Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Epic wasp battle! This series of photos, with that title, was sent in by reader Mark Sturtevant. His notes are indented:
I had recently sent some pictures about insects attracted to wind-fallen apples in our yard. Among the insects were downy yellowjackets (Vespula flavopilosa), which are social insects—but that does not mean they always got along. Yes, some tolerated each other, perhaps recognizing a nest-mate, but other encounters between them were not friendly. When rival wasps met, one would generally shoo away the other turning toward them, jaws agape, and with slightly raised wings. The other was then supposed to flee.
The first picture shows how encounters between rivals would generally start. The wasp on the right is clearly signaling the other to scram. But in this case, the other wasp just would not get the message. Perhaps the interloper had come to believe that it owned this apple as well. What followed was what I like to call an Epic Wasp Battle. I watched several of these encounters between these two wasps, but I never did see if they ever resolved their differences.
The next five pictures shows the resulting battle that began with the first picture. Here, the aggressor charges in but is met with resistance by its opponent, and so the two roll around for a couple seconds. Shortly after they would move apart. But the aggressor wasp would soon notice the interloper, and the whole sequence would repeat, as shown in the last photo.
Just some final comments. First, neither wasp seemed willing to escalate by actually harming the other. I never saw one bite the other, nor did I see any stingers come out. Second, I expect that all of us have noticed this sort of conflict between wasps over sugary sources such as an open soda can. I for one never gave them more than a glance. But seen up close, these battles do look pretty dramatic!
People keep sending me photos of cowboy boots that have been cut down into sandals with long tops, or “golf boots” with cleats on the bottom. No more! The only good cowboy boot is an old-style cowboy boot. Is there any reader who would wear these, which I saw on eBay?
My custom boots (real boots) will probably come tomorrow. Stay tuned.
It’s July the 5th, and I woke this morning delighted to hear that Juno has achieved orbit around Jupiter. That was a tough mission, covering several BILLION miles. More later. Oh, and it’s Arbor Day in New Zealand.
On this day in 1687, Isaac Newton published the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In 1937, the Hormel Foods corporation introduced Spam, the famous luncheon meat. Have you ever tried it? It’s the state food of Hawaii (sort of). On this day in 1948, the UK created the national public health system by instituting the National Health Service Acts. On July 5, 1954, Elvis Presley recorded his first single at Sun Records in Memphis, Tennessee. Do you know what the song was? Finally, on this day in 1996, Dolly the sheep became the first mammal cloned from a cell taken from an adult.
Notables born on this day include P. T. Barnum (1810), Jean Cocteau (1889), the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (1904), and musician Robbie Robertson (1943). Those who died on this day include Ted Williams (2002). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is having a “reverie”; perhaps she’s thinking of mice in the orchard!
Hili: Sometimes all this is leading to reverie.
A: What’s leading to reverie?
Hili: This and that.
In Polish:
Hili: Czasem to wszystko skłania do zadumy.
Ja: To znaczy, co skłania do zadumy?
HilI: To i tamto.
And reader Taskin sent me a photo of three kittens that she received from one of her friends who took it while visiting Malaysia. Aren’t they cute? The tabbylet is dead to the world.
Reader Anne-Marie spotted this video on a French-Canadian website (click screenshot to go to the video). Besides the Stegosaurus Cat, there are also d*gs with different patterns (including a lion) clipped into their fur. You’ll have to endure a 19-second ad before you get to the good stuff.
As I’ve noted before, Pope Francis is a big believer in devils and demonic possession. The Vatican has an Official Exorcist, and there are hundreds of Catholic priests holding the equivalent of Exorcism Licenses. Not many people know this (and the Church, for obvious reasons, tries to keep that under wraps), but it’s information easily accessible with a few mouse clicks.
What I didn’t know until now is that the exorcists are assisted by non-priest professinals like psychiatrist Richard Gallagher, a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College. And, in an article in the July 1 Washington Post,”As a psychiatrist, I diagnose I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession,” he notes that over the years he’s developed the expertise to distinguish people who are mentally ill from those who are actually possessed by Satan or demons! His ability to diagnose demonic possession is, he said, based on science.(You can see one of his case studies here.)
Here are a few excerpts from his article, including a list of the criteria he uses to see if someone is infested with demons.
I’m a man of science and a lover of history; after studying the classics at Princeton, I trained in psychiatry at Yale and in psychoanalysis at Columbia. That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether [a woman who described herself as a Satanic high priestess] was suffering from a mental disorder. This was at the height of the national panic about Satanism.
. . . But my subject’s behavior exceeded what I could explain with my training. She could tell some people their secret weaknesses, such as undue pride. She knew how individuals she’d never known had died, including my mother and her fatal case of ovarian cancer. Six people later vouched to me that, during her exorcisms, they heard her speaking multiple languages, including Latin, completely unfamiliar to her outside of her trances. This was not psychosis; it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed.
So there you have the “evidence”: these people, under demonic influence, blurt out things that they could not possibly have known otherwise, and they speak in languages they couldn’t possibly have learned or picked up. But there’s more! Levitation! Superhuman strength!
But I believe I’ve seen the real thing. Assaults upon individuals are classified either as “demonic possessions” or as the slightly more common but less intense attacks usually called “oppressions.” A possessed individual may suddenly, in a type of trance, voice statements of astonishing venom and contempt for religion, while understanding and speaking various foreign languages previously unknown to them. The subject might also exhibit enormous strength or even the extraordinarily rare phenomenon of levitation. (I have not witnessed a levitation myself, but half a dozen people I work with vow that they’ve seen it in the course of their exorcisms.) He or she might demonstrate “hidden knowledge” of all sorts of things — like how a stranger’s loved ones died, what secret sins she has committed, even where people are at a given moment. These are skills that cannot be explained except by special psychic or preternatural ability.
I have personally encountered these rationally inexplicable features, along with other paranormal phenomena. My vantage is unusual: As a consulting doctor, I think I have seen more cases of possession than any other physician in the world.
Well, he didn’t actually see the levitation, but he knew people who swear that they did. And yet Gallagher claims that these conclusions are scientific:
For the past two-and-a-halfdecades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work. It’s an unlikely role for an academic physician, but I don’t see these two aspects of my career in conflict. The same habits that shape what I do as a professor and psychiatrist — open-mindedness, respect for evidence and compassion for suffering people — led me to aid in the work of discerning attacks by what I believe are evil spirits and, just as critically, differentiating these extremely rare events from medical conditions.
. . . As a man of reason, I’ve had to rationalize the seemingly irrational. Questions about how a scientifically trained physician can believe “such outdated and unscientific nonsense,” as I’ve been asked, have a simple answer. I honestly weigh the evidence.
So if there’s all this evidence, and even levitation (LEVITATION!), why haven’t scientists documented it? After all, surely there are ways of detecting whether the possessed have prior knowledge of languages or whether they are doing a form of “cold reading,” or even know something about the exorcist. Sadly, these remarkable abilities seem to vanish under scientific scrutiny:
I have been told simplistically that levitation defies the laws of gravity, and, well, of course it does! We are not dealing here with purely material reality, but with the spiritual realm. One cannot force these creatures to undergo lab studies or submit to scientific manipulation; they will also hardly allow themselves to be easily recorded by video equipment, as skeptics sometimes demand. (The official Catholic Catechism holds that demons are sentient and possess their own wills; as they are fallen angels, they are also craftier than humans. That’s how they sow confusion and seed doubt, after all.) Nor does the church wish to compromise a sufferer’s privacy, any more than doctors want to compromise a patient’s confidentiality.
Damn! That makes it tough to demonstrate real demonic possession, doesn’t it? We’ll just have to take Gallagher’s word. But he adds another line of evidence. First, many cultures have stories or examples of possession by spirits, and the descriptions are often similar. And many cultures believe in spirits. Surely that can’t be coincidence, or reflect cultural inheritance. Nope: it’s demons all the way down!
In the end, Gallagher concludes that “the evidence for possession is like the evidence for George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. In both cases, written historical account with numerous sound witnesses testify to their accuracy.”
Well, we’re talking about miracles here, not George Washington in a boat, and so we need some substantial evidence. Videos or examination by magicians and “mind readers” like James Randi would be useful, but we already know that both the Church and those pesky demons are loath to be filmed or examined. We might invoke Hume’s principle of miracles here: is it more likely that there are non-divine explanations than that levitation is occurring, or that some “possessed” person suddenly speaks a language that she’s completely unacquainted with? I, for one, want to see those films of levitation, and not levitation of the Criss Angel type.
Note: Gallagher doesn’t describe head-swiveling
Why was this published as a long piece in the Washington Post? Well, if there were a possibility it was true, and there were real evidence for demonic possession—even just a bit—it would be provocative. But I can’t help thinking that the Post likes this because it gives some evidence for numious, for Catholicism. Yet if regular people and even scientists can be fooled by stuff like this, why can’t Gallagher? It takes magicians to reveal how these tricks or done, or to suss out the “miraculous” stuff. In the meantime, and assuming that there isn’t demonic possession, the Post, like Gallagher, is doing substantial damage. By claiming that we can distinguish demonic possession from psychiatric disorders, or even trickery, both Gallagher and the paper not only enable all the invidious follies of Catholicism, but may even prevent the mentally ill from getting real treatment. Surely we can agree that the application of a cross, holy water, and cries of “OUT, SATAN!” aren’t efficacious in real cases of mental illness. When they do work, it’s surely on people who are faking their symptoms, possibly to get attention.
By the way, I was amused by a juxtaposition of the article’s text with one of those links that papers interpolate to get you to click on other stories (the IAE is the International Association of Exorcists). Here’s a screenshot:
Like Einstein, Winston Churchill occasionally made references in his discourse to the divine or the Almighty, and, like Einstein, Churchill apparently didn’t believe in a personal God—or perhaps any God. Invoking the supernatural or divine was simply a figure of speech.
Having rejected Christianity as a young man, Churchill spent the rest of his life as an exponent of secularism, occasionally making disparaging remarks about faith. The following letter was brought to my attention by reader Mark B. (it’s today’s daily letter at the Letters of Note website, which Mark recommends highly). It was sent to the Times in 1919—when Churchill was the 44-year-old Secretary of War—in response to a letter from the Duke of Rutland. The severe drought in Britain that year had prompted the Duke to ask readers to pray for rain, and this is Churchill’s sarcastic response. It was published under a pseudonym, but the true writer was revealed 20 years later by Churchill’s private secretary.
June 12th, 1919
To the Editor of The Times.
Sir–
Observing reports in various newspapers that prayers are about to be offered up for rain in order that the present serious drought may be terminated, I venture to suggest that great care should be taken in framing the appeal. On the last occasion when this extreme step was resorted to, the Duke of Rutland took the leading part with so much well-meaning enthusiasm that the resulting downpour was not only sufficient for all immediate needs, but was considerably in excess of what was actually required, with the consequence that the agricultural community had no sooner been delivered from the drought than they were clamouring for a special interposition to relieve them from the deluge.
Profiting by this experience, we ought surely on this occasion to be extremely careful to state exactly what we want in precise terms, so as to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding, and to economize so far as possible the need for these special appeals. After so many days of drought, it certainly does not seem unreasonable to ask for a change in the weather, and faith in a favourable response may well be fortified by actuarial probabilities.
While therefore welcoming the suggestion that His Grace should once again come forward, I cannot help feeling that the Board of Agriculture should first of all be consulted. They should draw up a schedule of the exact amount of rainfall required in the interests of this year’s harvest in different parts of the country. This schedule could be placarded in the various places of worship at the time when the appeal is made. It would no doubt be unnecessary to read out the whole schedule during the service, so long as it was made clear at the time that this is what we have in our minds, and what we actually want at the present serious juncture.
I feel sure that this would be a much more businesslike manner of dealing with the emergency than mere vague appeals for rain. But after all, even this scheme, though greatly preferable to the haphazard methods previously employed, is in itself only a partial makeshift. What we really require to pray for is the general amelioration of the British climate.
What is the use of having these piecemeal interpositions—now asking for sunshine, and now for rain? Would it not be far better to ascertain by scientific investigation, conducted under the auspices of a Royal Commission, what is the proportion of sunshine and rain best suited to the ripening of the British crops? It would no doubt be necessary that other interests besides agriculture should be represented, but there must be certain broad general reforms in the British weather upon which an overwhelming consensus of opinion could be found. The proper proportion of rain to sunshine during each period of the year; the relegation of the rain largely to the hours of darkness; the apportionment of rain and sunshine as between different months, with proper reference not only to crops but to holidays; all these could receive due consideration. A really scientific basis of climatic reform would be achieved.
These reforms, when duly embodied in an official volume, could be made the object of the sustained appeals of the nation over many years, and embodied in general prayers of a permanent and not of an exceptional character. We should not then be forced from time to time to have recourse to such appeals at particular periods, which, since they are unrelated to any general plan, must run the risk of deranging the whole economy of nature, and involve the interruption and deflection of universal processes, causing reactions of the utmost complexity in many directions which it is impossible for us with our limited knowledge to foresee.
I urge you, Sir, to lend the weight of your powerful organ to the systematization of our appeals for the reform of the British climate.
Yours very faithfully,
‘Scorpio’
Imagine something like this these days. It’s as if Leon Panetta, the U.S. Secretary of Defense in 2011, wrote a sarcastic letter making fun of Texas governor Rick Perry’s call for “Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas” in that same year.
Churchill was not a perfect man (he was somewhat of a racist, for instance), but he’s still one of my heroes, and this makes him even more heroic. I wish he had signed his name, but of course as a cabinet minister that would have been impossible.
Our holiday pictures comprise a nice selection of insect shots by reader Tony Eales in Australia. His notes are indented. I’ll also put out a call for readers to send in their good wildlife photos (and “wildlife” includes landscapes and plants).
Tony from Australia again. One thing that I’ve noticed since getting into insect photography is that you come across odd constructions and it’s always worth taking a few photographs and asking amateur hobby internet groups what is going on.
My first such discovery was of the Clouded Footman Moth (Anestia ombrophanes). The caterpillar is a hairy affair which eats lichen. When it comes time to pupate they construct a light cocoon made of their own hairs tied together with silk. It was this I first photographed.
The males of this species look like typical small moths but the females are large and wingless, they stay with their cocoon and lay their eggs on the outside.
Other weird things I’ve found, the remains of a basket lerp (Cardiaspina sp.); the weirdly patterned chrysalis of an ichneumon wasp (Hyposoter sp.); the remains of a planthopper (maybe a spittlebug Philagra parva, which are common in this area) killed by a cordyceps fungus; and the egg case of a Jewel Spider (Austracantha minax).
My latest mystery is yet another odd moth caterpillar. It appears to be in the same family as the more well known, Gum Leaf Skeletoniser (Uraba lugens),which is famous for wearing its old moults as a hat. The one I found appears to be making a protective cage out of its poop as it skeletonises the leaf. None of the experts I’ve consulted have seen the like and it’s probably not a species either known or described. As Don Herbison-Evans says on his web page, there are “3,803 named and described Australian Lepidoptera species, but sadly only including 733 Caterpillar pictures”. The only way to fix this is for people to catch, photograph and raise to adulthood many more caterpillars which can then be identified. My plan is to get back to the site where I photographed these guys and hopefully collect one to raise.
It’s the Fourth of July: Independence Day—America’s equivalent of Canada Day! Today everyone will have picnics and set off fireworks. We’ve been lucky to have three beautiful days for the holidays, sunny and with temperatures not exceeding 25°C. And so it shall be today.
And of course on this day in history occurred what we’re celebrating: in 1776 the Continental Congress of the U.S. adopted the Declaration of Independence. If it hadn’t, Boris Johnson would be our President and we wouldn’t have proper sandwiches. Also on this day was a poignant event: both John Adams (second president of the U.S.) and Thomas Jefferson (the third) died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—July 4, 1826. Both desperately wanted to stay alive to see that day, and both made it. An account from the librarian website Finding Dulcinea:
Jefferson desired to live until July 4 so “that he might breathe the air of the Fiftieth Anniversary.” His last words, spoken the night before his death in the early afternoon of July 4, are traditionally given as some variation of “Is it the Fourth?”
Adams spent his final days at his home in Quincy, Mass. On the morning of July 4, he remarked, “It is a great day. It is a good day.”He died in the early evening, hours after Jefferson. According to tradition, Adams uttered the final words, “Thomas Jefferson survives,” unaware of the fact that his longtime friend had just passed away.
According to a journal entry by John Quincy Adams, who returned home 13 days after his father’s death, “About one afternoon [1 pm] he said ‘Thomas Jefferson survives,’ but the last word was indistinctly and imperfectly uttered. He spoke no more.”
Finally, July 4, 1886 the people of France offered the people of the U.S. our Statue of Liberty, which still stands proudly in New York Harbor. Thanks, France!
Those born on this day include Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804), Calvin Coolidge (1872) and Lionel Trilling (1905). Those who died on this day include Marie Curie (1934). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is feeling her oats—or her kibbles—and playing Jungle Cat:
A: You look like a wild cat.
Hili: Yes, I’ve had a good sleep and I have plenty of energy.
In Polish:
Ja: Wyglądasz jak dziki kot.
Hili: Tak, wyspałam się i mam dużo energii.
Enjoy this painting courtesy of reader Taskin. It’s by David Teniers the Younger and called “The Cat Concert” (1635). See also his “Costumed apes having a meal.” There are the archetypes of all pictures of “Dogs playing poker.”
Finally, over at Ten Cats, there’s a bird convention at the brand new Cat’s Inn:
.jpg){kind=link}