Nº. 1 of  24

Fuck Yeah Zoology

I share my birthday with Charles Darwin. 180 years after. Eat it.

buggirl:

solongspaceman:

The camera on my phone takes some pretty awesome pictures, jussayin.

Another lucky person found a Hercules Beetle.  This time, a girl.

Sorry I’ve been away… Too busy lately.
Anyways, here’s a cool beetle.

buggirl:

solongspaceman:

The camera on my phone takes some pretty awesome pictures, jussayin.

Another lucky person found a Hercules Beetle.  This time, a girl.

Sorry I’ve been away… Too busy lately.

Anyways, here’s a cool beetle.

rwrc:

A team of researchers have discovered that, on average, thirty mutations are transmitted from each parent to their child, revising previous estimations and revolutionizing the timescale we use to calculate the number of generations separating us from other species. “Your genome, or genetic code, is made up of six billion pieces of information, called nucleotides,” explained co-lead author Philip Awadalla of the University of Montreal’s Faculty of Medicine and Director of CARTaGENE.

“Three billion come from each parent, and based on indirect evolutionary studies, we had previously estimated that parents would contribute an average of 100-200 mistakes in these pieces of information to their child. Our genetic study, the first of its kind, shows that actually much fewer mistakes – or mutations – are made.” Awadalla published the study with co-author Matt Hurles of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Nature Genetics on June 12, 2011.

As mutations play a key role in the evolutionary process, geneticists will now revise the number of generations separating us from genetic relatives such as apes. “In principle, evolution is happening a third as slowly as previously thought,” Awadalla said. The researchers made the discovery by looking at the complete genomes of two families – a mother, father and their child. In another first, the findings enabled the team to determine whether men contribute more mutations to their offspring than women. The theory is that because mistakes are made during cell division and DNA replication, and males produces many millions more gametes (sperm) than women (eggs), more mutations would come from men compared to women. In one of their families, men contributed six times as many genetic errors to their children.

However, the research also showed a wide variation between families. “We saw that the number of mutations from the male was less than the number of mutations from the female in one of the families,” Awadalla explained. “This doesn’t mean that we’re throwing the theory out the window, it simply means that the mutation rate is extremely variable from individual to individual, or even that some people have mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of mutations.” He also noted that this finding would have important implications for research that attempts to tie specific genetic mutations to diseases.

Researchers will need to undertake further studies with more families to better understand just how variable the individual mutation rate is. “We also need to be looking at other kinds of mutations, such as structural variations within our genetic code,” Awadalla said.

About the study
: Conrad DF et al. (2011) Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families. Nature Genetics, published online 12 June 2011. doi:1038/ng.856

Image: This image is courtesy of Vecer, the third largest newspaper in Slovenia. They ran it to accompany their story about this research, entitled Evolucija človeštva kot kaže počasnejša od predvidevanj.

naturally-selected:

It’s true. We are related to every living organism there is on the planet, and I think that’s poetic, beautiful, and wonderful. So stop fucking it up!

naturally-selected:

It’s true. We are related to every living organism there is on the planet, and I think that’s poetic, beautiful, and wonderful. So stop fucking it up!

A father Canada Goose keeping his baby geese warm at night.
Photo taken by my girlfriend.

A father Canada Goose keeping his baby geese warm at night.

Photo taken by my girlfriend.

mad-as-a-marine-biologist:

Blenny by Dave Fleetham
Hiya, awesome blog :) I start a Bsc in Zoology in september so this is great inspiration!
I might be wrong but that peacock picture looks to me like an Indian blue peacock mixed with a white genetic variant. asked by erynmakesarant-deactivated20110

Great to hear my blog inspires you. You’ll love zoology.

I think you might be right about the peacock. What’s interesting is (so far as I know) the albino gene is either on or off. I’m really quite confused by that picture still, especially how it seems the albino portion is almost exactly split in the middle of it’s body. Also albino animals tend to have a lot of genetic problems - the albino gene accounts for more than just colouration. We’re left wondering if this peacock has genetic problems associated with albinism or not.


Despite its name, the maned wolf is not a wolf at all, nor is it a fox, coyote, or dog. It is the only member of the Chrysocyon genus, making it a truly unique animal, not closely related to any other living canid. One hypothesis for this is that the maned wolf is the last surviving species of the Pleistocene Extinction, which wiped out all other large canids from the continent.

Fascinating.

Despite its name, the maned wolf is not a wolf at all, nor is it a fox, coyote, or dog. It is the only member of the Chrysocyon genus, making it a truly unique animal, not closely related to any other living canid. One hypothesis for this is that the maned wolf is the last surviving species of the Pleistocene Extinction, which wiped out all other large canids from the continent.

Fascinating.

(via therecipe)

buggirl:

biotasting:

Rhinastus latesternus
Family: Buprestidae
From Perù

The silly award goes to this goofy looking Weevil!  So cute. 

lol What a weirdo!

buggirl:

biotasting:

Rhinastus latesternus

Family: Buprestidae

From Perù

The silly award goes to this goofy looking Weevil!  So cute. 

lol What a weirdo!

This 20 minute video is going to be disturbing and weird, and may make you feel uncomfortable.

In the 1930s, a Russian scientist named Sergey Bryukhonenko conducted a series of experiments on dogs to test the concept of reviving an animal after it’s been confirmed dead. The (in)famous youtube video of a dog’s severed head living without a body is from this film.

The experiment goes as such:

Remove the dog’s blood, which ceases the heart, killing the dog; Wait for a period of time before starting the revival process; Pump blood back into the dog, which reinstates the heart and body functions.

I would like to know what my followers think about this video. Is it moral to conduct an experiment which involves killing a dog and reviving it, even if it’s in the name of science? Leave your opinions in my ask box, or reblog this.

Nº. 1 of  24