I've finally moved my blog to my new website

Click here to read this mailing online.

Your email updates, powered by FeedBlitz

Here is a sample subscription for you. Click here to start your FREE subscription

"The cogturner" - 5 new articles

  1. New Blog Address
  2. This Month’s Curious Critter: the Sloth
  3. DNA and birthdays: fun with math
  4. What to keep in mind if you are on the jury
  5. Be nice to your plants—you never know what they are planning
  6. More Recent Articles

New Blog Address

I've finally moved my blog to my new website

This Month’s Curious Critter: the Sloth

The remarkable adaptation of this mammal to its lofty environment is perhaps unfairly reflected in its name. Whereas in some circles, slothful behavior is regarded as a moral sin, for the sloth, it is a neatly refined way of conserving energy and avoiding the attention of potential predators.

Last year, a study came out in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters showing that sloths are not the lazy creatures they’d been held for. In the first study ever to investigate sleep in wild animals, Niels Rattenborg of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Starnberg, Germany, discovered that sloths actually sleep less than 10 hours a day, instead of 16, as observed in captivity.

However, while sloths may not sleep any more than the average human teenager, they earn their name by holding the record as the slowest land mammals. The sloth can sprint short distances at 5 yards per minute, but its average ground speed is closer to 2-3 yards per minute.

Sloths are so slow and inconspicuous that a new species went undiscovered until less than a decade ago.

This remarkable lethargy is one of many tricks that help the sloth maximize the energy that it gets from the energy-poor leaves that make up its diet. Sloths also have large, specialized stomachs similar to those of cows, in which food is digested for up to a month. The contents of the sloth’s stomach contribute up to 30% of the animal’s body weight.

To further conserve energy, sloths have less than half the energy-burning muscle mass of mammals of comparable size. When it is cold, sloths don’t shiver; they roll up in a ball, and their specialized blood vessel systems keep the vital organs warm. Sloths have extremely low metabolic rates, and, although warm-blooded, their body temperature falls when they are inactive.

The sloth spends most of its life hanging upside-down. Eating and sleeping are done in this position. Females give birth in this position. The sloths’ long arms and claws enable them to hang effortlessly from tree branches—so effortlessly, in fact, that they often remain hanging after they die.

Sloths rarely venture from their home trees, except to urinate and defecate. It is during these weekly trips to the forest floor that the sloth’s slowness can prove dangerous.

Because sloths spend most of their time upside-down, their hair parts on their belly, allowing water to run off efficiently. Symbiotic algae growing in their hair causes it to appear greenish. In exchange for a warm place to grow, the algae supply the sloth with camouflage against predators.

This just shows that names can be deceiving. Sloths are not lazy; they are shrewdly tailored to life in the tropical treetops of South America’s rainforests.

Intrigued? Browse these links for more info:

A review of sloth biology
Rattenborg's article on sloth sleep
Speed of a sloth
Sloth fanpage
Video of the newly discovered pygmy sloth

DNA and birthdays: fun with math

While I was reading up for my last blog entry, I became enraged that the FBI is doing so little to inform the public that our DNA fingerprints aren’t as unique as originally believed, since DNA profiling has become so important as evidence in court trials. But then my husband reminded me of the birthday problem, and it became clear that there is no real reason to be upset.

Originally, it seemed unfair to me that juries are told that if the DNA profile of a sample from the crime scene matches that of the defendant, the odds of the match being a false-positive—in other words, the odds that the sample didn’t really stem from the defendant—are less than one in a billion.

Recently, database searches have shown that the odds of two people sharing identical DNA profiles may be much higher—as many as 3 pairs of individuals in a database of 30,000 (see
previous blog entry). At first glance, it appears that jurors are being duped into thinking that DNA evidence is more solid than it really is.

But they’re not, and a look at the birthday problem shows why.

What is the birthday problem? Stanford professor Keith Devlin
explained it on NPR as follows:

"The birthday problem asks how many people you need to have at a party so that there is a better-than-even chance that two of them will share the same birthday. Most people think the answer is 183, the smallest whole number larger than 365/2. In fact, you need just 23. The answer 183 is the correct answer to a very different question: How many people do you need to have at a party so that there is a better-than-even chance that one of them will share YOUR birthday? If there is no restriction on which two people will share a birthday, it makes an enormous difference. With 23 people in a room, there are 253 different ways of pairing two people together, and that gives a lot of possibilities of finding a pair with the same birthday."

The point is, that as soon as you start comparing random pairs of people instead of specific individuals, the odds of a match increase dramatically.

Which means that it is entirely possible that the odds of a match between the defendant and someone else in the database are less than 1 in a billion, even while the odds of any two random matches are much higher.

So my anger at the FBI for trying to hush up the story has now been replaced with frustration with the press and myself for not thinking the story through before judging the FBI’s decision.

Any objections to this application of the birthday problem?

What to keep in mind if you are on the jury

How reliable is DNA evidence really? The FBI is working hard to keep a lid on an increasing number of cases that show that DNA fingerprinting isn’t as credible as we’re supposed to believe, write Jason Felch and Maura Dolan of the LA Times (July 20, 2008).

DNA profiles are commonly admitted as evidence in court cases, and are often sufficient to convict a suspect even when there is no other evidence. The DNA profile of the suspect is compared to that of a sample found at the crime scene.

The vast majority of our DNA is identical from person to person, but there are some stretches, called Variable Number Tandem Repeats, which vary in length between individuals. Humans have two copies of DNA—one from mom and one from dad—so we have two versions of each of these repeat segments.

In DNA fingerprinting, investigators look at the length of these repeat segments on both sets of DNA. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the FBI-funded computer system that searches DNA profiles, uses 13 of these repeat segments.

As recently as 2001, a match of 9 loci was sufficient for conviction in many states, though most states now try to compare all 13 loci. Juries are often told that the odds of two unrelated people sharing 9 of these markers are less than one in a billion.

But a search of Arizona’s DNA database by Kathryn Troyer in 2001 revealed two unrelated men who matched at 9 of the 13 loci.

Instead of trying to get to the bottom of things, the FBI responded to these findings with skepticism, and even tried to block future searches. Thomas Callaghan, head of the FBI's CODIS unit, called Troyer’s findings “misleading,” and reprimanded her laboratory for releasing the search results to a California court.

Despite threats from Callaghan to be cut off from the national database, similar searches followed in California, Illinois, and Maryland.

A Maryland judge wrote, “The court will not accept the notion that the extent of a person's due process rights hinges solely on whether some employee of the FBI chooses to authorize the use of the [database] software.”

The database search in Maryland turned up 32 pairs of individuals which matched at 9 loci, in a database of 30,000. Three of these pairs matched at all 13 loci, though it is not clear whether these individuals were related.

The Illinois search revealed 903 pairs of individuals, in a database of 220,000, whose DNA fingerprints matched at 9 loci.

DNA has become a strong weapon in courtroom battles, so it is easy to see why the FBI and prosecutors would panic at these findings. But it does kind of make you wonder whose interests they are serving by hushing up the truth.

Be nice to your plants—you never know what they are planning

Kin recognition is important for the social behavior of most animals. Animals tend to behave in ways that benefit their relatives, often at a loss to themselves. Some common examples are honeybees, who work to promote the reproduction of their queen, or prairie dogs, who call out to warn nearby relatives of danger, at the same time drawing attention to themselves and risking attack.

Recognizing relatives is also helpful for avoiding inbreeding.

Until recently, the ability to recognize kin has been attributed exclusively to animals. But last year, Susan Dudley, at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, reported on the “secret social life” of the American sea rocket, a dune-dwelling plant with little purple flowers, found on the beaches of the Great Lakes.

Dr. Dudley and her graduate student Amanda File found that sea rockets grow more roots when they share a pot with strangers than when they are potted with relatives.

By growing more roots, plants increase their competitive ability underground. Plants with more roots are better at soaking up water and nutrients.

So sea rockets purposely leave more space in the pot for their relatives, giving them a better chance to access water and nutrients. But when a stranger is nearby, they have no inhibitions about hogging all the resources.

Sea rockets seem to recognize their neighbors based on some cue in the roots, since plants potted individually do not change their root-growing behavior when non-relatives are placed in nearby pots.

Since Dr. Dudley published her findings, kin recognition has been demonstrated in several other plant species.

Plants have several different ways of sensing their neighbors. They can detect changes in light, caused by absorption of particular wavelengths by neighboring plants. They can also detect chemicals released by other plants into the soil or air.

One parasitic weed, the dodder, which thrives on nutrients extracted from other plants, actually grows towards its victims, a behavior startlingly similar to hunting.

Plants may be more aware of their surroundings than we’d like to admit. Scientists have known for 100 years that plants send electrical signals from one part of the plant to another. But nobody knows what these signals are for.

Sensory plant biology has blossomed into a hot topic, with a deep rift separating scientists who believe that plants have some sort of sensory-nervous system, and those who maintain that intelligence is limited to animals.

Attributing intelligent or planned behavior to plants may seem a stretch, but maybe plants are smarter than we think. We just haven’t noticed, because they move orders of magnitude slower than we do.

(photo from Harold Davis on flickr.com)

More Recent Articles

You Might Like

Click here to safely unsubscribe from "The cogturner."
Click here to view mailing archives, here to change your preferences, or here to subscribePrivacy