HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Lost entomologist sought
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:40:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0d56@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I'm looking for MIKE LARKIN, an entomologist who used to work at the U.
of Utah, in Logan, and who studied forestry in Missoula, Montana.

Please e-mail,

Fred Ringwald
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3528
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:40:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.201838.14188@u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>>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.
>
>We lefties spend our lives adjusting to a largely right-handed world. 
>(Some of these adaptations are ingenious, and my private theory is 
>that we learn to think in creative ways, and tend to be more independent 
>in our judgments, because we have to provide our own solutions to 
>handedness problems.) 
>
>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? 
>
I remember the fuss when that study came out. The reference, for those
who have access to the New England Journal of Medicine (which I don't,
so haven't read the original) is Coren and Halpern, NEJM, 325, p. 1042
(1991).  The sample they used was nearly 1000 people who died in one
region of the country, and asked family members what handedness the
deceased was. They concluded that left-handers died significantly
younger than right-handers.  There seem to be severe statistical
problems with the study - one actuary is quoted in New Scientist as
saying that Coren and Halpern's research reminded him of "methods used
by actuaries 200 or 300 years ago". They did not take into account the
fact that the average left-hander in America is significantly younger
than the average right-hander, so the left-handers who die are
(surprise!) significantly younger than right-handers who die. This is
presumably related to the fact that till recently left-handers were
"encouraged" (often forcibly) to write with their right hands, so there
are many fewer left-handers in older age groups.

For some (tenuous) relevance to soc.*: the New Scientist editorial I
found about this (27 April 1991, p. 21) quoted Coren's own research as
showing that of the children encouraged to switch hands, 60% of the
left-handed girls did so, and only 20% of the boys. Another reason why
men are over-represented in the left-handed population?

-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca (GLENN G. PARSONS)
Subject: FROG CANCER RESEARCHERS
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:01:41 GMT

I am currently gathering information for a literature review on the Lucke 
renal adenocarcinoma, and would appreciate help in obtaining email adresses 
for several figures prominent in this field. In particular, R.G. McKinnell, 
who I believe worked at the University of Minnesota, and K.S.Tweedell.
I would like to hear from anyone involved in the area of lower vertebrate 
and even invertebrate neoplasia, and would appreciate hearing from you. 
Thanx , 
                Glenn G Parsons
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick [Biologie])
Subject: Re: sexual selection
Keywords: peacock tails
Reply-To: andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick [Biologie])
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern (Germany)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:25:26 GMT

In article <94542@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.125723.139700@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de writes:
> 
> >However, it seems to me that the female trait to select for  such
> >males cannot be fixed if you start with a population with females
> >indifferent towards this trait. 
> 
> Right, the female preference must predate the appearance of the
> male trait and the preference must be fixed (or nearly so) in the
> population. There was a recent paper (by Basalo) demonstrating a
> pre-existing bias for a female preference for extended tail fins
> in males of a species of swordtail(?) fish. It was in Science
> about a year ago (I can dig up the ref on request.)

I think, without an explanation, such a prae-adaptation might appear
a little mysterious. But some discussion might give a good idea
how sexual communiction could have evolved. (NB I don't know the 
specific biology of that fish. I could also have used the peacock tail 
as an example for my speculative discussion.)

The female recognition apparatus must be adapted to recognising a
sexual partner. Before the dimorphism mentioned above was evolved,
that was mainly the task of recognising a conspecific individual.
Fish are characterised by tail fins, which originally have some function
other than being a sexual signal. One of the descriptive primitives 
used in the recognition of a conspecific individual might have
been the possession of processes at one end. The longer these processes
are, the more easily they can be recognised, and nothing could prevent the
recognition mechanism from responding more to extended tails than 
to those which existed originally. In that way, the females might have 
selected for males with extended tail fins, which might be longer than
optimal for survival. Note that the extended tail needn't be an indicator 
of good health or anything, but it is useful as a signal by itself. 
Of course, a certain degree of freedom in tail fin length in respect 
to survival is necessary. Individuals, which are outside that range
cannot survive anyway, and so, there might be little selective pressure 
on the female recognition mechanism to adapt to some optimal length.  

I mainly sought for the simplest explanation; reality might be a
little more complicated than that. I'd welcome any examples demonstrating
that it is this way or another.



Ulf R. Andrick                                  andrick@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Tierphysiologie
FB Biologie
Universitaet
D-W 6750 Kaiserslautern
From: robison1@husc10.harvard.edu (Keith Robison)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Sex reversed males and females
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:04:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.robison1.715460689


	David Page at MIT has done a lot of work in this area,
as well as several British researchers (whose names escape me).
You might try looking up a recent paper from Page's group and 
scanning the articles it references.
	It is my recollection that sex-reversed individuals are
generally sterile, and that this is one reason the area can
be studied reasonably easily (because such individuals can be
found through fertility clinics).


Keith Robison
Harvard University
Department of Cellular & Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI

robison@ribo.harvard.edu 
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick [Biologie])
Subject: Re: Sexual Selection:  breasts and penises
Reply-To: andrick@sun.rhrk.uni-kl.de (Ulf Andrick [Biologie])
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern (Germany)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:17:41 GMT

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 
> adult females' breasts is fat, it has been argued that the hypertrophied
> breasts and buttocks of adult human females represent an honest signal
> of high reproductive value.  When the body fat level of females drops
> below a certain percentage they no longer ovulate--and thus are not 
> desirable as mates for males.  The hypertrophied areas provide males, it
> is argued, with a way to assess this body fat level (I'm not implying
> that this is a conscious thing, only that natural selection historically
> has favored females who so signal this fat and males that choose it).
>
 
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.

But, as this trait is characteristic for women, it could be used for 
the recognition of women by men. Large buttocks emphasise the female
figure. They also give some orientation where to aim, if you consider
that the copulation was performed from behind originally.

Breasts, so has been argued, replace the buttocks in frontal copulation.
Their curvature might affect the same male recognition mechanism which 
reacts to buttocks. They also emphasise the nibbles, which don't happen to 
be there to serve as sexual signals again. This is only of use in upright 
walk; thus the lack of breasts in other primates.

Of course, breasts and buttocks are used for fat storage for
pregnency. The fat storage is also a necessity, but is not compellent 
that it serves as a special signal for ovulation, it might just
contribute to the typical female appearence that the male recognition
apparatus reacts to. And it could as well show up on the shoulders or
at the belly or elsewhere.
 
It seems that the health indicating hypothesis can't be wholly
dismissed, but I think, it is simply not the primary reason why
there are sexual signals, it appears more supplemental to me.



Ulf R. Andrick                                  andrick@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Tierphysiologie
FB Biologie
Universitaet
D-W 6750 Kaiserslautern

Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Subject: Exotic pets (was Re: bacteria as pets)
Reply-To: bl275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dan Diaz)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 02:23:11 GMT


I had the thrill of spending a few days on Vieques Island a couple of years
ago.  The island has one of the few phosphorescent bodies of water in the
world.  Of course it's not the bay, but the dinoflagellates in the water
which cause it to glow.  I have also visited La Parguera, which is on the
mainland of Puerto Rico.  It too has glowing cooties, but is nowhere near
as spectacular as Mosquito Bay on Vieques, which is off the coast of Puerto
Rico.  It was neat to see several people dive off the boat, their bodies
forming a trail of light.  Its best to visit on a moonless night, but the
critters are bright enuf to be seen even in a full moon.
-- 
Dizzy Dan   Department of Biochemistry and Mixed Drinks
Get off my Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
ddiaz@cwru.bitnet   bl275@cleveland.freenet.edu
"If God had meant for us to get up early, sunrise would be noisy"
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 09:46:09 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <Btt9n1.F81@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>Now the article also refers to a paper by another author which claims that
>a large than usual amount of male hormone during the development of the fetus 
>would increase the tendency to various things, generally not good, such as
>left-handedness, allergies, asthma, near-sightedness, and a few others.  

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

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Toads...going going gone?
Date: 3 Sep 1992 02:55:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


You may want to contact the Dept of Biology here at Univ of California
Berkeley for a newsletter called the Frog Log.
There are several frog specialists in the department.
Frogs have been disappearing at a woeful rate here esp in
urban areas of northern California...due to human development,
however, not to climate which is probably your primary question.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Xref: sparky sci.bio:3019 rec.pets:2895 rec.gardens:6237
From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,rec.pets,rec.gardens
Subject: Re: bacteria as pets
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:50:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

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.
|
|Email me if you need more info.
|
|
|Hemant Chikarmane
|Marine Biological Laboratory
|Woods Hole  MA 02543
|
|email:  hemant@mbl.edu			   voice:  (508) 548-3705

Please post it so we all know how to make one!!  :-)

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: clarke@watson.ibm.com (Ed Clarke)
Subject: Rats and Rabies
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:37:34 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

I'm kind of curious as to whether or not RATS can get rabies?  There have
been two cases of rabid racoons attacking dogs in New York City within the
past few days.  Since both racoons and rats enjoy eating garbage, I think
that there is probably a lot of contact between the two species.

What a thought!  Packs of wild rabid rats running through the streets of
New York ... shades of "Ben".

Xref: sparky sci.bio:3041 rec.gardens:6319
From: karen@athena.cs.uga.edu (Karen Snetselaar)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,rec.gardens
Subject: Bioluminescence
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:36:24 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Bioluminescence has come up several times lately.  There are some nice
books available on this topic and they are very readable by the non-expert
in the field.  Naturally things like foxfire (glowing fungal mycelium)
and glowworms (firefly larvae) have fascinated all kinds of folks.

"Living Light" by E. Newton Harvey was published in 1940 and is a
classic in this field.  It has neat pictures of glowing organisms in the
back.

"Bioluminescence in Action" by Peter J. Herring (I think he is editor,
sorry I'm not sure) was published in 1978.  It's nice because it has
separate chapters on bioluminescence in insects, dinos, fungi, etc so
you can pick up the section of interest.   It also has chapters on the
physiology and chemistry of bioluminescence.

There are several other titles available as well, so take a trip to your
local university library (or online catalog) and search 'em out for
some enlightening reading.

Karen Snetselaar
Department of Plant Pathology
University of Georgia
From: bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Need ideas for Biology demo...
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:40:44 GMT
Organization: St. Mary's College of Maryland
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6C8EB490E0101D2@williams.smcm.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 1 Sep 92 14:41:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.181210.7531@ncsu.edu> Rusty Soots,
happy@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu writes:
>  I have to do a demonstration , for biology, in my teaching materials
>class and I was wondering if anyone out there had any good ideas.  The
>demo can't last more than `OC15
>sorry backspace doesnt work.......more than 15 minutes.  Also, primitive
>equipment is the only stuff available for lworking in the lab.  I'd
appreciate
>any ideas!  Thanks again!

How about geotropism using Fast-Plants?  There's a description of an
extremely simple and convincing geotropism demo. in the Carolina
Biological Fast-Plants manual, and I think it should take less than half
an hour anyway.
___________________________________
William E. Williams, bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu
Divison of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
St. Mary's College of Maryland
St. Mary's City, MD 20686
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: sexual selection
Keywords: peacock tails
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:10:14 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug24.125723.139700@rrz.uni-koeln.de> kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de writes:

>However, it seems to me that the female trait to select for  such
>males cannot be fixed if you start with a population with females
>indifferent towards this trait. 

Right, the female preference must predate the appearance of the
male trait and the preference must be fixed (or nearly so) in the
population. There was a recent paper (by Basalo) demonstrating a
pre-existing bias for a female preference for extended tail fins
in males of a species of swordtail(?) fish. It was in Science
about a year ago (I can dig up the ref on request.)

> +- Jan Kim -- X.400:    S=kim;OU=vax;O=mpiz-koeln;P=mpg;A=dbp;C=de -+

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"

Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: kate@cithe501.cithep.caltech.edu (Kate Scholberg)
Subject: Migratory habits of Mediterranean eels
Originator: kate@cithe501.cithep.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:36:39 GMT

Maybe I should be posting to alt.folklore.marine or something,
but anyway, here goes...

Recently an Italian collaborator of mine claimed that the eels caught 
in the Mediterranean near Italy have actually migrated from the
Gulf of Mexico.  Does anyone know if this is true?  Can anyone
provide me with, or direct me to, any further information on
eels, especially those of the Mediterranean?
Thanks,
Kate Scholberg.
Xref: sparky sci.bio:3051 sci.skeptic:15480 soc.men:15706 soc.women:15964
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:18:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <92242.002910RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:

>-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.

There was a paper, summarized in _Science_, on this specific topic.  It found
that for bright early teenagers in the Hopkins talent search, for which they
used the SAT as a diagnostic tool, that there was no major difference by sex
except that 7/8 of those scoring over 700 on the quantitative part were boys.

Now the article also refers to a paper by another author which claims that
a large than usual amount of male hormone during the development of the fetus 
would increase the tendency to various things, generally not good, such as
left-handedness, allergies, asthma, near-sightedness, and a few others.  

The Hopkins group then checked in their identified classes for these traits,
and found little deviation from the norm except in this group of high-scoring
boys.  In this group they found about twice the expected number.  They used
high-scoring children on the verbal, etc., as the groups they checked.  

This is a legitimate comparison, and according to the usual statistical
"rules" establishes that there is a relationship between scoring high on
the quantitative part of the SAT and these other traits among boys, but
not among girls, and that such relationships were not found among those
falling into other categories.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Space Poop
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:03:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Since 1957 more than 3,300 launchings have produced 7,000 trackable
objects currently in orbit, equalling approx 3,000 tons of man made
material.
Of these 7,000 catalogued objects the US and USSR have produced approx
3300 each.  The rest are from Europe and other countries.

Of these 7000 catalogued objects, only 400 are operational satellites.
The rest of this number include abondoned or nonfunctional satellites,
upper stages, and fragments including lens covers, separation bolts,
and clamp bands.
Further, there are from 30,000 to 70,000 smaller objects but larger than
1 cm which have not been catalogued.  Any pieces in this size range
can damage spacecraft.
Through the effect of air drag these objects will continue to lose
altitude (if lower than 1000 km from earths surface) and eventually
"rain down" to earth.
Objects above 1000km in the geo stationary orbit will remain there for
1000 years during which time orbitting the earth 5 million times, and
posing a constant risk of collision with other objects.

Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually generate sufficient
debris to creat a dense Debris Belt and prevent further space launchings.

Some scientist also predict that sufficient debris in this belt will begin
to reduce solar radiation and alter world climate.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Newsgroups: sci.bio