It will always be the Gulf of Mexico to me

It got the name in the 16th century, it’s internationally accepted, but one clown thinks he has the authority to change it.

Map of the Gulf of Mexico from 1718

Unfortunately, Google is happy to cave on this issue.

Google said Monday it will change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” in Google Maps after the Trump administration updates its “official government sources.”

The company also said it will start using the name “Mount McKinley” for the mountain in Alaska currently called Denali.

I think someone told Trump that McKinley oversaw the last surge of American territorial expansion, and he thinks he can make a name for himself by seizing real estate. Maybe someone should mention to him the end of McKinley’s story? I don’t think he read it to the end.

A bad way to defend America

the face of a moral monster

Michael Knowles, the far-right pundit on the Daily Wire, has posted a defense of Trump’s mass deportations that is basically a confession of American atrocities, and excusing them because they’re American.

I don’t know if you guys are history buffs or not. Have you ever heard of the Trail of Tears? I know a lot of people don’t defend the Trail of Tears. But that was a mass deportation. That was in, what, 1830? Have you ever heard of Operation Wetback when we actually deported a ton of Mexicans, like a 100,000 or more Mexicans? You might not defend Operation Wetback, in part because of the name because it’s an offensive word. 1954. That was a mass deportation. How about the Palmer raids of all the communists? 1919, 1920, deported, because a lot of the communists were foreigners who were in America deported lots and lots of commoners — communists, rather. How about the Japanese? We always talk about Japanese internment during World War II. You know, we also deported a lot of Japanese. Again, you might say, well, that was all really terrible. OK. But it’s American, though. We sure did. I’m noticing a trend here. How about the Haitians and the Cubans that we deported after the Mariel boatlift in 1980? That was a mass deportation. You say, well, that’s wrong. It’s anti-American — again, I know. Maybe you don’t like it. Maybe you can make an argument that some of these things were unjust. But the one thing you can’t say is that it’s un-American or anti-American.

Deportation is as American as apple pie, therefore it must be good. That’s what the right is reduced to, excusing oppression because we’ve always oppressed other people. This is the language of tyranny.

I did not realize that in this time we need to explain that the Trail of Tears was injust, that the internment of citizens of Japanese descent in WWII was evil. I missed an opportunity yesterday, then — I was lecturing on Mendel, discussing the importance of institutions that easily provide agricultural/gardening stocks that were a precondition for his experiments, and I gave personal credit to Taki and Haru Nagasawa who exposed me to nursery work when I was in high school and college. That kind of work is an important foundation for science and we don’t acknowledge it often enough. I failed to mention, though, that the Nagasawas were well-respected members of the community, who had lost everything in the internments and had to rebuild their business after the war, and that American policy had done them a deep injury.

I should have hammered on that, briefly, in the class. It would have been a natural lesson given the specific subject I was trying to get across. I didn’t think it needed to be said, but apparently I’m wrong. It’s unfortunate, because some universities are kicking out professors who mention “political” topics in the classroom, and that might be my only path to retirement. In our dismal future, informed people with historical knowledge will be prohibited from disseminating that knowledge in small classrooms to a few people at a time, while blithering idiots will be free to misinform and spread hate en masse via the internet and certain television and radio channels.

The nice thing about all-meat diets is they kill my appetite

Sometimes, I hear about other people’s diets, and I’m left somewhat nauseous. I think this one needs to be called the FAFO diet.

The Fuck Around
This guy, in his 40s, decided to try what he called a “carnivore” diet. He was eating between 6–9 pounds of cheese, sticks of butter, and burgers daily—adding extra fat to the burgers for good measure. He claimed to have dropped weight, gained energy, and experienced improved mental clarity.

The Find Out
Our dear Florida Man went to the doctor for painless yellow nodules that had developed on his elbows, palms, and the soles of his feet. He was diagnosed with a condition called xanthelasma, which basically means you have so much cholesterol in your body that excess lipids leak from your blood vessels and form deposits. While the rest of his body worked overtime to keep him alive, his total cholesterol level was over 1,000 mg/dL. For context, the “at-risk” threshold for cholesterol is 240 mg/dL.

He could just swipe his hand across a piece of toast to butter it, I guess.

My cholesterol levels are well under control, but then we don’t eat any red meat, except for an occasional Impossible Burger, and most of my protein comes from fish. Moderation in all things, you know.

I’ve long had queasy feelings about those all meat diets, anyway.

Sex combs!

I mentioned sex combs a while back, so I thought I’d clarify a bit — I hope none of you rushed out to buy one for yourself (I don’t think human sex combs exist, but if they do, I don’t need to know.) Sex combs are secondary sexual characteristics found in on the forelegs of only male Drosophilidae. They are small dark patches of bristles on the tarsus of the first leg, and they are not something you’d notice if you saw a fly buzzing in your kitchen — you have to knock them out and carefully scrutinize the limbs with a hand lens or microscope to see them, but they’re important for recognizing the sex of a fly definitively. I tell my genetics students that you can tell the sexes apart by the shape of the abdomen or the pigment patterns, but to be really sure you should check for the presence or absence of the sex combs.

Sex comb in Drosophila melanogaster male: a) front leg with sex comb marked with black arrow; b) sex comb bristles

They don’t look like much, but they also matter to female flies. Mutants or surgically modified male flies with the sex combs reduced suffer with lower reproductive success. The flies use them as gentle grasping tools to separate her wings, grasp her abdomen, and tease open the genitals, so of course they’re subject to selection. Different species of fruit flies exhibit different patterns of sex combs, and we observe natural variation within a species.

Sex comb (SC) diversity. A phylogeny of eight comb-bearing species, assuming that the montium subgroup is a sister-taxon to the
Oriental lineage, as in Kopp (2006). Branch lengths are not to scale. Note the variation in the length, size and orientation of the SCs.

Variation within and between species makes sex combs of great interest to evolutionary biologists. Here’s an illustration of the variation we can see.

Variation in sex comb tooth number and development. (A–C) Exam-
ples of Drosophilidae forelegs with long combs. (D and E) D. melanogaster
forelegs. (F–J) Schematics of foreleg development of the top Drosophila legs.
(K–O) Examples of D. melanogaster perturbations in sex comb tooth number.
(A–C and F–H) Drosophila species with long sex combs achieve vertical orien-
tation by different mechanisms: (i) Teeth initially form in a vertical orientation
(F) (e.g., D. ficusphila t1–t2); (ii) rotation of a long row (G) (e.g., D. guanche t1–t2
and D. rhopaloa t1); (iii) rotation of multiple small rows and posterior fusion
into a long sex comb (H) (e.g., D. rhopaloa t2). (D, E, I, and J) In D. melanogaster, the male sex comb rotates from a horizontal to a vertical position
(diagrammed in D), while TRs remain horizontal. The only exception is the
most distal transverse row (red dotted box in D and I), which bends proximally
close to the top part of the sex comb. In contrast, the female rows of bristles
homologous to the sex comb remain static during development (brackets in E
and J). In order to study the phenotypic and developmental effect of changing
the number of sex comb teeth, this trait was perturbed using artificial selection
(K and L), mutants (M–O), and UAS-Scr RNAi transgenic lines . Gray circles represent sex comb teeth in the initial position and
black circles represent sex comb teeth in the final position. Empty circles represent the TR bristles. Gray arrows indicate movement of individual tooth or
sex comb rows. Red brackets indicate sex combs or homologous female bristles. Red numbers represent the range of sex comb teeth in each line. babPR72, bric à bracPR72; scd, sex combs distal; Scr, sex combs reduced; t1 and t2, first and
second tarsal segment, respectively. Distal is down and posterior is to the right.
Scale bar: 20 μm.

Focus for now on the top panel on the right, which shows a male and a female foreleg. They both have hairy legs, and in the default pattern seen in the females is a series of bristles in transverse rows (TRs) in arrays marching down the leg. The flies specifically use these bristles to groom their eyes — if you look closely, flies are remarkably tidy and neat.

The TRs are illustrated diagrammatically as small open circles in rows, the base pattern. These bristles are also developmentally interesting, because the way you make a sex comb is you express a set of specific genes in the distal two rows, and the whole structure rotates 90° to form a longitudinal comb. This opens up a whole set of informative interactions — the rotation is essential for function, and is subject to constraints imposed by adjacent tissues. I’ve been reading papers for the past week focused on the developmental and evolutionary significance of this tiny, odd, little known structure in flies. You should read some of these papers, too! I’m a sucker for anything evo-devo, and that’s what this little patch of hairs illustrates.

The most complex and diverse secondary sexual character in Drosophila is the sex comb (SC), an arrangement of modified bristles on the forelegs of a subclade of male fruit flies. We examined SC formation in six representative nonmodel fruit fly species, in an effort to understand how the variation in comb patterning arises. We first compared SC development in two species with relatively small combs, Drosophila takahashii, where the SCs remain approximately transverse, and Drosophila biarmipes, where two rows of SC teeth rotate and move in an anterior direction relative to other bristle landmarks. We then analyzed comb ontogeny in species with prominent extended SCs parallel to the proximodistal axis, including Drosophila ficusphila and species of the montium subgroup. Our study allowed us to identify two general methods of generating longitudinal combs on the tarsus, and we showed that a montium subgroup species (Drosophila nikananu) with a comb convergently similar in size, orientation and position to the model organism Drosophila melanogaster, forms its SC through a different developmental mechanism. We also found that the protein product of the leg patterning gene, dachshund (dac), is strongly reduced in the SC in all species, but not in other bristles. Our results suggest that an apparent constraint on SC position in the adult may be attributable to at least two different lineage-specific developmental processes, although external forces could also play a role.

Atallah J, Liu NH, Dennis P, Hon A, and Larsen EW (2009) Developmental constraints and convergent evolution in Drosophila sex comb formation. Evolution & Development 11(2): 205-218.

Malagón JN, Ahujab A, Sivapatham G, Hung J, Leea J, Muñoz-Gómez SA, Atallah J, Singh RS, and Larsena E (2013) Evolution of Drosophila sex comb length illustrates the inextricable interplay between selection and variation www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1322342111

Anti-DEI is another word for racism and sexism

You’re sitting there trying to argue that reality isn’t what you see right there in front of your face: nah, that wasn’t a Hitler salute, nah, Trump is not a fascist, nah, opposing DEI isn’t racist, but then eventually something is going to pop up that shows you’re totally wrong and are living in denial. On that last item, there are many people arguing that getting rid of DEI will simply open the door for a meritocracy, it will get rid of all those idle wastrels who are coasting on their victimhood and are demanding special privileges.

And then…whoops. The mask slips.

The Air Force has removed training courses with videos of its storied Tuskegee Airmen and the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs — the female World War II pilots who were vital in ferrying warplanes for the military — to comply with the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

The videos were shown to Air Force troops as part of DEI courses they took during basic military training.

In a statement, the Air Force confirmed the courses with those videos had been removed and said it “will fully execute and implement all directives outlined in the Executive Orders issued by the President, ensuring that they are carried out with utmost professionalism, efficiency and in alignment with national security objectives.”

Look at these pilots from WWII.

Apparently, they weren’t brave or skilled or self-sacrificing, and their history can be discarded. You can tell because they’re black, obviously DEI hires.

Same with those women who were ferrying bombers across the Atlantic to serve in Europe.

The Air Force was wrong to resist their willingness to serve their country 80+ years ago, and they continue their shame today.

It’s genocide

We can stop arguing about the term (as we should have done long ago): Israel is committing genocide, with the enthusiastic aid of the United States.

Donald Trump has suggested large numbers of Palestinians should leave Gaza to “just clean out” the whole strip, after ordering the US military to restart shipments of 2,000lb bombs to Israel.

“Cleaning out” a whole people, driving them from their homes, and moving them into camps in another country is genocide. It’s that simple.

Couple that to the fact that he’s not sending a fleet of moving vans and a lot of prefab homes and trailers to their destination, but is instead sending 2000 pound bombs, is a huge hint that we’re not talking about a peaceful, voluntary relocation. It’s hard to get 2.3 million people to all give up their homes, much easier if we whittle the numbers down a bit. A lot.

Combine this with his hatred of DEI, his denial that trans people exist, and his inability to recognize women’s autonomy, I think it’s clear that we have a psychopath in the White House, one who has no sense of empathy and is unable to recognize the rights of other people to exist.

Not how it actually works

I can’t relate to this cartoon — it’s too impractical.

We do not have a food delivery service in Morris.

I do not buy bugs in a store. Well, I will occasionally buy a few crickets from the pet store in town or waxworms from a bait shop, but those are just special treats.

I have a big tank in the basement where I raise swarms of mealworms (they’re easy!) and an incubator at my lab where I’ve got tens of thousands of fruit flies.

I am beginning to suspect that the cartoonist doesn’t actually have much experience with raising a house full of invertebrates.

Don’t look more closely at your government

I got the usual email from American Atheists, and Melina Cohen brought up an interesting contrast.

First, on Monday, there was Reverend Lorenzo Sewell, whose benediction has been variously described as “spirited” and “cringeworthy.” Sewell, a born-again adherent of charismatic Christianity and a favorite of the religious far-right, appropriated the tone and cadence of revivalists and plagiarized entire sections of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Afterward, he received a hug from Trump and announced the launch of his cryptocurrency memecoin, $LORENZO: “I need you to do me a favor to go and get that coin for us to accomplish the vision that God has called us to do on earth.”

The next morning, there was Bishop Mariann E. Budde, the leader of the Episocopal Diocese of Washington who asked the president to “have mercy” for immigrants and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Later, Trump rebuked Budde, calling her a “so-called Bishop,” a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater,” and demanding she apologize. Representative Mike Collins of Georgia went further, saying Budde “should be added to the deportation list.” Even Sewell stepped away from his budding crypto venture to accuse Budde of “theological malpractice.”

I missed that little detail of the inauguration because I didn’t give a fuck about the inauguration, but that surprised me: the guy they brought in to do the prayer used the time to announce his memecoin grift? And a Republican is threatening to deport a bishop who preached mundane Christian platitudes?

The closer you look at this administration, the more fractally corrupt they are.

True horror

I saw The Substance tonight. It was disturbing. I can appreciate body horror, but this was body horror, full on splatter and gore and women transforming into grisly disintegrating smears of goo, all with a feminist message about the commodification of women’s bodies. Just terrifyingly icky.

But the real horror wasn’t the movie, it was the old guy in the back row of the audience who was laughing throughout the show. He needs to be put on a watch list, but I’m afraid I just put my head down and rushed out of the theater before he could dismember me, so no, I wouldn’t recognize him.

I hope he didn’t follow me home.

Good biologists understand the complexity of sex determination & differentiation

I’ve been saying all along that good biology doesn’t categorize sex into two inflexible bins, but what does that matter — I’m just one weirdo liberal biologist at a liberal arts college, so I can be ignored. When our awful president puts out an executive order decreeing that there can be only two sexes, it’s only reasonable to ask other, bigger named biologists whether that reflects a scientific consensus.

HuffPost reached out to seasoned biologists around the country to help make sense of Trump’s definitions of sex, gender and “reproductive cells.”

They don’t know what he’s talking about, either.

Yeah, it doesn’t. They should have just asked me, or just about anyone teaching biology at the college level. Or look, they talked to experts in reproductive biology!

“Lots of folks are wondering the same thing!” Dr. Francisco Diaz, director of the Center for Reproductive Health and Biology at Pennsylvania State University, said of the Trump White House’s understanding of how biology works.

Embryos are “neither male nor female” by Trump’s definition, Diaz said, since there are no germ cells present at conception. Germ cells are reproductive cells that later become eggs and sperm, and that are set aside early in embryonic development.

“How about men after vasectomies? No germ cells there, are they still male?” asked Diaz, who is also an associate professor of reproductive biology at the university. ”Are postmenopausal women still female?”

“Not a super tight definition!” he concluded. “The ‘at conception’ wording seems forced to define personhood as beginning at conception and not really to define sex.”

They asked anthropologists!

Dr. Richard Bribiescas, an anthropology professor at Yale University and the president of the Human Biology Association, said the order’s definitions of “sex” and “gender” ignore all kinds of variations that take place in human development.

“Woman/man, boy/girl are gender identities that do not necessarily align with biological characteristics of sex,” he said in an email. “Genders are components of human variation that are influenced by culture, identity, and many other non-biological factors. To illustrate the difference between sex and gender, we can talk about male/female chimpanzees (our closest evolutionary relative) but it would be non-sensical to discuss chimpanzee women, men, boys or girls.”

Trump’s definitions of “female” and “male” are also flawed, said Bribiescas, because he is tying them to something called “anisogamy” in biology, or the observation that females of some species, including humans, tend to produce larger gametes (the reproductive cells that come from germ cells) compared to males.

Anisogamy is not a universal rule in biology, he said. But Trump’s executive order defines females as people belonging to the sex that produces “the large reproductive cell” and males belonging to the sex that produces “the small reproductive cell.”

The size of a person’s gametes is “just one characteristic among many (ie., genetic, hormonal, developmental, physical) that is used to describe sex,” Bribiescas said. “Clearly, this order is not fully informed by current biological science.”

They asked health experts!

Some health experts said the problems with Trump’s definitions of sex and gender go beyond his ill-informed understanding of embryonic cells. Put simply, neither sex nor gender is a simple binary.

This executive order “is highly problematic from a biological standpoint because it overly simplifies what we know to be an incredibly complicated developmental process,” said Dr. Josh Snodgrass, a professor of anthropology and global health at the University of Oregon. “It’s just not that simple from a genetic standpoint, and then becomes even more complicated with time under the influence of hormones, environmental exposures, and social experiences.”

They asked the president of the Human Biology Association!

Snodgrass, the past president of the Human Biology Association, noted that Trump’s order also doesn’t account for people who are intersex, which means they are born with genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit into the typical male/female sex binary.

“This reads to me as coming from people who desperately want the world to be simple — for sex to be a simple binary and for us to return to some imagined time when this was more broadly accepted,” he said. “The problem is that it’s not only science that shows us that human biological variation is more complicated, but other cultures do and have also appreciated this for thousands of years.”

Snodgrass added that there is one more thing missing from the executive order that belongs in all conversations about sex and gender: empathy.

“The authors of this executive order seem like they are trying to twist science to fit their worldview, but that this worldview is painfully out of step with reality,” he said.

I tell you, it’s exhausting dealing with all these people who write to me to explain how biology works…and I’m cis. I don’t know how trans people deal with it, especially since stupidly flawed ideas about biology are being used to legally discriminate against them.

I’m going to have to blame the neo-liberal cabal of Dawkins-Pinker-Coyne for spreading the anti-trans propaganda and presenting their authority as superior to all of modern biology. Ignore them.