Writing in Biology

When comparing the two figures there were many differences that could be observed not only with the pictures themselves but with the layout of the figure. When comparing the pictures, the first thing that stands out is that both the trees look very different, with the tree in the replica having pine needles and the tree in the original not having any form of  greenery or leaves at all. Another difference I noticed was that the tree in the replia didn't include the Ivy branches on the trunk while they were present in the original picture. The pictures also had very different backgrounds, the original had a grass with a small amount of snow in the background while the replica only has snow. The tree in the original also appears much larger than the tree in the replica. All of the photos in the replica also show where the tree is planted in the ground while for the original we only see this portion of the ground in 2 of the photos.

When comparing the structure of the figures, one thing that stands out is the labeling of the pictures which are labeled as Picture A,B,C,D in the original and labeled 1,2,3,4 in the replica. There are also no descriptions for the figure in the replica while the original contains these descriptions below their respective label.  The size of the photos is slightly different between the two, with the original having slightly taller pictures when compared to the replica. The arrows between the two figures also shared some differences, with the arrows for the Ivy all pointed to the same picture in the replica while there is one to each picture in the original. The arrows are also slightly  thicker in the replica when compared to the original. The labels the arrows pointing from are different with the original having Ivy Branches and tree and the replicate having Ivy and trees. These labels also have a slightly bigger font size than the labels used on the orginal.

Parts to control were the timing of the experiment and weather to make sure the waterfowl were present. Aspects of the condition of the environment were also controlled to minimize differences. The device on which the photos were taken was also controlled to ensure similar quality of images. The position of the waterfowl in relation to the camera and to each other were also controlled. This included the distance from the camera and from the other waterfowl in the image.  The food which they were given was controlled to ensure they would have the same response to the food they were given (this was cheerios). The amount and interval of time in which food was also controlled to make sure there was enough food to take the necessary photos. I noted how the waterfowl were lured together to take the photos to ensure the opportunity to take the photos were the same, considering the waterfowl are mobile. The method in which specific interactions such as when the geese bit one another was noted to ensure a similar image since such interactions were brief. This was done with the screenshot function of the iPhone after a video was taken. Construction of the panel itself was controlled with regard to color of the background for the photos to ensure similar results in the replication. It was noted that green was put to figure A, rose to figure B, purple to figure C, and turquoise to figure D. The labeling was also controlled, the location of the box (size 70x70 pix), as well as the font (Calibri size 20) were controlled too. 

On Wednesday afternoon, my Mammalogy lab section took a trip to Beneski Museum of Natural History at Amherst College. I had never been there before so it was exciting. On the main floor, there were huge skeletons of Ice Age era mammals. There was an irish elk, mastadon, sabertooth cats, dire wolf, cave bear, and a mammoth. They also had cases with skin and hair samples that had been preserved for thousands of years. We learned that many of the fossils there were found by Amherst College expeditions in the 1800s and 1900s. We had a worksheet to do while there looking at the exhibits. For the fossils we had to identify the scientific name (Genus and species) and make conclusions on diet and locomotion based on tooth shape and the proportion of limbs. 

The goal or the mission of this project was to create a figure that illustrated the interaction between the koi fish and plants in Durfree conservatory. The replicated figure completed that task but with small differences in format. In my methods I realized that I did not specify some key components that could have made both figures more identical. I did not specify how many koi fish were to be present in the frame when taking the photo, if it was supposed to be zoomed in or out, or the color of the koi. As for making the figure itself, I did state the scale of the border, but I did not indicate what scale and where to find it on the page. For the arrow, I stated I used “an arrow with a feathered end” and while at the time I thought that was specific, it really was not looking at the style of the other arrows. Overall, both figures used the arrows to point out plant and fish interacting.

The contents of the photos, specifically the tree and the background, are different in the two figures. The tree captured in figure 1 is thicker than the tree in figure 2. In addition, the tree in figure 1 is covered in moss. The tree in figure 2 does not have any moss on it. In figure 1, the tree has a rectangular black sign saying “Honey Locust,” whereas the tree in figure 2 does not have any sign on it. The surface of the tree in figure 1 is rough and uneven. The surface of the tree in figure 2 is more smooth in comparison. The background of both figures also differs. The Life Sciences Building appears larger in figure 2 than in figure 1. A gray fence lies behind the tree in figure 1, whereas in figure 2 there is no fence. All of the ground is covered with snow in figure 1. In contrast, the snow covers most of the ground but not all of it in figure 2. Both figures show another tree to the right of the interspecific interaction between the tree and moss. However, in figure 1 this tree to the right appears larger than the tree to the right in figure 2. The Integrated Science Building is present in both photos. But likewise, this building appears larger in figure 2 in comparison to figure 1. Overall there are 9 differences between the two figures in regards to the contents of the photos.

When comparing the two figures there were many differences that could be observed not only with the pictures themselves but with the panel layout as well. When comparing the pictures, the first thing that stands out is that both the trees look very different, with the tree in the replica having pine needles and the tree in the original not having any for of greenery at all. Another thing I noticed was that the tree in the replia didn't have the Ivy branches on the trunk like they did in the original. The pictures also had very different backgrounds, the original had a grass with a small amount of snow in the background while the replica only has snow. The tree in the original also appears to be much larger than the tree subject in the replica. The angle from which the trees shot from also appears to be much steeper than in the original compared to the replica.  

When comparing the structure of the figures, one thing that stands out is the labeling of the pictures which are labeled as Picture A,B,C,D in the original and labeled 1,2,3,4 in the replica. There are also no descriptions for the figure in the replica.  The size of the photos is slightly different between the two, with the original having slightly taller pictures when compared to the replica. The arrows between the two figures also shared some differences, with the arrows for the Ivy all pointed to the same picture in the replica while there is one to each picture in the original. The arrows are also slightly  thicker in the replica when compared to the original. The labels the arrows pointing from are different with the original having Ivy Branches and tree and the replicate having Ivy and trees. These labels also have a slightly bigger font size than the labels used on the orginal.

For this project, I simulated the processes of making a procedure that can be reproduced and following someone else’s procedure. I photographed an interaction between two species on the UMass campus. Then, I recorded a summary of my process of taking the pictures and making a multi-panel figure (see “Methods”). The purpose of my Methods section is to facilitate replication of my figure. Then, I find observational differences between the replicated and original figure (see “Results”). Finally, I analyze these observations and make inferences as to what caused them (see “Discussion”).

You brought up a good point that in some cases, believing the idea of free will is comforting, and in other scenarios, not so much. If no one believed in free will, parents would feel more responsible for their own children's faults. They would see no point in teaching them to be different. 

But if most people believed in free will, then it would be detrimental to people like drug addicts, students trying to learn, and just about anyone trying to better themselves. A drug addict would be able to justify their addiction by saying that he or she is not responsible for their own actions, that it's just because of genes. A student might fail a test and instead of developing a growth mindset to work hard and study for the next one, the student would accept their fate that they're not cut out to be smart. In both cases, the lack of free will would help people justify and accept their own actions. Since there is no incentive to change, they wouldn't even try. 

Whether or not there is free will, I think it's interesting to think about the psychological impact that such a belief system could have on everyone. 

Horses as we know them today look nothing like their earliest ancestors did when they first appeared. The first horse-like creature lived in the Nearctic and Palearcitc zones during the Eocene period, about 54 million years ago. Unlike modern horses, Hyracotherium boreale (also called Eohippus) was adapted for life in the woodlands and forests that dominated the Eocene. Hyracotherium was much smaller than the modern horse, with an arched back, a short snout, and a small cranium. Its legs were short, and ended in padded four-toed forefeet and three-toed hind feet with a functional hoof on each toe. Hyracotherium was a browsing animal that fed on shrubs, leaves, and branches, as evidenced by its low-crowned teeth and distinctive molars built for grinding. As environmental changes began to occur, Mesohippus bairdi emerged in the Oligocene approximately 33 million years ago. While also a forest browser, Mesohippus had a longer face and snout than Hyracotherium did, and developed more complex premolars with defined cusps. Mesohippus had three toes on both its fore and hind feet, as the fourth toe that Hyracotherium had was reduced to a vestigial nub, and unlike Hyracotherium, Mesohippus had longer legs and a relatively straight and stiff spine that allowed it to run over hard ground.

Rapid environmental change in the Miocene saw the coevolution of abrasive siliceous grasses and the herds of long-legged ungulates that were adapted to eat them. One such ungulate was Merychippus sejunctus, which emerged about 15 million years ago. Merychippus was taller than Mesohippus and its head morphology was much different, as Merychippus was adapted to a diet of tough grasses instead of leaves: it had an elongated muzzle with deeper jaws, and eyes that were set further back in its head to accommodate the large roots of its ever-growing teeth. In addition, to enable it to survive on its diet of abrasive grasses, Merychippus had high-crowned teeth with distinctive cusps and cement between the cusps. It was also adapted for rapid running across grasslands: the two bones in its forearm were fused to eliminate arm rotation, and although it was three-toed the outer toes were reduced while the center toe developed a large, convex hoof.

One of the last equids native to North America was Equus scotti, which lived during the Pleistocene and most resembled today’s horses. Equus scotti had a single hoof on each foot, with side ligaments to prevent twisting, and the remnants of the side toes found in earlier equines were retained as splint bones. Like Merychippus, it had high-crowned, ever-growing with complex cusps, and was well-suited for life in open grasslands.