A jumpy Paca

January 29, 2013 • 1:49 pm

by Matthew Cobb

This video from a forest camera was sent to me, along with the ID, by a colleague, Professor Richard Preziosi, who’s visiting some of our University of Manchester undergraduate students who are spending a year working in Ecuador as part of their degrees. (Yes that is a recruitment plug!)

The student – Roberto Padovani – is studying Biology and is working in the forest. If the title of the video is anything to go by, this recording was made in the first week. Roberto will have set up a series of video cameras that turn on when an animal comes near. This skittish Paca is the result.

The Paca is a rodent – there are two species that live in the region, the Lowland Paca (Cuniculus paca) and the Mountain Paca (Cuniculus taczanowskii). I *think* this is a Mountain Paca – it seems a lot darker than the Lowland ( I could be wrong!). What exactly it’s frightened of, I’m not sure.

I am *not* a rodent expert at all, and in researching this I have found it confusing – the genus Cuniculus is sometimes replaced by Agouti, which is another (but similar) animal altogether. Agoutis (Dasyprocta punctata) have different anatomy and behaviour. As this website says:

The Lowland paca has a similar shape to the agouti but is a bit larger and usually only comes out at night. What distinguishes them most is that the Paca has creamy white spots on its brown body and a white belly.Like the agouti, it eats a lot of seeds. Pacas are a favorite prey for jaguars and pumas, and their meat is prized by local hunters. With so many things wanting to eat them, Pacas are hard to see in the rainforest. If you want to see one, you should go out after dark.

Although the animals are clearly different I’m still a bit confused about if and when the genus was switched. Maybe a WEIT reader who knows more than I do (not difficult in this respect) can help?

The word ‘Paca’ apparently means, with remarkable imagination, ‘animal’. And if the carnivorous amongst you think those thighs look tasty – you’re not the only ones. They are eaten all across Latin America, and are seen as quite a delicacy. Thankfully, they are not endangered, and there are various projects to rear them commercially for meat. How could anyone eat this beautiful animal?

Cuniculus taczanowskii Picture from here

According to the New Encyclopedia of Mammals:

“Pacas have often been included with the agoutis and acouchis as a separate subfamily of the Dasyproctidae; they are not dissimilar in appearance, but have relatively shorter legs, less reduced digits on the hind feet, and a spotted pelage. To add to the confusion, the scientific name of the Paca is Agouti [not here, it’s not – MC], which in common parlance is applied to the Dasyprocta species. Pacas usually occur in forested areas near water, often spending the day in burrows excavated by themselves or abandoned by other animals. They emerge at night to feed on leaves, stems, roots, nuts, seeds, and fruit, and may be a major pest of cultivated land.”

Latin America is full of what are called Cavy-like rodents, including Coypu (which are now well-established in certain areas of the UK having escaped from fur farms),  Hutia,  Pacarana, Agoutis, Chinchillas, the Spiny Rat, Degu, and the delightfully-named Tuco-tuco, which in some parts of Latin America are considered to be pests:

                                                     Photo: J.F.B.Stolz From here.

Other South American rodents include the guinea pig, the monogamous mara and the world’s largest rodent, the Capybara, which are so big they are plain scary. Capybara also don’t like snow and make strange clicking noises:
According to the marvellous New Encyclopedia of Mammals (you don’t get any damn Wikipedia on MY watch, folks):
“Externally, many of these rodents have large heads, plump bodies, slender legs, and short tails – as in the guinea pigs, the agoutis, and the giant capybara, the largest of all rodents at over one meter (39 in) in length.”
There is a controversy over whether the ancestors all these rodents reached South America by rafting from Africa, when the continents were much closer, or whether they originally came over from North America. What I am still unclear about is what it was about the ecology of Latin America that enabled such rodent radiation – perhaps the absence of large forest herbivores helped. Any ideas?

LOLCAT exhibition: Brits, get your butts there

January 29, 2013 • 1:12 pm

Okay, I expect my British ailurophilic readers to go to this free art exhibition, and I expect reports and photos:

Picture 1

Lolcat – Teh Exhibishun
A group art show exploring the weird and wonderful world of lolcats.

We’ve brought together an array of cool cats and witty kitties – including graphic designers, illustrators, photographers, animators and writers. Ignoring the crudely makeshift LOLCAT aesthetic, each of these artists has come up with their unique take on the theme to create a piece of beautiful, amusing and exquisitely crafted LOLCAT art.The exhibition takes place at The Framers Gallery with 50% of all proceeds going to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Admission is FREE

As I recall, the Battersea Dogs & Cats home was where David Cameron’s first Chief Mouser, Larry, came from. It turns out that Larry sucked at catching mice and was replaced last fall by “Freya” (see here for the distressing tail). The two cats apparently now share the job.

The BBC has a report on Teh Exhibishun, with a nice video (watch it!). Some of the art is nice, and here’s a sample:

Screen shot 2013-01-29 at 3.02.31 PM

You can see more examples at the HuffPo article on Teh Exhibishun.

I have to say that the British pronunciaton of LOLcat—LOALcat—is a bit jarring to me. It should be uttered with the long American vowely-speak: “LAWWWLcat”.

Murdoch apologizes for anti-Israel cartoon, artist apologizes for timing

January 29, 2013 • 11:58 am

We had some some, er, “lively” discussion the other day about a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe in the Sunday Times showing Benjamin Netanyahu cementing a bunch of screaming, bloody Palestinians into a wall. The cartoon was published on Holocaust Memorial Day, and here it is:

cartoon-sunday-times

According to a report on the BBC News today, editor Rupert Murdoch has apologized and so, in a way, has the artist:

The Jewish Chronicle said that in a message denying it permission to reprint the cartoon, Scarfe said he “very much regrets” the timing of the cartoon.

He had apparently been unaware that Sunday was Holocaust Memorial Day.

Mr Murdoch wrote in a tweet: “Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon.”

(BTW, I am no fan of Rupert Murdoch.)

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the cartoon was “shockingly reminiscent of the blood libel imagery more usually found in parts of the virulently anti-Semitic Arab press”.

The term “blood libel” refers to myths dating back to the Middle Ages that Jews murdered children to use their blood during religious rituals.

. . . In a statement, the Sunday Times said the cartoon was aimed at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel or Jewish people.

But Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said it had “caused immense pain to the Jewish community in the UK and around the world”.

“Whatever the intention, the danger of such images is that they reinforce a great slander of our time: that Jews, victims of the Holocaust, are now perpetrators of a similar crime against the Palestinians,” he said in a statement.

The news report details other Jewish criticism of the cartoon, but also a statement by an Israeli journalist that, while the cartoon was offensive, it wasn’t antisemitic.

Well, I thought the cartoon was in poor taste, and catered to—if it was not inspired by—antisemitic feelings, but I didn’t feel “immense pain”.  I felt the need to combat the cartoon with speech.

I am a bit worried, though, that the Jewish community may become too easily offended at legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy. I have some of those criticisms myself, but don’t think this cartoon expresses any of them.  Criticism of Israel is not automatically criticism of the Jews, though one has to be careful about crossing that line—which this cartoon did. And its publication on Holocaust Memorial Day was insensitive.

But I don’t think people are aware at the extent of antisemitism out there, especially those who aren’t Jewish. Although I’m not at all religious, I have been sensitized to the issue by having myself been called antisemitic names in my youth, including “dirty Jew” and “Yid.”  Jewish cemeteries are still vandalized, and antisemitic slogans spray-painted on synagogues. When I was in Lisbon a few months ago, I saw one Holocaust memorial defiled in this way. I have heard too many academics, discussing the question, refer to me, Jerry, as “you people.” Now what does that mean?

As one commenter pointed out, it’s a bit offensive to tell Jewish people how they should or should not feel in such a case l if you’re not one of them.

But this brings up the Danish cartoons making fun of Mohamed.  Was I—were we—telling Muslims that they shouldn’t be offended when they were published? I don’t think so.  What speech there was in favor of publishing those cartoons (and many venues didn’t say anything out of cowardice) made the point that it’s ridiculous to adhere to a religious dogma that Mohamed should not be depicted in a picture. That’s not the same thing as saying that Jews shouldn’t be offended by pictures accusing them of blood libel, of taking over the media, and so on. (Such cartoons, as I hope we all know, are daily fare in Islamic countries.) I was in favor of publishing the Danish cartoons, but also strongly opposed to that stupid anti-Islamic film “Innocence of Muslims,” which attacked not religious belief, or the behavior it inspires, but Muslims themselves.

At any rate, do note the different reactions of the two faith communities. Did Jews go on murderous rampages after the cartoon was published, killing British citizens, storming their embassies, and threatening the life of Scarfe? No: they filed formal protests. That’s the civilized way to do it. No fatwas, bounties on Scarfe’s head, and so on. Defamatory speech is met with counter-speech. I doubt that Scarfe has gone into hiding, or has armed guards protecting him.

And Scarfe’s cartoon has been reproduced widely, unlike the behavior of the many cowardly publishers (including Yale University Press) who refused to reprint the cartoons of Mohamed.  That’s because publishers fear violent reprisals from Muslims but not from Jews.  Once again, a real difference in the behavior of the two religious communities is ignored, and Islam given a pass. Why are Israelis held to higher standards than Palestinians?

I don’t think we should rehash the whole issue in the comments, but I can’t prevent that. What I’d prefer is a discussion contrasting the Danish cartoons with Scarfe’s.

On pseudonymity

January 29, 2013 • 8:09 am

When I posted a couple of new rules the other day, one of them brought a reaction stronger than I expected.  That was my requirement that, when somebody criticizes me in a post on their own website, they can’t link to it on my site unless they provide their real name.

Now of course some people could use “fake” real names, but, given the Internet, that can usually be checked out. But I insist that if you’re gonna take me on on your website, you tell me who you are.

I do recognize that some “bloggers” and commenters have reasons to remain pseudonymous.  They might be atheists living in a small Southern town, for instance, and in such situations posting openly can cost you your friends and family, as happened to pastor Jerry DeWitt, who came out as an atheist in Louisiana. Or you might have a stalker who could make your life miserable. Or you might be transgendered, and timorous about revealing that. Those situations I can understand—and excuse.

But, in the end, posting anonymously, and commenting anonymously, ultimately rests on fear, and that fear is often tantamount to cowardice. Afraid of losing tenure if you say your opinions? Too bad—then keep them to yourself.  (That fear is largely unjustified, anyway; any failure to grant tenure for private opinions violates most university policies, and that of the AAUP, I believe.)  Anonymous because you want to excoriate someone in a comment, or use intemperate language? That’s cowardice, pure and simple.

In my opinion, which I will check by soliciting comments below, the best way to have civil discourse on a website that dicusses contentious matters is to ask commenters to use their real names.  When you do that, you’re taking personal responsibility for what you say, and are less likely to use invective and more likely to be rational.  There is a reason that every atheist or secular website I pay attention to—from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris to P. Z. Myers—has an author that uses his or her real name.  If people like those can do it—and they might have a very justified fear of being attacked by the religious—then so can anyone else.

As for the claim that “names don’t matter, arguments do,” I disagree on a few points. First of all, using names, as I said above, confers a certain responsibility and dignitas on the commentariat that often vanishes when you can use pseudonyms.  Pseudonymy encourages acrimony, name-calling, and the kind of free-for-all you see on some websites that will remain unnamed.  Would you call someone a “douchebag” if you had to take responsibility for it? Well, you might. But perhaps you might also consider making your argument better rather than indulging in a bit of gratuitous abuse.

Second, names matter if you can associate them with someone’s history or credentials. If someone posted medical advice without at least giving her credentials, would you trust it as much as if you knew who the person really was, and could check up on them? (And yes, Orac’s name can be found without much trouble.) I like to think people pay attention to my views on evolution because I’m trained in that area and wrote two books on it.

If names don’t matter, but only arguments, why do newspapers make authors of op-ed pieces give their names? It’s because one writes more thoughtfully and responsibly if people associate your opinions with who you are.

Ask yourself this when you write a post or a comment: why would you not want to give your real name? Don’t you stand personally behind what you write—indeed, aren’t you proud of what you write? Or do you prefer to cower behind the protection of a pseudonym, not for good reasons but just so you can say whatever you want?

So yes, I will require those who take me on in public to give their real names on my site. If you don’t want to, feel free to go after me or my ideas as hard as you want on your own website, but don’t expect me to pay much attention to it. When I have an opponent, I want to know who it is.

I will not require people who comment on this site to give their real names, but let me add that I would appreciate it if they did! Some frequent commenters, like Ben Goren, often take strong and controversial stands, but they don’t seem to suffer because of it. I believe that if people did abjure the pseudonyms, my job of enforcing civility would take much less time (though that’s not the reason behind this).

So, what I am asking is this: if you post here, at least consider using your real name. If you don’t want to do that, could you at least explain why in the comments below?

Would it really bother you to use your name when engaging in discussion here? Do consider that, and consider as well whether your strong reaction against using real names is rationally warranted, or does it simply come from taking people outside their mental comfort zone?

Animal camouflage: spot the beasts

January 29, 2013 • 5:03 am

Seven years ago, famed nature photographer Art Wolfe (along with Barbara Sleeper) published a book Vanishing Act, showing pictures of animals he took around the world over the last four decades. A selection of his pictures recently appeared in the online Daily Mail, and I’ve put eight of them below. In each an animal is hiding.

Find the animal in each picture and name it (don’t forget the Latin binomial!), but each commenter gets to name only one, and when all 8 are guessed, well, you’ve still had the pleasure of sussing out the beasts. The Mail site has the identification and location.

This isn’t hard, but it does show that even a bit of crypsis goes a long way toward protecting you from predators or avoiding detection by prey.

Picture #1

Picture 1

Picture #2

Picture 3

Picture #3

xxx45

Picture #4

Picture 4

Picture #5

Picture 5

Picture #6

Picture 6

Picture #7

Picture 8

Picture #8

Picture 9

Go to Wolfe’s website to see some splendid examples of his work, which includes landscapes, people, and animals.

h/t: Moto

Non Sequitur day 3: science versus faith

January 29, 2013 • 4:52 am

Today’s Non Sequitur, by Wiley Miller, continues the trope of the deification of Eddie, the Sailor Who Walks on Water (note, though, that Ceiling Cat, accurately depicted as an orange tabby) is actually the boss here).

Like a true religionist, Eddie rejects the facts when they conflict with his faith, as do 64% of his countrymen.

nq130129

Fox News paid Sarah Palin $15 per word

January 28, 2013 • 2:56 pm

If I can get $1 per word for a written article, I consider myself very lucky, for that’s a decent rate. But, as The Raw Story reports, during her three years at Fox News Sarah Palin got $15.85 per word—to talk!

An analysis by the University of Minnesota’s non-partisan Smart Politics website determined that Fox News paid former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin over $15 for each word she uttered on the air during her three-year contract, and 111 of those words were “amen.”

Following last week’s news that Palin and Fox News had parted ways, Smart Politics’ Eric Ostermeier began crunching numbers from the former Republican vice presidential nominee’s tenure at Fox News, which was reportedly worth $1 million a year.

“A Smart Politics review of the more than 150 FOX broadcasts in which Sarah Palin appeared as a paid commentator from 2010 through 2012 finds that she spoke 189,221 words on air during this span, for an average pay rate of $15.85 per word,” Ostermeier wrote.

Ostermeier calculated that Palin appeared on Fox News an average of once every 7.2 days.

And nearly three-quarters of those interviews included the 140,000 words she spoke on shows hosted by Sean Hannity and Gretchen Carlson, who were thought be more sympathetic to the former governor. Palin, however, avoided tougher interviewers like Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, sparing only about 24,000 words for their shows combined.

Yep, they did the math correctly. There were 111 “amens” and 41 “God”s (total: $2409).  Curiously, there was only one mention of Jesus ($16) but 13 of “Muslim” ($206).

Happily, Fox and Palin have parted ways (I say “happily” simply because Palin never deserved that kind of attention and money), and she’ll now sink into the blessed obscurity that such a mushbrain deserves. Unfortunately, she’s made her millions. Only in the U.S., I think, can such an unqualified and embarrassing politician cash in so handsomely on their inanity.
But once you get a taste of fame, it’s hard to let go. We can expect La Palin to keep pushing herself forward.
icanhas
NO, thank God!
h/t: Don Protero