由克里斯·格林特, 7月1日, 2010 現在對於更頻繁重複發生系列, 人民呼聲! 對於那些沒有疤痕高中回憶拉丁類 (沒有犯錯我的老師) 我會帶你到速度 – 標題大致翻譯 “民聲”. 這裡是另一個舊的電子郵件,我一直留著. 它是一個 100% 真正的信息, 但當然,我節錄了真實姓名和地址,以保護無辜. 享受! 我也非常鼓勵自己的意見-
冬季 2008:
“您好, 我很高興我找到了你. 現在, 我希望你能幫助我. 1982, 在一個古老的金礦營門多西諾國家森林露營時我咬了一個大的棕色蜘蛛. 花了三天的毒液通過我的系統. 第三天我 95% 盲, 咬鼓起一個大怪異深紅色的凸起在我的手臂. 我永遠不會忘記的 12 小時毒液攻擊我. 我所許的價格來度過這個蜘蛛毒液為…….松絕對我所有的身體脂肪. 我採訪了來自Santa Rosa的醫生通過電話從朋友處 (一些小城鎮的CA). 他知道這種蜘蛛,不能相信我suvived毒液,當我告訴他我失去了我所有的身體脂肪. 他還告訴我,這是不可能有人生存失去他們所有的身體脂肪 12 小時. 我提醒他,這是一個不可能的情況. 他告訴我,這個蜘蛛正在不斷從公共. 我相信,這種蜘蛛來自中國或俄羅斯. 這些蜘蛛不同意與其他卡利蜘蛛什麼. 他們有大的機構和短而粗的腿. 在咬我的女約為 4 寸的和, 有 5 男性. 四年後, 住在山上海沃德,而, 我簡直不敢相信自己的眼睛, 在地面上運行, 一個又一個. 這種蜘蛛是關於 6 寸的. 我知道這些蜘蛛不爬牆壁或結網. 他們建造鳥巢的, 並獲得 4-5 男人保護她,並尋找食物. 從來沒有離開女性的除巢…………當一個大的女駕駛她出來,, 殺死她的男人. 這是當人們被這種蜘蛛咬傷, 她到處跑,尋找另一個窩. 咬傷是非常少見. 我想知道………….有多大的推動,女性 6 從她的巢寸. 和………….有多大他們得到. 我能找到這種蜘蛛展出 (你博物館)? 是否有可能找到所有的信息他們是在這個非常危險的蜘蛛?”
Continue reading Vox Populi, 第二卷
由克里斯·格林特, 6月26日, 2010 歡迎來到不一致再次發生一系列卷八, 全國聯保新聞. 我碰到 本文 recently regarding an endemic Puerto Rican butterfly. 誰可以告訴我到底為什麼這份報告是一種誤導? 它可以比標準的GOP棘手一點 (我建議放棄任何先前相關縮略詞以這些字母). Hint, just telling me the butterfly in the picture is from Malaysia is not the answer I’m looking for!
由克里斯·格林特, 6月23日, 2010
我一直想知道如何找到正確的術語用於土地覆蓋給定區域. 通常, 我只是一個大概沿東西線 “柞小榭樹”. But now I can use this awesome new map brought to us by the USGS/National Biological Information Infrastructure. 詳細程度是驚人的, and you can specify the degree of accuracy with a drop down tab (1-3). Now with a high-def US topo map I can see exactly where the largest stands of monterrey pine are (actually it’s a California Coastal Closed-Cone Conifer Forest and Woodland) so I can optimally place my trap this weekend.
Continue reading Landscape Cover Map
由克里斯·格林特, 6月18日, 2010
歡迎飛蛾和我 #12, 我的第一個博客嘉年華. 儘管寫博客了幾個月,我還沒有拿回來一看,反省到底我成了迷戀鱗翅目擺在首位. 記住時間或位置,發生這種情況是不可能的, 而像我的許多同事和我敢肯定,我的很多讀者, 我有一個蝴蝶網和 “蟲籠” 在只要我能走路手. 當涉及到昆蟲學我相信幾乎所有人都愛上先是用大而醒目的昆蟲. 對於我來說,這是一個蝴蝶, 自然. 我還記得盯著無盡小時Ornithoptera和鳳蝶在保羅靈動的說明多樣性 著名的書. 某處在追求新的東西的方式,我開始流浪到夜間世界. 飛蛾包括多數鱗翅目的多樣性; 同時,有近 11,000 種在美國, 只有少數百頃蝴蝶. 這迅速打開一扇門 (也許深淵…) 到了令人震驚的豐富比比皆是我們身邊. 這個驚人的多樣性已引起了我深深的為鱗翅目的生物學和進化史. 編輯蛾博客這些14貢獻在一起我不禁反思回一些我自己的mothing旅程.
P或許 如果我是一個孩子在這個歐洲蛾 (螻蛄 厄爾皮諾 小豬) 本來第一個吸引我的眼球. 在以上 城市飛蛾 羅恩·勞頓發現了驚人的多樣性,在大致相同的方式他自己的後院,因為我沒有成長在美國這裡. 看看陷阱,他一直使用的類型, 其中大部分他自己建造. 一個飛蛾的最佳行為是他們願意不顧一切地潛入光. 不太遠羅恩, 邁克·比爾 已經英國博客飛蛾以及. 它可以是相當驚人的我們兩個動物群是多麼的相似 (一些飛蛾實際 是 相同).
Continue reading The Moth and Me #12
由克里斯·格林特, 6月11日, 2010
這種蛾是罕見的,因為其超自然的同名 (除了它是真實的) – 它是一個Gazoryctra SP. 在家庭中的蝙蝠蛾科. 他們代表了基礎血統的鱗翅目,俗稱鬼蛾或SWIFT飛蛾. 鬼 – 因為一些物種的雄性被稱為真正的列克飛, 他們在黃昏盤旋上下長滿草的空地,而女性觀察. 這些相同的男性也呼籲女性費洛蒙, 一點與昆蟲落後局面. 迅速- 而言自明, 但北方種也被稱為是強大的傳單.
其中一個是幫助表示以此為基礎血統的特徵是翅膀的身體上的位置, 一些翼脈, 降低或不存在的口器和缺乏一個強有力的翼聯接裝置的. 這些飛蛾有 “休息”, 這就好比投影小拇指從hindwing的頂部. 飛蛾的其他譜系具有被稱為系帶和支持帶的緊密耦合機制, 其中刷毛鉤兩翼在一起,以便他們在飛行中保持聯接. 當休息jugum棄牌,可能有助於保持機翼一起 – 但不是在飛行; 前翅不與hindwing和飛行同步的不是動態 (斯考伯 1992).
在美洲生物蝙蝠蛾被理解很差. 只有生活史少數在全球範圍內描述 – 所有這一切似乎是endophagous (無聊) 在植物根系. 一些早期齡幼蟲可在枯枝落葉或地下的根系在進入之前根莖飼料. 澳大利亞是幸運,有蝙蝠蛾科的多樣化和令人印象深刻的動物 – 許多人 顏色鮮豔 和巨大 (250毫米或至多 12 英寸!), 和好一點的研究. 有些幼蟲甚至常見,以至於原住民用他們作為主食來源.
但是,回到這個蛾特別. 我收集它在我的黑光燈誘殺去年八月起來內華達山脈各地 10,500 腳. 該品種是未知, 並且有可能存在新. 最令人沮喪的是,它是唯一已知的標本科學. 整個屬非常罕見, 除了一個或兩個品種布衣, 只有幾十個樣本存在. 因此,它是女性的一個品種只從男性說明? 否則已知物種的畸形的像差? 或者,也許它實際上是新的. 我已經有條形碼的DNA, 實際上告訴我什麼,因為有任何密切相關的物種零序列. 其實, 我所知道的, 其他品種在塞拉利昂甚至還沒有被收集在幾十年,所以我甚至不能從舊樣品獲得序列. 上錦上添花的是他們的行為. 他們很少, 如果有的話, 明朗化 – 這可能是他們的黃昏飛行的結果. 在右邊的夜晚,他們可能是在為翼 20-30 分鐘, 通常女性遍尋男性, 或女性飛往排卵 (可能只是廣播分散他們在地面上的雞蛋). 這樣一來這個八月下旬我會看到一個高手的希望通過我在陡峭的山坡上重返高塞拉利昂從昆蟲學部門的幾個志願者. 如果我得到一些更多的, 它可能會變成是加州令人印象深刻的新物種.
由克里斯·格林特, 6月11日, 2010 Who can see what’s wrong with 本文?
由克里斯·格林特, 6月9日, 2010
這 recent article in the American Naturalist has taken a second look at some of the famously inflated species estimates, 一些持續高 100 百萬 (歐文, 1988). 筆者所進行的估計表明,上述預測 30 萬有概率 <0.00001. 他們的估計範圍是更可能是之間 2.5 和 3.7 million species (with 90% confidence). This seems somewhat reasonable given that these extraordinary estimates were based heavily on extrapolation. There are clearly many difficulties in assessing diversity based on tropical arthropod surveys – this paper again uses phytophagous (plant-eating) beetles for estimates. They are careful to point out that these methods do not account for non-phytophagous insects, but assume that they will follow traditional biogeographic patterns of diversity. This is somewhat of a new concept given that when I was in college I was taught that parasitoids are counterintuitively not more diverse in tropical regions. This hypothesis is more often than not being proven false in the light of more precise modern taxonomic methodology. Rather proudly I helped play a role with the parasitoid project at the UIUC. 在短, host specificity is more extreme in tropical environments with hundreds of cryptic species hidden amongst rapidly radiating groups such as the microgastrine Braconids (膜翅目) – the same has held true across similar taxa.
One interesting note about the paper is their inclusion of a secondary estimation based on Lepidoptera canopy assemblages. They assumed that a) all Lepidoptera can be found in the canopy and b) that all leps are phytophagous. This is clearly a very conservative estimation given that not all Lepidoptera are found in the canopy and not all are phytophagous. While I do not have the numbers on hand, a certain percentage of lep diversity must have been excluded from these estimates. I will also go out on a limb and assume that the authors (Novotny 2002) did not include microlepidoptera morphospecies – and most likely estimated abundances with our current taxonomic understanding. However I do not have access to this 2002 paper, so I may be incorrect. Using these Lepidoptera numbers (from the same survey as the Coleoptera) a global diversity was estimated by Hamilton et. al. at around 8.5 millions arthropod species.
While I agree that extraordinary estimates of tens of tens (or hundreds) of millions of arthropod species are probably ridiculous; I am of the camp that current research is indicating that estimates of the lower tens of millions of species are possible. The authors have failed to include research that counterbalances their premise that tropical species exhibit a lower beta diversity (Novotny 2002, 2007). In the same journal, Nature 2007, Dyar et. al. have indicated that the American tropics exhibit a higher beta diversity than previously assumed. Either it can be said that estimates of beta diversity in the australasian tropics are incorrect, or they are incompatible with species assemblages of neotropical forests. All of this speaks to the difficulty in extrapolating estimations of species across all tropical regions. These estimates are based on comprehensive insect surveys of New Guinea, perhaps they do not accurately reflect the true diversity of American tropical forests, and these number ranges are low.
As a final thought, most assesments are focused on tropical arthropods. It seems all too possible that the total number of all species, including bacteria and archaea, can easily exceed tens of millions. But extrapolating those numbers is even more precarious than arthropods, given the extreme lack of knowledge we have.
由克里斯·格林特, 6月4日, 2010
能不能找到一種方法來環節的直接視頻 (甚至沒有VodPod), but here is the link to the Daily Show site. 有多少物理學家拉著自己的頭髮,當他們聽到這個? 讓人驚訝, 他是新任發言人. 不用擔心 Neil, 你在這之後不打算在任何地方.
Having not aired yet I can’t tell exactly how apologetic the show 是, but it seems heavily focused on finding the “creator”. I can hear it in John Stewart’s voice when he pulls back from ripping into Freeman’s “god of the gaps” theory. Perhaps there was an edit and we missed the question where John Stewart asked “Morgan, can you define a logical fallacy for us… perhaps the god of the gaps one?” I believe that any physicist who ever says “god was responsible” says it with no deeper meaning than when Einstein famously evoked god’s dice. That’s to say, a non-literal and non-personal god found only in the beauty and splendor of nature.
由克里斯·格林特, 6月2日, 2010
如果有一件事是我在大學裡學到, 它是如何輕鬆地分散自己. 我傾向於保持我的電視上的背景,而我的工作我的電腦, 尤其是在深夜的時候我通常對抗睡眠獲勝的戰爭. The other night something did catch my eye: a man holding dowsing rods in his back yard. Volume up, let the bullshit flow. It was just a flash of idiocy in an otherwise good program on home improvement. I’ve become accustom to crap-based TV on networks such as the History Channel or a Discovery network (quality of their shows include gems like “The Haunted: ghosts and pets”), but I was a little surprised to see BS grace my local PBS station.
Over on the “American Woodshop” host Scott Phillips was constructing a beautiful garden arbor. You can watch the entire thing here for free: Episode 1609: Period Architectural Moldings and Trim. There are no time stamps on the clip, but the dowsing comes in around the mid-point. While demonstrating the materials needed to secure the wood to the ground he cautioned against digging haphazardly into your yard without knowing where the underground water, electrical or gas lines were: solid advice. So in order to do this you should (轉述) “take pieces of coat-hanger, anything will do, turn them into an “該”. As I walk forward the bars cross – 那裡 (they cross) – right there is the irrigation line. 9 出 10 people have this ability, but you should call in a professional if there is any doubt“. My translation “OK guys, don’t worry about calling in some guy to do this, figure it out this way”. Please tell me what man who seriously watches a home improvement show at midnight would cede authority to someone else before giving it the good ol’ college try? Even if we grant for a moment that 9 出 10 people could do this, what about that one guy who can’t? Isn’t it irresponsible to suggest that you can avoid power/water/sewer/gas only 90% 的時間? 唉呀, hit that pesky gas line…
Being a scientist, a skeptic and a procrastinator – I wrote Scott a message about this so I could avoid my work at hand. Today he kindly replied saying: (excerpt)
“Our bodies are electromagnetic fields. Disrupt a field and things happen…. I learned the technique mentioned from a city worker that they used to find lines. Not from a charlatan. My team witnessed the objective use of this technique.”
Briefly, 沒有, our bodies are not electromagnets. Everyone can hold a compass, or TV… without screwing them up. Franz Mesmer coined the idea of “Animal Magnetism” in the last half of the 18th century (also invented “mesmerization” AKA hypnotism) – and had it abruptly debunked by Benjamin Franklin and others. I’m also a bit worried to hear that city workers are relying on dowsing to locate public lines! But to move onward, let us dig into the myths of dowsing. I agree that there seems to be somewhat of an intuitive truth when it comes to dowsing, however false it is scientifically, it remains compelling. 肯定… electrical things underground effect sensitive wires above. 哇, 看看這些傢伙誰可以找到水, 或電源, 或… 失去了人… 或 bombs? 行, let’s stick to water for this conversation.
(continued)
Continue reading An Uphill Battle
由克里斯·格林特, 從6月1日起,, 2010 僅有的幾張圖片常見的加州LEPS, 沿海岸山脈附近的聖克魯斯在幾個星期前. 開始我的工作方式,通過一些照片積壓…
Euphydryas chalcedona
Plebejus ACMON
Plebejus ACMON
圓葡萄藻 上 聖草屬.
一個有趣的筆記 圓葡萄藻 – 這個名字用詞不當, 它實際上並不以 赤葡萄屬 (曼薩尼塔). 在描述時 1880 Walsingham 發現幼蟲在 manzinata 的葉子上化蛹,並認為這是它們的寄主植物. 在傑瑞·鮑威爾 (Jerry Powell) 令人驚嘆的該群體專著中,他指出這種飛蛾是從 聖典 – 這恰好是飛蛾棲息的那朵花. 兩種植物並排生長, 很容易看出流浪的毛毛蟲是如何找到鄰居的.
|
懷疑論
|