Even Mutualists Have To Constantly Fight To Stay Friends

As soon as you put more than one species in an ecosystem, you have species interactions. There are many kinds of these relationships, each defined by what each side gets out of the deal. Many of these you've heard of, though you might not have strict definitions for, like Competition or the Antagonism of predator and prey. One of the most fascinating relationships animals can have, though, is what is called Mutualism, where both sides benefit from the interaction.

Mutualism is very common: the classic example is the relationship pollinators and their plants. Around 70% of land plants require other species to help them reproduce via pollination. Often, the pollinators, like bees and wasps, gain food from the plant while the plant benefits by getting to mix its genes with other plants - a clear win-win for both. But both have to give up something, too, and whenever there is a cost to a relationship, both sides have good reason to cheat.

When I say cheat, I mean a species not keeping up their half of the deal. A species would gain something if they could maintain the positive benefits provided by another other species without having to expend whatever cost is associated with their side of the mutualistic bargain. A plant would benefit, for example, if it could attract its pollinators without having to make nectar or pretty flowers to attract them.

So how is mutualism maintained when there is strong evolutionary pressure to cheat? In some cases, it's by nature of the relationship. In the example above, it's simply hard for the plant to cheat because skimping on the goods directly affects how the other side acts - no nectar-laden flowers, no reason for a bee or other bug to stop and get covered in pollen.

But some mutualist relationships are easier to cheat on - take the case of fig wasps.

Fig wasps are wasps that lay their eggs in fig flowers. As these flowers turn into fruits, the wasp larvae are protected and fed by the fig, costing the tree resources. This relationship looks parasitic at first glance: the wasp gets healthy babies while the fig gets its fruit ruined. But the wasp has a promise it must keep to the tree: when it lays its eggs, it has to pollinate flowers so the tree can produce seeds.

There are actually two kinds of fig wasps: one that pollinates passively and one that pollinates actively. The passive pollinators collect pollen on their extremities and, while climbing around to deposit eggs, pollinate the trees' flowers without even thinking about it. Passively pollinating wasps do not expend extra energy to pollinate, and they cannot easily avoid carrying pollen, so there's no real way or reason for them to cheat.

David Attenborough explains their relationship rather nicely:


The active pollinators are much more deliberate about things: female wasps specifically collect pollen in specialized pouches (see R) and deposit it on another tree's flowers by choice when they lay their eggs. Active pollinators don't have to pollinate, per se - they can, and do sometimes, flit around without collecting pollen and bring it to another tree. After all, it costs the wasp time and energy to go about collecting and lugging around pollen, so why bother if they don't have to? Instead, the female wasps just infect flowers with wasp eggs, acting more like a parasite than a mutualist.

Clearly, there's an easy, good reason for the wasp to short-change the tree. But, if there's good reason for the wasps to cheat, there is equally good reason for the trees to catch them, evolutionarily speaking. Having a cheating wasps' young growing in its fruit does the tree no good whatsoever. But can the trees spot cheaters and somehow punish them for it?

That's the question that biologists K. Charlotte Jandér and Edward Allen Herre wanted to answer. To find out, they carefully watched six different species of figs, four that had active pollinating wasps and two that had passive pollinating wasps. They wanted to see if the actively-pollinated trees somehow reacted differently to loyal wasps who pollinated like they're supposed to and cheaters. Since it's hard to tell if a wasp is doing its job, instead, the researchers intentionally manipulated the wasps. For each fig tree–pollinator species-pair, they experimentally produced pollen-carrying and artificially pollen-free wasps, which, because they had no pollen, played the role of cheaters. They then waited to see how well the cheaters larvae survived.

They found that the passively pollinated figs had no system in place to protect against cheaters - which is exactly what you'd expect, since it's basically impossible for a passive-pollinating wasp to get around on the flowers without pollinating, meaning that cheating is not likely.

The actively pollinated figs, on the other hand, all punished cheaters.

First off, the figs carrying cheater offspring were aborted more frequently. When a fig aborts a larvae-containing fruit, it kills all of the larvae inside. One active species only kept around 3% of the number of figs that the passive pollinated species did. But to punish them even more, the fig also manipulated the conditions within the growing fruits which contained cheating larvae - per fruit, fewer cheater adults emerged than non-cheating ones. In one species of fig, almost no cheaters survived to adulthood - just 5% of the number that emerged from passively pollinated figs. How exactly the fig changes the condition of the fruit to harm the growing larvae isn't yet known.

This made the scientists wonder how common cheaters were in the wild, and whether the species that strongly reacted to cheating were plagued by more cheaters. As expected, they didn't find any pollen-free passive pollinating wasps, but they did find active pollinating ones that weren't carrying the goods. They also found that the species that cheated the most lived on the fig tree that punished them the least.

These data strongly support consistent coevolution between the fig wasps and their trees. If the tree doesn't catch cheaters, the wasps exploit their longtime friends, and since cheating isn't punished, cheating young grow up and continue cheating, leading to high frequencies of cheaters. This rapidly degrades their relationship from mutualism to parasite-host. However, if the trees respond by culling free-riders, they reduce the number of wasps inclined to cheat and maintain the true mutualism that the two have had for around 80 million years.

Mutualism is often portrayed as "playing nice", a beautiful harmony between species. Just listen to how the relationship between active pollinating fig wasps and their trees is portrayed in this PBS special:


How sweet. Too bad it's totally not true. Just like the arms races between predator and prey or parasite and host, mutualist species constantly adapt to try get the upper hand in their relationship. There is still a battle going on between even the best of friends to gain an evolutionary advantage, and just like other interactions, mutualists have to constantly evolve to maintain the status quo.

Jander, K., & Herre, E. (2010). Host sanctions and pollinator cheating in the fig tree-fig wasp mutualism Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2157

Evolution: The Curious Case of Dogs

Man's best friend is much more than a household companion - for a few centuries, artificial selection in dogs has made them prime examples of the possibilities of evolution. A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin recognized how the incredibly diverse dogs supported his revolutionary theory in his infamous "On The Origin Of Species." At the time, he believed that dogs varied so much that they must have been domesticated from multiple canine species. Even still, he speculated that:

if... it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many closely allied natural species...inhabiting the different quarters of the world.

If only Darwin knew what we know now, that indeed, all dogs did descend from one species! While humans have been breeding dogs for over ten thousand years, it was until recently that strict breeds and the emphasis on "purebreds" has led to over 400 different breeds that are some of the best examples of the power of selection. Those that doubt that small variations in traits can lead to large levels of diversity clearly haven't compared a Pug to a Great Dane - I mean, just look at them compared to their ancestor:


We've turned a fine-tuned hunting animal, the wolf, into a wide variety of creatures, from the wolf-looking shepherds to the bizarre toy breeds. Before domestication, dog's life was tough, but when people pulled specific wolves out of their packs and began breeding them, we changed everything. There were some traits that made this easy - the social structure of wolves, for example, made them predisposed to belonging to a community. But we opened up a number of genetic traits and allowed them to express variety that would have been fatal in the wild. We not only allowed these traits to persist, we encouraged them. We picked dogs that were less aggressive or looked unique. And in doing so, we spurred on rapid diversification and evolution in an unbelievable way.

Take their skulls, for example. Like other members of the order Carnivora, dog's skulls have a few distinctive characteristics: relatively large brains and a larger-than-normal structure called a zygomatic arch which allows for bite power and chewing. But years of hand-picked puppies has led to an amazing amount of skull diversity in dogs. A study recently compared the positions of 50 recognizable points on the skulls of dogs and compared them to each other and other members of the order Carnivora. There was as much variety in the shape of the skulls of dogs as in the entire rest of the order, and the extremes were further apart. What does that mean, exactly? It means that the differences between the skulls of that Pug and Great Dane I mentioned before (on R) are greater than the differences between the skulls of a weasel and a walrus. Much of the variation in dogs is outside the range of the rest of the order, meaning their shapes are entirely unique. In just a couple centuries, our choices have created unbelievable variety in the heads of dogs - more than 60 million years has created in the rest of the carnivores.

The amazing diversity of dogs is a testimonial to the possibilities of selection. And it's not just their skulls that vary. A joint venture between the University of Washington and the Veterinary School at UC Davis mapped the variation in the genomes of 10 different breeds of dogs. They found that at least 155 different regions of the dog's genome show evidence of strong artificial selection. Each region contained, on average, 11 genes, so it's harder to identify exactly what about each area was under the most selection, though there were clues. About 2/3 of these areas contain genes that were uniquely modified in only one or two breeds, suggesting they contain genes that are highly breed-restricted like the skin wrinkling in the Shar-Pei. Another 16 had variations in 5 or more breeds, suggesting they encode for traits that are altered in every breed, like coat and size.

While we usually think of evolution as a slow and gradual process, dogs reveal that incredible amounts of diversity can arise very quickly, especially when selective pressures are very, very strong. It's not hard to see how selection could lead to the differentiation of species - just look at the over 400 breeds of dogs that exist today. There's a reason that you don't see many Chihuahua/Saint Bernard mixes: while it's entirely possible for their genetics to mix, it's just physically difficult for these two breeds to actually do it. Just imagine what a poor Chihuahua female would have to endure to give birth to such a mix, or how hard it would be for male Chihuahua to mount a female Saint Bernard. Indeed, dogs are well on their way to speciation.

Of course, it’s at this point that I have to mention that while I have talked about “dogs” this entire time, they’re not actually a different species. Wolves are Canis lupus, while dogs are merely a subspecies of wolves, Canis lupus familiaris. Despite centuries of selective breeding and the vast array of physical differences, dogs are still able to breed with their ancestors.

When you take away the selective breeding done by humans, a number of these unique traits disappear. But feral dogs don't just become wolves again - their behaviors and even looks depend greatly on the ecological pressures that surround them. Our centuries of selective breeding have opened a wide variety of traits, both physical and behavioral, that may help a stray dog survive and breed.

A good example of what happens to dogs when people are taken out of the picture lies in Russia’s capital city. Feral dogs have been running around Moscow for at least 150 years. These aren't just lost pets that band together – these dogs been on their own for awhile, and indeed, any poor, abandoned domesticated canine will meet an unfortunate fate at the hands of these territorial streetwalkers. Moscow's dogs have lost traits like spotted coloration, wagging tails and friendliness that distinguish domesticated dogs from wolves – but they haven’t become them. The struggle to survive is tough for a stray, and only an estimated 3% ever breed. This strong selective pressure has led them to evolve into four distinct behavioral types, according to biologist Andrei Poyarkov who has studied the dogs for the past 30 years. There are guard dogs, who follow around security personnel, treating them as the alpha leaders of their packs. Others, called scavengers, have evolved completely different behaviors, preferring to roam the city for garbage instead of interacting with people. The most wolf-like dogs are referred to as wild dogs, and they hunt whatever they can find including cats and mice.

But the last group of Moscow's dogs is by far the most amazing. They are the beggars, for obvious reasons. In these packs, the alpha isn't the best hunter or strongest, it's the smartest. The most impressive beggars, however, get their own title: 'metro dogs'. They rely on scraps of food from the daily commuters who travel the public transportation system. To do so, the dogs have learned to navigate the subway. They know stops by name, and integrate a number of specific stations into their territories.

This dramatic shift from the survival of the fittest to the survival of the smartest has changed how Moscow's dogs interact with humans and with each other. Beggars are rarely hit by cars, as they have learned to cross the streets when people do. They've even been seen waiting for a green light when no pedestrians are crossing, suggesting that they have actually learned to recognize the green walking man image of the crosswalk signal. Also, there are fewer "pack wars" that once were commonplace between Moscow's stray canines, some of which used to last for months. However, they remain vigilant against the wild dogs and wolves that live on the outskirts of the city – rarely, if ever, are they permitted into Moscow. When politicians thought to remove the dogs, their use as a buffer against these animals was cited as a strong reason not to disturb them.

Moscow's exemplary dogs show how different traits help dogs adapt to different ecological niches – whether it be brute strength for hunting in the truly feral wild dogs or intelligence in the almost-domesticated beggars. Some wonder if the strong selection for intellect will make Moscow’s metro dogs into another species all together, if left to their own devices.

Dogs make it easy to understand and demonstrate the core principles of evolution – variation and selection – and how they can make such a dramatic impact on an animal. It's no wonder that Darwin took cues from domesticated animals when formulating his theory of evolution. However, there's still a lot to learn about the processes that have shaped our best friends, and what future lies for them. How much time will it take to completely separate dogs from wolves, into their own species? What areas of the genome are key to doing so? In studying dogs and wolves, we may gain insight into how speciation occurs and when a threshold of change is met for it to do so. Seeing how much change has occurred already makes you wonder what surprises our canine companions still have in store for us as they, and we, continue to evolve together over the next ten thousand years.

Citations:
Drake, A., & Klingenberg, C. (2010). Large Scale Diversification of Skull Shape in Domestic Dogs: Disparity and Modularity The American Naturalist DOI: 10.1086/650372

Akey, J., Ruhe, A., Akey, D., Wong, A., Connelly, C., Madeoy, J., Nicholas, T., & Neff, M. (2010). Tracking footprints of artificial selection in the dog genome Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (3), 1160-1165 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0909918107

Poyarkov, A.D., Vereshchagin, A.O., Goryachev, G.S., et al., Census and Population Parameters of Stray Dogs in Moscow, Zhivotnye v gorode: Mat-ly nauchno-prakt. konf. (Proc. Scientific and Practical Conf. Animals in the City ), Moscow, 2000, pp. 84 87.

Vereshchagin, A.O., Poyarkov, A.D., Rusov, P.V., et al., Census of Free-Ranging and Stray Animals (Dogs) in the Coty of Moscow in 2006, Problemy issledovanii domashnei sobaki: Mat-ly soveshch (Proc. Conf. on Problems in Studies on the Domestic Dog), Moscow, 2006, pp. 95 114.

I'm on the Internets!

By that, of course, I mean the more widely read internets: specificially, the Charlotte Observer's online content. They're featuring my blog this week in their science section. I knew I was going to be in print, but I didn't know I was going to be online, too! Totally cool. Anyhow, go check it out. And you can check out the full version of that blog right here.

Weekly Dose of Cute: Baby Tern

The Hawaiian archipelago has a lot of amazing and adorable creatures. Here's a great shot of a baby white tern, or Manu-o-ku, c/o my lab mate Tonatiuh. It was taken by National Geographic explorers in 2005 while they were in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

When people think of Hawaii, they think of the 8 main islands where people live, but the archipelago stretches another 1,200 miles and includes many islands and atolls with vibrant coral reefs and amazing wildlife. This area is so special it's practically off limits to everyone but scientists, protected by NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary program. The protected area, called the Papahānaumokuākea Marine Monument is huge - almost 140,000 square miles. For comparison, the entire state of California covers an area of about 163,000 square miles. It's bigger than the Great Barrier Reef, or all the national parks combined. You can learn more about the over 7000 native species of fish, turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds at the sanctuary's site.

White Terns (Gygis alba rothchildi), or "Fairy Terns" as they are often called, are beautiful all-white seabirds with black rings around their eyes. They feed primarily on fish caught by diving at the water's surface. While they have to return to land daily, they can fly as far as 120 miles from shore. They grow to about a foot in length, and are found on many of the subtropical islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans. This little fledgling would have been incubated by both its parents, who take shifts for the 36 days it takes for the baby to develop. Interestingly, these birds do not build nests, instead an egg is laid in some natural nest-like depression. Approximately 7,500 White Terns breed on the Midway Islands, part of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine Monument.

Reflections after Science Online 2010 (#Scio10)

I'm writing this while on the plane, flying back from a fantastic weekend in North Carolina. Before I can even begin reflecting on the past few days, I have to thank NESCent again for their generous travel grant which allowed me to go to Science Online in the first place. Without their funding, I'd have spent the weekend laying out on a beach instead of freezing my butt off with over 200 amazing people who, thought diverse in many ways, all have one thing in common: a passion for science communication. Sure, the beach would have been a lot warmer and more relaxing, but going to Science Online 2010 is an experience I wouldn't trade for anything. Besides, the beach will be there when I get back.

Continue reading!

It was truly a treat to be able to attend this year's unconference. Firstly, I got to meet the likes of Carl Zimmer, Ed Yong, Brian Switek, Dr. M., John Logsdon, Miriam Goldstein (or should I link to her here?), Jason Robertshaw, Scicurious, Kevin Zelnio, the whole of Southern Fried Science and so many other bloggers and science journalists (not that I'm making a distinction!!!) that I have long admired (that list is small - I've been flying for 12 hours. I'm too frickin' tired to list everyone). It was so wonderful to finally put faces to the names and personalities that I read every day!

As for the conference itself, it has given me a lot to think about. I'm not exactly sure how to explain the thoughts rolling around in my head, but I feel like I ought to try, for the first thing I really got out of SciO 10 was that I need to put more of myself into my blog. This blog has my tone of voice and my passion, but not myself. I'm not sure my readers really feel like they know me, and I think you should. I don't write under a pseudonym because I'm proud of my writing and my opinions, so why do I hold back and keep you from experiencing more of me? I shouldn't. So I'm going to work on that.

What else did I walk away with? Mostly, uncertainty. I love this blog. I love to write, and I love to share my passion for science, but I feel like I'm still searching for my niche. Where, in the whole wide world of the world wide web, does Observations of a Nerd fit in? What is the real point of this blog? What makes it unique and important?

This is something I struggle with as a scientist, too. My interests are eclectic, and my dissertation proposal reflects that. Unfortunately, that means it doesn't fit into an easy funding category, and I have to struggle to show that I have the skills and knowledge to straddle so many fields.

I feel like defining myself boxes me in. It closes doors that I haven't even gotten to peek through yet. What if what I really love and desire is lying behind some door that my definition closes off? In my career, I'm not easily willing to do that, and I've decided that's OK. I've got the time, energy, and resources to figure things out the hard way.

The problem is, staying amorphous and undefined leaves me standing in the hallway. I feel like Observations of a Nerd is an outsider, without a sense of place. It sounds so high school when I say it like this, but I just don't feel like Observations fits in. It's not entirely an ocean blog, or a biology blog, or a neuroscience blog, or a grad-student blog. Sometimes I feel like it's not even entirely a science blog!

I've always doing my own thing, and ended up outside the mainstream because of it. That was fine with me in high school, and it's fine with me as a scientist, but it just doesn't work for me as a blogger. The whole point of blogging is to connect with others, to reach out and share something and bring people together, even if never realized they had something in common. If Observations of a Nerd is stuck on the edges, it's not achieving my goals. It's not connecting people. I want this blog to be a part of a greater community, an important voice in a larger group. Instead, I feel like it ends up sitting in the cafeteria by itself playing with its food because it didn't know who to sit with, while all the other blogs are giggling with their friends. Ok, the high school metaphor is getting a little thin, but I think you get what I mean.

This blog is not living up to its potential, and it's my fault.

The problem is, I don't know how to solve the problem. What is this blog's purpose, it's identity?

I feel like Observations of a Nerd needs something like a mission statement. I'm hoping that you can help.

What do you get out of this blog? Why do you read it? What draws you back, and what would draw you even more? What stands out? More importantly, what would you like to see? Are there some kinds of posts you prefer (research-oriented, fun with science, etc)? What should stay, and what should go? What's missing? What needs to be improved, what needs to change? Or am I just really over thinking things, and this is all in my head?

Please comment and talk about your opinions of this blog, it's strengths, weaknesses, and whatever else you like. I am really looking for feedback here!

Research Blogging Awards!

If you read this blog, odds are you appreciate those who write about peer-reviewed research. You might have even noticed that little check-mark page image on the upper left hand side of some of my posts: that handy image lets you know that that blog post has been registered with ResearchBlogging.org, a FANTASTIC site which collects posts from all over the web about all kinds of scientific research.

Well, now they've decided it's time to reward the best of the best in research blogging, so they're giving out cash prizes in all kinds of categories. Any blog that has included peer reviewed research in their content is eligible for nomination, and you DON'T have to be a member of ResearchBlogging to nominate a blog of your choice.

So get your butt over there and nominate your favorite research blogs to give them the chance to make a little extra $$$!!!!

(PS: you're including this little blog in that list of favorites...RIGHT?!)
(PPS: I'd recommend best Bio blog or best Lay-Level blog for OOAN.)

Farm Fugitives Feasting On Fiji's Fish?

Tilapia has quickly risen the ranks as an important aquaculture fish. It's third in production behind carps and salmon, with over 1,500,000 metric tons produced every year. They're ideal fish farm species because they're omnivorous, fairly big, quick-growing, tolerate high densities quite well and are mighty tasty.

More than anything else, tilapia are hailed as one of aquaculture's greatest successes. Cheap and easy, they breed well and are considered far more environmentally friendly than other species because they can be fed a vegetarian diet. Conservation organizations have even set up a way that farmers can certify that their tilapia farm is environmentally friendly.

Tilapia species have been in Fiji since at least 1949. At first they were introcued to feed pigs, but once tilapia began to be seen as good for people, too, Fijians began farming them for human consumption. Fish ponds were constructed in the interior areas of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu to provide supplemental animal protein to the protein-deficient inland rural communities. In 1999, fish farms in Fiji produced 300 tonnes of tilapia, and outputs have continued to rise. Since most of Fiji's cultured fish are distributed locally, tilapia are feeding a lot of Fiji's people every year.

But there's a downside to being the perfect fish to farm: tilapia are also a highly damaging invasive species, for many of the same reasons they're so perfectly adaptable to aquaculture. Because they grow fast and eat whatever is available, they're very adaptable to living in just about any freshwater environment that's warm enough. they've invaded the waterways of many of the countries that farm them commercially from accidental or intentional releases from farms. In Fiji, a new study has revealed that these escapees are damaging the natural biodiversity of Fiji's waterways.

Researchers from Wetlands International, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International set out to better understand the nature of Fiji's fresh water systems and what forces are damaging them. They sampled native fish from all over the Fiji, including 20 river basins on the major islands of Vitu Levu, Vanua Levu, and Taveuni, and at the same time recorded possible factors that might be influencing native fish density like the presence of invasive tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), forest cover, distance upstream or downstream, and water quality variables.

They found that two things correlated strongly to the diversity of native fish in an area. Firstly, they found that the more an area had been cleared for housing or other reasons, the fewer species of native fish. It was not shocking to find that human activity damaged the native ecosystems, as similar results have been found all over the world. It was the second variable that decimated native fish diversity that made headlines: the presence of tilapia species (genus Oreochromis).

Of the 89 different sample locations surveyed, 85.4% had been invaded by tilapia. The study found that where this occurred, native fish diversity suffered greatly. In areas free of Oreochromis, there were, on average, 16 species of native fish. Where the invaders lived, however, there were only four, a 75% drop in diversity. The the throat-spine gudgeon, the olive flathead-gudgeon, and other gobies were hit the hardest, including species that have been traditionally fished and eaten by Fijians for generations.

Why the tilapia have such a dramatic impact is not certain, but the researchers think that it might be a very direct reason: tilapia are known to eat larvae and juvenile fish, and the researchers think that they might be chowing down on the native young'uns.

In Fiji, the loss of native fish is as much a cultural issue as it is an environmental one. Many native species form an important part of the diet of inland communities, and, in particular, are important in small villages where fish are caught not farmed. The decline in the market trade of traditional Fijian fish damages the poorest who have the most trouble switching to other sources of income.

According to the scientists, "An ecosystem approach to management is required that: (1) incorporates conservation of forests... and (2) actively excludes introduction of Oreochromis spp." In other words, protect the forests and get rid of the tilapia.

It's a good plan for the native fish, but as the human populations continue to expand, countries like Fiji will, out of necessity, rely more and more heavily on compact, efficient means of producing food like fish farms. As they do so, it will be harder and harder to keep the fish in the farms from escaping and damaging the surrounding habitat. While this paper serves to warn of the downsides of aquaculture, it unfortunately doesn't provide a solution to the underlying problem of too many mouths to feed on limited resources. I fear that even the most eco-friendly methods of feeding the world come at a price that may be too steep for many native species.

Citation: Jenkins, A., Jupiter, S., Qauqau, I., & Atherton, J. (2009). The importance of ecosystem-based management for conserving aquatic migratory pathways on tropical high islands: a case study from Fiji Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1086

Open Lab 2009!

It's finally here! We have a list of elite blog posts chosen by the best of the best to publish in this year's Open Laboratory.

Yours truly got the double honor - I got to help judge the entries and, by some miracle, one of mine made the cut!

I display these proudly:



Anyhow, go check out all the winners and congrats to all who made it!

Weekly Dose of Cute: Baby Tiger

I just realized I haven't done a weekly dose of cute baby tiger before! I'm actually a little shocked. Well, here's a real cute one for ya - so ferocious! :)

Photo credit to Associated Press
The little tyke is a white tiger born at the Chilean National Zoo. There are more pictures, too - to see the rest of the cuteness, pop over to Zooborns.com.

Mmmmmm...

I just saw this ad for Science World for the first time, and I think it's brilliant.



Science World, for those not from Vancouver, British Columbia, is a science center that seeks to make science education a little more fun, including hundreds of interactive exhibits and its own OMNIMAX theater. You can see some more of their great adverts at Rethink Communications. Kudos for the good science-educating work, and even more for the great ads!

(thanks, Joel, for the hat-tip to Rethink's link!)

Carnival of Evolution #19!

Well, it's 2010, and it's time for another edition of the Carnival of Evolution! Without further ado...

First up we have a fascinating discovery brought to us by GrrlScientist over at Living the Scientific Life. Scientists have recently discovered a new species of orchid. This one is definitely unique - it's TINY! Check out the minuscule newest addition to the plant kingdom!

Speaking of interesting species, our next submission documents an interesting creepy crawly species. Ted C. MacRae talks about the evolution of a "really" big-headed tiger beetle over at Beetles In The Bush.

Of course, interesting species come in all sizes. Just check out theplant trypanosomatids that Psi Wavefunction talks about at Skeptic Wonder. Still want more protists? Psi Wavefunction also talks about Paramyxids, which are kind of like a parasitic Russian Doll.

While we're looking small, Shuna Gould gives us a fascinating look at Bacterial evolution posted at Lab Rat. Which came first, the Gram positives or the Gram negatives? Good question!

While we're looking at evolution in tiny critter, Bjørn Østman has a great post about adaptation in a fungus. Check out his submission posted at Pleiotropy.

Evolution isn't just for the microbes: John from A DC Birding Blog tells us about evolution in birds, explaining how raptor talons fit their prey. Who knew?

John Suter from Kind of Curious found out that he was curious about the same thing as Darwin - giant caterpillars.

Often, conversations about our own behaviors look to aggressive species like chimps or gorillas for clues to our origins. But Andrew Bernardin's has some thoughts on the Bonobo posted at The Evolving Mind. Do the sexy primates reveal more about our nature than we think?

While we're turning the focus inward, we have to read Adam M. Goldstein's take on Philip Kitcher on the Evolution of Morality posted at Evolution: Education and Outreach.

Of course, what would the carnival of evolution be without sex? John fills the void by telling us about twisting genitals and forced copulation: the strange sex lives of ducks. And you thought your sex life was interesting...

And speaking of sex, Zen Faulkes from NeuroDojo has some simple advice for living a longer life - don’t have kids! Well, at least if you're a lizard...

Looking at the bigger picture, Greg Laden has some Reflections on the Origin of Species posted at His Blog.

And lastly, be sure to follow good 'ole Charlie D. as he hops around at Southern Fried Science for 365 days of Darwin!

Well, that's about it! Next month there will be another fascinating edition of the Carnival, so submit your blog article to the next edition of carnival of evolution using the carnival submission form. Until then, keep evolving!