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.
We have only two photos today, both from Lou Jost, who’s been busy in the rain forests of Ecuador. But they’re great pictures, and one apparently shows a form of mimicry new to me: an insect mimicking a frog. Lou sent this yesterday:
In honor of your mimicry post today, here are two more mimics for your delectation, found this month during a visit by a group of Stanford University students. The first is a crab spider that imitates a frog! It was found by students Dylan Moore and Natalia Espinoza in EcoMimga’s Rio Zunac Reserve.
At first they [Moore and Espinoza] thought it was a frog. It holds its forelegs in a position reminiscent of the hind legs of a frog, and its abdomen mimics a frog head, complete with eyes. I imagine that small birds or insects that would catch a spider might not want to waste energy or risk their lives trying to catch a frog.This spider seems to be related to the famous “bird poop spiders” but I don’t really know. If an arachnologist reads this, perhaps he or she could add some information about this?
The next day,when we went to EcoMinga’s Rio Anzu Reserve, I spotted this leaf-mimic katydid only because it moved its two antennae together to act more like an inanimate leaf. It was confident in its disguise and did not move when disturbed.
You do see it, right?
The frog mimic a frog raised two questions, which I sent to Lou. Is this the first described case of a spider mimicking a frog? And what could be a selective advantage to the spider of this kind of mimicry? Lou responded:
Jerry, I hadn’t ever heard of a frog-mimic spider like this, but the internet does reveal one other alleged example here [JAC: here’s the photo at the link]:
But I think that one might be imitating a snake head.
As to why a spider might mimic a frog, I don’t really know. Maybe insects that would eat spiders might be afraid of frogs? Or maybe birds that would eat spiders are not going to bother to chase a frog, which is more agile and which might be toxic?
It’s unlikely that the imitation is to help the spider sneak up on prey, as it seems that most prey that would be eaten by a spider would also be eaten by a frog. Also, the spider’s color is not an “aposematic” warning color, which most toxic frogs have, like this one:
Oophaga pumilio, the “strawberry poison dart frog”. It’s extremely variable in color and pattern; this one is the “blue jeans” morph.
That, I think, rules out the toxicity hypothesis, though not the agility hypothesis.
Good morning: it’s July 27, 2017, and also Thursday, which means I have to hie over to the hospital (5 min walk) to get physical therapy on my shoulder to help it heal. This will be a first for me, but I’m not getting any younger. I suppose it could be worse! It’s National Scotch Day, and although I’m not much of a Scotch drinker, I favor the smoky malts like Talisker and Ardbeg, though my absolute favorite is a Campbeltown brew: Springbank single malt. I once had the 21-year-old version at a Harvard Junior Fellows dinner when I was invited as a guest; it was liquid paradise! (At dinner I also sat next to the world-famous philosopher W.V. Quine, who must have been about ninety at the time, and I had no idea who he was. Quine was laconic, and may have been on the downhill slide, but, to be fair, I’m not a philosopher.)
Today’s political news, which Matthew posted yesterday: Trump is acting up again (or should I say “as usual”?). The sick thing is that he almost certainly doesn’t believe in God; he may be the first atheist President. He does, however, believe in Trump.
And be sure to read Heather Hastie’s new takedown of Donald Trump’s extremely unwise ban of transgender soldiers in the American military. It was mean-spirited, reprehensible, and counterproductive.
On July 27, 1794, Maximilien Robespierre was arrested after having thousands of others arrested and killed during the “Reign of Terror”. Trying to shoot himself before arrest, he succeeded only in badly shattering his jaw, and bled throughout the night, only to be guillotined the next day. On this day in 1866, the first transatlantic telephone cable was completed, extending from Valentia Island in Ireland to Heart’s Content, Newfoundland. Imagine what a feat that was for the time! On July 1890, Vincent van Gogh shot himself, lingering two days and then dying. He was only 37, and I consider him one of the five best artists in the history of the world. What painting he would have made had he not been depressed and suicidal. On this day in 1940, the short cartoon A Wild Hare was released (full cartoon below), introducing the wily and snide character of Bugs Bunny. Bugs appears for the first time at 2:24, and it’s clear that he changed appearance over the years. Back then his head was narrower and his nose pointier. Like Mickey Mouse, he underwent artistic neoteny:
On this day in 1953, fighting ended in the Korean war as China, the U.S., and North Korea signed an armistice. South Korea didn’t sign, and as far as I know we’re still technically at war with the DPRK, though there’s a “truce.” Finally, on July 27, 1974, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted to recommend an article of impeachment—for obstruction of justice—against Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon. He of course resigned before impeachment, and was pardoned in advance by Gerald Ford.
Notables born on this day include Charlotte Corday (who killed Marat, 1768), Alexandre Dumas (fils, 1824), photographer William Eggleston (1939), and Peggy Fleming (1948). Here’s one of Eggleston’s photos of America:
Those who died on this day included the highly overrated Gertrude Stein (1946; I never liked anything she wrote), James Mason (1984), and Bob Hope (2003). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is contemplating the meager cherry harvest. But there will be enough for my pies! Who cares whether there’s enough for a cat who doesn’t like fruit?
Hili: Craziness!
A: About what?
Hili: About these cherries. No cat would put one into its mouth.
In Polish:
Hili: Szaleństwo!
Ja: Z czym?
Hili: Z tymi wiśniami, żaden kot by tego do pyszczka nie wziął.
Here’s a cat tw**t sent by reader Barry; I understand neither the device nor why the cat likes it. If you’re familiar with this thing, weigh in below (be sure to watch the video):
The first tw**t (I added others when I saw where this came from) is from naturalist and photographer Gil Wizen, who, like me, is a fan of mimicry. He’s given me permission to reproduce some of his stories and photos (like this amazing account of sexually-selected flies), and I’ll soon get around to that. In the meantime, he’s been posting mimicry photos on his Twitter page as well as photos for National Moth Week, and here’s a good one showing a mimic and a moth in one creature:
Never forget: social media is forever, and even if you remove something embarrassing you posted in an unwise or inebriated moment, somebody will have taken a screenshot. Or if you’re in public doing something you don’t want publicized, remember that everyone has a camera with a cellphone. That’s what happened here. It’s been reported by the BBC, so the woman has already been publicly “outed.”
Her name is Azadeh Namdari, whom the Beeb identifies as a “conservative Iranian television host”. They also report this:
Namdari is known in Iran as a proponent of the Islamic dress code.
A photo of her in full hijab was once published in the conservative Iranian newspaper Vatan-e Emruz under the headline: “Thank God, I wear the veil”.
Those who know Arabic can translate, at least the white text. She wears not just the headscarf, but the chador, a full-length garment that is held closed in the front and is common (but not required) in Iran. Wearing the hijab, or headscarf, however, is required. Thus Namdari goes beyond government requirements, and praises her covering. Here’s the photo and text in that newspaper:
The kicker, however, is that a video emerged of Namdari on holiday in Switzerland, not wearing her headscarf and guzzling a beer. Going unveiled is a crime in Iran, as is drinking. And drinking is also considered un-Islamic in general. Here’s one shot from the video.
Of course Namdari had an excuse, but it’s not credible (my emphasis below):
In response to the revelations, Namdari published another video of herself in which she offered reasons for not wearing a hijab.
The two-minute long video was published by the hardline Young Journalists’ Club(YJC) news agency under the headline “Azadeh Namdari’s reaction to the publication of scandalous photos in cyberspace”.
This time wearing a hijab, she explained she was sitting with family members and “maharem” – close relatives among whom a woman does not need to wear a hijab – in a park. She said her scarf fell suddenly and the video was taken at that instant by an unknown person.
She gave no explanation about drinking beer in the video.
The explanation brought further criticism from social media users, citing Namdari’s “hypocrisy” and “dual-behaviour,” and using her name as the Persian hashtag#Azadeh_Namdari.
Since the initial video emerged on 24 July the hashtag has been used over 11,000 times.
The claim that her scarf fell suddenly doesn’t wash because she’s clearly wearing sunglasses atop her head, which she couldn’t have done under a hijab. It’s all a lie.
But I really feel sorry for her. This is how many Iranian women would dress and behave were they not coerced by their oppressive and theocratic government. And it’s how many Iranian women did dress and behave before the 1979 revolution, when they were forced, even after mass protests, to wear the hijab. And I suspect Namdari will lose her job, or at the least be reviled when she returns to Iran—if she can return to Iran.
The only thing I don’t like about her behavior was her thanking Allah that she covers herself. She didn’t have to say that. But again, let’s cut her a break because she’s simply going along with the theocracy, and has an important job to keep.
Who should be vilified in this incident is not Namdari, but those bearded imams who make it necessary for her to pretend she likes covering herself, when all she really wants to do is kick back, take off those hot garments, and enjoy a nice brewski.
Michael Nugent is the head of Atheist Ireland (and a playwright), and works tirelessly for secularism in Europe. He’s also known for always wearing a red polo shirt, even when meeting heads of state. (I once emailed him why but got no reply.) But in a more serious vein, he’s just written a long email to Berkeley station KPFA that he’s posted publicly on his website, “Why KPFA radio should reconsider breaking its agreement with Richard Dawkins“. It’s a long article, as is customary for Michael, but it’s thorough, and even has a preliminary outline (Michael’s words are indented throughout):
In this letter I will address:
The problem with your current approac
Why your original decision was unjustifie
Your profiting from Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchen
The word Islamophobia and the demonising of Richard Dawkins
Summary of what I am requesting
It’s a good letter, but there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that KPFA will respond, and I think Michael knows that. It’s more an attempt to provide a centralized resource for rebutting this species of criticism of Richard. For instance, there are many links to articles Michael has written about why we should discard the word “Islamophobia”, and articles about why Dawkins has been demonized and mischaracterized for his views on religion.
Since KPFA has now invited Richard back to clarify and explain his views (I doubt that will happen unless, as Richard has requested, KPFA first apologizes for the de-platforming), Nugent asks the central question:
But if you are prepared to host Richard talking about Islam on your station, why can you not honour your agreement to host him talking about science at the originally planned event?
You can read the rest of the piece, but I want to point out two instances of KPFA’s hypocrisy about de-platforming invited speakers. This shows, more than anything, that it’s Islam, not free speech or everyone’s feelings, that it’s protecting, perhaps out of fear of reprisal or of giving offense to particular “people of color” who adhere to an oppressive faith. And it has no desire at all to protect the feelings of Jews! But that’s what we expect of Regressive Leftists.
Hypocrisy #1
In a news item justifying your behaviour, you interviewed Lara Kiswani, Executive director of the Bay Area based Arab Resource and Organizing Center. She said that she had contacted ‘her partners in the station’ when she heard of the event. You also allowed her to make unchallenged defamatory allegations on air, including that Richard is ‘a well-known Islamophobe’.
But Lara herself, at an event in UC Berkely, is reported here as saying that ‘bringing down Israel will really benefit everyone in the world and everyone in society,’ and she told a student who questioned her that ‘as long as you choose to be on that side, I’m going to continue to hate you.’ She has also expressed other controversial views.
How could you consider whatever Richard has said about Islam to be so hurtful that you could not even sponsor him talking about science, while justifying that decision by interviewing somebody who has explicitly said that she hates people because of their beliefs?
To be clear, I fully support your right to interview Lara Kiswani about her views, within the limits of defamation law. However, based on the criteria that you used to break your agreement to host Richard, and assuming that you have the same concern for Jews as you do for Muslims, you should not agree with your station hosting Lara.
Touché!
Hypocrisy #2
3. Your profiting from Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchens
Can I ask you to compare and contrast your approach to this problem with your approach last October to the launch of Chris Hedges’ book Unspeakable, and to your profiting from $300 pledges for a media archive that includes a debate with Christopher Hitchens?
Chris Hedges is also a controversial author whose writing can hurt people. Indeed, he was disinvited from a peace conference in the University of Pennsylvania in 2014, because he published a column comparing ISIS to Israel.
Despite this, you (rightly) hosted a similar book talk last October for him. Ironically, you hosted it in conjunction with Project Censored, and the full book title was ‘Unspeakable: on the most forbidden topics in America.’
You also currently advertise an offer on your station whereby, for a pledge of $300, listeners can get a Chris Hedges media archive collection, which includes a debate between Chris and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Here is a link to an article in which he said ‘But at the moment, it’s very clear to me the most toxic form that religion takes is the Islamic form… The whole idea of wanting to end up with Sharia with a religion-governed state — a state of religious law — and the best means of getting there is Jihad, Holy War, that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this is absolute obscene wickedness and I think their religion is nonsense, in its entirety.’
Why are you happy to host and profit from a book event for Chris Hedges, and to profit to the extent of $300 a pledge for a media archive that includes a debate between Chris Hedges and Christopher Hitchens, but not happy to host and profit from a book event about science by Richard Dawkins?
By your own criteria for breaking your agreement on this event, it just doesn’t make sense. You should either reconsider your decision regarding Richard, or else remove this pledge offer from your website.
KPFA’s hypocrisy, then, is twofold: it allows speech that is equivalent to genuine hate speech, so long as it’s directed against Jews and Israel (I reiterate that I don’t think such speech should be banned); and in the past it’s sponsored and profited from criticism of religion that’s just as strong as Richard’s.
But there’s much more in Nugent’s “J’Accuse” letter, so go have a look.
(Left to right): Richard Dawkins, Jane Donnelly (of Atheist Ireland), and Michael Nugent in his quotidian getup.
And one from a tweet: