Monthly Archives: February 2007

Parasitic Birds and The Red Queen Effect

The Avian Brood Parasites

The Avian Brood Parasites

Brood parasitic birds lay their eggs in the nests of other birds (the “hosts”) who then raise them as their own. Examples of parasitic birds includes the cuckoo, cow birds, widow (“whyda”) birds, honeyguides, and even the South American Black-headed Ducks. Brood parasitism is virtually a world wide phenomenon.

Many interspecific brood parasites are obligate for this strategy … this is the only way they raise their own young. There are many variants (beyond the scope of this post). Intraspecific parasitism is known in many colonially nesting birds.

The Red Queen effect is a concept now widely known by aficionados of biology. The phrase is from Alice Through the Looking Glass, but the biological concept was first developed by Leigh Van Valen, a biologist at the University of Chicago.

While the Red queen and Alice are discussing chess, the following dialog and events ensue: Continue reading Parasitic Birds and The Red Queen Effect

Global Warming. Julia has the Last Word

“The 2nd of February in Paris will be remembered as the day that the question mark was removed from the idea that humans had anything to do with climate change,” says Achim Steiner, quoted here.

It is not really true. Groups of scientists have been saying this for quite some time. I wonder what George Bush will say next?

But even before this scientific panel’s report was finished, last night (I’ll post a picture later), my daughter, Julia presented her “Achievement Fair” ( = science fair) project on Global Warming and it’s effects in the polar region, entitled “Global Warming … breaking the ice.”

To my knowledge it was the first Achievement Fair entry at her school that explicitly called for the impeachment of the President of the United States … under the list of “Things to do” (along with other items such as use compact fluorescent bulbs, car pool, etc.). Continue reading Global Warming. Julia has the Last Word

Models of Sexual Selection

Darwin was puzzled by exaggerated traits. (Aren’t we all, really?) For example, why would a widow bird male have a tail so long that he could scarcely fly away from predators? Indeed, speaking of birds:

What a contrast is presented between the sexes by the polygamous peacock or pheasant, and the monogamous guinea-fowl or partridge! Many similar cases could be given, as in the grouse tribe, in which the males of the polygamous capercailzie and black-cock differ greatly from the females; whilst the sexes of the monogamous red grouse and ptarmigan differ very little. Amongst the Cursores, no great number of species offer strongly – marked sexual differences, except the bustards, and the great bustard (Otis tarda), is said to be polygamous. With the Grallatores, extremely few species differ sexually, but the ruff (Machetes pugnax) affords a strong exception, and this species is believed by Montagu to be a polygamist. Hence it appears that with birds there often exists a close relation between polygamy and the development of strongly-marked sexual differences. On asking Mr. Bartlett, at the Zoological Gardens, who has had such large experience with birds, whether the male tragopan (one of the Gallinaceæ) was polygamous, I was struck by his answering, “I do not know, but should think so from his splendid colours.”

Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume. 1. 1st edition. Pages 269-270

I don’t want to give a comprehensive (or bullet proof) “definition” of sexual selection. Instead, I want to lay out a few key ideas and suggest a way to think of models of sexual selection.

Darwinian Sexual Selection.
Females possess a built in aesthetic Continue reading Models of Sexual Selection

911 Reverberates in Boston

Aqua Teen Hunger
Force. They may be
scary looking but
they are cartoons, not
terrorists.

On September 11th, 2001, George Bush made one of the most significant and critical errors of his presidency.

Personally, I think George Bush is a total boob, and he has made many mistakes and we will all be paying for some of them for years to come. This particular mistake, though, is one that a lot of other people in the Office of the Presidency may have made, so I don’t want to lean too hard on Ol’ George for this one. But it was a mistake. Here is what happened.

A well trained and well funded group of nineteen criminals hijacked four airplanes. They flew three of them into buildings and a fourth into a cornfield in Pennsylvania, having been thwarted by an impromptu attack by the passengers on the plane (they had planned it seems to fly that plane into a public building in Washington D.C.). Thousands died.

The mistake that Bush made in concert with his advisors was to ground all nonemergency civilian aircraft for a number of days. This had immediate and long term economic effects and Continue reading 911 Reverberates in Boston