Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Advertisements
Featured post

This lovely splash was from Max Strawn of Princeton, Texas’s line and Russell Blair of Michigan showed.  I am not sure if he bred the original splashes and got her or not.  I have  a lovely Splash Large fowl from Max and Tawnya Strawn. Max could not make the show as Tawnya had just gotten out of the hospital.  She won the varietal class of Splash for the Club.

Blair bantam splash p.jpg

From the Ameraucana Alliance National Show on October 7th at the Birch Run Expo in Birch Run Michigan, here are two lovely Buff Bantams from John W. Blehm of FowlStuff.com .  The darker one is a cock bird commonly but incorrectly called a rooster.  I have some of his large fowl buffs and they look similar.

Cocks and not Roosters is the official name for male birds over one year of age.  This white Amearucana cock is owned by Kraig Shafer, who had APA/ABA Judge Matt Lahmon bring his birds to Birch Run for the Show.  Good that he did, he took Reserve aka Second

3846116_a042f6c7cd_o.jpg
After the break.

The New York Times highlighted this catatrasophe as Feinstein et alia are sponsoring a bill to put up a memorial at the spot. The remains of the St. Francis Dam, which burst just before midnight on March 12, 1928, and killed more than 200 people.  It was  located just north of Los Angeles.   While this memorial sounds wonderful, research into the California and New York Times’ archives show that the problem was not “age”, but the site itself though at the time Mulholland felt that maybe it was intentionally “dynamited.”

stfrancisfloodpath-thumb-600x389-56451.jpg
A geological map of what the dam was situated and its way to the Pacific.

Seattu Cushing, an explosives expert, testified at the inquiry in Los Angeles, that there “was a large crack in the buried fact of a huge section in the central portion of the dam.”  Mr. Cushing continued that further analysis was needed to determine that cause.¹

 But the workmen disagreed.  They felt, and the State Engineer agreed, that the problem was “shoddy” workmanship and that had the the dam a “better foundation” made of better quality materials i.e. the bedrock was too uniform, “that the tragedy would have never happened.  That idea was shot down many years later when it was revealed that the structure of the land was the problem, not the material Mulholland used.
The breach let loose a wall of water that barreled through the towns of Piru, Fillmore, and Santa Paula on a 54-mile trip to the Pacific, leveling 273 homes, and leaving 135 families (about 768 people) homeless and supported by the relief organizations.  The dead tally varied from 200 to 300 number in the 1928 reports, but was inflated in the 2017 article to “over 400.”  The final count was 202.

Unfortunately the mayhem that occurred after the tragedy made the police corden off the area

The St. Francis catastrophe stands as one the most searing tragedies in California history.  It gets the Hollywood treatment in Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown”.
Now congressional members from California are pushing a measure that would create a national memorial and monument at the site of the former dam in the Sierra Pelona Mountains.
The St. Francis Dam, circa 1927, before it burst.
The St. Francis Dam, circa 1927, before it burst.   Los Angeles Public Library

Joseph D. Countryman, a former head of reservoir operations for the Army Corps of Engineers, told The Times that California was the nation’s best dam builder.But expertise only goes so far in the course of rearranging nature. Because “When you build a dam, you are playing God,” he said. “And it’s tough to be God,.” because I might add, you don’t know what he does. The following amateur video on the Dam is basically correct (the body count is inflated)  but rather melodramatic.



Footnotes:

  • New York Times, April 11, 1928, “Dam collapse laid to base.”

 

Jensen Pierson with her dad, Doug.png

And the winner is, Miss Jensen Pierson with her lovely black cockerel.  Next to her is Dad Doug.

 

The Sucker, the Sucker!

Amia Srinivasan

  • BUYOther Minds: The Octopus and the Evolution of Intelligent Life by Peter Godfrey-Smith
    Collins, 255 pp, £20.00, March, ISBN 978 0 00 822627 5
  • BUYThe Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness by Sy Montgomery
    Simon & Schuster, 272 pp, £8.99, April 2016, ISBN 978 1 4711 4675 6

In 1815, 15 years before he made his most famous print, The Great Wave, Hokusai published three volumes of erotic art. In one of them there is a woodcut print known in English as ‘The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife’ and in Japanese as ‘Tako to ama’, ‘Octopus and Shell Diver’. It depicts a naked woman lying on her back, legs spread and eyes closed, while a huge red octopus performs cunnilingus on her. The octopus’s slit eyes bulge between the woman’s legs and its suckered limbs wrap around her writhing body. A second, smaller octopus inserts its beak into the woman’s mouth while curling the thin tip of an arm around her left nipple. In Europe, the print was interpreted as a scene of rape, but the critics didn’t read Japanese. In the text arranged in the space around the three entwined bodies, the shell diver exclaims: ‘You hateful octopus! Your sucking at the mouth of my womb makes me gasp for breath! Ah! Yes … it’s … there! With the sucker, the sucker! … There, there! … Until now it was I that men called an octopus! An octopus! … How are you able? … Oh! Boundaries and borders gone! I’ve vanished!’

A Giant Pacific octopus

A Giant Pacific octopus

The octopus threatens boundaries. Its body, a boneless mass of soft tissue, has no fixed shape. Even large octopuses – the largest species, the Giant Pacific, has an arm span of more than six metres and weighs a hundred pounds – can fit through an opening an inch wide, or about the size of its eye. This, combined with their considerable strength – a mature male Giant Pacific can lift thirty pounds with each of its 1600 suckers – means that octopuses are difficult to keep in captivity. Many octopuses have escaped their aquarium tanks through small holes; some have been known to lift the lid of their tank, making their way, sometimes across stretches of dry floor, to a neighbouring tank for a snack, or to the nearest drain, and maybe from there back home to the sea.

Octopuses do not have any stable colour or texture, changing at will to match their surroundings: a camouflaged octopus can be invisible from just a few feet away. Like humans, they have centralised nervous systems, but in their case there is no clear distinction between brain and body. An octopus’s neurons are dispersed throughout its body, and two-thirds of them are in its arms: each arm can act intelligently on its own, grasping, manipulating and hunting. (Octopuses have arms, not tentacles: tentacles have suckers only at their tips. Squid and cuttlefish have a combination of arms and tentacles.) In evolutionary terms, the intelligence of octopuses is an anomaly. The last common ancestor between octopuses on the one hand, and humans and other intelligent animals (monkeys, dolphins, dogs, crows) on the other, was probably a primitive, blind worm-like creature that existed six hundred million years ago. Other creatures that are so evolutionarily distant from humans – lobsters, snails, slugs, clams – rate pretty low on the cognitive scale. But octopuses – and to some extent their cephalopod cousins, cuttlefish and squid – frustrate the neat evolutionary division between clever vertebrates and simple-minded invertebrates. They are sophisticated problem solvers; they learn, and can use tools; and they show a capacity for mimicry, deception and, some think, humour. Just how refined their abilities are is a matter of scientific debate: their very strangeness makes octopuses hard to study. Their intelligence is like ours, and utterly unlike ours. Octopuses are the closest we can come, on earth, to knowing what it might be like to encounter intelligent aliens.

Peter Godfrey-Smith is a philosopher and diver who has been studying octopuses and other cephalopods in the wild, mostly off the coast of his native Sydney, for years. The alienness of octopuses, in his view, provides an opportunity to reflect on the nature of cognition and consciousness without simply projecting from the human example. Because of their evolutionary distance from us, octopuses are an ‘independent experiment in the evolution of large brains and complex behaviour’. Insofar as we are able to make intelligent contact with them – to understand octopuses and have them understand us – it is ‘not because of a shared history, not because of kinship, but because evolution built minds twice over’. The potential worry is that the evolutionary chasm between us and the octopus is too great to make mutual intelligibility possible. In that case the octopus will have something to teach us about the limits of our own understanding.

An octopus is an eight-armed, soft-bodied mollusc. Its arms are covered in suckers and arranged radially around a sharp-beaked mouth. It eats by catching prey with one of its arms and moving it through a conveyer belt of undulating suckers to its mouth – in that sense an octopus’s arms can also be thought of as its lips. On top of its arms rests its head, which contains its brain and features two large eyes with horizontal, dash-shaped pupils, like a cat’s eyes turned on their side. Behind the head is the octopus’s mantle, a large bulbous structure that contains its vital organs, including three hearts which pump blue-green blood. A tubular siphon is attached to the mantle, which the octopus uses variously for jet propulsion, respiration, excretion and inking predators. A full-grown octopus can range in size from the Giant Pacific, with its six-metre arm span, to the 2.5 centimetre-long Octopus wolfi, which weighs less than a gram.

Linnaeus called the octopus singulare monstrum, ‘a unique monster’. Erik Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in his Natural History of Norway (1752), wrote about the Kraken, a giant octopus-like sea monster capable of dragging down ‘the largest man of war’ in its arms, or sucking it down in the whirlpool of its wake. A similar creature, the Akkorokamui, with huge eyes and the ability to amputate and regenerate its limbs, features in Ainu folklore, and is worshipped in Shinto shrines throughout Japan. Victor Hugo’s Toilers of the Sea includes a long description of the octopus or ‘devil-fish’:

If terror were the object of … creation, nothing could be imagined more perfect than the devil-fish … This irregular mass advances slowly towards you. Suddenly it opens, and eight radii issue abruptly from around a face with two eyes. These radii are alive: their undulation is like lambent flames … A terrible expansion! … Its folds strangle, its contact paralyses. It has an aspect like gangrened or scabrous flesh. It is a monstrous embodiment of disease … Underneath each of [its] feelers range two rows of pustules, decreasing in size … They are cartilaginous substances, cylindrical, horny and livid … A glutinous mass, endowed with a malignant will, what can be more horrible?

Octopuses are indeed glutinous; according to Sy Montgomery, author of the splendid Soul of an Octopus, the slime on an octopus’s skin feels like a cross between drool and snot. But the octopus’s will is far from malignant, at least when it comes to humans. Octopuses do occasionally attack people, giving a venomous nip or stealing an underwater camera when threatened or annoyed, but in general they are gentle, inquisitive creatures. (Fishermen, by contrast, often kill octopuses by biting out their brains, and in many countries they are eaten alive.)

Octopuses encountering divers in the wild will frequently meet them with a probing arm or two, and sometimes lead them by the hand on a tour of the neighbourhood. Aristotle, mistaking curiosity for a lack of intelligence, called the octopus a ‘stupid creature’ because of its willingness to approach an extended human hand

. Octopuses can recognise individual humans, and will respond differently to different people, greeting some with a caress of the arms, spraying others with their siphons. This is striking behaviour in an animal whose natural life cycle is deeply antisocial. Octopuses live solitary lives in single dens and die soon after their young hatch. Many male octopuses, to avoid being eaten during mating, will keep their bodies as far removed from the female as possible, extending a single arm with a sperm packet towards her siphon, a manoeuvre known as ‘the reach’.

Just how clever are octopuses? An octopus has half a billion neurons, about as many as a dog. (A human has a hundred billion neurons.) Octopuses also have a high ratio of brain to body size, a sign of the ‘investment’ the animal makes in its own cognition. But these metrics are only a very rough guide to animal intelligence; the number and complexity of synaptic connections between neurons are also a factor. (Crows and parrots have small brains, but have recently been shown to be highly intelligent.) And the brain-to-body ratio does not take into account the majority of the octopus’s neurons that exist outside its brain. What’s more, the octopus’s brain has a structure completely distinct from that of our own. Even birds and fish have brains which exhibit a one-to-one correspondence with parts of the human brain. But the octopus’s brain is built on a different model entirely.

Since a comparison with the human brain tells us so little, scientists turn to the octopus’s behaviour as the best indicator of its cognitive power. But here researchers are often frustrated by what Godfrey-Smith describes as a ‘mismatch’ between anecdotal reports and experimental studies. In the lab, octopuses do fairly well: they can navigate mazes, use memory to solve simple puzzles and unscrew jars and child-proof bottles to get food (octopuses have also been filmed opening jam jars from the inside). Yet it can take octopuses a surprisingly long time to be trained in new behaviours, which some researchers have taken as a sign of their cognitive limitations.

Much of the early work on octopus intelligence was done at the Naples Zoological Station. In 1959, Peter Dews, a Harvard scientist, trained three octopuses there to pull a lever to obtain a chunk of sardine. Two of the octopuses, Albert and Bertram, pulled the lever in a ‘reasonably consistent’ manner. But the third, Charles, would anchor his arms on the side of the tank and apply great force to the lever, eventually breaking it and bringing the experiment to a premature end. Dews also reported that Charles repeatedly pulled a lamp into his tank, and that he ‘had a high tendency to direct jets of water out of the tank; specifically … in the direction of the experimenter’.

‘This behaviour,’ Dews wrote, ‘interfered materially with the smooth conduct of the experiments, and is … clearly incompatible with lever-pulling.’ He concluded that his experiment was a partial failure. Godfrey-Smith says this ‘encapsulates much of the story with octopus behaviour’. Octopuses have a high curiosity drive, and a knack for repurposing things around them for their own ends. Perhaps there are tasks that octopuses find it hard to learn. Or perhaps they just have better things to do.

Captive octopuses appear to be aware of their captivity; they adapt to it but also resist it. When they try to escape, which is often, they tend to wait for a moment they aren’t being watched. Octopuses have flooded laboratories by deliberately plugging valves in their tanks with their arms. At the University of Otago, an octopus short-circuited the electricity supply – by shooting jets of water at the aquarium lightbulbs – so often that it had to be released back into the wild. Jean Boal, a cephalopod researcher at Millersville University in Pennsylvania, reported feeding octopuses in a row of tanks with thawed squid, not an octopus’s favourite food. Returning to the first tank, Boal found that the octopus in it hadn’t eaten the squid, but was instead holding it out in its arm; watching Boal, it slowly made its way across the tank and shoved the squid down the drain. (The third-century Roman rhetorician Claudius Aelianus, a more sympathetic observer than Aristotle, identified the octopus’s main characteristic as ‘mischief and craft’.)

What does it feel like to be an octopus? Does it feel like anything at all? Or are octopuses, as Godfrey-Smith puts it, ‘just biochemical machines for which all is dark inside’? This form of question – ‘what is it like to be a bat?’ Thomas Nagel asked in a hugely influential paper in 1974 – is philosophical shorthand for asking whether a creature is conscious. Many philosophers think consciousness is an all or nothing phenomenon: you either have it or you don’t. Humans have it, as do perhaps chimps and dolphins. Mice, ants and amoebas presumably do not.

Part of the motivation for the all or nothing view is that it is difficult to imagine consciousness being possessed in degrees. Other cognitive attributes – like memory, linguistic capacity and problem-solving ability – are the sorts of thing that can and do vary in degree from creature to creature, and species to species. But it is harder to see how consciousness can vary in that way. As Godfrey-Smith puts it, ‘how can an animal be halfway to having it feel like something to be that animal?’ Yet, if consciousness is a natural thing, something that evolved over time, it seems unlikely that it just popped up at some point in evolutionary history, fully formed.

Godfrey-Smith starts with the conviction that consciousness is an evolved thing, and accepts the conclusion that it has more primitive precursors: that it comes in degrees after all. Consciousness – the possession of an ‘inner’ model of the ‘outer’ world, or the sense of having an integrated, subjective perspective on the world – is, on his view, just a highly evolved form of what he calls ‘subjective experience’.

Many animals, Godfrey-Smith thinks, have some degree of subjective experience, even if it falls short of full-blown consciousness. He points to what the physiologist Derek Denton called the ‘primordial emotions’: thirst, lack of air, physical pain. These sensations intrude on our more complex mental processes, refusing to be dismissed. They hark back to a more rudimentary form of experiencing the world – a form, Godfrey-Smith thinks, that does not require a sophisticated inner model of the world. ‘Do you think,’ he asks, that pain, thirst or shortness of breath ‘only feel like something because of sophisticated cognitive processing in mammals that has arisen late in evolution? I doubt it.’

The case of animal pain underscores Godfrey-Smith’s point. Simple animals respond to physical harm with what appears to be distress, and there is experimental evidence that suggests that they feel pain, that physical harm feels bad for them. Zebrafish, injected with what is assumed to be a painful chemical, will prefer an otherwise less desirable environment if a painkiller is dissolved in the water. Similarly, chickens with leg injuries will choose a feed they don’t normally favour if it is laced with a painkiller. Insects do not appear to feel pain, carrying on as usual even after major injuries. But shrimp and crabs groom their injured parts, and do so less when they are given an anaesthetic. None of this is dispositive evidence that animals feel pain – but then it isn’t clear what would be. As Godfrey-Smith puts it, ‘you can still doubt that these animals feel anything, yes. But you can doubt that about your next-door neighbour.’ If even simple animals have rudimentary forms of consciousness or subjective experience, what might that feel like? What does it feel like to be an injured crab? Here Godfrey-Smith reaches for a metaphor proposed by the evolutionary theorists Simona Ginsburg and Eva Jablonka: white noise. Primitive consciousness, he writes, might be like ‘a crackle of metabolic electricity’, an ‘inchoate buzz’ that grows, with evolutionary time, in complexity and clarity.

If consciousness comes in degrees, then where on the spectrum is the octopus? Octopuses almost certainly feel pain. They nurse and protect injured body parts, and don’t like to be touched near wounds. (Until recently, researchers operated on octopuses without anaesthetic, and much early work on them involved electric shocks. A 2010 EU directive on animal testing classifies cephalopods together with vertebrates because of their ‘ability to experience pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm’.) As well as feeling pain, octopuses have sophisticated sensory capacities: excellent eyesight, and acute senses of taste and smell.

This, together with their large nervous systems and complex behaviour, makes it all but certain, in Godfrey-Smith’s view, that octopuses have rich subjective experience. But they may have even more than this. According to some theorists, notably Stanislas Dehaene, a particular kind of mental processing, the sort that involves completing novel tasks extended over time, not only goes hand in hand with human consciousness, but helps explain why humans are conscious. The octopus’s curiosity and adaptability to novel circumstances are, Godfrey-Smith suggests, ‘reminiscent’ of these paradigmatically human forms of cognition. If so, then being an octopus might be more like being a human than we have tended to think.

The question of what subjective experience might be like for an octopus is complicated by the odd relationship between its brain and its body. An octopus’s arms have more neurons than its brain, about ten thousand neurons per sucker; the arms can taste and smell, and exhibit short-term memory. Each arm acts with considerable independence from the brain; even a surgically detached arm can reach and grasp, avoid painful stimuli, and change colour. (In The Soul of an Octopus, Montgomery imagines an octopus testing human intelligence by seeing how many colour patterns our severed arms can produce in one second.) Yet an octopus’s brain can exert executive control, ‘pulling itself together’ when it needs to, for example when an octopus puts out only a single inquisitive arm to inspect a stranger.

Godfrey-Smith suggests that the octopus is, phenomenologically speaking, in a hybrid situation: its arms are partly self, and partly other. Because of this, the octopus is sometimes held up as a mascot for the ‘embodied cognition’ movement in psychology, according to which the physical body, by constraining and making possible certain actions, is itself ‘intelligent’. The human ability to walk, for example, is not simply a matter of top-down brain control, but also a function of the angles of our joints; in this sense, our bodies encode information vital for intelligent action. There can be little doubt that an octopus’s embodiment is radically different from our own, and that understanding an octopus’s mind requires us to grasp its particular form of embodiment. But thinking about the octopus in terms of embodied cognition may undersell its strangeness. While it makes sense to think of our own bodies in terms of the constraints and opportunities they afford, the octopus’s body, as Godfrey-Smith says, is ‘protean, all possibility’. Even asking how much the body contributes to intelligent action presupposes a division between brain and body that seems not to apply to the octopus. The octopus’s body is pervaded by nervousness: it is not a thing controlled by the animal’s thinking part, but itself a thinking thing.

A further oddity in thinking about octopus experience has to do with the creature’s relationship to colour. An octopus’s skin is a layered screen of pixel-like sacs of colour called chromatophores, which make it possible for an octopus to change its colour at will to match its surroundings or threaten an aggressor. The so-called mimic octopus can impersonate more than 15 different animals, including flounder, lionfish and sea snakes, by changing its colour and shape. An octopus’s colour also seems to indicate its mood – some octopuses turn white after being caressed for a long time by humans, as well as after mating. The chromatic displays produced by octopuses can include elaborate patterns of stripes and spots, flashing rings and waves of rippling colour. Yet octopuses – like most cephalopods – appear to be colour-blind. Their eyes lack the variety of photoreceptors required to see colour, and octopuses are unable to distinguish between differently coloured objects in experimental tests. Researchers have recently discovered that octopuses have photoreceptors not only in their eyes but also in their skin, which suggests that the skin can see (as well as taste and smell), either by sending the visual information it receives to the octopus’s brain, or by processing the information itself. Both options are weird: either the skin as a whole becomes an eye, or the octopus’s body sees independently of the octopus’s brain. Even this isn’t the whole story, since the photoreceptors found in an octopus’s skin are, like those in its eyes, insufficient to detect colour. The best working hypothesis is that some complex interaction between the skin’s photoreceptors and chromatophores allows the octopus to adopt colours it cannot see.

Octopuses use their colour displays mainly for camouflage and signalling. But sometimes they produce elaborate colour displays for no apparent reason, in the absence of predators or other octopuses. Godfrey-Smith calls such purposeless displays ‘chromatic chatter’, suggesting they may just be an involuntary, metabolic effect. Could they be more intentionally expressive? Do octopuses talk to themselves? The problem with this thought is that octopuses appear not to have any language at all, and so presumably can no more talk to themselves than to others. (Wittgenstein famously argued for the conceptual impossibility of a ‘purely private language’, meaningful only to one person. Whether or not a private language is conceptually possible, it is evolutionarily unlikely, since the ability to talk to oneself appears to be a later internalisation of the ability to talk to others.) The megapixel screen of the octopus’s body means that theoretically it could telegraph information of almost infinite complexity – the sort of expressive bandwidth of which a chimp or baboon can only dream. Yet most of the chromatic signals produced by an octopus appear not to have any consistent effect on other octopuses, suggesting that they are signs without meaning, words with no sense.

Most species of octopus live for only a year or two; the Giant Pacific, the species that lives longest, dies after four years at most. Both female and male octopuses mate only once, and enter a swift and sudden decline into senescence soon after, developing white lesions on their skin, losing interest in food, and becoming unco-ordinated and confused. The females die from starvation while they tend their eggs, and the males are typically preyed on as they wander the ocean aimlessly. Most highly intelligent animals live significantly longer than octopuses, as do some other molluscs. Why is the octopus’s life so short? Ageing in general is explained by evolutionary theorists in terms of what is known as the Medawar effect: natural selection tends to weed out mutations whose harmful effects appear early in an animal’s life, but it is less likely to weed out mutations whose harmful effects manifest later on. This is because most animals succumb to death by predation, disease or accident before they reach the age where late-acting mutations could take effect. Late-acting mutations therefore accumulate in animal populations, eventually producing the appearance of a preprogrammed lifespan. In the octopus, the Medawar effect, coupled with an unusual body plan, has resulted in its uncommonly short lifespan. In its early evolutionary history, the octopus gave up its protective, molluscan shell in order to embrace a life of unboundaried potential. But the cost was an increased vulnerability to toothy and bony predators. An animal with a soft body and no shell cannot expect to live long, and so harmful mutations that take effect only once it has been alive for a couple of years will soon spread through the population. The result is a life that is experientially rich but conspicuously brief.

*

Earlier this summer, on a drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles, I went to see the octopuses at Monterey Bay Aquarium. At the time Monterey’s permanent octopus exhibit housed two Giant Pacifics, though there were more octopuses in its temporary show Tentacles, the largest ever exhibition of cephalopods. This was my second encounter with a live octopus. (I have had more encounters with dead octopuses at the dinner table than I care to recall. They make excellent carpaccio. Never again.) The first was off a beach in Mykonos, where I was snorkelling. There wasn’t much on the sea floor, just small crustaceans and darting silver fish, until I saw a red mass a few feet away, about the size of a cat, watching me with a single eye. I stayed still, watching it back. The octopus made small, unhurried movements, curling and uncurling its arms, snuffling along the floor. Eventually it crawled to a sunken rope some feet away and wrapped itself around it. Its body became a brown, barnacled coil, and then there was only a single white eye with a black dash of pupil. The eye closed, and the octopus vanished.

At Monterey the two Giant Pacifics were in adjacent tanks, each a few metres wide. The first octopus was energetic, unfurling its huge body and then compressing it, uncoiling its arms and pushing its suckers against the tank walls, boiling and jetting its way back and forth through the water. Tourists took flash photographs despite the sign warning that octopuses dislike bright lights. Children expressed admiration and disgust. When you’re looking at an octopus, your attention is naturally drawn to its rows of suckers, coiling arms and bulging body. Its eyes look sleepy, half-closed. You have to know what you’re looking for to see that they are open, and staring straight at you. I looked the octopus in the eyes and found it looking back at me, fixedly, as its body ballooned and hollowed behind it. The second octopus was quieter, bundled up at the top of her tank. A few thin strands of translucent, pearl-shaped eggs – laid and then painstakingly braided together with the thin tips of her arms – hung nearby, remnants of the clutch that had been removed by the aquarium keepers. Her skin was dull and white. She was dying.

The logic of aquariums, as with zoos, is the logic of conservation: individual animals must sacrifice their freedom so that the species as a whole can be protected. (As the philosopher Robert Nozick put it, ‘utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for humans.’) The conservationist logic is at its most compelling at an aquarium like Monterey, with its state of the art research centre, environmental policy unit, and public education programmes. Plenty of its creatures seem delighted to be there, as far as one can tell, and others seem perfectly unaware of where they are. No doubt many of these animals live longer and healthier lives than they would in the ocean. Yet ethical questions remain, raised by creatures, like the octopus, which so clearly yearn for freedom. Perhaps from our perspective the life of a wild octopus is already a tragic thing: sociality without society, speaking without being heard, a life-world without longevity. An alien. If only the octopus were more like us, we might be better at leaving it alone.

From top, a modern day horse (Equus caballus), followed by prehistoric horses Pliohippus, Merychippus, Miohippus, Mesohippus and Hyracotherium. New research lends support to existing hypotheses that early horses had several toes and evolved to have fewer toes as they gained mass. CreditDe Agostini Picture Library

All four-limbed, land-based vertebrates came from a common ancestor with legs that ended in five toes. Over time, many animals lost some of their digits: Hippos, rhinos and camels have four, three and two toes on each leg. But only one living group of animals ended up with a single toe per foot: the group containing modern horses.

A comprehensive new study, published last week in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, lends support to existing hypotheses about the dramatic transformation in horses’ hooves through history. Namely, as horses evolved and got larger from their ancestral, dog-sized form, it was better to have one very robust toe than several smaller ones to support their increased body mass. Furthermore, having just one toe reduced the weight horses had to carry at the end of each leg, making it easier for them to run and maneuver.

The study is a careful examination of “a story everyone had taken for granted and hadn’t really tested thoroughly,” said Christine Janis, a professor emerita of evolutionary biology at Brown University who was not involved in the research.

As told in textbooks and evolutionary biology classes, the earliest horses were small, dwelled in forests and had four toes on their front legs and three on their back legs. Then, more than 20 million years ago, their habitat in North America started to shift from forest to grassland. In these new grasslands, ancient horses needed to move at faster speeds to evade predators and cover more ground for grazing. It made sense that a larger body and longer, more slender legs with fewer toes would help horses achieve that.

Brianna McHorse, a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard University, wanted to see if this narrative checked out. In the new study, she and colleagues scanned leg fossils from 12 kinds of horses, ranging from the oldest ones that lived 55 million years ago to species in the same group as modern-day horses.

In previous work, the researchers had measured the stresses placed on the limbs of living horses as they performed various movements, like trotting, accelerating and jumping. Assuming ancient horses would have moved in similar ways, Ms. McHorse’s team created a model to estimate the forces acting on the lower legs, including the toes, of different horses over evolutionary history.

Early on, when horses were smaller and had more evenly-sized toes, their side digits were essential for carrying some body weight, the scientists showed. However, over time, as horses evolved larger bodies and their side toes started to shrink, their center toes became larger and more robust, compensating for the extra load, until they were the only digits left.

Ms. McHorse emphasized that the study does not definitively answer why horses’ side toes started to vanish. She suspected that transitioning to a single toe would have made it easier for horses to swing their legs back and forth at more impressive speeds (think of how it’s harder to run with weights around your ankles).

In fact, the athletic prowess of horses struck her as the most fascinating aspect of this story. Horses are an exception to the general rule that smaller animals are more maneuverable. Even horses that weigh more than a ton can trot, jump or gallop gracefully.

“If I had no knowledge of horses and you said, ‘Hey, there’s this animal that’s a big grazer and only has one toe,’ I would probably not expect it to be capable of the kind of speed and jumping and other athletic feats that horses are capable of,” Ms. McHorse said.

In fact, this single toe may have helped the beasts evolve the large size and agility they’re known for today.

rose.png

I’m reading a book called The Romantic Rose, see the featured image, by Murray Alcosser.  I love roses and right now my lone rose, a white one, is blooming.  I believe it is a floribunda, but its scent is rather sparse.  I am wondering why perhaps the soil is not acid enough? Seems not according to this article from the New York Times published June 24, 2010, about the New York (City) Botanical Gardens up in the Bronx.

EXACTLY 43 percent of the roses at the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx will experience their moment of truth this summer. Next Monday, Peter E. Kukielski, the curator, and his crew will not spray the plants, many of them new hybrids bred to survive, and even thrive, without pesticides.

”You will never know their true disease resistance until you stop spraying,” Mr. Kukielski said….

It was during that madness for the big fragrant bloom that never stopped, which began with the first hybrid perpetuals, back in the late 1800s, that the rose lost its disease resistance.

”The genetics started falling apart,” Mr. Kukielski said. ”The French were as mad about the hybrid perpetuals as the Dutch were about their tulips. But at the end of the season, these will have black spots, they will defoliate.”

Visitors come to this rose garden in July and August and ask Mr. Kukielski why those roses against the east wall  are not blooming. ”I say, ‘Well, you only see tulips in the spring, right?’ ” Mr. Kukielski said. ”And they say, ‘Yes, but roses should bloom all the time.”’

They must have been raised, as I was, with hybrid teas that were ugly plants that nevertheless bloomed until frost. That is, if Dad doused them with chemical fertilizer and pesticides. The American ideal rose went along with the perfect lawns that were similarly sprayed and fertilized, because most people weren’t thinking about chemicals washing into the water table or killing dogs and robins, much less themselves.

”Now, people are saying: ‘O.K., enough. I want to grow roses, but I don’t want to spray,’ and the hybridizers are listening,” Mr. Kukielski said.

But something’s got to give. If you breed for disease resistance and constant bloom, the scent gene often gets lost.   ”I think that will come,” he said. ”But scent now comes after disease resistance and repeat blooming.”

Of course, some of the old heritage roses you find surviving in cemeteries are incredibly fragrant, as well as disease resistant. They also survive neglect: weeks without water, for instance, during a dry spell. But these are the ones that Mr. Kukielski refers to, disparagingly, as ”an old story.”

They bloom ecstatically in spring, and then again in the fall, maybe.

… like mine.  I’ll have to take a picture.

Up ↑

Jack Bloggs Too

Just another nerd/geek/weirdo who also happens to write

R.S. Noel

Creative Writer who Thinks & Dreams in Realism

Satis Shroff's ZEITGEISTLITERATURE | Just another WordPress.com ... https://satisshroff.wordpress.com/

This is a blog about the spirit of the time, the general intellectual and moral state and the trend of culture and taste characteristic of an era. O tempora! O mores! O the times! O the manners!.

Tripambitions

It contains the world best places and things.

#tinaheals

Soul Guide, Life and Sacred Sexuality Coach, Tarot, Astrologer, Writer, Novelist, Poet, Healer, Meditator- a Multidisciplinary Creator!

Shop Catalog

Explore creative works by established & emerging authors & artists.
 Brought to you by the creative minds at Thought Catalog.

Celestial Priestess's Fourth Density Journal

Metaphyics, Horoscopes, Personal Blog, Modeling & Recommended Products,

Chinese Characters Decomposition

Chinese, language, learn, speak, write, textbook, contract, beginner, advanced, intermediate, commercial, marketing, correspondence, characters, radicals, decomposition, business, numbers, numerals, contract, email

ssbmahesh

don't use i use we

Chinese Commercial Correspondence

Chinese, language, learn, speak, write, textbook, contract, beginner, advanced, intermediate, commercial, marketing, correspondence, characters, radicals, decomposition, business, numbers, numerals, contract

In Dianes Kitchen

Recipes showing step by step directions with pictures and gadget reviews

Sabian Earth

Dromenon, LLC

Grandtrines

"I'm not a fatalist, but even if I were, what could I do about it?" - Emo Phillips

Sonia Medeiros

On Tarot, Magic, & Traditional Astrology

The AstroHerbalist - Lisa Allen, MH

Your Intuitive TIMING Expert!

Service with a smile

"Making people happy through good food"

Le Blog BlookUp

Imprimez et transformez vos contenus digitaux, blogs et réseaux sociaux, en magnifiques livres papier sur blookup.com