Sep 042013
 

Things I didn’t expect to do today: talk about flies live on BBC Radio 2!

I made my radio debut this afternoon when I helped out with Simon Mayo’s Homework Sucks! segment of Drivetime. Homework Sucks! is a regular feature where listeners send in questions (whether from their kids homework or otherwise), and the BBC finds experts to give a hand with the answers.

Today’s question: Can insects smell, and if so, how far away can they smell things? You can listen to my answer thanks to the recorded and archived edition of the day’s episode on the BBC website (skip to 1:39:30 for my segment).

So how’d my first brush with the mainstream media happen? I got a call from Richard Levine, the Public Affairs Officer for the Entomological Society of America, asking if I’d be interested in the opportunity to speak on the BBC about how flies smell. There was a catch though: the segment was going to be live, and was going to start in less than 10 minutes! So, I ran across the lab, grabbed R.F. Chapman’s The Insects: Structure and Function off the shelf, quickly refreshed my memory on volatile chemoreception in insects, then jumped on Google Scholar to see if I could find an estimate of how far away some insects can sense scents (which isn’t easy when your fingers are quivering from the adrenaline rush & nerves). Before I even had Chapman opened, a BBC producer had called me to explain what was going to happen and to get my details figured out, and then 5 minutes later another producer called and I was on hold waiting for my opportunity to go on the air! A few minutes after that I had given my spiel, and was sitting at my desk wondering what had just happened, while trying to dissect what I had said and whether I could recall making any goofs!

While I was sure I stumbled and mumbled my way through it at the time, I actually think I sounded pretty coherent after listening to the recording, and it would seem people enjoyed it as well (thanks for the feedback to those who’ve given it!). I’m giving a lot of the credit for me not sounding like a bumbling n00b to Breaking Bio, which has provided me the opportunity to practice talking about science in an informal setting, and in a digital format. It just goes to show that goofing around on the internet with your friends can have surprising benefits for your work!

 

Aug 162013
 

Yesterday a new carnivorous mammal was described from Andean Ecuador (Bassaricyon neblina; the BBC has an excellent write up about it), and it’s been getting a lot of media attention. While I’m happy whenever the work of a taxonomist gets talked about, I have a suspicion that cute, fuzzy things get a greater proportion of that attention.

I pointed out on Twitter that while the one new mammal got international attention, 8 new skink species, 5 new sponges, 4 new water mites, a new fresh water shrimp, a new nematode and a new caddisfly, along with 8 new species of plants (and these were just the species published in Zootaxa & Phytotaxa) were described without much, if any, fan fare.

After my grumpy little observation, Rachel Graham (@PictureEcology) made an interesting suggestion:

That got me thinking: is it our attraction to cute things that puts them in the news, or, thanks to more attention in the past and fewer species in total to be found, that describing a new mammal is so unusual that it’s newsworthy? So, I looked into it a little, did some back-of-the-napkin calculations, and tried to see why we seem to hear about some new organisms more than others.

Now, before I get into it, let me state that this is a very rough approximation of the taxonomic literature based on a few hours of quick searching, and I’m 100% confident that I’ve not found every relevant paper. This is just for fun, and should be taken with a pretty large grain boulder of salt. That being said, I think it’s suggestive of what’s happening, and at the very least might jump start some conversation. Also, this is only taking into account new, living (i.e. not fossil) species described in 2012, so beware small sample size distortion.

According to this Wikipedia list, there were 34 new species of mammals (Class Mammalia — ~5.5k described species) described in 2012 (the fact that there’s an updated list of newly described mammal taxa on Wikipedia would seem to lend credence to a Mammal Bias, but I digress): 16 bats, 9 rodents, 4 marsupials, 3 primates and 2 shrew-like things. Some of those, like Cercopithecus lomamiensis, got some media attention, while the others didn’t (I don’t recall hearing much excitement over the new bats, rats and shrews for example).

Who doesn’t love this face? Cercopithecus lomamiensis, one of the bigger taxonomy stories of 2012.

Now what if we look at other, less cuddly groups of organisms? Like sponges (Phylum Porifera — ~9k described species) for example. I found 54 new species of sponge described in 2012, which is a fairly similar ratio of new:known as mammals. I may be mistaken, but I can’t recall seeing a sponge on the home page of any news agencies (although the Lyre Sponge — Chondrocladia lyra — was selected by ASU as one of the Top 10 New Species of 2012).

Same story with harvestmen (Order Opiliones — ~6.5k described species): I located 46 new species for 2012, which is a few more than the mammals, but I kind of doubt there were reporters knocking on arachnidologist’s doors inquiring about them.

Finally, let’s look at rotifers (Phylum Rotifera — ~2.2k described species), those neat little creatures that whirl around in pond water. In 2012, as far as I can tell, only 1 new species was described. One. As far as rarity of discovery goes, it doesn’t get much more unusual than that, and I think it’s safe to assume no one heard about Paraseison kisfaludyi, even though it sounds pretty interesting (it’s only the fourth species described in it’s Order, and it lives INSIDE the carapace of a tiny crustacean — seriously cool).

I think we can safely say that while mammals may indeed be infrequently described, that’s not the reason they make the news, and that we’re all saps for those large eyes and furry bodies that remind us of Rover, Kitty, and ultimately, ourselves.

So, is there a distinct Mammal Bias in the news media? Probably. Is that a bad thing? Maybe not. While it’d be nice to see some of the other new & fascinating creatures being described by the world’s taxonomists be spotlighted, as long as people are reminded we still don’t know our neighbours very well, and that there are a lot of dedicated people out there working hard to introduce them to us, then I think we’re making progress.

It’s not like newly described invertebrates don’t make the news cycle (a couple of recently described dance flies were getting some attention earlier in the week thanks to some good-spirited nomenclature), it’s just that there’s a whole world of interesting biology and taxonomy waiting to be told outside of the cuddly stuff. All you need to do is look.

—————

Quick footnote with an anecdote: the number of people involved in the description of a new mammal species heavily outweighs the number of people involved with the invertebrate groups I looked at. For the 34 mammal species described in 2012, 107 people were listed as authors on the papers (3.14 people/new species); Opiliones – 26 authors for 46 species (0.57 people/new species); rotifers – 2 authors for 1 species; and sponges – ~35 authors (I lost count) for 54 species (~0.65 people/new species). I’m not really sure what this means (if anything) other than we could really use more taxonomists working on invertebrates, but I thought it was interesting.

Jan 112013
 

Notice anything wrong with this picture?

Photo copyright Omid Golzar

Photo copyright Omid Golzar, reproduced here for editorial comment only.

If your first thought was “Why are there jumping spider eyes photoshopped on to the butt of a beetle?”, then you’re correct!

I don’t normally have a problem with digital art like this; it encourages creativity, makes the viewer think about what their seeing, and introduces a bit of whimsy (and who doesn’t like whimsy?). What I do have a problem with, is when digital art is portrayed as biologically accurate, and marketed as such to the public in a major news outlet.

Last month, The Sun (UK) ran a feature on Omid Golzar’s work, and captioned the above piece “Whiskers…beetle” before going on:

OK, he does look a bit grumpy — but so would you if you’d been left in a fridge before having your mugshot taken.

This amazing close-up of a beetle — with its “almost human” whiskers and bulging eyes — is one of a series of photos of bugs taken by Omid Golzar.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4719170/Bugs-show-their-mugs.html#ixzz2HcoS8jGf

It’s not just The Sun though, as the Daily Mail (UK) also featured this piece of digital art by Mr. Golzar almost a year ago, and also failed to note that it was manipulated. But how does something this ridiculous get published in the first place? Mr. Golzar was obviously aware that this piece was a fabrication of his imagination, and yet allowed it to be representative of his work not once, but twice, despite having an impressive portfolio of hyper-magnified insect portraits that are biologically accurate.

But, the blame shouldn’t rest entirely on Mr. Golzar, and I think the editors who run these stories are the ones who should be embarrassed. Taxonomy Fails are one type of error (and one which I have a little more sympathy for), but this equates to a complete failure to recognize basic biology (i.e. insects having compound eyes made up of multiple facets), something that most 8th or 9th grade students could surely point out! It should have been clear that the photo had been drastically manipulated, and thus it should have no place in the newsroom.

To illustrate, how do you think a mainstream media news editor would react if I suggested they run these images?

Sure they’re both photos of Justin Bieber, but they’ve been heavily modified using Photoshop, rendering them unusable in a newsroom (despite being pretty hilarious otherwise). And yes, that’s a Lamprey in the image on the right, which is about the same evolutionary difference as putting spider eyes on a beetle.

Obviously no self-respecting news outlet would run these, so why is it OK to run a non-human photo without ensuring it was a legitimate representation of the subject? Combined with the nearly daily Taxonomy Fails, I would argue that biological illiteracy in the media has been steadily increasing over the past several years, and I fear the impacts it may have on public perceptions of nature, the environment and science in general. I don’t have a simple solution to curb this trend other than continuing to draw attention to these mistakes, and hope the media starts to notice and remembering it is still their responsibility to present honest & accurate information, no matter what the subject matter.

h/t to Derek Hennen for sharing the original Sun article.

Sep 262012
 
Breaking Bio Podcast

Breaking Bio, the newest science podcast to hit the internet, with your host, Steven Hamblin!

I have a confession to make: I’ve been “secretly” recording a podcast with other biologists from around the world and haven’t told anyone about it.

Until now.

I’m happy to share with you a new podcast having fun with (and at the expense of) science. Momma always said I had the face for radio and the voice for newsprint, so I’m happy to be putting it all to the test with this new media project!

Breaking Bio was the brainchild of Steven Hamblin, a behavioural ecology/computational biology Post-Doc currently working in Australia, and he soon enlisted a motley crew of twittering scientists:

  • Rafael Maia – PhD candidate at University of Akron studying evolution of bird colour,
  • Tom Houslay – PhD candidate at University of Stirling studying sexual selection in insects and our resident eye-candy (or so I’ve been informed),
  • Bug Girl – Queen Bee of the insect blogosphere and provider of sage advice and witty responses,
  • Michael Hawkes – PhD student at University of Exeter studying sex, selfish genes and insecticide resistance in Drosophila (he’ll be making his debut soon),
  • Crystal Ernst (aka The Bug Geek) – PhD candidate at McGill University studying Arctic beetle ecology (she’ll be making her debut soon as well),
  • Me

We’ve recorded 5 episodes, and have so far managed to slander a dead tortoise, compare notes on the grad student life, discuss the world’s smallest fly, give a how-to on academic bridge burning, and share stories from international conferences (among many other topics & tangents). Overall it’s a light-hearted look at science and a way for us to share our passion while having some fun and unwinding a little!

It’s been a lot of fun to be a part of, and I hope you enjoy it while having a laugh or two at our expense! Of course, if you have a question or topic you’d like to hear us discuss, or want to join in on the fun yourself, let us know and we’ll be happy to taint your CV bring you on board!

You can subscribe to the podcast through iTunes, or subscribe & watch the video version over at YouTube (I’ve embedded the first 5 episodes here for your viewing pleasure). Be warned that there is some explicit language in each episode, and possibly bad puns.

Sep 142012
 

Miles Zhang is an MSc student at Laurentian University who, when not trying to catch ’em all, is finishing up his thesis on the taxonomy of parasitic wasps.

————————–

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade or so, you’ve surely heard of Pokemon (short for Pocket Monsters).  Released in 1996 by Nintendo under the names of Pokemon Red and Blue, this pair of interlinkable RPG (role-playing games for non-gamers) took the world by storm and has now become one of the most lucrative video game-based media franchises in the world.

Like most eleven-year-olds at the time, I was infatuated by these little fictional monsters.  Every day I would run home after to catch the TV show, and boot up the Gameboy as soon as my parents weren’t watching.  Sixteen years later, I have played most of the Pokemon games from all five generations, and have caught most of the 659 Pokemon.

However, this blog post isn’t about how much of a nerd I am! Rather I’d like to highlight the 65 Bug type Pokemon that have appeared throughout the series.  As an entomologist, I would also attempt to match them to their real-life counterparts and briefly discuss their biology.  This will be divided into 5 parts, with each post covering one generation.  In a way, I guess insect taxonomists have a similar goal as a Pokemon master…Gotta catch ‘em all (or at least try)!

Bug Pokemon were one of the 15 types of Pokemon introduced in Gen I, which includes 12 of the original 151 Pokemon found primarily in Pokemon Red, Blue (Green in Japan), and Yellow version of the games.

 

Caterpie->Metapod->Butterfree

The inspiration behind these Pokemon are the larval, pupal, and adult stages of swallowtail butterflies (Family Papilionidae).  The red horn protruding from Caterpie is the equivalent of a swallowtail caterpillar’s osmeterium, which are fleshy organs that are normally hidden.  If threatened, the osmeterium can be quickly everted, which is laced with a foul-smelling secretion and used as a defense mechanism.  The caterpillars of the Spicebush Swallowtail (Papilio troilus) also have large, snake eye-like markings on their thorax in later instars, creating the illusion of common green snakes.  The Y-shaped osmeterium further enhances the disguise by mimicking a snake tongue.  It’s too bad this was not utilized in the game, as Caterpie can only use Tackle and String Shot.

Who’s that Pokemon? Its……..a spicebush caterpillar! Photo by Derek Ramsey (GNU FDL)

Metapod is modeled after a swallowtail chrysalis, which can often be found hanging off a branch attached via a silken pad.  As time passes the chrysalis hardens (hence the Harden attack), and the adult butterfly emerges.  While all butterfly wings are covered in scales and can be potentially irritating to the eyes, it cannot produce poison, paralyze or put things to sleep like Butterfree.

 

Weedle->Kakuna->Beedrill

Now while some hymenopteran larvae such as the sawflies have larvae with multiple rows of fleshy prolegs, the larvae of stinging wasps (Aculeata) are legless and do not possess a Poison Sting like Weedle.

 

Venonat-> Venomoth

A gnat (Venom + Gnat = Venonat?) is the common name for various nematoceran flies, and is not related to moths.

 

Paras -> Parasect

While the Pokemon itself resembles a cicada nymph, the inspiration for these Pokemon might be the Entomophthorales fungus (parasite=parasect?), which enters the digestive tract and expands until it can be seen between the abdominal plates.  The bloated corpses are often found with straightened legs and wings, perhaps to ensure the distribution of fungal spores.

 

Entomophthora muscae and its victim! Photo by Hans Hillewaert (CC-SA)

 

Pinsir

Pinsir (haha get it, Pincer…oh puns) is the only non-evolving Bug Pokemon in Gen I, as Scyther can evolve into Scizor starting in Gen II (which I will talk about in the next post).  Stag beetles (Family Lucanidae) are extremely popular in Japan as pets.  The males of the largest species in Japan, Ookuwagata (Dorcus curvidens) can sell upwards of several million yen (tens of thousands of dollars).  As the males have large and distinct mandibles and rather aggressive, they are often pitted against each other for the purpose of entertainment and frequent contestants of the ever ridiculous Japanese Bug Fights (http://www.japanesebugfights.com/).

 

Stag beetle ready for battle! Photo by Simon A. Eugster (CC BY 3.0)

This concludes the first part of Real Life Bug Pokemon, more to come in the near future.

Jan 042012
 

ResearchBlogging.orgIt’s not often that flies make headlines, and when they do it’s usually in a negative connotation (malaria, mosquitoes, black flies, etc). A new paper published Tuesday in PLoS ONE (Core et al, 2011) is certainly not helping this Detrimental Diptera Dillema (DDD), announcing that a species of scuttle fly (Phoridae) has been discovered parasitizing honey bees (Apis mellifera), one of the most loved insects on the planet.

Images of Apocephalus borealis and honey bees from Core et al., 2012

Fig. 2 - Images of Apocephalus borealis and honey bees from Core et al., 2012

Of course things attacking honey bees isn’t in itself news, especially in the age of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The real news here is that the scuttle fly, Apocephalus borealis, has seemingly switched hosts, previously known to be parasitic in bumble bees, paper wasps, and even black widow spiders (Brown, 1993). Other Apocephalus flies are better known as ant-decapitating flies, who’s larvae will pupate in the dismembered heads of their ant hosts. As for A. borealis, it’s association with honey bees was thanks to a serendipitous natural history observation:

(John) Hafernik, who also serves as president of the California Academy of Sciences, didn’t set out to study the parasitized bees. In 2008, he was just looking for some insects to feed the praying mantis that he had brought back to SF State’s Hensill Hall after an entomology field trip. He scrounged the bees from underneath the light fixtures outside the biology building.

“But being an absent-minded professor,” Hafernik joked, “I left them in a vial on my desk and forgot about them. Then the next time I looked at the vial, there were all these fly pupae surrounding the bees.”

San Francisco State University Press Release, January 3, 2012

After further observation, a few behavioural trials and some interesting molecular techniques, the research team found that not only were these scuttle flies parasitizing honey bees in the San Francisco Bay area, but also in migratory bee colonies housed in the Central California Valley and South Dakota, and also that infected honey bees would leave their colonies at night to fly away and die (often congregating at man-made lights and acting strangely); that all of the parasitized bees had been exposed to Nosema ceranae (a fungus which can lead to death from diarrhea and malnourishment) and/or Deformed Wing Virus (a disease that can cause malformation of a bee’s thorax and wings during pupation); and that some of the flies had evidence of these bee pathogens in their systems.

This is a lot of really interesting information for one study, but it’s not hard to see where the authors were going next with their story: scuttle flies could be contributing to CCD and posed a “new threat” to honey bees. The authors proceeded to pose a long series of questions regarding future areas of research, and how all of their findings could be detrimental to honey bee populations and the potential role these flies play in CCD. Overall, this is a very cool piece of natural history research, with a bit too much CCD hype for my liking!

You can see why the media has fallen in love with this paper; it includes flies (which no one likes on principle), honey bees (which everyone likes on principle), CCD (which scares the daylights out of everyone) and zombies (which also scare the daylights out of everyone). At the time that I wrote this post (midnight-ish Wednesday morning), I found 13 major news outlets or blogs from around the world which had covered the story (see list below).

This is where we have a problem though. Of the 13 stories I looked at, 8 of them had errors in their reports, of varying severity. What’s worse, all of the erroneous accounts were in major reporting outlets, potentially misinforming thousands of readers! It’s not surprising however, to see that 7 of the 8 stories that got things 100% correct were all science-focused publications/blogs, while one was a small-market news affiliate:

The Good

KQED News – ‘Zombie’ Parasite Preys on Bay-Area Honeybees, by Lauren Sommer

Observations (Scientific American Blog Network) – “Zombie” Fly Parasite Killing Honeybees, by Katherine Harmon

New Scientist LifeParasitic fly could account for disappearing honeybees, by Andy Coghlan

Science NowParasitic Fly Dooms Bees to Death by Maggots, by Erik Stokstad

MyrmecosDid a parasitic fly cause Colony Collapse in bees?, by Alex Wild

Not Exactly Rocket ScienceParasitic fly spotted in honeybees, causes workers to abandon colonies, by Ed Yong

The Bad

MSNBC (WebCite copy) – Stated bees which foraged at night were more likely to be parasitized than bees that foraged during the day (misinterpretation of Fig. 3A of Core et al., 2012)

Mirror (WebCite copy) – Stated that the parasite “is similar to one being found in bumblebees” (it’s not just similar, it’s the same species)

Press Association (WebCite copy) – Title states that the flies are linked to bee losses (not true, the connection between fly parasitism and CCD is simply proposed by the authors); Implied that bees are immediately turned into light-seeking zombies after the female fly lays her eggs (it appears to take up to a week for this to happen)

Daily Mail Online (WebCite copy) – Title states link between flies and global decline of bees (see above); Didn’t italicize species names (minor I know, but it bugs me)

CBC News (WebCite copy) – Implies that bees which foraged at night were more likely to be parasitized than bees that foraged during the day (see MSNBC)

io9 (WebCite copy) – “This parasite is a likely culprit (in reference to CCD – MDJ) because it does indeed force bees to abandon their colony” (authors say the fly may contribute to CCD, not that it is the likely culprit)

Daily Express (caching not allowed) – Implies that bees are parasitized in their hives and that they immediately “abandon their hives in a crazed state” (the authors are unsure of where the flies attack, but they know it’s not in the hive, and see the Press Association above); didn’t italicize species names (argh)

While I doubt that heads will roll at these institutions because of these errors (sorry, a little Apocephalus humour there), the moral of this story is that the science content the majority of the public is exposed to is not exactly the best science content available! Hopefully, as scientists and science writers continue to use social media and blogs, the good stories I featured here will reach more of the people who would normally only see the “bad” versions, imparting a correct and positive experience with the fantastic research being done every day around the world!

 

Update (Jan. 07, 2012, 20:30) Brian Brown, a co-author on this study and the world’s expert on these flies, has expanded on the natural history and taxonomy of the flies involved in this research on his blog ‘flyobsession’. The remainder of the research team behind this study will be setting up a FAQ to help ‘clarify’ some of the errors I reported on above, and are also beginning a new citizen science project to begin understanding how far flung this parasitism is.

 
Core, A., Runckel, C., Ivers, J., Quock, C., Siapno, T., DeNault, S., Brown, B., DeRisi, J., Smith, C., & Hafernik, J. (2012). A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis PLoS ONE, 7 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029639

BROWN, B. (1993). Taxonomy and preliminary phylogeny of the parasitic genus Apocephalus, subgenus Mesophora (Diptera: Phoridae) Systematic Entomology, 18 (3), 191-230 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.1993.tb00662.x PDF Available HERE