由克里斯·格林特, on February 24th, 2010
Know this butterfly? It’s OK, no one really does. It is in the genus Apodemia (Riodinidae), but the taxonomy of this group is a disaster… and don’t even get me started on the subspecies. This specimen was photographed in September, meaning it is most likely to be Apodemia mormo (mormo) based on flight time. 一. mormo is a fall flyer and 一. 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. 和OF當然, 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. 有 幾十個, and not one is perfect. Groups like Grammia (夜蛾科: 牛蒡科) 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 (過 8% – 是, 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 “形成” 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.
由克里斯·格林特, 上的2月23日, 2010 
其中一個是一位昆蟲學家的福利是旅遊和收集. 我把車幾千英里每到夏天和這兩個是在美國亞利桑那州最好的地方收集. 頂部圖像是從Baboquivari山 (Baboquivari峰值在中間), 布朗峽谷研究站. 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.
值得慶幸的是, a bunch of strange guys standing around strange lights at nights grants us a wide berth.
(Are these images small enough to load quickly?)
由克里斯·格林特, 上的2月23日, 2010 儘管對蝴蝶很不感興趣, 他們看起來很漂亮. 這是我在南加州認識的一個人的一個非常棒的視頻. 他的鱗翅目生命週期延時視頻令人印象深刻, 尤其是這個很漂亮. 如果你切到大約 3:00 在, 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]
由克里斯·格林特, 上的2月23日, 2010 低於萊納斯·鮑林和維生素C的簡短評論讓我記住了這個視頻第一前發布了一段由 咽胚. 這是雨霏穆利斯, PCR技術的發明者, 和諾貝爾文學獎得主. 他的發明基本上都是由DNA分析成為可能. 但是，像鮑林, 他也是徹底的，完全的堅果. 如果你要聽他絮絮叨叨的時候, 給它一個鏡頭. 但是在短, 他討論了占星術, 否認全球變暖以及如何艾滋病並非由HIV引起的. 我不知道統計是幹什麼用的滑出自己的搖桿天才科學家?
[VIMEO 9167379]
由克里斯·格林特, 2月22日, 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.
由克里斯·格林特, 2月22日, 2010 Today I found 這 article in NY times health – 吹捧針灸的孕婦中使用的抑鬱症救濟的好處. 我有幾個問題，記者, 雪莉S. 王, 未能保持懷疑在她的作品. 但是，這並不令人吃驚, 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, 這裡. So after reading this paper I have come to a few conclusions.
1) Very small sample size of 150 patients, 僅 141 treated.
2) The study is blinded ONLY for the depression scoring, not administration of acupuncture. 事實上, 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. 所以, these “randomized and blinded” participants knew what was coming and assumed that any poking was supposed to help their depression. 此外, 這 (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” 和 “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, please, 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 年.
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. 但, 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 “因此，, 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, 畢竟, 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. 和, our health reporter at the NY Times didn’t even bat an eye. Fail for you Mrs. 王, and fail to the NY Times.
由克里斯·格林特, 2月21日, 2010 我愛明仔和他的帝國的烹飪盡可能在未來3時許電視觀眾. 其實, 他的食譜是太棒了，你應該 讓他們自己. 但是我注意到一個奇怪的趨勢，他說的話 (轉述) “你應該總是使用有機, 它更適合你更好”. 這讓我有點摸不著頭腦. 究竟是什麼，他的意思是? 明是受過良好教育的，這不是什麼他應該全權負責, 但他呼應了很常見的誤解，認為有機其實是更好的. 通過更好地我解釋這是健康的, 這似乎是一個合乎邏輯的間隙橋接. 所以, 讓我們來看看數據.
最近的和全面的審查發表在 美國臨床營養學雜誌 已經在很大程度上說服了我，我一直持懷疑態度; 有機食品不能實際上是為您健康. 在他們的崩潰，他們引 55 研究並得出結論， “沒有證據表明有機和常規生產的食品的營養質量差”.
那麼，什麼是危害? 我的問題與所有這是，它是基於自然謬誤, 這 “自然” 或 “有機” 某種程度上意味著該產品更安全或健康. 你看到這個詞多少次， “自然” 在店裡從來沒有給它第二個想法? 如果自然的事情真的是安全的，然後傳統 阿育吠陀 藥品不會是可怕的有毒. 畢竟, 砷, 鉛和汞是天然 – 但他們也有一些人類已知的最毒的化合物. 它到底是 100% 市場營銷.
從另一個角度考慮明仔未必全是不正確的畢竟. 我沒有在我面前對食品的農藥污染的所有數據, 但它是合乎邏輯的假設的較少受污染的更好. 顯然殺蟲劑可以是一個 壞事, 有文學山以支持他們能夠造成的破壞. 但陪審團似乎出究竟有多壞, 如果在所有, 在我們的食物，這些殘渣分鐘的. 傳統方法種植的食物有 監管水平 殘留, 但即使有機物不是免費的 農藥污染. 所以，我看它不同. 我們從有更安全的食品環境效益. 化學品少傾入我們的水道, 農民戰鬥少帶令人難以置信的強大毒素, 和 護目鏡 魚打架看到另一天. 我們都應該努力永續生活和有機農業確實為我們提供了一個邊緣.
所以再次, 的危害是什麼? 人誰買有機很有可能這樣做基於真實環境管理. 我還認為，這些人的比例非常高，也相信這些食品是健康的 (人有調查數據來支持這種說法?). 所以在這種情況下，結果是淨正. 但, 是正確的錯誤的原因不應該是可以接受的. 這種罷工在一個更大的問題是由市場和零推動科學高峰. 案例分析 – 維生素C作為一種感冒藥. 在一項研究中 PLoS醫學 顯示有針對普通感冒沒有跡象顯示對維生素C的功效. 去圖, 一個曾經被認為是真正的主食已經開始被科學和數據分開採摘. 我們要小心什麼潮流，我們跳，為什麼.
由克里斯·格林特, 2月21日, 2010 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc]
I really enjoy this autotuned Sagan, makes me with I was this eloquent. Watch more videos here at the Symphony of Science.
由克里斯·格林特, 2月21日, 2010  所以, 我該如何開始一個新的博客? 很難回答的問題, 但也許這是一個很好的時間來炫耀一個有趣的新物種. 這蛾收集去年聖巴巴拉外, CA. 大量的翼展, 在15毫米, 使得它相當大的Gelechiid蛾. 屬, 格諾莫式 (發音也不-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.
另一方面, 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, 蛾? 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.
|
懷疑論
|
評論被關閉 
