Your eyes aren't just the windows to your soul — they can also reveal valuable information about your general health beyond whether you need glasses, including: diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer. It is not unusual for people to come in for an eye exam just to check their eyesight and then have certain health issues or predispositions picked up by the optometrist.
Eye Exams and Your Health
Eye examinations can help doctors detect general health conditions early enough to intervene. Advanced screenings enable eye doctors to better predict cardiovascular incidents like stroke, and possibly detect signs of mental changes such as Alzheimer's. Read below to learn how eye exams can unveil a whole lot more than just eye health.
Brain Cancer & Stroke
Because of the similarities between the blood vessels in the eye and brain, an eye doctor can occasionally detect an issue taking place in the brain by examining the blood vessels in the eyes. If swelling or shadows in the eye is observed, it may indicate a serious condition in the brain, like a tumor, or clots that might result in a stroke.
Diabetes can cause damage to the blood vessels in the retina at the back of the eye, resulting in Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) and Diabetic Macular Edema (DME). If an optometrist detects leaky blood vessels in the eye, the patient would be advised to see a doctor to help control their blood sugar. Changes are gradual, and they start before visual symptoms are noticed. The earlier diabetic eye disease is managed, the better the chances are of preserving eyesight.
High blood pressure, characterized by having too much pressure in the blood vessels, can be detected during an eye exam, sometimes even before it's diagnosed by your regular doctor. The damaged blood vessels lead to swelling, hemorrhages, and leaking — all of which can be observed in the eyes. According to the CDC, hypertension "the silent killer" affects nearly 1 in 3 adults, and up to a whopping 20% of those don't even know they have it. So early detection at an eye doctor's evaluation can be truly life-saving.
Eye exams can also detect a buildup of cholesterol. High cholesterol is among the easiest conditions to spot during a complete eye exam, as the cholesterol deposits manifest on the front of the eye, appearing as a thin, gray rim around the cornea. It can also be detected in the retina by assessing artery and vein patterns.
These deposits may indicate the current or future development of Retinal Blood Vessel Occlusion, a condition where blockages restrict blood flow to the back of the eye, causing temporary or permanent vision loss.
In some cases, heart conditions associated with a buildup of plaque in the carotid artery in the heart can also lead to deposits that clog the ocular arteries in the eye. If an optometrist detects such changes to the vascular structure at the back of the eye, he or she will typically recommend going to a specialist.
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Sudden vision loss may be attributed to Multiple Sclerosis (MS). While the optometrist can recognize signs indicating the presence of MS, such as the color and appearance of the optic nerve, such cases will be referred for further testing to confirm the diagnosis.
Thyroid disease can make itself apparent through the eyes in several ways. The thyroid gland controls the hormones that regulate tear production so some thyroid disorders can cause dry eye disease. Additionally, overactive thyroid (hyperthyroidism) can make the extraocular muscles enlarge and stiffen, causing bulging eyes — an indicator of Graves' disease.
Systemic conditions that are associated with inflammation in the body can have an inflammatory effect on the eyes. Uveitis, for example, causes eye inflammation, redness, and blurred vision, and tends to occur in people with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other autoimmune diseases.
Breast cancer, leukemia, and other metastatic cancers are occasionally discovered during an eye evaluation. In addition to brain cancer mentioned above, melanoma and basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer) can be detected, and eye doctors can also diagnose lymphoma and other eye tumors. Eye exams save lives.
What the Future Holds
Recent studies show that a non-invasive and precise imaging device called Octa (optical coherence tomography angiography) can signal the presence of eye changes associated with Alzheimer's disease. Because the retina is in many ways an extension of the brain, the altered blood vessels at the back of the eye offer a glimpse into the changes taking place within the brain.
Parkinson's Disease can often be misdiagnosed as its early symptoms are characteristic of other conditions. Research has shown that subtle eye tremors, an early Parkinson's marker, could be detectable using advanced eye exam technology. One day soon, practitioners may send patients to an eye doctor to test for this and other diseases.
Your Eye Doctor's Appointment Could Change Your Life
So the next time you visit Dr. Angela Koplos at Advanced Vision Solutions in El Paso, remember that a comprehensive eye exam can do more than determine your eyeglasses or contacts prescription. Dr. Angela Koplos can evaluate your eyes for existing or potential health issues, and communicate them to your primary care physician for the best possible care. By knowing that you're at risk for a certain disease, you can take precautions early on and manage the condition as needed. After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


If you haven’t had the chance to check out the recent ammendment to the 1947 Agriculture act, here is a pdf: mandatory-labeling-bill. Recently, a version of a mushroom that was developed using the CRISPR technology was designated non-GMO. The recent amendment would appear to counter that decision however. The wording appears to include ALL genetically altered foods in it’s description of bioengineered foods:
‘‘(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and ‘‘(B) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.
CRISPR technology does not introduce foreign DNA into an organism. What it does is trigger mutations that exist within the genome already, essentially genetic what-ifs. This would satisfy item (B) in the above quote of the amendment, but NOT item (A) since it does use in-vitro recombinant techniques. However, the law also sets a timeline of 2 years for the Secretary of Agriculture to come up with a standard for disclosure concerning bioengineered foods, the amount of bioengineered material that must be present, etc. I think it’s fairly clear that CRISPR will be part of that list, but there may be some leeway.


Learn why some people gain more weight than others
While there are certain fixed factors that make some people put on weight faster than others, other factors can be changed to help lose weight.
You’ve probably noticed that some people eat more than others and don’t gain weight, or that they eat the same amount but don’t put on weight as fast or as much as others.
Today, we want to tell you about the reasons behind these common phenomena.
Genetics is one of the causes of this problem, because our genetics determine several crucial aspects that affect our lives.
Our genetics also play a role in determining how easy or difficult it is for our body to gain weight.
- This is now a proven fact, because human genome experts have managed to separate out the genes that are responsible for the distribution and accumulation of fat.
- The FTO gene (associated with fat mass and obesity) is found in 82% of men, meaning that they have a greater tendency to put on weight however little they eat.
While genetics is fundamental, our diet is equally important.
This is because the diet we follow is also essential in determining why we lose or gain weight.
It’s true that some of the genes related to gaining weight cause a predisposition for craving unhealthy foods.
This is why it’s necessary to be disciplined and acquire healthy habits that enable you to distinguish the effects of this gene.
Bear in mind that once you start to follow a healthier and fresher diet, you will feel much better.
So it will be your own body that will ask you to eat more healthily once it gets used to this.
Give it a try!
Of course, the amount of exercise we do is another key factor when it comes to maintaining a healthy weight.
This is because, apart from our diet, another aspect that is fundamental in determining whether some people gain more or fewer kilos is the physical exercise they do.
However, you should bear in mind that doing certain kinds of sports alone will not help you lose weight, but it can determine how much you gain.
You should also keep in mind that the quantity of exercise needed by each person is different.
While some individuals need to do two hours of cycling to burn 200 calories, half an hour is enough to consume the same amount for others.
Don’t reward yourself with gastronomic treats for having done a specific amount of exercise, because this does no good for your health, either.
For example, it’s not advisable to eat more than usual as compensation for having done enough exercise.
The only thing we’ll achieve by doing this is that our effort will have been in vain.
Plus, it can even end up making us gain weight.
4- Stress and lack of sleep
Both stress and lack of sleep can be an impediment to staying in shape.
These two factors can have a direct impact on our weight and make us pack on the pounds.
Often, when we’re under the effects of stress we tend to choose unhealthy foods because we like them more and they make us feel better.
However, this is precisely what we should be avoiding so we don’t adopt unhealthy lifestyle habits.
5- Loss of intestinal biodiversity
According to various studies, alterations in the intestinal flora are associated with diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The composition and diversity of intestinal flora are linked to weight gain, not only because of the quantity of bacteria lost but also due to the bacteria that are no longer produced.
This can happen as a result of an inappropriate diet or excessive use of antibiotics.
Changes in the intestinal flora can cause people to generate up to 150 calories more each day, despite eating the same amount.
This quantity can definitely end up causing an increased tendency to gain weight.


Thursday, April 7, 2011
Even "microwave-safe" products release the toxin bisphenol-A (BPA) when heated. BPA has been shown to cause neurological and developmental damage in laboratory animals. It is found in hard clear plastic, the linings of metal food cans, trays for frozen food, microwaveable soup containers and plastic baby-food packaging. Researchers are especially concerned about how the chemical affects fetuses and newborns, whose systems are not fully developed. Manufacturers have begun to remove BPA from their products. In the meantime, do not microwave or heat food in any type of plastic container.
Posted by P.J.D publishing at 10:51 AM


For all the latest news, FOLLOW us on Facebook at Primrose Path Farm.
We started with sheep in 2015. After trying a few different breeds, we settled on Finnsheep. We chose Finnsheep because we were looking for a breed with excellent wool, prolific breeders, a smaller breed, and an easy keeper.
Finnsheep wool comes in a variety of colors from solids, white, brown, black, gray and fawn, to piebald which is spotted and badger which is its own pattern. Finnsheep wool has long staple 3"-6" and is praised by hand spinners.
This breed is known to be prolific breeders. Most ewes produce twins up to quads within a single pregnancy. They have been known to have as many as 7 or 8, but that is rare.
Finnsheep are one of the smaller breeds of sheep. Breed standard is rams 170-240 lbs and ewes 130-180 lbs. We prefer to breed our stock on the smaller side.
A wonderful characteristic of Finnsheep is they are easy keepers and friendly. Because of their docile nature and smaller size, they are easier to handle. They do not have horns which can get caught on things and their tails are naturally docked. Finnsheep are friendly and regularly enjoy a scratch on the back or under the chin.


You probably already know that smoking is an unhealthy habit. It can affect a person’s entire body, contributing to some serious health risks, including high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease.
The good news is that quitting smoking could help turn your poor health around. In fact, the benefits of quitting may start even sooner than you think! Within just 24 hours, the body starts to repair some of the damage caused by smoking, with even bigger health improvements following in the weeks and years to come.
In the first 24 hours…
After 20 minutes without a cigarette, your blood pressure may start to lower. The heart rate also returns to normal and circulation may start to improve.
After 8 hours, your risk of heart attack starts to fall. This risk should continue to decrease the longer you stay smoke-free.
After 12 hours, the body rids itself of the excess carbon monoxide inhaled through smoking. As your carbon monoxide level returns to normal, the body’s oxygen levels may start to increase.
In the first week…
One day after quitting smoking, your risk of heart disease caused by smoking-induced high blood pressure may begin to drop. As your oxygen levels continue to rise, you may find that exercise and other physical activities are easier than they were before.
After 2 days, you may notice a heightened sense of smell and better taste as these damaged nerves begin to heal.
In the first year…
After 1 month, your lung function may begin to increase. You might notice that you cough less often and may no longer feel short of breath.
In the first 3 months of quitting smoking, blood circulation continues to improve. This helps your organs, including the skin, function better. Healthy skin helps the body fight off bacteria and infection.
After 9 months, the lungs may have healed significantly. Cilia—hair-like structures inside the lungs—that were damaged by smoking are likely working better. You may experience fewer lung infections as a result.
In the first decade…
After 1 year, your risk for coronary heart disease should decrease by half! This risk may continue to drop the longer you stay smoke-free.
After 5 years, arteries and blood vessels that were narrowed by smoking begin to widen. This means the blood is less likely to clot, lowering your risk of stroke.
Further into the future…
Ten years after quitting smoking, the risk of developing lung cancer is cut in half compared to someone who still smokes. The risk of developing mouth, throat or pancreatic cancer is also significantly reduced by this point.
After 15 years, your likelihood of developing heart disease and pancreatic cancer may be about the same as a non-smoker. The risk of having a heart attack could also be the same as a person who has never smoked.
After 20 years, the risk of dying from smoking-related causes, including lung disease and cancer, may even drop to the same level as someone who has never smoked in their life!
A healthier tomorrow
Quitting smoking may be one of the best changes you could make for your health. If you’d like to quit, but are having trouble, there are resources available to help. Talk to your doctor, or visit the Heart Foundation NZ website to get started!
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is of general nature, and does not take into account your personal situation. You should consider whether the information is appropriate to your needs or seek professional advice, where necessary.


Pigment Gel Pro
Experience a visibly dramatic reduction in the appearance of stubborn hyperpigmentation for all Fitzpatricks and skin types. This advanced, dermatologically tested corrective helps fade the size and intensity of dark spots while helping protect against the appearance of new dark spots. Its industry-leading, proprietary SynerPro Complex, uses multiple modes of action to effectively target stubborn forms of UV and hormonally induced hyperpigmentation, such as photodamage and melasma. The result is skin that appears more even and bright with continued use.
- Delivers a visibly dramatic reduction in the appearance of stubborn hyperpigmentation.
- Improvements in hyperpigmentation seen in as early as 4 weeks.
- Helps fade the size and intensity of dark spots while helping protect against the appearance of new dark spots.
- Effective against UV and hormonally induced hyperpigmentation, such as photodamage and melasma.
- Effective for all Fitzpatrick phototypes and skin types.
HOW TO APPLY: After cleansing and toning, smooth onto the face, neck, and décolleté or affected areas. Use twice daily for maximum benefits. Follow with the appropriate PCA SKIN® treatment serums, and broad spectrum SPF product in the daytime and moisturiser in the evening.
OUR PROPRIETARY COMPLEX
SynerPro Complex - a proprietary technology to deliver a dramatic reduction in the appearance of stubborn hyperpigmentation. This synergistic blend of ingredients helps fade current discoloration while protecting against the appearance of new dark spots for brighter, more even-looking skin.
KEY INGREDIENTS IN SYNERPRO COMPLEX
- Hexylresorcinol - a phenolic lipid that modulates the melanogenesis pathway via tyrosinase and peroxidase inhibition; stimulation of the antioxidant glutathione, as well as the reduced transfer of melanosomes from the melanocytes to the keratinocytes.
- Purified Licorice Root Extract - a highly purified form of licorice containing 95% glabridin, which is responsible for inhibiting hyperpigmentation. It reduces tyrosinase expression, tyrosinase activity, and melanocyte proliferation and migration while inhibiting melanin synthesis in melanocytes. It also inhibits an enzyme released after UV exposure or during inflammation to decrease tyrosinase expression and melanosome transfer.
- Tranexamic Acid - a synthetic derivative of the amino acid lysine that helps inhibit melanin synthesis through plasminogen/plasmin pathways.
- 4-Butylresorcinol - a potent inhibitor of tyrosinase and peroxidase that leads to a reduction in melanin production.
- Full Ingredients- Water, Alcohol, Hamamelis Virginiana (Witch Hazel) Water, Butylene Glycol, Niacinamide, Lactic Acid, Gluconolactone, Sodium Polyacryloyldimethyl Taurate, Tranexamic Acid, Bisabolol, Hexylresorcinol, Hydrolyzed Hyaluronic Acid, Propyl Gallate, Pentylene Glycol, 4-Butylresorcinol, Glabridin, Glycyrrhiza Glabra (Licorice) Root Extract, Rosa Damascena Flower Oil, Rosa Damascena Flower Water.


Has Natural Directions® Joined the Non-GMO Project?
Yes! At Natural Directions®, we understand that our customers want to know as much as possible about the products they purchase.
We encourage you to learn more about the Non-GMO Project by visiting their website. You’ll learn about genetically engineered seeds and their potential impact on crops, food production, farming and our environment.
Natural Directions® enrolled in the Non-GMO Project in April, 2013. As we work through the verification process, our website will be updated to reflect the status of our products, and our packaging will feature the highly recognizable Non-GMO Project icon as products complete the verification process.
Below is a list of our current products that are Non-GMO Project Verified:


Altéa flower, Altéa plant
You are probably looking for the althea
Beautiful flowers in coroles, to create, embellish or flower a hedge. Altea is a very branched shrub that produces large white flowers with a carmine heart (Diana) and still color ... The flowers of Altea appear in early summer until early fall. It is a shrub which, if in the best conditions, is extremely floriferous.
Altea is a "flexible" plant ... It can be pruned into a tree or bush, or grown in beds.
Perennial - Shrub - easy plant in the garden.
• Cycle: Perennial
• Foliage: Lapsed
• Hardiness: Very hardy plant
• Family: Malvaceae
• Harbor : Shrubby habit
• Exhibition: Sun and partial shade
• Ground : All soil but rather cool, rich in humus and drained
• Sowing: Spring after seed stratification
• Plantation: Autumn in priority and Spring
• Flowering: May to July
• Fruiting: –
• Rooting: Roots
• Cultivation area: Zone 5 (see rusticity cards: France or Quebec)
• Origin: Asia, Korea, India (unclear origin)
• Honey plant: Yes
• Edible plant: –
Special features of the altéa plant:
• Easy to grow
• Rapid growth
• Great hardiness
• Cut foliage
• Althea is a hardy and very hardy shrub. It resists years and extreme cold (-20 to -25 °).
• The more sun the Althea receives, the more flowering it is.
• The Althea is a little difficult. This Hibiscus syriacus can be used anywhere in the garden as long as it gets some sun anyway, partial shade exposure is fine for it but not shade.
• The shrub can be planted in a container. Apart from pruning and watering in the event of a long period of drought, there is nothing to do except to enjoy it.
Benefits to the garden
Althéa is a plant for all garden enthusiasts: possibilities of pruning, shrub, hedge, tree, flowering time, 3 months from August to October. Althea is also fertile in bloom.
Description of Alta flower
Althea, or Tree Mallow, produces a lot of ramifications, so a lot of branches that produce flowers. Althea can be grown in a tree, this work is rather limited to seasoned home gardeners, but if you like it in this form, you will find it in this form in the garden center. The tree can then be pruned into a ball, for example.
Method of multiplication of altéa
• Sowing is possible but the simplest method remains the practice of cuttings.
How to sow the altéa?
The seedlings of the altéa are more complex for 2 reasons, first you have to find the seeds, then the seeds before being sown should be stratified. Stratification is a natural operation which aims to restore the seed to its fertile capacity. In general, the seeds that are to be stratified have an envelope, stratification destroys the envelope. The seed in contact with the earth can then begin its germination process.
Collect the seeds:
The Altéa or Tree Mallow produces small fruits which when opened, release the seeds. The ideal is to place a small bag with a rubber band around several fruits in order to collect enough seeds before they fall to the ground.
Stratify the seeds, 3-step stratification:
Start layering at the very beginning of the year.
• Soak the seeds in twice their volume of cold water 5 ° C MAX for 2 days.
• Then, in a waterproof and transparent “tupperware” type box, place them in successive layers in damp sand, a bed of sand, seeds and so on. close the waterproof cover.
• Place the box at an average temperature of 20 to 25 ° C.
• Open the lid weekly, for 6 to 8 Weeks.
Laminate the alta seeds, outdoors:
• From autumn, in a terracotta pot, place the seeds in successive layers in a soil-sand mixture.
• Place the pot outside in the shelter of a wall. The pot will have to receive the rain which will make it possible to moisten the earth but no more.
• The seeds will spend fall and winter under natural conditions and degrade.
• The following spring they should be able to germinate while sowing.
• Prepare buckets filled with seed soil.
• Place one seed per bucket pushed in at 3 times its size.
• Keep moist until rising.
• Then water on dry soil.
• Wait until autumn to replant in the ground.
When to cut the altea?
• In spring, in April or May.
How to cut:
• Select a young spring shoot, on a supporting branch, of about 20 cm. It should not bear any sign of disease or parasite.
• Cut it in a "T", keeping the whole small branch as well as a small section 4 cm from the supporting branch.
• Remove the leaves from the cut on half of the branch.
• Prepare a bucket half full of soil for planting.
• Place the cutting.
• Fill with potting soil, tamping down well.
• Water well.
• Place everything under the frame if you have one ...
• Otherwise use a clean freezer type bag.
• Use it as a bell that covers the plant.
• Close tightly with a rubber band on the pot.
• Open once a week to check that the soil is still moist and to allow the plant to breathe fresh air.
• You can transplant in the fall or the following spring.
A word from the gardener:
• For more success, Find some hormone powder for cuttings and sprinkle it on the cut ends of the branch before placing it in the ground in the cup.
• What is this type of cutting called ? A “crossette” cutting due to the “T” butt.
• Before making the cutting, clean /disinfect all the tools, pruning shears, scissors ...
When to plant an altea?
• For planting in the ground, from the end of October to April.
• For an already large shrub, it is quite possible to plant in the spring.
How to plant the altea?
• Dig a hole 40 to 50 cm deep and in diameter.
• Loosen the soil well. Remove stones and weed roots ...
• Add a horn-based fertilizer about 100 g to the bottom of the hole, ie a nice handful, which must be mixed with the soil.
• Fill the hole halfway with a mixture of soil, planting soil and composted manure (Fumelite) or compost from the garden.
• Trim the ends of the roots of the shrub to cool them and stimulate new growth.
• Position the althea graft point at ground level or slightly buried in cold climates.
• Fill the hole with soil and possibly additional planting compost.
• Press down firmly on the foot to compact the shrub at its base, forming a bowl.
A word from the amateur gardener:
Important: watering must be abundant, a good ten liters of water. This is what will ensure good cohesion between the roots and the soil, and which will allow a better recovery.
• For plants that are already a bit large, prune Altera twigs (20 to 30cm) above a bud placed towards the outside of the antler.
Altéa Blanc China, Altéa bleue Marina, see also Marsh Hibiscus parent of the Altéa
You can plant weigelias, buddleias, and why not a purple hazel tree.
With or without a garden ...
In the garden, in hedge, shrub, tree, in group or isolated, Althéa finds its place!
And without a garden? The Altea will work well in a large pot or container.
Photo by Killer Cereal picked on wikimedia.org under Creative Commons 2.0
Shrub pruning: technique, period
The size of shrubs has an important role in the development, flowering or just the balance of your subject.
Far from being difficult, it will even become a pleasure for you when you begin to master some simple and essential gestures to perform it.
A real makeover for plants, pruning is always beneficial and allows them to grow back in a magnificent way.
There are 2 categories of shrubs: evergreen and deciduous


Given the unique features of the Sengenics Immunome technology, it can be used in many ways. Although this technology has significant potential, some of the ways we can apply them include:
Discovery of autoantibody-based therapeutics
Autoantibodies are produced by the immune system in many pathogenic processes, and have been implicated as important biomarkers in cancer, auto-immune disease and cancer immunotherapy adverse drug reactions. Its appearance may precede disease symptoms by many years and due to the inherent amplification of the immune system, they are readily detectable. Their unique potential for pre-symptomatic and early diagnosis of disease makes autoantibodies exceptionally effective tools for biomarker discovery, and determining and analysing off-target cross-reactivity.
Sengenics’ Immunome protein array platform can help you discover processes and pathways that are affected by the autoantibodies easily, and is uniquely positioned to determine the autoantibody’s interaction with isoforms of the same protein in terms of linear AND conformational epitopes. Given that antibodies with high affinity & specificity can also be identified using Immunome, it can also assist in disease prediction and prognosis, which translates to more effective antibody-based therapeutics once combined with novel bioinformatics methods and algorithms. This results in an increase of the probability of earlier diagnosis, improved disease prediction and stratification of patients.
Stratification of human response to drugs based on autoantibodies
- ADR Cancer Immunotherapy/Checkpoint Inhibitors
Adverse Drug Reactions in cancer immunotherapy
Immunotherapies have been changing the outlook for many cancer patients. Inhibition of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) and programmed death 1 (PD1) immune checkpoints has been proven to activate the immune system. Either individually or in combination, administration of CTLA4 and PD1 inhibitors have shown promising results for the treatment of melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer.
However, as cancers are complex and diverse, what works well against one type of cancer might have little effect against another, and what works for some patients might not work for everyone. Due to this, despite its benefit, immunotherapies have been associated with immune-related adverse events (irAE), including autoimmunity. Therefore, profiling immunotherapy-related immuno-toxicity in cancer patients could serve as a tool to better predict the correct dosage and combination, as well as patient’s response to treatment. This could help lessen the effect of irAE in immunotherapies.
The unique surface technology that underpins the Immunome protein array platform makes it ideal for various medical and therapeutic proteomics applications, including cancer biomarker and neoantigen profiling, monitoring of patient response to therapy, protein-protein interaction mapping, modulation of protein function by PTMs and mutations, and quantification of drug selectivity.
Discovery of autoantibody biomarkers for diagnostics
- Diagnosis of various infectious diseases
Sengenics’ Immunome protein array platform can be customized to include viral/bacterial/parasitic antigens that can be used against human samples in order to diagnose infections.
- Biomarker discovery
This includes testing of various biological samples in an attempt to find biomarkers. Simultaneous and rapid analysis of thousands of proteins in a high-throughput manner is made possible using this protein microarray technology. The identification of multiple biomarkers can result in the development of clinical tests with improved sensitivity and specificity.
Functional assays for any protein and any interacting biomolecule
- Conventional receptor binding assay
Receptor binding assays using the Immunome protein array platform can be used in discovery and mechanism studies. With the enhanced precision that Immunome offers, one can produce results that are more biologically valid and relevant, reducing the time needed to discover new pathways and mechanisms in human diseases.
- Receptor binding disruption assay
Additionally, the receptor binding assays described above can also be combined with monoclonal antibodies (MAB) to ascertain the effectiveness of these compounds on the ability of the pathogen to bind to the receptor. With the enhanced precision that the Immunome protein array platform offers, the results are more biologically valid and relevant. Thus, reducing the time needed to discover new pathways and mechanisms in human diseases.
Characterisation of protein interactions with any other biomolecule
- Protein-X interactions
Protein-X studies can potentially allow us to elucidate the roles of various different proteins in the context of protein-protein interactions, as well as its role in various different types of cellular processes.
Examples of Protein-X interactions include:
- Kinase inhibition assays
- Identification of off-target interactions
- Identification of their mechanisms of action
- Discovery of novel protein connections
- Predicting new interactome models
- Mapping protein pathways
- Quantification of DNA binding efficiency of proteins
- Study of DNA repair mechanisms
- Anti-viral activity research
- Predictive Toxicology
Adverse drug reactions is an issue for pharma, patients and hospitals because of the potential for injury, disability and loss of life. However, the Sengenics Immunome platform allows you to accurately identify and examine interactions between proteins, biomarkers, and affected pathways. This allows you to anticipate the types of adverse effects that could manifest in patients, differentiate low-value and high value drug candidates, and plan your research cycle accordingly.
An example use case for the Immunome protein array platform in relation to Predictive Toxicology is the Iressa case study. More information on this study can be found over here.
- Protein Production
Using this technology, we are also able to produce any protein at milligram-level quantity, using any expression system. To find out more about this service, please go to the Services page.


Yingkou xiong yue dacheng gardening tools co., LTD
Fruit tree pruning includes winter pruning and summer pruning.
1. Pruning is mainly to prune elongated branches, drooping branches, dorsal branches, over-dense branches, disease and insect branches and weak twigs. Pruning can control the amount of fruit and improve the quality of fruit trees.
2. Pruning is for fruit tree shaping, pear tree is three main branches evacuation stratified, peach is three main branches open, pomegranate is natural round head.
3. Summer pruning is from June to August. As long as you feel dense, you can prune a part of the branches from the branches to get light, but don't prune the fruiting branches, otherwise you won't eat the fruits.
4. Winter pruning is mainly short pruning, that is, cutting a part of the branches from the top, 1/3 or 1/2, in order to promote the growth of fruit trees, reduce the results, but also pruning part of the fruiting branches, because there is a causal relationship between the fruit tree results, more fruit will be smaller.
After planting, the tree tray should be repaired immediately so that it can be watered and watered thoroughly on the same day. After a week, water the soil according to its moisture content to ensure that the soil is not short of water. After planting large size seedlings, in order to prevent the tree body from tilting after watering, triangular support with sticks should be carried out in time. This method is particularly important for evergreen trees and windy places. After planting pruned flowers and shrubs, dry and dead branches should be cut off in time, damaged and bruised branches should be truncated, and perennial branches should be retracted properly to promote the germination of new branches. After planting hedgerows, they should be trimmed to make them neat and beautiful.


El pequeño mono me mira… ¡Quisiera decirme algo que se le olvida!
“Ateles” encourages the wise use of nature, and empowers a new generation of conservationists!!
We focused on the research and conservation of Mexican Spider Monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) to create “Ateles”, an academic project consisting of six episodes to talk about the animal in its world.
“Ateles” is a project to dialogue about how human actions affect the natural ecosystems, and gathers the voices of local children and environmental educators to inspire positive actions.
Discover what children say about monkey’s conservation!! This short video represented Mexico during the Conservation Symposium in 2018 at the Chester Zoo, where Dr. Luisa Rebecchini presented our collaborative work.
“Ateles” embraces the positive conservationism movement and includes three academic reports, created with the participation of the National Geographic explorers, Filippo Aureli and Denise Spaan, along with members of the Liverpool John Moores University, Universidad Veracruzana and the NGO ConMonoMaya.
“Ateles” is part of the third season of “Beyond Science”, a season devoted to social complex phenomena. Its production was authorised by the Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, and released for national broadcasting in RTV and Canal Once.
The creativity behind
The name of “Ateles” is derived from the genus Ateles of the spider monkeys, found in the tropical forests of southern Mexico.
Its visual design incorpores bright green colours from the jungle, in contrast with soft sand coloured visual elements, that make the perfect balance to enjoy the view, and stay present along the narrative.
We collaborated with Colectivo Hojarasca to create outstanding images of the monkeys and the natural reserves of the Yucatan Peninsula.
Watch “Ateles” here:
Music: The Wizardry Project.


Did giant draft horses and sleek Thoroughbreds evolve from rabbit-sized ancestors? Neat diagrams in science textbooks say yes. But research the details and you find a horse of a different color! Increasingly, scientists are questioning what has been the greatest array of "evidence" ever assembled in favor of evolution.
SOME YEARS ago a noted scientist rose to challenge the commonly accepted evolutionary family tree of the horse. The occasion was an august British science association meeting. The scientist was Professor T. S. Westoll, Durham University geologist. Professor Westoll told a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Edinburgh that nearly everyone had taken the early classical evolutionary tree for granted . The idea that one may trace the beginning of the horse family from the small, dog-sized eohippus to our present-day horse was all wrong, he announced . He did not, mind you, denounce the evolutionary theory. But he did contest major parts of the evolutionary horse family tree in favor of his version. But why? The family tree of the horse is supposed to be the most convincing example of evolution in action!
Did the Horse Evolve?
The saga of supposed horse evolution is found in countless texts in general science. Teachers pointing to neat, scientific-appearing diagrams tell their students, "Here is a simple, easy-to-understand proof that the modern-day horse evolved from a small, doglike ancestor." One individual challenged us to take on this "proof" of evolution and attempt to refute it. In this reader's own words: "I noticed that you perpetually pick on the areas of the evolutionary scheme that are weak. Weak spots do not make a thing wrong. Weak spots indicate a lack of time for drawing evidences. Why don't you pick on some of the well-proven parts of evolution. The evolution of the horse, for example. Every good encyclopedia in the world has that in it. Would they print false information in research books?" This letter illustrates again how much FAITH people have in science. It seemed unbelievable to this person that any untruths could appear in "research books." But research books are not the words of divinity, but the notions of men. And they have contained, in the past, everything from the Piltdown Man hoax to the supposition that mice leapt into being spontaneously from piles of rotten rags. Unfortunately, there are very few scientists who agree among themselves, and there exist almost as many ideas in the evolutionary patchwork of guesses as there are individual scientists to postulate them. But let's get to the point — and not horse around about it.
The All-Important Fossil Record
Look in any textbook on geology or paleontology. You find each contains some statement as: "The most direct sort of evidence on the truth of evolution must, after all, be provided by the fossil record" (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 220, 221). Here, then, is where evolutionists stand and fight. And they have chosen the horse as their most mighty weapon! The question is: Will the idea of horse evolution stand up under the cold, hard light of close scrutiny? For over one hundred years, paleontologists have been amassing fossils, trying to patch together a genealogy for the horse. It all really began about 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species. Paleontologists rushed to the fields searching for fossils. With bones of many animals in hand, they began to construct various sequences purporting to show how a particular animal might have evolved from some other form. Their greatest "success" came in putting together sequences of bones to make up the evolution of the horse story. By 1900 the tale was complete. Only minor details have been filled in since then.
A Classroom Tool
This supposed horse sequence is still the best tool evolutionists have to convince others that evolution is a fact. Simpson candidly tells us: "The beautiful series of ancient and modern horses displayed in many museums are still the simplest way to convince any open-minded person that evolution is a fact. You can see it with your own eyes." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. xxxiii.) You are confidently informed that fossils of an animal called eohippus (e-o-hi p'-us) gradually changed his teeth, lost three toes and grew in stature to become the horse of today. The average high school or college student is told without hesitation that this is an incontrovertible fact. He is not encouraged to research for himself to find whether the supposed evolution, in fact, did occur. What dozens of paleontologists have put together over a span of one hundred years surely could not be wrong. Or could it?
Can Scientists Be Wrong?
Is it possible then, that the paleontological facts which have been unearthed with spade, shovel and scratcher — were wrongly interpreted? In this article we challenge the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. We quote the admissions of the scientists themselves. Every quote in every article is from a leading scientist respected by his colleagues. Our articles are merely a commentary on their admissions of where the theory is unproven. And, when you amass all the information, shockingly you find — the theory of evolution is unproved everywhere! In most cases, the scientists themselves do not realize the significance of the admissions they make. With this in mind, let's delve into the horse story and see what the paleontologists do admit.
Under Grave Suspicion?
Reading through a book on mammals by a well-known scientist, one is shocked to read that some scientists doubt the neat picture of the horse story. "The origin of the horse was until recently thought to be better known than that of any other mammal; this was based on a series of complete fossil skeletons of dozens of different extinct creatures, starting with simple animals of the size and shape of small dogs with five fingers and four toes, and ending with the modern Thoroughbred. "However, this pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structure, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion. "So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved." (Mammals of the World, Ivan T. Sanderson, p. 222.) What is this? The simplistic idea of horse evolution under grave suspicion? Too many intermediary or transitional forms completely lacking? Too many "side-branches"? Only a "guide" to the probable steps? George G. Simpson, well-known paleontologist, reveals other problems with the horse history chart so blithely reproduced in the average textbook.
His admission is shocking: "Earlier students usually pointed to the evolution of the horse as a typical example of orthogenesis [straight-line, constant evolution] and the best proof of that theory. It is now seen that this was a serious mistake, a mistake caused
WAS THIS A HORSE? — Artist's concept of eohippus — claimed to be a horse ancestor. Notice what appears to be horse-like head. See article for admissions by paleontologists that skeletal remains demonstrate eohippus was not a "hippus" — did not have a horse-like head. (See PDF for Pictures)
in part by inadequate evidence and in still larger part by superficial and erroneous methods of study. "Some students of evolution who were not really well acquainted with the whole picture of horse evolution simply picked out parts of it that seemed to fit an orthogenetic interpretation, and their false conclusions were accepted and endlessly repeated by others who knew still less about these subjects... There was, for instance, no constant and overall increase in size... The feet did not steadily change from four toes to three and then to one... And so it goes for all the changes that have occurred in the history of the family; not one of them shows the constant, guided change in a single direction that is demanded by the theory of orthogenesis." (Horus) George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 270, 271.) Scientists picked out parts that made the theory appear right? False conclusions accepted and repeated by others? No steady changes in one direction?
If the theory of evolution is so logical, so capable of explaining everything — how did such mistakes occur? Simpson admits there is no proof that the toes steadily changed from four to three (what happened to two?) to one. Paleontologists have no neatly linked transitional creatures. If evolution were a fact, one should see a neat progression — with all intermediate steps logically following each other. But one simply doesn't — not even among the supposed star proof of evolution — our maligned horse. Simpson is not the only paleontologist who discusses this problem. Another well-known scientist frankly tells us: "The horses are often cited as an outstanding example of 'straight-line evolution' or of 'orthogenesis,' and it is frequently maintained that these animals evolved with little deviation, along a straight-line path from the little Eocene Hyracotherium or eohippus to the modern horse, Equus.... "When all fossils are taken into account the history of horses in North America is seen to be anything but a simple progression along a single line of development." (Evolution of the Vertebrates, Edwin S. Colbert, pp. 360, 361.) When you take all the fossils into account, there is, in fact, no evidence of evolution. Paleontologists — in spite of denials — still take the bones that seem to fit their theory. Of course, many questions can be raised. If a five-toed ancestor is "primitive" and a one-toed horse is "progressive" — where does man fit? Man has five toes on each foot, not one. Is man to be considered "primitive"? Evolutionists don't usually consider such "problems." Some scientists were candid enough to face the problems. They did not, of course, renounce evolution — but they at least had the candor to admit there were problems.
To Count or Not To Count
Regarding the supposed reduction of toes, one of the proofs given of horse evolution, Simpson admitted: "Regarding the feet, the old idea of a steady, uninterrupted reduction in number of toes is, as has lately become clear, not only over-simplified but also ESSENTIALLY FALSE... simply counting the toes gives hardly any idea of what was really going on in regard to the functioning foot in the living animals." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 256.) But "counting the toes" is crucial to the idea of horse evolution. The concept of toe reduction and tooth changes are the two major proofs cited for horse evolution. If these are not true, the theory has little by which to defend itself.
A Pony Tale
Let's take the supposed genealogy of the horse step by step. Let's scrutinize each step and see if indeed evolution has occurred. The story of how the horse genealogy was built up is an intriguing one. It goes back to the year 1838. Before this time there were no known bones of such an animal called eohippus. But in that year a discovery of bones was made which took its place at the beginning of the supposed genealogy of the horse. In 1838, William Colchester, an English brickmaster, was digging in the clay banks of the river Deben. He dug so deep that his shovel hit sand. In a shovel full of sand he noticed what looked like an old tooth. In the next year another Englishman, William Richardson, was rummaging around a place called Studd Hill on the coast of Kent. He found a large part of an ancient skull — with most of the teeth well preserved. These have been called the first "horse" fossils discovered. But did they really look like horses? Let's take them at face value — without interpretation. Here is one plain admission. "No one even suspected at that time these were ancestral horses. How could they? The specimens found by Colchester and Richardson had almost no special resemblance to the living horse. "The teeth, instead of the great, ridged, grinding prisms of our present horse, were small, low, and cusped, really more like monkey teeth than horse teeth. The little skull... looked [as its first describer, Richard Owen, remarked] rather like 'that of the Hare or other timid Rodentia.' "From the evidence then available, it would have been most unscientific to jump to the conclusion that this queer little beast was a sort of a horse. Owen named it Hyracotherium [Hie-ra-co-thee'-ri-um]. (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 114.)
Calling a Hare a Horse
Aha! Then eohippus is not a hippus (horse)! Its bones look like a hare or one of the scientific family of Rodentia (such as squirrels, beavers, and porcupines). Perhaps like a modern hyrax, or even the Biblical "coney," sometimes confused with a rabbit. Simpson admits it would have been unscientific to claim this beast was a horse. Then what possible reason would you have for calling it a horse? It didn't look like a horse — different teeth, different skull, different body, different feet! George Gaylord Simpson explains why paleontologists later called this UNhorselike fossil a horse. "Owen compared the small Eocene mammal with the hyraxes... which, indeed, it resembles more than it does the recent horses... When, much later, similar fossils were found in the Eocene of North America, the principle of evolution had been well established. "Professor Marsh [eminent 19th century paleontologist] was therefore able to recognize that these fossils were horse ancestors, and he coined for them the apt and euphonious name Eohippus, 'dawn horse,' referring also to the fact that they occur in the Eocene, 'dawn of the recent,' epoch." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 147, 148, 149.) Instead of taking the bones at face value, as Owen did, Marsh interpreted the bones according to the theory of evolution. He forced the facts to fit the theory. As Simpson admitted in an article appearing some years ago in the magazine Natural History, "The description of Owen would not seem amiss if our mental image of Hyracotherium were not so colored by later knowledge [?] that it was ancestral to the horse." ("Resurrection of the Dawn Horse," George Gaylord Simpson, Natural History. November, 1940.) Any paleontologist wanting to preserve his professional status would never have considered Hyracotherium or Eohippus a horse in 1839. They all called it exactly what it was. "When in 1839 part of a skull was found... in London days, even the most eminent paleontologists of the day little suspected that the 'Eohippus' belonged to the horse family... in fact Sir Richard Owen named its genus Hyracotherium... when he compared it with conies (hyrax), pigs and rodents." (Time, Life and Man, R. A. Stirton, p. 465.)
Eohippus After Evolution
Even as late as 1872 — some 13 years after Darwin published his ideas on evolution — we find the American evolutionary paleontologist, E. D. Cope, still thinking eohippus fossils were what they looked like, not what an evolutionist arbitrarily claimed them to be. Cope found a fragment of a lower jaw and one tooth at Evanstown, Wyoming in 1872. "Cope was no more able to deduce its horse relationships from this fragment than Owen could from similar fragments found 10 Suffolk... Cope also at first confused some of the teeth of dawn-horses [which they are not] and those of monkey-like animals." ("Resurrection of the Dawn Horse," George Gaylord Simpson, Natural History, November, 1940.) Then why were these innocent, rabbit-like bones dumped into the horse family? Let Professor Simpson answer: "The theory of evolution was soon [after 1859] accepted by practically all scientists. "With the firm establishment of this theory, students of fossils, that is, paleontologists, naturally began to look around to see whether they could not,
A FAMILY AFFAIR — Top photo shows skeleton of modern horse alongside reconstruction of its supposed ancestor, eohippus. Paleontologists admit there is no reason to connect eohippus with the horse family — as even the above comparison indicates. Below, four-toed eohippus compared with one-toed horse. Both are distinct mammals with no relationship to each other except in name. (See PDF for Pictures)
by comparing ancient animals of different ages, find the ancestors of living animals." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 115.)
What Was Eohippus?
It's time we cut through the confusion. Let's understand what eohippus was not and what he WAS. The work, in fact, has already been done for us. Scientists simply haven't understood the import of what they say. Note the following which dearly tells us what eohippus was: "The first discovery, made in Europe, was called Hyracotherium [same as eohippus] because of a superficial resemblance to the Old World cony, or HYRAX... some species were 10 inches high at the shoulder, weighed 8 or 9 pounds, and compared with an alley cat in build. Others were 20 inches high and weighed about four times as much. All had arched, flexible backs and high hindquarters, which gave the beasts an almost rabbitlike appearance." (The Fossil Book, Carroll Lane Fenton and Mildred Adams Fenton, p. 417.) There is your answer! The bones called "eohippus" are similar to those of an Old World hyrax, often confused with the coney. Although to make a positive assertion today that eohippus was a type of hyrax would be looked upon as foolish. But to call eohippus a "horse" is absolutely ridiculous. It has no connection with the horse family. Its looks prove it was not an ancestor of the horse.
No Need for Eohippus to Evolve
Besides, why should "eohippus" evolve? He was a creature perfectly made to fit in his own environmental niche. A leading paleontologist admits this to be true: "Eohippus was NOT an imperfect model that needed to have the teeth, feet and other parts rebuilt to make it into Equus. Eohippus was a going concern on its own, a well-adapted animal that got along very well in its own world and following its own habits." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 230.) If eohippus got along well in the world, why did he have to evolve? If you claim he DID evolve, why are there little creatures alive today which so closely resemble eohippus? Evolution cannot answer. This forest-dwelling browser's brain didn't even resemble a horse's brain. One authority admits: "Another MOST UNHORSELIKE characteristic of Hyracotherium was its brain." (Introduction to Evolution, Paul Amos Moody, p. 203.) But in spite of no obvious relationship, evolutionists tried to make eohippus look like a horse. They were determined to have their own way. This little bit of hanky-panky IS commented on by Simpson: "Proportions [for eohippus] are so different from Equus that the head of eohippus, WHEN CORRECTLY RESTORED, does not look like a small horse's head. The snout does taper slightly and suggest the beginning of a muzzle, but at this stage the development is so slight that we should not notice it particularly if we did not know what was to come later. The brain was small and its structure was so primitive that it suggests the most primitive mammal brains, or even the brain of a reptile, more than it does that of the living horse." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 152, 153.) The head DID NOT look like a small horse's head. But scientists, desperately wanting evolution to be true, drew eohippus' head to look like a horse's head! What kind of science is this?
Done in the Name of Science
Why scientists did this is clear. Assuming that "what was to come later" was evolution, evolutionists imagined that eohippus fulfilled their analogy. Hence, he was the "primitive" ancestor of the horse! A small example of how scientists tried to make rabbit-like eohippus look like a horse was not discovered until 1956. "The scapula [shoulder blade] of Hyracotherium has usually been restored to resemble that of later horses... In the collection of the California Institute of Technology are a partial skull and nearly complete post-cranial skeleton from the Gray Bull beds of the Big Horn Basin of Wyoming. "Both scapulae [shoulder blades] are virtually complete and are to my knowledge the only ones in existence with the blade intact. I have examined casts of both scapulae. They are far more doglike than horse-like.., the areas of muscle insertion on the medial side of the scapula are as nearly as can be determined from the cast, ALMOST EXACTLY as they are in Canis," (American Hyracotherium, David B, Kitts, 1956, p. 21.) So artists were guilty of stylizing their drawings to force eohippus to fit into the evolutionary theory, What we have are tacit admissions by evolutionists that the neat artists' concepts you see in your science textbooks are NOT ACCURATE. Scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky states without hesitation: "Many textbooks and popular accounts of biology represent the evolution of the horse family as starting with eohippus and progressing in a direct line towards the modern horse, Equus... according to Simpson, this over-simplification really amounts to a FALSIFICATION" (Theodosius Dobzhansky, evolution, Genetics, and Man, p. 302). Did you grasp that? Here an eminent scientist quotes another eminent scientist. He tells us that what teachers and college science students read about this subject in their science textbooks is an "over-simplification" — "a falsification"! Well, it looks like poor eohippus has been rather widely misrepresented. If the animal were alive and could think) he would literally turn over in his grave.
Eohippus and the Hyrax
When you carefully examine the record IN DETAIL some startling parallels between eohippus and the hyrax become evident: One writer says this of eohippus: "The grinding teeth [of eohippus], which had low crowns, were fit only for eating SOFT LEAVES AND PULPY FRUITS. the front feet had four toes, each with a hoof; the hind feet possessed only three" (C. L. Fenton, The Fossil Book, p. 418). Then compare this with a description of the modern hyrax, which some have confused with the cud-chewing coney of the Bible: "A small group of plantigrade-Herbivorous ungulates with HOOFS... FOUR TOES ON THE ANTERIOR [FRONT] limbs and three toes on the posterior [hind] limbs!" (L. A. Adams, Introduction to the Vertebrates, p. 44.) How clear from the characteristics given! The "horse ancestor" was not a horse at all. It was an animal very similar to the hyrax. Both were herbivorous — feeding on plants, soft leaves and pulpy fruits! Notice also that both eohippus and the modern hyrax had four toes on their front limbs — and three on the hind limbs! There are many other likenesses that prove the fossils to be of the same family as the hyrax and not the horse! "In size these animals [hyrax and coney] may be compared roughly to rabbits and hares, and they have rodent-like habits of hunching up their backs" (Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th edition, vol. 14, art. "Hyracoidean). Both the modern hyrax and the eohippus fossil are "rabbit-like." Both hunch up their backs — another obvious similarity.
Both Had Dog-Like Pads
Hyraxes, like conies, are rock-dwelling animals (see Psalm 104:18; Prov. 30:26). They have pad-like feet to insure a stable under-footing in such rugged country. "The hyracoidea [hyrax family], a group of small, hoofed mammals, including the Biblical coney... climb easily, clinging even to almost vertical surfaces with the PADS ON THEIR FEET" (Encyclopedia Americana, art. "Hyracoidea"). "The feet are completely distinctive, being four toes on the front feet, three on the hind... a single pad makes up the bottom of each foot" (Edwin Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, p. 403). Now compare the modern hyrax — described above — with the assumed ancestor of the horse. You will find the same characteristics present in eohippus: Most of the weight was carried by DOGLIKE PADS on the sales of the feet, not by the hoofs" (C. L. Fenton, The Fossil Book, p. 418). Of course, scientists cannot absolutely tell from the skeletons whether the foot had one single pad like the hyrax or one for each toe like the dog. Again, from another author. the same fact is admitted: "Though there were little hoofs... most of the weight was borne on CUSHIONED PADS back of the hoof" (R. A. Stirton, Time, Life and Man, p. 468). That does it! Eohippus is a fossil type similar to the living hyrax — not the horse. In other words, modern evolutionists gave a wrong name to hyrax — like fossils they found in certain rock strata. They should never have been called "eohippus."
The rock-solid evidence for the evolution of the horse has crumbled at its foundations. Our "fearless charger" suddenly becomes a frightened "rabbit." But let's not stop here. Eohippus is no real "hippus" or horse. But what about the next stage in "horsey" evolution -the three-toed creatures, such as Mesohippus? Let's have a look at Mesohippus Merychippus and others. Are they really horses of different color? A three-toed horse called Merychippus supposedly began his evolutionary history somewhere roughly 20 million years ago, his remains today being found in what are called Miocene strata. This and other three-toed horses, claims evolution, evolved into the present-day one-toed horse in the Pliocene, perhaps eight million years ago. If they had to evolve, these three-toed horses should have become extinct. Therefore, no three-toed horses should have been around for the last few millions of years. Otherwise, where is the need for evolution? If a three-toed horse managed to survive all these millions of years, there was no need for him to evolve. Now look at the facts —
Three-Toed Horses in Modern Times
Three-toed horses known in modern times? Shocking as it may seem, it is nonetheless true! This amazing fact is found buried In a 1922 Guide to the Specimens of the Horse Family! Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, pp. 10, 11. It discusses the foot bones of three Shire horses. One was called Blaisdon Conqueror, another Prince William. The third was unnamed. Of Prince William, this Guide said he "MAY BE SAID TO BE A VERITABLE THREE-TOED HORSE." The second horse also displayed this three-toed characteristic. Said the Guide, "The cannon-bones of 'Blaisdon Conqueror' also display an EQUALLY large development of the splint bones." In fact ALL THREE of the horses were three-toed. The Guide continued: "There is the remarkable fact that three skeletons of Shire horses exhibit more or Jess strongly developed rudiments of the lateral toes of the extinct three-toed Hipparion. "The obvious inference is that this IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE BREED! "In a certain sense, therefore, a considerable number of existing horses are really three-toed animals." Why haven't these facts been publicized? Why haven't they been given their true meaning and importance?
Unraveling the Truth
These Shires were an example of what may be called "living fossils" — animals supposedly extinct but turning up unexpectedly to embarrass evolutionists! This information is available in England for leading paleontologists to see, to evaluate and understand. It has been cited before — but the significance of these facts probably has never before been published. American paleontologists also had similar facts available to see. In fact, the Yale Peabody Museum — which has the world's second-best collection of fossil "horses" — also has evidence of modern multitoed horses. "The Yale collection contains specimens representing three examples of the occurrence of extra toes in the modern horse... although they are abnormal in the development of one lateral digit only... as we know of no two-toed fossil horses." (The Evolution of the Hone family, Richard Swann Lull, p. 9.) Right here is rather an embarrassing problem. Can evolution really ask a person to believe that horses "jumped" from three toes to one — with no intermediate fossils? Certainly, one would
ARGENTINE LILLIPUTIAN HORSES — Are these an evolutionary link in horse evolution? Or just a variety within the species? (See PDF for Pictures)
want some strong proof before accepting such an idea. The author then goes on to another shocking example of multi toed horses. "Pliny the Elder, a naturalist, in A.D. 79, tells us in his Natural History: 'It is said also, that Caesar the dictator had a horse which would allow no one to mount him but himself, and that its fore-feet were like those of a man.' Unquestionably this description is some~ what highly colored, but a multi toed horse without doubt forms the basis for the legend." (Ibid. p. 9.) Here is proof against the theory of evolution. But the facts are glossed over. Why? Because there is no room for such facts within the framework of evolution. Since it is assumed that the horse evolved, such vital facts became unimportant curiosities.
Three Toed or One Toed?
Even the "three-toed — one-toed" idea is simply not the whole story. Modern horses are not strictly "one toed." There are small digits on either side of the big toe. "Horses are said to be... single-toed, but the term is not strictly accurate" (A History of Land Mammals, William B. Scott, page 294). Then put this statement with one about Merychippus, the supposed three-toed ancestor of the supposed one-toed horse: "Merychippus... is three-toed... digits two and four vary somewhat in development in the different species, though never reaching the ground, so that the feet are functionally one-toed." (Richard Swann Lull, pp. 22, 23.) Are you confused? So are the paleontologists!
Any Reason for Side Toes?
Many paleontologists have puzzled over the function of these side toes. Some have claimed they had no function. One eminent paleontologist disagreed. His disagreement focuses on a vital problem of evolutionary theory. "In Merychippus the side toes were still present and fully formed and each still ended in a well-developed hoof. In the resting position, however, the side hooves did not quite reach the ground, so that their function, if any, is rather puzzling. "It has been commonly supposed that they had no function at this time.... "Although this is stated or implied in almost every previous summary of horse evolution, it almost certainly is not true... I think that this may be another case where we have gone astray because we have thought of extinct horses as skeletons standing stiffly in museum cases, and not as the mechanical frameworks of living animals.... "When a spring-footed horse is galloping and lands on the middle toe, this toe is bent upward far beyond its normal resting pose. At the point of extreme flexion, the short side toes of Merychippus and its later three-toed descendants would touch the ground. May they not, then, have had an essential function to act as buffers to stop the bending of the middle toe at this point and to lessen the danger of spraining the elastic ligaments by stretching them too far?" (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 260, 261.)
A Problem of Lameness
Lameness is distressingly frequent in certain breeds of supposedly improved domestic horses, and this is almost always caused by injury to the spring mechanism of the feet. The speed mechanism of modern horses can bear little more weight. A veterinary authority laments: "Quarter horses and Thoroughbreds often have feet that are too small to bear the weight of the animal. This is brought about by selective breeding, and although it gives the horse a pleasing appearance, it subjects the foot to greater concussion because the shock is distributed over a smaller area." (Lameness in Horses, O. R. Adams, pp. 27, 28.) Then a larger hoof with three toes would allow a horse to bear more weight. In fact, a three-toed horse would in certain cases perhaps be a more efficient animal. What is the point? Evolution demands "improvement." But for its purpose a three-toed horse is equally as good as a one-toed horse. No room for evolution here.
What About Size Increase?
Neat diagrams of horse evolution imply that the horse evolved from a dog-sized ancestor to its present size. But a quick look at our animal world shows this is not really a proof at all. A simple listing of horse species immediately makes clear how much the living forms vary in size. There's a lot of difference between a 2200-pound Shire, a sleek Thoroughbred, a diminutive Shetland pony. But the differences do not stop here. Several breeders have claimed success in making horses so small that they look like good-sized dogs. A man in West Virginia says he raises ponies that are no larger than 32 inches high. The littlest, Sugar-dumpling, stands 20 inches low and weighs 35 pounds. He resembles a shaggy dog and is treated as a house pet. An Englishman from Southall is said to raise portable household donkeys. For two decades this man has been breeding donkeys down to size. When full-grown his specimens compare in size with St. Bernard dogs. Another miniature strain being produced is the Argentine lilliputian horse. This breed is also about the size of the St. Bernard — weighing about 200 pounds and measuring 30 inches high. One can see these lilliputian horses by going to the Regina Winery in Southern California where they are bred from imports.
A Wrong-Sized Horse
It should be quite clear that the analogy of size increase means nothing. Are we to say dog-sized lilliputian horses evolved INTO massive Clydesdales? Of course, not! They are BOTH with us today. We should apply that same type of reasoning to the fossil record. A difference in size does not connote evolution. Even here the fossil record speaks quite eloquently on the matter. It concerns fossils of Archaeohippus, a horse too small for its supposed place in the array of horse evolution. Speaking of these fossils, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson says, "This reversal of the usual but by no means constant, tendency for the horses to increase in size is of extraordinary interest." (Horses, p. 171.) Why "extraordinary interest?" Because it upsets a major concept of horse evolution. It proves untenable the idea that increase in size is a proof of horse evolution.
How About Tooth Size
Next to toe reduction, the strongest claim for horse evolution is supposed to be a change in tooth size. Certain horses were supposed to have low-crowned teeth, others high-crowned. Eohippus — the so-called dawn horse — had low-crowned teeth. In last month's installment, we saw that eohippus is not a horse. Then there was Mesohippus, probably an extinct animal UNRELATED to the horse. He too, had low-crowned teeth. Before going further, let's understand one point. Classification experts say there are only six living genera of odd-toed mammals — which include the horses. But from fossil bones, paleontologists reconstruct one hundred and fifty-two genera of odd-toed mammals. What's the significance of this? Simply that the horse kind may have had many more representatives in the past. There would be no evolution here; only much greater varieties within a single type. The same with differences in tooth structure. Even scientists admit, "...Species of horse with high-crowned cheek teeth lived alongside less specialized... browsing forms." (An Introduction to the Mammalian Dentition, T. Wingate Todd, p. 227.) Whether all fossils dubbed "horses" are or are not horses is beside the point. Paleontologists find bones of claimed ancestors and descendants In strata they label by the same name I What is the conclusion? These were all animals — whether
Supposed evolution of horse feet. Neat charts in science texts place side views of forefeet of, from left to right, eohippus = Hyrocotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus and Equus. Drawn to scale. As articles show, implied analogies are not proof of a point. (See PDF for Pictures)
horses or not — living at the SAME TIME. Where is evolution here? It is at this very point of further supposed tooth and toe changes in the fossil record that paleontologists are most confused. In seeking to find "where" tooth and toe changes occurred, they find a fossil record that makes no sense in terms of evolution — but one that does make sense once we divorce ourselves from this theory.
A Horse Out of Place
What happens if bones which appear to be of the same animal are found in both "younger" and "older" strata? The paleontologists simply give the bones a different name! Or if the supposed ancestor and descendant are found together, the fossils are called "problematic" or labeled "parallel evolution," "conservative characteristics" or some such similar scientific-sounding phrase. Or the strata are renamed. Otherwise, if the significance of the fact that the same animals are found in strata called by different names (and given different ages) were admitted — it would immediately disrupt the evolutionary theory. Stratigraphy would then have no meaning in terms of evolution. It would be clear that life in certain strata had simply perished together! It just happened that in one region more of a particular creature died than in another. Sometimes the overwhelming evidence is so glaring that evolutionists themselves recognize the theory must be revised. It never is discarded! Such was the case with the lauded five-toed ancestor of the horse.
A Five-Toed Stud Needed
Scientists had dubbed some bones by the lofty title of Phenacodus and christened him the ancestor of eohippus. Textbooks repeated this idea. But soon it was discovered that Phenacodus could not be the ancestor of eohippus. Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer tells us: "This interesting form (Phenacodus) was once believed by some to be the actual ancestor of many of the hoofed mammals. This cannot be the case, for it is a bit too late in time [it was contemporary of eohippus] and was also somewhat too large to fit into the early ancestral stages of most later times." (The Vertebrate Story, Alfred S. Romer, pp. 255-256.) What is meant by contemporary? Simply, the bones of Phenacodus were discovered in the same kind of strata as eohippus-type animals. This simply wouldn't do for evolution. Otherwise, the five-toed ancestor that supposedly evolved into a four-toed one was living alongside its descendant.
Dumping Your Ancestors
Actually, the trouble with Phenacodus was not only his place in the rocks. His size was wrong and so were other characteristics. Evolutionists finally had to dump him from his base position in the supposed evolution of the horse. But for at least a generation science students were fed this concept. "Phenacodus primaevus... found by Professor Cope, was hailed by him as the 'five-toed horse,' and an illustration of it has appeared in many textbooks under that label. It is far too large and in some respects too specialized to be in the equine series and moreover is contemporary with eohippus." (The Evolution of the Horse Family, Richard Swann Lull, 1931, pp. 5, 6.) Of course, if you had lived shortly after Cope's pronouncement you would have been committing intellectual suicide to question whether in fact Phenacodus had evolved into eohippus. Perhaps, as a reputable scientist, one may have been able to challenge Phenacodus. But to go on and challenge evolution? Never.
Mesohippus — A Connecting Link?
We have yet to discuss the three-toed animal with the low-crowned teeth, Mesohippus. Evolution claims he links eohippus with a later form called Merychippus. In 1875, O. C. Marsh proposed a new genus to be called Mesohippus. This was to be another rung in the horse genealogy. Fossils of this animal had been found back in 1850. Joseph Leidy, well known 19th century paleontologist, had looked over the bones and described them. He called the fossils Palaeotherium Bairdii — referring it to an extinct species of animals. In other words, as far as he was concerned the bones did not resemble any living mammal. But Marsh, with horse evolution on his mind, renamed it Mesohippus bairdii — and dubbed it as evolving from eohippus.
No Intermediate Species
But just how close is Mesohippus to eohippus? The paleontologists admit there is a wide gap between the bones of these two animals. Paleontologist R A. Stirton frankly says: "The immediate ancestry of Mesohippus is not definitely known" (Phylogeny of North American Equidae, R. A. Stirton, p. 169.) Here a leading paleontologist says the "immediate ancestor of Mesohippus is not definitely known." There is a sudden appearance of so-called three-toed horses. If evolution were indeed a fact, we should expect to find intermediate development. But we find no such steps. And to say the Oligocene Mesohippus is "widely separated" from the Eocene eohippus is to understate the problem. In fact, there is no relation between them. Here is the proof.
A Brainless Horse?
Scientist Tilly Edinger, in his monumental book, Evolution of the Horse Brain, came to the conclusion that there are "conspicuous differences between the brains of eohippus and Mesohippus" (p. 135). Simpson writes of the brain of Mesohippus, "The brain case had become swollen, and its internal cast shows a remarkable transformation 111 comparison with Eocene forms." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, p. 164.) Actually, "transformation" is not the right word. Rather the brain of Mesohippus is remarkably different from that of eohippus. Where is evolution here? Where are all the intermediate forms? There are none; there never were any. Mesohippus simply did not evolve from eohippus. And did Mesohippus really look like a horse? No, not at all. "Mesohippus is about the size of a large dog, such as a pointer or a greyhound, and has the more slender proportions of the latter, but these animals already... looked like miniature horses... horse-like as they seem, almost every detail of structure, from the incisor teeth to the hinder hoofs is notably different from the corresponding part of Equus." (A History of Land
How DIFFERENT ARE THEY? Photographs show bones dubbed Miohippus (left) and Mesohippus (right). Evolutionists sometimes implied that one evolved from the other. However, experts have been forced to conclude that there really isn't too much difference between the two. They are simply closely related varieties of the some type of animal. Often, even paleontologists cannot tell the difference between bones dubbed by these two names. Another example where evolutionary theory obscures the true facts. (See PDF for Pictures)
Mammals in the Western Hemisphere, William Berryman Scott, pp. 410, 411.) How can Mesohippus look like a horse — when in almost every detail he appears different from a horse? This becomes an insult to intelligence. Then compare this paradox! Large numbers of bones which look like horses are found in South America. Some of the foot bones appear to be "more" one-toed than the present one-toed horse. But they are called "false horses." These animals looked like horses; took the place of horses. But say evolutionists they are NOT horses. Why? They are found in strata much too "early." If evolution had to admit there were horses long before horses were supposed to evolve, it would strike a death blow to the theory.
What Happened to Mesohippus?
Evolutionists would tell you that Mesohippus gradually died out over millions of years. But that is not what the fossil record reveals! A shocking quote dearly shows that a sudden catastrophe wiped out Mesohippus. "In 1922, an Amherst party ran upon a bed where a layer about a foot and a half in thickness was exposed along about one hundred feet of a ravine. "This layer of day and sand was filled with fragments of bones and jaws of rhinoceros and horse, and it is safe to say there were twenty-five jaws of Mesohippus in every cubic foot of the layer. "All were broken and mixed up. "Very seldom was a long bone complete, and at the same time they were not broken to bits nor weathered, each fragment being cleanly broken and every tooth perfect. It looked like... their bones had been tramped into the mud and broken before the whole was buried." (The Evolution of the Horse, Frederick B. Loomis, p. 104.) These bones were buried by sediment-filled waters. The encasing material is sand and clay. The Mesohippus bones were not weathered — proof of immediate burial. The jumbled and tangled mess of Mesohippus bones also clearly shows this sudden burial was violent! But evolutionists simply do not understand such facts in their true light. These proofs from the fossil record are usually passed off as rubbish piles of "early man" or watering holes where large numbers of mammals died. But the facts often tell a different story. They tell of burial; sudden burial; VIOLENT burial! True horses suffered the same type of destruction as Mesohippus.
Why Become Extinct?
Few realize that the horse, an Old World animal — has been given a North American genealogy! That is, the supposed evolution of the horse is built up from fossils discovered in North America. However, from the time of the great catastrophe until 1519, it is generally agreed there were no living modern horses on the American continent. They had become extinct in North America. In February, 1519, horses were brought to the New World by Hernando Cortes. The early Indian horses of the Southwest were supposedly acquired from missions and traders at a later period. The sudden "great dying" of horses in North America is one of the great unsolved problems of paleontology. Especially since conditions in our West were such that the few horses which escaped from the Spanish explorers increased phenomenally in numbers! One leading scientist puzzled over this, saying: "The extinction of the horse over the whole of North America and South America, where they had roamed in vast herds during the Pleistocene, is one of the most mysterious episodes of animal history.... "There has been no lack of speculation and a dozen possible explanations have been suggested, but all of these lack evidence and none is really satisfactory... this seems at present one of the situations in which we must be humble and honest and admit that we simply do not know the answer. "It must be remembered too that extinction of the horses in the New World is only part of a larger problem. Many other animals became extinct here at about the same time." (Horses, George Gaylord Simpson, pp. 198, 200.) In other words, catastrophe of unprecedented proportions had to wipe the horse off the face of North America. Otherwise, we are left with no logical explanation.
The Conclusion of the Matter
What you have read in these two installments is only the tip of the information iceberg, thoroughly proving the horse did not evolve. Yet, many leading scientists believe it did evolve. Why? If you have cancer and the doctor tells you that you have one chance in a hundred of surviving, you would not be very happy. Suppose he said you had one chance in a million of living to a ripe old age. Not much "probability" of living out your three score and ten. Julian Huxley gives us such odds for a horse to evolve. "A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print! "... one with three million noughts after it is the measure of the unlikeliness of a horse — the odds against it happening at all. No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." (Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley, p. 42.) You would not bet on that kind of odds if it were YOUR life. No — it has not happened! The only possible proof of evolution, the fossil record, speaks eloquently against such an idea. Everywhere, the fossil record cries out, "The horse did not evolve!" The facts have been presented. Whether you accept or reject them is your decision. If you reject them, you will be missing out on the deep meaning of how this universe, this earth and life upon it came to be. You will miss out on understanding why you are here and what your purpose in life really is.


In the last months, a total number of 492 faunal remains were identified and analyzed from the New Kingdom town of Sai Island. The identification and analysis of species was carried out on Sai Island during the field season 2014 and it was continued in Vienna (Austria) at the Museum of Natural History (1st Zoological Department, Archaeozoology) and at the Department of Palaeontology (University of Vienna). My sincere thanks go therefore to the Sudanese Authorities (NCAM and especially our inspector Huda Magzoub) and also to Dr. Erich Pucher and Dr. Karl Kunst for their constant support here in Vienna!
The bone deposits derive from SAV1 North within the New Kingdom town of Sai, from three levels numbered from 5 to 3, datable to the 18th Dynasty (see Budka and Doyen 2013). Human intervention related to butchery techniques has been detected on the faunal remains from all levels investigated.
Diagram 1: Distribution of mammals and birds from Sai Island, SAV1 North according to the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) for levels 3-5. The prevalent species are mainly sheep/goats and cattle, but with some differences from level 5 to 3.
The faunal composition demonstrates the prevalence of domesticated mammal species at SAV1 North (Diagram 1). However, the very limited number of bones available from good archaeological contexts (levels 5-3) has to be stressed ‒ the material did not allow statistical processing and all results are of a tentative character based on a restricted corpus of faunal remains. Yet, I do believe that there is rich potential in the study of the animal bones from the New Kingdom town area of Sai, especially with the new stratified material from recent excavations as in SAV1 West, still waiting for analysis. Today, I would like to present some first data concerning one of the interesting species among the attested mammals: the pig (Sus scrofa f. domestica).
Pigs are recorded at a relatively higher percentage, after sheep/goat, at level 5, but a reduction follows at level 4. The profile changes at level 3, where the number of the bones is again increasing.
Pigs correspond to 8 bones from level 5, 10 from level 4 and 55 from level 3. As it is illustrated in Diagram 1, they are found at a relatively high percentage at level 5. Evidence from level 4 demonstrates that cattle and caprine prevail, whereas pigs are found in a smaller number. Pigs remain just the third prevalent species at level 3, although the total number of bones is higher.
For level 5 and the small number of bones, the skeletal part distribution is not well understood. A small amount of vertebrae, humerus and dentes are noted for this level. Dentes, tarsals and pelvis have mainly survived from level 4. More remains have been recovered from level 3. Mandibles prevail (14.5%) followed by humerus (10.9%), costae (9%), radius (7.2%) and pelvis (7.2%). Smaller bones (carpals, tarsals, and phalanges) lack completely.
The analysis of the age profile shows that the vast majority of the material coming from level 3 belongs to individuals between 1 and 2.5 years. Some of them are younger than 1 year and only in one case up to 3.5 years. The dental examination confirms the young age for the majority of the animals (16 months). Level 4 presents mainly individuals younger than 2-3 years and in one case older than 3.5 years. From level 5 only one individual is recorded, which seem to be younger than 1 year.
The butchery marks recorded on pigs are mainly related to disarticulation and portioning.
Mandibula of a pig from Level 4.
Proximal part of a humerus from Level 4.
To conclude, pigs recovered at SAV1 North were slaughtered at the optimum age for meat consumption. The very rare cases of older pigs could be related with the needs of reproduction. It is noteworthy that as far as we know pigs in Nubia are mainly connected with Egyptian presence. For instance, the pyramid tomb G301 at Cemetery D of Amara West (19th Dynasty) brought to light a neonate piglet from the western chamber (Binder et al. 2011, 53). On the other hand, pigs have not been found at Kerma in the town or cemeteries (see the studies by L. Chaix, e.g. 1988 and the extensive list of publications available at http://kerma.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=79#animal).
In New Kingdom Egypt, pig is among the most numerous species killed for meat and a preference for young animals is traceable in settlements (see e.g. at Amarna, Kemp 2012, 219-220).
It can be very tentatively suggested that the presence of pigs in the earliest level 5 at SAV1 North corresponds to the analysis of the ceramics from the same contexts: The material is New Kingdom in date and Egyptian in character, supporting the assessment that a Pharaonic settlement was founded on the island very early in the 18th Dynasty (cf. Budka 2011; Budka and Doyen 2013).
For now, only some preliminary tendencies for the faunal material from the New Kingdom town of Sai have been outlined. The low amount of the material studied so far has to be taken in consideration, implying that the results might significantly change during the next campaigns. However, the case study of the pig remains from SAV1 North illustrates that the study of the faunal remains from Sai will significantly contribute to the interpretation of the character of the site during the 18th Dynasty.
Binder et al. 2011 = M. Binder, N. Spencer & M. Millet, Cemetery D at Amara West: the Ramesside period and its aftermath, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 16, 2011, 47–99.
Budka 2011 = J. Budka, The early New Kingdom at Sai Island: Preliminary results based on the pottery analysis (4th Season 2010), Sudan & Nubia 15, 23–33.
Budka and Doyen 2013 = J. Budka & F. Doyen, Living in New Kingdom towns in Upper Nubia – New evidence from recent excavations on Sai Island, Ägypten & Levante 22/23, 2012/2013, 167–208.
Chaix 1988 = L. Chaix, Cinquième note sur la faune de Kerma (Soudan). Campagnes 1987 et 1988. In C. Bonnet et al., Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan), Genava, n.s. 36, 1988, 27–29. http://kerma.ch/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=247
Kemp 2012 = B. Kemp, The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Amarna and its people, Cairo 2012.


Beardies - Old
ZENformation: Getting a Beardie?
Animal Care Manager Kasey lists the beardie as one of her five favorite reptiles.
The Wonderful Beardie
“They are wonderful pets for a family,” says Kasey. “They are easy to care for and have a very chilled out persona. There are always exceptions in personalities.”
Kasey points out other characteristics of most beardies that make them great pets:
- they are easily habituated to handling
- take to tong feeding regularly
- they love to interact with their people
She stresses the importance of learning the correct way to interact with the beardie. “You need to know how to approach and handle beardies and any animal in your care.
Accidents can happen and animal interactions should always be supervised for the safety of the animal and the child,” she explains.
First things first, a Home
The size of your enclosure, the environment you create, and accessories you include are extremely important for your beardie. Roughly 85% of illness in exotic animals is from poor husbandry.
“If your beardie is a baby, you should section your enclosure using cardboard or create a temporary habitat in a smaller enclosure until they mature,” she says. “The reason to do this is because it can be difficult for young beardies to catch their food in an enclosure that is too large for them.”
Beardies are endemic to the deserts of Australia, so you should mimic that environment as best as possible. To do this, your beardie needs:
- Proper temperatures: There should be three separate zones within their enclosure, a cool side (75-80°F), a warm side (90-95°F) and a place to bask (95-100°F). You should have two thermometers to ensure the temperatures are in the correct range. An infrared surface thermometer can be used to monitor the temperature as well.
- Season-specific lighting: Your light cycle, including UVB/UVA, should vary with the change in seasons. Beardies need 14-16 hours of daylight in the summer and 10-12 hours in the winter.
- Healthy humidity: Beardies like their humidity on the lower side, about 20-40% and that can be measured using a hygrometer.
- a large basking ledge
- a cave to hide
- a piece of driftwood to climb on
- a hammock for lounging
- a shallow food bowl
- artificial or safe plants to transform the enclosure’s appearance
Feeding Your Beardie
Beardies, says Kasey, are amazing because their diet can be created using a wide variety of ingredients.
“In the wild they are omnivores and will typically eat an assortment of vertebrates and invertebrates, as well a large range of plant material,” she says.
Beardies have different diet needs based on their age.
- Juvenile beardies: Their diet should consist of 80% protein and 20% fresh produce. Once they reach around 12 months of age you will want to start increasing the amount of produce given and decrease the amount of protein.
- Mature beardies: Around 18 months of age they should be eating 80% produce and 20% protein.
Kasey recommends these commercially available high-protein sources:
- Dubia Roaches
- Super Worms
- Silk Worms
She cautions, “You should never feed insects that you have caught outside, and all insects should be gut loaded. This means the insect should be fed a diet packed with calcium and nutrients to fill their gastrointestinal tract.”
As for plant sources, Kasey says you can feed them produce you have in the house. “I use produce I have bought for myself for the week, focusing more on fresh veggies and leafy greens with a little fruit as a treat,” she says.
Vitamins and minerals also need to be provided, including:
- powdered Calcium/D3 to sprinkle on over the produce 2-3 times a week
- a multivitamin once a week
She also says it’s important to have a good relationship with reptile specialist. “Bring your new pet to an exotics veterinarian within a week and establish a good relationship with routine wellness visits.”
Cool Beardie Facts
- They get their name from the spines that protrude off their throat that resemble a man’s beard. The “beard” will puff out and possibly turn black when they are threatened or excited.
- They come in a wide variety of colors, which make it really cool to pick out your new companion. The most common colors are tan, yellow, olive, and red with loads of variations in patterns.
- A full-grown beardie will be about 16”-24” long.
- Their tail is about the length of their body (snout to vent).
- They are a stocky and flat bodied with distinct spines on their throats, sides of head and sides of body.
- Their typical lifespan is 10-15 years.
Zen Habitats offers a variety of enclosures and accessories to suit your reptile, no matter the species. We would love to help you select the right enclosure setup for you and your pet! Email email@example.com or call (978) 763-3035.


What can Massage do?
1. Massage is relaxing
It can soothe depression and anxiety because it reduces levels of cortisol, the stress hormone. It can lift your spirits, lower blood pressure, and elevate neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine which are involved in depression.
2. Massage can decrease pain
Injury and/or vigorous exercise cause tiny tears in muscle tissue, leading to inflammation, discomfort and pain. Massage therapy works differently from anti-inflammatory drugs which decrease inflammation and pain, but may slow natural healing. If you are continually supressing inflammation with drugs, the body may not heal itself adequately. Massage therapy can both reduce inflammation and enhance recovery at the cellular level. Massage can reduce stiffness and pain; give better range of motion for those with osteoarthritis.
3. Improves Sleep
Studies point to massage's effect on delta brain waves, connected to healthy, rejuvenating sleep.
4. Boosts Immunity
Massage therapy is linked to a better functioning immune system due to its effect on lymphatic circulation. Massage can reduce stress, and keep you healthier.
5. Reduces Headaches
Regular massage therapy can decrease pain for people with tension headaches and migraines.
Massage therapy increases blood flow, encourages the lymph system to move toxins, dead cells, bacteria and viruses out of your body.
7. Eases Cancer Treatment
Massage therapy is beneficial for people living with cancer or other serious illnesses. Massage can reduce pain, nausea, fatigue, anxiety and depression associated with serious illness.