Blogs

I am currently taking a class called Life after biology. It is a 1 credit course for biology majors. It basically teaches us how to write the resume and prepare ourselves to do the things we want after we graduate. Many people were thinking of graduate school or medical school which I also intend to get into the medical school. It is very competitive so I have to do well in school. Also, many others were interested in PA school, finding a job right away, and also going into the research field. I don't really know what exactly I want to do with my future life because I still feel like I am young to choose a job I want for the rest of my life. But as I am about to finish my undergraduate college experiene, I definitely feel more pressured and responsible and I also feel like I have to figure my life out soon if I want to be successful.

he organism I decided to picture was found in the Durfee Conservatory, which is located between University Health Services and Morrill II. The exact address is 210 Stockbridge Road and it is open to the public 10am to 4pm, Monday through Friday. I went to conservatory at approximately 11am on a Friday. The entrance I used was the one closest to Morrill II, with a wooden sign outside of it that reads "Durfee Conservatory Visitors Welcome". Once inside the organism was found directly to the left of the entrance in a square pot. The name of the plant is Camellia Japonica Jarvis Red, it had a structure that was very similar to a small tree with green leaves and a few blossoming pink flowers. Once I found the plant and identified the name I returned to the door and placed my left hip on the shelves grounded to the wall and took a picture at eye level or approximately five and a half feet off the ground. Using my Iphone camera, I was sure to capture the full pant while specifically focusing on capturing the two blooming flowers in the picture as well. Then I squared my shoulders to the side of the plant facing Morrill II, so now my back was to the entrance wall. I then located the lower of the two flowers on this face of the plant, cleared away the branches in order to see the flower head on and took the second picture, once again using my Iphone camera. I was sure that the flower took up the majority of the screen and that individual structures of the flowers were identifiable. Once all the pictures were gathered the figure was created and it soncsisted of three panels, labeled A, B and C respectively.

Observations are quantitative or qualitative characteristics that the observer notices about something. Meanwhile inferences are assumptions the observer makes based on the observations they made. In the activity we are using in class observations would be the concrete differences between the original and replicate figures. The inferences would be the reasons why the differences occured. For example if the lighting is different between the figures, one could infer that the figures were created at different times of day. In general the inferences and differences will be as a result of the lack of control of certain variables when creating the figure. 

Scientists were originally set out to determine the migration patterns of the northern saw-whet owl in southern Ohio, luring them with audio-recordings to attach a tracking band to them. However, upon a closer look on them, they are able to spot something more fascinating. Owls are known for their large eyes and keen sense of hearing to be able to spot prey and predators during the night time due to their nocturnal habits, and have been able to successfully thrive due to this evolutionary adaptation. Taking a closer look at the owl, if one parts the feathers of its ear opening, as it does not have an external ear structure, one can see the eyeball of the owl. This can be achieved due to the enlarged eyeball and the unusually large earhole that the owl possesses. The eye makes up about 5 percent of their body mass, and their earholes are un-proportionally large which made it easy for the scientists to take a look at the eyeball from the internal ear. I believe this is one of the most important adaptations an owl has evolved to since their sense of hearing and eyesight have to be very good to be able to live in the environment that they do and in the hours that they are active. Most owls thrive in forests and hunt during the night which make it easy for one to not see a branch, hit one and get injured. Knowing one can access the eyeball through the year could aid us in understanding more about the eyeball of an owl as well. 

Their are a few similarities and differences between these two figures on page 14. Both figures include two birds eye view pictures and one on the ground of roughly the same location, but the exact locations, zoom levels, and times of day appear to be the most obvious differences. The first figure's ground level picture is on a cloudy day and you can see the church, the library, and 3 fountains of the campus pond while the second figure's ground level picture is on a bright sunny day and only includes two fountains, the church and the library. Out of the two birds eye pictures of each figure, one shows a more developed metawampe lawn with grass and concrete ramps while the other picture of each figure has what seems to be just pathes of dirt in certain areas. Another similarity between the two birds eye pictures that i noticed is that th foliage around the campus pond between the two figures almost make the campus pond look like a different shape, like trees were added and they hide the real waterfront of the campus pond. Another difference between the two birds eye shots in each figure is that the one with more dirt patches also seems to include small buildings that are replaced with grass in the other shot.

One inference that I think can be made is that the two birds eye shots of each figure are to compare the before and after. Today the metawampe lawn and the other grass areas looks like they do right now while the other resembles what I would guess the areas looked like before development.

First, I traveled to the Durfee Conservatory located behind the Morrill buildings to find a plant to photograph. After walking through the first room of plants from the front of the greenhouse and into the second room, I began to assess which plant stood out to me the most. On the far left in the middle of the wall, I found a flowering potted plant. One type of flower was white and pink, and the other was light orange and pink. I used a ruler to measure the proportions of the different areas of the plant. The plant had thick stems approximately 25 centimeters long that were partially white. The leaves were approximately 20 centimeters and the flowers themselves varied in size but averaged at 12 centimeters. From the tag in the soil, which was placed backwards in the pot so that the name was not showing in the picture, I discovered that the plant was the Cattleya ‘War Paint’ flower. I then took two different pictures. The first was a picture of the entire plant and its pot and the second was an up close picture of a white and pink flower with some leaves and petals of other flowers in the background. I then left to create my figure at home.

Observations –
In panels A, B and C the lighting is different between the original and replicate. The original panels from are darker in color with more saturated tones. The foliage in the original panels and the replicates appears different. The replicates show the plants with fuller foliage in a lighter shade of green. The angles are also different. In each panel the original is from a lower angle and does not include the entirety of the pot which the replicates do; these original photographs are more level with the edge of the pot. The letters on the replicate panels have a period after them, while the originals do not.
The different angles of the photographs also vary what is included on the sides of the pictures. The original panel A shows a space between the bamboo backing so the outside is visible. The replicate does not have this space, but shows the ground and the bottom of the bamboo backing; it also shows a red rectangular object behind the plant and water on the table.
The original panel B does not show any of the table; it is the plant, the top of the plant, a portion of a plant next to it and the bamboo backing. The replicate shows the same things, but additionally shows the entire pot, the table and a red rectangular object behind the table.
The original panel C shows the top of the pot up with a very small portion of the plant next to it included. The replicate shows the entire pot, the table and much more of the plant next to it and a plant on the other side.

Inferences –
The light differences could be based in different times of day/season or different equipment. The angles and format were probably not specified in the methods.

Observational Differences:

1. The bottom panel is more blurry than the top panel.

2. The pictures of pannel1&2A and 1&2B are not the same distance from the camera in the bottom panel.  This is due to the differnet bee sizes as well as the different leaf sizes. 

3. The Flowers in 1 and 2 B panels are not the same color.

4. There is no glass rim in 1A or 1B

5. There is no gray surface in 1A or 1B

6. The width and color of the bees do not appear to be consistent betwee the 2panels.

7. There appears to be a light source illuminuating 1A and 1B 

8. The leaves in panel A appear to be facing in different directions. 

9. The bee is resting in a flower in Panel 2B however it is residing on leaves in 1B

Inferences:

1. Different cameras were used given the degrees of clarity.

2. Different bees were used given the differences in size and color

3. The speciments used in the bottom photohraph are not the same as the top given the array of differences.

4. The photograph was taken at a later date due to the flowers having changed.

5. The photograph was taken in a different location or at a different time of day due to the degrees of lighting differences. 

Starting the observational paragraph:

Perfect replication of any experiment or action is an unfair expectation in experimental science. The complexity and wide array of variables that simply cannot be controlled will always contribute to indescrepancies between data.  However, these differences should be expected and properly acknowledged or explained. Here we see that even a brief comparison of the two figures allows one to find several discrepencies, including distance from the material, level of focus,  time of day and location of the photograph, that are likely secondary to variables not approrriately discussed in the methods section above.

For the capture of clear, useful information while photographing detailed objects, such as insects, the distance one captures the image and the level of focus used help one construct clear and informative images. Based on the dife

Both of these figures display two pictures of a building, pictures A and B, and one of a tree, picture C. They are fairly similar upon first impression. They are both aerial views of a building that appear to have been taken during different seasons and this may have been an instruction in this person’s methods section. This is an inference based upon the observation that the trees are fuller in one of the aerial pictures, however in Figure One picture A has full trees, whereas in Figure Two, picture B has full trees. Pictures A and B in Figure One appear have been taken at a farther distance as opposed to Pictures A and B in Figure Two. Picture C in Figure One features a bright and greener tree with a bluer sky, whereas Figure Two’s Picture C appears to be in less sunlight. One inference I could make from this is that Figure One’s Picture C was taken earlier in the day than Figure Two’s Picture C. The building featured in Figure Two’s Picture A and B appears to be animated and the building does not seem to fit in with the background of the picture which appears to be more natural. An inference I could make is that this person photoshopped or edited the image. Figure Two Picture A has an arrow pointing to the tree and Figure One does not have any arrows.