There's always a biological excuse...

It's almost a given that, during any discussion about male infidelity, someone will throw out some variation of "men are biologically programmed to spread their seed."

Why is there this theory that men are more driven to cheat? Part of it has to do with the size of their gametes. If bigger is better, then men are pathetic, for their little sperm are 1/100th the size of a woman's egg. Because women have such a greater investment in each offspring right from the get-go, the assumption is that women are pickier when it comes to who they allow to fertilize their eggs. Men, since it doesn't cost them much anyway, are better off getting as many women to agree to let them fertilize. In mammals (like us), this difference in investment is further exacerbated by long, internal pregnancies and lactation, which place even more of the burden on the mother. It just makes so much sense - it's clear, simple, and like most biological explanations that are clear and simple, it's nowhere near the whole story.

Even still, we've internalized this supposed biological explanation so much so that it's almost an excuse. In an article about why men cheat, for example, it's carefully explained that "The biological urge to mate with many different partners is stronger in men than it is in women" and that "males mate with multiple females to ensure the survival of the species." Well, I guess if it's to ensure the survival of the species...

Perhaps, then, my female readers will appreciate a new study published in Current Biology which suggests that it's the women whose infidelity is important in ensuring species survival. Indeed, as they explain, females having multiple male partners may be vital in preventing extinction!

Ever since the "spreading the seed" explanation for why males are so sexually liberal was proposed, there have been a few issues with it. The most glaring one was that in many animals, women, too, have multiple partners. Some species seem to have the roles reversed, where women are dominant and have harems of male suitors. Even in species that seemed monogomous, it turned out the women were cheating - in many species of monogomous birds, for example, females actively seek "extra-pair copulations" (ornithologist speak for affairs), and up to 75% of the chicks were being raised by males that were not their dad!

Biologists began to realize that women, too, can benefit from sneaking around. In monogamous species, a female is stuck with whatever guy she gets to raise her young, even if isn't the biggest or the brightest. It's a shame, to her, that she can't have better babies, for surely her lackluster hubby's offspring will be less than ideal. Cheating, it was believed, gave a woman the best of both worlds. She gets to have a dedicated, loyal sub-par male take care of her young, but the young are born from better stock that she secured on the side.

The problem is, nothing explained polyandry - a mating system where women have multiple "husbands" or partners. Considering that there is a higher biological cost to the female to mate, why would she ever want to have a permanent array of suitors demanding her attention? It seemed like there was something missing. Biologists Tom Price, Greg Hurst, and Nina Wedell believed there was more to the story.

It turns out that the bigger picture may be genetic. Mutations in chromosomes can lead to what is called sex ratio distortion. There are certain alterations that, for whatever reason, cause the sperm containing either the X (female) or Y (male) chromosome to fail to fertilize. They are termed Sex-Ratio Distorter Genes or Chromosomes (SR genes or chromosomes) because they alter the balance of males to females in a population. Because mutations are constantly occurring, there is always a risk that all-male or all-female broods will be born, the result of which is potential extinction of a population or a species, if the altered gene becomes widespread.

The team hypothesized that female promiscuity may help protect against SR chromosomes that develop in males. They tested their hypothesis using a known SR chromosome in the the fruitfly Drosophila pseudoobscura. This particular mutation, when carried by a male, causes all of his sperm that carry a Y chromosome to die before they can fertilize, though it has no clear effect on eggs when carried by females. Because it doesn't detriment female gametes, this kind of mutation can persist and spread until, eventually, not enough males are being produced to maintain a population.

They created populations of fruitflies where 30% of the flies carried the SR mutation. They then had one population breed freely, where females mated with a number of males, while in the other, females were restricted to a male apiece. They bred these populations for several generations to see if there were any differences between the two.

In just fifteen generations, almost half of the monogamous populations became extinct because there weren't enough men around. Meanwhile, none of the populations with the promiscuous girls died out. In the monogamous populations that survived, the SR chromosome was far more prevalent than in the polyandrous ones.

Why did those populations fare so much better? It's likely the effect of sperm competition. When a female mates with many males, each of their sperm is vying to fertilize her eggs. Since the SR males produce half the sperm that normal males do, they've got an instant disadvantage in a system where they have to compete, meaning the damaging chromosome is less likely to spread.

This study is the first to suggest that a polyandrous mating system could have evolved as a means to protect against sex-ratio distortion-induced extinction. Of course, extrapolating these results to other species is more difficult, so it's impossible to say that this study has any grand relevance to humans. It does, however, plant the seed of possibility that female promiscuity is healthy and vital in a population.

So boys, next time I hear you say that men are dogs because it's 'biological', expect to hear a lecture about how girls can sleep with whomever they want because it will save the species. Jus' sayin'.

Price, T., Hurst, G., & Wedell, N. (2010). Polyandry Prevents Extinction Current Biology DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.050

How Twitter Made Me Into A Citizen Journalist

I awoke this morning at 5:50 am because of a nightmare, only to hop online and find out another one had occurred in Chile. An 8.8 magnitude earthquake had struck. Ten minutes later, the first tsunami warning siren sounded.

It was deafening.

I remember when I was a little kid growing up in Hawaii Kai, there was a tsunami warning. In the end the water only raised by a few inches. In the past few months since I'd started my PhD, there have been a couple other tsunami watches, none of which resulted in anything of interest. But there's something about a haunting siren at 6 am that makes you take something seriously, and not wanting to be left in the dark, Barry and I immediately began closely watching the news. At about 6 am I (@NerdyChristie) tweeted my first tweet of the day: "Ah fuck. Serious tsunami warning. Not cool."

Immediately friends and blog followers began pouring in their support and good wishes, and asking for me to "keep them updated." So I did. I started tweeting the interesting anecdotes from the news, retweeting other information posted on the tsunami, and adding in what was going on around me as I headed to get extra water and prepared for the worst.

I'm not really sure what caught everyone's attention, but suddenly, I started getting followers. I started getting A LOT of followers. Within an hour or so, I had another 200 people tuning into my twitter feed, and every minute more followers tuned in.

Somehow, I had crossed a line; I had become a citizen journalist.

Why did so many people find my updates so interesting? I think it was because I cared. I cared about getting it all. I cared about being quick. But more importantly, I cared about being accurate. And apparently, the major news outlets didn't.

It was amazing to me how much the major networks - Fox, CNN, MSNBC - got wrong. Simple things, like locations, were just annoying. But they got large things wrong, too - Fox reported waters receding 15 feet from Waikiki before Hilo had even been hit. None of them seemed to have anyone who actually knew what was going on.

That's not to say that there weren't news programs that had accurate and up to date information: there were. The local news network, KGMB/KHNL and the local papers did a great job. What was most interesting to me, though, was what they had in common - they were all actively incorporating Twitter into their news.

Today really revealed to me how Twitter has revolutionized modern journalism. The Honolulu Advertiser (@honadv), the Star Bulletin (@starbulletin) and the major news network (@hawaiinewsnow) were live tweeting tsunami updates.

These media outlets weren't just putting out updates via twitter - they were taking them in. The Honolulu Advertiser had up a twitstream of the hashtag "#hawaiitsunami" on their homepage. Hawaii News Now constantly provided viewers with updates of different areas sent to them by twitterers, and I learned as much about what was going on watching twitter feeds as I did watching the news.

It was truly incredible was how much information was being gathered by nobodies like me, people just sharing their personal experiences on the web. And in turn, those that looked to twitter and social networking to stay informed got accurate, real-time information, while those who looked to CNN and Fox got much, much less.

Should it be shocking that someone following my feed got more information and better information than someone watching TV? Maybe not. Because of twitter, I was able to synthesize and pass along information from a variety of sources instantly. Instead of being one journalist talking to one person, I was every journalist in Hawaii that was talking to every person. I was every live camera and every online update that was out there. In essence, I had every TV channel, every newspaper, and every person tweeting in Hawaii working for me, gathering information that I then passed along. This kind of journalism has never been possible before, though it's clear why it is perfect for a disaster-type scenario. Journalism has been forever changed by twitter, and I suspect that feeds like mine was today will become more and more popular as sources for accurate, up to date information about breaking news.

In the end, the tsunami definitely came, causing water level fluctuations of up to 10 feet in Hilo. Here on Oahu, the effects were smaller, though we still got to see our share of the water rushing in and out. The ocean will still be acting unpredictably for the next day or two, but, thanks to the on-target predictions by scientists and effective prevention measures by the local officials, the worst has passed and no damage has been reported from anywhere in Hawaii. As for me, I'm off to get some much needed rest after tweeting constantly for seven hours straight.

Research Blogging Award Finalists!

I know you've been on pins and needles waiting to hear, so I'm happy to report that the finalists are out! Congrats to everyone! There are some fantastic blogs in the running for some nice sums of cash. In a week or so, voting will open to allow research blogging members to vote for their favorites in a bunch of categories.

I am so honored that Observations of a Nerd was chosen as a finalist not only in the "Best Blog -- Biology" and in the "Best Lay-Level Blog" categories, but one of my posts was chosen to compete for "Blog Post of the Year"! The judges were apparently very impressed with my post Evolution: The Curious Case of Dogs, which describes some recent research that looks into the incredible diversity of dog breeds and what that variety means in terms of evolution and selection. Thank you, judges, for the chance to compete!

Please, if you're a research blogger, be sure to vote when the polls open next week! And, of course, if you want to vote for me, I'd be honored!

Exploring Oahu: Makapu'u

On the easternmost end of Oahu there is a fun, 2-mile hike to the top of Makapu'u point, where there sits a cool little lighthouse that was built in the 1900s. The way is steep at times, but it's nicely paved, and it's an excursion just about anyone can enjoy. Once at the top, you get a stunning view of the windward side of the island. The first time I hiked it, the day was almost perfect. It was stunningly sunny and clear, and the views were truly breathtaking:


But there were two things wrong with an almost-perfect day: first off, it was summer, and one of the main reasons to hike up to the top of Makapu'u point is that during the winter, you can see Humpback Whales. But more importantly, I noticed these amazing looking tide pools below, but my companions refused to climb all the way down to them and back up that day.

Let me explain - I love tide pools. That's probably a big understatement - I really, really love tide pools. I get a little too excited when I see rocky shore formations. But lucky for me, I live on a volcanic island in the middle of the Pacific. Which means, of course, I'm surrounded by tide pools. I vowed to go back, and I did.

This time, there would be no stopping me. To get to the tide pools, you have to veer off of the nice, paved pathway and scramble down 350 - 400 feet on a fairly steep path over loose lava rock. Sturdy shoes are definitely required! As you travel down, you start to notice a set of blowholes off to the left of the pools. The day I went, they were very active, and it didn't take long to see why they are nicknamed "Dragon's Nostrils" :



As cool as they were, though, it was the tide pools I was after. I had brought down some snorkel gear so I could see just what was hiding in these stunning pools. As I got closer, I was amazed to see how deep they were - the pools were definitely over my head in some places. But it wasn't until I got my head in the water that I was truly impressed. As pretty as they had been from above, the pools were even more spectacular once my head was underwater:


Of course, no matter how wonderful it was down at the pools, I had to eventually head home... back up that slippery slope. It was definitely a workout! It took another good half an hour to climb back up. Once at the top, we took a moment to breathe before heading back down the paved trail to our car. Lucky for us, we happened to be scanning the horizon as we rested - and a pod of humpbacks happened to be swimming past. You can see the spout in the distance in this shot:

The best view, though, was when we finally decided to head back. Awaiting us on the last leg of the trail was this stunning view of Koko Head:


A perfect ending to a wonderful day.

The Plight of the Great White

It's really hard for me to write about sharks. It makes me angry. Unlike with so many species under the threat of extinction, when I try to talk to people about sharks, the message just doesn't get through. Show them a movie about Taji and they get infuriated. Have them look into the eyes of a tiger cub and they are overwhelmed with emotion. Maybe it's that sharks aren't warm and fuzzy enough - maybe if they had hair, people wouldn't be so leery of them. Maybe it's too many childhood memories of late-night Jawsfests. But when I try to explain to people that sharks are in trouble, that they are important and that we are losing them by the second, people just don't seem to care. Or they say they do, but their heart isn't really there. Or worse - they're happy to hear it.

I don't know what to say or do to get people to listen. How do you fight for an animal that no one wants to save? People see images like the one on the right and they're glad to see it. That just sickens me.

Anyways, the reason I bring this up now is that an estimate of Great White populations has come out at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in San Diego, based on research tracking more than 150 Great Whites done by Barbara Block. In 2000, Great Whites were listed at Vulnerable by the IUCN, though no one knew how many there were. The researchers from Stanford found that while these sharks were sighted quite frequently between Hawaii and California, they were often the same sharks. This led them to look at the estimated size of the entire population, and what they found was sobering. There are only an estimated 3,500 left.

The ever-cherished tigers, who have seen extinction looming for decades, are well over 5,000. Polar bears? 25,000 or so. And while upwards of 3,000 dolphins are killed in Taji every year, the worldwide population is huge. They're not even endangered.

I'm not saying that what happens in Taji isn't deplorable, or that tigers or polar bears don't deserve to be protected. My point is that we're on the verge of losing one of the most impressive species on the planet, and it seems like no one cares.

No, it's worse. Just by skimming the comments on one of the popular news articles about this you'll find statements like these:

"Good riddance. They eat people. No, we don't have to give them room to breathe. We don't have to do anything that's not to our advantage. I don't go for all this stuff about top predators being essential - obviously if there are as few Great Whites as all that, they cannot be very pivotal in the ecosystem. Eliminate them."

"If these stupid sharks can't adapt and evolve to the advances in industrial fishing over the past century then they ought to be made extinct."

You see, this is why I get so angry. People disgust me sometimes. And we say sharks are the heartless, ruthless predators? Please.

Weekly Dose of Cute: Serval Kitten

See? Cartoon cute.

It may be easy to put a kitten up as the weekly dose of cute, but look at him - he may be the cutest kitten ever. Cuter, perhaps, than even that little ocelot kitten, which, until now, has earned the title of cutest kitten ever. I mean, look at him! His eyes are cartoon adorable. I didn't know cat eyes could actually look like Puss N Boots! How could I resist showcasing this unbelievable exhibition of pure cuteness?

Anyhow, this six-week-old cutest kitten competitor was born at Australia's Adelaide Zoo (there are actually three of them!). Servals (Leptailurus serval) are medium-sized cats originally from Africa. They are opportunistic feeders that will eat whatever they can catch, which is quite a bit since they are agile, fast and smart predators. DNA analysis suggests that they descended from the same ancestor as lions, and perhaps gave rise to cheetahs. Because they're smaller than their cousins, that have made their way not only into the zoo industry but also the pet industry. To get around regulations about owing a wild animal, exotic breeders have interbred servals with with domesticated cats to produce a mixed breed called a Savannah, which looks like a serval but tends to be smaller. In most states, the offspring of a domestic animal and a wild animal is considered a domestic animal, so Savannahs aren't illegal to own, though they are quite expensive and are much more difficult to take care of than a regular house cat.

(H/T Zooborns, again.)

Oh for the love of Parasites...

I know I have failed on delivering you your weekly/monthly parasite posts. It's not for a lack of fascinating, sci-fi worthy parasites, but for a lack of time on my part. I'm afraid these posts keep slipping to the back burner, then getting forgotten about altogether as deadlines for grants, papers and all the rest set in. So, I think it's time to retire the Sci-Fi Worthy Parasites, at least for awhile. I will continue to post any cool new studies involving my favorite little critters, though - I promise!

I would hate for those of you who adore reading about twisted little menaces to feel slighted. Luckily, a curator at the American Museum of National History by the name of Susan Perkins has picked up where I am leaving off, and then some! She and her crew of collaborators are posting about a different parasite EVERY SINGLE DAY for the entire year to showcase the importance and incredible diversity of parasites as a part of the International Year of Biodiversity. So if you're hankering for a good creepy crawly feeling, head over to Parasite of the Day and get all the blood-sucking, skin-boring goodness you can handle.

Psych FAIL.

I love the show Psych. For those who don't know the show, it's about a guy named Shawn Spencer (actor James Roday) whose uncanny powers of observation allow him to convince the Santa Barbara Police Department that he's a psychic. He's adorable, eccentric, and totally awesome in mostly every way. But I found myself yelling at my television (ok, my computer - I watch it on Hulu every week) while watching the most recent episode. I was really, truly pissed.

Let me explain. In the show, Shawn and company were tracking down evidence for a murder that was committed five years earlier to prove that the guy convicted for the killing is innocent. Shawn realizes that the scene, as it was told by the cops, couldn't be right - the dead guy had to have been shot from a different angle, meaning that the bullet would have flown out the window, explaining why the investigators never found it. They then set out to find the missing bullet which is likely lodged in one of the many trees just outside. Despite their best efforts, they can't seem to find the bullet hole, until Shawn's best friend reminds him that Shawn is looking at the wrong height - it's been five years since the shooting, after all. Low and behold, when they look a little higher, they find the bullet, but are chased off by gunfire before they can pull it out to find out who the real killer was.

Do you see it? Do you know what had me yelling at the screen?

No, it's not the odds that the bullet would be visible from 30 or so feet below five years later (though, really?). It's that the bullet somehow magically moved up a yard or two in five years. In fact, I'd be upset if it moved up in a hundred years. Let me explain.

Though it might seem intuitive that something placed at a certain height on a tree would move upward as the tree grows, that's simply not how trees do it. If it did, that would mean the tree is growing from the bottom, pushing the older tissues upward over time. Trees don't grow from the bottom, they grow from the top and outwards. What do I mean by that?

As a tree ages, it adds tissue to a limited number of places called meristems. These specialized areas of tissue occur at the tips of roots and branches as well as in the trunk of the tree, and are full of what you might call plant stem cells. They can differentiate to become any kind of plant tissue, which is exactly what you'd need to have wherever a plant needs to grow. The top of the tree, where a special meristem called the apical meristem occurs, is where height is added by these special cells dividing and differentiating.

While there are meristems in the trunk of the tree, they don't expand vertically, they expand horizontally. Once trunk tissue is laid down, it doesn't move upwards, only outwards, as new layers of secondary xylem and phloem (the vascular plant tissues that make up wood) are added. This is where tree growth rings come from - the yearly addition of layers of tissue to the trunk of the tree. It's why lovers can carve their names into a tree and come back and find the scars they created 50 years later in the exact same place, though the tree might be a little wider and taller than they recalled. It also means that no amount of tree growth would make a bullet lodged at a given height in the trunk move upwards.

What would actually happen to an object stuck in a tree over time? Something like this:

The tree trunk can actually grow around an object, so if anything, Shawn's missing bullet would have been deeper embedded and harder to see, not 5 feet higher up.

Am I strange to be so upset by this? Eh, maybe. But it bothered me that they could get something so small and simple wrong. I know, I know, it's just a TV show, but it's a pretty big biological mistake on the writers' part. If trees everywhere could yell at them, I'm sure they would.

Just wow.

These little bejeweled cases might look strange, but they're incredible. No, they're not some kind of special modern art. They're incredible because they're made by an insect.

I'm not much of a bug lover, but this is simply one of the coolest things I've ever seen (in a totally-bio-nerdy kind of way). Hubert Duprat, a french artist, had the genius if not a little out there idea to turn caddisfly larvae into artists. In the wild, caddisfly larvae create elaborate protective tubes from materials like stones, sticks, and whatever else they can find. When Duprat carefully removed their original tubes and placed the larvae in tanks with bits of gold and semi-precious and precious stones, the larvae gladly began building their tubes from the provided materials. The critters now create their tubes out of gold, sapphires, pearls, rubies and diamonds - some seriously expensive bug houses! The result is some of the most unique (and, in my opinion, fantastic) jewelry you'll ever find:



I think it's just incredible. Here's a video of a larval caddisfly in bejeweling action:
You have got to be as impressed as I am. You are, right?

Weekly Dose of Cute: American Pika

You may not have heard of the American Pika. Pika are small little rodent relatives most closely related to rabbits, though they look chinchilla-esque. They're native to colder climates all over the world, including Asia, Europe and North America, and they tend to live on rocky mountain slopes where they can hide in small crevices. Because they are adapted to cold mountainsides, the pika are particularly at risk is the global climate warms, as changing temperatures could push them further and further up the slopes until they can go no higher. Indeed, studies have shown that the pika are traveling upward already.

I chose this animal for the weekly dose of cute because just last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the pika did not need any special protection. A year ago, they agreed to assess the health of the pika and whether it needs protection under the Endangered Species Act when the Center for Biological Diversity slapped them with a lawsuit. In their press release, the Fish and Wildlife Service had this to say:

"We have completed an exhaustive review of the scientific information currently available regarding the status of the American pika and have analyzed the potential threats to the species. Based on this information, we have determined that the species as a whole will be able to survive despite increased temperatures in a majority of its range and is not in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.”

However, last month, author Wendee Holtcamp‌ explained in an article for BioScience that mammals like the pika that have high metabolisms can overheat in temperatures as mild as 25 degrees C (77 degrees F) if they can't move to colder areas to regulate their temperature. Since the pikas are already near the tops of the mountains they live on, if they are forced to move upwards any more, they will have nowhere to go when it gets hotter.

Many believe the Fish and Wildlife Service was wrong not to extend greater protection to the pika, including scientists. In truth, there are less than half the number of pika that once roamed our mountains. As to whether the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision was right, only time will tell if the pika can really survive warmer climates, or if, indeed, they are on their way towards extinction in our lifetimes.

Can Botox affect how you see the world?

Think of something wonderful - something someone said to you that made your day, or the happiest moment you can remember. Go ahead, take a moment. Now, what are you doing? Odds are, you're smiling.

It takes 12 different muscles in our faces to produce the easily-recognized expression. But smiling is far from a tough feat for our facial muscles. Smiles are so hard-wired into the human condition that babies have been known to smile before birth. Smiling is as instinctual to us as breathing.

Why do we smile? In part, smiling is a social action. We smile to let others know how we feel. Facial expressions are a means of communication, not only in people but also in a variety of animals. But there's a lot more to it than that. It has been suggested for a long time that smiling is both the end result of happy feelings and a direct cause of them. It's known as the Facial Feedback Hypothesis. The theory is that because there is such a tight connection between expression of emotion and the brain mechanism that feels them, the path can go the other way, too. In other words, Nat King Cole was right that you should smile when your heart is breaking, as doing so might actually make you feel better.

Scientists have looked into the Facial Feedback Hypothesis, and have found strong support for it from studies which look at emotions before and after paralysis, for example. Now, a new study to be published in the journal Psychological Science has further added to this: they found that preventing people from frowning affected their ability to understand negative emotions in written language.

The participants of the study were people who had been treated with botulinum toxin. Botulinum toxin powerful nerve toxin originally from the bacteria Clostridium botulinum that used to be a huge health problem before the onset of refrigeration. Of course, now, it is more well known for its cosmetic uses. Botox, which consists of small injections of botulinum toxin to reduce wrinkles, is the most common cosmetic operation performed in the US, with 4.6 million procedures performed in 2007 alone, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

The scientists took 40 people and had them read written statements before and after they received Botox. The cosmetic procedure prevented them from frowning properly, and thus gave the researchers a unique opportunity to see how the inability to produce a facial expression affected the participants. The statements were either angry, sad, or happy. After reading the statement, the participants had to press a button to indicate they had finished reading it. The researchers timed how long it took the participants to read the different kinds of sentences before and after their Botox, then compared the times.

Speed of processing is a common tool in psychological research. Scientists have shown that, for example, people with racial biases take longer to associate minorities with positive words. By timing how long the participants took to read the sentences, the researchers looked to uncover if the lack of ability to frown affected their ability to understand and interpret the different emotional phrases.

They found that there was no change in the time needed to understand the happy sentences, which aligned with their hypotheses, since the Botox did not prevent the participants from smiling. But the subjects did take slightly but significantly more time to read the angry and sad sentences after Botox treatment. These data suggest that preventing the participants from frowning actually made it harder for them to interpret sadness and anger.

The scientist believe that by preventing frowns in their participants, they have blocked a feedback pathway between the brain and the face. Under normal circumstances, the brain sends the signal to frown, and in turn, once the face frowns, it sends signals back which reaffirm or enhance the brain's interpretation. Without the feedback, the brain gets a little confused or simply doesn't process the depth of the emotion as well.

Even though the affect is small, it may have profound implications for cosmetic surgery. People who undergo facial procedures may have altered perceptions of others emotions. Of course, it could be a good thing - these kind of injections may make a person's outlook on life a little better.

What's groundbreaking about this study is that it strongly connects language and emotion so strongly to physical movements. The idea that the ability to understand language can be hindered by preventing physical movements is impressive and a little unexpected. This study suggests that to properly understand and interpret the world around us, that we need both our minds and our bodies to be functioning 100%.

Times Online Best Blogs

Eureka has come out with a list of the 30 best science blogs, including greats like Not Exactly Rocket Science and Neurotopia. Congrats! Everyone should go check out the top 30!

While you're at it, though, be sure to tell Eureka YOUR favorites - they're looking for a top 100, and they want to know which ones they missed. Just send an e-mail to eureka [at] thetimes [dot] co [dot] uk with "Best Blogs" in the subject to submit observations of a nerd your picks for the best science blogs not on that list!

Weekly Dose of Cute: Baby Froggies!

A little proof that the mini version of just about anything is cute:


Photo credit: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS via Zooborns

These little tykes are the Bronx Zoo's newest arrivals: baby Kihansi Spray Toads (Nectophrynoides asperginis). While they might just look like any other toad, this species is unique. Females give birth to fully-formed babies, not eggs like most amphibians. There are no tadpoles here - baby toads come right out of mom looking like mini versions of their parents.

Unfortunately, you can't observe this amazing phenomena in the Kihansi Gorge of Tanzania, where these toads are from, because the Kihansi Spray Toad is extinct in the wild. When a hydroelectric dam was built there in 2000, it destroyed the toad's habitat. The dam is vital to the Tanzanians, as it generates 1/3 of their total electrical supply, but that's no consolation to the Kihansi Spray Toad that, like its name suggests, lived in the mist that used to spray from the many waterfalls that flowed into the gorge.

Realizing the dire situation that these toads were in, the Tanzanian government allowed the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to collect almost 500 toads (a small number of the over 17,000 that were estimated to live there at the time) to begin a breeding program in New York. Now, the toads have vanished from the gorge, due to the loss of habitat and the deadly fungal disease chytridiomycosis, and have been officially listed as extinct in the wild by the IUCN, while the New York colony has expanded to almost ten times it's original number.

The WCS plans to reintroduce the toads back into the gorge within the next few years. A system of sprinklers has been put in place to replicate the toad's habitat that was lost when the dam was built. Eventually, the WCS hopes that the remarkable Kihsani Spray Toad will be able to live where it originated, instead of thousands of miles away in a zoo.