How do you piss off a baby tiger?

November 7, 2013 • 12:12 pm

Answer: Throw it into the water.

MSNBC’s Photo Blog has an incredibly endearing series of photos of two young Sumatran tiger cubs undergoing their requisite swimming tests. The explanation?

Two Sumatran tiger cubs born Aug. 5 took a swimming test to show their ability to keep their heads above water, navigate the shallow end of the moat, and climb onto dry land.  The cubs had to pass before they could go on exhibit at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. At least one of the cubs didn’t look too happy about the experience. The two will be on public display Nov. 18.

By all means, if you’re near D.C. go see these cubs after Nov. 18.  And if anybody out there can somehow provide me with the opportunity to pet or hold a tiger cub (a lion cub will do as well), remember that that is my fondest dream: the one thing I desperately want to do before I die.

Now, check these photos out (captions from the MSNBC piece):

Tiger 1
Male Sumatran tiger cub Bandar is tossed into a moat by Smithsonian National Zoo curator of great cats and bears Craig Saffoe for a swim test in Washington, D.C., Nov. 6, 2013. Photo: Gary Cameron / Reuters
Tiger 2
A three-month-old Sumatran tiger cub named Bandar shows his displeasure after being dunked in the tiger exhibit moat for a swim reliability test at the National Zoo. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP
Tiger 3
Male Sumatran tiger cub Bandar crawls out of a moat at the Smithsonian National Zoo after a swim test. Photo: Gary Cameron/Reuters
Tiger 4
A female Sumatran Tiger cub named Sukacita is dried off by biologist Leigh Pitsko after her swim test in a moat of the Great Cats exhibit at the National Zoo Nov. 6, 2013.Photo: Win McNamee / Getty Images

h/t: Michael

A guest post for Wallace Day

November 7, 2013 • 8:16 am

This guest post is required reading for everyone here, as today is a special day, creating what they call a “teachable moment” about the history of biology.

For today marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Alfred Russel Wallace, which means there are people still alive who were his contemporaries. He is, of course, best known as the man who came up with the idea of natural selection at about the same time Darwin did. But Wallace was also a great biologist and naturalist in his own right, and the father of biogeography.

In honor of Wallace’s life and accomplishments, I asked my friend Andrew Berry, a teacher at Harvard and a Wallace expert (see his book in the references below), to give us a brief overview of Wallace. He kindly obliged, and added a link at the end to a wonderful animation of Wallace’s life that recently appeared in the New York Times. Andrew also provided a list of the major works by and about Wallace that would interest our readers.

________________

ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE: AN ANIMATED LIFE

by Andrew Berry

Alfred Russel Wallace died 100 years ago today, just shy of his 91st birthday.  Wallace, as all regular readers of WEIT will know, is best known for discovering the theory evolution by natural selection during his biological explorations of Southeast Asia and then co-publishing the idea, under unusual circumstances, with Charles Darwin in 1858.  He is also, these days, famous for being not famous: the other thing everyone knows about Wallace is that he has been overlooked by posterity.  Wallace fans in particular object to the way that their man has been relegated to footnotes in textbooks while Darwin becomes ever more prominent in the public sphere as both thinker and icon.

The reasons for Wallace’s relative obscurity are many and complex but it’s worth noting two things.  It started early: his eclipse by Darwin is not solely a function of hindsight’s preference for one over the other.  During the years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, when Darwin was at the height of his powers and Wallace was scientifically at his most productive, it was Darwin, and Darwin alone, who was co-identified in the public eye with the theory of evolution.  A survey of contemporary cartoons and caricatures lampooning the idea reveals a plethora of Darwin-themed (or Darwin-apeing) images, and none—zero—that feature Wallace.

Second, Wallace himself was partially responsible for this.  His wonderful account of his 8 years in Southeast Asia, The Malay Archipelago, which recounts what he did and what he saw in some considerable detail (a contemporary review in The Atlantic Monthly  put it a little unkindly, “Mr. Wallace apparently exhausts a very copious diary in the production of his book, and seems almost to have made it a point of conscience not to leave anything out”), does not mention, even in passing, the events surrounding his evolutionary discoveries.  In The Malay Archipelago Wallace refers repeatedly to the idea of natural selection, but always calls it “Mr. Darwin’s theory”.  There is something pathologically modest about Wallace.

Wallace was an extraordinary man, and his was an extraordinary story.  I have previously told the tale here of what I consider to be the most poignant episode in all of the history of science: Wallace’s loss of his Amazon specimens, living and dead, in a fire in the middle of the Atlantic.  After such a crushing experience, to be able to pick himself up, as he did, and head off within a couple of years on his eight year journey through Southeast Asia is evidence of almost superhuman resilience.  That he was able to make any significant collections at all under extremely trying circumstances—he was frequently sick, suffered wildly frustrating logistical nightmares, and had to contend with endless pests and distractions as he tried to prepare his specimens—is impressive enough, but it is the scale and scope of his collecting that is truly mind-blowing.

Take birds.  This is arguably the best described taxonomic group on the planet. Finding a new species of bird, even in Wallace’s day, was a challenge (unlike, say, finding a new species of weevil).  In a retrospective paper published in 1865 (Wallace, A. R. (1865) Descriptions of New Birds From the Malay Archipelago. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1865: 474-481) on his bird collections, he notes that he had collected 212 new species.  Given that there are approximately 10,000 species of birds, this means that, in eight years, Wallace discovered 2% of all known bird species!

But, of course, Wallace’s years in Southeast Asia are best known not for the collections but for the grand ideas they inspired.  His discovery of evolution by natural selection was a two step process: his first evolutionary paper, his “Sarawak Law” (1855), recognized the genealogical nature of evolutionary change (what Darwin would call “Descent with Modification”), and the second, his “Ternate Paper” (1858), supplied a mechanism (“natural selection” being Darwin’s term that Wallace objected to) to entrain that generation to generation change to adaptive ends.  But it was not just evolution: Wallace, always interested in the geographic distribution of plants and animals, identified what was subsequently dubbed “Wallace’s Line”, the boundary between Asian and Australasian biogeographic realms.  The journey was a scientific tour de force. In 1863, shortly after Wallace’s return to England, T H Huxley, never one to be extravagant with praise, summarized it:

“Once in a generation, a Wallace may be found physically, mentally, and morally qualified to wander unscathed through the tropical wilds of American and Asia; to form magnificent collections as he wanders; and withal to think out sagaciously the conclusions suggested by his collections.”  —Huxley, T. H. (1863) Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature. London: Williams & Norgate.

Sharon Shattuck and Flora Lichtman, Brooklyn-based filmmakers, have created a brief animated tribute to Wallace that is available through the New York Times [disclaimer: I was involved with the project]. Do take 7 minutes on the centenary of his death to appreciate this lovingly-crafted appreciation of a brilliant, quirky, and humble man.

____________

Further reading:

By Wallace 

See two excellent and comprehensive websites for Wallace material (here and here).

The Malay Archipelago; The Land of the Orang-utan and the Bird of Paradise; A Narrative of Travel With Studies of Man and Nature. 2 volumes. Macmillan & Co., London, 9 March 1869. A wonderful account of Wallace’s journeys.  A true travel writing classic.

My Life; A Record of Events and Opinions. 2 volumes. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, Oct. 1905. A sprawling and engaging autobiography.

About Wallace

Berry, Andrew, ed., 2002. Infinite Tropics: An Alfred Russel Wallace Anthology. London & New York: Verso. 430 pp. Provides a (hopefully) representative sample of Wallace’s copious writings on a huge range of subjects.

Costa, Jim, 2013.  On the Organic Law of Change: A facsimile edition and annotated transcription of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Species Notebook of 1855-1859.  Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press.  573pp. Just out.  A scholarly dissection of the notebook that Wallace kept in the field in mid-1850’s — when he was thinking about evolutionary ideas.

Quammen, David, 1996. The Song of the Dodo; Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions. New York: Scribner. 702 pp. An introduction to biogeography and conservation, but there is a lot of Wallace in there too.

Raby, Peter, 2001. Alfred Russel Wallace, A Life. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press; London: Chatto & Windus. 340 pp. The most readable of the recent biographies.

Slotten, Ross A., 2004. The Heretic in Darwin’s Court: The Life of Alfred Russel Wallace. New York: Columbia University Press. 602 pp. The most comprehensive of the recent biographies.

____________________

Wallace young and old. The first picture was taken in Singapore at the end of his time in Southeast Asia, the second when he was a venerable doyen of biology.

Alfred_Russel_Wallace_1862_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_15997

alfred-russel-wallace

Wallace’s Standardwing (Semioptera wallacii), a bird of paradise he discovered:

Wallace's Standardwing

A “flying” frog he also discovered; illustration from The Malay Archipelago derived from Wallace’s sketches:

615px-Wallace_frog

Christian runner drops out of race rather than wear Satan’s number

November 7, 2013 • 6:24 am

Codie Thacker, a high-school athlete in Kentucky, dropped out of a regional championship race because she was assigned The Number of the Beast.  When she opened her race envelope, this is what she got (screenshot from the video mentioned below):

Picture 2

According to Yahoo News (where you should watch the video about this), Thacker wouldn’t accept the number because it was Satan’s number and running while wearing it would jeopardize her relationship with God:

“I didn’t want to risk my relationship with God and try to take that number,” Thacker told LEX18. “I told them to mark out my name because it makes me sick just thinking that my name is associated with that number.”

The result was a third straight season when the cross country runner has fallen just short of the state meet, even though she had aggressively trained for the regional championship race since June. Thacker had hoped to earn headlines for her performance on the trails. Now she’s getting attention for something else entirely.

Perhaps the only person who wasn’t stunned by Thacker’s exit from the regional meet was her coach, Gina Croley, who was the first person to see the number assigned to the runner.

“I saw it and I was like, ‘whoa,'” she said. “I don’t think she will wear that number.”

. . . As reported in depth by Lexington NBC affiliate LEX18, Whitley County High (Whitley County, Ky.) cross country runner Codie Thacker voluntarily forfeited her spot in a regional championship race after her coach drew bib No. 666 for the runner. Thacker and her coach argued that she should be allowed to switch her number, but race officials refused the request.

Thacker has insisted that she made it clear to race officials that wearing “666” violated her religion, but the race officials say otherwise—that she just asked for a new number.  If you believe them, then their denial was fine.  But if you believe Thacker, I’m not sure why they just didn’t give her another number and let her run.

Granted, she is delusional, and it’s almost laughable to see her claim that God would frown on her if she ran with that number. On the other hand, what’s the harm in catering to her delusion? I see no First Amendment violations here, and I feel sorry that she couldn’t run.  I do hope she gets over her literalism, but it seems unlikely. I’ve spoken in Kentucky twice before (and will do so again in two weeks, at Murray State), and I know what a hotbed of religious fervor it is. (That is, by the way, why I want to speak there.)

But readers, do weigh in. If Thacker did have a religious objection to wearing the number, and the officials knew it, did they have any reason to deny her request?

Here’s Thacker (center) praying before a race:

Prayer

By the way, although the number 666 appears in Revelation, there is a scholarly controversy about whether the number might really be 616, which appears in some of the earliest versions of that text. See Wikipedia for further discussion.

I want to mention one more thing. To all those Sophisticated Theologians™  or Faitheists like Frances Spufford, R. Joseph “Look at Me” Hoffmann, Karen Armstrong, and so on, who claim that a. nobody takes most of the Bible literally, and b. atheists like Richard Dawkins are attacking a strawman when going after religion as literalism—you people need to get out more. Spend some time in the American South, where you’d get big horselaughs trying to explain Sophisticated Theology, God as a Ground of Being, or Apophatic theology.  There many people take the Bible with a strong draught of literalism rather than a grain of salt.

Or you could spend some time in the Middle East.  In many Muslim countries it is impermissible to even think of the Qur’an as metaphorical.  If Karen Armstrong preached apophatism on the steps of the Great Mosque of Isfahan, she wouldn’t last long.

h/t: Todd, Chris

The glass katydid

November 6, 2013 • 12:23 pm

If you’re a photographer, insect aficionado, or both, you should be checking Harvard biologist Piotr Naskrecki’s website The Smaller Majority.  There you’ll find some of the most amazing animals in the world, all photographed with loving care.

The latest oddity is the glass katydid (Phlugis teres, described in 1773) from the Neotropics. As it ages it changes from completely transparent to green. As Piotr notes:

I coined the name Glasss katydid after seeing for the first time young nymphs of Phlugis teres, a species found in Suriname, who display remarkable, nearly complete transparency of their bodies. These minute insects truly look as if they were made of glass and, peering closely, it is possible to see most of their internal organs, including the entire tracheal system. Unfortunately, these katydids lose most of the transparency as they get older, and eventually acquire pale green coloration, occasionally marked with brown accents.

The nymph sitting on Piotr’s finger (all photos copyright by Naskrecki and used with permission):

phlugis_nymph

It’s not clear (pardon the pun) whether this change in transparency is a direct adaptation or simply a byproduct of something else. I’m not aware of other insects that do this (correct me if I’m wrong), although perhaps in this species the nymphs live in places different from adults.  The green-ness of the adults, pervasive in katydids, probably hides them from both predators and prey.

More on this species from Naskrecki:

Glass katydids are sit-and-wait predators who spend most of the day sitting upside down on the underside of large, thin leaves, usually at the edge of the rainforest or in open, shrubby habitats. They prefer leaves that are fully exposed to the sun so that any insect landing on its upper surface will cast a dark, sharply defined shadow. And that shadow is what Glass katydids are waiting for – it tells them whether the insect is a hard beetle (not good) or a soft fly (excellent), and if the insect looks like a good meal they launch themselves from under the leaf and onto its surface, and capture the victim with their long, very spiny legs in a blink of an eye.

Check out the spines:

phlugis_nymph2
(Naskrecki’s caption): As they age, Glass katydids begin to lose their transparency, and older nymphs and adults acquire pale green coloration.

The species is notable for one other thing: its high-pitched sound:

In addition to being some of the most sophisticated and fastest orthopteran predators, Glass katydids are famous for the sound they produce – their call exceeds the frequency of 55 kHz, which is about three times the frequency a human ear is capable of hearing. A closely related genus Archnoscelis holds the record of producing the highest frequency call among all invertebrates – a whopping 129 kHz, twice the frequency of echolocation of most bats, and about 10 times more than the hearing ability of most adult humans. Another reminder that the ability to look cool and do amazing things seems to be inversely correlated with the body size.

Piotr has discovered a new and yet unnamed species of katydid in Mozambique, which he’ll post about soon.  He gives a photo of another new and unnamed species from Costa Rica:

phlugis_cr
(Piotr’s caption): Their huge eyes are a good indication of Glass katydids’ mode of hunting – they are diurnal sit-and-wait predators of small flies and other soft insects. This newly discovered, yet unnamed species of Phlugis from Costa Rica hunts small flying insects along the edges of mid-elevation rainforest.

Katydids, by the way, are in the order Orthoptera, along with grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets, but, within that group, they’re members of the family Tettigoniidae. It would do you good to look over the orders of insects. Some you’ll know already, but you might pick up a few other names. There will be a pop quiz.

Shermer and Harris pwn Chopra at Caltech

November 6, 2013 • 9:56 am

I’ve deliberately neglected Deepak Chopra for most of my life, as I don’t need the tsouris.  But now, after having listened to him more and more, I find out that he’s not only a dreadful purveyor of woo, but also a pretty nasty guy when he’s challenged.

In this ten-minute clip, apparently filmed at Caltech, Shermer and, especially, Sam Harris, simply take Chopra’s woo-peddling to pieces.  Chopra comes off looking really bad. And he won’t let other people talk.

In truth, I think any of us could fabricate and peddle the same stuff that Chopra does, and make a million dollars doing so. As Harris says, “This is a game. . . for people who don’t know much about science and how science is done.”

Lots of people seem to vilify Sam for his views, something I don’t fully understand since I think they often distort those views; but one thing can’t be denied: on the debating platform, Sam is the true heir of Christopher Hitchens.