Why Evolution is True Feed

While walking home yesterday afternoon, I came across this protest sign just off the Quad. Like yesterday’s “installation,” this one was also approved by the University for public display, but I didn’t get a look at who put it up, though there’s a reference to the Instagram site “@ek_taskforce” (environmental justice task force) at the bottom. I’ll check later on.

At any rate, its theme is clear, giving all the reasons why the University of Chicago hates “you”, meaning the campus community.  They including “arresting students” (those students who either attacked cops or violated campus regulations and trespassed; the latter were all let off), “investing in death” (i.e., Israel), evicting local residents, helping destroy the planet, and even “losing millions of dollars on cryptocurrency” (that’s one I haven’t heard.) You can read most of the reasons given, or expletives, but clicking on the photo to enlarge it. It may have been erected to criticize the university on Earth Day.

The hatred of the University here is palpable, including the straightforward “Fuck UChicago” and assertions that “The board of trustees are criminals” and the University “hates people of color.” While I remain a free-speecher, some of my free-speech colleagues think that no “installations” of any kind should be put in the Quad, as they’re said to impede free speech by being corrosive of intellectual discussion and inimical to civil and rational engagement. (As a private university, we aren’t obligated to adhere to the First Amendment on our campus.)  I go back and forth on this, but it’s clear that our Administration favors complete First-Amendmen-legal expressions in the “public square.”

At any rate, what struck me was that those who put up  this “installation” was backwards. The University of Chicago does not hate its community. Rather, the people who put up this sign (and the tent I showed yesterday) hate the University because it doesn’t behave the way they want. And that has led me to think that those people not only favor the destruction of Israel, but also the destruction of Western civilization and Enlightenment values as a whole. Sometimes they say this explicitly, and it’s a recurring theme in Douglas Murray’s speeches and books.  Until recently I hadn’t thought much about that, but now I think it’s worth considering. I surely do not want to live in a world run according to the values of those who erect these installations.

Today we have a batch of lovely photos about acorn woodpeckers (and a few of their relatives) courtesy of UC Davis ecologist Susan Harrison. Susan’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Acorn Woodpeckers:   One to three brides for up to seven brothers

Acorn Woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus) have a rare social system called polygynandry in which multiple parents of both sexes rear offspring collectively. These co-breeders also cooperate to defend a group territory and the all-important granary in which they store acorns for the winter.  An early ornithologist dubbed them “communists,” and long-term field and genetic studies more recently discovered the structure of their social groups.  Up to seven males, often brothers, breed with one to three females that are often sisters and unrelated to the males. Offspring hang around and help at the nest, but when a breeding individual dies in a nearby territory, the erstwhile helpers form single-sex coalitions and initiate dramatic battles to fill the vacancy.

Recently I observed a battle or skirmish among about 15 Acorn Woodpeckers.  The main tactics were chasing, swooping, and making a continual racket.  While it may have been a territorial dispute, it had a slightly laid-back quality that made me wonder if it was simply the sorting out of who would mate with whom.

Acorn Woodpeckers chasing, swooping and yelling:

They also did a behavior called the “waka display” in which the bird perches vertically and spreads its wings while calling waka-waka-waka. This can be a greeting, assembly call, or display of dominance.

Doing the waka display:

Those studying Acorn Woodpeckers, led for many decades by Dr. Walter Koenig, have concluded that the granary is the key to the bird’s remarkable social adaptations.  Trees with thousands of laboriously drilled acorn-shaped holes, which allow the birds to survive winters well fed, are a precious resource that takes a close-knit group to build and defend.

Eating the last of the acorn hoard in spring:

Here are some other birds of the woodpecker tribe that I saw in recent weeks.

Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), appearing to eat scale insects from the bark of a Madrone (Arbutus menziesii):

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), the crow-sized king of the forest:

As far as I know, this week is some kind of pro-Palestine week, and it’s kicked off with a bang at the University of Chicago. The usual suspects, the Students for Justice in Palestine, have erected a tent accusing the administration (through President Paul Alivisatos) and the Board of Trustees of the University of guilt for “economic genocide”, failure to divest (it’s not clear from what), and complicity in the deaths of Palestinians. This is in the form of a painted tent erected in the Quad yesterday, covered with caricatures of Trustees and the President Alivisatos, many with blood running out of their eyes and mouths. Yep, it’s the old “blood libel,” and I have no compunction in calling this anti-Semitism. (See some photos below.)

Note the “red hands” drawings, which have always been a symbol of death to Jews, reflecting a Palestinian who, in 2000, held up his blood-covered hands after helping kill two Jews. They were two Israelis who lost their way and wound up by accident in Ramallah. The PA detained them, but the mob gathered and, storming the building, tore the pair to pieces:

From Honest Reporting (note: gore and murder):

What followed can only be described as a savage, barbaric lynching. The crazed mob beat and stabbed the Israelis, tore the men limb from limb and gouged out their eyes. During the attack, Mr Avrahami’s wife Hani called him on his mobile phone. Instead of being greeted as usual, an unfamiliar strange voice answered the phone : “I just killed your husband.”

As all this was happening, one man came to the window and, much to the delight of the delirious crowd below,  triumphantly held up his blood-soaked hands for all to see.

The crowd stood below, waving fists and cheering. The body of one of the soldiers was then thrown out of the window. The baying crowd rushed to attack, beating and stamping the lifeless body in a frenzy. The body of the other soldier was set on fire. One of the soldiers was later seen upside down, dangling from a rope.

The horrendous episode was not over. Within minutes of murdering the Israelis, the mob dragged the two butchered bodies to nearby Al-Manara Square, and broke out into impromptu victory celebrations.

The famous photo:

As The Canary Mission notes, “The ‘red hand’ has a decades-old violent meaning for Jews in the Middle East. It signifies the bloody history of pogroms and the slaughter of Jews.”

That said, here are photos of the “installation” erected in the Quad, probably last night (I don’t remember it from yesterday afternoon):

Approval for the installation, showing who put it up:

Paul Alivisatos, our President, called a “genocide normalizer”:

Rachel Kohler, David Rubenstein (chair of the Board) and Antonio Gracias, characterized as “ecociders”, “CEOs of blood baths”, and so on. Note all the red hands, which to me means “kill the Jews”. (Of course you could interpret it as the trustees kill Palestinians, but the red hand has never symbolized that.) Note the blood coming out of their mouths and their satanic appearance. It’s the old blood libel, put onto the Trustees.

Tom Pritzker, also a Trustee with blood running out of his mouth. He’s called a “baby killing scum” and “Epstein Scum”.  Note the red hands again:

More red hands and Satya Nadella, also on the Board of Trustees.  He was born in India, and the caricature, with dark brown skin, could be seen as racist. More red hands.

Finally, trustee Michele Kang, also with blood coming from every orifice.

As I said, this was erected by the Students for Justice in Palestine, the major contributor to antisemitism on our campus. I have noted this in a 2024 letter to the Chicago Maroon and have called for a reassessment of their status as a Recognized Student Organization. From my letter:

Has the time come to ask whether the activism of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) belongs on our campus? It’s not the morally reprehensible things they say that brings this question to the fore, as their speech is protected, but how they behave: in a way that violates campus rules and disrupts the University’s mission.

.  . . . The continual disruption of our campus and violation of University regulations raises the question of whether SJP as a campus group is involved in these actions. If so, we should ponder whether that group should be a recognized student organization. At the very least, student organizations should enrich the mission of the University: promoting discourse and enriching our intellectual life. SJP does none of this, for their mission seems to be purely ideological: to promote Hamas and whitewash its terrorism—as well as to erase the state of Israel—all through disrupting campus activity. If it is to remain, it should at least desist from violating University regulations.

In fact, SJP did not desist from violating University regulations, and was given a slap on the wrist: an “official warning” that further “discipline” (LOL) would be enacted should SJP violate university regulations. This tent, since it was approved, is not a violation, but if the past is any guide, there will be more violations. And the University, which has other problems, won’t do anything.

Note that the University has already affirmed that it’s not divesting from anything, so this is purely performative, and I see it as an act of hatred and antisemitism. That, of course, is within the purview of the First Amendment, and although this kind of thuggery makes me queasy, we Jews have been subject to this for millennia and we’re not going to be put off or scared by it now.

It’s going to be a rough spring.  SJP knows that it’s lost the war, both in Gaza and on campus, and that will simply make them more active and more hateful. I trust that the Jewish students will respond with messages that aren’t hateful, but simply call for the return of the remaining hostages and embody the phrase “Am Yisrael chai” (“The people of Israel live.”)

UPDATE:  We have high winds here today, and apparently the tent blew down. Here’s a photo of the remnants. I’m sure it will be put up again.

****************

Malgorzata, who lost many of her family in the Holocaust, has been arguing with me for several years about whether stuff like this constitutes free speech. I think it does since it doesn’t violate how our courts have construed the First Amendment, but she differs and thinks installations like this should be banned. I will reproduce with permission what she said to me when we discussed this installation this morning:

You see, Jerry, that’s why I’m definitely not a free speech absolutist. As somebody famous (I don’t remember who) said: the Holocaust didn’t start with Auschwitz, it started with words. OK, the ground was fertile, hatred of Jews was very popular for centuries, and smaller orgies of murders were done in many places. The words which are spoken now, the pictures which are shown (like this installation in your University), can very easily morph into violence (in some places it already has) and to greater and more organized violence. In Rwanda they needed the radio dehumanizing Tutsis for a few months before they went over to calling for the murder of Tutsis. The ground was prepared and people started the mass murder with joy. It’s always easier to give rise to hatred and violence than to love and tolerance. Good ideas always lose against murderous ideas.

 

It’s not a good time for Jews and not a good time for Western civilization. The monsters of barbarism are awake again and many people are embracing them.

In the next couple of days, when I finally get time to write, I’m going to point out several articles in the MSM which are gleeful about the supposed return of religion to America.  The New York Times, for example, is laden with pieces about how we’re afflicted with a God-shaped hole in our souls that must be filled by religion. They have, in fact, published several excepts (which I’ve criticized) of Ross Douthat’s new book Believe: Why Everyone Should Believe in God, and now you can find his goddy lucubrations at The Free Press as well. The New Yorker also gave his views a lot of space, views that I summarized and criticized here. An excerpt from that post:

I swear, NYT columnist Ross Douthat must have a huge publicity machine, because his latest book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious, is appearing everywhere, usually as excerpts.  The point of the book is to assert that religion’s decline in America is slowing, and that readers having a “God-shaped hole,” denoting a lack of religious meaning in their lives, should not just become religious, but become Christian. (Douthat thinks that Catholicism is the “right” religion, and of course he happens to be Catholic).

And by “believe,” Douthat doesn’t just mean adhering to a watered-down form of Christianity that sees the New Testament as a series of metaphors. No, he really believes the tenets of his faith, including the miracles of Jesus, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the existence of Satan and the afterlife. (See my posts on this delusional book here.) It is a sign of the times that this book, which calls for people to embrace claims that are palpably ridiculous and totally unevidenced—unless you take the New Testament literally, which you can’t because it’s wrong and self-contradictory—is getting not only wide press, but approbation.  Even the New Yorker summary and review of the book, which you can read by clicking below (the screenshot links to the archived version here) is pretty mild in its criticism. Author Rothman is a nonbeliever, and gives good responses to Douthat’s “evidence” for God, but at the end says the he “respects [Douthat’s effort to persuade.”  What does that mean? He respects Douthat’s efforts to proselytize people with a divisive and harmful faith, and to believe stuff without evidence? Well, the New Yorker has always been a bit soft on faith (despite the fact that most of its writers are atheists), because some of their rich and educated readers have “belief in belief”.

All the attention devoted to the “resurgence” of religion in American seems to come from a 2024 Pew survey of “nones” (people who aren’t affiliated with a conventional church), a group that’s been increasing for a long time,  Nones include atheists, agnostics, people who consider themselves spiritual, pantheists, and God-believers who don’t fit in anywhere.

Look! A drop in one year!

 

As you see, the rise in “nones” has been pretty steady since 2007, nearly doubling in percentage by 2022. But from 2022 to 2023, the number of nones fell by 3%.  That fall is what seems to have excited lots of believers (or “believers in belief”), who are pumping out articles on the resurgence of religion in America and excitedly writing books and articles dissecting why God is back.

Now this fall may be real, but I doubt it will continue, if for no other reason than, as Steve Pinker has pointed out, science and rationality continue to take up the space that used to be God’s purview, at least in the West.  My own prediction is that, given a few centuries, America will be about as atheistic as Scandinavia, with “religious” observances confined to weddings, holidays, and the like.

What does the fall mean? Well, it could reflect a rise in wokeness, an ideology that nicely accommodates religious belief. It could reflect the fact that we had a pandemic, or that American economic and social well being fell during this period. It’s well known that when well-being falls, religiosity rises and “none-ness” is likely to fall. (Marx was perhaps the first to realize this but it’s been modernized and verified by the work of Norris and Inglehart, whose thesis is summarized in this book, summarized thusly:

This book develops a theory of existential security. It demonstrates that the publics of virtually all advanced industrial societies have been moving toward more secular orientations during the past half century, but also that the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before. This second edition expands the theory and provides new and updated evidence from a broad perspective and in a wide range of countries. This confirms that religiosity persists most strongly among vulnerable populations, especially in poorer nations and in failed states. Conversely, a systematic erosion of religious practices, values, and beliefs has occurred among the more prosperous strata in rich nations.

The U.S., by the way, doesn’t rank very highly in either happiness or well-being (including income inequality), possibly explaining why, though we have a substantial amount of secularity, it’s much lower than in countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland, which are also less religious.

At any rate, the slight fall in the graph above has given rise to a huge amount of press explaining and extolling America’s return to God.  We are told, for example, that we harbor a “God-shaped hole”: a longing to find meaning in life that can be fulfilled only by accepting a divine being. (Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a prominent exponent of this view,and it may have worked for her.)

All I’m saying is that I predict a spate of articles in the press touting America’s return to God and explaining our “God-shaped hole.”  And, as far as I can see, it all comes down to that 3% drop in “nones” over one year. There may be more to these claims that I don’t know, but I don’t think America is reverting to conventional religious belief.

John Avise has started a new Sunday series: photos of dragonflies and damselflies. John’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Dragonflies in North America, Part 1 

This week I begin a series of posts on Dragonflies and Damselflies (taxonomic Order Odonata) that I’ve photographed in North America.  I will go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.  I also show the state where I took each photo.

Band-winged Dragonlet, Erythrodiplax umbrata, male (Florida):

Band-winged Dragonlet, female of the brown form (Florida):

Band-winged Dragonlet, young male (Florida):

Black Saddlebags, Tramea lacerata, male (California):

Black Saddlebags, female (California):

 

Blue Corporal, Ladona deplanata, female (Georgia):

Blue Dasher, Pachydiplax longipennis, male (California):

Blue Dasher, female (California):

Blue-eyed Darner, Aeshna multicolor, male (California):

Blue-eyed Darner, male in flight (California):

Blue-eyed Darner, female (California):

Blue-eyed Darner, mating pair (California):

As you’re digesting this Eastern weekend, how about putting some wildlife photos together for this feature?

Today we have some coyote videos from Kathy Mechling and a few Easter flowers from Patricia Morris. Their captions are indented and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

First, the wild d*gs (coyotes) from Kathy. Sound up!

Some of our more charismatic neighbors here in the Illinois Valley in SW.  Oregon.

First: find both coyotes:

Second: the second coyote is a little more obvious:

The reveal. She was curled up there all along:

Lagniappe: the pair harmonizing with distant fire engines:

***************

As I don’t know from flowers, readers will have to identify them for themselves. These were sent on March 21:

It might be hard to believe amidst a blizzard but spring is coming.  Just a few domestic flowers from central coast California to prove my point and cheer your day.

YouTube will almost certainly take down this video of Bill Maher’s entire show from yesterday, so I’m putting it up early today. Listen while you can! I’ve given the schedule below.

Intro (Maher monologue): 0-7:17

Douglas Murray: 7:17-18:15 (He talks about the topic of his new book, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization.

Panel: Author and libertarian Matt Welch and Democratic Senator (Minnesota) Tina Smith: 18:17-47:03

Second comedy bit (Maher monologue; “New Rules”): 47:06-57:51

Douglas Murray is always good value, especially when he talks about Israel and Palestine (as he does here), and the “New Rules” bit is pretty good. They should have given him more time.

WELL, THEY TOOK IT DOWN. But you can at least hear Maher’s “New Rule” segment, which is about “The Not-Working Class”

and here’s the short intro:

and here is the non-broadcasted “overtime”. The first topic of discussion is the UK Supreme Court’s new ruling that there are two sexes and no more.

Jay Tanzman sent me a note after he’d read several posts excoriating antiwoke writers who agree with views similar to ours.  And it’s true: these days online denigration often takes the form of finding an association between someone you want to demonize and somebody who’s already demonized. Once you do that, there’s no need to deal with actual issues.  Here’s Jay’s Law, which is his.

Here it comes.

It’s coming soon.

Here it is:

Ad hominem is the new skepticism.

Dear readers, send in your wildlife photos, as we (aka “I”) need them.

Today we have an unusual series: the world from above, taken on a plane by David Jorling. David’s comments are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

This series of photos were taken from a non stop flight from Phoenix to Portland. These pictures were taken as dawn was breaking on December 2, 2024. Based on the coordinates recorded on my iphone, this appears to be the Osgood Mountains in Northern Nevada, near or at the area where it has been reported a large Lithium deposit has been found.

This I believe is the Santa Rosa Range in Northern Nevada, near the town of Paradise Valley: Now over Oregon, this is Steens Mountain, which is about as remote an area you can find in Oregon’ and also one of the most beautiful.  I highly recommend a visit if the reader has  not been there.   You can drive to the peak and look east for miles. There is only one place to stay nearby which called French Glen, where good meals are served family style.

 

The plane is now approaching Portland from the East over the Columbia River Gorge. My window is facing south which provides a nice view of Mt. Hood looking south.. I have climbed to the summit, but that’s not saying much, as it has been reported that it is the most climbed peak in North America.  The best place to stay is Timberline Lodge, which is on the south face of the mountain:\

A closer look at MT Hood. The peaks on the horizon are from left: Mt bachelor, neat the City of Bend, Two of the Three Sister peaks, Mt Jefferson directly above Mt Hood, and I believe Mt Washington: on the right.

This is one of two reservoirs known as Bull Run, which supplies Portland with mosy of its water.  This is a few miles east of My Hood:

The plane went past the Portland airport and is turning to approach it from the west, just as the sun was rising:

Seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) which are fish, have an unusual reproductive system. The males get “pregnant”, meaning that they carry the eggs, which are deposited in the male’s pouch by the female and then fertilized there. (Note: this doesn’t mean that seahorse males are “females”, or that there are more than two sexes!)  We don’t really know why males gestate the eggs, but we do know that females produce eggs faster than males can gestate them. This means that, unlike most animals, females compete for the attention of males.  Here’s a birth; National Geographic says that 2,000 babies are being born. Wikipedia says that the babies can be as few as 5 or as many as 25.

That’s your biology of the day; and I am sorry that for the next few days I won’t be posting much.

 

Today we have the birds of British Columbia by reader Paul Handford. His captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them,

I suspect that “endless mountains and forests” come to mind for many when envisioning what British Columbia, in Canada’s far west, but, as well as those dominant aspects of BC’s landscape, the south-central portion of the province, between the Coast and Rocky mountain ranges, is pretty dry, given that it sits in the rain-shadow caused by the Coast Ranges that capture much of the moisture from the moist air-masses that roll in off the Pacific Ocean.

Accordingly, this part of BC supports a mix of dry grassland and sagebrush at lower elevations— much of it along the river valleys— with woodlands and forest higher up.  So it’s a diverse region, and very beautiful— as is all of BC.

These pics are from around our home in the hills on the outskirts of Kamloops, and the surrounding area.

Bohemian waxwing, Bombycilla garrulus.  S. Thompson river valley:

Lazuli bunting, Passerina amoena.  Valleyview trails:

Western tanager, Piranga ludoviciana.  Barnhartvale:

Clark’s nutcracker, Nucifraga columbiana.  Barnharvale:

Common Raven, Corvus corax.  Dallas-Barnhartvale Nature Park:

Steller’s jay, Cyanocitta stelleri:

Chipping sparrow, Spizella passerina:

Dark-eyed Junco, Junco hyemalis:

Vesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus:

Pine grosbeak, Pinicola enucleator:

Red crossbill, Loxia curvirostra:

Tree swallow, Tachycineta bicolor:

Enjopy this one-minute video of a largehead hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus), the “liquid metal fish”, also called the “beltfish”.  As you can see, it’s a predator, and it’s gone some set of choppers. Its metallic color apparently camouflages it from prey. And look at that dorsal fin!

Some info from Wikipedia (their bolding):

The largehead hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus) or beltfish is a member of the cutlassfish family, Trichiuridae. This common to abundant species is found in tropical and temperate oceans throughout the world. The taxonomy is not fully resolved, and the Atlantic, East Pacific and Northwest Pacific populations are also known as Atlantic cutlassfish, Pacific cutlassfish and Japanese cutlassfish, respectively. This predatory, elongated fish supports major fisheries.

I wish they wouldn’t hold these things so long out of the water, as it makes them suffer. And I hope even more that they didn’t kill it.

Well, the author came up with today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “males”, pretty quickly after today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, and even adds the caption “They’ll be fine. Here’s the story.” (It goes to the BBC link.)

As usual, Mo considers himself immune to reason and evidence, as well both he and Jesus should.

This is really breaking news, and apparently settles a roiling controversy in the UK that was most intense in Scotland. Today the UK’s Supreme Court, overturning rulings in Scotland, said that, in law, a “woman” is “a biological woman;” and a trans woman, even with a “gender reassignment certificate” does not legally qualify as a “woman”. Below are three real-time news summaries. Excerpts are indented below the headlines.

First, a Scottish law apparently kicked off the controversy. From Reuters:

Wednesday’s British judgment followed legal action by a campaign group, For Women Scotland (FWS), against guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law designed to increase the proportion of women on public sector boards.

The guidance said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. FWS, which was backed by lesbian rights groups, had lost its case in the Scottish courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.

And from the official Supreme Court press summary (h/t Athayde):

This appeal arose in response to the definition of the term “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (“ASP 2018”) and associated statutory guidance. This legislation created gender representation targets to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland. The ASP 2018 and the original statutory guidance defined “woman” as including people: (i) with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment; (ii) living as a woman; and (iii) proposing to undergo / undergoing / who have undergone a gender reassignment process. In 2020, the Appellant, a feminist voluntary organisation that campaigns to strengthen women’s rights in Scotland, challenged this guidance. The Inner House found that this statutory definition was unlawful as it involved an area of law reserved to the UK Parliament (equal opportunities) and therefore fell outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament (“FWS1”).

In all the stuff I was able to read this morning, I was unable to find the definition of a “biological woman”, save that it refers to one’s natal sex, though they don’t mention gametes. The ruling does refer to the binary nature of sex (see below). And the ruling implies as well that the word “man” can mean in law only a “biological man” (see below).

The Guardian:

Bolding is theirs

• The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender critical campaigners.

• Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

• It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

• Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate. That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.

• Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.

• Gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, celebrated outside the supreme court in London, alongside other campaigners, after the ruling was announced.

BBC:

• The UK Supreme Court rules that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

• Judges say the “concept of sex is binary” while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another

• Transgender people still have legal protection from discrimination, the court adds – read the full 88-page judgement here

• The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argued they only apply to people that are born female

• For Women Scotland says it’s grateful for the decision after a “long road” of legal battles, while charity Scottish Trans urges people “not to panic”

• The Scottish government says it acted “in good faith” and will work with Westminster to understand the full implications of the ruling

Times of London:

“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

In fewer than 20 words, Lord Hodge settled a legal debate that has raged in British society for years. It also drove a stake through the heart of a central tenet of the trans lobby: that trans women are women.

The 88-page ruling will be pored over by lawyers. The implications for Westminster and beyond will be vast.

. . .Scotland’s first minister has said the Scottish government “accepts” the ruling of the UK Supreme Court on biological sex, and added that “protecting the rights of all” will inform its response.

In a post on X, John Swinney said: “The Scottish government accepts today’s Supreme Court judgment.

“The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

. . .The certificated sex interpretation would have “rendered meaningless” a section of the 2010 Equalities Act dealing with protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, according to the ruling.

This interpretation would mean “a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same-sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian” and would lead to an “inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians” as well as impacting lesbian clubs and associations.

The judgment continues: “Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

. . .Kemi Badenoch has said the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.

The Conservative leader said: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.

“This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.

“Well done to For Women Scotland!”

The full judgement is here (you can also click on the title page below to see the 88-page ruling), and although I haven’t read it carefully, I’ve quoted four bits that seem relevant.

First, the court emphasizes binary nature of sex, but unfortunately doesn’t give a definition of sex, though it claims that it does (my bolding).  The court holds to the “ordinary” meaning of “those plain and unambiguous words”, a meaning that corresponds to the biological characteristics that create a binary. One can interpret that, as I would, as the gametic definition of sex, which is the only definition that creates a dichotomy that, with a few hundredths of a percent of exceptions, conforms to a binary:

171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group

I Interpret this next part to mean that it’s legal to prohibit trans-identified men (“transwomen”) from competing against biological males.  They don’t talk about trans-identified women, but this presumably holds for them, too.  If so, that means a strict separation of athletic competition by sex, but perhaps sports in which the sexes perform equally on average could be an exception. The fate of trans-identified women in sports is not really discussed or spelled out, at least not that I can see, but if one holds to a biological definition of sex, the legal fate of trans-identified women would be the same as that of trans-identified men.

236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1). But if, in addition, the providers of the boxing competition were concerned that fair competition or safety necessitates the exclusion of trans men (biological females living in the male gender, irrespective of GRC status) who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes, their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2). It is here that the gender reassignment exception would be available to ensure that the exclusion is not unlawful, whether as direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.

The part below implies that the ruling also holds for the word “man”, which has to mean “biological man” rather than a biological woman who has a GRC or identifies as a man.

264. For all these reasons, this examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words “sex”, “woman” and “man” in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. These and the other provisions to which we have referred cannot properly be interpreted as also extending to include certificated sex without rendering them incoherent and unworkable.

Finally, this last part disposes of the Scottish government’s regarding one’s sex as being that given on a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).  That means that, in Scotland and all over the UK, a transwoman is not identical to a biological woman, nor a transman to a biological man.  The mantras “a transwoman is a woman” and a “transman is a man” now hold no legal meaning.

. . . 266. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government is incorrect. A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010. That in turn means that the definition of “woman” in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish Ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC. Because it is so limited, the 2018 Act does not stray beyond the exception permitted in section L2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act into reserved matters. Therefore, construed in the way that we have held it is to be construed, the 2018 Act is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and can operate to encourage the participation of women in senior positions in public life.

In toto, the ruling seems fair to me, as I never thought that, say, a “transwoman is a woman” and the same for transmen, as I’ve always adhered to the biological sex definition, which gives an almost 100% binary based on one’s evolved system for either producing large, immobile gametes (women) or small mobile gametes (men). This binary holds for all species, but the terms “woman” and “man” have been reserved for humans.  It does not “erase” trans people, giving them the same rights as everyone—with the exception of a person of one sex inhabiting spaces that properly belong to people of the other sex (sports, jails, locker rooms, etc.)  And as I’ve said endlessly, in all situations where you don’t need sex-specific spaces, trans people should have all the rights of everyone else, and should be treated like everyone else.

h/t: Pyers, Geoff

Today we have a text-and-story from Athayde Tonhasca Júnior, featuring the Insects of Death.  Athayde’s text is indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

That enticing scent of death

During the Victorian era, many naturalists pursued bucolic, relaxing subjects that would elevate their standing among peers, yet suitable to be discussed during social soirees. Shocking the ladies with matters of a raw nature was frowned upon. Dr Murray Galt Motter had no such compunction. On learning that 150 corpses from a cemetery in Washington, D.C., were going to be exhumed for reburial somewhere else, the good doctor saw a rare research opportunity. He assembled a team to help him investigate the invertebrate fauna colonising those cadavers. The resulting report (Motter, 1898), comprising species descriptions and notes on the state of the bodies, soil type, grave depth, etc., became a landmark in the field of forensic science.

Dr Motter’s fauna of the grave contained worms, beetles, bristletails, mites and flies, but one type of creature was predominant: the aptly named coffin flies (family Phoridae). Particular species were not identified in the report, but they were likely to include Megaselia scalaris and Conicera tibialis. These flies feed and breed in decaying organic matter, including human corpses. And C. tibialis has an uncanny ability to find them: gravid females can burrow to a depth of 2 m to reach bodies laid to rest 18 years previously (Martín-Vega et al., 2011).

The coffin fly C. tibialis © Kelsey Bailey, The Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County. . . .

…. and its habitat © C.G.P. Grey, Wikimedia Commons:

Coffin flies are just a segment of the family Phoridae. The 4,000 or so described species – the total is believed to be much higher – have a wide range of lifestyles: some are plant feeders (one species is a pest of cultivated mushrooms), others are predators, parasites or parasitoids; the zombie fly parasitises and changes the behaviour of European honey bees (Apis mellifera). Many species are synanthropes (organisms that live in close association with humans and their surroundings); you probably have seen some of them near drain pipes, compost piles or rubbish bins. Phorids look like fruit flies with arched backs, and when spooked they run away before taking flight. Such behaviours explain their other common names: hump-backed flies or scuttle flies.

Phorids have the greatest ecological diversity of all fly families, but most species share one characteristic: their larvae are saprophages, that is, they eat decomposing organic matter such as dung, carrion, dead plants – and human corpses, if available. This behaviour may be off-putting to us, but if plants manage to take advantage of it, they will have an assortment of diligent and resourceful visitors at their disposal, which could be quite handy for pollination services. And that’s exactly what some birthworts, aka pipevines and Dutchman’s pipes (Aristolochia spp.), have done.

Aristolochia is a varied group of about 450 species of shrubs, herbs, vines and lianas from predominately tropical areas. Most species have remarkable adaptations to lure the smallest flies (micromyiophily), or flies that are attracted to dead animals or dung (sapromyiophily). Their flowers are usually large and showy with a spherical base that forms a chamber known as a kettle trap, which allows visitors to get in easily, but entraps them until the following day (arums have similar contraptions). When insects finally manage to leave, chances are they will have pollen grains attached to their bodies.

A Dutchman’s pipe (A. macrophylla) flower © Sten Porse, Wikimedia Commons:

Birthworts dupe their unsuspecting pollinators with scents, and since flies are their target, typical flowery smells won’t do. Different birthwort species produce a range of bouquets that remind us of carrion, rotten fish, dung, sweat, cheese, yeast fermentation or decomposing plants. These aromas are irresistible to many insects, but only phorids, blow flies (Calliphoridae), midges (Ceratopogonidae), gnats (Mycetophilidae, Sciaridae), fruit flies (Drosophilidae) and frit flies (Chloropidae) are known to pollinate the flowers. Among this lot, Megaselia coffin flies are particularly well represented.

The calico flower (A. littoralis), distributed from Argentina to the southern United States and an invasive to Australia, is pollinated by phorid flies © Dick Culbert, Wikimedia Commons:

 

With nearly 1,700 described species and certainly a much larger number to be discovered, Megaselia is one of the largest genus in the animal kingdom. Like the other members of the family, they range from parasites, parasitoids, predators and fungus feeders to saprophages. Several birthwort species take advantage of these omnipresent flies by producing scents loaded with oligosulphides, which are the main volatiles released by decomposing flesh.

A M. scalaris coffin fly © Charles Schurch Lewallen, Wikimedia Commons:

Besides birthworts, Megaselia flies are known to pollinate some orchids and a handful of other plants, but this meagre list of hosts is more likely to reflect our ignorance than their true contribution to pollination; the same can be said about flies in general (Raguso, 2020). Flies are not the most glamorous insects, and their reputation is not helped by their involvement with unsavoury business such as decomposition. But we need to keep in mind that recycling of nutrients and organic matter depends on these filth-muckers. They are also important for plant reproduction, even though we have only an inkling about their workings. We may not pick a fly as our favourite animal, but it would be unwise to ignore their value for biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems.

This Washington Post article (click headline to read, or find it archived here), shows how chilled the research climate in America has become because of the Administration’s threats.  And the Admin hasn’t even =said anything about evolution yet.  (Has anybody ever asked Trump or RFK Jr. whether they accept evolution?)

The threats involve not just the potential of being demonized for publishing on a subject that the administration might denigrate, but also the possibility of researchers in that area being punished because they’re foreigners.

A few quotes:

A few days before they were to submit a scientific paper together, an evolutionary biologist in Europe received an unexpected request from two co-authors in the United States.

After much thought, the co-authors said they preferred not to risk publishing at this time. One had just lost a job because of a canceled government grant; the other feared a similar fate if they went ahead with the paper. Although both were legally in the U.S., they worried they might lose their residency if their names appeared on a potentially controversial article.

The subject: evolution.

. . . .Although President Donald Trump’s executive orders have not targeted research involving evolution, the authors’ unease about publishing on the subject reflects the fear and uncertainty now rippling through the science world.

The paper “was months of work, but at the same time I know the current situation, and I’m scared for my friends in the U.S.,” said the European evolutionary biologist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation. “I told them, ‘If you think it is too dangerous, don’t do it.’ ”

Now granted, this is for a symposium volume (something that Steve Gould called the least-read form of scientific literature), with the paper and volume described in this way:

The withheld paper described ways in which evolution unfolds in both living and nonliving systems, a subject relevant to the search for life elsewhere in the universe. The authors included measurements and genomic data on different species. An example of evolution in the nonliving world would be the growth of the universe after the Big Bang, as new minerals and elements came into being, the European scientists said.

. . .The special edition of the Royal Society journal that was to have included the withdrawn paper, emerged from the Workshop on Information Selection and Evolution last October in Washington, which drew a multidisciplinary collection of 100 researchers from as far away as Japan to discuss the latest thinking on evolution.

“People were talking about the evolution of languages, the evolution of technology, the evolution of species, the evolution of minerals and atoms and planets and things like this,” Wong said. “It was just so scintillating.”

Of course there’s a big difference between biological evolution and the idea of “change”, even though people have tried to analogize them by confecting the idea of “memes” (which can’t explain the evolution of minerals, atoms, or planets), so this heterogeneity is why the volume doesn’t get my juices flowing.

But that is not the point. NO scientific paper should be withheld, or the authors forced to hide their real names, because they work and publish in a well-accepted field or are living under a government that is bludgeoning people left and right.  Every day it gets crazier, and every day science becomes subject to more censorship.

Four days ago, three members of the Trump Administration (Josh Gruenbaum of the GSA, Thomas Wheeler, acting general Counsel of the Dept. of Education, and Sean R. Keveney, acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services), sent a Big Stick (or a rotten carrot) to the President of Harvard University and the head of the Harvard Corporation (Penny Pritzker, the sister of Illinois’s governor). It was one of those threatening letters that tell a university that they’d better reform—or else. “Else,” of course, is the withdrawal of federal funds. This threat was made to Columbia University, which caved. But Harvard didn’t. I suggest you read the Trump Administration’s letter by clicking on the screenshot below:

This is a Big Demand and covers multiple areas, which I’ll just summarize with bullet points. Quotes are from the letter:

• Harvard has to fix its leadership, reducing the power held by students, untenured faculty, and by “administrators more committed to activism than scholarship.”
• All hiring from now on must be based on merit and there will be no hiring based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
• By August of this year, Harvard must have solely merit-based admissions, again without admissions based on ‘race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof.” The “proxies” presumably mean the way universities now get around bans on race-based and similar admissions by asking admission questions like, “describe how you overcame hardships in your life.”
• Reform international admissions, by not admitting students “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.”
• Harvard is to commission an external body to audit the university for viewpoint diversity. Though they’re not clear what “viewpoint diversity” means, it’s obvious that they want more conservative points of view and fewer professors pushing pro-Palestinian points of view
• Reforming programs with “egregious records of antisemitism or other bias”, including information about individual faculty who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or who incited violence
• Discontinue DEI programs, offices, committees, and the like
• Students are to be disciplined for violating University speech regulations, and student groups that promote violence, illegal harassment, or act as fronts for banned groups
• Harvard is to establish a whistleblowing procedure so that noncompliance with the Diktat above can be safely reported.

All this must be started no later than June 30 of this year, and Harvard has to report on its progress every quarter until at least the end of 2028.

Now many of these reforms are laudable (weakening of DEI, effacing any climate of anti-Semitism, mandating the kind of merit-based hiring used at Chicago, etc.), while others are problematic, the most being (to me) assuring “viewpoint diversity” (see Steve Pinker’s quote below). But the most offensive thing about this is the Trump Administration’s attempt to control universities using financial threats.  Many of the people who will suffer by the withholding of government money (probably much of it earmarked for science) are not guilty of these violations, and it’s just a horrible idea to allow the government to demand that universities act this way or that.

Yes, Harvard should have already made some of these reforms, and I know it’s trying to enact some of them, but allowing political forces to control how colleges and universities are run takes one of America’s glories–the quality of its higher education that already attracts students from throughout the world–and turns it into an arm of one political party or another. (It would be just as bad if the Biden administration had threatened universities if they didn’t become more liberal, though of course they already are!). Universities should remain as independent as possible from the vagaries of politics, though of course if politics affects the mission of universities, then schools can speak out.

Harvard responded by giving Trump a big middle finger. Here’s the response from Alan Garber, President of the University, which I mentioned yesterday. Click headline to read:

A quote from the response:

Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

I encourage you to read the [Administration’s] letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.

The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

Harvard’s letter doesn’t address the specific accusations of the administration’s letter, but simply affirms that Harvard will “nurture a climate of open inquiry,” respect free speech save for the appropriate “time, place, and manner” restrictions, and will “foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference.”  There’s nothing about anti-Semitism, viewpoint diversity (save the last claim above), or merit-based hiring.  Garber could have responded, point by point, to what it’s already is doing to meet the demands of the government, but that would simply be playing their game.

And so, the administration began punishing Harvard: last night the Trump Administration struck back by freezing 2.2 billion in funds to the school. (archived here). From the NYT article:

Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the White House, said universities are not entitled to federal funding. “President Trump is working to Make Higher Education Great Again by ending unchecked anti-Semitism and ensuring federal taxpayer dollars do not fund Harvard’s support of dangerous racial discrimination or racially motivated violence. Harvard or any institution that wishes to violate Title VI is, by law, not eligible for federal funding.”

The university was the first to formally push back against the government’s efforts to force change in higher education.

Hours later, the multiagency Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism responded by announcing a freeze on $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in multiyear contract value to Harvard.

And today’s  NYT reports on Harvard’s decision (archived here) with a few words from Steve Pinker: (h/t Greg). They quote Harvard’s pushback as being “momentous”:

Harvard University is 140 years older than the United States, has an endowment greater than the G.D.P. of nearly 100 countries and has educated eight American presidents. So if an institution was going to stand up to the Trump administration’s war on academia, Harvard would be at the top of the list.

Harvard did that forcefully on Monday in a way that injected energy into other universities across the country fearful of the president’s wrath, rejecting the Trump administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum. Some commentators went so far as to say that Harvard’s decision would empower law firms, the courts, the media and other targets of the White House to push back as well.

“This is of momentous, momentous significance,” said J. Michael Luttig, a prominent former federal appeals court judge revered by many conservatives. “This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions.”

Michael S. Roth, who is the president of Wesleyan University and a rare critic of the White House among university administrators, welcomed Harvard’s decision. “What happens when institutions overreach is that they change course when they meet resistance,” he said. “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.”

We’ll see if Harvard’s response gives some moxie to other threatened universities. So far Harvard hasn’t been one of them.

And Professor Pinker was quoted giving a good, pithy response:

Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist who is also a president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, said on Monday that it was “truly Orwellian” and self-contradictory to have the government force viewpoint diversity on the university. He said it would also lead to absurdities.

“Will this government force the economics department to hire Marxists or the psychology department to hire Jungians or, for that matter, for the medical school to hire homeopaths or Native American healers?” he said.

I of course agree with Pinker and Garber. Harvard needs to handle its own problems itself, though yes, it has to handle any real problems judiciously but swiftly lest it lose students and its reputation. Already worried Jewish students are applying elsewhere (see here and here).  The government already has the power to step in if Harvard has permitted a climate of anti-Semitism to occur, but I’m not so connected to my alma mater that I can judge that. And Greg Mayer reminded me that withholding money and making demands in this way is NOT legal. As he said:

Findings of punishable error (e.g., Title VI violations) must be made via the procedures specified in the law alleged to have been broken. There’s a lot of  due process involved, including the right of response and a hearing before a disinterested party, before an allegation can become an actionable fact. And even then, only the violating entity can be punished– you can’t take away a botanist’s NSF grant because some dean of student affairs is anti-semitic.

So what the administration is doing is largely illegal, and certainly unethical and counterproductive.  And universities don’t have to obey anything but court orders—not demands from an administration that wants to bully all of those damn elite, liberal schools.

h/t Norman

A few readers have asked how they can donate to the Jerry Coyne/Honey the Duck Evolutionary Biology Research Fund, which I wrote about yesterday. It is to fund the research of University of Chicago biology students working on some aspect of organismal evolution (more described at link above).  If you wish to make a donation, no matter how small, please email me and I will send you instructions.  I assure you that any donations will be used nearly in full to fund research.

I thank you, and Honey thanks you!

Yes, that’s Honey and one of her broods above.

I revised my will about three weeks ago, as I realized that two of my impecunious friends to whom I was leaving money were dead. (Don’t worry–I’m fine!) Plus some of the charities to which I’d pledged money were no longer appealing to me (that means you, Doctors Without Borders), so I found a passel of other charities, vetted by Peter Singer’s “The Life You Can Save” site and Charity Navigator, to replace them. I won’t go into details save to say that what I leave will go in general to four causes:  helping the poor in third-world countries, especially with sanitation and medical care for children, ensuring education for women in poor countries, conservation effected through buying up habitat for wildlife and plants, and conservation effected by helping animals (this does of course include big cats!).

When I made my list and handed it to the lawyer, I discovered I still had a chunk o’ cash left, and pondered what I should do with it.  I’ve lived pretty penuriously and don’t have any luxuries, and the last thing I’d need would be something pricey like a luxury car. My only indulgences are travel and wine.

And then I had an idea: create a graduate fellowship for Ph.D. students who need research money in evolutionary biology. If I started that while I was still alive, I could actually see the results as they played out in real time: research would be done and truth found.  Then I had an even better idea: if the fellowship were named after me, I could add the name of my favorite mallard: Honey the Duck.  After checking with the University, I found out that I not only had enough to endow a decent fellowship in perpetuity, but also they would also allow me to add Honey’s name!

And that is how the Jerry Coyne/Honey the Duck Evolutionary Biology Research Fund came to be. To wit (this is part of a three-page agreement). Click to enlarge:

For Chicago grad students who would like to tap into this dosh, I’ll say a few words. The money will increase over time from $5000 the first year to around $25,000 per year in perpetuity after 2030.  I intend it to go, as the note says above, for research expenses in evolutionary biology studies that involve whole organisms. This reflects my own interests when I was active and is aimed at keeping organismal evolutionary biology (which can of course also involve behavior, molecular work, and so on) alive in the department.  But whole organisms have to be involved in some way. These details may be refined when I make up the application for the money, as it’s a competitive process.

More than one student may be funded per year, and once the money is allotted, it will be there until the student gets their Ph.D. Leftover cash will be returned to the fund.  Only students who have passed their prelims, and are thus official candidates for the doctorate, can apply, and I hope the first applications will be handed out in the early fall.

One other thing: once the money is in the hands of the Division (only students in the Division of Biological Science [BSD] can apply), my role ends, as it should. I will have no hand in choosing students who get funded: that will be done by a committee appointed by our chairman. That’s appropriate because the field changes over time and I am retired.

I’m giving these details just so students know that next fall there will be a new pot of money to fund research. I also love the fact that I can name the fund after both myself and Honey the Duck: faithful companions for several years. There is too little humor in science, and I wonder if this is the first graduate fellowship in history to be named after a duck.

Here are two pictures: my favorite one of Honey, and the second of me feeding Honey by hand during the pandemic (I was outside and the campus was empty, ergo the pulled-down mask).  I will try to put these photos on the application. Evolutionary biology students in the BSD should watch for an announcement by the Higher Ups.

One of the best parts of it all is that Honey and I will be immortalized together–or at least linked together until there is no more evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago.

Quack!

Honey as a soccer ball

 

Me with my favorite hen of all time

Addendum: from reader Bill with the help of Grok 3

Unfortunately, the press of work yesterday made me completely forget it was Sunday, and the day to post John Avise‘s latest and last group of North American butterfly photos. John’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.  Let’s hear it for John’s butterfly photos? Will a new species replace them? You’ll have to wait and see.

Butterflies in North America, Part 18

This week concludes my multi-part series on North American butterflies.With this post, we’ve finally reached the letter Z (of common names), so this will be my final post on the many butterfly species found on this continent.

Western Pygmy Blue (Brephidium exilis), male:

Western Pygmy Blue, female:

Western Pygmy Blue, underwing

Western Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio rutulus), upperwing:

Western Tiger Swallowtail, underwing:

Eurasian White Admiral (Limenitis camilla):

White Checkered-skipper (Burnsius albescens):

Woodland Skipper (Ochlodes sylvanoides), upperwing:

Woodland Skipper, underwing:

Wright’s Metalmark (Calephelis wrighti), upperwing:

Wright’s Metalmark, underwing:

Zebra Longwing (Heliconius charithonia), upperwing:

Zebra Longwing, underwing: