Category Archives: Evolution

Despite a lack of signings in the summer transfer window, Harry McMullen believes Jurgen Klopp is already overseeing the long-term evolution of an ageing Liverpool side.

Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it. Michelangelo

With several key players over 30 in the current Liverpool squad, and a trio of 29-year-olds leading the line, the word ageing has become attached to the first great Jurgen Klopp team.

With the manager expected to leave on the expiry of his contract in 2024, theres a growing sense that to build the second great Klopp side, Liverpool urgently need to cut hard and spend high.

But what if that team is already within the squad? What if Klopp is doing a Michelangelo, and gradually chiselling it out?

As we all know, Liverpool line up off the ball in a 4-3-3; four defenders back, three in the midfield and a front three that presses high and wide.

This gives the Reds a numerical majority in defence, making them difficult to breach.

In attack, Liverpool look more like a 2-3-5, with the centre-backs and the midfielders in reserve, and the full-backs joining the attack.

This means that our majority is now in the attacking third, with a player in each of the five stratas of the pitch (wings, half-spaces and centre).

Crucially, this means that in both attacking and defensive transitions, Liverpool have five players in defence and five in attack; a perfect balance.

This version of 55, from a 4-4-3, is perfect for the personnel at Klopps disposal.

However, with each of the fabled front three currently out of contract in 2023, and several first-teamers over 30, its no wonder reports have suggested a big window next summer.

Fortunately, recent signings and extensions have future proofed the squad moving forward.

Exciting prospect Ibrahima Konate (22) is primed to partner Premier League winner Joe Gomez (24) at the back.

Curtis Jones (20) already has goals in Europe and a title-winners medal, while Harvey Elliott (18) is now a full league debutant.

Diogo Jota (24) has stepped up admirably.

Certainly, theres the spine of a great team to mature together around 2023/24.

Thats without mentioning those who signed new contracts this summer, with there a clear belief that Alisson, Virgil van Dijk, Fabinho, Andy Robertson and Trent Alexander-Arnold can remain key players for the long term.

But how can the tactics evolve with the personnel?

Last season, Liverpool briefly adapted to use Jones goal threat from midfield.

With Alexander-Arnold sitting deeper, the Reds formed a 3-2-5 in attack that saw Jones make runs from deep to great effect, scoring in the 2-0 win over Sheffield United.

This tactic actually debuted against Everton the week prior, and their deployment of James Rodriguez in a similar shape suggests a way of building around Harvey Elliott in the near future.

In Carlo Ancelottis 4-3-3 structure, Rodriguez was free to come short and create, with the right full-back staying deep.

Typically the left-back Lucas Digne pushed into the final third to take up the wing space, and wide forward Richarlison cut into the half-space, mimicking Sadio Mane.

Rodriguez coming short allowed striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin to move fluidly around the box, with attacking midfielder Abdoulaye Doucoure completing the attacking quintet to form a similar 3-2-5 shape.

While Elliott has debuted on the right of a midfield three this season, he is naturally a left-footed right winger, and in both roles he has demonstrated his ability to occupy wide positions and then drive inside to create, using his superb dribbling ability and range of passing.

With Elliott off to an explosive start, and Liverpools superior options across the rest of the structure, its easy to see us hitting greater heights following the same blue-print.

While theres clearly no rush to shift tactics, the likes of James Milner or Thiago may find themselves elsewhere by the time this team has ripened.

This could pave the way for Alexander-Arnold to step into midfield, using his superb vision and range of passing to play a deeper Thiago-esque role alongside the more direct Jones.

Alexander-Arnold also appears to be getting forward himself more often this season, and we know he can be dangerous in the right half-space:

However, this would necessitate a new right-back. While Liverpool have the likes of Neco Williams and Conor Bradley in reserve, the transfer market could be instructive here.

Perhaps the biggest missing piece is an out-and-out striker, as opposed to a false nine.

Should Mo Salahs new contract come to fruition, a more central role in his mid-30s could allow him to stay prolific as he inevitably loses a yard of pace.

But theres also a young Norwegian with an attainable release clause that kicks in next summer

With Liverpool off to a strong start and key players back on the pitch, the tactical evolution is likely to be subtle this season, with the Reds already real contenders for the title once more.

However, while some contested the Transfer Window Trophy this summer, we seem to have our attention on the long term, where the stone is setting nicely.

Dont be surprised to see Klopp chip, chip, chip away until his masterpiece is revealed.

* This is a guest article for This Is Anfield by Harry McMullen. Follow Harry on Twitter, @mcmulhar.

Read the original post:

How Jurgen Klopps next evolution is already taking shape - This Is Anfield

The COVID-19 pandemic is a dramatic demonstration of evolution in action. Evolutionary theory explains much of what has already happened, predicts what will happen in the future and suggests which management strategies are likely to be the most effective.

For instance, evolution explains why the Delta variant spreads faster than the original Wuhan strain. It explains what we might see with future variants. And it suggests how we might step up public health measures to respond.

But Delta is not the end of the story for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Heres what evolutionary theory tells us happens next.

- Advertisement -

New coronavirus inside magic crystal ball

Evolution is a result of random mutations (or errors) in the viral genome when it replicates. A few of these random mutations will be good for the virus, conferring some advantage. Copies of these advantageous genes are more likely to survive into the next generation, via the process of natural selection.

New viral strains can also develop via recombination, when viruses acquire genes from other viruses or even from their hosts.

Generally speaking, we can expect evolution to favor virus strains that result in a steeper epidemic curve, producing more cases more quickly, leading to two predictions.

First, the virus should become more transmissible. One infected person will be likely to infect more people; future versions of the virus will have a higher reproductive or R number.

Second, we can also expect evolution will shorten the time it takes between someone becoming infected and infecting others (a shorter serial interval).

- Advertisement -

Both these predicted changes are clearly good news for the virus, but not for its host.

This theory explains why Delta is now sweeping the world and replacing the original Wuhan strain.

The original Wuhan strain had an R value of 2-3 but Deltas R value is about 5-6 (some researchers say this figure is even higher). So someone infected with Delta is likely to infect at least twice as many people as the original Wuhan strain.

Theres also evidence Delta has a much shorter serial interval compared with the original Wuhan strain.

- Advertisement -

This may be related to a higher viral load (more copies of the virus) in someone infected with Delta compared with earlier strains. This may allow Delta to transmit sooner after infection.

A higher viral load may also make Delta transmit more easily in the open air and after fleeting contact.

We know COVID-19 vaccines designed to protect against the original Wuhan strain work against Delta but are less effective. Evolutionary theory predicts this; viral variants that can evade vaccines have an evolutionary advantage.

So we can expect an arms race between vaccine developers and the virus, with vaccines trying to play catch up with viral evolution. This is why were likely to see us having regular booster shots, designed to overcome these new variants, just like we see with flu booster shots.

COVID-19 vaccines reduce your chance of transmitting the virus to others, but they dont totally block transmission. And evolutionary theory gives us a cautionary tale.

Theres a trade-off between transmissibility and how sick a person gets (virulence) with most disease-causing microorganisms. This is because you need a certain viral load to be able to transmit.

If vaccines are not 100% effective in blocking transmission, we can expect a shift in the trade-off towards higher virulence. In other words, a side-effect of the virus being able to transmit from vaccinated people is, over time, the theory predicts it will become more harmful to unvaccinated people.

In the short term, its highly likely evolution will continue to fine tune the virus:

But we dont know how far these changes might go and how fast this might happen.

Some scientists think the virus may already be approaching peak fitness. Nevertheless, it may still have some tricks up its sleeve.

The UK governments Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has recently explored scenarios for long-term evolution of the virus.

It says it is almost certain there will be antigenic drift, accumulation of small mutations leading to the current vaccines becoming less effective, so boosters with modified vaccines will be essential.

It then says more dramatic changes in the virus (antigenic shift), which might occur through recombination with other human coronaviruses, is a realistic possibility. This would require more substantial re-engineering of the vaccines.

SAGE also thinks there is a realistic possibility of a reverse zoonosis, leading to a virus that may be more pathogenic (harmful) to humans or able to evade existing vaccines. This would be a scenario where SARS-CoV-2 infects animals, before crossing back into humans. Weve already seen SARS-CoV-2 infect mink, felines and rodents.

Versions of the virus that make their host very sick (are highly virulent) are generally selected against. This is because people would be more likely to die or be isolated, lowering the chance of the virus transmitting to others.

SAGE thinks this process is unlikely to cause the virus to become less virulent in the short term, but this is a realistic possibility in the long-term. Yet SAGE says there is a realistic possibility more virulent strains might develop via recombination (which other coronaviruses are known to do).

So the answer to this critical question is we really dont know if the virus will become more deadly over time. But we cant expect the virus to magically become harmless.

Sadly, the answer is no. Humans do not reproduce fast enough, and accumulate enough favorable mutations quickly enough, for us to stay ahead of the virus.

The virus also does not kill most people it infects. And in countries with well-resourced health-care systems, it doesnt kill many people of reproductive age. So theres no selection pressure for humans to mutate favourably to stay ahead of the virus.

Finally, evolutionary theory has a warning about future pandemics.

A gene mutation that allows a virus in an obscure and relatively rare species (such as a bat) to gain access to the most common and widely distributed species of large animal on the planet humans will be strongly selected for.

So we can expect future pandemics when animal viruses spill over into humans, just as they have done in the past.

This article by Hamish McCallum, Director, Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University, Griffith University is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Related

- Advertisement -

The rest is here:

How will Delta evolve? Here's what the theory tells us - Q Costa Rica News

Consumers are calling the shots more than ever.

Nobody is going to confuse Outback Steakhouse with Amazon. The same could be said, of course, with any restaurant, especially in full service. But the correlation isnt as far-flung as you might think, says Gail Seanor, VP of digital with Outback parent company Bloomin Brands.

Perhaps jumpstarted by the pandemic, consumers today demand the same access and convenience they expect from the ecommerce giant. Online ordering. Mobile. Loyalty. Seamless payment. Fast delivery. All of it, plus an in-store experience that separates sit-down dining from the food-as-fuel world of the past.

Seanor, who previously worked at TGI Fridays and AOL/Time Warner, calls these Uber-like experiences.

People want access to more information, she says. I feel like, historically, the restaurant industry really made the experience about the restaurant. And now, we all have to adjust and make it about the customer.

In July, Outback rolled a new app design that lays the foundation for what it believes will be cutting-edge features in the casual restaurant industry. Currently, the app allows for an easier ordering experience and fully integrated Dine Rewards. Coming later will be enhanced curbside with push messaging and order updates; modern menu viewing with easy-to-use add-ons; and guest suggestions based on previous orders.

Beyond the changing face of consumer expectations Seanor mentioned, Outbacks four-wall and off-premises business have set aside past realities. In the second quarter, digital sales accounted for 20 percent of the companys domestic business, a COVID-ignited 318 percent jump over 2019 levels. CEO David Deno said in July Outbacks app would ultimately showcase substantial investments we made to digitize and streamline the carryout experience, and accelerate our very attractive carryout channel. For whatever pros and cons restaurant chains associate with third-party delivery, especially this past year, carryout remains the golden egg of off-premises, thanks to its margin-friendly structure, the ability to control experience, and how it saves brands from asking whether or not they need to pass along added costs to consumers.

Bloomin generated more than $275 million in off-premises sales last quarter. Of that, $100 million belonged to third-party delivery (Bloomin also has in-house delivery). And, importantly, profit margins in off-premises are approaching those of Bloomins in-restaurant category. It's a gigantic part of our business, Deno said of carryout.

CFO Chris Meyer added Bloomins new online ordering platform led to higher add-on sales. Its brought up check averages a bit as well.

All said, its not surprising to see Bloomin place its app and digital capabilities at the forefront of innovation. Outbacks off-premises sales tripled during COVID as guest needs changed in light of lockdowns. With dine-in returning, the need has evolved into "expectation.

Through the first four weeks of Q3, Bloomins two-year U.S. comp sales tracked 15.2 percent higher as it maintained nearly $71,000 in weekly average-unit volumes in what was traditionally a slower time of the year. The key, in addition to pent-up demand filling seatsoff-premises proved sticky even as in-restaurant volumes improved. This past quarter, the company averaged $21,000 per restaurant, per week in off-premises. That was only down $2,000 per week, quarter-to-quarter, despite significantly higher in-store traffic. We want the off-premises volume to be a big part of where we go as a company, Deno said.

Outback launched phase 1 of its new app on July 6. It arrived with online ordering and loyalty management, as noted. These were straightforward features, Seanor says, but options guests continued to ask for. From my lens, I like to think its more intuitive, she says. Weve had a couple of conversations where somebody asked me, are we going to have to train our customers? From my view, if our field has to train our customers, then we havent done our job right.

So far, its been well received, Seanor adds. More recently, an update tacked on waitlist and pay-at-the-table functionality.

More:

Outback Steakhouse's Digital Evolution, and the Amazon Effect on Restaurants - FSR magazine

More Americans are coming to accept Charles Darwin's "dangerous idea" of evolution, according to thirty years' worth of national surveys.

Researchers have found that public acceptance of biological evolution has increased substantially in the last decade alone, following twenty years of relative stagnancy.

Between 1985 and 2010, roughly 40 percent of surveyed adults in the US agreed that "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". Taking into account the small number of fence-sitters, this suggests much of the nation was evenly divided on the theory.

By 2016, that percentage had, at last, become a majority, reaching 54 percent.

As it turns out, education has played a crucial role in that shift. When researchers began to analyze the demographics of survey respondents over the past thirty years, they noticed the completion of one or more college science courses was the strongest predictor of evolution acceptance.

"Almost twice as many Americans held a college degree in 2018 as in 1988," says Mark Ackerman, who studies collective intelligence at the University of Michigan.

"It's hard to earn a college degree without acquiring at least a little respect for the success of science."

In the current analysis, the proportion of American adults with scientific literacy increased from 11 percent in 1988 to 31 percent in 2019.

That rise in knowledge can also easily spread to others. For instance, research suggests fewer students are exposed to creationism in the science classroom due in part to new teachers replacing a generation of educators less suited to teaching evolution.

Still, even a healthy dose of education can only go so far. Some researchers, for instance,think religious beliefs are a stronger predictor of accepting evolution than educational attainment.But this is an area of research that is still hotly debated. It could be, for instance, that education only works for some individuals who don't interpret the Bible literally.

In the US, evolution has become a highly politicized topic, especially among supporters of the Republican party, which tends to align its policies with evangelical Christian values.

The result is that today, the US has some of the lowest acceptance rates for evolution in the developed world, with only Turkey scoring lower.

Even now that a majority of Americans do not reject evolution, the rate of acceptance is still low compared to other nations and much lower than scientific consensus.

In recent years, religious adherence has begun to decline in the US, but the political divide on evolution still very much exists.

In 2019, researchers found 83 percent of liberal Democrats accepted evolution, whereas only 34 percent of conservative Republicans felt the same.

The driving force behind this huge difference is probably not ideological partisanship, experts say, but fundamental religious beliefs, which Republicans tend to hold more.

For instance, roughly 30 percent of American adults hold fundamental religious beliefs that directly contradict evolutionary theory, which is almost the same percentage of conservative Republicans that rejected evolution in the current analysis.

The authors of the current study are not ruling out religion as an influential factor. Their analysis still shows that fundamental religious beliefs can change the acceptance of evolution among American adults. But at least according to their analysis, it seems that educational attainment is the more influential factor.

According to their analysis, the recent increase in acceptance mostly comes from American adults who were previously unsure about the theory. Only some who outright rejected evolution had their mind's changed over time.

"Although scientific literacy has grown, and science continues to have pervasive influence in American society," the authorswrite, "a tension between religious fundamentalism and evolution remains."

While religion clearly remains a barrier to further public acceptance of evolution, that's gradually beginning to change. In 1988, the current analysis found only 8 percent of religious fundamentalists accepted the theory of evolution. Whereas in 2019, nearly a third did.

Along with growing exposure to scientific courses, a decline in religious fundamental beliefs will no doubt see the minority of Americans that reject evolution continue to shrink.

Last year, Pew conducted a more global surveythat showed a slightly higher acceptance of evolution in the US at around 64 percent.

It's a number that nonetheless falls far below nations such as Canada (77 percent), Germany (81 percent), and Japan (88 percent), showing the US still has some catching up to do.

The study was published in Public Understanding of Science.

The rest is here:

More Americans Are Finally Coming Around to Accepting The Science of Evolution - ScienceAlert

Share this Article

You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.

Tiny tardigrades walk in a manner most closely resembling that of insects 500,000 times their size, according to new research.

Tardigrades earned the nickname water bears when scientists first observed the 0.02-inch-long animals distinctive gaits in the 18th century. Their dumpy plod raises the question of why they evolved to walk at all.

Animals as small and soft as tardigrades seldom have legs and almost never bother walking. For example, round worms of similar size and body type thrash about, slithering their doughy forms over unpredictable substrates.

Yet the water bear, a micro-animal so distinct that scientists were forced to assign it to its own phylum, uses eight stubby legs to improbably propel itself through marine and freshwater sediment, across desert dunes, and beneath the soil.

The new discovery of how tardigrades walk implies the existence of either a common ancestor or an evolutionary advantage that explains why one of the smallest and squishiest creatures evolved to walk just like larger, hard-bodied insects.

Tardigrades have a robust and clear way of movingtheyre not these clumsy things stumbling around in the desert or in leaf litter, says Jasmine Nirody, a fellow in Rockefeller Universitys Center for Studies in Physics and Biology. The similarities between their locomotive strategy and that of much larger insects and arthropods opens up several very interesting evolutionary questions.

Nirody and colleagues first determined how water bears walk and run. If you watch tardigrades under a light microscope for long enough, you can capture a wide range of behavior, Nirody says. We didnt force them to do anything. Sometimes they would be really chill and just want to stroll around the substrate. Other times, theyd see something they like and run towards it.

Nirody found that, at their most leisurely, water bears lumber about half a body length per second. At full throttle, their loping strides carried them two body lengths in the same amount of time.

Tardigrades are an important porthole into soft-bodied, microscale locomotion.

But the surprise came when she observed how a water bears feet contact the ground as it gains momentum. Unlike vertebrates, which have distinct gaits for each speedpicture a horses hooves as it transitions from a walk to a galloptardigrades run more like insects, scurrying at increasing speeds without ever changing their basic stepping patterns.

When vertebrates switch from walking to running, there is a discontinuity, Nirody says. With arthropods, all stepping patterns exist along the same continuum.

Why do tardigrades share a locomotive strategy with much larger, hard-bodied insects?

One possible explanation is that tardigrades, long assumed to fit neatly into no existing taxonomy, may share common ancestorsand even a common neural circuit with insects such as fruit flies, ants, and other segmented scurrying creatures. In fact, some scientists advocate classifying tardigrades within the proposed panarthropod clade, a catchall group that would assign common shelf space to insects, crustaceans, velvet worms, and water bears.

Another possibility is that there is no ancestral connection between tardigrades and arthropods, but that the unrelated groups of organisms independently arrived at the same walking and running strategies because they were evolutionarily advantageous. Perhaps the best way to navigate unpredictable terrain with a microscopic body is to plod like a water bear.

Nirody is equally fascinated by both possibilities. If there is some ancestral neural system that controls all of panarthropod walking, we have a lot to learn, she says. On the other hand, if arthropods and tardigrades converged upon this strategy independently, then theres much to be said about what makes this strategy so palatable for species in different environments.

Beyond the implications for evolutionary biology and the study of animal locomotion, the findings may have ramifications for the burgeoning fields of soft and microscale robotics.

By studying how small animals evolved to move across challenging environments, scientists may be able to design robots that can more efficiently squeeze into small spaces or operate at the microscale.

We dont know much about what happens at the extremes of locomotionhow to make an efficient small walker, or how soft-bodied things should move, Nirody says. Tardigrades are an important porthole into soft-bodied, microscale locomotion.

The new study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: Rockefeller University

Read the original here:

Teeny 'water bear' walk points to evolution mystery - Futurity: Research News

Deep beneath the rubble and ashes of Chicagos Cabrini-Green lies a secret. Its history is written on the very souls of its last remaining residents, always lurking behind them. His face may change over time, but the name will always be remembered, along with that bloody hook. After almost 30 years since his original summoning, Candyman returns with new blood behind the camera.

Written by Jordan Peele and directed by Nia DaCosta, this sequel steps deeper into the hive of racial hatred and social commentary to uncover truths its predecessor could never achieve. Serving as both a direct sequel but also a fresh reboot, it is more than just a retelling. The entire craft is renovated with the most calculated execution. The themes are expanded, the symbolism is perfected and with a sprinkle of Peeles comedic timing, the scares are just as effective. Looking at every element of the 1992 classic, Candyman serves as the perfect sequel.

Peeles screenplay evolves the original story in a fresh perspective, giving the victims the voice rather than an outsider peeking through the blinds. Peele also utilizes this shift as an opportunity to redeem his own craft: he finally got the chance to write the ending he wanted to make for Get Out. Real life tragedy rots into cathartic horror, swarming around you to feed on your skin. It is a jaw-dropping experience, spared to the very end as a mic drop to audiences worldwide. It is because of the final scene that Peele achieves the true symbolism of the Candyman even better than its creator, Clive Barker.

With the original towers of Cabrini-Green long gone, one of the recurring themes is the cultural destruction of gentrification. What was once discarded brick and graffiti is now painted over white with clean furnishings. This re-polishing of Cabrini-Greens ghetto is where DaCostas directing shines, because the film itself can be seen as a gentrification of its predecessor. She takes the floating camerawork of the 1992 classic to new levels, sweeping through the streets of Chicago as if on the prowl for its next meal. Peele himself favored her directing over his, seeing it as refined, elegant, which can be the coinable term for not only the neighborhoods new apartments, but the main protagonist himself. He starts as a sculpted artist, distanced from his work with a clean conscience, but once the truth of his own soul is unmasked, he sinks deeper into the floors until it stains his very skin. The gentrified imagery lingers in the background, suffocating Cabrini-Green and serving as the true opposing force inside the walls.

Near the end of the story, the film begins to trip on its own inspiration. 1992s Candyman was more of a prophetic voice seeking direct revenge rather than a true force of nature, so even though Peeles evolved symbol in the hook resonates long after the credits roll, the plot decides to curve its momentum for a more faithful conflict. A contrived twist that squashes the true scale of what the themes were trying to achieve, which is very similar to the ending of its predecessor.

If this film had the chance to be released when it was supposed to, it would be just as influential and timeless as Get Out. Sadly, with it only coming out in theaters rather than streaming, I dont see it gaining any longstanding following. Its a fun watch with beautiful visuals and a great revival of the original score, enough to pick up the slack when the plot falters. From beginning to end, it sinks its hook into your heart, and with a chilling voice, whispers, Say my name.

Title: Candyman

Starring: Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Teyonah Parris, Colman Domingo

Director: Nia DaCosta

If you like: Get Out, Lovecraft Country

Shamrocks: 4 out of 5

See the original post:

'Candyman': Resurrection, evolution and gentrification - Observer Online

The discussion of cannabis strains has evolved to a point where it can feel like an entirely foreign language. While most consumers are familiar with the bedrock categories of sativa, indica and hybrids, concepts like minor cannabinoids and terpene profiles have expanded the conversation dramatically. Additionally, the sheer volume of strains on the market today can make the experience of selecting the best option for your needs feel downright overwhelming.

Fortunately, getting a better grasp on exactly what makes a strain a strain can be as simple as taking a quick journey through cannabis history. To start, lets take a closer look at the aforementioned bedrock strains.

While mainstream cannabis culture has long relied on sativa, indica and hybrids to define a given strain, these terms are largely considered outdated. For many years, common wisdom suggested that sativas offered a more cerebral high while indicas, by contrast, would put consumers in da couch, courtesy of a body high. Hybrids, by extension, offered varying combinations of the two.

This line of thinking can be traced back to the mid-1700s, where the terms indica and sativa were separately established as cannabis subspecies by Swedish botanist Carl Linneaus and French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Though far less prevalent, it should also be noted that a third subspecies, ruderalis, was identified by Russian botanist Dmitrij Janischewsky in 1930. Owing to the murky taxonomy of cannabis a situation undoubtedly exacerbated by the fact that cannabis was illegal in most of the world until recently indica and sativa caught on while ruderalis became more of a historical footnote.

Whats important to understand is that these terms are botanical in nature, not pharmacological. Rather than telling us about the potential effects that come with consuming a sativa or indica, these categories speak to the shape and size of a given cannabis plants leaves and the fiber they produce. In short, these concepts remain helpful to cultivators but do little to give consumers a clear picture of what they can expect to experience.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and we arrive at the onset of modern cannabis breeding.

As demand for cannabis in the U.S. continued to grow, the longer flowering cycle required of the pure sativas grown and transported from Mexico and the Caribbean caused a lack of supply. In search of a solution, California cannabis breeders began crossing these sativas with indicas native to Nepal and Afghanistan, hoping to create strains that offered the quicker flowering cycle of the latter with the higher potency of the former. Their success would ultimately establish Californias position as a capital for world-class cannabis while also kicking off a hybrid cultivating craze that continues to this day.

Naming conventions for cannabis strains can also be pegged to this milestone moment.

Prior to the 1970s, strains were usually named for the geographic region in which they originated. Also known as landrace strains, this straightforward process resulted in mainstays like Panama Red, Afghan Kush, and Acapulco Gold. From there, these strains were crossed, and then those crosses were crossed, and so forth. As a means of establishing lineage, subsequent strains were named to reflect the parent strains of a given hybrid.

Today, however, strain names are inspired by a variety of factors. In some cases, the name may speak to the strains effects, while others may highlight a given strains notable coloring, trichome density or aroma. And then there are strains named for pop culture figures, cannabis icons, and in some cases, just whatever the breeder in question felt like using. As a result, while some names can tell us a lot about a given strain though even that can vary from market to market going off name alone is not always a reliable metric.

Instead, most budtenders will likely tell you about a strains terpene profile and featured cannabinoids. Unlike strain names, knowing the amount and type of terpenes and cannabinoids a strain contains is an excellent method for determining which options will work best for you.

As cannabis breeding continues to diversify the strain pool, its never been more important to ensure that cultivators have access to the seeds that make it all possible. Thankfully, we have seed banks.

Seed banks are businesses that specialize in storing and selling cannabis seeds. With many showcasing incredibly robust inventories, seed banks can be seen as a kind of living library for the flowers genetics, featuring both classic options as well as the latest and greatest.

In addition, seed banks will often feminize the seeds they sell an incredibly important facet of the process considering its only the female cannabis plant that can produce the buds we know and love. Some seed banks also offer whats known as auto-flowering seeds, which some growers may prefer as the resulting plants mature quickly and produce maximum yields.

Lastly, its important to note that the story of strains is still being written. As advances in genetic mapping continue to evolve, its possible our understanding of strains will dramatically expand in the months and years to come. But for now, with the above information in mind, you should feel fully empowered to begin your own strain quest in search of the perfect match.

Read the original post:

A Guide to the Evolution of Cannabis Strains - Cannabis Now

The hatchlings of the invasive cane toad in Australia don't stand a chance against their deadliest predator: cannibal tadpoles who guzzle the hatchlings like they're at an all-you-can-eat buffet. But now, the hatchlings are fighting back.

They're developing faster, reducing the time that hungry tadpoles have to gobble them up, a new study finds.

"If cannibals are looking for you, the less time you can spend as an egg or hatchling, the better," said study lead researcher Jayna DeVore, who did the research as a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Sydney and is now a biologist for the Tetiaroa Society, a nonprofit conservation organization in French Polynesia.

Developing quickly, however, has its pitfalls. Compared with typically growing hatchlings, those that grew faster fared worse when they reached the tadpole stage of life, the researchers found. So it isn't "worth it to try to defend yourself in this way unless cannibals are definitely coming for you," DeVore told Live Science.

Related: Image gallery: Invasive species

The cane toad (Rhinella marina) is a poster child for invasive species. The warty toxic toad, notorious for gulping down anything that fits into its wide mouth, is native to South America. In the 1930s, farmers in Queensland, Australia, thought the toad would be the perfect predator to gobble up beetles that were destroying sugarcane fields. But with no natural predators Down Under, the toad population ballooned from only 102 individuals to more than 200 million, according to WWF Australia.

Another reason for their population spike is that female toads can lay more than 10,000 eggs at a time in small ponds. "When these eggs first hatch, the young can't swim or eat yet, so they can pretty much only lie there on the bottom of the pond until they develop into tadpoles," DeVore said.

The hungry tadpoles strike during this vulnerable hatchling period. "Once the hatchlings develop into tadpoles, they are too large and mobile for other tadpoles to eat them, so the cannibals have to work quickly if they want to consume them all," DeVore said.

Tadpoles that cannibalize the younger generation are doing themselves a huge favor; they're getting nutrients and eliminating later competition for resources. "When I first saw this behavior in the wild, I was amazed at how voraciously cane toad tadpoles sought out cane toad hatchlings and ate them," DeVore said. To determine whether this behavior was "normal" or whether it was an adaptation to extreme competition among invasive cane toads, DeVore and her colleagues compared Australia's invasive cane toads with the native-range ones, or cane toads from their indigenous regions.

Several experiments revealed that the invasive toads both the hatchlings and the cannibalistic tadpoles are evolving at breakneck speed.

In one experiment done more than 500 times with different individuals, DeVore and her colleagues placed one tadpole in a container with 10 hatchlings. Although the native-range tadpoles did engage in some cannibalism, "we found a hatchling was 2.6 times as likely to be cannibalized if that tadpole was from Australia than if it was from the native range," she said.

Moreover, the invasive tadpoles were much more attracted to the hatchlings than the native tadpoles were. In another experiment, the team placed tadpoles in a pool with two traps; one trap held hatchlings, and the other was empty. "In Australia, the cannibalistic tadpoles were attracted to the hatchlings; the odds that an Australian tadpole would enter the trap containing hatchlings were about 30 times those of it entering the empty trap," DeVore said.

Related: Survival of the grossest: 8 disgusting animal behaviors

In contrast, the native-range "tadpoles were not attracted to the hatchlings; they were just as likely to enter the empty trap as the hatchling trap," she said. "This demonstrated that this strong attraction to the vulnerable hatchling stage, which is what helps the cannibalistic tadpoles to detect and locate their victims in Australia, is not present in the native range."

To fight back, invasive hatchlings have evolved an escape strategy. When the researchers compared the time eggs and hatchlings spent developing, they found that the invasive toads developed faster than the native-range ones.

In both groups, "we found that cane toad clutches from Australia developed more quickly; they reached the invulnerable tadpole stage in about four days, whereas native range clutches took about five days," DeVore said.

In addition, the invasive hatchlings had a more "plastic," or flexible response than the natural-range hatchlings when a cannibal tadpole was present; the hatchlings from Australia were "more likely to be able to smell when cannibals are around and actually accelerate their development in response," DeVore noted.

While these strategies helped the hatchlings survive, they paid for it later. The researchers tested 1,190 tadpoles for survival, development, growth and plasticity, and found that those that developed faster as eggs and hatchlings to escape cannibalism fared worse and developed more slowly at the tadpole stage than the native-range tadpoles, the team found.

Could the cane toads eat themselves into extinction? Probably not, DeVore said.

"Australian cane toads may well be their own worst enemy, but I wouldn't expect them to go extinct anytime soon," she said. That's because the cannibals benefit too much from eating their own kind. After gaining nutrients and limiting competition, the cannibalistic tadpoles "transform into toads more quickly and at a larger size," she said. It's even possible that these "successful" toads will more rapidly invade new places in Australia.

"The good news is that cannibalism can control population growth," DeVore said. "So, although cane toads are unlikely to drive themselves extinct, these cannibalistic behaviors may help to regulate their abundance post-invasion."

The study was published in the Aug. 31 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Originally published on Live Science.

Link:

Cannibal toads eat so many of their young, they're speeding up evolution - Livescience.com

Image credit: Robert W. Booessenecker, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

The media are currently abuzz with claims of a newly discovered fossil from Egypt: a four-legged whale. Here are some prominent headlines:

And so on. The headlines are accompanied by an artists depiction of what was supposedly found. See above. The image is attributed to one of the co-authors of thetechnical paper, geologistRobert W. Boessenecker.

The NPR story warns:

We regret to inform you that your nightmares are about to get worse.

A team led by Egyptianscientistshave dug up a 43 million-year-old fossil in the Sahara Desert in Egypt of a now-extinct amphibious four-legged whale.

Thats right, folks a whale with legs.

The problem with these claims? Thats right folks they didnt find any of the fossils legs. Everything you just read about this fossil is the product of imagination. In fact, if you check thetechnical paperyoull learn that they found very little of the fossil at all. Figure 1 from the paper, whichcan be seen online here, shows the bones that were discovered shaded in red. Zoom in and look at the drawing in the middle. You may notice, as I said, a curious absence of red-shaded leg bones.

Also absent: the pelvis, the vast majority of ribs and vertebrae, and the front portion of the snout. Undoubtedly the organism had these bones, but to call this a whale with legs, or to unequivocally depict it as some species transitional between terrestrial mammals and whales (as seen above), is to impose a huge amount of evolutionary imagination on the situation.

Consistent with all of this, the paper notes in the abstract that what they did find was a partial skeleton, later stating, The new species is based on a partial skeleton. A complete description of the bones is provided later in the paper as follows:

an associated partial skeleton of a single individual including the cranium, the right mandible, incomplete left mandible, isolated teeth, the fifth cervical, and the sixth thoracic vertebrae and ribs. The holotype is the only known specimen.

Perhaps this organism had four legs. Perhaps it had flippers. Perhaps it was closely related to whales. Perhaps it has nothing to do with whales. No one really knows. The simple fact of the matter is that we know hardly anything about this creature because, again, so very little of it was found. Forcing this species into an evolutionary paradigm to fit preconceived ideas about cetacean evolution, and promulgating headlines about a four-legged whale, is beyond belief. Actually, I take that back. Belief belief in an evolutionary paradigm is the thing thats driving these headlines.

Imagination. Belief. Thats putting it politely, which I insist upon doing. We all have imaginations, and we all have beliefs. So in that sense this is understandable. But if I werent so polite, a variety of other terms could be used to describe telling the public this fossil represents a four-legged whale.

Is it any wonder that people dont trust overhyped evolutionary claims made by the media, or by some scientists?

Read more from the original source:

Evolutionary Imagination and Belief Drive False Claims of a Four-Legged Whale - Discovery Institute

Inkay is a Psychic & Dark Pokemon recently launched in Pokemon Go. While the Pokemon is vulnerable to Fairy and Bug moves, its deals maximum damage through attacks like Night Slash and Tackle. The Pokemon can also be evolved into Malamar with 50 candies. Inkay and its evolutionary form Malamar are making their debuts in Pokemon Go during the Psychic's Spectacular event which will begin on Wednesday, September 8, 2021, at 10 AM local time to Monday, September 13, 2021, at 8 PM local time.

As mentioned on the PokemonGoLive website, trainers can complete themed Field Research Tasks in order to encounter event-themed Pokemon like Woobat, Inkay and more. When the event begins on September 8, 2021, Inkay-themed Field Research Tasks must be revealed in the game. On completing such tasks, a trainer would be rewarded an encounter with Inkay. Additionally, a trainer might encounter the Pokemon in the wild.

Inkay and its Evolution, Malamar, will be making their Pokmon GO debuts! Inkay will evolve only under unique circumstances. Trainers who have journeyed through the Kalos region inPokmon XandPokmon Ymay have an inkling as to what those circumstances might be! ~ Pokemon Go Live blog post

As stated earlier, Inkay will be available in the wild, through Field Research Tasks and in one-star raids. While the general spinning at the PokeStops and applying incense might work, players must be prepared to catch the Pokemon as and when one appears in the wild, or in one-star raids. The Pokemon is weak Fairy and Bug Type Pokemons, which deal 160% and 256% damage to the Pokemon respectively.

By completing themed Field Research tasks, you can encounter event-themed Pokmon like Woobat, Inkay, and more. ~ Pokemon Go Live blog post

Inkay can be evolved into Malamar with the help of 50 Candies. Malamar is also a Psychic & Dark Pokemon which is vulnerable to Fairy and Bug moves. Its strongest moves are Foul Play and Psycho Cut. The Pokemon has a maximum CP of 2,359. It is slightly difficult to evolve Inkay in Malamar as the candies might be tricky to collect. Whether Malamar will be available as a form is unclear, and how to catch Malamar is not clear.

Read the original:

How to catch Inkay in Pokemon Go? Check evolution guide to Malamar & where to find tips - Republic World