"New Marvels" from Costa Rica

New species discovered in Costa Rica, including a dwarf salamander no longer than a thumbnail. Research was conducted by scientists from the Natural History Museum, London funded by the Darwin Initiative. Press release from the NHM.

are species really disappearing?

This article made me really angry today.

The author, one Michael Duffy, begins by relating his personal experience with Greenpeace. He was a member of the organisation until they asked him for money with the claim that 30 000 species were going extinct every year. When he asked them where they got this figure from, they couldn't come up with a good answer and he quit. He goes on to criticise the method of extrapolation used to come up with such estimates of extinction rates, and then extends his criticism to include models used to predict climate change. He gives various examples of models that didn't work, and quotes various experts saying that inconsistencies appeared between models and how things really played out. In short, he's saying that the method of computational modeling tends to over-reach, is being used to come up with policy without sound proof, and is largely a house of cards.

He concludes his article by condemning a whole branch of science:

"We often hear that the predictions accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are based on "the science". It's important to realise that this is often a very different type of science to other science, the sort that explains why a jumbo jet won't fall out of the sky or why a certain treatment will cure a certain disease."

His false dichotomy of the sciences: woolly-headed models versus hard and concrete laws, falls flat in his choice of examples, which betray his lack of knowledge of how things work. It is precisely computational modeling that is used to design jumbo jets. Engineers are unable to come up with a simple explanation for how jets fly. Planes are designed not with a few computations on paper, or even by building simulations on computers, but by building models and putting them in wind tunnels because that's the only reliable way to figure out how a certain shape of airframe will behave in the air, precisely because our knowledge of fluid mechanics is insufficient to allow us to predict this reliably from first principles. By Duffy's reasoning, then, we shouldn't fly in planes because they are designed with the use of models, which is not 'real science' in his eyes. One can point to examples of planes which failed or almost failed, like the Comet airliner of the '50s and '60s, to support this foolishness.

Bringing the issue back to the environment, we cannot deny that there are species being lost. The numbers thrown around by NGOs and environmentalists vary, and personally I feel that they should be more responsible with where they get their numbers from and their sources' reliability, but species are going extinct and there is empirical evidence for this. Brook, Sodhi, and Ng's paper in Nature (424: 420-426 (24 July 2003). doi:10.1038/nature01795) for instance used species checklists over the period of Singapore's colonial occupation to the present day to determine what used to be found here and is no longer present, and from these known records extrapolated them to estimate species losses for groups of organisms which were not so well documented. But even if we ignore the inferred species extinctions ('inference' being the concept which Duffy finds so difficult to understand or accept) the recorded extinctions alone are high: more than 40% for mammals, 25% for plants, 35% for butterflies.

Furthermore, it is a logical fallacy that Duffy commits (commonly known as 'association by hand-waving') when he segues from taking issue with extinction rates to questioning climate change; as if they are both part of some great conspiracy by environmental groups to misinform the public. This gives environmentalists credit for more public and policy influence than they do have. Duffy says that we should not trust these predictions,

"...because virtual science is ripe for manipulation, usually unconsciously, by virtuous scientists. Few people are aware of the large element of subjectivity, not only in the design of immensely complicated general circulation models, but in the data that goes into them. Even basic information such as contemporary temperatures is often incomplete or uncertain and tweaked by those who operate the models."

There is not much that one can say in response to this, because it's not about evidence any more but whether one trusts the evidence and those who gather it. Well, if one cannot trust the predictions, one should at least trust the observations. If one yet refuses to trust observation, then nothing will satisfy one's critical eye.

An Ode to Whales

There is something fascinating about whales and dolphins. I remember giving a lecture in school on Lipids (an 'A' level biology subtopic) and as a digression, I told the class a story about Whaling in Nantucket in the 18th century. Its somewhat related to lipids as the whaling industry was mainly based on the lipid found in the spermaceti of the sperm whale. A large whale could provide up to 3 tons of that valuable wax which was odorless and non-oily to the touch.

Anyway, I played some sound clips of whales singing (yes, they do sing and in different dialects too, depending on which pod they belong to) and after that auditory experience, the students (about 300) clapped and cheered. There must be something mesmerizing about whales in our human psyche. I was glad to know that most students displayed a sense of biophilia, sensu E.O. Wilson.

Scientifically, Cetaceans are animals belonging to the Order Cetacea, which, include whales, dolphins and porpoises.


Actually the reason why I am posting here is because I came across this article about whaling in Japan and its just inexplicable that whaling still occurs. Hey, I understand if the Iñupiat Eskimos do it to survive (see my post on a book I read about Eskimo whaling) but to state scientific reasons for whaling is entirely beyond reasonable acceptance. Its like killing cats randomly and saying we need data.



Note this statement - "Over a six-month period, it will kill 1,000 whales as part of what it says is a scientific research programme."

I am no whale fanatic but they are just lovely creatures. I have had nice dreams about dolphins and whales too and those were deep and meaningful ones for me. They at least represent the wonders that nature has produced. And at most, are inspiring to many people. Scientifically, the are really peculiar and interesting ends of the evolutionary tree. See link below about the recent fossil discovery that shed new light on the evolutionary research to trace which extinct land-dwelling mammals were the probable ancestors of Cetaceans



Ivan's Dolphins Galaxia and Into the Deep feature some whale and dolphin sounds. They are so enchanting and give a sensitive dimension to the music.

My point is "Stop Whaling!"

"new" big cat

According to genetic evidence, the Clouded Leopard from Borneo and Sumatra has been designated as a new distinct species, Neofelis diardi.

Someone should take a look at the Clouded Leopard subspecies from Taiwan, Neofelis nebulosa brachyurus. it might be a new genetic species as well since it is an island endemic. However, the cat has not been sighted for 20 years, it might be extinct in the wild already. but enough skins should be available in museums.

New Papuan marine species discovered

Conservation International scientists have discovered over 50 new marine species in the waters off the Bird's Head Peninsula in the Indonesian province of Papua, the western portion of the island of New Guinea, which lies close to the biogeographical border between South East Asia and Australia. The BBC News website gives a good summary while the Conservation International website includes many pictures and a video of a 'walking shark' discovered during the expedition.

Previous exploration of the mountains in the peninsula has also thrown up new species of plants and animals. New Guinea is possibly one of the last great frontiers of biodiversity exploration: when interviewed on the radio, one of the scientists called it a 'lost garden of Eden'.

Threats to the area include cyanide and dynamite fishing, which are destructive forms of fishing that leave lots of 'collateral damage' to coral reefs in the process. The reefs are important to the surrounding coastal communities because they act as nurseries and refuges for the maintenance of fisheries which they depend on for food and subsistence, therefore keeping them intact has a very real social and economic value, especially since Papua is one of the poorer provinces in Indonesia.

It's heartening, though, that the Indonesian government has noticed these new findings and is looking into ways to expand the protection of Indonesian marine life, of which only 11% is protected, according to the CI article. However, the attention that this piece of news has drawn may have the side effect of drawing illegal traders to the region in search of ornamental fishes, for which there is a large market.

Unusually for a piece of science and nature news, an illustrated article on these discoveries is also to be found on page 3 of the Straits Times for today, 19 Sep 2006.