A Letter to Publishers
Dear Publishers,
I work at a book store, and I have a few gripes with you:
1) Please stop making book covers white. Half of the time they are a different color by the time they make it to the store. Sometimes this can be fixed with a big eraser, sometimes not; but is it worth the effort? No. If the designers insist on the cover being white, then please PLEASE don’t make it a mat finish. This is also why I don’t buy white t-shirts.
2) Stop sending us cluttered covers. Yes, I know, there’s a lot of things your marketing and design departments want to get across, but often times the most effective marketing technique there is is a nice “Staff Pick” sticker. Especially when the staff is right there. But where to I put the sticker when the entire cover is taken up by title, author, and pretty picture? Honestly, leave some clouds in the corner or something. Good titles for stickers: A Reliable Wife, Freedom, Kraken. Bad titles for stickers: The Given Day, The Art of Racing in the Rain.
3) Necrophilia is not cool.
4) If you are going to have a cutlass on the cover, please make sure the blade is facing the right way. I’m looking at you, Pirates of the Levant. The only way you’ll swash any buckles with that sword is with a tennis backhand.
5) Nobody is America’s Tolkein. Stop saying that. No, you can’t say America’s Pratchett, either.
If you can clear up these issues, then I will be happy to move back in with you and bring the dog, too.
Thanks,
soricidae
Today I Was Transmogrified Into a Toad
I took some initiative at work recently and started a vlog for fantasy and science fiction books. Most of the people I work with are over 40, so it was a novel idea, even though I’m so behind the times with that it isn’t even funny. July was a dry month for me, so instead of a traditional set of reviews, I started the toad saga. So I present to you to first two videos in the saga:
I still have no idea where this is going. At some point I may have to turn back into a human because that last one was a good amount of editing.
Richard Dawkins vs. Wendy Wright Round 2
We closed last round with Richard Dawkins at 3, and Wendy Wright at -13. Let us jump right back in.
RD: I’m sorry but there’s a massive amount of evidence. I’m sorry, but you people keep repeating that like a kind of mantra because you just listen to each other. I mean, if only you would just open your eyes and look at the evidence.
WW: Show it to me. Show me the – show me the bones, show me the carcass, show me the evidence of the in-between stage from one species to another.
RD: Every time a fossil is found which is in between one species and another, you guys say, “Ah, now we’ve got two gaps where previously there was only one.” Almost every fossil you find is intermediate between something and something else.
WW: (laughs) If that were the case, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum would be filled with these examples…
RD: Well it is, it is.
WW: …but instead they’re not.
One of them is wrong. They are both claiming the opposite of the other. Having been to many museums, and behind the scenes at more than a few, I can say first-hand that the evidence does indeed exist, so Mrs. Wright is incorrect. Perhaps her definition of evidence is wrong? Is she looking for one single thing that can provide all the proof needed in one small package? If that were the case, then she will never find it. Dr. Dawkins is correct in stating that museums are indeed filled with evidence of intermediates. Dr. Dawkins gets +1 for a right answer, Mrs. Wright gets -1 point for either not having looked or denying what she saw.
RD: When we talk about intermediates between species, we are of course not talking about intermediates between modern species, we’re not talking about intermediates between dogs and cats, we’re talking about intermediates between ancestral dogs and slightly more recent ancestral dogs. In the case of humans, uh, since Darwin’s time, there’s now enormous amount of evidence about intermediates in human fossils. We’ve got various species of australopithecus, for example, and these are, I mean some australopithecus are intermediate between others and ourselves. You’ve got Homo habilis, Homo erectus, these are intermediate between australopithecus, an older species, and Homo sapiens, which is a younger species. I mean, why don’t you see those as intermediates?
What he says gets to the heart of some of the skepticism. I do not know if Mrs. Wright is one, but some people find it hard to swallow that humans evolved from monkeys, and are even insulted by the idea. Well, it’s a good thing we did not evolve from monkeys, then – we evolved from a common ancestor of primates and monkeys. Dr. Dawkins is defining what an intermediate is, and thus more firmly rooting his argument, while posing a question that cannot be ignored. +1 point for asking an important question.
WW: Evolutionists bear the burden of providing the evidence for those of us who are not scientists to see it. And if the evolutionists had the actual evidence, then it would be displayed in museums…
RD: But it is.
WW: …not just in illustrations.
There are many things wrong with this argument right here. Again, Mrs. Wright puts on blinders to evidence, plenty of evidence, but that is not what destroys this argument. Earlier in the interview, Mrs. Wright claimed that any attempts that scientists make to explain the evidence, as in text books and other secondary materials, are not to be trusted because it isn’t the primary evidence. This, however, brings us back to the fact that the burden of proof was shifted to her very early on (in Part 1). -1 point to Mrs. Wright for not providing evidence of her own.
WW: So what I go back to though – I think there is a bit of a, there could be a hidden agenda on the part of those in favor of Darwin, in Darwin’s own words, in which he claims there was a difference among the races. And that was then used to promote racism.
RD: That’s Victorian. Everybody in Victorian times was racist.
WW: (talking over RD) That is the foundation, though, those who are in favor of evolution often refer back to Darwin, and he is quite a hero of the Evolutionist movement.
Here, Mrs. Wright is citing the fact that Darwin was a racist (which he probably was), but then continues to accuse anyone who uses and builds on his theories of being racist. She is obviously referring to the passages in The Origin of Species where he talks about race, and I think she is attempting to refer to the fact that some terrible acts have been committed in the name of “racial purity,” but that is not what she said. Instead, she accused pretty much every biologist out there of being racist. If anything in this is an ad hominem attack, then this is. Plus, how does that disprove evolution? Darwin being racist doesn’t negate his theory. -1 point for ad hominem attack and logical fallacy.
RD: Well, he is a hero, but not with respect to racism. Now I just told you about australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens – by the way, archaic Homo sapiens and then modern Homo sapiens – that’s a beautiful series of intermediates.
WW: You’re still lacking the material evidence.
RD: The material evidence is there! Go to the museum and look at it!
Dr. Dawkins bring the conversation back from the tangent and tries to get a direct answer, but that answer comes as a direct denial. -1 to Mrs. Wright for blinders.
WW: So what I go back to again is: Let’s look at what evolution and Darwinism has spawned. Let’s look at the philosophies that have come out of it that have been so horrific to our world. So we need to look at the philosophies behind and that have grown out of evolution – and what we find are the societies that are the most loving and caring, those societies that are the most well-functioning, are the ones that have a great respect for human beings, for others because they recognize that each human being was created individually and is distinct from one another. Interesting enough, regarding you mentioned that DNA is common among varying species, but among human beings each one of us has distinct DNA – (jumbled) Sorry, backup. That’s one thing scientists will use to determine who has committed a crime, basing it on DNA evidence. So even DNA helps to show that each human being was created individually.
Has anyone done the research to find the world’s most loving and caring societies? How does one measure “love” and “care” in a society? In that case, can someone from outside a particular society, with absolutely different values, apply any sort of scale to it? Mrs. Wright needs to at least tell us where this information comes from, because otherwise it cannot actually be used as anything other than speculation. -1 point for lack of support. Plus, it has nothing to do with the viability of evolution as a theory.
DNA shows us that each person is an individual, not that each was Created individually. DNA gives us insight into our ontogeny but does not provide any evidence of a creator. -1 for improper evidence.
RD: DNA shows that each human being evolved individually, and of course there are individual differences between human beings – genetic differences – otherwise natural selection couldn’t happen. Now, I presented you with – I don’t have them here, obviously, but you can go to any museum and see australopithecus, you can see Homo habilis, you can see Homo erectus, you can see archaic Homo sapiens and modern Homo sapiens, a beautiful series of intermediates – why do you keep saying, “present me with the evidence,” when I’ve done so; go to the museum and look.
Dr. Dawkins now uses the evidence Mrs. Wright brought up as support for evolution; natural selection could not work without that individual variation. +1 for Dr. Dawkins.
WW: I have gone to the museums, and so have so many of us who still are not convinced with evolution.
RD: Have you seen Homo habilis, have you seen Homo erectus?
WW: And I think that this, this effort, this rather aggressive effort to try and talk over us and to censor us, seems to come out of a frustration that so many people still don’t believe in evolution. Now if Evolutionists were so confident in their beliefs, there wouldn’t be the effort to censor out information that shows that evolution is still lacking and is questionable.
At this point, Mrs. Wright has talked over Dr. Dawkins more than the other way around, but I can’t really comment on either body as a whole. Again, she brings up the conspiracy theory, and for that she gets -1 point. She also does not answer his question.
RD: I confess to being frustrated; it’s not about suppression, it’s about the fact that I have told you about four or five fossils (WW: laughs) and you seem to simply be ignoring what I’m saying.
WW: And I…
RD: (talking over WW): Why don’t you go look at those fossils?
Dr. Dawkins recognizes that Mrs. Wright is avoiding the question, and gets to the meat of the evidence argument. He does do it in a rather rude way, which, honestly, I can understand. +1 point for pressing a question, -1 for rudeness.
WW: And certainly, if they were in the museums, which I have been to many times, then I would look at them objectively, (RD: They are in the museum) but what I go back to is that the philosophy of evolution can, has led to ideologies that have been so destructive to the human race.
Mrs. Wright gets -2 for avoiding the question again and using the same social argument that – as described before – does not disprove evolution.
RD: It’s been misunderstood. I mean, even Hitler could be described as a misunderstanding of Darwinism, and that’s a grotesque and horrible misunderstanding.
WW: And eugenesis, and those in favor of euthanasia, and those in favor of infanticide.
RD: Yes, but wouldn’t it be a good idea, instead of pointing to misperceptions of Darwinism which have been hideously used politically, why don’t you try to understand Darwinism – then you’ll be in a position to counteract these horrible misunderstandings.
Again, the same social arguments. We went through these point already in Part 1, so I’m not going to change point for this.
WW: Well, actually, we are often times forced by the aggressiveness of those who favor evolution – it’s not as if we are hidden from this information that you keep presenting, it’s not as if it’s unknown to us, because we can’t get away from it, it’s pushed on us all the time – but I think that your frustration comes from the fact that so many of us, who have seen your information, still don’t buy into your ideology.
Mrs. Wright now changes her tune, and says that the evidence is so prevalent that she cannot get away from it. -1 point for situational evidence. Still, she seems to suggest that even with the evidence, it is still thought to be an incomplete theory. The last line brings it right back to her old argument, though; she says she doesn’t buy into the scientists’ ideology – their social theory. She is saying here that evolution is a social theory, and implies that “evolutionists” all follow that ideology – which includes eugenesis (she’s totally against domestication of animals and plants?), euthanasia, and infanticide. She gets a total of -3 points here for further abuse of a dead argument, profiling, and a subtle ad hominem attack (thank you, Mrs. Wright, for introducing me to the idea of that phallacy).
RD: Have you seen Homo erectus, have you seen Homo habilis, have you seen australopithecus – I have asked you that question…
WW: What I’ve seen is that in the museums and in the textbooks that whenever they claim to show the evolution from one species to another, it relies on illustrations and drawings (RD: No it doesn’t) not any material evidence.
RD: You might have to go to the Nairobi museum to see the original fossils, but you can see casts of fossils, exact copies of these fossils, in any major museum you like to look at.
WW: Why are you so aggressive, why is it so important to you that everyone believe like you believe?
Dr. Dawkins does stumble a bit here, saying that some of the evidence is indeed obscure and not in all of the museums. Casts, no matter how good they are, are still secondary evidence, and can easily be doubted by someone with that inclination. -1 for shifting opinions. However, after that, Mrs. Wright again attempts to outright compare a belief system with a theory. There is a reason we call it a “belief in God” and not a “theory of God,” just as there is a reason we call it the “theory of evolution” and not the “belief” or “religion of evolution.” -1 point to Mrs. Wright for using this tactic again.
RD: Well, I’m not talking about belief, I’m talking about facts, I’m talking about – I’ve told you about certain fossils, and every time I ask you about them you evade the question and you turn to something else.
WW: Again, I say, you can name a few of those, but they still don’t show, they still don’t prove evolution from one species, the slime, to the intricate human body.
RD: Well…
WW: If we’ve gone from that broad of an evolution, there should be overwhelming tons of material evidence, not just an isolated thing here, but again, there is not evidence.
Dr. Dawkins gets +1 point for keeping the argument on track again. Mrs. Wright is no longer denying evidence, but is instead claiming that it isn’t enough. Not enough for what? There isn’t enough for us to know how it works well enough to name it a Law of the Universe, but there is certainly enough out there for us to develop a theory. The arguments within the scientific community are not about whether evolution happens – they are about how it happens. The fact that it happens is agreed upon. -1 for continued denial.
RD: I happened to pick human, homonid fossils because I thought you’d be most interested in them, but you can find similar fossils for any vertebrate group you care to name, of course there are lots of…
WW: (interrupting RD) But I guess I go back to, why is it so important to you that everyone believe in evolution? You seem to almost feel dangerous for people to believe that human beings were created individually with a distinctness, and created by a creator, why is that?
Dr. Dawkins begins answering Mrs. Wright, but she interrupts him with the belief argument again. She has not acknowledged that it is not a belief and cannot be looked at in the same way. Dr. Dawkins has never said, in this argument, that a belief in a creator is dangerous – only that it has no bearing on scientific inquiry. Dr. Dawkins gets +1 for providing even more avenues to get evidence, and Mrs. Wright gets -1 point for being rude again, and putting words into his mouth.
RD: I don’t like the word belief. I prefer to just ask people to look at the evidence, and I’m asking you to look at the evidence.
WW: And I’m asking you, why does it seem so dangerous to you, why is it important to you that people not believe in a creator?
RD: Now that’s not the point. The point is that, as a scientist, I’m concerned that children, in American schools and in schools elsewhere, should be exposed to the evidence and allowed to make up their minds about the evidence.
Dr. Dawkins rehashes the merits of critical thinking, and even adds some social commentary to it, so he gets +1 point. Mrs. Wright’s line is an extension of her previous, so she doesn’t get a point modification.
WW: And we completely agree, in fact that’s why the challenge in America whenever this debate comes up is “teach the controversy, teach the evidence,” because as it is now, in many cases, schoolchildren are only being taught about evolution, they’re not being taught about the frauds in evolution and the lack of evidence in evolution. So its actually us who are arguing for teaching all the evidence, not just the ones who are favorable to Evolutionists.
At this point, I don’t feel like I need to point out what is wrong with this argument. They are only being taught about evolution in science class because it is a scientific theory, as opposed to a religious belief that could be taught in a religion course in a college or seminary. Again, she needs to provide the evidence that show the frauds in current research. If she cannot even point to that evidence, this argument has no merit. -1 for the same reasons as last time.
RD: Well, you could say, “which controversy,” I mean of course there are other creation stories than Genesis. Do you believe that the world is young, for example? Do you believe the world is less than 10,000 years old?
Dr. Dawkins is basically asking, Why should children be taught the Christian beliefs and not one of the numerous others? Scientifically speaking, because creation myths and beliefs are not testable, any are just as valid as another. So why should children be taught about the Christian Genesis, and not the New Guinean creation myths? Within belief systems there are opposing views to Christianity. Within science there really is no other theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet. Neither belief nor science has any business competing here. +1 to Dr. Dawkins.
WW: Well, I believe that God created the world, and the time frame can be unknown. As we look in the Bible, it’s hard to know what a day, the length of time, might mean in that context. So what I go back to, though, is the human being; that’s what I think we really care about, are human beings. Are human beings created through the loving touch of a creator or just came out of slime.
RD: Well, if you were to talk to a bishop, the bishop would probably say, “yes, human beings were created by a loving creator, but he used evolution in order to do it,” I mean that would be the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
WW: And that does show that there’s a variety of opinions across the board among those who may not buy completely into the hard-core ideas of evolution. There are those who believe in different levels of evolution within creation, and that really show kind of a creative independence within our movement that seems to be a bit lacking among those who believe in evolution and only in evolution.
RD: But as I’ve just told you, there are bishops who believe in evolution – indeed, just about all bishops believe in evolution, and they would say that…
WW: You would have to clarify what denomination of bishop to say a broad term like that.
RD: Well, the ones I’m familiar with are Anglican and Catholic (WW: There you go), but that’s ok.
Dr. Dawkins shows that evolution and belief systems are not incompatible, and Mrs. Wright agrees with the “creative independence” comment, so both get +1 points. However, the comment about those who only believe in evolution means nothing; of course those who only believe (=support as a theory) in evolution don’t combine evolution with a belief in a creator, but Dr. Dawkin’s point is that there are plenty of people who do both. Basically, when you look at all those who support evolution, and not just those athiests who support evolution, you find the same creative independence. In fact, they are pretty much the same people. +1 point to Dr. Dawkins for further showing that the two are not mutually exclusive. -1 point to Mrs. Wright for a “convinient” sample group.
Also, what is that comment about Anglicans and Catholics supposed to mean? “There you go”? I’m not even sure what to make of that, so I’m not assigning anything to it.
Alright, we have come to the end of Round 2, and it looks like Mrs. Wright needs to bring up some drastically amazing points to recover at this point. Totals so far are: Richard Dawkins at 13 points, and Wendy Wright has -31
Sorry it took so long to get this one up. It takes quite a while to compile it all…
Today I Got Covered in Aged Whale Meat
Two nights ago I found out that the New York State Museum fish lab crew were going over to central Mass to collect some whale skeletons. Since I know some of the people who work there, I managed to get myself on the expedition. Apparently, there is a man there who collects whale (and other marine mammal) carcasses and processes them. His day job is as the state’s endangered animal consultant; breaking down the largest corpses in the world is just his hobby. Sounds pleasant, right? He decided long ago that it was a shame that the dead whales that washed up on shore ended up buried or in a land fill, so he began stripping the carcasses and giving the bones to museums and research facilities.
Warning: Some of these pictures could be disturbing.
Our first stop was at his house to pick up some baleen.
The polar-bear rug is actually the baleen from a 40 foot fin whale. The black in the front of the truck is from a smaller humpback. It’s a little bit more fractured:
We loaded up the baleen and continued onto the stripping site. Stripping in this case means leaving it under a tarp for about a year. Through the forest, along an overgrown truck path, there were a dozen tarps, each with a different rotting carcass underneath. There was also a tire with a snapping turtle inside. Our humpback was under the one nearest the path; under the tarp was certainly a gruesome sight.
Under the brown tarp is the 11 foot skull. In front of that is the slightly shorter mandible, still partially underneath the green tarp. Then comes the caudal peduncle (the black lump) and the flipper. Closer still are some vertebrae, a pile of flesh, and the upper arm. Guess which is which. Anyway, we dug in, trying to cut free some vertebrae and ribs first.
This was not easy. It was, as Bryan described it beforehand, like “cutting jerky from the bones.” I started on the humerus, which was gross in its own right – something had grown underneath it that was slimy and white and was probably the worst-smelling thing I’ve ever come into contact with. I’m not sure if it was originally part of the whale or something that grew afterwards. By the way, here’s the skull:
And here are some of the bones that we cut free:
The man who owns this place came a little later. Providence, of course, reared its head because he had done his Ph.D. work on shrews. I talked with him a bit about that. He told a few stories about these bones. In one year, he got two wanderers who ignored all of the warning signs and stumbled upon this place. One piled up all of the dolphin skulls he had at the time, thus separating them from their bodies, and reported him to the Massachusetts Humane Society for Cruelty to Animals, which was, of course, promptly ignored. The other, seeing whale ribs, thought this an illegal ivory trading operation and alerted the police. Of course, the police already knew of this place because its operating with the blessings of the Mass Fish and Game department, and so the officer who came to the scene couldn’t stop laughing.
He also said that the tail hadn’t had any of the meat cut away before it was brought here. He proceeded to cut it open, and it was foul.
The blubber had melted into the consistency of peanut butter, meringue, or a soft french cheese. At least that meant you could just pull the bones out.
Anyway, then we piled up everything we cut away into the truck.
That’s a scapula, an arm, a few ribs and a small portion of the end of the tail. We carted it up road to a power washer, where we took turns spraying off the rest of the whale meat. This is how we all got covered with rotten whale meat.
And Tada! The New York State Museum has a half of a humpback! (Not all of the cleaned bones are shown here.)
It was perhaps the grossest thing I’ve ever done but it was definitely worth it. I got home after riding in a car for two hours covered in whale meat, then took a loooong shower. And promptly ate lasagna, which was kind of sickening.
ASM Day 2
I woke up hungry in the hotel room with about 4 hours to kill before registration. First thing I did was go to the diner that was right next to the hotel. It was a nice place, good midwestern feel, and everyone, the waitresses and the patrons, was friendly. I had a good batch of eggs, bacon and pancakes.
I climbed back up to my room, and gave M a call, then read for a little bit and performed morning ablutions. It was still a little early yet, but I had about a mile and a half to walk to get to registration, so I started out. On the way I passed some large gathering of sports people on the fields; it looked like they were playing football, tennis and soccer all at once. Then I passed some dorms that looked like the equivalent of Simon’s Rock’s mods. Some of them had two stick figures crossed out with the words “No Humans Allowed/District 9” spray painted on them. This is, of course, a movie reference.
I got on to the campus proper, and I have to admit, there was some pretty landscaping. I looped around a park, where some students were playing a game that I can only describe as “line up with your backs facing each other, then turn around and strike a collective pose, scream something, and whoever submits and runs loses.”
I made it to the Union building with about an hour to spare. I sat in the basement and read the rest of the Dresden Codak webcomics until it was time to register. Unfortunately, that meant I had to abandon the lecture I was watching on Transhumanism and cyborg/prosthetic culture. 😦
I got my shirt and a bag and a bunch of other goodies, then hung around and listened to a few scientists talk. Then I went to find my housing in an 8-story building. At least I got a single, though it is a bit dreary. The pillow was too flat, and the blanket coverage was minimal – which worried me because the nights are still supposed to be in the 30’s here. Also, I had disobeyed Douglas Adams’ advice, and hadn’t packed a towel.
So I planned my trip downtown. I found that there was a bookstore right next to a K-mart about 24 blocks away, so that’s where I headed. It took me a little bit, but I got a good tour of Grand Avenue, which has at least three mexican restaurants on it.
The bookstore was actually equal parts Books, Music & Videogames, and DVD rentals/sales. The books section had a funny mix of used, sale, and new books, some of them out of print. The shelves were rather disorganized, a disgrace to my delicate New England Independent Bookstore Association (that exists, by the way) sensibilities, but I soon got over it, and found myself a hard cover copy of The Name of the Wind, which was perfect because I had given my paperback copy to my cousin-in-law.
In K-mart, which was as depressing as ever, I found two towels for a buck each (which will probably give me horrible formaldehyde burns), a fluffy pillow for $3.00, and a nice, soft blanket for cheap too. I tossed my book in the bag and proceeded back to my room. On the way, I found a baby bird that had fallen from the nest, but it was already cold so there was nothing I could have done about it. It made me kind of sad, but that’s nature. It also made me wonder what someone who doesn’t really know much about animals would think it is, because it really didn’t look like a bird.
It was time to go to the evening social when I got back. This would be the highlight of the evening.
CLIFFHANGER!
Day 1 Addendum
On the plane from Chicago to Denver, I was talking to a man from Mexico who now works as a legal guide for spanish-speakers who cannot speak english well enough to navigate the legal system. He said that most of his clients are low income families (not really a surprise there), and that a lot of them spend a good portion of their money on alcohol and then get in a car and drive. Thus he deals with a lot of DUIs.
Anyway, I had mentioned to him that I liked Grenada, Spain. He had been there in his mid-twenties as a Mormon missionary. He told me this story (paraphrased):
I was in this rich guys house with a friend, when his daughter walked in with a miniskirt, and whoo what a looker she was. The man noticed I was looking, and then asked us seriously, “Are you two virgins?” We answered that, yes, we were. “Good. It’s nice to see kids like that. My daughter sleeps with just about everyone who climbs up those steps.” Spanish kids those days were just like that.
Maybe a little bit too much information, but hey, oh well. He was an interesting guy. He was on his way to California for his daughter’s wedding.
ASM Day 1 (cont.)
While waiting for the plane to take off for a second time, I got to talking to two other guys going to the conference. One sported a beard and baseball cap, and researches fishers in California out of North Carolina State, under one of the big names in mammalogy (and of course I forget his name). This big name supposedly retired, but has more grad students than he did when working. They agreed that it wasn’t a conference without his presence. He’ll be here on the 12th. The other man was from Perdue, and I did not catch what animals he works with.
When Riding the Two-Headed Dinosaur, the Valsalva Maneuver Is Your Friend
I also met a man, I’ll call him Mr. McNulty, who used to be a director or something for the Laramie airport. He usually flies his private plane around, but of course this time he decided to go commercial and was thus particularly irked. He called up the Laramie airport and got them to summon the Hilton shuttle for us before we arrived. I wasn’t going to the Hilton, but it was certainly a kind gesture.
We finally got back on the plane a good two hours after we were originally supposed to leave. The Co-pilot said that we were rerouted to the West and then North to avoid the storm. The Pilot, who did not look much older than me, had told us earlier that they could here hail hitting the planes broadcasting from the storm area, so I suppose it was a good thing – except that another storm was coming and we ended up just going the original route.
Now this plane was a small double-prop plane with seating for about a dozen people, and it looked rather old. The plastic inside was that off-white beige that plastics tended to be in the 70’s. The engines looked like two blue sharks leaping from the gray wings with snorkels in their mouths. When the cabin was pressurized, I swear the plastic inside stretched before my eyes. There was also a bolt on the wing that was sticking out about a quarter inch.
Mr. McNulty pointed out various mountain ranges as we flew, including the Neversummer range in the distance on our left, which is part of the Rocky Mountain Reserve. We flew over the Laramie range to get to the Laramie valley. He pointed out a peak about 30 miles from the city, and named it Jelm Mountain. He lives in the foothills. He said that the Wyoming University Physics department has a 96 inch infrared telescope on the peak, which used to be the largest in the world.
More Travelling
In the airport there were a plethora of banners advertising the university, and everything has a bucking horse with a mounted cowboy plastered on it. I’m going to guess the mascot is the Cowboy.
A man who came for an economics conference offered to drive me to the Holiday Inn with his rented car, but I refused when the ASM representative came for me and one of the board of directors that was on the plane with us.
The woman who picked us up was one of the organizers from the university. She knew me as the person who didn’t pay for his shirt. She lies playing good cop/bad cop with the other director. Great. She was kidding me, but still, that’s quite a reputation…
The drive was nice, the scenery was pretty, and we saw pronghorns! She said the pronghorns usually calf on the 1st of June, but they waited for the conference this year.
Other tidbits of information:
They have both black- and white-tailed deer here, and hybrids of the two. The hybrids, she says, look odd. They supposedly aren’t sterile, but nobody will mate with them anyway.
An endemic species of bog beetle is eating all of the pines. There has been a population explosion in recent years because of climate change. The beetles can complete their life cycles every year now, instead of the two-year cycle that was sustainable.
Also, Laramie’s hospital is now just a clinic. Budget cuts have halted bringing the doctors in from Colorado, so there weren’t enough people for a hospital. You know they’re in dire straights when the local university molecular biology department donates excess materials to the clinic. Plus, a new Wal-Mart.
American Society of Mammalogists Conference, Day 1
I’m writing this to the sound of pea-sized hail and thunder. For those of you who don’t know, I decided to attend the 90th annual conference of the American Society of Mammalogists in Laramie, Wyoming (hereafter referred to as the ASM) to do a little networking, and feeling out possible future colleagues.
Long story short, I paid a lot of money to be here, so I hope its worth it.
Day one started with and early morning at 3:00 AM when my father drove me to the Albany airport. I won’t bore you with any details about the middle of the day, suffice it to say I went to Chicago and then Denver. I got to Denver at 10:30 AM local time.
Part I: Ecuadoran Man
I had time to kill in Denver, and I ended up talking to an Ecuadoran immigrant who had travelled all over the world. We ended up talking about the cultures of South America, and I mentioned that I really liked Belize. He gave me a good tidbit of advice when explaining why he decided to talk to me:
Many South American countries speak Spanish, but each has a very different culture. I really enjoy being able to go to Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and talking to the people. That’s another thing we all have in common though; we all like to talk. Don’t be afraid to talk, we’re all human. What’s the worst you were going to say to me? ‘Who are you, go away’?”
Great advice, because I was feeling a bit apprehensive about that. He also told me how, when he was 26, he got together with a friend from home, whom he had met in NYC, and decided to drive up to Wyoming. Now, neither of them actually knew where Wyoming was at that point. When they got up to the Denver area, they stopped at a restaurant. When they left, a man was waiting outside for them.
He asked, “Where are you boys off too?” and they, of course, answered, “Wyoming. Why?” The man practically spit out his non-existent coffee.
“Wyoming?! Why the hell would you want to go to Wyoming?”
“Ummmm…” They were stumped. “What’s wrong with Wyoming?”
“The horses in Wyoming ain’t got no ears, that’s what’s wrong with Wyoming!”
It wasn’t until years later, when he was in Wyoming in the winter that he understood that the guy meant the horses got frost-bitten ears.
Part II: Do I Know Her?
Speaking of making the world a smaller place, I noticed a familiar-looking woman sitting in the bowels of the Denver airport after I returned from a dinner run. She was wearing a Sea Shepherd shirt. This sealed it: she had to be the woman I was thinking of. I walked up to her (which I would not have been able to do had she not been wearing the shirt to confirm her identity) and said, “Excuse me, ma’am, but you wouldn’t happen to work for Wolf Hollow, would you?” And she recognized me too! She is the volunteer coordinator for Wolf Hollow Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Friday Harbor, WA, where I did a summer internship in 2007. Quite the interesting place to meet her. She thought at first that I was going to ask her about the new season of Whale Wars.
Part III: In the Navy
The plane to Laramie was about a half an hour late. We finally boarded, and proceeded to sit on the runway for a long time while I dozed off and listened to two ex-Navy buddies cause havoc. This plane had room for only about a dozen people. The Co-pilot asked the Navy-buds, who I will dub as Biker Bud and Irish Bud, to move from the back and fill in forward to better distribute our weight. The grumbled, but did. Irish Bud moved to an emergency exit seat. Later, when asked if he thought he was capable of opening the emergency exit, he said that he most definitely could not handle it, and moved to the rear of the plane again.
They were talking about drinking at some point during the wait. Irish Bud mentioned that he really doesn’t drink that much for an Irish, and Biker Bud responded, “No, but you’re handsome because you’re Irish.”
Then Biker Bud told a story about riding in a C-130, those giant military transport planes. It becomes very loud inside, so they all wear ear protection. Even with the ear protection, he said, the incessant buzzing still got to you. His troop had been flying for four hours, and thus all of them were passed out, except for his semi-conscious self and one other man. He was startled fully awake when the buzzing stopped. Both he and the other man removed their ear protection and heard nothing. Absolute silence. The other man reached into his pack, pulled out an airport issue, duty-free two ounce bottle of Jack Daniel’s and passed it over to Biker Bud. He then removed another for himself. The engines did restart, but it was unclear if it was before they consumed their final whiskeys.
Later I heard Biker Bud say to Irish Bud, “You know, you floss really well.”
Much more happened, but that will be for later.
Baby Beavers on Lower Pond
Yesterday I was walking around lower pond with M and she pointed out a disturbance in the water underneath some overhanging brush. Since we had been keeping an eye on the new goslings (there are six this year from the resident pair), we thought the geese were fooling around but we were not sure. As we approached, we realized that it was near a beaver lodge, and that the splashes were probably from baby beavers!
We sneaked closer, and sure enough, out come two little beavers. They circle around and almost immediately return to the lodge. We could here series of little squeaks emanating from inside, and they returned to the water, circled, then re-entered the lodge. This process was repeated for quite a while. It appeared that one of the siblings was attempting to climb atop the other, and may have been biting it. We still are not sure whether this was an example of siblings sticking together or two rivals duking it out.
Anyway, they ended up swimming away past our field of vision. We didn’t see the parents anywhere, but nothing is going to get a baby beaver in Lower Pond. First baby beavers I have seen on a long while.
Why Venom Evolved in Mammals
This is just something I ended up pondering earlier today.
In the early 1900’s, it was generally accepted that mammals were not venomous, and any that were were the exception to the rule. The explanation was that, since mammals were such high performance animals (compared to other vertebrates), they tended to win out over those around them with their overactive metabolisms and high-functioning brains. This made sense; why would you need venom, which kills more slowly than a bite to the back of the neck, when you have the ability and intelligence to take prey or defend yourself with the lethal efficiency of a mammal? Plus, there were no venomous birds, which are the reptiles’ attempt to make a mammal. We still have not discovered any venomous birds, and we assume that this is the reasoning.
A large proportion of snakes are venomous (I’m looking at you, colubridae!), and snakes do not need to eat nearly as often or as much as a mammal of the same mass. They can afford to wait for their venom to kill their prey, and venom will work on an animal whether injected into the leg or into the back of the neck, so snakes do not need to target a specific area on the prey. Venomous snakes can rarely outrun their prey, and tend to be ambush predators – slower, more deliberate, and seemingly more lethargic with their slower metabolisms.
The three lizards (yes it is now three: gila monsters, beaded lizards, and it has been confirmed that the komodo dragon has self-produced antigenic proteins) that are venomous all have slow metabolisms, and are not nearly as sprightly as some of their faster cousins. The komodo waits around for days for prey to die; I think the other two use venom defensivey and/or socially.
Only the male platypus is venomous, and only during mating seasons. Platypus venom causes an inordinate amount of pain to humans, but is rarely lethal. If this is the case with its own species, then perhaps the venom evolved along with the mating systems to be a tool for social dominance.
But of course we are here to talk about shrews. Shrews are the exact opposite of reptiles: they need to eat a lot, and often, just to stay alive. Their hearts beat hundreds of times per minute (~700 on a good, adrenaline pumping, fear induced day) and they are constantly on the prowl for something to eat. Its a good thing they go into a torpor in the winter or they would never survive. The point is that shrews do not have the time at all for venom to take effect before they need to eat. Any amount of waiting would make them burn out and die.
And here’s the kicker – shrew venom is convergent with the gila monster and beaded lizard. It is based on the same precursor protein and has similar properties. What would a high performance animal like the shrew and a low performance animal like the gila monster share in needs that molecularly similar venoms would evolve? What advantage is there for a shrew to have venom?
The answer I came up with is two-fold. First, some shrews satiate their endless hunger by preying on animals as large or larger than themselves, like frogs, voles, mice, and even rabbits – not an easy task for something as small and blind as Blarina brevicauda, a task made much easier with venom. For those shrews that are not blarina, though, like neomys and sorex that prey on invertebrates, what is the use of this venom? The answer lies in the caching behavior observed in many soricomorphs.
You have just eaten a juicy grasshopper, and that will do for the next hour. You come across a frog, and you bite that, then run off and find another grasshopper, but you don’t have to eat again quite yet. You bite the grasshopper and it becomes paralyzed (the venom acts differetly on inverts) and you stash it underground. Then, you eat a cricket or a centipede, and go back for the frog and eat some of that until you are scared away by a fox. You are ok for a while because the frog was a good meal, but for two hours you can’t catch any more, so you go back and eat the stashed grashopper. In other words, with impeccable timing, a shrew can ensure that it has food whenever it needs it. Then, of course, lightning strikes a tree nearby and the shrew has a heart attack, but that’s a different story.
Anyway, that’s what I was pondering this morning.
Soricidae's Blog 