HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025))
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: sexual selection
Keywords: peacock tails
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:05:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <25265@castle.ed.ac.uk>, biegler@castle.ed.ac.uk (R Biegler) writes...

>I have wondered just what a female gets out of chosing a male who
>survives despite the handicap of, for example, excessively long tail
>feathers.  Though it may be an indicator of health he, and by
>implication the female's sons, would be more likely to survive if he
>were healthy without handicap.  By this argument females should benefit
>from evolving ways of assessing a male's helath without a handicap as
>indicator.

The winning strategy in the natural selection game is live long enough
to reproduce, not live the longest or best.  This goes for both male
and female.  It is in the female's reproductive interest to be 
impregnated asap - if the male dies later, well shrug (think of black widow
spiders).  It's in the male's interest to attract the female's attention
from a background of other males to choose from.  

> >Apart from the positive feedback cycle of sexual selection ...

I guess I'd like to know what this positive feedback cycle is.

>only one way to make sense of this.  The female benefits because her
>_daughters_ will inherit some of the male's "healthy genes" but without the
>handicap, 

The female benefits by having offspring - period.  Regardless of their
sex.  As long as her genes are passed on she is a winner in the natural
selection game.  This idea of health is misleading as well.  An individual
(male or female) can be ill and still have a beneficial genotype, and
vice-versa.
> 
>It is probably not a new idea, but does anyone have information whether
>species in which sexual selection has led to obvious handicaps do
>fulfill these conditions?
> 
humans.

I've noticed two things in this sexual selection thread.  There are those
whose understanding of evolution and selection is essentially anecdotal, 
and so are sort of feeling their way around these ideas in vague ways, 
and there are those whose knowledge is on a firmer footing.  The firmer
footing folk (fff) seem to be impatient with the anecdotal folk (af)
and are quick to give the impression of _if you had only read such and
such, you'd not be wasting our bandwith, etc!_ 

We all should realize the great potential here for correcting any of 
the easily wandered into pitfalls of misconceptions surrounding 
selection/evolution, as well as the opportunity to further interest 
others in general.  On the other hand, wild uncontrolled speculation
is not really calculated to illucidate and promote understanding or 
obtain a good footing - like running before walking.

Ron Nadel
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:18:13 GMT

From article <1992Sep2.201838.14188@u.washington.edu>, by twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin):
[...]
> 
> The latest whine is that people who are left-handed tend to die five 
> to seven years earlier than right-handers.  I haven't read the study 
> so I do not vouch for the conclusions, nor am I able to tell you to 
> what the researchers attributed this tendency -- are we clumsier, 
> does our maladroitness which is a result of being forced to use 
> tools that were designed to serve the needs of right-handers and there- 
> fore work poorly if at all for us, cause us to have more accidents? 
> 
[...]

According to the current Scientific American men are more likely to be
left-handed than women are (it also mentioned that even among right-handers,
woman are more right hand dominant).  If this wasn't corrected for it 
could be the reason for some of the difference.  (There was a study showing
that tall people live less long that forgot to do this; after correction
the difference disappeared, oops)

SEH
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: How many people?
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:14:13 GMT
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens

In article <14369@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> pburch@bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>
>Can anyone give me a quick idea of how many people have ever lived?
>Are half the people who have ever been born alive now, for example?

   Arthur C. Clarke cites the figure 100 billion, but of course it 
   depends on when you start counting.  (I believe that he used it as
   a poetic device, comparing the number of humans who have lived to
   the number of stars in the galaxy, or some such silliness.)

>(I've heard that most of the scientists who have ever lived are still 
>alive.)
>
   Again it depends on whom you consider a scientist.  Isaac Asimov in
   his biographical encyclopedia of scientists (can't remember the
   actual name) makes a similar point:  he only includes scientists
   up through 1950; the number even of bright stars since then is
   too huge.

   Wayne
From: PMARTINE@vmtecqro.qro.itesm.mx (Paulino Martinez Vara)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology
Subject: Working Opportunities (MEXICO) for East European Researchers
Date: 29 Aug 1992 01:00:22 GMT
Organization: Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Queretaro


 
If you are from East Europe and you are doing research in the field of
fermentation processes, there are good working opportunities in Mexico.
 
We are one out of 27 campi of the most important educational private
system of Mexico. We are located at Queretaro City, 150 milles north from
Mexico City.
 
We have just started building up a group of researchers.
 
If you are interesting, contact me.
 
Paulino Martinez
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Campus Queretaro
Henry Ford #10
76130 Queretaro, Qro., Mexico.
 
Fax: (42) 17.38.23
Telex: 121625 TECQME
From: FZL39@CSPGCS11.BITNET (Ladislav Burysek)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.technology
Subject: BinHex 4.0 ?
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:46:29 GMT
Reply-To: Biotechnology Discussion List <BIOTECH%UMDD.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU>
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Dear netters,

could anybody tell me, where I can find the BinHex 4.0 program ?
Thank you in advance.

                               L.B.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca (GLENN G. PARSONS)
Subject: Birnboim at U. of Ottawa - ADDRESS?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:45:18 GMT

Does anyone know the e mail adress of Dr.H.C.Birnboim at the Ottawa Regional 
Cancer Center at the University of Ottawa?  Failing this, does anyone know 
of an adress for the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the 
University of Ottawa?
I need to get in touch with Dr.Birnboim, and would appreciate any responses.
                               Thanx in advance,
                               Glenn  G Parsons
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:12:31 GMT

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
[The previous poster summed up a post now lost to history as 'some women are
better at some things than some men and vice-versa'

>Exactly.  It seems like a matter of Common Sense, but people seem to have a
>shortage of this commodity. 

"The trouble with common sense is that it isn't"

>for example, the chiarperson of a Computer
>Science Dept is asked by the administration to `explain' why only 37% of the
>CS majors are women.  However, Doreeen Kimura states explicitly that high
>mathematical ability (which is involved in many parts of CS) occurs 13
>times as often among boys as among girls.  The implication is clear that the
>chairperson HAS nothing to `explain'

Does this figure of 13 refer to something present at birth or tested for later
on?  I'd agree that the shortage of women in science/math/engineering is not
due to a problem at the university level, but I'd like to see some evidence
before someone tries to convince me that this disparity is predominantly
due to 'nature' and not to 'nurture.'
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: Grady W Chism <gchism@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Question about Dyes and Pigments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:57:17 GMT

In the US foods containing dyes must be labeled. After November 9th the
indiviual dyes must also be labeled instead of just labeling with "artificial
color". Currently, only Yellow 5 and yellow 6 have to be labeled.
Do you want the structures drawn out or just the systematic names?  Either way
it would be a real headache for me to get these onto email.  If you let me know
your postal address, I will send you thsese.

Cranberries contain anthocyanins naturally and I have never seen any cranberry
products that contain red dyes. The only reason anyone would use cranberries is
for color and tartness. Beets contain betalins and there should be no reason to
color them.
Best regrds,
-- 
Grady W. Chism                     Email:gchism@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Dept. of Food Science and Tech.    Voice:614-292-7719
Ohio State University              FAX:614-292-0218
2121 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210
From: ken@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Sexual Selection:  breasts and penises
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:58:47 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Ulf Andrick [Biologie] (andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de) wrote:
: In article <BtC8yv.6HD@zoo.toronto.edu>, rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim
: Rising) writes:
: > Actually, if you compare humans to other apes, they have relatively
: > large penises and small testes.  Inasmuch most of the tissue of 
:  
: Strolling along my habitual paths of thinking, I would speculate as 
: follows:
: 
: Women have broad hips. This is a trait which originally has nothing to
: do with sexual attraction, as it is a necessity related to birth.

Jared Diamond in "Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee" has wodges and
wodges about this. Very very interesting. A _chimpanzee_ has large testes
because of its group mating habits, but _gorillas_ are monogamous, and do
not have large testes. There is a very good analysis of the possible reasons
why human sexuality is not as overt as chimpanzee. Even more interesting is
the hypothesis that theories of human sexuality show more about the sexual
stance of the originator of the theory than the theory!

--
Ken Tindell             Internet      : ken@minster.york.ac.uk
Computer Science Dept., Local FTP site: minster.york.ac.uk
York University,        Tel.          : +44-904-433244         
YO1 5DD, UK             Fax.          : +44-904-432708
--
"The Gulf War won't be like a Rambo film; it will be long, bloody and terrible"
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: fhl@milton.u.washington.edu (Dean Pentcheff)
Subject: Re: Toads...going going gone?
Followup-To: sci.bio
Reply-To: dean2@tbone.biol.scarolina.edu (Dean Pentcheff) 
Organization: Department of Biology, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:10:01 GMT

moore@aiag.enet.dec.com (Jim Moore) writes:
>       I would appreciate any information (references, studies, general
>knowledge) regarding the habitat of the common toad. I live in Massachusetts
>and over the last eight years toads in may neighborhood have become very scare.
>
>        My goal is to establish better environment for what ever toads are
>left. In particular a pool for egg laying/tadpole rearing in the spring and
>more hiding places for the toads to stay in during the day.
>....
>        I have fond memories of going on toad hunts in my youth and always
>finding some under logs or rocks or at night by street lights. My youngest
>daughter who is seven has never help or seen a good sized toad.
>I hope to change that!


You're seeing a global phenomenon in your own back yard.  For poorly
understood reasons, amphibians around the world, in a broad variety of
habitats, are disappearing.  This is not just a minor decline, nor is
it specific to one continent, a few species, or a particular
pollutant.  For some reason, they're dying out just about everywhere.

For more information, or to help out, contact the following 
organization (which now has about two dozen working groups around
the world and a full time coordinator):

Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force
Center for Analysis of Environmental Change
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR [sorry, no zip!]

-Dean
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.bio.technology,sci.research,bionet.sci-resources
From: cboes@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Christopher Boes)
Subject: Gracillaria
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: slug food, aplysia californica
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax Va.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:30:27 GMT

HELP! Huricane Andrew has disrupted my source of Gracillaria.  I am
unable to contact the University of Florida to order Gracillaria for my
sea slugs, Aplysia californica. Does anyone know of another source of
the macrophytic variety of Gracillaria?
Thanks in advance.

Christopher L. Boes
cboes@gmuvax.gmu.edu
cboes@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
From: biegler@castle.ed.ac.uk (R Biegler)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: sexual selection
Keywords: peacock tails
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:53:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: Edinburgh University

I have wondered just what a female gets out of chosing a male who
survives despite the handicap of, for example, excessively long tail
feathers.  Though it may be an indicator of health he, and by
implication the female's sons, would be more likely to survive if he
were healthy without handicap.  By this argument females should benefit
from evolving ways of assessing a male's helath without a handicap as
indicator.

Apart from the positive feedback cycle of sexual selection I have found
only one way to make sense of this.  The female benefits because her
_daughters_ will inherit some of the male's "healthy genes" but without the
handicap, whatever it is, in the phenotype.  Now comes the really
speculative part.  I suppose the female benefits in this way only if
reproductive success in further generations is more likely if more of her
daughters survive rather than her sons.  I suppose that would be the
case in species where virtually all the females mate but only some of
the males do.  I think a further condition is that the male's contribution
to rearing the offspring must be small.  If the male does make a
significant contribution, for example bringing food, the handicap would
make him less effective and would affect survival of his offspring.  

It is probably not a new idea, but does anyone have information whether
species in which sexual selection has led to obvious handicaps do
fulfill these conditions?

Robert Biegler
Newsgroups: sci.bio,rec.gardens
From: adwright@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Re: bacteria as pets
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:13:38 GMT

Larry:

Would the American Type Cultures Collection have glowing microbes?

What should we ask for if they do?


I am using microbiological assays as a means of screening maize for vitamin and
if amino acid values. I am using the standard DIFCO procedures and they are ok but if i can get glowing bacteria and make my own auxotroph from this perhaps
i could use the light generated as a index of growth. Say, exposure on a film?
Maybe even "eyeballing" the cultures in a dark room. I dont care about exact 
values, just want the high ones. What glowing microbes would be easiest to
culture? Many thanks.
Allen
From: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: How many people?
Date: 27 Aug 1992 15:13:46 GMT
Reply-To: pburch@bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch)
Originator: pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


Can anyone give me a quick idea of how many people have ever lived?
Are half the people who have ever been born alive now, for example?

(I've heard that most of the scientists who have ever lived are still 
alive.)

Paula Burch
pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:22:10 GMT

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:

>Since when is left-handedness "not good"?  Yes, I know you said
>"generally," but left-handedness tops your list.

In latin, "left" is "sinister".  That's your first clue.

						--  Michal
Xref: sparky sci.bio:3045 sci.skeptic:15381 soc.men:15666 soc.women:15945
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 29 Aug 1992 00:29:09 EDT
 ><92241.144153RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <1992Aug28.233931.29470@panix.com>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


-From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
-Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
-
-Does this figure of 13 refer to something present at birth or tested for later
-on?  I'd agree that the shortage of women in science/math/engineering is not
-due to a problem at the university level, but I'd like to see some evidence
-before someone tries to convince me that this disparity is predominantly
-due to 'nature' and not to 'nurture.'
---
Who can say for sure what is what?  We can only look at the CURRENT evidence
and say, `this LOOKS like nature', or `this LOOKS like nurture' and be well
aware that we may turn out to be wrong.  But it is better to be guided by
our common sense and good will than by some pre-conceived dogma, no matter
how well meant.

-Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
-=========================================================================
-From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
-Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
-
-
-A) High mathematical ability is not involved in many parts of CS, although
-logic and basic math may be.
-
A valid point.  But it may account for SOME of the difference.  I have
an impresion that hackers who are interested in computers for primarily
non-mathematical reasons, TEND to be boys, but of course many girls are
hackers and many men refuse to have anything to do with computers.

-truth, and that if people complain of discrimination (as they do in CS,
-for example) their complaints should probably be taken seriously.
-
Absolutely, they should be taken seriously.  The problem arises when
it is the deans who are doing the complaining for bureaucratic reasons
of their own.

-paul
-
Rohit Parikh
From: karen@athena.cs.uga.edu (Karen Snetselaar)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Microorganisms as pets (was bacteria as pets)
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:08:26 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

>In article <1992Aug25.143552.21474@netnews.whoi.edu> woods hole (hemant chikarmane) writes:
>
>|If you are interested in something outside the ordinary, you might want to set
>|up a Winogradski column.  This is a glass cylinder which you pack with some
>|paper, soil, and some water, and leave it on a window sill.  There is a
>|sequential change of bacterial/algal populations in the cylinder over a period
>|of several months.  You can keep changing the environmental conditions to
>|start a fresh cycle.  It's a lot of fun.  A summer student I had kept one
>|going for almost four years.  Admittedly you will not deal with pure
>|cultures of bacteria, but it can teach you a lot about microbial ecology.
>|
>|The culture conditions can be varied with respect to pH, temperature, light,
>|etc.  You could also add your favorite goodies - sulfur, salt & pepper. Keep 
>|in mind that to keep it going, you don't need the usual 
>|microbiological paraphernalia - Petri dishes, autoclaved media, et al.

The succession of fungi that decay vegetable matter can also be fun and
instructive to watch.  Various substrates are possible (soil, leaves, the
stuff in your fridge) but perhaps the most interesting is dung of herbivores.
I'm not talking about dog poop here (ick).  Rabbit pellets are easily found
(check under those low bushes where the bunnies congregate to digest what
they've munched out of your garden).  Place them on moist paper towel under
a glass, keep the towels slightly moist (not sodden) and observe for a few
days to a few weeks.  Some kind of magnifying glass is almost essential; a
dissecting scope is ideal.  A predictable succession of fungal sporulating
structures occurs.  Some of these shoot their spores toward the light.
Some are neat colors.  Even tiny mushrooms will appear.  If you really get
into this, you can look up the "Keys to Fungi on Dung", by Richardson and
Watling, that appeared in several issues of the British Mycologist in the
mid-70's.  Some kind of magnifying glass is almost essential to appreciate
these organisms; a dissecting microscope is ideal.  And if you have a
compound scope, you can also look at the beautiful spores that are
produced and observe their various adaptations for dispersal.

Karen Snetselaar
Department of Plant Pathology
University of Georgia
Xref: sparky sci.bio:3048 sci.skeptic:15424
From: apland@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:23:56 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

> Oddly enough, departments that have
> 90% girls are not asked for a corresponding explanation.
> 

That's because we(culture) value what boys do better and de-value what girls
do better.  The implicit assumption is that anyone could do the undervalued
activity (female) and therefore there is no need for quotas.  A further 
assumption is that the valued activities (male) are "more important, and 
harder" and that everyone would want to do them if they had equal access - 
therefore quotas and leveling legislation.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: sexual selection
Keywords: peacock tails
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:47:27 GMT

toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:

>In article <pockling.714686959@sfu.ca> pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:
>>*****	The simplest way *****I think one can explain how a male trait that
>>is actually deleterious in terms of male viability, yet can still spread
>>if it gives the male a mating advantage is the following equation:
>>
>>(adapted from arescent issue of Behavioural Ecology)
>>
>>L = life span of male with trait
>>l = life span of male without trait

>These have to be reproductive years, no?
Of course.
>>M = mating success per unit time of male with trait
>>m = mating success per unit time of male without trait

>If mating success directly translates to survival and
>reproduction by offspring with the trait.

>>we get an increase in the frequency of the trait if
>>
>>	LM > lm
>>
>> note that this ignores any cost to females            

>Also ignores heritability of trait and variable expression due
>to age or environment (to name two).  Was there a test of
>the inequality in the BE paper?

Yes, yes and yes.  I don't know, I'll have to go read it again.

>>           Richard pocklington pockling@sfu.ca
>>
>>			THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA

>Toby Bradshaw
>Biochemistry and Forest Resources
>University of Washington

Richard Pocklington    pockling@sfu.ca

		THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA