Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘male’

Photo: The Aquarium Guide.
The silver arowana, a mouthbrooding fish. The dads incubate eggs in their mouths.

Here’s another dad story in time for Father’s Day — this one from the animal kingdom.

New York Times reporter Elizabeth Preston wrote about research on male fish that carry eggs in their mouth until they hatch.

“Lurking among the underwater plants in Australia’s ponds and streams is a fish called the mouth almighty. The species is named for its impressive jaws, which snap up passing prey. But the males also use their almighty mouths to gently carry as many as hundreds of babies.

“The dads do this oral caretaking, called mouthbrooding, for two or three weeks at a time. Like other mouthbrooding fish, they do so at great personal cost. Yet, according to a study published [in] the journal Biology Letters, mouth almighty fathers sometimes carry babies that aren’t their own.

“The study’s lead author, Janine Abecia, is a Ph.D. candidate at Charles Darwin University in Northern Territory, Australia, where she’s been studying the mouth almighty, or Glossamia aprion, as well as the blue catfish Neoarius graeffei. Both live in the freshwater environments of Australia. Fathers of both species scoop fertilized eggs into their mouths and carry them until after the young have hatched.

“Her research has suggested that these two species don’t eat at all when they’re on dad duty. … Research in other kinds of mouthbrooders — which can be fathers or mothers, depending on the species — has shown that they don’t eat, either. Having a mouth stuffed with offspring may also make it difficult to breathe. And it seems to slow down the parent, potentially making it harder to escape predators, Mrs. Abecia said. …

“[It makes] sense that fish parents would only engage in oral caretaking for babies they’re certain are their own. Yet scientists don’t know how often this is true. ‘It’s actually a question I’ve long been interested in,’ [Tony Wilson, a biologist at Brooklyn College who studies reproduction in fish and wasn’t involved in the research] said.

“Mrs. Abecia collected mouthbrooding fathers of both the mouth almighty and blue catfish from rivers in the Northern Territory. She collected additional adult fish, with no young in their mouths, for genetic comparison. Then she selected about 10 eggs or babies from each father’s mouth and analyzed their DNA to figure out where they’d come from.

“With the blue catfish, things were as expected. All nine dads seemed to be carrying their own young, and those baby fish all had the same mother.

“Inside the powerful jaws of the mouth almighty, though, things were a little weird. The mouth almighty species forms seemingly faithful pairs in the lab, Mrs. Abecia said. Yet … two batches of young had multiple mothers, suggesting that the male had courted a female while he already had eggs in his mouth. One batch had multiple fathers. … And in one batch, the young were totally unrelated to the fish that was carrying them.

“ ‘It’s a very small study,’ Dr. Wilson said, so it would be ‘premature’ to draw conclusions. … But, he added, the genetic techniques used in this study are making it easier for scientists to ask [questions]. …

“Scientists have already discovered other mouthbrooding fish carrying the wrong babies. In one type of cardinalfish, about 8 percent of broods included a second dad’s young. A study of fish called silver arowanas found that out of 14 brooding dads, two had mouths full of offspring that were totally unrelated.

“For their efforts, these dads will pass down none of their genes. Why? … ‘Some female fishes in other species are attracted to males that are already caring for their young,’ Mrs. Abecia said. Males that get stuck with the wrong babies now could make up for it later.” More at the Times, here.

I know I will have a use for the name of one of these guys. How about you? Why limit the resonance of “mouth almighty” to the fish kingdom?

Read Full Post »

OK, here’s one I bet you don’t know about. Like a couple super fathers I know, the sandgrouse father is devote to parenting. But when the fathers I know give thirsty children some water, it is likely to arrive in a bottle or sippy cup. The sandgrouse papa delivers water in his feathers.

Rick Wright and Mary McCann report at Public Radio International’s Living on Earth, “Sandgrouse – pointy-tailed relatives of pigeons – live in some of the most parched environments on earth. To satisfy the thirst of newly hatched chicks, male sandgrouse bring water back to the nest by carrying it in their feathers. It sounds incredible, and for decades, scientists thought it was just a myth. But it’s not. In the cool of the desert morning, the male flies up to twenty miles to a shallow water hole, then wades in up to his belly.

“The water is collected by ‘rocking.’ The bird shifts its body side to side and repeatedly shakes the belly feathers in the water; fill-up can take as long as fifteen minutes. Thanks to coiled hairlike extensions on the feathers of the underparts, a sandgrouse can soak up and transport 25 milliliters of liquid. That’s close to two tablespoons.

“Once the male has flown back across the desert with his life-giving cargo, the sandgrouse chicks crowd around him and use their bills like tiny squeegees, ‘milking’ their father’s belly feathers for water they so desperately need.”

Listen here.

Photo: Ian White, Flickr CC
The Feathers of Burchell’s Sandgrouse carry water for miles back to the nest.

Read Full Post »

No, I’m not thinking of the 19th century, of George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), Currer Bell (Charlotte Brontë), or George Sand (Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin). Masculine names are taken more seriously than feminine ones nowadays, too.

Here is a woman who put it to the test.

Catherine Nichols writes at the Jezebel blog, “The plan made me feel dishonest and creepy, so it took me a long time to send my novel out under a man’s name. But each time I read a study about unconscious bias, I got a little closer to trying it.

“I set up a new e-mail address under a name—let’s say it was George [Suzanne’s Mom asks, ‘What is it about the name George?’] Leyer, though it wasn’t—and left it empty. Weeks went by without word from the agents who had my work. I read another study about how people rate job applicants they believe are female and how much better they like those they believe are male. …

“So, on a dim Saturday morning, I copy-pasted my cover letter and the opening pages of my novel from my regular e-mail into George’s account. I put in the address of one of the agents I’d intended to query under my own name. I didn’t expect to hear back for a few weeks, if at all. It would only be a few queries and then I’d close out my experiment. I began preparing another query, checking the submission requirements on the agency web site. When I clicked back, there was already a new message, the first one in the empty inbox. Mr. Leyer. Delighted. Excited. Please send the manuscript.

“Almost all publishers only accept submissions through agents, so they are essential gatekeepers for anyone trying to sell a book in the traditional market rather than self-publishing. …

“I sent the six queries I had planned to send that day. Within 24 hours George had five responses — three manuscript requests and two warm rejections praising his exciting project. For contrast, under my own name, the same letter and pages sent 50 times had netted me a total of two manuscript requests. …

“I wanted to know more of how the Georges of the world live, so I sent more. Total data: George sent out 50 queries, and had his manuscript requested 17 times.

He is eight and a half times better than me at writing the same book.

“Fully a third of the agents who saw his query wanted to see more, where my numbers never did shift from one in 25. …

“Most of the agents only heard from one or the other of us, but I did overlap a little. One who sent me a form rejection as Catherine not only wanted to read George’s book, but instead of rejecting it asked if he could send it along to a more senior agent. Even George’s rejections were polite and warm on a level that would have meant everything to me, except that they weren’t to the real me. George’s work was ‘clever,’ it’s ‘well-constructed’ and ‘exciting.’ No one mentioned his sentences being lyrical or whether his main characters were feisty. …

“I quit sending out queries entirely, and used the critiques that George got to improve the book — a book I would have put away in frustration long ago if I hadn’t tried my experiment. The edited draft went to the agent who now represents me, after she got in touch about a nonfiction piece I had written under my own name. Patience, faith, playing by the rules—the conventional wisdom would never have brought me here.” More at Jezebel.

Whew. Now I’m wondering if the fantastic (male) nonfiction writer ML Elrick got some rejection letters because recipients thought he was a female masquerading as a male.  Like JK Rowling. Who now writes mysteries as Robert Galbraith.

090515-typing

Read Full Post »