Perfect Paragraph

Each section of the shorter article was structured in such a way that each section talked about a new idea on the topic. The different paragraphs also talked about different details that were disparate entities but come together into a single coherent idea. However, the structure of each individual section was not to necessarily have an introduction, main point, and conclusion, but to describe the idea of what the section is about in detail, using as much paragraph as necessary to communicate the information. The role of each section is to add to the previous section so as to help explore the questions that were introduced in the introduction and add to the conclusion that the author makes in the end. The role that first paragraph play is to add the important details that are presented in the title.

In the field of biology, understanding the field of genetics can unlock many great things for fields outside of science. An example can be understanding how DNA fingerprinting can be used to convict a criminal. These ideas are sometimes not well-received by the general public at first, but these small ideas can lead to something big. Mammalian cloning is a subject that allows us to dip our toes into what the rest of the world can do with cloning. Dolly the Sheep is the first mammal ever to be cloned. Now, we clone all sorts of animals for both experimental and sentimental reasons. By sentimental, I am referring to the cloning of pets. Modern cloning companies can clone pets after it has passed away. It probably brings up the question, what more can our modern scientists do? Human cloning is on the line, and it brings up a controversial idea of whether we should be doing so. According to NHGRI, no reliable scientific evidence has shown whether human embryos have been cloned.

How does the body at an embryonic stage even know where to place all the organs in such perfect order? The drosophila's dorsoventral axis formation is a good model system to give us a general idea. At an early stage, the drosophila undergoes syncytial specification – in short, it is one cell full of nuclei in the same cytoplasm and they signal each other. Along the cytoplasm, there are genes creating proteins in different concentrations to establish different axes, including the dorsoventral axis. Gurken is a protein that starts off a signaling cascade that leads to the determination of the ventral identity. Dorsal protein controls the ventral identity of the embryo. Toll protein assists in transporting dorsal into the nucleus of the ventral side, where it acts a transcription factor to establish the identity. Another protein called cactus helps by preventing dorsal from entering and hence dorsalizing that end. To prove this theory, Roth et al had performed immunolocalization and Western blots to find location of the proteins in the wildtype, dorsalized and ventralized embryo. In short, it is the difference in concentrations of dorsal in the cytoplasm and the nucleus that creates the morphogenic gradient, which leads to the embryo to have a dorsoventral axis. In fact, the morphogenic gradient is a concept that can be seen in other settings too. For example, when our hands our forming, the the placement of our fingers from our thumb down to our little finger depends upon morphogenic gradient of a certain protein. 

The articles Smart behavior of true slime mold in a labyrinth and Monophagous leaf‐mining larvae of Stigmella (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) on birch: patterns and differentiation in exploitation of the host have many similarities and differences in their approach to writing a scientific article. 

Informative paragraphs in the introduction are similar. Both articles begin fairly broad and give basic information that leads the reader toward a more in-depth understanding of the subject and what the article is ultimately about. Each article approaches this task differently. The Smart behavior of true slime mold is written in colloquial terms and may be easier to read for someone who is not scientifically oriented. The use of the first person 'we' , and how a question was asked open-endedly 'What sort of behavior could be expected?' are examples. This style is not very common in scientific writing and not present in the Monophagous leaf‐mining article. The Monophagous leaf‐mining article uses passive voice and no first person. It stays focused on the facts. However, this is not to say that the final product of one or the other doesn't achieve what it set out to do. 

Both articles use a level 1 header and some text before the introduction in order to give background information on the study. Both articles have sub-sections and use level 2 headers for their sub-sections. In the Smart behavior of true slime mold article, the subsections give a basic description of what the section will be on, almost like a topic sentence. The Monophagous leaf‐mining article uses a scientific subsection style consisting of an introduction, methods, etc. Both achieve a similar premise of describing what the following section is about by different means. The subsections in Smart behavior of true slime mold usually begin with introductory sentences which give the reader a basic overview of what will be discussed, while the Monophagous leaf‐mining sections immediately introduce the content and skip the 'fluffy' introductory sentences. In both articles, the subsections are used to introduce the new content to continue the flow of the paper. They both follow logical schemes which lead the reader to a final conclusion.

Monophagous Leaf-Mining Larvae of Stigmella (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) on Birch and Behavior of True Slime Mold in a Labyrinth share relatively similar level 1 headings. Although Monophagous Leaf-Mining Larvae of Stigmella gives a more descriptive title than the other document. In addition,  Monophagous Leaf-Mining Larvae of Stigmella (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) on Birch has more traditional level 2 headings, outlining the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Smart Behavior of True Slime Mold in a Labyrinth, however, has level 2 headings that reflect the progression of thought rather than following the traditional scientific paper set up.

The first paragraph in each section plays a key role in setting up what is about to be discussed in the coming section. As for the structure of Monophagous Leaf-Mining Larvae of Stigmella (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) on Birch each section had varying lengths. The results section of that article seems significantly longer than other sections, suggesting the importance of detail and explanation needed when reporting results. In contrast, every section of Smart Behavior of True Slime Mold in a Labyrinth is uniform in length and level of detail. Each paragraph appears to have some form of a topic sentence that helps transition the flow of ideas to a new topic. For instance, in the slime mold paper Nakagaki states, “The plasmodium is interesting in terms of the size of the organism and its individuality.” (798). This topic sentence gives a broad statement in order to invoke interest in the following section while also informing the reader about the switch in topic. In general, each of these papers organize their ideas in slightly different ways but essentially follow the same central idea of discussing similar ideas in a logical progression. Both authors make sure that the ideas flow into each other and continually support their overall argument.

At first glance, the overall structure of the two articles is similar in the sense that they have sections that are titled. The article written by Boomsma JJ, Timmermans H, Corvers CPM, and Kabout J. about monogamous leaf mining larvae has a clear abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Within each of those are sub-sections that are clearly titled regarding their subject. The article written by Nakagaki about the smart behavior of slime molds has an abstract that is seemingly shorter in length than the abstract in the leaf mining article. The sections to the article written by Nakagaki are not labeled with the terms introduction, methods, results, discussion but rather labeled with the information and subjects that are within the corresponding paragraphs. Both articles have two columns of writing rather than the writing being in paragraphs that span the whole page. They are both visually pleasing overall and both take on a “textbook-like” look with figures and graphs located neatly within the columns of information. The level 1 headings in the article about leaf miners are the titles introduction, methods, results, discussion which are also numbered. For example, the level 1 heading “2. Methods” has a section below it that is “2.1 Field Collections” and so on until the last section of the methods which is titled “2.3 Within Leaf Feeding Stratification.” The article about smart slime mold behavior seems to only have level 1 headings. Both articles list references for the cited information. The leaf miner article is significantly longer than the slime mold article and thus has many more references. It is obvious that both articles are scientific in nature and are examples of scientific writing; even though they show various differences. Most paragraphs in each article show a clear “what” and “why” for a first sentence. Those sentences answer what the section is going to talk about and why it is talking about it. In the results section of the leaf mining article, the beginning of the section discusses that it is talking about “A substantial variation in hostplant characters” and specifically mentioned that “Betula pu- bescens appeared to have a broad distribution in the lower scale range, whereas Betula pendula was charac- terised by a narrow peak of high.” These statements indicate that section was going to discuss substantial variation between the hostplant characters and then specified what species had a broad range and what species had a narrow peak in the data. This first paragraph of this sentence gets to the point of what the section is discussing and why it is discussing it.

When presented with a plant sample that needs identification, one might start with whether the sample is woody, tree-like, shrub-like, vine, forb, aquatic, or evergreen versus deciduous. The sample in question seems to be possibly deciduous and shrub-like. It has broad flat leaves that are dark green on the top and lighter green on the bottom. The leaves themselves are almost waxy and reflective to some degree. The next step in identification is deciding whether or not the leaves are truly simple leaves, or compound structured leaflets. There are three total leaves in question within this sample. To decide this, the axillary bud must be identified. There are no axillary buds identifiable on this sample. Since it does not appear at the base of each leaf, one might assume that it was located at the base of the main leaf stalk connecting the three leaves together. This would make them leaflets rather than true leaves. The leaflets are organized in a compound structure rather than alternating. The margins of the leaflets are also key to identification. The margins of this sample appear to be wavy rather than serrated, lobed, or smooth. The overall shape of the leaflet is almost tear drop shaped with the narrow end toward the leaf stalk. Some leaf or leaflet shapes could be round, heart shaped, palm-lobed etc. but this sample remains a tear drop shape with wavy margins. Each leaflet is symmetrical; rather than asymmetrical. The overall size of the sample is 7cm in length and 7cm in width. Each leaflet is about 3.5cm in length and 3cm in width. Each leaf has a small dark brown discoloration to it that has a swirl like pattern branching off the discolored shape. This could be some sort of parasite or unfortunate symbiotic relationship. The dark brown discoloration seems to be a damaged part of the leaflet that reduces the surface area of green useful parts to the leaflet. Overall it is possibly a negative symbiotic relationship going on there. There are also 3-5 small bumps about 1mm in diameter on each leaflet. they are raised on the top of the leaflet and not noticeable on the bottom. It is unclear if there is a relationship between these bumps and the discolored patches. The bumps are a lighter green than the top dark green hue. They also have a slight pink tinge to them. The leaf stalk is fuzzy in appearance and pinkish brown colored. It is also flexible and has no bark. With these defining characteristics, one should be able to identify this plant using a key; assuming they know what region the sample is from.   

This red stem connects three leaves; one points upwards while the two other leaves point left and right. It stands up as if it has a head with arms. While one side of it is bright green, the other side is a darker shade of green. The total size of the leaf is small enough to lay flat and stay within my palm. It is 7.8 centimeters in height and 6.6 centimeters in length. It somewhat has a serrated edge, but it is not rigid as a knife. There are visible signs of wilting (black/brown areas throughout the leaf), yet it seems to still breath on its own. One characteristic that separates the leaf from another individual is that it has two scratches that run throughout the top leaf. The scratch starts from the top center of the stem (about 2/3 up the leaf). It travels out towards the edge of the leaf but leaves 0.3 centimeters of space between the cut and the edge of the leaf. The second cut starts at the end of the previous cut and goes down towards the stem in a lightning bolt shape, stopping "1/3 way up the leaf." The signs of wilt were later identified as leaf miners. A little coat of white fur/wax surrounds both the leaves and the stem. The stem seems to have been through blunt trauma as if someone ripped it off rather than cut it. A bit of clear, viscous liquid oozes out the bottom of the stem. Is it calling for water? The darker side of the leaf seems to have a stronger odor coming off it than the other side. It reminds me of a jungle. The darker side of the stem also has visible lines where water travels throughout the plant (almost like veins). Close observation shows  tiny segments outlined by even smaller "veins" throughout the leaf. Although it does not look dangerous to digest, the signs of leaf miners refrain me from doing so (as well as the teacher's advice). The ink from my pen seems to stick onto the leaves thoroughly. I could probably write a whole sentence on it without it tearing.

The mystery leaf placed on my desk is superficially a green compound leaf, with three leaflets branching from the red center stem.  The red center stem continues to about half way throuh each leaflet were it transitions to a yellow center vein. The yellow veins subseuently branch into smaller and smaller veins off of the center vein. The leaflets are translucent with a waxy surface on the front side of the leaf; The back side of the leaf is a light green, with a matte finish. There is a golden yellow perimeter of the leaf that follows the asymmetric indentations of each leaflet. The yellow perimeter is periodically interupted by brown masses of damaged tissue, left behind by leaf minners. As the mass moves towards the outer perimeter of the leaflet, it grows thicker. The brown tissue is most concentrated at the edge of the leaflet. There are small three dimentional circular orbs of brown mass that are sitting on the leaflets. These orbs are most likely the eggs left by the leaf minning moths. The eggs enter the upper layer off the leaf tissue and burrow until they exit the leaflet to become a new generation of leaf minnig moth. This narrative is shown in the brown tissue pattern: the brown tissue starts off thin at one point on the leaflet and grows until it reaches the edge.  The leaf minning pattern makes each leaff unique and can be used to distinguish one leaf from another.