Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 September 28

= September 28 =

Erysiphe and humans
Are there known cases of lung infections caused by the fungal genus Erysiphe? (I know there are things like aspergillosis, but I am specifically curious about Erysiphe. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No results in British Medical Journal or PubMed Health, PMC results seem to be botanical, not medical. Hooch related perhaps?  Ssscienccce  (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My parents are doing the fall gardening, and one of the oak trees they had cut down when they reinstalled the fence developed a really heavy Erysiphe infection on the shoots that were coming up from the stump. I visit on the weekends, so I used his lawn antifungal to spray it down (the active ingredient is used as a broad-spectrum garden anti-fungal) and advised them not to cut the infected shoots down until the fungus dies down, since it sends of clouds of spores if you touch it.  I did manage to find an article that said the spores cause allergic reactions, but most of the hits were coming up about aspergillosis, which is much more dangerous, apparently.  Thanks for checking the medical journals. Oh, BTW, the hooch is more of a bucket list thing than an immediate project.  I have to get the wine yeast yet, and I am not sure how many rotten peaches I will be coming across now that summer is over. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Must have missed that article, when I looked for Erysiphe and allergy (instead of lung infection) I did get results, but it wasn't the causative agent in the ones I checked. For example: a Japanese study in schoolchildren mentioned it as one of sixty species found in the environment, but it wasn't considered an allergen (concentration didn't correlate with symptoms severity).
 * I've had another go, only result in PMC that identified Erysiphe as an allergen (sort of) was a study from 1941.
 * Aspergillus is indeed the main one, also some studies about Penicillium and Cladosporium. Ssscienccce  (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Placebo Effect and Nocebo Effect
I was doing some research and thought up a few questions...

What happens when someone does this?

"This sandwich is totally a placebo/nocebo! Wait, did I just make it a placebo/nocebo?"

Do placebos/nocebos work if (1) the thing isn't a medicine, (2) the person has no medical condition, (3) it the person has taken it before and knows it won't heal/kill them?

Do either placebos/nocebos (Have you guessed that I'm prettty tired of typing that out? I'll henceforth refer to them as Ps and Ns respectively.) affect things outside the person's body? Like:

"I bet I can levitate this apple by thinking it's I'm levitating it!"

Can Ps/Ns make you forget things on purpose (if you think you're gonna forget it)?

Regarding Nocebo effect and the variants...what if you're reading about them and think "This'll take effect if I, say, buy a certain book..." (This maybe the most outlandish question so far, but I bet you can guess where I got the idea.) Actually this may be the same as question 1, but whatever. Actually, there may be a difference (one is a placebo and another is a curse).

I may explain more about this if you don't know what I'm talking about or whatever.

I tried to paste this from the edit page, but on iPad I can't seem to get the range right (pasting from the page itself removes the links). Is there a solution? (Damn it, I may have to make another query)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hop on Bananas (talk • contribs)


 * Remember that placebo and nocebo are pure psychology, hence they can cause psychosomatic aka "hysterical" symptoms if people are told before. Works especially well with causing headaches, dizziness, and nausea, for instance, as such that you can tell people the fake med would cause any of those three, and in many cases, that's what's gonna happen. It also depends on how gullible, fragile, and/oder easily manipulatable the test subjects are.


 * Also keep in mind that nocebo is a term usually heard from power companies running nuclear-energy plants and that use the magic word "nocebo" to explain away the fact that cancer rates are raised several thousand percent near their plants. In other words, these companies are trying to call medically-observable cancer a psychosomatic symptom that you can talk yourself into due to the bad rep of nuclear energy. --2003:48:2E4C:B186:F881:D2C6:8E35:E907 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any source for your assertions? When did nuclear-energy plants use the word nocebo? Is cancer rate raising by a factor of several 1000%? Llaanngg (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Placebo/nocebo have mainly effect on self-reported subjective symptoms, although a meta-analysis showed placebo effects on sleep efficiency or duration measured by polysomnography. Confusingly, one study also found effects in persons who were told that it was a placebo (read it a while ago, but can't find it now). That P/N can have psychological effects seems undisputed, even in healthy people: see for example the effect of non-alcoholic drinks when people think there's alcohol in them. If you fear you've eaten contaminated food, you may develop subjective symptoms like nausia. Affecting things outside the person's body seems highly unlikely, would be contrary to the laws of physics. Ssscienccce  (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Ssscienccce's link shows, you don't have a medical condition to experience a placebo effect. When you ask if you can levitate an apple, well, that's not going to happen. The mechanism of the P/N effect isn't fully understood but it's my understanding that it's connected to well-known facts like conditioned response and how the brain interprets the world using past experiences (completely natural and observable processes in other words). In contrast, you levitating an apple just isn't physically possible as far as we know today. It would require some supernatural ability or some entirely new understanding of physics. The P/N effect can do much but not that.
 * I don't have an answer to your question about the placebo sandwich. Please accept an on-topic xkcd web comic instead. Sjö (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Using disposable diapers as paper towels
1. Can disposable diapers be used to clean up after water/drink spills? Seeing as how absorbent diapers are, they can do a much better job than paper towels. And yet I haven't seen any "life hacks" featuring this. Am I missing some obvious reason as to why it wouldn't work?

2. Can used disposable diapers be air-dried to remove the absorbed water? Disposable diapers can't be reused after performing its "normal" duty, but what about if it just soaked up some spilled water or tea? Can the Sodium polyacrylate inside be air-dried if it's left in a dry place for a few weeks?

I'm trying to be environmentally friendly by using less paper products. Thanks in advanced. 731Butai (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * this search shows that polyacrylate used to absorb fluids (many of these cite the "fake snow" application of polyacrylate) as fully reusable. Indeed, there are products on the market, right now, that basically use fabric-enclosed polyacrylate (or, diapers), such as the Swiffer WetJet Mop, which uses reusable (and disposable, for when they get too soiled) polyacrylate-filled pads.  -- Jayron 32 05:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This paper shows that they can be dried and recover their original mass if the pH was between 3 and 12, but it is quite slow, up to 200 hours, at room temperature, and the rate was almost unchanged when heating to 40°C. Drying under vacuum shortened the time to 2 hours (confusingly, they add "at a pressure of 1 atm" ??) Ssscienccce  (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's really helpful. The Swiffer WetJet refills are exactly what I need. Can I just get a reference that says they indeed do contain polyacrylate? I don't want to go out and buy the wrong thing; this is the exact model that I'm planning to buy . 731Butai (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI any decent garden center can sell you various amounts of sodium polyacrylate as "water crystals", used to amend potting soil. I have used them to absorb spills. They are very absorbent, but also pretty slow. my WP:OR is that it can take 15-20 minutes to reach capacity, though that might decrease dramatically if granule size is reduced. It does also take a very long time to completely dry out. Anyway, if you want to experiment, you can get the raw material like so rather than messing around with actual (expensive) diapers that also have very little sodium polyacrylate per diaper. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to be environmentally friendly, use paper and put it in the compost bin, or use a microfibre cloth and wash it out regularly. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It's more comparable to using a sponge or mop, since they are reusable, while paper towels aren't designed to be. Are diapers better than sponges and mops in any way ? StuRat (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sawdust would be a better choice. It's fairly absorbent - and it's a wood product with very little processing or chemical by-products that would otherwise to go waste - so it's likely to be (at worst) carbon-neutral and if it ends up in landfill rather than being incinerated, it might even be carbon-negative.  SteveBaker (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Being currently much more familiar with diapers (and their contents) than I'd have ever liked to be, I can tell you there are definitely more than ONE class of diaper. They fall into two main groups, there are the cheap variety, they cost around $0.15 each and they do not contain any fancy absorbent chemicals, they're basically just some padding, sort of like packed cotton wool. Then there is the "premium" variety which cost more like $0.50 each, they have those water absorbing crystals in them. Vespine (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To second SteveBaker, if you're trying to be environmentally friendly, one thing you shouldn't do is replace paper products with non-biodegradable things. You say you want to reuse the pads by letting them dry out, but this takes a long time, and it's only feasible in the first place for spills of clean water on a clean surface. If the environmental cost of paper towels really bothers you, start your own compost heap (or take advantage of an existing composting facility if you have one in your area, but this isn't common). As a bonus, you can compost other biodegradable things as well, like food waste. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don´t understand this picture..
. It says "limestone after a rail suicide" but there is no explained in any article, why they use limestone after a rail suicide.. can you explain why? --185.51.85.16 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Lime (material) which was placed over blood to soak up and cover the liquid and to prevent odor from its decomposition from developing. Deli nk (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Lime.' I think you will find, is just reporters short-hand, for not getting too technical – otherwise it would distract from the the story. I'll put money on it however, that what s/he was referring to is  Calcium hypochlorite. Cheap and effective for these types of incidents. Be it on rail, road, or any other situation. --Aspro (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Kalk can be lime, but it is also the word for chalk. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * When cleaning up such an incident, would you expect plain chalk, lime or a commonly used steridant like calcium hypochlorite to be employed? --Aspro (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is however not a German synonym for Kalk (on de.wikipedia). Calcium hydroxide is used for disinfecting roads (slide 19) in cases of bird flue. Calcium hypochlorite would smell for a long time. And we don't know all the facts, maybe they sprayed a strong disinfectant first.  Ssscienccce  (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Calcium hypochlorite is a strong disinfectant. It must cost some € 70 per hour to employ a bode to do this.  Factoring in  the bode's colleges and support vehicles and processing the paper work required, I reckon you're  looking at  a minimum of  €2,000 per  callout.  To  to do two sweeps of the scene (first, one with a liquid disinfectant and another with lime, is an unnecessary and pointless expense). The best way to settle this is ask a German WP editor to contact the incident  clean up services and ask them for their clean-up protocol. --Aspro (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Were Giovanni Schiaparelli and Percival Lowell right?
Giovanni Schiaparelli and Percival Lowell are the guys infamous for seeing a network of canals on Mars, which they took to be changing color with the seasons as the supply of water from the polar ice caps waxed and waned. With the announcement that there really is water on Mars, causing "recurring slope lineae" that are dramatically apparent on the surface, it seems like time to ask: were they right? I mean, apart from the involvement of sentient aliens, though that hasn't technically been disproven...

Specifically, was it possible for someone, eyeballing the whole planet, to see the kind of color changes caused by these dramatic dark patterns that appear seasonally on Mars?

Did these observations match the reliably observed pattern of slope lineae, at least on the continental scale?

Is there some system of (presumably natural) "depressions in the soil that are not very deep, extended in a straight direction for thousands of miles, over a width of 100, 200 kilometers and maybe more" that permit the existing brine to redistribute itself over time on the Martian landscape without having to sublimate and be precipitated?

I feel like Science never truly discards a theory - sooner or later something impossible like spontaneous generation or acquired inheritance is sure to turn up again, with some fancy name like abiogenesis or epigenetics to make it marketable, and next time ... it might be right. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Martian canals. Here's some different pictures of the recent findings . There, the streaks are described as being about 100m long. WP:OR I think Lowell et al. were seeing some other feature(s). SemanticMantis (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Settled science" has far too often neither been "settled" nor "science." Long time adage, dating back well before current controversies.  Our "spherical" universe may be literally "as flat as a pancake".  Black holes - leak.  The "Big Bang" may have been one of many.  The only absolute certainty is uncertainty.  By the way, DNA supports limited "acquired inheritance" but mainly on a very long-term scale.  Ink spots on frogs do not get inherited. Collect (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Wnt is referencing epigenetic effects like mice inheriting behavioral responses that parents learned, which happens on a pretty short time scale. Lots of current research being done on effects that can be described as Lamarckism or Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance. But that's not really what this question is about :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * News to me that there was ever a consensus for a positively curved universe. —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking into this a bit further, I found some interesting data around page 154 of . Apparently Mars generally became darker in high latitudes in spring, and browner in lower latitudes in summer.  A hotbed of the observed activity was Solis Lacus, which nowadays is known for dust storms.  A noncongruence is that our article on Mars says the dust storms are tied to perihelion, whereas the old observations made the color changes sound seasonal.  Our article Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes says that the flows are at 25 to 40 degrees latitude, and admittedly, they do seem hard to picture seeing from orbit.  So I'd very tentatively say the old astronomers were seeing changes from dust storms and any effects from the RSLs should be too faint to see - though I don't know how much they affect dust storms.  I still welcome any clue about Martian hydrology :) Wnt (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I thought Lowell et al. might have been seeing storms or traces of aeolian processes too, but the article I linked above says "improved astronomical observations revealed the "canals" to be an optical illusion", though that claim doesn't cite any refs. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's the phrase "even a blind dog pisses on a tree once in a while", meaning that being right for the wrong reasons doesn't really count. Lowell's conclusions about finding water flowing on Mars is only correct because we later found water flowing on Mars, but it was not his observations or his methodology which produced the discovery, rather he was completely mistaken, and made unrepeatable observations which were later summarily disproven, not because the conclusions were wrong, but because what he saw wasn't really there.  For an analogy, we don't usually count Democritus, Leucippus, and the atomists as important scientists for their role in developing modern atomic theory, because of course, they didn't.  They accidentally tripped over the right answer among hundreds of other Greek philosophers in a sort of infinite monkey theorem of ideas: some of them are bound to be right even if the people proposing the ideas have no real sound scientific reasoning behind them.  It's the same thing here: merely because a later scientific study found evidence of water on Mars doesn't vindicate the incorrect conclusions of the earlier, incorrect study.  -- Jayron 32 19:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that there was a translation error. From our article: 'The Italian word canale (plural canali) can mean "canals" (including artificial canals or ducts) or "channels" or "gullies".'  Unfortunately, it was translated into English as "canals" only, which implies they were artificial, when this was not true in the original Italian. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's be really clear here. This is the drawing that Lowell made:


 * Is this in any way, remotely like what is currently being claimed?
 * Clearly he's claiming long, straight channels traversing the entire northern hemisphere of Mars. In his writings, he's also claiming water flowing through them and that only an advanced civilization could have done that.
 * OK, how about Schiaparelli's map?


 * Well, that's not so clear. He is quoted as saying "Rather than true channels in a form familiar to us, we must imagine depressions in the soil that are not very deep, extended in a straight direction for thousands of miles, over a width of 100, 200 kilometers and maybe more. I have already pointed out that, in the absence of rain on Mars, these channels are probably the main mechanism by which the water (and with it organic life) can spread on the dry surface of the planet." - well...the channels that we actually see are far from straight - they are sinuous - and for that reason, they look like they once carried water.  Schiaparelli thinks they are straight - which (if it were true) would certainly not point towards natural water channels.  So I'd say he was closer than Lowell - but it's very clear that in neither case did their observations or their conclusions amount to anything but a distraction (plus a good source of pulp sci-fi authors' inspiration!).
 * We should also mention Charles E. Burton who also made maps of mars with long, straight features. (See ).
 * What we actually have found (maybe) is the smallest, probably periodic, miniscule flow over some relatively short distance that is most definitely not straight.
 * All three made poor observations and from that produced conclusions that even with what we learned today are entirely incorrect because they are claiming straight channels running for thousands of miles. SteveBaker (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "All three made poor observations." No, Steve, all three made observations that were at the cutting edge of astronomy at the time, and they don't deserve disrespect for it.
 * Many other observers thought that they saw what Schiaparelli et al mapped. Doubtless this was in part unconscious suggestibility, but experiments by Patrick Moore and others using simulated targets have established that at the limits of the eyes' discrimination, the brain links up random unconnected markings to produce an illusion of continuity, and different observers produce similar "linear features" using the same target.
 * Some of the modern incomprehension of these early observer's "errors" stems from a lack of familiarity with actual optical observation as opposed to photographs. Photos average out the variable "seeing" typically over seconds or minutes (depending on the exposure details): however a live observer is able to see momentary improvements in clarity lasting a second or less, and may be able to use these glimpses to draw better detail than can be photographed at that time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that their observations were at the cutting edge of astronomy at the time - they did the very best they could, given the degree of understanding and technology of the time. But they are still very poor observations by modern standards. SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The appearance of the canals is an issue that got to me some time ago:
 * Schiaparelli 1889 versus Mars crop.jpg
 * Note that Schiaparelli is generally credited with the origin of the naming of many Martian features. Of course neither he nor any of the other early astronomers were making a be-all and end-all map; all were approximating what they saw as best they could manage, though some hallucinated a bit more detail than others.
 * Admittedly, on thinking about it, it's hard for me to come up with a way that the tiny amount of flowing water present affects the overall appearance of Mars; but I still wonder how extensively it flows - whether the brine in one region can move to or affect another in any way. I suppose though by comparison by Earthly aquifers that the speed of flow should not be great; not enough for a yearly cycle, but I don't really know. Wnt (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even a tiny amount of water can have measurable effects given the timescales involved. It's not the amount flowing in an instant, its the cumulative effect of all of those instants.  Billions of years is a REALLY long time.  -- Jayron 32 13:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New species?
I'm not sure but, I think I may have found a new species. I would like to know where I would find a scientist to confirm it.Megaraptor12345 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would contact the Zoology or Botany department of your nearest university. -- Jayron 32 18:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Take pictures. If you aren't sure you can find it again, preserve a specimen (or several if you can). And yes, contact the nearest expert in the relevant field (usually in a university). If the expert is nice, they might name it after you. This article might help give you an idea of what generally goes into finding, identifying, and naming new species.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It really depends on what the thing is. I don't think even most most large state universities in the USA have a local bryophyte taxonomist. The situation gets worse for smaller institutions and other places around the world, and also for less popular clades. There has been a lot of concern that taxonomists are a bit of a dying breed, e.g.. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There may not be someone there who can help them directly, but there's a better chance of there being someone there who knows someone who can help them than there is here at Wikipedia. Contacting the closest university with a botany/mycology/zoology/etc. department will put them on the path to solving their problem.  Faster, certainly, than posting questions to obscure webpages on the hopes that such an expert should randomly show up.  -- Jayron 32 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't sell us short. I could recommend an expert in e.g. bee or louse taxonomy and even facilitate communication far faster than OP could contact any university and get a response. I don't know if you've ever called the receptionist at a zoology dept. but I'm pretty sure dealing with this kind of a request is very low on their priority list. If the thing happens to be even vaguely related to agriculture (e.g. as a weed or pest) then an extension service would probably be a better bet, as dealing with the public is at least officially part of their mission. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it's a spider. And yeah. Claims of new species can become bothersome for taxonomists since in most cases it's simply an already described species that the discoverer is unfamiliar with. I remember the Boston accent guy and his "sea monstah". XD That said. Maybe he could first try and get it identified online, and only try and contact and expert when no one else can identify it. There are plenty of such sites online. North America for example, has the BugGuide which have pretty accurate ID requests. He needs pictures though (and don't worry, no one can "steal" the discovery from you by pictures, they still need the type specimens to publish it validly).-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what type of thing is it? Someone who can help describe a new fungus species generally won't be very helpful in describing a new ant species, and you'd need another type of expert yet for a moss species. If you can at least narrow down the clade a bit, we might be able to help you find an expert that could help, who may read unsolicited scientific queries from strangers. You can do as Jayron suggests, but if you do happen to have a new species of something, it is unlikely that the local Uni will have an expert with sufficient skill and experience to conclusively determine that it is novel.
 * For the general issue of how "new species" are "discovered", see Species_description. Typically, description of a new species is accomplished by publishing the information in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You need a Type_(biology) deposited in some museum or collection, often a holotype, maybe other types as well. If it's an animal, you need to follow the International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature, it it's not an animal, you need to follow International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_algae,_fungi,_and_plants. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably irrelevant, but I noticed that Megaraptor12345 has done considerable editing on spider articles, which might suggest the topic of interest. Dragons flight (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's got nine legs, he will have defiantly discovered a new species but to show it to an arachnologist, will just allow the arachnologist to claim the discovery as his own, as he will be be first to formally describe it.--Aspro (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is almost certainly what will happen, and they won't be shy about it either. The person who found the specimen will be acknowledged in the paper and possibly called the discoverer in media sources if it makes the news, but confirming that a find is a new species is actually a tremendous amount of work. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The point I was making is that there is no reason to stop Megaraptor himself, from doing the leg-work and research needed to discount any previous discovery. Then perhaps, he could  offer up a name (such as novem crus aranea megaraptori -which would be most fitting).--Aspro (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You do actually need pretty in-depth knowledge of arachnology to describe a new spider species. Morphological analysis to establish diagnostic characteristics for example, requires that you actually know what you are describing and what to describe. That can range from as simple as the number of eyes to as difficult as the shape and size of the palpal bulb. Genetic analysis is also common in describing new species nowadays. Not to mention having to discuss possible relationships with existing groups. The name itself is subject to ICZN rules which can be dizzyingly complicated. The name you came up with is already invalid. :P And to get published (at least in a respectable journal), you'd need to pass peer review from other experts in the same field, etc., etc. For an idea of how complicated it is, here's the full "How-To" recommended by ICZN for describing new species, a ~500 page book: Describing New Species (Judith E. Winston, 1999). And that one is just more or less the "general" guide. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world a systematist would help  if  one  can find one willing to spend the time,  and  your (brilliant) ref explains - there are very few of them. It then goes onto  say:

''“In summary, most biologists who find a new species, whether living or fossil, must describe it themselves. This book aims to explain the procedure by which scientists who find a new species in the course of their research can perform the necessary background studies and write a publishable description of that species. ''

''I anticipate grumbling from a few of my colleagues who seem to feel that systematics should remain an esoteric pursuit. They are convinced that if "amateurs" acquire the information they need to publish taxonomic papers, the result will be a horrendous proliferation of poorly delimited species and a great increase in confusion in the literature.” ''


 * Charles Darwiwin was not qualified either for what he is remembered for. A complete amateur. That leads me to wonder... If one was to stuff and place a WP Editor in museum glass case, what would be a good description? Homo itchy digiti perhaps? :¬ ) --Aspro (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Very few specialists indeed. Usually just a handful of scientists worldwide focus on any particular taxonomic group sufficiently as to be considered a specialist. You notice that quickly when editing articles on organisms here. The same names pop out again and again when it comes to certain groups. In my country for instance, when it comes to spiders, pretty much the only arachnologists of note here are the Barrion family of the University of the Philippines. Dr. Adelina Barrion recently passed away, but her husband and daughter are still active in spider taxonomy. And specialists do already help out the more "generalist" biologists from time to time. From co-authoring to mentoring them. I don't know if they're willing to help out a complete layperson though. That's what university degrees are for. :P But most of them are actually kind enough to actually name new species after the wishes of the discoverer. And I dunno. Homo sapiens citationneededus perhaps. :3 They'll eventually escape anyway to refresh their Watchlist one more time. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You might look at Haemopis ottorum, a new species of giant leech found on the Ott family farm in South Jersey. It was described by a biologist from Rutgers, Camden, and displayed att their museum for some time.  The species name means "of the Otts". μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be as easy for someone to "steal" the discovery as is being made out. For example, if the OP submits a type specimen somewhere, and says where and how he got it, then that's his description - someone else reporting the same thing would be hearsay.  Some kind of material transfer agreement demanding publication credit from the expert can probably be copied off the Internet, but even if made up on the spot by an amateur it would still be unlikely anyone would want to try to renege on it.  And there's really little reason for an expert to deny an interested and helpful amateur a spot in the limelight, when it's such a nice PR gesture for any department to be working with the community.
 * That said, I'll eat my hat if it's a new species... the biggest barrier here will probably just be skepticism that someone not formally trained really has anything of interest. And yet, it does happen. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not mention this but the possible new species is a Collembolan(Springtail). I think it might be a new Tomocerus species, actually. Also I forgot to mention it might be new only to Ireland, where I found the type specimen. :D Megaraptor12345 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice. Usually, the tinier the organism, the stronger the chance that it's undescribed. You could start by looking for the most prolific authors that have published on springtails. Taxonomic monographs, or has described a new species, or things like that (recent of course). This site, has a large list of literature on Collembola. Then find an address, and send them the details. The largest recent work I can find is the Biology of Springtails (1997). Unfortunately the author, Stephen P. Hopkin in the UK, apparently died in 2006 in a car accident. :[ -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How many cavities does the brain have?
37.73.205.29 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * One, subdivided into four parts. Fgf10 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless they have spongiform encephalitis, in which case they have many more. StuRat (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. 37.73.205.29 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What happens to atmospheric particles lost to space?
When particles from Earth's atmosphere are lost to space, where do they go? Are many still in the close vicinity of Earth? Are many significantly affected by the solar wind or the gravity of other solar system bodies?--88.81.124.1 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Earth leaves a dirty ring. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/12nov_dusttail/ Hcobb (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Very, very small particles, such as gas molecules, will eventually be ejected from the solar system due to the solar wind if they don't get stuck to something else first. Interestingly, there is also a class of dust (larger than gas but smaller than a pea) that is slowly moved towards the sun due to Poynting drag.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Twins can have different fathers?
37.73.205.29 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's called heteropaternal superfecundation. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fraternal twins, yes. Identical twins, no. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What if the two fathers are identical twins? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question isn't in small type, so I assume it's sincere. Having only a random half of the mother's chromosomes, each of the two eggs would have different genetic material. Even in the highly unlikely event they had the exact same chromosome profile, they eggs would still not be identical due to chromosomal crossover, which would also affect the fathers' "contribution" as well.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see meiosis. It basically gauarantees some genetic difference between the gametes produced by a single individual, let alone the gametes produced by two individuals (even if they share identical genetic code). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, identical twins do not have identical genomes. Close, but no cigar. - Nunh-huh 12:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering as our article says, that fraternal twin with the same father (and mother) are basically a full-sibling, except that they share an environment in the womb and are nearly the exact same age. Fraternal twins with different fathers (but with the same mother) would likewise be the equivalent to half-siblings. (Look at the Twin section of our article.) The exception would be the case where the fathers are identical twins themselves, in which case there genetic complement is close enough to being the same that they're likely to be considered to have the genetic complement of full siblings. (Our article doesn't say this about fraternal twins, but it does talk about the case of identical twins with either the same partner, or with identical twin partners.) So fraternal twins arising from heteropaternal superfecundation with identical fathers would basically be the genetic equivalent of most fraternal twins. Identical twins are monozygotic, they result from a single fertilisation event. You can get some cases with monozygotic twins where they may not be considered identical, but your chance of getting something close to identical twins with dizygotic twins is basically zero even with the same father. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar appearance and mannerisms too
I often see people who have an apparent genetic similarity to someone else. Sometimes they have similar mannerisms too. How can that be? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, let's just start by looking at eye color. There are some 7 billion people on Earth.  Are there 7 billion eye colors ?  No.  Your chances of having the same eye color as somebody else are actually pretty good.  Now repeat this for all other traits and mannerisms, and, out of 7 billion, you will see a lot of similar looking people. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the same thing to but I wonder if I am just noticing the mannerisms I expect to see. --Aspro (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be confirmation bias. StuRat (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There has been evidence since the work of Luca Cavalli-Sforza that the largest component of genetic difference is at the single-language nation state level. It would seem that Frenchmen, therefore, might be linguistically and culturally more similar to each other by definition, with genetics apparently following suit.  I am not sure why it would not be expected that genetically related individuals might not share cultural traits as a matter of simple correlation. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mirroring. Sleigh (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we are getting on to dangerous ground here. It very tempting to think that mannerisms are the result of nature rather than nurture. An apple doesn’t fall far from the tree is true but mannerisms appear to me as a subconscious learnt thing. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has brought up adopted children. They can sometimes show remarkable similarity to their biological parents (who they may have never met) but as StuRat pointed out. This may simply be down to confirmation bias. I notice this in myself, because I used to work in R&D and it was something to be always alert for – and yet faux connections still form in my brain.--Aspro (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have trouble believing this is confirmation bias. It is often so stark and striking. I also see these similarities in two individuals who are clearly from opposite ends of the globe. It is pretty spooky. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that it should all be considered as conformation bias. There is -I agree- an overlap between Nature & Nurture. I also find physiognomy a bit spooky too. I am saying that until a few PhD's publish a few papers on this, I remain wary. Re: Eugenics and similar twaddle.--Aspro (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is similar to the birthday problem.—Wavelength (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The birthday problem is interesting and may be it. The same goes for confirmation bias. It is just so.....freaky. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)