Where Were You When...? [Uncertain Principles]

I failed to write something on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall yesterday, partly because I think the other six million blog posts on the subject had it pretty well covered. Another factor, though, was the fact that I don't have the sort of crystal-clear recollection of where I was and what I was doing on that night. I can reconstruct where I must've been-- I was a college freshman, so I would've watched it in the tv room on the second floor of Fayerweather-- but I don't clearly recall the event itself. It's all mixed together with the endless discussions of What It All Meant that came in the weeks that followed, to the point where I don't recall what was the event itself, and what was a later recap of the event.

This is a little embarrassing, as it is one of the Epochal Events of my lifetime. I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I have a clearer recollection of where I was when Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson that same (academic) year (we were in the same tv room, and George D. flipped the tv to HBO (which we didn't get), so we got the sound without the pictures). But memory's an odd wossname.

This does seem like a decent excuse for a reader poll, though. So here's a partial list of Important Events from my lifetime (at least the part that I can recall clearly-- I was around 3 when Nixon resigned, so that doesn't make the list). These are events that I've heard at least one person use in a "I remember where I was when ______" type essay or discussion. Which of them do you remember that way?

Here is an incomplete list of significant events. Check the ones where you remember where you were when you first heard of them:(opinion)

I'm sure I've left something big off the list, too-- probably several somethings, so you get an "Other" blank to add one of your choosing. If you have more than one event to add to the list, you know where the comments are.

Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Where Were You When...? [Uncertain Principles]

Rapid Synthesis of Ibuprofen in a Microreactor

Tyler McQuade (Florida State University, Tallahassee) and coworkers have synthesized a common anti-inflammatory drug in 10 minutes, using a series of adjoining microreactors, in a continuous format. This news feature was written on November 10, 2009....

Bogdan AR, Poe SL, Kubis DC, Broadwater SJ, & McQuade DT. (2009) The continuous-flow synthesis of Ibuprofen. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English), 48(45), 8547-50. PMID: 19810066   The continuous-flow synthesis of Ibuprofen.


See original: Research Blogging - All Topics - English Rapid Synthesis of Ibuprofen in a Microreactor

George Will gets something right [The Island of Doubt]

In an otherwise typically error-dominated Newsweek column, George F. Will spelled "minuscule" correctly. So I don't want to read any complaints that Will gets everything wrong each time he writes about climate change.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can't correct his myriad other mistakes. Here's one paragraph, with some necessary editors, just to get us started.

There is much an unremarkable level of debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased continued for that long [11 years]. What we know is that computer models did not did predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions uncertain sums of dollars and diminished increased freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data that is entirely consistent with the prevailing consensus on the theory of anthropogenic climate disruption. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man [George: who calls him this, other than you? -- ed ]--reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool continuing to rise. [George: temperatures rise or fall, they don't cool or warm; only the subject of measurement warms or cools -- ed] "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect," although climatologists confirmed that the models are performing as well as expected."

Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select George Will gets something right [The Island of Doubt]

People who think they are more restrained are more likely to succumb to temptation [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

Will you have that extra chocolate bar when you're worried about your weight? Will you spend that extra hour on the internet when you have other things to do? Will you have that extra drink with an attractive colleague when your partner is waiting at home? Our lives are full of temptations and some of us are better at resisting them than others. But unexpectedly, the very people who think they are most restrained are also most likely to be impulsive. Their inflated belief in their own self-control leads them to overexpose themselves to temptation.

Brownies.jpgIn a series of four experiments, Loran Nordgren from Northwestern University showed that people suffer from a "restraint bias", where they overestimate their ability to control their own impulses. Those who fall prey to this fallacy most strongly are more likely to dive into tempting situations. Smokers, for example, who are trying to quit, are more likely to put themselves in situations if they think they're invulnerable to temptation. As a result, they're more likely to relapse.

The restraint bias stems from the fact that we're generally bad at predicting the future and how we'd feel in circumstances that are different to our current ones. When we're full, we underestimate the powerful pangs of hunger. When we're  cold, we can't imagine what it's really like to be sweltering. Addicts underestimate the pull of their drug-of choice when they try to quit.

Nordgren showed this in a previous experiment, where he asked people to remember how much dunking their hand in an icy bucket would affect their performance in a memory test. He found that people underestimated the memory-killing power of the ice, unless they were actually doing it at the time.

This time, he wanted to see how this restraint bias actually affects our behaviour. He started by asking 72 students to memorise strings of numbers for either an easy 2 minutes or a strenuous, tiring 20 minutes. As expected, those who did the longer task felt more tired than those who did the shorter one. They also felt that they had less control over their mental fatigue and they were less likely to cram for their final exams, leaving significantly less of their studying until the last week.  This confirms that, like the case of the icy bucket, students overestimate their ability to fight off tiredness unless they're actually experiencing it, and this affects how they plan their studying.

In another study, Nordgren asked 79 people to rank seven snacks in order of preference, either as they entered or left a cafeteria. He also asked them to pick one of the snacks and said that they would win it, and four euros, if they returned it uneaten a week later (the snacks were tagged to avoid cheats).

He found that people leaving the cafeteria were not only less hungry than those entering it, they also felt more strongly about their ability to shrug off an impulsive craving for snacks. That came through in their choices - the full volunteers generally chose one of their two favourite snacks, while the hungry ones chose their second- or third-favourite. On an individual basis, people who thought more of their impulse control were more likely to choose the more tempting snack. They were also less likely to actually return with the snack.

cigarettes.jpgFor his final studies, Nordgren wanted to actually manipulate his volunteers' belief in their resistance to temptation. He gave 53 smokers a test that would tell them if they had a low or high capacity for controlling their impulses. The test, however, was a sham and it's decrees were random. Nonetheless, those who were told they had lots of control were more likely to believe it than those who were assigned to the low-control group.

After being manipulated, the volunteers played a self-control game where could win money by watching a film Coffee and Cigarettes without lighting up. They could choose their difficulty setting - they could either watch the film with a cigarette in another room, on their desk, in their hand, or in their mouth (unlit, of course). The harder the challenge, the greater the potential prize.

As you've probably guessed by now, smokers who were told they had more control exposed themselves to the more tempting scenarios (they typically opted for the cigarette in hand, while the other preferred it on the table). However, their self-beliefs didn't pan out - they were three times more likely to actually smoke the cigarettes than their peers, despite being allegedly less impulsive.

This fits with other studies which have found that smokers underestimate the cravings they'll face when they try to quit. And after cravings cease, self-delusion becomes even greater. Nordgren  interviewed 55 people who had quit smoking for three weeks and found that those who were most confident about their impulse-control were more likely to put themselves in tempting situations. They were less likely to ask people to not smoke around them, and more likely to hang around other smokers, keep cigarettes around them and think that they could have an occasional cigarette without truly relapsing. And the price of this confidence? They were more likely to relapse after four months.

Together, Nordgren's four studies beautifully demonstrate the power of the restraint bias in real-life settings. It's a phenomenon that has powerful consequences, especially when it affects behaviours like smoking or dietary choices that could have significant effects on people's health. It also applies to several situations where temptation rears its head. Should a married person knowingly go for dinner with an attractive ex, on the assumption that they'll resist their attraction? Should a busy professional buy a time-sucking computer game based on their confidence that they'll manage their time effectively?

The restraint bias could also help to explain why people willingly take up activities they already know to be addictive - they simply believe that they're strong enough to resist the addiction. As a powerful example of this, one study showed that heroin users are less willing to pay for the substitute buprenorphine if they weren't currently experiencing cravings. If experienced users underestimate their urges, imagine how monumentally more difficult it would be for a naive person to do so.

This study, like many others I've reported on, speaks to the massive importance of self-awareness. Unrealistic perceptions of ourselves can wreak havoc with our decision making. Overinflated views of ourselves give us further to fall when our status is challenged. If we think we're more controlled than we are, we're more likely to lose control. If we say unrealistically positive things about ourselves, we could actually damage our self-esteem.

It's no coincidence that many addiction programs encourage people to have a more realistic sense of themselves. Alcoholic Anonymous, for example, emphasises that alcoholics should admit that they are powerless over alcohol and that they will always remain an alcoholic. Nordgren says that these recurring themes could help people to avoid "[drifting] back toward the illusory belief that they can handle their cravings."

Reference:

More unexpected psychology:

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select People who think they are more restrained are more likely to succumb to temptation [Not Exactly Rocket Science]

The Price Equation [Gene Expression]

In the comments below I referred to the "Price Equation." Here is what William D. Hamilton had to say about George Price's formalism in Narrow Roads of Gene Land:

A manuscript did eventually come from him but what I found set out was not any sort of new derivation or correction of my 'kin selection' but rather a strange new formalism that was applicable to every kind of natural selection. Central to Price's approach was a covariance formula the like of which I had never seen...Price had not like the rest of us looked up the work of the pioneers when he first became interested in selection; instead he had worked out everything for himself. In doing so he had found himself on a new road and amid startling landscapes....

In Selection and Covariance, a short letter to Nature in which he introduces his eponymous equation, Price concludes:

...it seems surprising that so simple a relation as equation 1 has not (to my knowledge) been recognized before. Probably this is because selection mathematics has largely been limited to genetical selection in diploid species, where covariance takes so simple a form that its implicit presence is hard to recognize (whereas if man were tretraploid, covariance would have been recognized long ago); and because, instead of using subscripts as "names" of individuals (as I have done), the usual practice in gene frequency equations is to use subscripts only as names of gene or genotype types, which make the mathematics seem quite different. Recognition of covariance (or regression or correlation) is of no advantage for numerical calculation, but of much advantange for evolutionary reasoning and mathematical model building

The "equation 1" mentioned above is:

ΔQ = Cov(z,q)/z

In other words, the change in "Q" equals the covariance of "z" & "q" divided by the mean of "z". It can be rewritten as:

ΔQ = &betaz&sigma2/z

"ΔQ" is naturally the change in frequency of "Q". One can think of "z" above as fitness, and "q" as the proportion of a trait (or gene frequency). The second equation shows "β", the regression coefficient of "z" on "q", and the variance of "q." One recalls from simple evolutionary logic that selection is conditional on variation in the trait which is under selection, and, a correlation of that variation with genetic variation. Much of what we know conceptually is densely packed into the Price Equation.

Wikipedia's entry for the Price Equation is fine as it goes, but I would point you to David B's Defining Group Selection: Price's Equation. The verbal treatment has a particular focus obviously, but it is very lucid. The Darwin Wars & Defenders of the Truth have more much more on George Price, both his science and peculiar biography. This formalism is also the basis under which Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd have developed their research program on the evolution of culture, outlined in Not by Genes Alone.

Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select The Price Equation [Gene Expression]

Rethinking cancer screening? [Respectful Insolence]

ResearchBlogging.orgHere we go again.

I see that the kerfuffle over screening for cancer has erupted again to the point where it's found its way out of the rarified air of specialty journals to general medical journals and hence into the mainstream press. This is something that seems to pop up every so often, much to the consternation of lay people and primary care doctors alike, often trumpeted with breathless headlines along the lines of "What if everything you knew about screening was wrong?

It isn't, but some of it may be. The problem is the shaking out process. I'll try to explain.

Over the last couple of weeks, articles have appeared in newspapers such as the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, radio networks like NPR, and magazines such as TIME Magazine pointing out that a "rethinking" of routine screening for breast and prostate cancer is under way. The articles bear titles such as A Rethink On Prostate and Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings, Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?, Seniors face conflicting advice on cancer tests: Benefit-risk questions lead some to call for age cutoffs, and Rethinking the benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening. These articles were inspired by an editorial published in JAMA last month by Laura Esserman, Yiwey Shieh, and Ian Thompson entitled, appropriately enough, Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer. The article was a review and analysis of recent studies about the benefits of screening for breast and prostate cancer in asymptomatic populations and concluded that the benefits of large scale screening programs for breast cancer and prostate cancer tend to be oversold and that they come at a higher price than is usually acknowledged.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Rethinking cancer screening? [Respectful Insolence]

Tears of Mother Earth Illusion

A dramatic picture taken by Michael Nolan has been dubbed the face of Mother Nature crying on a canvas of melting ice and cascading water on a Norwegian Glacier. Randy Schutt discovered this amazing photo which shows a crying face in an ice cap located on Nordaustlandet, in the Svalbard archipelago of Norway. The tears of this natural sculpture were created by a waterfall of glacial water cascading from one of the face’s eyes, thus painting an alarming picture warning the world about the effects of global warming. Michael Nolan is a marine photographer and environmental lecturer. He has captured this picture while on an annual voyage to observe the glacier and surrounding wildlife. It’s best to quote Nolan’s words on this:

This is how one would imagine mother nature would express her sentiments about our inability to reduce global warming. It seemed an obvious place for her to appear, on a retreating ice shelf, crying.”

Tears of Mother Earth- Melting Iceburgsmall



See original: Mighty Optical Illusions Tears of Mother Earth Illusion

GBIF metadata small grant awards

In order to stimulate the process of sharing dataset-level metadata, the GBIF Secretariat is offering a limited number of small grants of up to € 5,000 to GBIF Participants to enable them to build and/or connect their existing metadata catalogues to the GBIF network.

GBIF is building a metadata portal to enable discovery of [...]

See original: Conservation Commons GBIF metadata small grant awards

Tears of Mother Earth Illusion

A dramatic picture taken by Michael Nolan has been dubbed the face of Mother Nature crying on a canvas of melting ice and cascading water on a Norwegian Glacier. Randy Schutt discovered this amazing photo which shows a crying face in an ice cap located on Nordaustlandet, in the Svalbard archipelago of Norway. The tears of this natural sculpture were created by a waterfall of glacial water cascading from one of the face’s eyes, thus painting an alarming picture warning the world about the effects of global warming. Michael Nolan is a marine photographer and environmental lecturer. He has captured this picture while on an annual voyage to observe the glacier and surrounding wildlife. It’s best to quote Nolan’s words on this:

This is how one would imagine mother nature would express her sentiments about our inability to reduce global warming. It seemed an obvious place for her to appear, on a retreating ice shelf, crying.”

Tears of Mother Earth- Melting Iceburgsmall

See original: Mighty Optical Illusions Tears of Mother Earth Illusion

The tale of two articles: Are we going to destroy Naples? [Eruptions]


Geologic and structural map showing the extent of the Campi Flegrei caldera on the north of the Bay of Naples, Italy. Image courtesy of INGV.

One of the writing assignments I always enjoyed in high school was the "compare and contrast". You could sit back and look for stylistic differences between writers and texts - potentially offering signs about the nature of the writers motivations.

I still find it fun - case in point, two article I read about the research drilling that is about to start at the Campei Flegrei in Italy. The Campei Flegrei is a large caldera system that most recently produced Monte Nuovo, a scoria cone on the north shore of the Bay of Naples. It also produced a very large eruption ~39,000 years ago that erupted ~150 km3 (along with the Roman myths of the entrance to Hades). It has produced a number of VEI 3-5 eruptions over the last 4,000 years.

Researchers from the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology's (INGV) Vesuvius Observatory in Naples plan to do some research, exploratory drilling up to 4 km into the caldera to look at the innards of the magmatic system - and to read the record of previous eruptions from the system. This depth of 4 km is thought to be much shallower than any magma chamber under the Campei Flegrei. Of course, there are some who might say that drilling into an active volcano like the Campei Flegrei is dangerous - and Dr. Buttner and Dietrich from Univ. of Wurzburg rightly point out that there is a minute chance that an explosive event might happen if the drill hit a pocket of vapor-saturated silica magma - however, the benefits of reading the history far outweigh this very remote chance of a game-ending eruption caused by the drill.

Anyway, what does this have to do the articles? Well, one article I read (the first one I read, in fact) was in Popular Science. The other was in New Scientist (sent to be me by the folks at Blogging Pompeii). Talk about stark differences in science journalism!

My notes on the Popular Science article read like a litany of science writing/volcano media frustrations:

  • Who are the "researchers"?
  • Who are the "critics"?
  • How deep will the drill hole go?
  • "Supercolossal"??
  • The drilling in Iceland was stopped because the rig broke, not because the fear of a giant eruption (as this implies).
  • The drill in Iceland did hit silicic magma - unlike what they say here!
  • The research is trying to "avoid" eruption? - rather we want to learn about previous eruptions to understand the likelihood of future eruptions.
  • Campei Flegrei is not Vesuvius!
  • Why is there a giant CGI eruption of Vesuvius(?) part of this article??

I could go on ... I was fuming: "What is wrong with you people?"

I decided to read the New Scientist article to fan the flames of anger, but thankfully it didn't. The first thing I noticed is that the Popular Science article was more-or-less cribbed from the New Scientist (or some other primary source) - the same sentences and phrases appear in both. However, what seems to have happened is the Popular Science article chopped out all the specifics like who the researchers and critics are, the depth of drilling, the real "science" in the article. It left out the quotes from the scientists and their pros and cons. More or less, it stripped down the news of the drilling to: DRILLING WILL KILL US ALL. Thankfully, the New Scientist article at least shows some moderation in the fear mongering (right down to the toned down title and picture of - gasp! - the Campei Flegrei hydrothermal field instead of doomsday CGI volcano). It means we can all get back to the science here.

Drilling in an active volcano for research or geothermal purposes isn't really anything new - we've done it at Hawai'i (where they hit magma), in Iceland (where they hit magma), at Mt. Unzen in Japan (where they drilled into the conduit), in the Philippines and more. Although a few drill rigs have been destroyed in the process, either through small explosions (and even smaller lava flows), none have lead to anything even close to a true "eruption" of the volcano. Our human drilling is nothing compared to all the geological processes that can make conduits for magma - faulting, explosions, volatiles - what we're doing is the equivalent of getting pricked with a tiny needle and worrying about the bloodloss. Sure, if you hit the exact right artery, you might be in trouble, but the chances are small for disaster. So, as I've suggested before, while it appears that drilling can increase seismicity, there doesn't seem to be a lot of good evidence that we can unleash an caldera-forming ignimbrite with our drilling ... maybe we just like to flatter ourselves about the effect we can have on the planet.

However, buried in the New Scientist article is this little gem that I personally find much more fascinating. A paper by Roberto Isaia due out in Geophysical Research Letters apparently suggests that "hazard planners should prepare for eruptions in decades or less" (my emphasis) at the Campei Flegrei. Wow! This is apparently predicted partly due to 3 meters of inflation at Pozzuoli since the 1960s. Now, why isn't this the news here?

Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select The tale of two articles: Are we going to destroy Naples? [Eruptions]

Al Seckel says our brains are mis-wired | Video on TED.com: http://bit.ly/2WJro7

sandygautam: Al Seckel says our brains are mis-wired | Video on TED.com: http://bit.ly/2WJro7

See original: Twitter Al Seckel says our brains are mis-wired | Video on TED.com: http://bit.ly/2WJro7

Influenza virus is infectious for days on banknotes

Influenza virus may be transmitted among humans in three ways: by direct contact with infected individuals; by contact with contaminated objects (called fomites, such as toys, doorknobs); and by inhalation of virus-laden aerosols. The contribution of each mode to overall transmission of influenza is not known. But something that most of us touch on a daily basis – paper currency – appears to be able to hold infectious virus for a surprisingly long period of time....

Thomas Y, Vogel G, Wunderli W, Suter P, Witschi M, Koch D, Tapparel C, & Kaiser L. (2008) Survival of influenza virus on banknotes. Applied and environmental microbiology, 74(10), 3002-7. PMID: 18359825   Survival of influenza virus on banknotes.


See original: Research Blogging - All Topics - English Influenza virus is infectious for days on banknotes

I'm not vulnerable, just especially plastic. Risk genes, environment, and evolution, in the Atlantic [Neuron Culture]

The video interview above, with NIH primatologist Stephen Suomi, is embedded within a feature of mine that that appeared today at The Atlantic website -- and is in the December 2009 issue now shipping -- about a new hypothesis in behavioral genetics.

This emerging hypothesis, which draws on substantial data, much of which has gone simply unnoticed or unremarked, I call the "orchid-gene hypothesis," for lack of a better name. Some of the researchers have other offerings. It's been around for several years but is now blooming as evidence accumulates. When I came across it at a conference this spring -- gaggles of scientists talking excitedly in the halls -- it immediately struck me as a deeply transformative and powerful idea. It recasts the genes we now see simply as 'risk alleles' for things such as depression or ADHD as 'sensitivity' genes that create greater responsiveness not just to bad environments (creating the well-documented risk) but good environments -- creating an upside to these genes that has gone largely unnoticed.

It is thus

a new interpretation of one of the most important and influential ideas in recent psychiatric and personality research: that certain variants of key behavioral genes (most of which affect either brain development or the processing of the brain's chemical messengers) make people more vulnerable to certain mood, psychiatric, or personality disorders. Bolstered over the past 15 years by numerous studies, this hypothesis, often called the "stress diathesis" or "genetic vulnerability" model, has come to saturate psychiatry and behavioral science. During that time, researchers have identified a dozen-odd gene variants that can increase a person's susceptibility to depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, heightened risk-taking, and antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviors, and other problems--if, and only if, the person carrying the variant suffers a traumatic or stressful childhood or faces particularly trying experiences later in life.

This vulnerability hypothesis, as we can call it, has already changed our conception of many psychic and behavioral problems. It casts them as products not of nature or nurture but of complex "gene-environment interactions." Your genes don't doom you to these disorders. But if you have "bad" versions of certain genes and life treats you ill, you're more prone to them.

Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged from this one and is turning it inside out. This new model suggests that it's a mistake to understand these "risk" genes only as liabilities. Yes, this new thinking goes, these bad genes can create dysfunction in unfavorable contexts--but they can also enhance function in favorable contexts. The genetic sensitivities to negative experience that the vulnerability hypothesis has identified, it follows, are just the downside of a bigger phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select I'm not vulnerable, just especially plastic. Risk genes, environment, and evolution, in the Atlantic [Neuron Culture]

NIDA Launches Medical Curricular Resources on Substance Abuse and Dependence [Terra Sigillata]

I missed this note on Friday at the Wall Street Journal Health Blog but the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has made available some great new curricular resources through their Centers of Excellence for Physician Information Program (NIDA CoEs) (press release)

"Physicians can be the first line of defense against substance abuse and addiction, but they need the resources and the training," said NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "Our long term goal is for doctors to incorporate screening for drug use into routine practice like they currently screen for other diseases; to help patients that are abusing to stop; and to refer more serious cases to specialized treatment."

Three themes have emerged in this first wave of CoE offerings: the importance of communication in the doctor-patient relationship, particularly around sensitive issues; the recognition that substance abuse may play an integral role in many disorders physicians treat, even when not the presenting condition; and the crucial part physicians can play in both identifying substance abuse in their patients and reducing their risk of developing a substance use disorder.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select NIDA Launches Medical Curricular Resources on Substance Abuse and Dependence [Terra Sigillata]

The Tet Zoo tour of Libya (part II): of larks and buntings [Tetrapod Zoology]

After a little delay, I'd like to continue regaling you with, if I may, my assorted musings on my excursion to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. In other words, I want to talk more about Libya...

Tripoli-prehistoric-mural-Nov-2009.jpg

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

See original: ScienceBlogs Select The Tet Zoo tour of Libya (part II): of larks and buntings [Tetrapod Zoology]