Por Chris Grinter, el 24 de febrero, 2010
Conozca esta mariposa? Está bien, en realidad nadie lo hace. Es en el género Apodemia (Riodinidae), pero la taxonomía de este grupo es un desastre… y ni siquiera me refiero a la subespecie. Este ejemplar fue fotografiado en septiembre, lo que significa que es más probable que sea Apodemia mormo (Necesidad de tener una) based on flight time. La. Necesidad de tener una is a fall flyer and La. virgulti is a spring flyer. While some forms seem distinctive, there is massive morphological overlap and they are usually identical and sympatric – actually down to living on the same plants. But according to lab experiments it is impossible to get the pupae to break diapause so they remain reproductively isolated. So are they different? While molecular work is being conducted the verdict is out, but it does seem like these two species may be retained in the end. Y, por supuesto,, each mountain range has it’s own subspecies. Who knows, I sure don’t. I’m glad I don’t work on butterflies.
Species concepts are a fuzzy line and it’s never clear exactly where to make the cut. When asked what a species is most people default to the Mayr concept of Biological Species (BSC), where reproductive isolation = new. This is all well and good but we have to keep in mind that this is not the ONLY species concept. Hay docenas, and not one is perfect. Groups like Grammia (Noctuidae: Arctiinae) exhibit high levels of hybridization, which does not adhere well to the BSC. I like to apply as many criteria as possible to delimit a species and it seems like the line is all too commonly thin within insects. I like to see a distinguishing morphological trait, if not in wing color or pattern, at the least in the genitalia or antennae. This is not always the case however and you have to look at the biology and/or DNA. I have looked at two insects that are for all intents and purposes identical. But the biology is radically different and a large % difference (over 8% – sí, arbitrary) in their DNA makes it unquestionable that they are separate.
And if species weren’t contentious enough subspecies stir the pot even more. I’m skeptical about the entire concept, but there are cases in which it seems plausible and necessary. A subspecies is a more formal definition of a geographical “formar” and usually exhibits a blend zone into another subspecies. For instance if you look at the 27 different populations of Plebejus icarioides there are large differences between northern and southern populations, but very subtile difference along the gradient. It is that persistent gradient that creates one dynamic species instead of 27 separate species – at least according to current research. Moths have been lucky and have thus far avoided the plague of over-subspeciation, butterflies not so much. There may even be instances where greedy collectors have named new subspecies of Parnassius for profit (new rare butterfly subspecies sell for big bucks).
The truth is that species concepts are artificial, poorly understood and dynamic at best; at worst it approaches a soft science with no real possibility of proof. Yet species are real and theories will continue to adapt while we sit here and scratch our heads.
Por Chris Grinter, el 23 de febrero, 2010 
Una de las ventajas de ser un entomólogo es viajar y recoger. Puse unos pocos miles de millas en el coche cada verano y estos son dos de los mejores lugares en Arizona para recoger. La imagen superior es de las montañas Baboquivari (Baboquivari pico en el medio), Estación de Investigación de Brown Canyon. The bottom image is of Pena Blanca Canyon, a famous collecting hotspot. This canyon is just 5 miles from Mexico and has a few safety concerns because of our current immigration policy. One morning, while sorting moths from the previous nights catch, a colleague and I had a group of roughly 30 illegals walk right through our camp. They were well dressed and clean, waved, and must have just been dropped off at the fence. Thankfully the majority of illegals are hard-working and honest people trying to earn a better life. It’s the coyotes and smugglers that are scarier – I have heard tales of Mexican police escorting drug caravans into the US with heavy artillery. And just last year a border patrol agent was stabbed to death by a coyote in this vicinity.
Afortunadamente, a bunch of strange guys standing around strange lights at nights grants us a wide berth.
(Are these images small enough to load quickly?)
Por Chris Grinter, el 23 de febrero, 2010 A pesar de ser bastante desinteresado en mariposas, son muy a la vista. Aquí está un gran vídeo de un tipo que conozco en el Sur de CA. Sus vídeos time-lapse de ciclos de vida de lepidópteros son bastante impresionantes, y éste en particular es hermoso. Si se corta a aproximadamente 3:00 en, you will see dozens of Great Purple Hairstreaks (Atlides halesus) emerging from their chrysalises, the colors are stunning. This butterfly is native to the SW and Mexico, and I have to admit I love finding it in the field.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWJlpIchkE]
Por Chris Grinter, el 23 de febrero, 2010 The brief comment about Linus Pauling and Vitamin C below made me remember this video first posted a while ago by pharyngula. Esto es Kary Mullis, el inventor de PCR, y un ganador del Premio Nobel. Su invención análisis de ADN básicamente hecho posible. Pero al igual que Pauling, él también es completa y totalmente nueces. If you have the time to listen to him ramble, give it a shot. But in short, he discusses astrology, denies global warming and how AIDS is not caused by HIV. I wonder what the stats are for genius scientists that slide off their rocker?
[Vimeo 9167379]
Por Chris Grinter, el 22 de febrero, 2010 
Esta es una imagen antigua de la mina, así que no es perfecto. Si usted me puede decir esta mariposa con las especies se obtiene un alto y cinco. Si conoces la subespecie, Te voy a enviar un nuevo paquete de #3 pasadores de acero inoxidable! Sólo sugerencia: Es desde el oeste de EE.UU..
Por Chris Grinter, el 22 de febrero, 2010 Today I found esta article in NY times health – que promocionan los beneficios de la acupuntura utilizados para el alivio de la depresión en las mujeres embarazadas. Tengo algunos problemas con el periodista, Shirley S. Dinero, no permanecer escéptico en su pieza. Pero esto no es ninguna sorpresa, so I won’t bother to point out obvious flaws in the media.
I will point out the flaws in the study. Please find the original full text, aquí. So after reading this paper I have come to a few conclusions.
1) Very small sample size of 150 patients, sólo 141 treated.
2) The study is blinded ONLY for the depression scoring, not administration of acupuncture. In fact, their release form states “Participants in one of these two groups will receive acupuncture that focuses on depression symptoms and the other treatment will not.” Makes sense, getting a needle shoved in your skin is easy to notice. Tan, these “randomized and blinded” participants knew what was coming and assumed that any poking was supposed to help their depression. Además, esta (much better) study has shown that simulated acupuncture with toothpicks works just the same. Careful, this is compelling evidence against the validity of acupuncture – not evidence for the usefulness of stimulated “pressure points”. It is a placebo effect.
3) Study assumes validity of “depression specific” y “non-specific” acupuncture. Meaning one method of pin sticking somehow cures depression over another. What is this based on? Oh wait, they say exactly the exhaustive scientific evidence right here: “patterns of disharmony according to the principles of traditional Chinese medicine”. I’m sorry, Por favor, give me modern medicine over 2,000 year old mythical beliefs. How was the average quality of life and life expectancy for an ancient chinese person? Pretty damn horrible, and I’m sure the average life expectancy did not exceed 35 años.
4) Basing depression scores on one administration of the DSM-IV Hamilton Rating Scale. Not being a psychiatrist I can’t speak to the efficacy of these tests. Sino, I will go out on a limb and assume that a stronger baseline for depression should be established before comparing results. The test may be accurate, but why not administer it more than once to reduce noise.
5) Selection of massage as a second control. This is a bad attempt at token skepticism, they even state right off the bat “Massage was conceptualized as a control treatment because, although it improves mood immediately after a session, there is insufficient evidence to support its efficacy as a treatment for depression.” When I design a study I like to look at all known factors that I believe will disprove my hypothesis. Choosing something that you already believe will fail only shows their hand of gross bias.
6) Failure to control for socioeconomic factors. 67% of the participants were white, the majority of which were well-educated. They even go as far as to state in the discussion “Therefore, results might not generalize to specific minority groups that were underrepresented in our sample”. Is it just me, or does this statement negate the entirety of their research? They are freely admitting that acupuncture might not work as well in other minority groups. Why could this be? The only logical and scientific answer is that a placebo effect differs across socioeconomic boundaries. If, después de todo, acupuncture was a legitimate medical science, there would be an insignificant difference seen across physiologically identical organisms.
This study is appallingly bad science. These researchers are beginning with the premise that acupuncture works, and searching for data to support their claims. This is exactly opposite of how to conduct real science. Y, our health reporter at the NY Times didn’t even bat an eye. Fail for you Mrs. Dinero, and fail to the NY Times.
Por Chris Grinter, el 21 de febrero, 2010 Me encanta Ming Tsai y su imperio de cocina tanto como el próximo 3-am televidente. En realidad, his recipes are fantastic and you should make them yourself. Pero he notado una tendencia extraña para él decir (parafraseado) “usted debe utilizar siempre orgánica, que es mucho mejor para usted”. Esto me deja un poco perplejo. What exactly does he mean? Ming is well-educated and this is not anything he should be solely responsible for, but he echoes an all too common misconception that organic is actually better. By better I am interpreting this as healthier, which seems to be a logical gap to bridge. Tan, let’s look at the data.
A recent and comprehensive review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has largely convinced me of what I was always skeptical of; that organic foods can not actually be healthier for you. In their breakdown they cited 55 studies and came to the conclusion that “there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs”.
So what is the harm? My problem with all of this is that it is based on the naturalistic fallacy, that “natural” o “organic” somehow means that the product is safer or healthier. How many times do you see the term “natural” in the store and never give it second thought? If natural things really were safer then traditional Ayurvedic medicines would not be horribly toxic. Afterall, arsenic, lead and mercury are NATURAL – but they are also some of the most toxic compounds known to man. In the end it is 100% marketing.
Taken from another angle Ming Tsai may not be all that incorrect afterall. I do not have all the data in front of me regarding pesticide contamination of foodstuffs, but it is logical to assume the less contaminated the better. Obviously pesticides can be a bad thing, there are mountains of literature to support the damage they can cause. But the jury seems out on exactly how bad, if at all, these minute residues on our foods are. Conventionally grown foods have regulated levels of residues, but even organics are not free of pesticide contamination. So I look at it differently. Our environment benefits from having safer food. Less chemicals are dumped into our waterways, farmers have to battle less with incredibly powerful toxins, y blinky the fish fights to see another day. We should all strive to live sustainably and organic farming does provide us with an edge.
So once again, what is the harm? People who buy organic quite possibly do so based on genuine environmental stewardship. I would also argue that a very high percentage of these people also believe these foods are healthier (anyone have survey data to support this claim?). So in this instance the result is a net positive. Sino, being right for the wrong reasons should never be acceptable. This strikes at the peak of a larger problem that is driven by marketing and zero science. Case in point – Vitamin C as a cold remedy. A study in PLOS medicine has shown there is no indication for efficacy of VitC against the common cold. Ir figura, a once believed to be true staple has begun to be picked apart by science and data. Let’s be careful on what bandwagon we jump and why.
Por Chris Grinter, el 21 de febrero, 2010 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc]
Me gusta mucho este autotuned Sagan, me hace con estuve este elocuente. Mira más videos aquí en el Sinfonía de la ciencia.
Por Chris Grinter, el 21 de febrero, 2010  Tan, how do I begin a new blog? Tough question, but perhaps this is a good time to show off a fun new species. This moth was collected last year outside of Santa Barbara, California. The massive wingspan, at 15mm, makes it pretty large for a Gelechiid moth. The genus, Gnorimoschema (pronounced nor-a-mosh-ma), seems to be far more species rich than is currently known, so this creature comes as no surprise. It also gives me a chance to brag about the benefits of studying such a wonderfully diverse group of animals. If you happen to be lucky enough to be a friend of mine you’ll probably get your own species at some point.
Por otra parte, this also highlights the problem – knowing almost nothing about the most diverse group of animals on our planet. What happens when a new crop is being eaten by a tiny, nondescript, polilla? Call one of the dozen people in the world who might be able to help you. Maybe they know what it is, but likely nothing is known about its biology. This is what happened in South Dakota recently when biofuel crops were being eaten by a moth last seen in 1910. What a perfect reason for more funding! More likely than not my new moth above will never explode into a pest. But having basic knowledge of the species that share this earth with us is a step in the right direction.
|
Escepticismo
|
los comentarios están cerrados 
