(via ArteSub, where you can find a whole collection of underwater photography)
A good way to recover from the fra…fra…frammmm… that topic is to go watch the freaky frogs. If it’s late at night and dark where you are, though, don’t watch them. The first one will creep you out, and the second one will deliver the coup de grace; you won’t be able to get to sleep for fear of the amphibians outside your window.
It’s a friend with a face full of necrotizing venom, which just makes him a little more special, I think. Anyway, it’s a good story about a responsible, rational reaction to finding a brown recluse spider in the house, and the little guy is so darned cute, too.
Add hammerhead sharks to your list of animals that don’t need males. A captive bonnethead female in Nebraska gave birth in 2001, and genetic testing has revealed that it was produced by parthenogenesis. In a way, this isn’t a surprise: I could have told her that Nebraska is no place for a self-respecting shark to look for a boyfriend.
Parthenogenesis had been suspected, because the shark had been isolated from males for at least 3 years, and because she lacked the obvious bite marks that result from shark sex (which is another reason a lady shark might not want to have anything to do with sexual reproduction), and now the tests have shown it for sure. Nifty!
Leave it to Susie Bright to connect a review of a spectacular book about deep sea organisms to sex toys.
I’m going to get the book myself, but now I’m going to have a whole ‘nother view of its contents. Oh, wait…actually, maybe not.
Here are three animals. If you had to classify them on the basis of this superficial glimpse, which two would you guess were most closely related to each other, and which one would be most distant from the others?
On the left is a urochordate, an ascidian, a sessile, filter-feeding blob that is anchored to rocks or pilings and sucks in sea water to extract microorganismal meals. In the middle is a cephalochordate, Amphioxus, also a filter feeder, but capable of free swimming. On the right are some fish larvae. All are members of the chordata, the deuterostomes with notochords. If you’d asked me some years ago, I would have said it’s obvious: vertebrates must be more closely related to the cephalochordates—they have such similar post-cranial anatomies—while the urochordates are the weirdos, the most distant cousins of the group. Recent developments in molecular phylogenies, though, strongly suggest that appearances are deceiving and we vertebrates are more closely related to the urochordates than to the cephalochordates, implying that some interesting evolutionary phenomena must have been going on in the urochordates. We’d expect to see some conservation of developmental mechanisms because of their common ancestry, but the radical reorganization of their morphology suggests that there ought also be some significant divergence at a deep level. That makes the urochordates a particularly interesting group to examine.
Hey, you want some science? My latest Seed column on battling beetle balls is online.
(And I’ve just arrived in Ann Arbor after a long travel day!)
Seaducer sent me this photo, taken on a dive near Bonaire—the colors and shadows and the meaty, fleshy look of the beast give it a wonderfully baleful look.
