Sunfish with Slider Turtles

Lepomis, either L. punctatus or L. marginatus, I think, in my 120-gallon home aquarium. October 17, 2015.

Over the years I've tried to find fish compatible with Trachemys scripta (sliders). Early attempts included Ancistrus dolichopterus (bushy-nose pleco) and Chromobotia macracanthus (clown loach). Unfortunately, the loach was harassed relentlessly by the turtles and under a lot of stress. I was afraid it might be devoured and decided to pull both fish from the tank, although the pleco was never bothered. The loach probably appeared to similar to the goldfish which I regularly fed to my turtles. Had it been larger and more mature, things may have been different.
Interestingly, two of my feeder goldfish did survive the first couple days with the turtles and went on to live happily in the tank for several months. Eventually, they grew large and got messy so I put them in a backward pond where they were promptly devoured by the local racoons.
I also tried Tanichthys albonubes (white cloud mountain minnows). These worked very well. I had a pile of rocks in the tank were the fish could retreat to and breed. The old and sick were picked off by the turtles (usually my Graptemys pseudogeographica) but the fish bred quite often, replenishing the population. I only rarely had to buy new fish. They were pretty little fish with white and red spots and stripes. However, I eventually stopped buying new fish and hand fed the last survivors to the turtles.

Trachemys scripta elegans, in my 120-gallon home aquarium. October 17, 2015.

I've always had an obsession for things that were "natural." It always secretly bothered me that the minnows were not native to the same rivers as the turtles. The fish were from China, the turtles from the United States. Once I moved to Florida, I decided to try some native fish with the turtles. I introduced two, then one more, Lepomis (sunfish) to the tank. They were all between 2-4cm in length. The turtles were outside enjoying the sunshine when I introduced the fish, so they could become comfortable before I returned the turtles. Hopefully, the turtles wouldn't see the new addition to the tank as food if it was already there when they arrived.
It worked like a charm. The turtles were a little curious at first and took a couple nips at the fish, but the fish were too fast and the turtles lost interest. They lived with the turtles for several weeks and I fed them bloodworms once a day, with the turtles regular feeding of krill.
Unfortunately, I had vacation plans in Canada over Christmas break and I left my little indoor community with a sitter. I also added a school of Gambusia holbrooki (mosquitofish) and another sunfish about a week before I left, but they seemed to settle in tolerably, with the exception of the disappearance of one of the mosquitofish. When I returned, all but one of the sunfish had disappeared. Just a couple days later, it too was gone.
I'm not sure exactly what went wrong. It might have been the hanging planter I installed as an egg-laying box for my female slider. Or it might have been an increase in bacteria or ammonia and nitrates. I wasn't here, so I don't know how the fish died. I'm thinking I'll try the whole thing again at some point, but maybe I'll just wait until the summer, when I'll, presumably, be at home more often.

Asking for Suggestions on New Pets

As renovations continue to change the way I use my blogs, this one has become the place to discuss my pets. At present, I have two leopard geckos, one giant American millipede, two sliders, and a Mississippi map turtle. I have two empty terrariums at present, just waiting to be used. I'm leaning toward a gopher snake and a White's tree frog. What do you guys think?

Ape-men: Includes Bonus Powerpoint (WOW!)

Introduction:

Recent documentaries have made it is possible to watch the evolution of mankind, from primitive chimp-like apes to advanced tool-making hominids. The reenactments are realistic, the narrative seemingly factual, and the many interviews of professionals indicate that everyone agrees; humans share a common ancestor with apes. However, the Bible describes the creation of mankind separate from all other creatures. The two views on human origins are so starkly different, there seems to be little room for compromise. Either the majority of scientists are wrong, or God is wrong.

Evidence:

            Attempts to make ape-men out of human remains runs farther back than the infamous Eoanthropus hoax of 1912. Our own genus, Homo, has included some grotesque imaginations of our ancient past. As far back as 1864, Homo neanderthalensis was believed to be the first missing link. As more remains of Neanderthal came to light, however, it was discovered that many of the features that seemed to make Neanderthal look so ape-like were actually result of diseases like rickets and arthritis. Burial sites attributed to H. neanderthalensis also revealed a rich culture of ingenious tool use and construction. Today, Neanderthal is often considered synonymous with our own species, H. sapiens.

Fortunately for evolutionary anthropologists, many more human remains have been demoted to take its place. H. erectus in 1892, H. heidelbergensis in 1908, H. rhodesiensis  in 1921, H. ergaster in 1975, H. antecessor in 1997, H. cepranensis in 2003, and even H. floresiensis, the “hobbit” of Indonesia, in 2004. However, the remains of most of these individuals require a great deal of reconstruction before they can be visualized. As was the case for H. neanderthalensis, a heavy brow ridge hardly qualifies one as an ape-man.

In the 1920s, scientists started to look to non-human remains for the “missing link.” In 1922, Hesperopithecus was described from a single tooth from Nebraska. About a half-decade later, it was found to belong to Prosthennops serus, a kind of peccary. Then, in an overindulgence of discoveries from 1925 to 2002, African ape fossils became the ape-man mainstay. Despite the inclusive variation of modern, tree-dwelling apes, many features of these australopithecines, such as the carrying angle of the legs, were heralded as intermediate between man and ape. The amount of genera credited with ape-man status was astounding. It began with Australopithecus in 1925, then Paranthropus in 1938, Praeanthropus in 1950, Ardipithecus in 1995, Orrorin and Kenyanthropus in 2001, and Sahelanthropus in 2002. However, most anthropologists now agree; these were apes, not ape-men.

Conclusion:

The earliest fossils of mankind are, unfortunately, scant and often debatably indeterminate. Probably the most frequently cited evidence for human evolution is the imagination of the artist. The fossils themselves are not so self-explanatory. Fragmentary human, ape, or peccary fossils are poor excuses to deny the Bible scientific literacy. The claims of mankind, rooted in bits and pieces of ancient bone, hardly stands up to the eternal word of God, as the prophet Isaiah described it. It seems humans were indeed created “in the image of God,” as described in the Creator’s personal account of the origin of mankind.

Reference:

Menton, D. 2008. “Did humans really evolve from apelike creatures?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book 2. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 35-45.

Lubenow, M. 2004. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Neocreationism

I would like to clarify a few things regarding exactly what creationists believe today.

Back in the day, many creationists accurately recognized Darwin’s theory as an attack on the Bible’s authenticity. However, many failed to recognize the reality of change among species. Because of their reactionary nature, many well-meaning creationists held to a view called “the fixity of species.” It was the idea that a given species, as a reproductively isolated organism, remained that same species since creation. Times have changed, however. It is evident that species (by a modern definition) do change. We aren’t really “creationists” anymore. We are "new" creationists.
Now, the original version of this post said we were "neocreationsts" which essential means "new creationists" but I have learned that this term often refers to creationists that do not hold to the Bible as their foundational starting point. Therefore, I don't really qualify as a "neocreationist," because I certainly start with the Bible. I don't know how "neocreationists" get on without it. Anyways, I digress.

In effect, Darwin was right—about some things. He was right about the adaptability of animals (natural selection) and he was right about diversification to a certain extent. There are only two fundamental parts of Darwin’s theory that I, as a modern creationist ("new" creationist), do not believe. First, not all organisms descended from a single common ancestor. There were many initial ancestors when life began. Second, it didn’t take millions of years for the various species to evolve, just thousands. To me, it doesn’t seem like this is really the dramatic denial of science that creationist critics claim it is. After all, when the opportunity presents itself, new species adapt far more quickly than might be expected (Catchpoole et Wieland, 2001). Time is not a problem for the modern creationist.

Creationists might not agree with the idea of Archaeopteryx as a missing link between Velociraptor and birds, but could it be the most bird-like member of a diverse group of dinosaurs that includes Velociraptor? Possibly.

Reference:

Catchpoole, David et Carl Wieland. 2001. “Speedy Species Surprise.” Creation, 23(2), 13-15. http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

Binomial Nomenclature

Binomial nomenclature is the method for naming living things in a scientific context. For example, a small bird with a red breast is commonly called “a robin.” However, the “robin” in Europe is a completely different bird from the “robin” in North America. So scientists use scientific names to distinguish between the two and to indicate the real relatives of those birds. The European robin is Erithacus rubecula whereas the American robin is Turdus migratorius. The genus of the European robin is Erithacus, placing it in the same family as the Old World flycatchers. The second word in a binomial nomenclature, in this case rubecula, is the specific epithet, indicating what species it is. The American robin has the genus Turdus, as a member of the thrush family.

Some people like to call these little amphibians with the sticky toes tree frogs, while others, particularly in Europe, call them tree toads. In actuality, it doesn't matter what common name you like to use (I prefer "treefrog")--this is Hyla versicolor. All true treefrogs are in the genus Hyla.

True toads (not "tree toads") belong to the genus Bufo. This one is an American toad, Bufo americanus.

In case you were wondering, all those "typical" looking frogs, with the webbing between their toes that live around the edges of ponds and lakes most often belong to the genus Rana. This one is a wood frog, Rana sylvatica. So, rather than messing around with vague words like "frog" and "toad" and then trying to figure out which ones are the "true frogs," scientists can simply say Rana, Bufo, or Hyla, and everyone knows what their talking about.

All living things are given a specific epithet in order to distinguish them from other species. The exact characteristics that qualify a species is debated but, usually, a given species must be able to bread regularly with other members of its species in a natural setting. So although the fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) has the same genus as an American robin, it does not breed with T. migratorius in the wild and is thus a different species.

The same can be said of dinosaurs. Many people are not aware that when they call a dinosaur Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Velociraptor, or Triceratops they are referring to the genus of that dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus rex, short formed as T. rex, defines the species. Of course determining the species of an extinct animal is not directly observable so general differences in the skeleton are studied to determine whether or not the animals should be considered a distinct species.

Phylogenetic Diversity of Certain Dendropsophus Hylids Through Phylogenetic and Chromosomal Analysis

This is not Dendropsophus. I don't have any photographs
of that frog. Rather, this is Rana aurora, the red-legged
frog. This picture was taken May 31st, 2009 near Campbell
River on Vancouver Island, BC.

There has been an increase in genetic interest in recent years. While the medical application of genetic knowledge has proved invaluable, there are other reasons scientists study genetics. One of these is for the purpose of understanding how closely related species are and the practical application to evolutionary biology. Many researchers view phylogenetic and chromosomal analysis a definitive authority illustrating trends through the evolutionary tree. However, some evidence suggests that these trends are not consistant.

In a 2013 paper entitled “Comparative Cytogenetic Analysis of Some Species of the Dendropsophus microcephalus group (Anura, Hylidae) in Light of Phylogenetic Inferences,” Medeiros and her associates argued for a reconsideration of the taxonomy of Dendropsophus species, particularly D. nanus and D. walfordi. These two species had an identical karyotype, with the same fundamental number (visible number of arms per chromosome set) of 52, exactly 30 diploid chromosomes, four pairs of telocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with the centromere at the terminal end), and a nucleolar organizer (were the nucleus begins to form) on the metacentric chromosome pair 13 (1). This lack of dissimilarity may indicate that D. nanus and D. walfordi are more closely related than previously thought, possibly even belonging to the same species.

            In the past, Dendropsophus was thought to be a distinct genus from Hyla on the grounds that it had 30 chromosomes. Following, the many species were divided into nine species groups. Later, many authors disputed the assignments of certain species, moving them from one group to another. Others doubted the very status of some species, suggesting that they be synonymous with, or a subspecies of, another species (2). A phylogenetic and chromosomal analysis, it was hoped, would clear up some of this confusion.

            With so much confusion over the relationship of these amphibians, it is not surprising that Medeiros et al. felt another more conclusive study was necessary. Most other analyses were based on phenotypic variations such as pattern, color, voice, and tadpole morphology (2). The Medeiros et al. study attempted to fill in some of these gaps with karyotyping. Because the ordering of genes on chromosomes determines the phenotype of an organism, karyotypes that prove to be the same may indicate that the two species are indeed one and the same.

            Interestingly, the authors of the said paper hold that identical karyotypes do not necessarily dictate that two specimens belong to the same species. For example, in their phylogenetic analysis of the various Dendropsophus species, the authors concluded that the species D. jimi and D. sanborni are not closely related. However, when a karyotype was performed for these species, they proved to be identical. The authors chose to disregard the karyotype and align with the phylogenetic analysis (6). There were other features that could not be seen in the karyotype which were evident in the sequenced ribosomal DNA.

            The authors concluded that, while karyotyping could be useful in determining valid species, there are certainly exceptions to this. They wrote that, “in some cases the obtained cytogenetic data do not help to distinguish between valid species of Dendropsophus” (8). In other words, if two species are clearly different from a phylogenetic perspective, then karyotypes that are identical can be disregarded. Rather, they gave priority to phylogenetic analysis.

However, they did accept karyotyping as considerable evidence of a dissimilar ancestry when it illustrated significant differences. In the case of the species D. nanus and D. sanborni, the karyotypes were so different that they were taken as significant evidence for these two species being unrelated (8). This biased may be due to the evolutionary presuppositions, which would predict a traceable spreading out and increase of diversity, as apposed to a limiting or narrowing of diversity predicted by creationism.

            The article was well prepared and conservative with its conclusion, even suggesting that much more work was needed before a conclusion could be made. However, there was some inconsistency with regards to the importance or reliability of chromosomal analysis. The authors expected to see distinct subgroups of Dendropsophus in accordance with the expected function of new traits in a population rising up and persisting. This was not the case for chromosomal analysis. The karyotypes of some species were not consistent with phylogenetics.

Given a creationist standpoint, this seeming discrepancy is not unexpected, as all species of Dendropsophus would have started with the same genes and potential for diversity. In this view, the species were degraded through generations as information was lost and only fragments of that original diversity were left over. While populations would be similar, having come from the same descendants, given species could have any limited number of left over genes from the original descendants. Thus, though such research is done with an evolutionary worldview, the results nearly always provide invaluable data for science.

Bibliography:

Medeiros, Lilian Ricco, Luciana Bolsoni Lourenc, Denise Cerqueira Rossa-Feres, Albertina Pimentel Lima, Gilda Vasconcellos Andrade, Ariovaldo Antonio Giaretta, Gabriel Toselli Barbosa Tabosa Egito, et Shirlei Maria Recco-Pimentel. 2013. “Comparative Cytogenetic Analysis of Some Species of the Dendropsophus microcephalus group (Anura, Hylidae) in light of Phylogenetic Inferences.” BMC Genetics. Vol. 14, No. 59. From http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-14-59.pdf (accessed October 13, 2013). Level 1

Hartwell, Leland H., Leroy Hood, Michael L. Goldberg, Ann E. Reynolds, et Lee M. Silver. 2011. Genetics: From Genes to Genomes, Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. New York. Level 3.