Writing in Biology

The arboreal theory is best supported by strepsirrhines fossil records because there is a correlation found between ancestral Mesopropithecus an arboreal ancestor genus and the most similar to the Indriidae family. The similarity in body morphology between the two demonstrates arboreal theory as the most convincing because extended long limbs and long tails are found in current Sifakas and fossils of Mesopropithecus. Extended limbs are an example of arboreal theory because they demonstrate the necessity for primates when involving movement. From between branches in either suspensory locomotion by extended arms or jumping from branch to branch through extended hind limbs arboreal theory is supported by Indriids locomotion because current primate species such as the woolly lemur, Sifakas, and Indri demonstrate locomotion only in arboreal setting.

  

The adaptive origins of primates are concentrated around three theories, arboreal theory, visual predation, and terminal branch theory. Arboreal theory states that primates had evolved from their ancestors by adapting to arboreal living and have derived traits specifically for living in trees. Visual predation claims that early primates were mainly insectivorous, had adapted to forest undergrowth, and only inhabited the lowest tiers of the forest canopy. Terminal branch theory states that primates coevolved with angiosperm plants and adapted to having grasping hands in order to exploit flowers, fruits, and nectar.  All theories give evidence to why primates are born with specific traits but the most convincing theory is arboreal theory as evidence in strepsirrhines fossil records demonstrated early adaptation to arboreal living and suspensory locomotion.

   

    A methods section of a scientific paper has the potential to have the greatest impact on the lasting legacy of a scientific paper. The methods section is what is used to replicate a paper’s experiment and serves to try and replicate the results. In the fall 2018 Writing in Biology class offered at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, a project was assigned to demonstrate this point.  I conducted this project by first writing a methods section that included how to find a previously discovered spiderweb, photograph it and then turn the images into a multi-paneled figure.This was followed by another student in the class being given the methods section with the task of following as best as possible so as to try and produce an identical replicate of the final multipanel figure. Once a duplicate figure was made, I set out to identify observable differences between the two figures and from that, infer what could have caused the differences. Being able to identify differences in an end product and what may have caused them will be an important part in understanding not only the data that this experiment generated, but data that any experiment may produce. Even if the methods section is written as precisely as possible, small variables may still cause an end product to be different and the ability to recognize what is different and why is how best to understand what the experiment’s results mean.

 

There were available instructions to recreate some of the differences but not all (for example: it was stated what were the bounds of the open street map and to whence it furthered). But it could have been clarified saying that the very last bound included __ and excluded __. The font sizes were specifically dictated in the methods, and so were the distance from them from the borders. The zoomed-in picture was said to contain a specific type and make of water bottle. The instructions regarding the overview picture of the spider web could have been improved. I may have underestimated my distance from the spider web (I was perhaps more than 3 feet away) and I should have specified that the pictures were taken from a diagonal angle. The saturation in the on-site pictures might have resulted from a different weather condition: the picture looks as though it was taken after rain and wet brick walls tend to look redder than dry ones. The saturation in the open-street map resulted from zooming in too much. To facilitate better navigation of the open-street map, I should have specified the bounds further.

There were several differences observed between the original (Fig. 1) and the replicated figure (Fig. 2). The open-street map of the replicate figure did not include Life Sciences Laboratory as a landmark, whereas it did contain Integrated Learning Center. The identifying labels (street names, building names, water bodies, etc. ) of the replicate openstreet map were easier to visualize because of bigger letters, and the map overall appeared more saturated in color. The zoomed-in picture of the spider web did not contain an water bottle for scale and included more of the helpline box than in the original figure. The zoomed-out picture of the spider web showed less of its environment/settings (excluded much of brick wall) than the original picture. The pictures taken on-site appeared more saturated in color in the replicate figure. Although the corresponding labels of different panels of the figures (A, B, and C) appeared to be of the same font type and bolded , the letters were of a much bigger size in the replicate figure and also were lesser distance away from the borders.

No two persons can observe the same object in the same manner. However, this is an increasingly necessary skill in the field of science: to be able to replicate someone’s experiment and obtain the same results. The purpose of the Methods Project was to give students a little taste of the scientific process when it comes to peer-reviewing another scientist’s work. All students were instructed to take at least three pictures of a spiderweb and construct a multi-panel figure. Then, they were paired up randomly with another student in the class, and had to reconstruct each other’s figures using just the written methods section (without actually seeing the figure). The goals of the project were to teach students how to write a detailed and accurate methods section and what variables must be controlled when replicating one’s results.

Navigation requires a compass, which indicates where is the North, and a map, for knowing your position relative to your destination. If a migratory bird follows a bearing for a determinate amount of distance and time it is using vector navigation. Meanwhile, if it uses a map, reliable cues, and a bi-coordinate system, it is using true navigation and can adjust its orientation to reach a determined destination in case of being displaced. There is evidence for true navigation in seasoned migratory songbirds, but the cues and sensory systems on which they rely are still unclear.

One possible cue for determining position is using magnetic parameters, and it is thought that birds may process such information using sensory sytems like the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve (V1). The goal of this study was to test if V1 plays a role in the navigation of migratory Eurasian reed warblers after being displaced 1,000 km toward the east from their breeding ranges during spring migration. With this purpose, the researchers performed a series of orientation tests with Emlen funnels at the capture site in Rybachy on intact birds, then sectioned the V1 of one group and performed sham-surgery on another as a control. Both groups were displaced to Zvenigorod where they were subjected to further orientation tests. The hypothesis was that V1-sectioned birds would use vector navigation and behave like intact birds in Rybachy, while sham-sectioned birds would readjust their orientation because an intact V1 plays a role in true navigation.

Also talk about the differences in magnetic field parameters between the two areas (done in discussion)

and talk about how the compass part of navigation is better understood than the map info, which is why they are doing this experiment

Upon review of the results, I came up with 3 reasons as to why there were differences between the two figures. These reasons include, a change in weather, vague instruction, and miscellaneous factors. To start, the weather is a factor that is totally out of our control. In the picture of the environment, the background is brighter thus causing the light exposure in the photograph to be greater. In Figure One, it was a dark and rainy day so the light exposure wasn't as great.  The weather also played a role in the window being opened or closed in the picture. In Figure One, the window is open whereas in Figure Two, it was closed. We can infer that the temperature must have been hotter in Figure One than it was in Figure Two thus resulting in the window being closed.

    The next reason for differences is due to vague instruction. For example, my methods call for the picture of the web to be take at the back right corner of the air duct. Now, the replicate did take a picture of the back right corner, however it was taken at a different distance and angle seeing as they were not specified in the methods. In the image of the environment, I said to take the picture at eye level, not accounting for the fact that my eye level would be different than that of my peers. In terms of labeling, the units for the stroke width and size of the box were missing and so this resulted in a different shape than originally intended. Same goes for the red dot used to illustrate where the web is on the map. I had said to place the red dot along the side of the building without further detail. This resulted in the replicate having the dot further towards the front whereas my dot is more towards the middle.

    Lastly, uncontrollable miscellaneous factors played a part in some of the differences as well. For example, I am not a member of UMOC and therefore do not have a red sticker signifying membership on my UCard. As it turns out, the person who replicated my figure is a member and so they do have the sticker as mentioned previously. This difference is due to the fact that one of us is in a club whereas the other is not. Such differences could not have been accounted for at the beginning of this project and are therefore out of my control.

The finer details of Figure Two were analyzed for differences. To start, there is a red UMOC sticker on the UCard in figure two that is not in Figure One. The labels of the images are different as well. The size of the circle in which the letters are placed is much larger than those in Figure One as well as the size of the lettering being larger. The images in Figure Two are labeled differently than those in Figure One. I noticed that the labels for picture of the environment and the map are reversed in Figure Two when compared to Figure One. Figure two also captures more of the surrounding environment including railings, more of the windows, a light post bulb, and the windows behind the air duct are closed whereas they are open in Figure One. Another difference was the red box used to highlight the location of the web within the environment. The box used for Figure Two has different dimensions thus making it more boxy and larger than that in Figure One. The map in Figure Two is also different in that it is more zoomed in than the map of Figure One. The dot specifying the location of the web is also in a different location. It appears to be more towards the front of the building where as my dot was more towards the middle.

 

The purpose of this project is to generate a multipanel scientific figure using photographs of a local spider web.  These pictures were taken with a great deal of thought as later on, a peer will be tasked with replicating the figure based on my methods. When selecting a web to photograph, it was important to choose an area that my peers would have regular access too so that they would be able to replicate the figure as best as possible. For example, the spider webs in my basement weren’t photographed because not everyone would have access to my basement. Throughout the process it became increasingly important to record as much detail as possible so that my peers would be able to produce a near identical figure.

    Replicability is a huge part of this project. Not only are my peers going to be reproducing my figure, I will be reproducing one of theirs as well. By paying attention to the fine details and being sure to capture every single step and task, I intend to generate a precise layout for them to follow so that the replicate figure will be near identical to mine. If there is not enough detail then there will be noticable differences between the original and the replicate thus reassuring how important detail is while writing.