Blogs

The Ampullae of Lorenzini are electrorecepting organs found on the snout of shark. These tiny pores enter into a mucus filled canal, fillled with glucopolysaccharides, which aids in directing the electrical signal down to the base of the canal where the sensory cells are found. The receptor cells innervate at cranial nerve 7, along with the lateral line systems fish use to detect current flow of water. Rather than sensing its environment, a shark uses it electroreception to pinpoint prey it cannot see. This is especially important due to the positioning of the eyes on the shark. They are on the side of the sharks head. Therefore, when a fish is directly in front of the shark, it cannot see it. Thus, the shark relies its ability to detect electric fields to sense what is directly in front of it.

The Ampullae of Lorenzini are extremely sensitive organs and can detect charges down to a billionth of a volt. This means that the shark can detect cell depolarizations, such as those that occur during the contraction of a muscle. However the voltage of cell depolarizations is actually a much higher voltage than what the ampullae can detect. Rather, these electroreceptors are fine tuned to be able to detect the ions flowing through the gills of other fish. So as long as a fish is alive, moving and breathing, a shark can sense it.

Finding a spider web on the UMass Amherst campus proved to be harder than anticipated. While walking around campus, I made sure to keep an eye out for any crevices or untouched places where a spider web may reside. At 12:00 PM on Thursday, a spider web was located near the Lewis Residential Hall main entrance on Thatcher Road. The stairs to the main entrance had black, barred side rails on either side. While standing on the first step, facing the Lewis House main entrance, a spiderweb was found on the stair railing to my right. This part of the railing was at the bottom of the stairs, where the end of the railing is tucked around itself. This part of the railing made an oval-shaped hole where a person would typically grasp the railing as they first start walking up the stairs. The spider web was tucked underneath the bent part of the railing, in between the oval-shaped hole; the spider web was enclosed on all sides by the railing.

Page 30:

Observations:

-Yellow 

-Pedals pointing downward

-Small, brown pistil projecting upward (about 1 cm in width)

-Present in bunches

-Low to the ground

-Relatively small flower

-Lighting is brighter on the two outside pictures

-Saturation on the top figure, on the left images

Inferences:

-Pedals point downward in order to reach more sunlight for photosynthesis

-Grow in bunches to provide protection or nutrients to each other

-Grows low to the ground to require less maintenance and receive more shade during the day

The figure that was observed contained four pictures of a species of yellow flower. Three of the four images were individual pictures of a flower and the last picture was a bunch of the yellow flowers that were growing close to the ground. The yellow flowers had a brown pistil that projected upward, followed by the bright yellow pedals that pointed downward. I believe that this orientation was to make it easier for the flower to receive sunlight to perform photosynthesis. This species of flower was pictured growing in bunches, close to the ground. I believe that the clustered growth was beneficial to the flower in order to provide protection and nutrients to one another. The low growth could be advantageous because it allows the flower to require less maintenance and receive shade during the day.

            The lighting on the left picture seems to be brighter than the other pictures in the figure. It does not look like any filters were used to enhance the pictures. A ruler was used in the picture in the middle left in order to show a scale as to how large the yellow flowers typically are. They are relatively small of about a couple inches. All if the pictures in the figure were taken at different angles, such as straight on or from the side.

The figures that were created have differences in the overall format of the pictures. The first figure is smaller than the second figure. In addition, the first picture has absolutely no white space between the panels, while the second figure does. When the second figure was formatted the corners of panel A were not lined up perfectly so the edges of the figure look messier.

When the figures were created there were differences made in the labels. In Figure 1 the color of the letters is a royal blue. The second figure’s labels are more of a navy blue. In addition, the second figure’s labels are larger. Between the two figures the font that was chosen for the letter labels are different.

            Panel A in figure 1 and Panel A in figure two are not perfectly the same. One of the main differences is the composition of the picture. Figure 1 includes a lot more of the flower pot than figure 2.

            The factor that lead to the differences in panel A is the angle and position that the photographs were taken. In Figure 1 the photo was taken from a lower height, while the second figure’s photo was taken from higher up.

Panel B in both figures contain the same type of plant, but the figures still vary. The first figure’s panel B is a lot brighter than the second figures. The brightness of the photograph makes it easier to see the plant.

Looking at the two sets of images on page 3, there are observable similarities between the photos which we can use to infer that one was taken first and then described to achieve the second set. Based on that, there are other observable differences between the photos, first of which is layout and design. The first set of three images has images that are different sizes and are not touching each other, with varying levels of space between them. Photo “A” is singularly on the left and is longer than photo “B” but ends slightly at the start of photo “C”. Photos “B” and “C” are stacked on the right, but again, are not bordering one another. This contrasts to the observations of the second figure, which features the three pictures bordering one another in the same layout scheme (A on the left and B and C stacked) but done so on a different scale. Not only do the pictures border, they are different sizes. “A” is much larger and is the height of “B” and C” stacked. Photos “B” and “C” are the same size and are stacked to the right of photo “A”. In addition to layout formatting, the size of the labels is comparable. Both series of images used a capital letter followed by a period and both sets used the same label in the same location for what was meant to be the comparable photo. However, the second series of images used a larger font to make the labels and thus are more visible.

Another observable inconsistency with the photos is the use of arrows. The first observable difference between the series is that the first used blue arrows and the second used white arrows. Another difference is the directionality of the arrows and the placement in the picture. In the first series photo “B” there is only one arrow, but it bends to point upward. In the second series, there are instead two arrows, one pointing diagonally down and one pointing diagonally up. It is inferred that these arrows were meant to be pointing toward something of noticeable value, although it would appear that they are pointing to different things in the different series and it was not held consistent in any description, not only on how to make the arrows and where to put them, but what exactly they should be pointing out.

Another observation is the color of the sky. In the first photo series, all three pictures feature a blue sky. In the second series, the sky is darker, gray and cloudy. From this it can be inferred that the series were taken on different days that had different weather. It can be furthered inferred that the second series had weather that was of stormy conditions, which can be coupled with the observations that the water was rippled, and leaves of the tree were pointing at an angle, not hanging straight down. From those observations it can be inferred that it was windy and that coupled with the gray sky can lead to the stormy inference.

Another inference that can be made is that the comparable photos between the two series were taken at different locations and angles. While the subject matter is relatively the same, the observations of different views of the buildings in the back lead one to infer that the camera angle was different, thus causing it to capture more or less of the buildings in the back.

The two figures present on my page both have multiple images of the same plant. Both of the figures include three different pictures of the same subtropical/tropical looking plant that has a single orange, and blue flower on it. The pictures of both figures are organized in a similar manner with the largest picture being placed on top of two smaller pictures. The largest picture in both figures includes the largest picture of the plant, with the picture containing the whole plant and not just it’s one flower. The smaller pictures below the large picture  contain close up shots of the flower present on the plant. Both figures also include on their bottom right corners letters A,B, and C. While the two figures are similar in their overall organization and the shots used they do differ in several ways. While they both have letters in each picture the letters they use differ in font type, size, and distance from the bottom right hand corner. The figure on the left is slightly more blurry than the picture on the right, however the figure on the left also has more color than the figure on the right. The figure on the right is more clear than the figure on the left, however the figure on the right is quite discolored with the plant taking on a darker green color that is verging into a grey color. The figure on the left also includes pictures that appear to be closer to the plant than the pictures found on the right figure.

Both sets of pinecones appear similar in shape. One set of pinecones appear larger than the second set, but it cannot be determined whether the cones are actually larger or there is just a different scale used on a zoomed-in version. The lighting of the two sets are different. In the first set, the pinecones appear well-lit on an ivory background. In the second set, the lighting is more dim and the pinecones appear to cast almost no shadow onto the light grey background. This difference in lighting causes one set of pinecones to look darker brown than the other. The pinecones in the second figure (one with 1 cm scale) also look more 2-d and planar than the  first figure, and contain a white border that the first figure did not have in addition to the black outline.

My inference would be that both sets of pictures feature the same pinecones on the same type of paper. One picture is taken with little to no artificial light available and no zoom, whereas the other one is taken with the 'zoom' feature and bright lighting, which causes one set to appear lighter and larger than the other. This might be the reason behind why the background texture remain the same even when one paper looks more ivory and the other dark grey. I would assume that the paper itself is more white than either ivory or dark grey and the lighting causes a difference in appearance.

The 2-d appearance of the second figure also makes the pinecones look more graphical, which gives rise to the possibility that these pinecones were not photographed at all, rather they were hand-drawn using Figure 1 pinecones as a model. In which case, the artist intentionally chose to portray these pinecones as darker and smaller (using a different scale). 

From the two panels, we can detect that the pictures are different because of the format the figures were placed. Figures a,b,c were spaced out in no specific measurement of indentation and the bottom figures b and c were entered in a larger scale than figure an opposed to panel two where all the figures were clumped together and figure a had been the biggest figure out of the three. The label of figures in the first panel was placed on the right bottom corner of the photograph opposed to the second-panel labels that are placed in the top left corner of the photograph. Panel one’s formatting also showed distinction through its use of angles and time frame. The first set of photos show a bush covered in snow half way up its branch, a tree located in a parking lot with a snow hill, and the library with the focus placed on a dead tree. The second picture tries to recreate the original copies but does not because figure a does not have the snow covering more than half the branch height as what was observed in the original, figure b has darker snow in front of the tree than the original figure b, and figure c is pictured at a different angle than the original. The format of the copied figure is not similar to the original either the figures are closed in the corner whereas the original has a more spaced out format with no mandated spacing. ​