The Dichotomous Trekkie 2.0

Today's Tuesday Tetrapod returns to the land of the fuzzy with Chinchilla lanigera, or the Chilean chinchilla.

C. lanigera. Photo released into the public domain in the Wikimedia commons

Chinchillas belong to their own family, Chinchillidae, which include chinchillas and viscachas, rabbit-like rodents that also live in South America.

Chichilla coats are notable in a couple of ways. Their fur is so dense that you cannot wash them; when their fur gets wet it does not dry, encouraging fungal growth or fur rot. Instead, they naturally take dust baths, which dislodge particulates and absorb oils in their coat. In fact, their incredibly soft and dense coat makes them very sought after in the fur industry, meaning that both variants of the chinchilla are in fact critically endangered, estimated to be losing about 90% of its population every three generations (15 years) due largely to hunting. Chinchillas themselves can release some hair to facilitate in escape from a predator. Due to the density of their coats, chinchillas do not sweat.

Chinchillas are available as pets in the US, partially mitigating their rare status in the wild.

Welcome to Scientia Pro Publica, 32^th edition!

Scientia Pro Publica logo (C) by Flickr user jmarcx via loryresearchgroup. (Hotlinked by my usual policy)

This round, it seems that the name of the game is biology. Submissions really ran the gamut in biology, including some delightfully from-left-field posts. Bryan Perkins having some fun with embryological development, and Amanda Morti shows us why we have actinomycete bacteria to thank for that fresh rain smell (and for throwing off Latinate intuition - anyone else read "actinomycete" and think muscley whale?). Speaking of whales, David "WhySharksMatter" Shiffman does a great bit of ResearchBlogging and reminds us why not all fish (fine, non-sarcopterygian gnathostome) stock are created equal - sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) are closer in population dymanics to bowhead whales and other balaenids than cod.

That wasn't the only bit of ResearchBlogging this time around (Hey! ResearchBlogging! Stop hating my feeds!). Kelsey has a great post about the intraspecific male competition among red-eyed treefrogs. Sure, they amplex for dear life, but what about before that? Turns out that ... they shake their butt (Does that mean that the frog Sir Mix-a-Lot is a lady?). Madhu R-Blogs over at Reconciliation Ecology takes the opportunity to do a great smackdown on a pet peeve of mine — evolution is not a "ladder" or any such silliness. It is blind and targetless. It was a statement from a Stanfurd professor, though, so what can you expect (Go Bears!)? But before we get ranty, Luigi diverts our attention from critterland and the rivalries of my alma mater to teach us about why Kibale's Wild Coffee Project didn't get off the ground, concluding that scientists, once again, just can't do "messaging".

Illustration: Peter Trusler for Wildlife of Gondwana/NOVA (PBS). From Grrlscientist's post.

Thonoir continues to take us down our diversion away from Critterland, showcasing two sets of endangered non-metazoans, and my total ignorance of plant/photosynthizing phylogenies. We don't stray from Critterland for long, though, as John at Kind of Curious details a very interesting ponderous borer. Emily talks about sensationalism, mountain lions, and that Fox, even as they get extirpated from areas densely populated by a certain primate. Which, as Amanda points out, is no good thing, and there are difficulties restoring predators to ecosystems that they have been extirpated from (trust me, a one sentence synposis does not do that entry justice). The great Grrlscientist brings us some aborignal rock art possibly depicting Genyornis newtoni (Dromornithidae, incomplete phylogeny link (Anseriformes)). This is both the oldest paintings in Australia at 40,000 years (predating the earliest European cave paintings) and is of something that can be loosely imagined as an ostrich-sized duck, which simply can't be awesome.

Now, we don't end here. Oh no. That was just organismal biology and evolution. How about a dose of medicine? Michelle Dawson is better than Mary Poppins, because her post about circadian rythyms certainly doesn't need any sugar for you to take it down (and introduces you to an interesting side effect of autism-spectrum disorder). Scientific Chick writes about cell phones improving mental performance in Alzheimered mice. Meanwhile, Wendy at Bioloser gives us the physiological background of shock, and a shocking description of shock in a man nearly severed in half.

The larger constructs of medicine were not neglected, either. Bradley Kreit discusses the fact that we need to accept our intellectual limits, while Luke examines the crazy in large groups, looking at HIV denialism and Ryan looks at child mortality.

Bisected men and child mortality? Lets get a bit more lighthearted. Jessica Drake at Soilduck ponders what makes a scientist a scientist, and Romeo Vitelli tells us how subliminal messaging was an advertising gimmick (how many levels of fake-out is that?). Adam Park redeems some sci-fi stories with various predictions made therein that have come true today. Of course, Asimov gets a mention for the mention of pocket calculators in Foundation, but Asimov also nailed our reliance on them as time went on in The Feeling of Power (psh, arithmetic).

BP, the Gulf, and the utter dismaying farce of the spill have been in the news, and oil makes its showing in Scientia this time around. Scienceguy238 gives us a history leading up to the spill, and Grrlscientist looks at the ethics involved with oiled seabirds. Jeremy at The Voltage Gate writes about how the Saudi coast has recovered, 20 years later, from the 11-million-barrel (1.2 GL, or 1.2e6 m³) spill. A decade afterwards, 1 million cubic meters still persisted. Every spill is different, though, so hopefully ours won't be as bad.

You know you love it.

Finally, we round out with the physical sciences, which didn't get much love this time around. Lab Rat talks about bacteria and climate change, while Matt Wills talks about the more metaphorical breathing Earth, Charles Lyell, and mollusk damage in Greek columns. Finally, Sarah Kavassalis gives a great article on one of my favorite subjects: special relativity, astronomical distances, and the meaning of "now". After all, if a star (super)nova's in the distance, but you don't see (E&M) or feel (gravity) it, has it gone? She even does it without the inevitable jargoning I'd go into!

That does it for this round of Scientia Pro Publica! This was my first blog carnival, so I more than welcome suggestions. Hope you all enjoyed it!

If you want to learn more about this carnival, head over to the carnival's website. Be sure to check out the next round hosted by Andrew over at Southern Fried Science, on June 21^st. And remember — this is a blog carnival! Submissions and hosts are wanted! If you're interested in hosting, check out the current schedule on the official schedule thread and drop Grrlscientist a line (or leave a note in the comments). If you find a cool article, submit it! Send a link via this submission form. Thanks again all!

This coming Monday, this blog will be the host of Scientia Pro Publica, a blog carnival following in the footsteps of Tangled Bank. To quote Grrlscientist,

[...]That blog carnival was Tangled Bank, the "parent" of Scientia, which this blog carnival seeks to emulate by (1) communicating about science, medicine, the environment and nature to the public and (2) encouraging those who write about these topics by providing them with an audience who provides feedback and criticism on their writing.

Scientia Pro Publica logo (C) by Flickr user jmarcx via loryresearchgroup. Hotlinked by my usual policy of hotlinking (rather than self-serving) copyrighted images

This is going to be my first blog carnival, and I hope I am a good host. This should be fun!

Today's Tuesday Tetrapod is the Lammergeier, or Bearded Vulture, Gypaetus barbatus.

G. barbatus. Photo CC-BY-NC-ND by Flickr user A. Davey.

G. barbatus is a type of Old World vulture (Depending on the phylogeny, this makes them either a Falconiforme or Accipitriforme) with the unusual dietary preference of bone marrow. In part because of this, they lack the customary "bald head" of most vultures. They also have a different flight profile, with narrower wings and a wedge-shaped tail.

G. barbatus eats by reaching a carcass after it has been largely cleaned, then taking bones and dropping them from a height onto rock formations, smashing the bones into pieces small enough to ingest. They occasionally do this with turtles, possibly being the source of the apocryphal tale about the death of Greek playwright Aeschylus.

Image CC-NC-SA by Flickr user fveronesi1

Despite being threatened in its European range, G. barbatus is relatively stable over its very large range in Africa. There is also evidence for minor population decline, but it is not rapid or extreme enough to qualify for a threatened status. It is thus ranked by the IUCN as Least concern as of 2009.

On this trip, I tried to play with HDR photography and exposure fusion, so I thought I'd put up a quick blog post with some of the pictures I liked best (that I've processed thus far)

Coloseum at Rome. 1920x1080 (1080p, desktop sized)

River in Amsterdam

Grand Canal in Venice

Pantheon at Rome. Taken without a tripod, no less.

Enjoy!

Dinosaurs and feathers. The story has gone from scaly lizards to that of animals strikingly similar to birds. Now, a recent paper in Nature (doi:10.1038/nature08965) further muddies the picture with dinosaurs demonstratedly showing development of feathers as the animal aged.

The paper in question is one describing the find of a Similicaudipteryx in the limestone of the Yixian formation in the Liaoning province in China. It describes how in addition to a marked developmental sequence in the feathers (implying moulting), it also indicates a currently extinct line of feather morphologies and developmental pathways. The authors introduce the term "proximally ribbon-like feathers", best typified by the tail feathers in male Confusciousornithes. These are feathers that are long ribbons until the distal end, where they become pennaceous (like modern feathers).

In Similicaudipteryx, two specimens are compared; a early and late juvenile form (STM4-1 and STM22-6). STM4-1 has pennaceous feathers attached to the hands and rear of the skeleton (tail and rear back vertebrae), but the rest of the feathers are "plumaceous" (think down feathers, like chicks). STM22-6, on the other hand, has had anterior feathers on the head replaced with non-plumaceous varieties and (if it is not a preservation artifact) has gained secondary remiges. Futher, the plumaceous feathers are different from true down, indicating that feather types changed several times during the ontogenetic development of these animals, unlike modern birds.

A nice touch is a passing mention in the paper to feathered-dinosaur-haters; many dissafected with the idea of feathered dinosaurs claim they are remnants of dermal collagen, it is true (and it is brought up) that dermal collagen would lack the melanosomes present in the feathers of fossilized animals.

After a week in Italy, I'm back!

Rather abruptly, all things considered, my dad decided he wanted to go to Europe before he retired, so Tasha few down from Marin, I caught a ride up from SD, and our dad treated us all to a trip to Italy. I daresay I couldn't afford any fraction of that trip myself. Well, there will be a few backlogged entries if this battery holds out -- good times.

Now, I'm not looking forward to the vast backlog of messages I probably have. I was suspecting access to internet at least a few times, which would have let me at least textually respond (by SMS and email) to some people, but instead I'm going to probably have several hundred to deal with. Hopefully unpleasant ones are minimized.

Back to SD tomorrow ...

This week's (long overdue) Tuesday Tetrapod is Python molurus bivittatus or the Burmese Python.

P. molurus bivitattus. Photo CC-BY by Flickr user wildxplorer

P. m. bivitattus is one of the six largest species of snake in the world, reaching nearly 6m in length at their maximum. They are standard constrictor snakes (pythonidae), and due to their nice patterning are popular household pets, which are later often released due to their large size.

P. m. bivitattus is actually becoming an increasing problem in the Florida Everglades, as the household escapees are well-adapted to the environment of the Everglades, and compete for the position of top predator along with the American Alligator. They pose overall ecosystem danger, as they eat many of the endangered birds living in the Everglades currently. This led to the famous "exploding snake" incident.

P. m. bivitattus also demonstrates facultative endothermy. During the brooding season, the female python will often wrap around her eggs and increase her metabolic rates (in conjunction with fast muscle twitches similar to shivering) to regulate the temperature of the eggs. This leads the female during this period to approach avian/mammalian levels of food requirements, and overal metabolism.

P. molurus is rated IUCN near threatened, with an update needed/pending.

Well, hello blog. Long time no see.

So, I ran behind on TT's, decided to queue them, and as the queue got longer it got harder to catch up, so I'm going to call the missing weeks of Tetrapod posts a lost cause, and just try to restart (eg, don't expect a backlog).

Not to say that there hasn't been plenty to write *about*. Most of the notable interesting things have been political/legal in nature the past month rather than scientific, but that's not to say there hasn't been plenty of science knocking around.

Now, Virginia is happy to blur those lines, and just pull an insane political stunt involving science. The peice of work Ken Cuccinelli has decided that Virginia will probe Michael Mann, chief climate researcher at the University of Virginia, for fraud. Yep, disagree with climate change? Use taxpayer money to screw with a researcher! Now, Mann already was under an ethics investigation for the whole so-called climategate, and was exonerated (also brought up by AGW deniers). He also uses the CRU emails as a basis to bring suit to the EPA, saying "Faulty climate data must be corrected". Never mind two investigations in Britain also found the allegations were bunk (links for first investigation, second investigation).

Little things like facts or taxpayer money be damned, Ken Cuccinelli will litigate everything he doesn't like. Or otherwise work to change it. Like covering up a Roman goddess's breast in the Virginia state seal (seal on LA Times). Yeaaah.

So, I should be asleep. Or posting one of the FOUR Tuesday Tetrapods due today (Plans include Python molurus bivittatus, Pelecanus onocrotalus, Gypaetus barbatus, and Xenopus laevis. I've had them lined up for weeks, but haven't had a chance to complete them). But instead, I have to mention that the Large Hadron Collider just had its first collisions, minutes ago. The beams were at 7 TeV

7 TeV is an odd unit that needs perspective for the non-physicists in the crowd. So, consider, according to Wikipedia, that a flying mosquito has about .2 microjoules (µJ) in kinetic energy. A 7 TeV beam has protons that each have about .6 µJ (3.5 TeV in each direction).

That is to say, each proton has a kinetic energy similar to 3 flying mosquitos. If you were capable of feeling a single proton hitting you, that one lone proton would definitely be noticeable. For the record, a mosquito has about 10²¹ protons.

Physics is freaking awesome.

(Oh, by the way? World? Totally not destroyed.)

Well, if I'm going to post on a controversial topic, I might as well go all-out. So, why would it bother anyone who-marries-who? Really? Does it affect you, somehow? In other words, what's wrong with gay marriage?

For a while I thought that perhaps civil unions would be good enough. But really, I wasn't satisfied with it unless the civil unions were exactly as good as a marriage in all but name. But, in that case, it *is* a marraige, and you're just calling it something different. And who was I to get all worked up and deny something to anyone based over semantics? It's plain silly.

I don't really care what another person is doing in their love life. So far as I'm concerned, polygamy/polyandry/polyamory is fair game, too. It was for thousands of years, anyway, so you can't even make a historical argument against it. If marraige really needed a definition, I'd define it as a civil/legal union between >1 consenting adults.

Yes, that rules out bestiality. Don't bring it up.

Fun point: if you're straight, a gay person of your own sex removes competition from the pool. There are now two fewer people going after the opposite sex! And you have that tiny bitty fraction better chance. (Yes, I realize things don't work like this. I still think it's a funny idea.)

I suppose I'm in the camp of "live and let live". If we don't, how are we any different than Islamic fundamentalists? (Hint: I don't think any brand theistic fundamentalism is different from any other, including Islamic)

There is talk on the news (well, at least making headlines in Google News) about the bill funding abortion. Well, it doesn't. It is on page 2072 of the Senate bill. To quote PoliticsDaily,

But does the Senate reform bill finance abortion insurance coverage? The answer is no, and it is there in the bill, on page 2072: "If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage...the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services." As Slate's Timothy Noah put it, "That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions."

But lets run with it for a moment. Assume it does fund abortion. So what? Objection to public funding for abortion runs along the lines of "I don't like it, I disagree, therefore I should not have to pay for it. It kills people". That's like saying "I object to Karl Rove. I disagree with him vehemently. He is responsible for the death of troops and civilians in the Middle East. Therefore, I refuse to pay taxes, since they fund services he uses." Neither argument really makes sense.

I don't really want to get into the abortion debate. All it does is lead to flame wars. I happen to feel that identical twins wreck about 90% of the arguments against abortion as a single argument, and being pro-choice detracts nothing from the other argument, merely leaves an option open to whoever wants it. Sigh.

Now, let's take a turn to the water, and have a Tuesday Tetrapod on Orcinus orca, or the Orca ("Killer Whale").

O. orca. Photo CC-BY-NC-ND by Flickr user SteveWhis.

One of the few common extant animals referred to by its specific name, orcas are the second most widely distributed mammal on the planet, after humans. Specifically:

Orcas CC-BY-ND by Christopher DiNottia

Although killer whales occur worldwide, densities increase by 1-2 orders of magnitude between the tropics and the highest-sampled latitudes in the Arctic and Antarctic (Forney and Wade 2006). Killer whales tend to be more common along continental margins; however, there is some variation in this general pattern that appears linked to ocean productivity. Killer whales appear to be less common in western boundary currents, such as the Gulf Stream or the Kuroshio than in more productive eastern boundary currents, such as the California Current. Known areas of locally higher density often coincide with greater oceanographic productivity (e.g. off Argentina).

O. orca is technically a type of dolphin, a member of delphinidae, and possibly a complex of up to five species (but probably a combination of species, subspecies, and races). Currently, they are grouped as "populations" of transients, residents, and offshore, primarily differentiated by diet and behaviours with minor morphological differences.

Orcas are large, and commonly seen in water shows. They age at a rate similar to humans, with sexual maturity reached around 15 for females, and reaching up to 90 in age.

The orca is IUCN "data deficient", due to possible specific/subspecific splits and that certain populations are experiencing a 30% population drop over 30 years, while others maintain a stable population.

There is a gigantic repository of information on Orcas available — it is a Wikipedia featured article and many other resources are available online.

For last week's Tuesday Tetrapod, we look at Taricha rivularus, or the Red-Bellied newt:

T. rivularis, terrestrial stage

T. rivularis is a plethodontid salamander, which, like other members of the subfamily Pleurodelinae, are sometimes called "newts". They transition to a smooth-skinned morph during their aquatic/breeding stage.

Like many other salamandrids, when stressed they can excrete a whitish neurotoxin on their skin, tetrodotoxin (TTX) which is very potent and can kill an adult human.

T. rivularis is IUCN "Least Concern" and can be found in northern california. The photographed specimen was found in Medecino county.

You can see more photos at CaliforniaHerps.

Just a quick entry. I realize I missed the TT again (even though I have the animal picked out for this past week and next week!) so next week will be another double-feature. However, I wanted to address the New York Times opinion article "Are There Secular Reasons?".

The premise of the article is that, following an argument from a Harvard law professor, there are no inherently secular reasons to perform an action, because, "there is no way, says Smith, to look at it and answer normative questions, questions like 'what are we supposed to do?' and 'at the behest of who or what are we to do it?'". Now, there are a few problems with this statement, essentially the premise of the article, which render the entire point, well, moot.

First, the question posed by Smith assumes that there is or should be an overarching, inherent, mandated, or otherwise external "reason" for everything, when in fact there is no reason to assume such a thing for anything. You are not "supposed" to do anything, nor must it be at something's behest. The only reason to assume you are "supposed" to do something is if you assume there is a pre-defined goal or end point which is validated for external or unassailable reasons.

Yes, that was a verbose way of saying "he's assuming a deity or deities exist and operating based on that assumption". OK, but let's say that you want a goal to exist. Is there a secular goal you can define that could serve what the theo-heads assume one requires for being "good"? (I neglect here the obvious argument that analyses that assumption) Well, yes. A secular worldview acknowledges that, basically, what you have is all you have, or, in other words, live life for life. A corallary to this is since your life today is all you or anyone will ever get, the kindest, most humanitarian thing to do is simply to try to maximize quality of life for this and future generations.

Basically, secular humanism.

I do wish theo-heads would stop being so fixated on shoving their deities on everyone.