Amazing:Virgin births discovered in wild snakes

A form of virgin birth has been found in wild vertebrates for the first time.

Researchers in the US caught pregnant females from two snake species and genetically analysed the litters.

That proved the North American pit vipers reproduced without a male, a phenomenon called facultative parthenogenesis that has previously been found only in captive species.

Scientists say the findings could change our understanding of animal reproduction and vertebrate evolution.

Continue reading the main story

It was thought to be extremely rare for a normally sexual species to reproduce asexually.

First identified in domestic chickens, such "virgin births" have been reported in recent years in a few snake, shark, lizard and bird species.

Crucially though, all such virgin births have occurred in captivity, to females kept away from males.

Virgin births in vertebrates in general have been viewed as "evolutionary novelties", said Warren Booth, from the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, US.

Professor Booth is lead author of a paper published in the Royal Society's Biological Letters that challenges this label.

He and his collaborators investigated virgin births in wild populations of two geographically separated and long-studied species of snake.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

The frequency is what really shocked us”

Dr Warren BoothUniversity of Tulsa

They captured pregnant copperhead and cottonmouth female pit-vipers from the field, where males were present.

The snakes gave birth, allowing the scientists to study the physical and genetic characteristics of the litters.

Of the 22 copperheads, the scientists found one female that must have had a virgin birth.

Another single virgin birth occurred within the 37 cottonmouth litters.

"I think the frequency is what really shocked us," said Prof Booth.

"That's between 2.5 and 5% of litters produced in these populations may be resulting from parthenogenesis.

"That's quite remarkable for something that has been considered an evolutionary novelty," he said.

Sex or no sex

A virgin birth, or parthenogenesis, is when an egg grows and develops without being fertilised by sperm.

It results in offspring that only have their mother's genetic material; no fatherly contribution is required.

This is not uncommon in invertebrates such as aphids, bees and ants.

It also happens in a few all-female species of lizard; geckos and whiptails for example. But here it occurs across a generation; all females reproduce asexually via a process called obligate parthenogenesis.

But asexual reproduction by a normally sexual vertebrate species is still rare, having been reported in under 0.1% of species.

It was only in the mid-1990s that virgin births began to be documented in captive snakes, followed by a captive giant lizard in 2006 and a captive shark in 2007.

All-female species, such as some whiptail lizards, reproduce asexually

To date this now includes around 10 species of snakes including a couple of boas, and a python, four species of shark, and several monitor lizards, including the endangered Komodo dragon.

Recently the zebra finch and Chinese painted quail were added to the list. All were kept in isolation in unnatural conditions and away from any males.

So to find asexual reproduction in two species of snake in the wild on their first attempt was "astounding", according to Prof Booth and his collaborators.

Virgin births should no longer be viewed as "some rare curiosity outside the mainstream of evolution," he said.

Evolutionary dead-end?

It remains unclear whether the female snakes actively select to reproduce this way, or whether the virgin births are triggered by some other factor, such as a virus or bacterial infection.

"Any answer is pure speculation at this point," says Prof Booth.

In captivity, two sharks, and three snakes, have been shown to have had multiple virgin births, producing more than one litter via facultative parthenogenesis.

As yet, it also remains unclear whether the offspring of these wild virgin births can themselves go on to have normal, or virgin births of their own.

In captive snakes studied so far, offspring have so far not been proved viable, that is capable of surviving and reproducing.

Cottonmouth pit vipers are capable of virgin births in the wild

However, earlier this year Prof Booth and colleagues reported that a checkered gartersnake that has had consecutive virgin births, appears to have produced viable male offspring.

Parthenogenicly born copperheads and cottonmouths are also currently being raised and "in the next two to three years we will know if they are indeed viable," said Prof Booth.

"If they cannot survive and reproduce, then this is a reproductive dead-end.

"However, if they are healthy and can reproduce, that opens an entirely new avenue for research," he said.

Being able to switch from sexual to asexual reproduction could be advantageous; in the absence of males a female could still give birth and start a new, albeit inbred, population.

Her genes could still be passed on via her fertile male offspring.

Scientists believe that facultative parthenogenesis is more common in some lineages such as reptiles and sharks.

However it is unlikely that similar virgin births will be found among placental mammals, which include all the mammals aside from the platypus and echidnas.

That is because mammals require a process called genomic imprinting to reproduce, where a set of genes from one parent dominates over the other. The interaction between the two sets of parental genes is required for embryos to develop normally.

==============================================================================

Single sex

• Watch the miraculous offspring of a lone dragon
• Marvel at an aphid creating clone daughters
• See the lesbian legacy of the whiptail lizards

These news has been taken from BBC

Words Have Power

      Words cannot change reality, but they can change how people perceive reality. Words create filters through which people view the world around them. A single word can make the difference between liking a person and disliking that person. If a friend describes the person you are about to meet for the first time as untrustworthy, you will be predisposed to view that person as untrustworthy, regardless of the person's actual level of trustworthiness. The single word "untrustworthy" creates a filter, or primacy effect, that predisposes you to view the person you are about to meet as untrustworthy. Thereafter, you will tend to view everything that person says or does as untrustworthy.

Overcoming negative primacy is difficult but not impossible. The more times you meet the "untrustworthy" person and do not experience instances of untrustworthiness, the more likely you are to view the "untrustworthy" person as trustworthy, thus overriding negative primacy. However, you are less likely to meet an untrustworthy person a second time because you perceive that person as untrustworthy, thereby reducing the probability of overcoming negative primacy.

Conversely, if before meeting a person for the first time, a friend tells you that the person you are about to meet is friendly, then you will likely view that person as friendly, regardless of the person's degree of friendliness. If you meet the "friendly" person several times and do not experience friendliness, then you will tend to excuse away the unfriendly behavior. Such excuses might include: "He must be having a bad day," "I must have caught her at a bad time," or "Everybody has a bad day once in awhile." An unfriendly person initially described as friendly gains an advantage from positive primacy because people tend to allow the unfriendly person multiple opportunities to demonstrate friendliness despite numerous displays of unfriendly behavior.

In today's busy world, people typically do not consult multiple news sources to get a balanced view of world events; therefore, people tend to perceive world events through the filter created by a single newspaper, television newscast, or radio report. Media has the power to influence the way in which people view world events. If a media outlet, especially a reputable one, introduces a bias into the news story, the readers or listeners will tend to view the event through the biased filter established by the media report. The filter created by the biased news report will remain in place until the readers are exposed to other more balanced news reports; however, this is unlikely to occur because people generally do not consult multiple news sources.

I took advantage of the primacy effect at an early age. I was infatuated with Paula. She was the second prettiest girl I had seen since I crossed the threshold of puberty. I wanted to spend time with her. I devised a plan to meet her without subjecting myself to social humiliation. Beth was Paula's closest friend. I knew if I told Beth that I thought Paula was cute, had a good sense of humor, and that I wanted to take her out on a date, the message would be conveyed to Paula in a matter of minutes. I knew Paula would be faced with two options. If she was predisposed to like me then the next time she saw me, she would have a favorable opinion of me because she would see me as a person who liked her. If she did not like me, then she would avoid me at all cost because she would know my intentions to ask her out on a date. The next day at school, I saw Paula walking down the hallway. Our eyes met. She smiled. I had my answer. The primacy effect predisposed her to like me before I spoke my first word to her.

In my early days as an investigator, I fell victim to the primacy effect. I interviewed a suspect who I thought kidnapped a 4 year-old girl. Before talking to the suspect, I had already made up my mind that he was the kidnapper. Consequently, everything the suspect said or did, I viewed as indications of guilt, despite ample evidence to the contrary. The more pressure I put on the suspect, the more nervous he became not because he was guilty but because I did not believe him and he thought he would go to prison for something he did not do. The more nervous the suspect became, the more I thought he kidnapped the young girl and the more pressure I applied. Needless to say, the interview spiraled out of control. In the end, I was embarrassed when the real kidnapper was caught. I suspect that negative primacy is at the root of many false confessions. 

If the word "interrogation" were used instead of the word "interview," the likelihood increases that investigators would assume that the person being questioned is guilty. Interviewers view interrogations as adversarial and, at some point prior to interrogations, they either consciously or unconsciously form the opinion that the interviewee is guilty to some degree. If this were not the case, then the interviewers would be conducting interviews not interrogations. 

The interview/interrogation paradigm creates two negative primacy filters. The first negative primacy filter is that the interrogation will be confrontational. If interviewers go into the interrogation with the preconceived notion that the suspect will be confrontational, then the interrogation will likely become confrontational because the interviewers will tend to interpret anything the suspect says or does through the filter of confrontation. Interviewers begin interrogations with a heightened sensitivity to confrontation; therefore, the slightest provocation by the suspect triggers responses that are more aggressive because interviewers anticipate confrontations. The same actions that interviewers perceive as aggressive during interrogations would probably be judged as less aggressive or neutral during interviews because interviewers perceive interviews as non-confrontational. The second negative filter is that interviewers will likely view the interviewees as guilty before the interrogations commence and perceive everything the interviewees say or do as support of their guilt and discount or excuse away any evidence that does not support their preconceived notion of guilt.

An alternative approach to the interview/interrogation paradigm places the inquiry process on a resistance continuum. At one end of the continuum, interviewees offer information without resistance. At the other end, interviewees are reluctant to provide information or fall silent. This concept allows investigators to glide back and forth along the resistance continuum using a succession of specialized interviewing techniques to overcome varying degrees of resistance. Interviewers need only focus on the appropriate selection of interviewing techniques to overcome resist¬ance from witnesses and suspects alike. As the interviewee's resistance increases or decreases, the interviewer adjusts the intensity of the inquiry by selecting the suitable interviewing technique to overcome the interviewee's resistance.

One way to minimize the primacy effect is to develop competing hypotheses. Developing competing hypotheses reduces the primacy effect. A competing hypothesis is an educated guess that supposes a different outcome based on the same or similar set of circumstances. For example, when I speak to someone my initial hypothesis is that the person is telling the truth. A competing hypothesis posits the person is lying. During the conversation, I seek evidence to support the initial hypothesis or the competing hypothesis. Rarely does all the evidence support the initial hypothesis or the competing hypothesis because honest people often say and do things that make them look dishonest and, conversely, dishonest people often say and do things that make them look honest. In the end, however, the weight of the evidence should support one hypothesis over the other.

The next time you conduct an interview, meet a new colleague or buy a new product think about how you came to form your opinion about that person or product. Chances are high that your opinions were formed by primacy. New employees can enhance or hurt their career opportunities depending on the first impressions they make on their employers or coworkers. The acceptance of employees who transfer from one office to another office often depends on the reputation that precedes their arrival. The new brand of tube of tooth paste you bought has to be good because 3 out of 4 dentists recommend that particular brand. Words have power. Choose them wisely.

Psychologytoday.com

Apple Wins: Proves Samsung Infringed Patents As Jury Awards $1B+ In Damages

             Apple has won most of its case against Samsung. The jury found in Apple’s favor on an overwhelming majority of claims. Samsung was found to have infringed six of seven Apple patents. Conversely, the jury found against Samsung on almost all claims, including arguments that Apple’s patents were invalid.

The jury also found that Samsung’s infringement was “willful” in several cases and awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages. By the same token Samsung mostly drew a blank on its claims and was awarded $0 damages.

The Korean handset maker will certainly appeal. But the outlook for success on appeal is limited. The verdict vindicates Apple’s contention that Samsung “shamelessly copied” the iPhone. It’s a major victory for Apple. It’s a humiliating defeat for Samsung’s legal counsel.

It will take a little while to fully digest the outcome and analyze what it will mean for Samsung’s handsets, for Android more broadly and for the industry as a whole. Some people will lament the outcome as striking a blow against competition. By contrast others will argue that the decision now forces Apple’s competitors to genuinely “innovate.”

I expected a positive outcome for Apple but not one quite this lopsided. Samsung was almost entirely shut out, although some of its devices were deemed not to have infringed Apple patents. Apple failed to prove that Samsung’s patents were invalid and it failed on antitrust claims against Samsung. The Galaxy Tab was also found not to have infringed the iPad’s design. Otherwise it was a massive legal victory for Cupertino in a very important and closely watched case.

There will now be extensive analysis of what the case means. Each aspect of the verdict will likely be dissected and discussed. We’ll also offer our thoughts later as we reflect on the outcome. With just over two days of deliberation the jury appears to have reached its verdict much more quickly than expected given the complexity of the claims and issues.

Below is how the reading of the verdict unfolded in more or less real time. I wasn’t present in the courtroom but relied on Twitter, CNET and TheVerge’s live in-courtroom reporting.

The verdict as it unfolded:

The jury found that Samsung did infringe at least some of Apple’s patents. The verdict is being read right now.

More Samsung infringement found, including the Galaxy 10.1. However not all Samsung devices found to be infringing.

The verdict is moving claim by patent claim through each patent and set of Samsung devices allegedly infringing. This is so far a victory for Apple. Most of the verdict is going its way.

More infringement found on Apple’s “381 patent.” No Samsung devices spared on this one.

This is turning out to be the mixed verdict I predicted earlier, but mostly positive for Apple. Samsung’s claims have yet to be read however.

Galaxy S/S 4G smartphone found to be infringing. Samsung is taking a major hit here, though some devices escaping.

So far 7 patent claims have been addressed. In almost every case some Samsung infringement has been found.

Willful infringement? The jury says “yes” for most of the Samsung devices. This has big damages implications.

All of Apple’s patents were found to be valid by the jury. Samsung had claimed that some were invalid. That defense failed apparently.

So far about 75 percent of what Apple claimed has been vindicated by this jury. The court is still going through the individual claims and questions in Apple’s case. The jury has yet to get to Samsung’s claims.

Apple is losing on some of its “trade dress claims.” No on to damages.

The jury has awarded $1.05 billion in damages to Apple. That’s less important to Apple than the idea that its claims were vindicated and that Samsung may have to change some of its designs.

Now Samsung’s claims against Apple are being addressed. So far the jury is finding “no” or against Samsung. Samsung has lost so far on all of its claims against Apple. Apple did not prove Samsung’s patents were invalid however.

Apple did not prove antitrust violations against Samsung. So it didn’t succeed across the board. But Samsung won almost nothing. If it were a baseball game the score would be Apple 10, Samsung 1.

The complete story has been taken from MarketingLand.Com

Facebook Phone? “Wrong Strategy” Says Zuckerberg

             Rumors have come and gone and come again that Facebook will develop it own phone. But that idea makes no sense for the company, says Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

In an interview today at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference, Zuckerberg told Mike Arrington that it makes more sense for Facebook to work with others than try to build its own device.

         

          “It’s always been the wrong strategy for us,” Zuckerberg said. “It’s so clearly the wrong strategy for us”

              Assuming Facebook did build one — and Zuckerberg quickly stressed that it wasn’t –assume maybe it attracts 20 million people. That might seem like a lot, but compared to all the users Facebook already has, “it doesn’t move the needle for us.” Rather, Zuckerberg says it makes sense to dive deep into the work others are doing with mobile, from apps to devices.

            “We want to build a system that is as deeply as possible integrated into every device people want to use,” he said. Things like the new Facebook iOS app will allow Facebook to be integrated more deeply into Apple devices and apps for that platform, while Facebook itself can do more to help deep Android integration.

           Is mobile a big priority for Facebook? You could say that Zuckerberg said it’s his life.

       “I basically live on my mobile device,” Zuckerberg said, in response to Arrington’s question. “You know the founder’s letter on the S1? I wrote that on my phone.”

Marketing Land

Obama Sets Twitter Record With Stirring DNC Speech

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night ranked as the biggest political moment ever on the social media site Twitter.

The number of tweets about the Democratic convention blew away similar figures from the Republican National Convention a week earlier.

The Obama campaign has always made extensive use of social media to reach young voters and media scholar Robert Thompson of Syracuse University said Thursday night's speech was split up into seven-minute sections that make it ideal for Web distribution.

"He spoke in segments that are perfect for YouTube," said Thompson, an expert on television and popular culture at Syracuse's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. "This was a speech made for use by the Democrats for social media."

The president's speech prompted 52,756 tweets per minute just after it ended, a new record according to Twitter.

The peak tweets per minute, following some of Obama's most memorable lines, exceeded all other moments for any speaker during either the Democratic or Republican conventions.

The biggest reactions came when Obama declared, "I'm no longer just the candidate. I'm the president," followed by a promise that "I will never turn Medicare into a voucher."

The Democratic convention's final day, on which Obama spoke, generated 4 million tweets, about equal to the total number of tweets for the entire Republican National Convention.

Obama gained on the Twitter Political Index, which measures how tweeters feel about a candidate on a scale of 1 to 100. The president's ranking stood at 52 on Friday, up two points from a day earlier. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's ranking, in contrast, stood at 9 on Friday.

TV audiences for the Obama and Romney speeches were similar.

Preliminary TV ratings for three main cable news outlets and the three main broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) showed 29.2 million TV viewers for the prime time hour on Thursday when Obama spoke, according to Nielsen data. The numbers could change and final data was being released later on Friday.

For Romney's speech last week, the final TV audience figure was 30.3 million.

(Reporting By Nichola Groom; Additional reporting by Jill Serjeant, Lisa Richwine and Ronald Grover in Los Angeles; Editing by David Storey)

By Nichola Groom