Drafts

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.

Male manakins are most popularly known for the “moonwalk” dance in order to attract potential female partners. The behaviors and actions of male manakins play a crucial role in attracting a female manakins. The red capped manakins have a unique and amusing type of dance. It mainly consists of movement and sounds which include: fast movement up and down the branch (“moonwalk”), snapping his wings to make noise, shooting between his perch and his surroundings, flying in circles around then swooping, and also spinning to reveal their bright yellow legs. By utilizing this behavior, they attract potential mating partners, and their variations in the mating dance is what attracts females. These variations can be observed and recorded, and then behavioral flow charts can be constructed in order to better understand what specific variations causes female attraction, as well as what causes attention retention in females.

The two multi-panel scientific figures created by the original student and the second student showed several observational differences. Upon initial observation, the replicate figure is significantly darker in color than the original figure. Although they both display a yellow-tinted background color, the replicate figure has a dark yellow-orange color, while the original figure has a light, yellow-beige color background. Similarly, both figures contain the three essential images of the interaction between the Sweet Olive tree and the English Ivy. The first photo is taken of the English Ivy strand, the second of the Sweet Olive tree, and the third photo captures both species interacting with one another from a farther distance. All three photos of the replicate figure capture nearly-identical images of the original figure. However, in the replicate photos, the sun appears to be setting, as the sun is setting at a different angle than in the original photos. Additionally, the arrows used on the third photo to signify the two species from the replicate photo are both pointing towards the left direction. To contrast, in the original photo the blue arrow is pointing in the right direction and the red arrow is pointing in the left direction. The text above the actual photos is identical in both figures. However the photos in the replicate figure appear to be significantly smaller in comparison to the original figure.

    It’s interesting to note that society views different relationships as “odd” compared to others that seem “normal”. For example, a relationship between a 28 year old and a 16 year old seems odd to a lot of people, while a relationship between a 48 year old and a 36 year old does not seem as weird. But why is that the case? The two relationships are the same ages apart, yet the former seems more “odd”. Another example is an 18 year old and a 38 year old, compared to a 52 year old and a 32 year old. Again the former seems a lot more odd compared to the latter. You can even compare a 14 year old dating an 18 year old, versus a 21 year old dating a 25 year old. Of course this last one is illegal due to things such as grooming, but the same age difference applies. The reason why some of these relationships seem odd compared to others is due to the point in life each person is at. When two people are in similar points in life, for them to date does not seem odd from the viewer. A 14 year old and an 18 year old are two very different points of life. One is about to leave middle school, while the other is about to enter university or is working. A 52 year old and a 32 year old are both adults most likely working on their careers looking to settle down if they haven’t already. To pair two people who are at two different stages of life, causes dissonance that can make us uncomfortable.

If a skull belongs to O. Diprotodontia one way to immediately separate out two families from the rest is to look at the size of the skull: F. Petauridae and F. Acrobatidae are both types of flying-squirrel-like creatures that have the smallest skulls out of all the diprotodont orders we looked at in lab. The difference between them is that F. Petauridae has a squamosal bone (back part of the zygomatic arch) that has honeycomb-like holes in it, whereas F. Acrobatidae does not. To identify the rest of the order, looking at the angular process can help narrow down what family a skull belongs to: although most marsupials have a reflected angular process, there is one family that does not. This family is F. Phascolarctidae (koalas) which also has a long paroccipital process and selenodont teeth to accommodate its herbivorous diet. If the angular process is reflected, a possible next step is to look at the gap between the incisors and the molar row. This is called the diastema, and if it is large then it could belong to one of two families; either F. Macropodidae (kangaroos and their ilk) or F. Vombatidae (wombats). What distinguishes the two, aside from skull shape, is the fact that F. Vombatidae has 1/1 incisors—meaning that it only has one incisor on each side of its head both on the lower and upper jaw—while F. Macropodidae has 3 upper incisors that are blade-like and angled for cutting. This leaves three families, F. Pseudoceiridae, F. Phalangeridae, and F. Potoroidae, which all have similar skull shapes and sizes. F. Pseudocheiridae is the smallest, while F. Phalangeridae is the largest. F. Potoroidae and F. Phalangeridae both have enlarged premolars, however they differ in each family as they are angled outwards in F. Phalangeridae and in line with the molar row in F. Potoroidae. This leaves  F. Pseudoceiridae, which has no enlarged premolars and instead can be distinguished by its selenodont teeth.

In Spring 2019, as part of the Writing in Biology course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project in which I created a methods section for the construction of a multi-panel scientific figure, using photographs taken of an interspecific interaction involving parasitism. These methods were followed by a second student, and the observational differences between the original scientific figure and the replicated figure were recorded and compared. The purpose of this project was to observe differences in the two scientific multi-panel figures and identify the factors that caused them. I created a methods section that aimed to hold validity and  provide instruction for an experiment that could be easily replicated, while also investigating factors to control and distinguishing between observational differences and inferences. The controlled factors in this experiment were the type of software used to create the figures, time of the day, and seasonality.