크리스 Grinter 별, 2 월 24에, 2010
이 나비를 알고? 괜찮아요, 아무도 정말하지 않습니다. 그것은 속 Apodemia에 (부전 네발 나비과), 하지만이 그룹의 분류는 재앙… 심지어 나 아종에 시작하지 않는다. 이 시편 9 월에 촬영했다, 을 의미한다 Apodemia의 mormo 될 가능성이 높습니다 (Mormo) based on flight time. ㅏ. Mormo is a fall flyer and ㅏ. 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. 물론, 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. 가 dozens, and not one is perfect. Groups like Grammia (밤나방과: 악티나에) 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 (위에 8% – 예, 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 “형태” 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.
크리스 Grinter 별, 월 23 일, 2010 
곤충 학자 인의 특권 중 하나는 여행 및 수집. 나는 매년 여름 차에 수천 마일을 넣어이 수집하는 애리조나에서 최고의 장소 중 두 가지. 상단 이미지는 Baboquivari 산에서입니다 (중간에 Baboquivari 피크), 브라운 캐년 연구 역. 아래 이미지는 페냐 블랑카 캐년입니다, 유명한 수집 핫스팟. 이 협곡은있다 5 멕시코 마일 때문에 현재의 이민 정책의 몇 가지 안전 문제가. 어느 날 아침, 이전 밤 잡을에서 나방을 정렬하는 동안, 동료와 나는 약의 그룹을했다 30 불법 체류자는 우리 캠프를 통해 걸을. 그들은 잘 입고 청소했다, 손을 흔들었다, 그냥 울타리에서 내려되어 있어야합니다. 다행히 불법 체류자의 대부분은 근면하고 정직한 사람들이 더 나은 삶을 얻기 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 그것은 무서운 아르 코요테와 밀수를하다 – 나는 무거운 대포와 함께 미국으로 마약 캐러밴을 호위 멕시코 경찰의 이야기를 들었습니다. 그리고 국경 순찰 요원이 근처에서 코요테에 의해 죽음에 찔린 작년.
고맙게도, 밤에 주변에 이상한 빛을 서 이상한 사람들의 무리는 우리에게 넓은 침대를 부여.
(신속하게로드 할 정도로 작은이 이미지는 있습니까?)
크리스 Grinter 별, 월 23 일, 2010 Despite being pretty disinterested in butterflies, they are pretty to look at. Here is a really great video by a guy I know down in Southern CA. His time-lapse videos of lepidoptera life cycles are pretty impressive, and this one in particular is beautiful. If you cut to about 3:00 에, 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.
[유튜브=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWJlpIchkE]
크리스 Grinter 별, 월 23 일, 2010 The brief comment about Linus Pauling and Vitamin C below made me remember this video first posted a while ago by Pharyngula. This is Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, and a Nobel Prize winner. His invention basically made DNA analysis possible. But like Pauling, he is also completely and totally nuts. If you have the time to listen to him ramble, give it a shot. 그러나 간단히 말해서, 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]
크리스 Grinter 별, on February 22nd, 2010 
This is an old image of mine, so it’s not perfect. If you can tell me this butterfly to species you get a high-five. If you know the subspecies, I’ll send you a new pack of #3 stainless steel pins! Only hint: It’s from the western USA.
크리스 Grinter 별, on February 22nd, 2010 Today I found 이 article in NY times health – touting the benefits of acupuncture used for depression relief in pregnant women. I have a few problems with the journalist, Shirley S. Wang, failing to remain skeptical in her piece. But this comes as no surprise, 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, 여기. So after reading this paper I have come to a few conclusions.
1) Very small sample size of 150 patients, 그러나 침입자 사이에서 이러한 토착 종을 유지하려면 제초제를 많이 사용하는 등 급진적인 조치가 필요합니다. 141 treated.
2) The study is blinded ONLY for the depression scoring, not administration of acupuncture. 사실로, 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. 그래서, these “randomized and blinded” participants knew what was coming and assumed that any poking was supposed to help their depression. 더욱이, 이 (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” 과 “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, 제발, 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 연령.
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. 그러나, 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, 그들은 심지어 박쥐에서 바로 진술합니다. “마사지는 통제 치료로 개념화되었습니다., 세션 직후 기분이 좋아지지만, 우울증 치료제로서의 효능을 뒷받침하는 증거가 충분하지 않습니다.” 연구를 설계할 때 내 가설을 반증할 수 있는 알려진 모든 요소를 살펴보는 것을 좋아합니다.. 당신이 이미 실패할 것이라고 믿는 것을 선택하는 것은 그들의 엄청난 편견을 보여줄 뿐입니다..
6) 사회경제적 요인에 대한 통제 실패. 67% 참가자의 백인, 대부분은 교육을 잘 받았고. 그들은 심지어 토론에서 진술하기까지 합니다. “따라서, 결과가 샘플에서 과소 대표되는 특정 소수 그룹으로 일반화되지 않을 수 있습니다.”. 나 뿐인가요, 또는 이 진술이 그들의 연구 전체를 부정합니까?? 그들은 침술이 다른 소수 집단에서 잘 작동하지 않을 수 있다는 점을 자유롭게 인정하고 있습니다.. 왜 이것이 될 수 있습니까?? 유일한 논리적이고 과학적인 대답은 플라시보 효과가 사회경제적 경계에 따라 다르다는 것입니다.. 만약에, 결국, 침술은 합법적인 의학이었다, 생리학적으로 동일한 유기체에서 볼 수 있는 미미한 차이가 있을 것입니다..
이 연구는 끔찍하게 나쁜 과학입니다. 이 연구자들은 침술이 효과가 있다는 전제에서 출발합니다., 자신의 주장을 뒷받침하는 데이터 검색. 이것은 실제 과학을 수행하는 방법과 정확히 반대입니다.. 그리고, NY 타임즈의 우리 건강 기자는 눈 하나 까딱하지 않았습니다. 당신을 위해 실패 부인. Wang, NY Times에 실패.
크리스 Grinter 별, 2 월 21에, 2010 나는 다음 3 오전 TV 뷰어만큼 밍 차이와 그의 요리 제국을 사랑. 사실, his recipes are fantastic and you should make them yourself. 그 말에 대한하지만 이상한 경향을 발견했습니다 (의역) “당신은 항상 유기 사용해야합니다, 당신을 위해 더 낫다”. 이 날 잎 약간 의아해. 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. 그래서, 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, 그 “natural” 또는 “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, 과 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. 그러나, 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. 그림을 이동, 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.
크리스 Grinter 별, 2 월 21에, 2010 [유튜브=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc]
나는 이 자동 튜닝된 Sagan을 정말로 즐긴다., 나를 이렇게 웅변하게 만들어. 여기에서 더 많은 동영상을 시청하세요. 과학의 교향곡.
크리스 Grinter 별, 2 월 21에, 2010  그래서, 새 블로그를 시작하는 방법? 어려운 질문, 하지만 아마도 이것은 재미있는 새로운 종을 과시하기에 좋은 시간일 것입니다.. 이 나방은 작년에 산타바바라 외곽에서 채집되었습니다., 그. 거대한 날개 폭, 15mm에서, 겔레키드 나방치고는 꽤 크다.. 속, 노리모스키마 (no-a-mosh-ma 발음), 현재 알려진 것보다 훨씬 더 많은 종 풍부한 것 같습니다, 그래서 이 생물은 놀라운 일이 아닙니다.. 또한 놀랍도록 다양한 동물 그룹을 연구하는 것의 이점에 대해 자랑할 수 있는 기회를 제공합니다.. 내 친구가 운이 좋다면 언젠가는 자신의 종족을 얻게 될 것입니다..
다른 한편으로는, 이것은 또한 문제를 강조합니다 – 지구상에서 가장 다양한 동물 그룹에 대해 거의 아무것도 알지 못함. 새로운 작물을 작은 사람이 먹게 되면 어떻게 됩니까?, 정체 모를 사람, 나방? 당신을 도울 수 있는 세계의 12명 중 한 명에게 전화하십시오.. 어쩌면 그들은 그것이 무엇인지 알고 있습니다, 그러나 생물학에 대해서는 알려진 바가 없을 것입니다.. 이것은 에서 일어난 일입니다 사우스다코타 최근에 바이오연료 작물을 나방이 먹어치우고 있을 때 1910. 더 많은 자금을 조달해야 하는 완벽한 이유! 위의 새 나방은 해충으로 폭발하지 않을 가능성이 높습니다.. 그러나 이 지구를 우리와 공유하는 종에 대한 기본 지식을 갖는 것은 올바른 방향으로 가는 한 걸음입니다..
|
회의
|
댓글이 닫혀있다 
