Observation

While at the museum last week, I became intrigued by the physical display of the animals, and how they were meant to be displayed in their natural setting, by either the physical and sometimes elaborate faux setting (such as the display with fake snow). I find it interesting how they try to make these animals, clearly dead and old, to seem new and alive. With this said, I’d like to know how old these species really are, and wanted to know more about them on an individual basis. I would also like to know how this species has changes over time with evolution in relation to the way they are displayed.

Another theme of interest is movement. Again, I was looking at how the museum was able to physically demonstrate movement by the manner of display. At times I felt it was strong, but other times, I felt that there could have been more.

MRF Museum w.2 questions

1 - In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”?

The model that lead to misinterpretation of evolutionary change was the idea of classifying species into a canonical ladder system. Although visually it aids in showing a progressive movement, it does not serve biological and scientific justice, but rather misconstrues reality. Gould suggests that we should value species by how they branched into existence and evolved, because we grow by the aid of other species, not by just one factor, as it seems to demonstrate in the ladder system. The fossils of the Burgess Shale were categorized into modern groups, which did not tie with their ancestral background ( that may have been represented had they made a  branching diagram). It seems that he lightly brushed upon the primitive, but did not give it the same implied worth that he thought the more “advanced” species were in this chain, where at the very top lies homo sapien evolution.

2 - Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale. At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today?

Phylogenies imply biodiversity and more intricate evolution of a certain species; the larger and more complex, the scope of diversity increases, thus an assumption of higher sophistication and implied worth as a species. The lower a species is placed in the cone of these phylogenical systems, the simpler these animals are perceieved to be, so they are not looked at with the same integrity as the species above it hold. They are of “lower class” but in a biological sense. Advancement and newer forms are also placed above these older forms of life, also giving it a higher strata of importance.  

This ranking system is skewed, and does not serve as an equal base that all animals should be based on. Why is it that human interpretation of nature, even fundamental evolution, is biased to the degree of worth?

It strikes me as a quintessential need that we have to always classify things into categories: good or bad, old or new, etc. However, there always seems to be some sort of moral ethic mixed into these categories, as if we are placing scientific evidence into a bourgeoise hierarchy, with humans at the pinnacle of interest and the other species at the bottom.  

This is why I feel that there is such injustice in slaughterhouses, and why we try to sway mass audiences in believing that animals are meant to be eaten, because we see ourselves at the top of this evolutionary ladder. Why is it that cows are of less importance or do not carry the same integrity as a dog? Why do some find it appaling to eat a cat, but justifiable to eat a rabbit? The power we feel we hold upon the rest of the animal and plant kingdom is what is truly appaling in my opinion- we should view all animals to be placed on a same field, for we did not just spring about from one individual factor or species.

Rather than ladders, Gould sees that species should be viewed by phylogenies based off of bushes, with twigs branching off in different directions. It should not stay rigid in size or shape, as species do not evolve in this manner. By having this model, it makes it clearer to note that species do evolve with an increasing cone of diversity.

2b - Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation?

I find that one of Gould’s most striking points is his annotation towards evolution being unpredictable. This is why the ladder system is not scientifically accurate, as it does not question or put other factors into perspective, making it seem that the transition from one stage to the next was effortless. Animals that evolve with the change of time, climate, and competition is at the core of how a species can survive, thus “survival of the fittest” comes into play. Replaying the “Tape of Life” would alter certain factors, but one key aspect that I think was not thoroughly looked at was adaptation. No matter the severity of the circumstance, the animals that strive in the wild for thousands of years have done so because of their endurance to adapt. Without this, they cannot evolve and the species would come to a halt.

3 - What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading).

Diversity stems off from the idea of variety, an accumulation of something, wheras disparity is the difference of two things, but can also reflect on something that is incongruous. Diversity is also refererd to as difference in body plans. I believe evolution is defined by factors of disparity, as it cannot be contained and is ever evolving. We can try to predict the outcome of a species, but are always surprised at a phenomenom or discovery of a species that was unknown before.

An example may be animals that are hosts of each other. This act alone is disparate, as it normally should not exist- the fact that one depends on the other,without causing each other harm, or being a predator, is a trait that has evolved through time. This reminded me of the “Natural Histories project” with the story of the hummingbird nostril hitchhikers. 

4 - In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has

changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion?

By changing the perspective of the viewer, by having them walk through the mammal display with branching evolution, the museum displayed a more accurate picture of what may happen in nature. It does not follow a linear path, ending with homo sapiens at the end of this evolution. Rather, they displayed their animals by showing when they “branched off”. I think this reverts back to Gould’s emphasis on the importance of viewing animals on a equal playing field, where a hierarchy completely erases this notion. I found the subcategories to be an innovative way to display evolution more accurately and unbiased. The categories chosen began with the Paleozoic era, and ending with skull formation and eye sockets near a snout, displaying elephants and sea cows.

marianne obsservation 4

For my field wunderkammer I want to do something involving marine life,  because in the large animal/species scale of things that is the realm in which I’m the most interested in.  I was very interested in the marine life parts of the “what is an animal section” of the museum and I’m sure there will be more very interesting things involving marine life in the evolution exhibit as well.  Visually I would really like to do something (a zine again? Maybe all online this time) that aesthetically has a “Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou”/ Jacques Cousteau vibe to it.   I’m looking forward to looking around the museum more and seeing what other information there might be on ocean life throughout other parts of the museum, including things like human interaction with ocean life, etc.  I know that the Field has a much more on land focus,  but I think that marine life is something really interesting that many people occasionally over look in the context of a natural history museum.  

RESPONSE QUESTIONS #5 (ZH)

1. It was thought that evolution took a linear path, so when creatures evolve into another new creatures it would be with limited divergent. Also, there was a thought attached that humans are the highest evolved, or rather, have have gone through the most evolution process has been defunct too. We ain't that great ;] As for the "iconography" it comes from A.O. Lovejoy's  The Great Chain of Living.

2. Trees imply so much hierarchy(like the highest thing of the ground is the best-- like god) but illustrate adequately the format that is needed to display phylogenies.  Perhaps roots of trees would make a better structure.

2b.

AS Response Questions

1. In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”?

The problems with the original interpretations of the Burgess Shale method of evolution is that people simply assumed that all organisms came from a common source that eventually evolved into much more complex organisms over time.  I am not sure if I completely understood Gould's explanation of how evolution actually works.  But what I gathered is that it is not a step by step process as was misinterpreted.  It is instead a process that has many changes going on at the same time constantly.  The original historical that he refers to as "iconography" is from the AO Lovejoy's The Great Chain of Living.

2.  Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale. At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today? 

The reason why Gould centers his argument on discussing phylogenies is because he is trying to show that evolution is intricate and complex at any point at which it is taking place.  His bush example adapts to this way of thinking because it is difficult to find the beginning and ends to the branches on the bush.  However, choosing an portion of that bush to look at will provide a well of information.  Not only this, Gould is trying to show that organisms adapt to their environments and that is what evolution truly is, instead of having a beginning and end for a "simple" organism to eventually reach one of great "complexity."

2B. Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation?

When Gould mentions replaying the tape of life he is saying that if the earth's evolution process was reversed and started over again that evolution would happen the same way.  I think that Cuvier would agree with Gould's interpretation if still alive.

3. What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading). 

A disparate species is a species with little variation in different organisms of that given species while a diverse species is a species with  great variation.  An example of a disparate species would be humans and an example of a diverse species would be spiders.

4. In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion? 

What is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural changed their animal display is that they organize the animals into a tree-like structure in a cladogram.  What is so important about this structure is that it shows "how sequences of shared-derived characters can be used to build an icon of nested branchings based solely on temporal order of bifurcations, and not on perceived progress or increasing complexity.."
   

questions MEN @@#@#@

1 - In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”?

One reference that reflects western cultural values is the "scale of nature" or "great chain of being" which projects evolutionary history as a single, linear process, marked ultimately by the emergence of (white) man. The iconography of progress and racism is possessed in the image or Homo erectus.

2 - Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale.  At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today?

Both the bush and cone model present the idea of progress with there hierarchal form. The models do not represent a modern understanding of evolution. As Gould states humans are inherently visual and assume the more important something is the farther away from the ground. It has been complicated to convey the paths of evolution. The initial shapes of the cone and bush imply an increase in population and stagnancy in relation to representing extinction.  In addressing phylogenies the factors are the internal and external body and there sometimes-ambiguous relationship.

2b - Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation?

The metaphor of the cassette tap as an alternative to the cone or ladder .if we think of time as a tape, something that is constantly being recorded, instead of something fixed, we can start to really understand evolution. An example of the tape is the animals in the Burgess Shale. The animals don't fit into either notions of history and progress and thus diverging are preconceived notions of the evolution model.

3 - What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading).

Disparity: White bengle tigers with black stripes, all White bengle tigers, orange sherbet bengle tigers, melanistic bengle tigers

Diversity:  tigers, lions, panthers

4 - In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion?

Comparatively to the Chicago field museum taxidermy halls witch are arranged by geography, the American Museum of Natural History permanent exhibit of advanced and primitive mammals is presented in a waking evolution and modern interpretation of family relationships. This arrangement of biodiversity is important from Gould’s perspective to satisfy humans need for and understanding of placement to the world that surrounds them.

natural history response questions week two - marianne

question one, 
initially the burgess shale fossils were all categorized by modern (in 1909) categories,  even if they may not have appeared to fit they were shoehorned into the categories.  the fossils were put in as older versions of forms that later evolved and became better. later harry whittington showed that most of the fossils did not belong in groups that already existed, rather their own separate groups.  the iconography comes from places like A.O. Lovejoy's  The Great Chain of Living.
question two, 
gould states that the idea of a cone shape for evolution isn't helpful in thinking of how evolution actually happens.  it's better than a ladder idea but it still has implications that newer is more complex and/or better, and that to think of evolution in these ways doesn't help a person to actually understand. gould advocated for looking at it like a bush, with lots of twigs and branches breaking off into different directions,  and not specifying better/worse  old/new superior/inferior, etc.  
question two-b, 
when gould wrote about replaying the tape of life he was saying that he felt if all of earth's history,  and the evolution of creatures on it,  were a tape, and you were to rewind the entire tape and thoroughly erase everything that was on it and then let it play again there would be a very good chance that things would go exactly the same as they had the first time around.  i think cuvier would likely agree.  
question three, 
diversity means there is a lot of variation in the species, as in lots of branches for that specific thing,  and disparity is there being a small amount of variety in the species.  for example there is a lot of diversity within domestic cats,  and not so much in elephants.  
question four, 
the museum organized their hall of fossils in a way that mimicked a tree trunk and its many branches, allowing the visitor to walk throughout learning about the evolution of these things without the notion of age signifying if something is old or new, good or bad, simple or complex,  etc.   

Observation Field #2 -sm

I've always appreciated and have been attracted to a big nose. I'm half german and that side of my family all have big noses. When I was at the Field Museum last week I found myself being attracted to a certain animal with a big beautiful nose and thought WHY NOT make a wunderkammer about mammals like my family's and the saiga antelope. Just look at it. So much nose to love. While I start most of my projects from a place of cute and intuition, I would like to end up at a place of research and enlightenment finding the purpose of a big nose for the mammals that will be in my wunderkammer. For example, the WWF says the saiga antelope has a "large humped nose hangs over the mouth of the saiga. The nose is flexible and inflatable so helps it to breathe clean air during dusty summers and warm air during cold winters."

SW 10.30.12 Reading Response Q's & A's

1 - In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”?
The model of biodiversity and evolutionary change Gould argues resulted in earlier error in classifying Shale's animals is a theory stating in a linear form the most primitive to most complex which is inaccurate. The original cultural/historical source of that model "iconography" is the upside-down Christmas tree pointing to modern man-kind.
2 - Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale. At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today?
Gould suggests problems in the shapes of phylogenies that exclude diversification of organisms. The more modern evolutions placed at the end of the spectrum is inaccurate because of an ever evolving collection of organisms. Gould uses the tree analogy to disrupt the idea that change begins and ends within the current visual set up. He also proposes a combining of branch philosophies: using both the temporal and cladogram processes.
2b - Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation?
3 - What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading).
Disparity is the measured number of species, usually a rather small amount. Diversity is most commonly used to describe the number of variations, or "body plans" in a species. One example of diversity is Fulgoridae that have over 12,000 different species. One example of disparity is a Chameleon that has a species variation under 200.
4 - In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion?
The American Museum of Natural History changed their mammal display by changing the temporal order to a inconographic branching showing heirachies in lineages (shared-derived). Basically it disrupts traditional displays that were problematic to organisms that still exist and have diversified to a new display of how organisms branched off. This lineage of organisms changed order than what was previously seen. Previously viewers did not get to see the biodiversity of organisms because it was set up as the bigger, more evolved replaced the previous organism.

Field Museum week2 observationSW

For the next project I'm thinking of two things. Not sure at this point which one I will pick until I can verify the Field Museum has some of the animals my research has lead me to: 1.) Monogamous animals! The research I have done to this point has lead me to three definitions of monogamy in the animal world: social monogamy, sexual monogamy, and theoretical monogamy. I could define each of these and pick three animals from each category. Apparently 3-5% of mammals are monogamous! 2.) I was thinking of a Single Dad Wunderkammer! There are actually more single animal dads than I thought. I just have to go through the Field Museum to verify some of the animals are actually there. Check out cute site Animal Dads. -SW

SW-reading response questions 10/24/12

1.) The significance of audience in the Tradescant collection (in Cabinets to Museum) is the free access to people despite their station or gender. This freedom is unlike the beginning of zoo history when menageries asserted status and position. The term "ark" implies hope or future. Zoos use "ark" in efforts of conservation. The owner of the collection uses "ark" as this present for generations to come. This term corresponds with the idea of Noah's ark and the idea of conserving for future education/enjoyment/prosperity. 2.) The primary purpose of a Wunderkammer is to display objects that would normally not be seen. This purpose parallels to the ideas and functions of the zoo. The idea is to give access to all people to places unvisited, the unseen, the unknown. Maybe the Wunderkammer plays up the exotic object too much. 3.) Both exhibits function as Wunderkammers. The intention is to display what is normally not seen to public but still is installed like a Wunderkammer. Dion's cabinet is more successful in the educational purposes. 4.) The organization of a museum is specific to categories of geographic location, temporal aspects, biological, evolutionary, etc. Wunderkammers are arranged in a way best fit to grab visitor attention not necessarily educate in a historical, cultural, anthropological or scientific context. The section about influenza was interesting and overlapped with a class I took last semester called Disease Dynamics.

TB Reading

1 - In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”? Gould Hypothesizes that we have been linking the chain in a series of evolutionary improvements. Fossils of the Burgess Shale were arranged to fit into more modern groupings that were inaccurate  The source of "Iconography" comes from “The Great Chain of Being” by A.O. Lovejoy. 2 - Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale. At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today? A tree has many branches and twigs and so does the evolutionary history of a species. The further down and the more branches in a tree, the longer the species has grown to adapt to habitat or environmental change. Just as trees grow larger as the survive, so do species in their evolutionary traits. What is important to understand is that just because an animal is further down on the trees branches does not make them more complex. A branch ends when a species no longer adapts to survive in the conditions. 2b - Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation? Gould is questioning that If we were to rewind time, would the results of evolution be the same in different environmental occurrences? Gould argues that there is too much chance to accurately recreate the same exact evolutionary history.Cuvier would probably agree with Gould because the catastrophes may affect different species drastically.  3 - What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading). Diversity is a large verity in a species (more branches). Disparity is a smalle amount of verity in a species (less branches) An example of a diverse species would be the butterfly or the dog since there are many different types of butterflies and dogs (breeds).... A disparate species could be the hippo. 4 - In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion? The display change because it began looking more accurately at how species have branched off and was exhibited in a way to show this. The human was not the end point of evolution anymore which shows that everything is continuing to evolve. The chronologic display was deserted. 

Tb Field Museum Observation

Armor:
I would like to explore Armor and Protection as a theme. I could easily start by talking about the museum and how it preserves (protects) knowledge, specimen and objects... maybe even a brief history on architecture... Then I would like to move to animals that have protective physical traits such as an armadillo's armor versus a jelly fish's membrane. I would also like to discus animals that are protective by nature (does the field museum have any meerkats?) After discussing specific animals, I would like to shift gears into protective objects such as actual armor. Once animals and objects have been connected  I would finish up by addressing our responsibilities to protect the world that we live in. ie. we are destroying the ozone layer which is the earth's armor... (The decisions we make and the products we by/design can protect the world from further harm) :0)

observation MEN%^%^%^%

        For my project I am entertaining the idea of presenting Gynandromorphy (an organism that exhibits both Sexual dimorphic Phenotypes, specific to a species or subspecies) in the form of artificial (animals that do not exist) and representational (animals that do exist) study skins or animal remain. This classified aria, Gynandromorphy, or the in-between will be utilized as a forum to address issues of sex, gender and sexuality symbolism. In a human context I wish to build conversation about the gendering, sexing and sexualizing of color texture and challenge norms associated with these subjects. By selecting 3-4 fictional and or non-fictional animals or remints there of, in tour or presentation I will give historical narratives relating to the Sexual dimorphic Phenotypes of the animals chosen.

KC Observation

I was really interested in the re-animation of the animals with the way they are positioned. There is a lot to work with on this subject, like how that affects the viewer’s experience, and their relationship to the animal. To a certain extent, the Field Museum is a valuable resource for learning about animals and being closer to them than one could be at a zoo, but at the same time it completely objectifies the animal and, for younger children, can become a game of “which animal do you like the best”. That is why a fun and educational audio tour would be fun for children, and adults, to keep people engaged with the exhibits rather than just speed walking by on their way to the McDonald’s. Also, the positions, and the attempt at capturing the animals in their natural habitat, is a little weird, but also effective in an uncomfortable way. I was especially intrigued by the wild dog exhibit. They looked extremely vicious and are snarling and chewing at giant ribs. The lighting is awful the room as a whole is dark.

KC Field Museum Week 2

1 - In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”? -The earlier classification of the Burgess Shale was based on the theory that organisms improve over time, as in they become more complicated and just overall better for their environment. It hypothesizes that the earlier stages of an animal were simpler, a dumbed down version, and they get more complex over time. This is obviously inaccurate. Through this same line of thinking, this classification was “The Great Chain of Being” by A.O. Lovejoy’s way of trying to put extinct animals under the same classifications that exist for present animals. 2 - Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale. At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today? -The evolutionary trees aka the phylogenies are shaped based on the perceptions of the evolutionary path a species has taken over the entirety of its existence. Some think that a species gets more and more complicated as they get higher up in the tree, but that perception is inaccurate. Regardless of where an animal is depicted on the evolutionary tree, it is adapted and equally as complicated as the current form of the species. The positioning of the animals on the tree only implies age and time period, not complexity. Maybe a horizontal format would be more effective? Other misconceptions about the tree are that a smaller, more refined branch implies a superior and perfect example of evolution, but is actually not very successful. An example of casual factors would be habitat change or alterations based on disasters, and what traits survive and become dominant from those external variables. 2b - Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation? -it means that if we could turn back time, and attempt to recreate evolution as an experiment, to see if the same result would be possible. It is a fascinating concept, to test whether the same result is possible or not. Gould’s assessment is that there was and is so much chance involved, that the same result would be impossible, and even evolution would be different. Curvier, in my opinion, would agree with Gould. How catastrophes would differ and effect evolution and even which species are alive today, and how their traits would vary. 3 - What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading). -Disparity is when there are fewer branches on a segment of the evolutionary tree, which represents less variation within a group. Diversity is a greater number and more variation on a branch or a segment of the evolutionary tree, or greater variations in a species or group. An example would be finches, because there are many types of them, and they are closely related but have adapted to very specific environments, such as the islands we talked about earlier in class. 4 - In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion? -The American Museum of Natural History’s order of display was rearranged to be in a phylogenic order, rather than the dated idea of a chronological order.

Observation 4

The thing that most intrigued me about the field museum's taxidermy displays were the artificial selection pigeons. They ranged so drastically in proportions in ways that would not be neutrally beneficial. Some were so bent backwards that flight seemed impossible. Others had plumage that was more aesthetic than functional. Most prominent was the incredibly small beaks which were overlapped by their heads' protrusions. 

This is a rather problematic position of which I have mixed feelings. Similarly, dogs have undergone the most extensive of this unnatural selection based on what humans find to be valuable. True, it has suited some, but often these animals have severe health issues. Dachshunds suffer back issues because of their elongated mid sections. Pugs often have breathing and respiratory problems because of their shortened noses. It might be interesting to contrast what artificial selection has chosen to be attractive and what natural selection has found to be obsolete such as whale and snake pelvises. 

OBSERVATION #4 (ZH)

The most interesting thing to me about the museum was the process the taxidermist take to pose these animals in theyre "naturalistic states."

I also thought that the exhibit upstairs (the new classy one/ the last one we saw) had a dead bird that had not gone through any process of posing when going through taxidermy. It was strange and exciting that it had no imposed narrative on it.


i'd like to (with kaycee and Guillermo's help) make a audio tour through the museum that takes you to certain places that have abnormally posed animals or something to that effect. I also like the idea of a map accompaniment.

I'd like the final project to funny and theatrical because i love the idea of tricking people into learning things.