I continue to be fascinated by dolphins
Not only do dolphins have wingmen, but they form the largest complex social networks of any non-human animal
|
"The Ancient Art of Falconry at the Jersey Shore"
I have always had a deep love and fascination with falconry. I can think of a few things from my childhood which likely contributed to this fascination. First, I remember doing a book report in elementary school on peregrine falcons and being fascinated when I learned how fast they could fly. Secondly, I loved reading "My Side of the Mountain" by Jean Craighead George, as a kid. The protagonist ends up with a pet falcon and I just loved that idea. I also had a friend in elementary school who's dad worked with Sea World with their birds of prey and so I was fascinated there as well.
Knowing that the ancient art still exists to assist modern times is always fascinating. I think I've posted a link before to a story about falconry's ongoing use in Mongolia. I might have to dig that up.
|
"The Bizarre Bird That’s Breaking the Tree of Life"
I'd never heard of a hoatzin until I came across this article. Then, while the article sit in my virtual "to read" pile, I saw a Twitter thread of discussion about it which only reaffirmed that I needed to read both it and then the thread.
When Stiller joined the project, her colleagues were combing through museums and laboratories to sample three hundred and sixty-three bird species, chosen carefully to represent the diversity of living birds. With help from four supercomputers in three different countries, they began to compare each bird’s DNA to figure out how they were related. “I think there was always this idea that, once we sequence full genomes, we will be able to solve it,” Stiller told me. But, early in the process, she encountered an evolutionary enigma called Opisthocomus hoazin. “I was completely amazed by this bird,” she said.
I thought this quote in the article was really interesting:
The hoatzin may be more than a missing piece of the evolutionary puzzle. It may be a sphinx with a riddle that many biologists are reluctant to consider: What if the pattern of evolution is not actually a tree?
As mentioned (and linked) above, here's the Twitter thread which should be read after the article that supports the author's premise:
In that thread, I particularly like this point, noting that many scientists aren't being beholden to 'Darwin's monument' (tree thinking):
To me, "Tree thinking" as the article and the Twitter thread discuss, is actually "Forest thinking" to accept that there might be multiple trees and that some trees might connect on various branches. But, I'm not a biologist, and given that this is hugely complex overall - even that might be problematically simplifying it.
|
