Caturday felid: the black-footed cat

March 19, 2011 • 4:42 am

The black-footed cat, Felis nigripes, lives in the grasslands of southern Africa, and is a nocturnal hunter. It’s one of the smallest of all wild cats, weighing only between 2 to 5 pounds, and it’s rare.  Although hunting them is forbidden in the wild, farmers still kill and poison them, and there are only 40 individuals in zoos.  Has anybody seen one?

Photo courtesy of Pixdaus Nature Photography

Here’s its range:

The cat gets its name from the bottoms of its paws, which are completely black. See?

They’re cute like housecats, but don’t forget that they’re also fierce hunters: the Feline Conservation Foundation reports that they can take prey, like hyrax, much larger than themselves.

The Black-Footed Cat Working Group notes this:

Black-footed cats are opportunistic hunters, feeding on 40 different vertebrate species. Their varied food spectrum comprises of rodents and shrews (55%), small birds (20%), large, soft-bodied insects, spiders, scorpions, small snakes and geckos.

They are capable of killing prey larger than itself, can catch birds in flight and jump up to 2 m distance and 1.4 m high.

The black-footed cat’s appetite is extraordinary. They are very successful hunters catching on average one vertebrate prey animal every 50 minutes. During the course of one night they eat prey amounting to one fifth of their own body mass. If their catch is too large to finish in one go, they hide it in their dens or even in aardvark digs and return hours later to continue feeding.

 

The excuse for posting these photos is the announcement that, for the first time, two black-footed cats were produced through in vitro fertilization. According to ZooBorns (where you can see more incredibly cute photos), sperm was taken from a male in Omaha in 2003, frozen, and then used in 2005 to to fertilize eggs from a female at the Audubon Center for the Research of Endangered Species in New Orleans.  These embryos were kept frozen for six years before being transplanted into a different female at the Audubon Center.  After two months of gestation, two male kittens were born on February 13 of this year.  Here are photos of mom and offspring:

The surrogate mom, Bijou, with her two sons:

Here’s the “anthill tiger” making a kill. It’s undoubtedly a setup shot, but does show the hunting technique:

Europe screws up, allows crucifixes in classrooms

March 18, 2011 • 12:08 pm

According to the Associated Press, the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, France, has just given Italy the okay to keep crucifixes in public school classroom, overturning its own decision of two years ago.

Friday’s final decision by the court’s Grand Chamber said it found no evidence “that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils.”

Friday’s ruling focused on Italian public schools, and does not automatically force other countries to allow crucifixes in the public schools, according to the court.

But it’s [sic] decisions affect all 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, the continent’s human rights watchdog. Citizens in other Council of Europe countries who want religious symbols in classrooms could now use this ruling as a legal argument in national courts, or governments could use this as a justification to change their laws about religious symbols.

The Vatican, of course, is overjoyed:

The Vatican hailed the “historic” decision, saying it showed that crucifixes weren’t a form of indoctrination but rather “an expression of the cultural and religious identity of traditionally Christian countries.”

“It recognized that, on an authoritative and international judicial level, the culture of man’s rights must not be put in contradiction with the religious fundamentals of European civilization, to which Christianty has given an essential contribution,” said a statement from the Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi.

Similar “cultural tradition” arguments are used in America to justify similar acts, like putting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms.  But religious as the U.S. is, the Supreme Court would never allow crucifixes in public school classrooms.  Well, maybe the new court would . . . .

You can download the press release (in English, Italian, or German) and get further details, at the Court’s website.

Aren’t you Europeans supposed to be savvier than Amerians about this?

Here are the justices, all but Malinverni (Switzerland) and Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria) who voted to affirm:

Jean-Paul Costa (France), President,

Christos Rozakis (Greece),

Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),

Peer Lorenzen (Denmark),

Josep Casadevall (Andorra),

Giovanni Bonello (Malta),

Nina Vajić (Croatia),

Rait Maruste (Estonia),

Anatoly Kovler (Russia),

Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway),

Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),

Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland),

George Nicolaou (Cyprus),

Ann Power (Ireland),

Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),

Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova),

Guido Raimondi (Italy)

Many voices of disbelief

March 18, 2011 • 5:48 am

Given the majority sentiment that there can be no evidence in favor of a god, I began wondering why many of my readers are atheists.  If one is an atheist because of a lack of evidence for god, that presumes that there could have been evidence in favor of god.   Even if you reject gods because—as Grayling argues, and I agree—they’re so obviously man made, well, that too is empirical evidence against a god hypothesis.

I conclude that many readers are atheists because they simply feel that it’s logically impossible for there to be a god, or because the very concept of god is incoherent.   Maybe I’m mistaken, though, so I throw this question out to readers, soliciting their views.  I do this in all seriousness, as I’m trying to understand.  I’d be delighted if you’d answer this question in the comments:

Why are you an atheist?  Does it have anything to do with a lack of evidence for god, or are there other factors involved?

It’s only fair for me to answer as well, and it’s completely due to a lack of evidence.  The scenario, in which I suddenly realized at age 17 that there was nothing supporting the existence of god, is described in a 2008 Chicago Tribune piece by Jeremy Manier, and reprinted at the Dawkins website.

Or maybe this is the reason:


(Cartoon from SMBC, h/t to Carl)

Note: The title of this post is taken from Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk’s excellent book 50 Voices of Disbelief, in which some of my readers have already published their reasons.

More food!

March 17, 2011 • 12:31 pm

. . . for the eaglets at EagleCam this time. I took this screenshot a few minutes ago, and it looks like tonight’s menu is sashimi.  The good news is that both chicks are getting fed and, apparently, thriving.

It’s heartwarming to see mom’s huge, wicked beak tear off tiny bits of flesh and delicately deposit them into a bobblehead’s maw.  Do check the live feed from time to time.

SEM arthropods

March 17, 2011 • 9:20 am

Here, from a Daily Telegraph posting, are some lovely pictures of arthopods taken with a scanning electron microscope.  All photographs are by Steve Gschmeissner, courtesy of Science Photo Library and Barcroft Media.  (For more of Gschmeissner’s amazing SEM photos, see here and here.)

First, the common dog flea, Ctenocephalides canis:

A honey bee (Apis sp.):

A jumping spider in the Salticidae:

A soldier turtle ant (Cephalotes sp.)

The head of a tropical caterpillar, species not named:

A wasp, species not named:

The human flea, Pulex irritans:

New antievolution bills

March 17, 2011 • 8:04 am

Via Outside the Beltway and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), we see two new antievolution efforts in state legislatures:

In Texas, HB2454 is designed to prevent discrimination against faculty and students espousing intelligent design (ID).

Sec. 51.979.  PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.

SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as   provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this  Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

This bill could face serious legal challenges if enacted.  For example, what if a biology professor were to discuss ID as a serious theory in her science class?  Does that fall under “conduct of research”?  If so, it violates the ruling of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller et al, the anti-ID ruling in Pennsylvania. If the bill does not pertain to professorial teaching, it would still prohibit discrimination against students who present pro-ID material in their classes—presumably the prof couldn’t prevent the presentation of such nonscientific material.  And of course, the bill would absolutely prevent discrimination against hiring a biology professor who is an adherent of ID or other forms of creationism (“alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms”).  So, for example, a Texas university could not refuse to hire creationist astronomer C. Martin Gaskell, as did the University of Kentucky.  I abhor discrimination against hiring simply because of someone’s religion, but adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor.

In Florida, SB 1854 requires that certain topics be taught in certain ways, and evolution is to be taught “critically.” In America, of course, that means that evolution be presented as “only a theory,” and its purported weaknesses mentioned at every turn.  It’s a Trojan horse to let other theories (and you know which ones) be presented as valid alternatives.

An act relating to required instruction in the public schools; amending s. 1003.42, F.S.; requiring that the instructional staff of a public school teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution and certain governmental, legal, and civic-related principles; . . .

2.  Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required to meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following:

a.  A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution. . .

There are twenty-one other subjects mandated to be taught in certain ways, ranging from respect for the American flag through the Holocaust and the history of African Americans.  But the placement of evolution as item #1 shows you what the bill is really aimed at.  It is, according to the NCSE, the reworking of an earlier bill requiring the teaching of intelligent design.  That wouldn’t fly legally, so its sponsor Stephen R. Wise, a Republican (of course) rewrote it to make it sneakier.

The NCSE says that this is the eighth antievolution bill to be introduced in state legislatures this year—and it’s only mid-March.  I applaud the constant fighting of these brushfires by the NCSE and state organizations like Florida Citizens for Science, but antievolution brushfires will always keep appearing until religion loosens its grip on our country.