Today we have Part VI of Robert Lang’s recent trip to Brazil’s Pantanal region (wetlands). Robert’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.
Readers’ Wildlife Photos: The Pantanal, Part VI: Birds
Continuing our mid-2025 journey to the Pantanal in Brazil, by far the largest category of observation and photography was birds: we saw over 100 different species of birds (and this was not even a birding-specific trip, though the outfitter also organizes those for the truly hard core). Here we continue working our way through the alphabetarium of common names.
Crested caracaras, adult and juvenile (Caracara plancus):
A caracara eating another bird (too far gone for me to identify, but perhaps our birding experts recognize it):
This one shows an onlooker waiting its turn. The facial color can change, depending on the bird’s mood (according to Wikipedia) and also reflects the dominance hierarchy, so here, yellow = boss, red = underling:
A chaco chachalaca (Ortalis canicollis). Say that five times fast. Its onomatopoeic name reflects its call—it’s one of the chattiest birds to be heard in the Pantanal:
Chalk-browed mockingbird (Mimus saturninus):
Chestnut-eared aracari (Pteroglossus castanotis). I love the wild coloration on this toucan relative:
Cocoi heron (Ardea cocoi) with a fish (unknown species). They hunt by spearing their prey, then can spend a fair amount of time and effort flipping and playing with the foot so that they can swallow it head-first and not get the heartburn of spine-in-the-gullet:
A cocoi heron flying:
Crane hawk (Geranospiza caerulescens):
Crested oropendola (Psarocolius decumanus). These are weaver birds, building elaborate hanging nests, one of which you can see immediately behind the bird:
More birds to come.
What, exactly, is dyslexia? What causes it, how should it be diagnosed, and stemming from that, how should it be treated? We can even ask a more fundamental question – does it actually exist as a discrete clinical entity? These questions have existed since dyslexia was first described and named in 1887, by German Opthalmologist, Rudolf Berlin. Not surprisingly, he thought the […]
The post Redefining Dyslexia first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.This article was mentioned in a comment by reader Ted Gold, but I thought I would highlight it just to show that when the rubber meets the road, people recognize that, yes, there are just two sexes. This is from the NYT on Feb. 25th.
Click headline to read, or find the article archived here.
An excerpt:
Women outlive men, by something of a long shot: In the United States, women have a life expectancy of about 80, compared to around 75 for men.
This holds true regardless of where women live, how much money they make and many other factors. It’s even true for most other mammals.
“It’s a very robust phenomenon all over the world, totally conserved in sickness, during famines, during epidemics, even during times of starvation,” said Dr. Dena Dubal, a professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.
But if there are more than two sexes, why do articles like this one always accept that there are two, and, in this case, put people in one of the two classes to compare their longevity? Why are they leaving out all those other sexes that, according to people like Agustín Fuentes and Steve Novella, actually exist? (They are not supposed to be rare, either!)
The article, which by the way is worth reading, though it does not mention evolution (another possible reason), does not refer to members of any other sex. Why not?
You know the answer: there are almost no people who do not fit the gametic definition of male or female, and those people are not members of other sexes. The failure of some Democrats to sign onto this recognition of the obvious is one reason why my party did poorly in the last election.
And yet so-called progressive Democrats and liberals are simply doubling down, as we will see tomorrow when I give a juicy example of resistance to the sex binary from an actual scientist.