Category: museums

Categories
Florida museums science news

First American Ice Age mammoth carving discovered in Florida

A recent fossil find in Florida seems to show the first- and actually only- Ice Age carving from the Americas depicting a mammoth (or a mastodon, a related type of Ice Age elephant). While many Ice Age carvings of mammoths and mastodons have been found in Europe and Africa, until this carving was found, no one had ever found one in the Americas.

The carving, on a bone that’s probably actually from a mammoth or mastodon, was discovered by a professional fossil collector at a site near Vero Beach, Florida. While this site is well-known as containing fossils of many Ice Age animals, no one had ever found anything like this before. Mammoths and mastodons went extinct in the Americas by about 13,000 years ago. So, assuming the artist actually encountered one of these animals (and given the type of bone the carving is on, that seems like a good assumption), this carving has to be at least that old.

Mammoth or mastodon carving from Vero Beach. (Image: Smithsonian Institution)

This discovery was actually made in 2009, but the question then was: Is it genuine? As this would be the first find of its type, the paleontologists at the University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, and Smithsonian Institution who were evaluating it would need to provide substantial evidence to prove this.

In an upcoming paper in the Journal of Archaeological Science, the researchers lay out the results of several tests, and come to the conclusion that the carving probably is genuine. If so, this is quite an important find.

Close-up of the carving. (Image: Smithsonian Institution)

If you get beyond the shallow and superficial image of Florida as a theme-park playground, this state actually has some depth- including quite a few important fossil and archaeological sites.

Fore more information on this discovery, go here. Here’s the reference to the upcoming paper, which is available online if you have institutional access (otherwise, it will cost you $30): Purdy, B.A., Jones, K.S., Mecholsky, J.J., Bourne, G., Hulbert, R.C., MacFadden, B.J., Church, K.L., Warren, M.W., Jorstad, T.F., Stanford, D.J., Wachowiak, M.J., Speakman, R.J. Earliest Art in the Americas: Incised Image of a Proboscidean on a Mineralized Extinct Animal Bone from Vero Beach, Florida, Journal of Archaeological Science (2011), doi: 10.1016/ j.jas.2011.05.022

Categories
geekery museums outdoors travel

On geeky travel

I’ve just realized that we have a travel style that can probably be described as eclectic. Or maybe simply geeky in a sciencey way, with a twist of highbrow culture and finding good vegetarian food.

We’ve visited the La Brea Tar Pits (fossils), Vasquez Rocks (no Gorns, but lots of White-Headed Sparrows), Westminster Abbey (dead scientists, and a few kings & queens too), and the ancient tombs at Gamla Uppsala (dead Vikings).

Vasquez Rocks.

We’ve hunted for mud volcanoes near the Salton Sea (and failed), endangered Palilas on Mauna Kea (and succeeded), and the tomb of Anders Celsius in Uppsala (actually, we came across this one quite unexpectedly).

One of the Salton Buttes, a lava dome generally near the mud volcanoes. (Y. Fernandez)

We’ve visited three meridians: in Greenwich, Stockholm, and at the Basilica de Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri in Rome.

Meridian (and gnomon) in the Basilica de Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri. (Y. Fernandez)

This summer, we’ll be doing a random tour of the Western Great Lakes region, with possible stops at Effigy Mounds National Monument, the Bell Museum of Natural History, Taliesin, Science Museum of MN, Field Museum, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and Royal Ontario Museum. We’ve sadly concluded that visits to the World’s Largest Ball of Twine and Spam Museum are probably too out of the way, as is the nesting area of the Kirtland’s Warbler. Still undecided on The House on the Rock.

We’re especially looking forward to the ROM, because it’s the place we ordered the “Primeval Predators” toys that became our wedding cake toppers.

Wiwaxia corrugata and Laggania cambria on vegan green tea and adzuki bean cake. (B. Martin)

Any suggestions for other interesting/geeky sights to see in the general areas of southeast MN, south WI, north IL, and Toronto?

Categories
metaphor museums science studies

Would Darwin be able to get a job as a biologist today?

As part of my dissertation, I’ve been looking at several metaphors that Charles Darwin used to describe evolution and natural selection in The Origin of Species. It’s been interesting to see which have survived to the present day and which haven’t: Darwin was a great popularizer of his own ideas, but some of his images have stayed in the public eye more prominently than others. The ‘big one’ is probably the metaphor of the “Tree of Life” as a metaphor for evolution in its entirety, but there are several others that he used to illustrate different aspects of his theory. But I’m planning on writing more about this later…

Today, I wanted to point to this discussion, held at the Grant Museum of Zoology of the University College London, on the question of whether Darwin would have been able to get a job as a biologist today. On the surface, it’s a ridiculous question: Darwin’s body of work was the impetus for one of the most profound transformations of the field of biology that has ever occurred. His work has had an incredible impact on the way we view ourselves as a species in relation to the rest of life (and also has been misappropriated in an attempt to justify some strikingly heinous social policies). But if you dig a bit deeper into the kind of scientist he was, and the way that science as a discipline has changed, this actually is an interesting question.

Darwin in his early 30's. No, he didn't always have that famous beard. (Wikipedia)

In a nutshell, Darwin was a ‘gentleman scientist,’ naturalist, and experimentalist, who spent a lot of time observing many different aspects of the natural world. While he’s famous for observing some birds on a long ocean voyage, he also wrote about volcanoes, fossils, coral reefs, plants, chicken breeding, and compost. Today, molecular biology and lab work are where much of the biology action is, and basic natural history research is seriously underfunded in many places. There’s also a much higher degree of specialization among scientists today. So, would Darwin have been able to compete in today’s environment? Take a look at what the museum’s panelists had to say.

My guess is that he would be able to make it in biology today- he seems to have been a pretty adaptable individual, social networker, and fundraiser. But would miss the hands-on excitement of collecting new species of insects, examining rocks, and poking around on tropical islands? I’ll bet he would.

Categories
bunny evolution museums

Missing link discovered between rabbits and humans!

Well, not exactly. One of my pet peeves about the creationist movement is their obsession with “missing links” in the fossil record, which are NOT just a symptom of the fact that fossilization is rare, but in fact evidence that scientists are lying and just trying to make fools out of us because everyone knows they’ve discovered dinosaur tracks in Texas right next to human tracks and anyway that was only 3,000 years ago of course…

Anyway.

Here is a news release about researchers at the Florida Museum of Natural History, who have been analyzing an extinct species of North American lemur thought to share a common ancestor with rabbits and primates, Labidolemur kayi. The skeleton is from Wyoming, not Florida, and it’s about 55 million years old. Pretty cool.

The red jerky-like substance in the photo below is resin holding the skeleton together.

Categories
exam readings museums science communication science studies

Exam reading: Science museums, the Internet, and uncertainty

More from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, a look at science museums by Bernard Schiele:

Summary: Discusses the historical development of rationales and forms of science museums, as well as consistent purpose (preservation & education) and philosophy (reality is independent of our representations, reality is independent of language, truth is the precise representation of reality, and knowledge is objective.) 16th cen.: beginnings of collections; focus on the correspondence between man and nature; “cabinets of curiosity” & geographic collections. 18th–19th cen.: natural sci. museums with focus on classification (began to organize by non-geographic themes); museums as research centers (tied to growth in collections & development of sciences in 19th cen.); dioramas as spectacle. 19th-20th cen.: science & technology museums; experiment displays (physics & chemistry); achievements of industrial revolution, educational/democratic spirit; showcase “pure” science (sci. thinking & discovery.) 20th cen.: science centers; shift in focus to community (raise interest in sci. literacy & mediate between sci. institutions and the public), interactivity (active learning), and evaluation (of exhibits by pedagogic models); visitor at center of design (use all possible media); new emphasis on risk & uncertainty with progress; focus on science spinoffs, not “pure” science. Ends by discussing the emphasis of the public as museum actors, rather than the museum as a science showcase: broad changes in participation (talks, exhibits, animation) and community relationships (public questions decisions (Enola Gay), reflects broader social questioning of institutions).

Comments: Though Schiele emphasizes continued focus on modernist standards for interpretation & objective knowledge, I have heard of cases where museums offer a more social constructionist/all interpretations are subjective slant to exhibits. Also, recent cases where political/funding decisions may have (at least in the eyes of the public) influenced interpretive materials (Smithsonian (?) Arctic exhibit; Koch-funded Hall of Human Origins).

Links to: Holton (science/anti-science)

Next, how the Internet is changing science communication, by Brian Trench:

Summary: The Internet makes professional and public communication more “porous” and facilitates public access to scientific information; many professional activities are also mediated by the Internet, which facilitates both cooperation and fragmentation/specialization. Public impacts include diffusion of information beyond scientific communities (via news, PR, discussion groups) and new access to previously “hidden” professional processes (professional organization communications, pre-publications, professionals’ discussions, etc.) One major development is the journal open access movement (“revolt” against journal costs, desire to have publicly-funded research results freely available); there are questions about maintaining peer review quality and possible public misinterpretation of non-vetted results. Another development is research institutions hiring science writers, which can lead to journalists being left out of sci. comm. efforts. A third development is communications by individual scientists: blogs, podcasts, etc.- there are various motivations for these efforts, including social commentary, “coffee room chatter.” A primary problem for the public is differentiating between sources of information. For professionals, the questions are how much public scrutiny to invite and how much vetting of new information to do (e.g., developing standards that help people make decisions about source credibility.) Finally, the public is interested in areas of high uncertainty, and explaining that this is a normal part of science is a challenge.

Comments: Trench writes that few institutions with an online presence take advantage of the interactive possibilities of the Internet; this situation seems to be changing to some extent (though numbers are still probably small.)

And last, Alan Irwin tackles the problem of communicating about risk and uncertainty:

Summary: Begins by discussing three (coexisting, not stepped) models of thinking about science: “1st-order” (deficit model), “2nd-order” (engagement/dialogue), and “3rd-order” (the relationship between the first two.) With respect to risk communication, the current trend from deficit communications to dialogue represents a critique of past practices (e.g., the BSE/mad cow example in Great Britain.) The BSE example points to a need for openness to foster trust, recognition of uncertainty, and trust in the public’s ability to respond rationally to scientific problems. The three orders are related to general cultural philosophies. 1st-order focus is on the government’s role in minimizing uncertainty and bringing rationality to society (culture of modernity). 2nd-order thinking involves the need to revitalize institutions in light of risk-related challenges, the need for transparency and mutual trust, and the idea that some interest groups have valuable things to add to discussion. 3rd-order thinking is about considering effects of societal science and technology-related decisions; basically, putting issues into a wider social context and critically evaluating current approaches to communication.

Comments: Irwin points out that scientific progress and transparency aren’t mutually exclusive; this relationship is one of the things that 3rd-order thinking should address. Public engagement shouldn’t be an end unto itself, but should be part of that broader discussion of social implications.

Categories
museums random travel

Road Trip: Trilobites, Tiktaalik, and Trek

Our drive from Ithaca back to Orlando took a bit more than 20 hours. Driving north, we’d broken it up into two overnights (Charlotte, NC, and Scranton, PA), with a stop in Harper’s Ferry, WV. We decided to take it a bit slower on the way back, stopping just outside Philadelphia (taking the train into town to do some sightseeing), near Reston, VA, and finally just south of Charlotte in South Carolina. That worked out better psychologically, because we drove less and did more fun stuff along the way.

In Philadelphia, we visited the Academy of Natural Sciences, a mecca for diatom studies 🙂 While not the largest natural history museum I’ve visited, it did have some interesting and well-crafted displays. There was clearly a large emphasis on interactivity in the newer displays, though they also have some more traditional dioramas with stuffed megafauna. It was interesting to see three eras in museum philosophy represented in the same building. At the entrance, there was a sort of “curio cabinet” display of a mix of pressed plants, stuffed animals, and fossils presented without context in a series of cubbyholes, typical of early museum displays. Next, more modern dioramas situate stuffed animals in the context of the plants and scenery of the ecosystems in which they are (or were) found. Finally, there were the more (postmodern?) interactive and hands-on exhibits, like a glass globe which could show CO2 emissions, temperature, sea levels, continental drift, etc. over time, depending on what the user selected. I’ve always seen the more interactive exhibits as more part of science museums than natural history museums (the latter usually being attached to active research institutions so less a “learn about electricity” sort of emphasis than a “learn about the ecology of our river”).

(The trilobite and Tiktaalik from the title of this post came from the Academy. Several trilobite fossils were on display, as well as a cast and recreation of Tiktaalik. We also bought a fossil trilobite and Tiktaalik poster at the gift shop. Trilobites are an extinct group of arthropods who lived probably from 550 to 250 million years ago- a very long time span! They looked somewhat like big isopods (do not click on this link if you are afraid of giant bug-like critters), though weren’t closely related. Tiktaalik is an extinct fish from the Devonian period (~375 mya), with many features of early amphibians. It is one of a series of supposedly “missing links” between fish and amphibians that creationists like to pretend don’t exist.)

In Philadelphia, we also went to the Museum of Art. This is a huge museum, and we didn’t really have enough time to see everything because we wanted to get back on the road. The highlights I thought were interesting were several reconstructions of buildings in different rooms: a Japanese Buddhist temple and teahouse, a Chinese manor house entry and Buddhist temple, an Italian cloister courtyard, part of an Indian Hindu temple, and a European chapel. Very different experience being able to walk into a room and be surrounded by the works, rather than just viewing them on the walls. There were also a lot of paintings, many famous (Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, a bunch of Monets, that sort of thing…)

The next day, we stopped at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Dulles, VA, part of the National Air and Space Museum. This is essentially a series of giant Quonset huts full of aerospace artifacts: planes, helicopters, replica satellites, missiles, and… the Enterprise! The space shuttle, not the starship, but still, it was pretty cool (and the Trek of the post title- hey, I did need another “T” word…). After having been to Kennedy Space Center, I was probably less impressed with the various space-related artifacts than I would otherwise have been, but KSC doesn’t have a shuttle in their museum. More sobering were the various missiles on display, as well as the Enola Gay (which is probably the single artifact responsible for the greatest number of human deaths that’s on display pretty much anywhere in the world).

Overall, it was nice to be able to catch a few museums along the way. Philadelphia would be interesting to visit for a longer period- we didn’t get to see any of the really historic areas. We also stopped in Savannah (GA) for lunch on our last day driving, and walked a bit in the historic district- it would be cool to spend a weekend there some time. Though maybe not in the summer…