HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: "reproductive success" again
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:38:01 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <wadley.702112169@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wadley@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Gregory Robert Wadley) writes:
>aeg03@rrz.uni-koeln.de (Jan T. Kim) writes:

>Another confusion: because biologists use the word "success" in describing
>the differential survival of genes or organisms, a kind of "reverse 
>metaphor" is made, and it is said that we (humans) should consciously strive
>for maximum inclusive fitness (eg a lot of E.O.Wilson's ecological
>writing).

	I really doubt E.O. said this. The behaviors organisms perform
that increase their fitness have been shaped by natural selection. There
is no need for a conscious understanding on the animal's part (and no
evidence that animals (humans included) have any understanding of how
their behavior relates to their fitness).

>But success for a gene doesn't mean any sort of conscious "success" or
>"happiness" for the organisms carrying it. For example, is a parent that
>works hard to bring up lots of offspring, better off than one that 
>doesn't bother? I guess this isn't really a scientific question, but
>interesting anyway I think. Any thoughts?

	Yeah, I have a few thoughts. First, the word "should" really
has no place in science; either something happens or it doesn't. 
When biologists say, "Thus and so organism should behave in thus and
so manner," it is shorthand for, "our model predicts that this
behavior will be performed". There is a lingo that goes with talking
about evolution, primarily because convoluted sentences can be short-
ened by using metaphors. Our language really is "built wrong" to talk
about evolution -- but that's another story. Unfortunately, ideas make
their way to the popular press without being "decoded" so that people
who aren't hip to the lingo impute more to the statements than is meant.
For example, organisms are selected to behave selfishly. In common use
"selfish" has many connotations not present in the biological use of the
word "selfish". Thus many people incorrectly interpret the above saying
to mean organisms will never cooperate/form alliances etc. This is false.

	This is what you are apparently doing with the word "success".
You are letting meanings in everyday use (e.g "happiness") leak into
your understanding of "success" as used by biologists. 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: bpollak1@darwin.helios.nd.edu (brian pollak)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Yet Another Neuroscience Oddity
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:20:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr8.002008.9781
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame


     Eye dilation is part of the sympathetic response.  The sympathetic
nervous system prepares the body for action (a response to being startled or
of the like).  The eyes dilate to let more light hit the retina, so the
animal can see better (and perform an appropriate response to whatever has
startled the animal).  Evolution has selected FOR this response instead of
simply accepting it as a "byproduct".

                                             -Brian
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (wayne)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Death
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:17:30 GMT
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens

In article <3529@rosie.NeXT.COM> jdoenias@next.com (Josh Doenias) writes:
>
>Using this line of resoning, what possible advantage could there be to  
>evolving some sort of mechansim for coping with the death of an organism?
>The gene for making an organism "good at" dieing is obviously only going  
>to expressed at the time of death.  By that time, it is obviously too late  
>for the organism to do any reproducing.
>
   Evolution does not necessarily result in the weeding out of 
   apparently nonessential traits.  The phenomenon Lewis Thomas
   describes (euphoria at death) could be a result of the endorphin
   releases that normally occur as a result of nonlethal pain.  
   Many mechanisms are possible.

   To give you a couple of other examples:  Why should plants have
   evolved to be suceptible to tissue culture?  (Answer, if you 
   insist on asking the question this way, you're looking at the
   problem from the wrong angle.)  Why should plants evolve to
   undergo changes in gene expression (rather than simple 
   cessation of gene expression) upon senescence of a plant or
   plant part?

   wayne
Xref: sparky alt.sex:13640 sci.bio:1714
From: aeg03@rrz.uni-koeln.de (f lill)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: CO2 strategy for chalk-land plants
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:34:22 GMT
Organization: Regional Computing Center, University of Cologne, F. R. Germany

In <1992Apr13.090403.12084@crc.ac.uk> gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294) writes:


>Just a thought that came to me last night:

>Nitrates can be a scarce resource for plants and various strategies have
>been evolved for overcoming this (legume root nodules, insect-trapping
>etc.)

>Is CO2 a limiting factor to plant growth and it so what strategies have
>plants evolved to overcome it? The only thing I could think of is for
>chalk and limestone-loving plants to secrete weak acids from their root
>systems.  Has anything like this been observed? is it likely?

CO2 is only limiting if (solar) energy  is abundant. There are plants
that are adapted to such conditions. They are called C4-plants, the
other plants are C3-plants. C4-plants catch CO2 more efficiently than
C3-plants, but they use more energy (ATP) per molecule CO2.

In C3-plants, the CO2 enters the Calvin cycle directly by reacting
with ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate, yielding 3-phosphoglycerate, a compound
with 3 carbon atoms (hence the name). This reaction and the rest of the
Calvin cycle are bound to take place in the same cell.

In C4-plants, the CO2 reacts with with phosphoenol-pyruvate first, forming
oxaloacetate, a compound with 4 carbon atom, hence the name. This take
place in the spongy part of the leaf that points towards the ground. Here,
the cells have much contact with the air. Oxaloacetate is then hydrogenated
to malate, which is transported to cells that form a tight layer, facing
the sunlight and being the primary site of photosynthesis. These cycle
pyruvate back to the spongy cells (sorry, can't remember their proper
name). Pyruvate is then recycled to phosphoenolpyruvate at the expense of
ATP -> AMP + PP. Since PP is hydrolyzed in cells, the overall expense of
this are two energy-rich P-P bonds. The advantages are a greater total
surface for CO2 uptake. Maybe the initial reaction with CO2 is more
efficient in C4-plants, I don't know at the moment.

BTW, maize is a C4-plant, this accounts for the high yields of this crop.

I don't think it is likely that plants use the carbonates in soils. If
they did uptake the CO2 into their roots, they would have to transport
it up to the leaves. If the plants allowed the CO2 fo diffuse out of
the soil, it would be lost unless they covered the soil with a tight
layer of leaves. I've never heard of such things.

Hope this is of some interest,
Jan
From: djd@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.j.daulton)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: The Evolution of Death
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:55:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr16.031913.7446@u.washington.edu> wcalvin@hardy.u.washington.edu (William Calvin) writes:
>Lewis Thomas may not appreciate evolutionary theory as well as thee and
>me, but you have to allow for any neurologist treating cancer patients
>trying to find something hopeful.  Keeping up patients' hope is very
>important therapeutically.

Good point, and I can forgive Dr. Thomas his fuzzy understanding of
evolution.  But wishful logic can be dangerous, and I would hate for
doctors to depend on it for relieving pain.  I recently saw a newspaper
article that stated that in the U.S., 80% of terminal cancer patients die
in pain!  U.S. anti-drug laws, and doctors' reluctance to "addict" their
patients can be blamed.  But I am getting into a new subject...maybe
"The Evolution of Stupidity."  (In a million years, we'll all be like
Dan Quayle.)

I'm emotional about this because my mother died of cancer
on March 14.  I was determined that she should not die in pain, and
stayed with her the last night.  I think I kept her from pain, but
just barely--and it took repeated calls to the nurse, and finally a
demand to see the doctor-on-call.  If you have a loved one in the same
situation, I urge you to stay with them every minute.  Don't trust
American medicine, or Dr. Thomas's theories.

Dave Daulton, Columbus, Ohio
From: RPT378@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: RE: soil microbes
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:47:14 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

I've been reading the soil microbiology literature for almost 20 years and I do
n't recall much info. on the distribution of soil microbes among soil types.  W
e often see info. on distribution by climatic zones, etc., but not by specific
soil mineralogical characteristics. Hmmmmmm... I'm curious, why are you looking
 for this kind of info.?
L. Zibilske, U. Maine
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Wagener (was  Aquatic Man)
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:57:24 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>In article <1992Apr9.201151.2111@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> kvry@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Kevin Ryan) writes:
>|
>It is considered to be a very 'fringe' hypothesis by almost all practicing
>biologists.

>Of course it is not quite as bad as Velikovsky and his ilk, it is probably
>closer to the sort of stuff Wagener published about 'continental drift',
>which was a grand mixture of nonsense and insight.
>[Note, this does *not* make it likely to be true, just remotely possible].

From what I remember reading, even by the 1930's quite a number of 
southern hemisphere geologists (in contrast to their norithern colleagues)
had accepted continental drift.  Though they did not know the mechanism 
underlying it, it explained so many other things.

   What sort of nonsense did Wagener include in his work.

Oddly enough Wagener the creator of one controversial theory also 
worked with Milankovitch the creator of another (the astronomical
origin of ice ages).

>uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)

                                         W.P.Coyne@newcastle.ac.uk 
................ ................................+.......................
Department of Process and Chemical Engineering,  +
Newcastle University, United Kingdom.            + "You can lead a horse to
                                                 +  to water, but a pencil
ARPA : W.P.Coyne@newcastle.ac.uk                 +  must be lead."
UUCP : ...!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!W.P.Coyne         +             Stan Laurel
JANET: W.P.Coyne@uk.ac.newcastle                 +  
................ ................................+.......................
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Big organisms (was: Large Fungi)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 04:15:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.161609.24343@u.washington.edu> toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
			.
			.
			.
>>subsurface growth.  The estimated total biomass of the fungus was estimated
>>to be ~100 tons, if I remember that right.  It grows at the rate of about
			.
			.
			.
>>Tim Eckert
>
>Your botanist buddy was right on target.  I heard some hype about 
>this giant mushroom as the "largest living thing" or some such
>nonsense.  The oldest aspen clones date back to the last
>glaciation, and the biggest one I know about covers 80ha
>[200 acres] (Kemperman and Barnes 1976 Clone size in American
>aspens.  Can. J. Bot. 54:2603-260).  Of course, the biomass of
>said Populus clone far exceeds that of the mushroom, though it
>probably doesn't taste as good in spaghetti sauce.
			.
			.
			.
Pregnant blue whales can hit 180 tons.
Giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron gigante-
um) top 2000 tons.
-- 

Cameron Laird                           +1 713-579-4613
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)
cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net)    +1 713-996-8546
From: mlevin@forte.cs.tufts.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: question on transplantation of limbs in amphibians
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:44:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tufts University



    I have heard that if you transplant a limb bud of an embryo
axolotl onto the back of a mature axolotl, the limb develops, with the
handedness (right vs. left limb) appropriate to the side onto which it
is placed. Does anyone know of a reference to this (as well as any
ideas on the possible mechanism by which the limb bud cells can tell
apart the right and left parts of the animal). Please email me if you
have a reference, or even know of a textbook where this is discussed.
mlevin@presto.cs.tufts.edu.

Mike Levin
From: kvry@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Kevin Ryan)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Aquatic Man
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:11:51 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)


	A few days ago, I saw the very end of a cable-TV special on
the possibility that a significant part of human evolution at one time
included some adaptations to life in the water.  It apparantly corresponded
to whatever "window" in which there is no remaining fossil evidence, and
that most of the theory was based on our present physiology.  

	Is there an article or book that deals with an overview of this
theory that is available?  I would like very much to find out how much
of this is a "real" theory and how much was just "In Search Of" speculation.

						-Richard D. LaReau-
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: kychen@chem.nthu.edu.tw (Kuang-Yu Chen (035)715131-3352)
Subject: help!!!
Organization: National Tsing Hua University (HsinChu)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:30:54 GMT

Dear Mr. & Mrs. :

I am applying for admission to Marine-Estuarine-Environmental
Science Graduate Program at the Univ. of Maryland. The Graduate
Admissions Committee informed me that it is not possible for me
to be admitted without a major advisor.

I want to contact some faculty members in MEES Program, but I
have no their email addr.. It's urgent for me.

The list of the professors is in the following :
(1) Dr. Bashore, Terry,   NATS/UMES
(2) Dr. Hoogland, John L.,  AEL/CEES
(3) Dr. Inouye, David W., ZOOL/UMCP
(4) Dr. Kuenzel, Wayne J., POUL/UMCP
(5) Dr. Mench, Joy A., POUL/UMCP
(6) Dr. Provine, Robert, PSYC/UMBC
(7) Dr. Rohwer, Frank C., AEL/CEES
(8) Dr. Costanza, Robert, CBL/CEES

If someone knows their email addr., please tell me or you can
give me other advices.

Thanks in advance.

______________________
kychen@y5.nthu.edu.tw
886-35-715131 ext3352
Room 265, Dept. of Chemistry, National Tsing Hua U., 
Hsinchu, Taiwan 300
From: newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: prickly pear questions
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:31:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <11105@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> pburch@shrike.mbir.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>
>I understand that Texas A & M University has developed a pretty good 
>spineless prickly pear. If it doesn't have any tendency to revert to 
>the spined variety, it could be of immense economic value in the drier 
>parts of the U.S.! Makes much more sense than irrigating crops that never 
>evolved for the climate.
>

Haven't we been through this before with Luther Burbank back around the turn
of the century?  Who wants a "spineless" prickly pear, anyway?  What about
opuntia ficus indica?
.
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Large Fungi and large plants
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:56:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr8.235657.10695
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>>Your botanist buddy was right on target.  I heard some hype about 
>>this giant mushroom as the "largest living thing" or some such
>
>	The fungus in question wasn't a mushroom. It is a tree
>root colonizer. A 15 hectare mushroom, that would be something 8-)

OK, so I got a little hyperbolic.  I did hear that one of the
investigators ate some of the fruiting bodies of the fungus, which
are mushrooms.

>>nonsense.  The oldest aspen clones date back to the last
>>glaciation, and the biggest one I know about covers 80ha
>
>	Yikes!
>
>>[200 acres] (Kemperman and Barnes 1976 Clone size in American
>>aspens.  Can. J. Bot. 54:2603-260).  Of course, the biomass of
>>said Populus clone far exceeds that of the mushroom, though it
>>probably doesn't taste as good in spaghetti sauce.
>
>	How did the authors determine that the trees were one clone?
>The authors of the fungi paper used RFLP and RAPD. One of the most
>startling aspects of the paper is that the clone (#1) appears not to 
>have changed much genetically over it's life span. I.e. new hyphae
>have not undergone much detectable mutation or recombination.

Of course, clonality cannot be _proven_ by any genetic test, only
some statistical confidence placed on the likelihood that ramets
are (not) different from each other.  The aspen work preceded DNA
markers, but since I have a few hundred polymorphic nuclear markers
for Populus, I could loan them to you for this purpose :)  Spring 
bud flush and (more beautifully) fall leaf color timing is highly
heritable, and aspen clones are often delineated most easily in
this way.  Visit the Rockies in September or the Yukon in late
August for a visual demonstration of the clonal habit.  Some
enterprising souls have excavated the root network of aspen clones,
to verify a common origin.  Root sprouting is thought to be an
adaptation to frequent fire.  Maybe so.

Clonal fidelity is pretty well known in trees, witness Lombardy poplar
(tall, skinny clone of Populus nigra) propagated for around 400
years and still looking the same.  Not that somatic mutants never
arise, otherwise our apple, stone fruit, and citrus selection would
be lousy.

> 	Does anyone know if sequoias are clonal? I think the biomass 
>of a single tree roughly equals the Michigan fungus. Also, what about
>vegetatively reproducing grasses? Could there be giant grass clones
>out there somewhere? Of course, if you believe in the Gaia hypothesis,
>the whole earth is one big happy organism (yeah, right).

Sequoias can be vegetatively propagated, and I believe they sometimes
do this in nature by layering.  Bill Libby at Berserkeley would know.
Lots of clonal and apomictic grasses out there, but the apomicts might
be physically separate from each other, despite being genetically
identical.

Toby Bradshaw
Biochem SJ-70
University of Washington
From: aeg03@rrz.uni-koeln.de (Jan T. Kim)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: CO2 strategy for chalk-land plants
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:20:59 GMT
Organization: Regional Computing Center, University of Cologne, F. R. Germany

In <1992Apr14.092707.1@agri.huji.ac.il> marder@agri.huji.ac.il writes:

> [stuff deleted]

>  Algae and cyanobacteria probably have other CO2-concentrating mechanisms.

I don't know for cyanobacteria, but algae are known to exchange HCO3(-) ions
for HO(-) ions actively if physically solved CO2 becomes scarce in the
waters where they live.
This increases the pH, of course. In extreme cases (abundance of nutrient
ions, bright sunlight and shallow waters), this can lead to pH's above 9
and cause massive fish death.

Jan Kim                                      kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de
Xref: sparky sci.bio:1715 sci.chem:1862
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: nitrogen bacteria
Summary: what is the enzyme these bacteria use?
Keywords: nitromonas, nitrobacter, enzyme, nitrite, nitrate
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:06:33 GMT
Expires: 30 May 92 14:09:36 -0400
Reply-To: fac2445@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

Hi...
 
I am in need of some information.  There are two classes of bacteria in
the soil that oxidize ammonia into nitrite and nitrate;  i believe the
genus of these bacteria are nitrobacter and nitromonas.  Could anyone
tell me the name of the enzyme by which these bacteria perform the
oxidation?  please replay to me directly as i am not a regular reader
of this newsgroup.
 
- David Boucher    fac2445@uoft01.utoledo.edu
                   grx0303@uoft02.utoledo.edu
               or  xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex
From: sik@cs.uow.edu.au (The 24hr man)
Subject: Re: Human sexuality
Sik-Disclamer: I don't know what I'm talking about!
Organization: SikSW, Dept-Comp-Sci, Uni-Of-W'gong, NSW 2500, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:25:00 +0800

In article <1992Apr6.114249.2373@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>
    amitchell@mac.cc.macalstr.edu wrote:

>[...] a cheese pizza with green peppers, tomatoes and chicken (YUM!).
>One question: what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

I sort of had a rational explanation for this, but might have forgotten.
Some people discussed if homosexuals would be good parents etc.

This does not bother me, as long as they are reasonable about it, (hence 
alt.politics.homosexuality).

I then decided to talk about kids in general, how to feed them if they
don't like what you give them, (hence sci.psychology).

I guess having kids implies sex, (hence alt.sex).

Some guy then decided that maybe there was a connection between pizza
toppings and peoples secuality (this is what we are now trying to 
research (I think?-).

So far I beleive that mushroom does not give anything away about your
sexuality.  However, I don't like green peppers - but like XXs.
Allison like green peppers and I think she said in another article
that she liked XYs.  Maybe we have a clue here ???

>Allison
>amitchell@macalstr.edu
>amitchel@math.macalstr.edu

>"Where's the damn pig?" -Jamie

Stein - sik@cs.uow.edu.au
'Real programmers hate decaffeinated coffee' - Who said this?
From: th@isr.harvard.edu (Todd Heatherton)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: weather-behavior correlations?
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:49:49 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <16063@bunny.GTE.COM> dir2@gte.com (Dean Radin) writes:
>Can someone please point me towards some references on correlations
>between weather and human behavior, both psychological and physical, 
>including sports and other types of skilled performance?  
>
>I'm particularly interested in weather variables like hours of sunlight, 
>barometric pressure, humidity, and ambiant temperature.  I know there are 
>syndromes like seasonal affect disorder, but are there others?  
>Have they been systematically studied by anyone?
>
For a review of the effects of temperature on behavior, look at
Anderson, C. (1989).  Temperature and aggression:  ubiquitous effects
of heat on occurrence of human violence.  Psychological Bulletin, 106,
74-96.

Although this does not discuss sports specificially, it does examine
other types of behaviors (and wouldn't aggression be an important
factor in sports?).  The general notion is that heat promotes human
aggression.  I wonder how that explains hockey?

Todd Heatherton
Psychology Department
Harvard University