguing pattern.

Grouse love to dust bath (it seems to help with feather parasites and cleanliness) but the dirtiness we observed was not the result of dust bathing. Clean males regularly dust-bathed without soiling their plumage—getting dirty seemed deliberate. Getting dirty also greatly reduced a male’s conspicuousness, at least to human observers. We developed a ranked ‘dirt score’ to score a male’s plumage from pristine to super dirty, and we also recorded the distance at which we first saw a given male. We found that the dirtier the plumage, the closer we had to be before detecting a male, and the effect was usually striking. We suspect that dirtiness must also affect detection by gyrfalcons but have not yet tested this idea. Gyrfalcons hunt ptarmigan by spotting them from the air a great distance away and then swooping low over the tundra for a surprise attack. The photo below shows a very dirty male; he has also molted some of his head feathers.

Males can reduce their conspicuousness by getting dirty but they wait to do so until well after their mates change color, and well after the snow melts. Males seem to deliberately “choose” to remain white and conspicuous. Why?

To answer this question, we looked at the variation among males in their timing of dirtying. It turns out that individual males get dirty almost immediately after their mate starts laying her eggs. We could tell when females began laying eggs because a laying female seems to vanish from the tundra. Finding that males time their dirtiness to their mate’s cycle suggests that the conspicuous clean white plumage is favored by sexual selection and perhaps female preference for clean conspicuous males.

We do not yet understand why females care about male cleanliness but have a couple of ideas. By remaining conspicuous, males may advertise to females their ability to avoid predation by falcons—the combination of being conspicuous and alive (not eaten) may provide an honest signal of a male’s survival skills in the face of grave risk, potentially a heritable trait. Alternatively, males might act as conspicuous beacons that deflect predation attempts away from their mate. Females might be more vulnerable to predation than males, particularly during egg-laying when they have several eggs developing at the same time, and males might benefit by deflecting the attention of predators away from their mates and having a mate that lives to reproduce.

The dirtying behavior we studied occurs in most rock ptarmigan populations and many previous authors have mentioned it in passing. Interestingly, David Sibley included a drawing of a dirty ptarmigan in the first edition of his Sibley Guide to Birds (page 145) and referred to it as the ‘courtship plumage’. We suspect that Sibley had made this conclusion after consulting museum skins and noting that that this plumage occurs during the breeding season prior to summer molt. Without a detailed field study that follows the trajectories of individual color-banded males, the assumption that dirty plumage is a courtship plumage is a logical one. We wrote to Sibley and he seemed appreciative of the new information but I have not checked to see if the new edition has been updated with respect to this issue. A main finding of our study was the dirty plumage is a post courtship plumage!

In case any readers are interested in more details about the study, my website has reprints of a scientific paper and an article in Natural History Magazine about the study.