Darwin’s Birthday in Philadelphia

February 8, 2009 • 7:49 am

February 12 is, of course, Darwin’s 200th birthday.  I’ll be celebrating it at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology on Thursday and Friday (12th and 13th) with a two-day symposium tracing Darwin’s legacy and its effect on modern evolutionary biology. This is all part of Philadelphia’s Year of Evolution, which includes many other events.  I’ll be talking about speciation, and there are many other speakers in all areas of evolution, including a keynote talk by Dr. Ken Miller.  If you’re in the Philly area this coming week, and an evolution-phile, it is definitely worth checking out.  (As far as I know, they’ll also have books by the speakers on sale for autographing.)

How cats purr

February 8, 2009 • 6:56 am

How do cats purr?  Yesterday I asserted that this was a mystery. An alert reader, Mr. Sven DiMilo,  has called my attention to a scientific paper published in 1991:  Sissom, D. E. F., D. A. Rice, and G. Peters. 1991. How cats purr. Journal of Zoology 223:67-78. This was the very title I envisioned as a youth when I wanted to solve this long-standing problem, with visions of Stockholm dancing before my eyes.  Well, Sissom et al. seem to have made significant inroads into the problem, or even solved it.   They studied purring in housecats, cheetahs, and pumas. Their solution is given by this summary from the paper:

This evidence indicates that purring arises from the gating of respiratory flow by the larynx.
Increasing laryngeal resistance to respiratory flow by apposition of the vocal folds will cause a
relative pressure increase at the upstream side and apressure decrease downstream of the larynx.
This causes the phase differences observed across the larynx. Further, a point upstream of the
larynx during inspiration will be downstream during expiration. This explains the phase reversal
observed in the recordings.
During flow reversal when the respiratory flow stops, the amplitude of both the sound and
vibration diminishes, suggesting that laryngeal interaction with respiratory flow provides the
dominant source of both. A simple experiment demonstrates the effectiveness of this mechanism
für sound production: whisper the word ‘tee’ during both inspiration and expiration. Note that
significant sound is generated at ordinary flows when the tongue separates from the palate. When
the respiratory flow is exactly zero, the sound becomes inaudible or is limited to the sound of the
articulation itself, a distinctly different type of sound.
The source of the sound appears to be the sudden opening of the vocal folds (Remmers &
Gautier, 1972) that produces a sound very rich in harmonics. The vocal tract filters this sound and
conducts it to be radiated from the mouth and nose. Variable filtering in the vocal tract can
produce the variations in quality and loudness that is observed. We note that periodic incomplete
apposition avoids a sudden opening and will result in a signal that has a strong fundamental
frequency and weak harmonics. Under these circumstances purring could continue inaudibly.

The translation into normal-people speak:  a cat simply vibrates its larynx while inhaling and exhaling, and the movement of air over the vibrating larynx makes the sound.  There appears to be an endogenous neurological oscillator that drives this vibration, just as an endogenous oscillator drives our heartbeats.  Contrary to other hypotheses, the cat’s diaphragm is not involved.  These authors confirmed the knowledge of every ailurophile that cats purr on both the inhalation and exhalation phases of breathing.  They also found that different housecats purr at different frequencies, but each cat has a characteristic purr frequency that does not change with age.

Now, of course, the important evolutionary question: WHY do cats purr?  We know that cats purr when they are happy and contented, but also when they are under stress.  There are a multiplicity of theories, but it seems to me that at least one is correct: the mother and kittens purr as a form of bonding.  See this website for a discussion of other hypotheses.

There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in this conclusion, as the authors’ work was based on placing microphones over surfaces of the body (no cutting of cats!), correlation with respiration, etc.  They themselves admit that their solution is tentative, but for now it seems like a good one.

Saturday felid (a shameless play for attention)

February 7, 2009 • 3:09 pm

P.Z. has his cephalopods, so, as an ailurophile,  I’m gonna have my CATS!  But with a dose of science.  It is still a great mystery exactly how cats produce their purr.   When I was younger I dreamed of solving this question and publishing a paper in Nature called simply “How cats purr.” But the experiments always involved a cat trained to purr on cue, coupled with some gruesome cutting experiments.  Now it might be possible with MRIs—if they can be given to moving objects.

mo

A bizarre case of sound mimicry involving caterpillars and ants

February 7, 2009 • 7:26 am

Mimicry was one of the first pieces of evidence supporting Darwinism, as it wasn’t immediately obvious why a celestial creator would make one creature mimic another, while natural selection could easily explain it if the mimic gained protection or resources by resembling its “model.” The most recent issue of Science–an issue loaded with fascinating studies of evolution–has a really interesting article involving mimicry of sounds.

Ant colonies have been invaded by many species of arthropods who take advantage of the ants’ food stores or presence to gain food or protection from predators. Often natural selection has molded these arthopods to mimic the appearance of the ants. In this issue of Science, however, Francesca Barbero and his colleagues describe a caterpillar that has gone farther–it mimics not only the chemicals of the ants, but also the sounds produced by the ant queen to subdue and gain sustenance from her workers.

Caterpillars of the lycaenid butterfly Maculinea rebeli are carried by one species of ants (Myrmica schencki) into the ant nest, where they are fed by the workers, who normally feed larvae of the ants. Why do the workers feed the alien species? They are deceived by the caterpillar in two ways: the caterpillars mimic the ants both chemically and through sound!

First, the caterpillars secrete chemicals that resemble the chemicals on the surface of ant larvae. Chemical mimicy is not so unusual in insects. What is more remarkable is that both the caterpillars AND PUPAE (the next life stage of the caterpillar) of the butterfly are able to produce sounds similar to those produced by the ant queens (how the caterpillars do this is unknown.) These queens have “stridulatory organs” which they rub to produce special “queeny” sounds that induce the workers to tend and feed them. (The ant workers also make sounds, but they differ form those of the queen). Sure enough, both caterpillar and pupae are able to produce sounds more similar to those of the queen than to those of the workers. Playback experiments of recorded caterpillar and pupal calls demonstrated that these sounds induce tending behavior in the ant workers. This is simply astounding–I am not aware of any other case in which a pupa is able to produce sounds, much less sounds that mimic those of another species. It is this kind of bizarre adaptation, resulting from selection on the butterflies to get free food in the juvenile stages, that gets the juices of evolutionary biologists flowing. The bounty of natural selection is endless: you can never predict what it will come up with.

You can listen to the sounds of the ant queens and workers, and of the larvae and pupae of the butterfly here.

Queen Ants Make Distinctive Sounds That Are Mimicked by a Butterfly Social Parasite.  Francesca Barbero, Jeremy A Thomas, Simona Bonelli, Emilio Balletto, and Karsten Schönrogg, Science 6 February 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5915, pp. 782 – 785

Your Inner Fish. . . now in paperback

February 6, 2009 • 5:03 pm

book_0flat

My friend and colleague Neil Shubin’s book, Your Inner Fish, has just appeared in paperback, so here’s your chance to get it at a reduced price. Neil and I have had a friendly competition going between our books (his appeared a year earlier), but I’m actually quite proud of his achievement and its role in documenting human evolution. It’s an excellent and lively read, dealing with the signs of our ancestry that remain in the human body, and it also recounts the famous story of his discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, an important transitional form between lobe-finned fish and amphibians.

Neil has a website for his book, which you can find here, and you can purchase the book on Amazon by clicking here. Highly recommended, and a New York Times nonfiction bestseller.

I should note that the illustrations for both Neil’s book and mine were done by the same illustrator, the indefatigable Kapi Monoyios, who did the cover shown above.

Continue reading “Your Inner Fish. . . now in paperback”

The science/religion compatibility debate continues. . . .

February 6, 2009 • 11:51 am

Over on Edge, scientists continue to weigh in on my New Republic piece on the compatibility of science and faith. Steve Pinker and Sam Harris have just contributed, both taking the “non-accommodationist” stance.  Sam’s article,  a brilliant piece of sarcasm, has been widely misunderstood on the web, with many thinking he has seen the light and become a man of faith!  Yet how is it possible to mistake the following for anything other than sarcasm?

And yet, there is more to be said against the likes of Coyne and Dennett and Dawkins (he is the worst!). Patrick Bateson tells us that it is “staggeringly insensitive” to undermine the religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree completely. For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticize such behavior as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realize—belatedly and to my great chagrin—that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read. Who am I to criticize the public expression of his faith? Bateson is right. Clearly a belief in the inerrancy of the holy Qur’an is indispensable for these beleaguered people.

A second-order debate on the Edge debate has sprung up on Richard Dawkins’s website as well–there are nearly 800 comments!  Clearly this issue continues to attract a lot of attention, and generates a lot of heat as well as light.

Whoops!  Just informed that The Atlantic has taken up the debate in a column by Ross Doubthat.  Also, two pieces on The American Scene, one by Jim Manzi, and the other by Alan Jacobs.

Review of WEIT in Science

February 6, 2009 • 7:12 am

Massimo Pigliucci has reviewed WEIT in the latest issue of Science, a review you can find here.  It’s a thoughtful, fair and–I’m glad to say–a positive review.  But that issue of Science is also devoted to speciation, my own area of interest, and contains half a dozen good articles on the origin of species, both overviews and research articles.  If you’re an evolutionary biologist, you’ll want to peruse this issue.

Massimo’s review also singles out for special praise one of the illustrations  (the human, chimp, and A. afarensis given below) produced by the intrepid artist responsible for the book’s illustrations:  Kalliopi Monoyios, whom I’d recommend to anyone needing a good scientific illustrator. Her webpage is here.

716-1-med

Human, Australopithecus, and chimpanzee.

CREDIT: © KALLIOPI MONOYIOS

WEIT makes New York Times Best Seller list

February 5, 2009 • 2:32 pm

A bit of a brag–my editor has informed me that WEIT has made the New York Times’s extended best seller list in non-fiction: number 31. Not something I ever imagined would happen, but it’s really nice. Now begins the futile race to catch up with “Dewey: The Small-Town Library Cat Who Changed the World.” See Dewey’s story here, and if you MUST buy this nefariously competing tome, do so here. Dewey stands at #3, and received a multimillion dollar advance. There is no competing with cat books. I begged my editor to put a kitten on the cover, but for some obscure reason she refused.

Dewey Readmore Books 1988-2006.  R.I.P.
Dewey Readmore Books 1988-2006. R.I.P.