Friday mystery object #47 answer

On Friday I gave you what I consider to be a rather interesting mystery object:

I must apologise for my tardy responses to the excellent questions asked, on Friday I was at a fascinating conference about using DNA from natural history collections for research, hosted by the NHM, and I didn’t get an opportunity to address the questions until quite late.

The questions were astute from the outset, with Bob O’H asking if it was a bird – no doubt inspired by the lightweight structure of the bone. SmallCasserole suggested that it was the sectioned skull of a Cassowary, based on the presence of the bony crest (or more accurately the casque) – an opinion that was widely supported. However, Dave Godfrey raised the possibility that this skull belonged to a hornbill, a suggestion that Neil developed to arrive at the correct genus with David Craven delivered the coup de grace with the correct species identification of Continue reading

UK homeopathy awareness week

June 14th – 21st 2010 [and 2012] is the UK homeopathy awareness week, so I thought it might be a good idea to try and raise awareness of homeopathy.

Cinchona

Homeopathy is based on the principle of similia similibus curantur (likes are cured by likes). The hypothesis is that symptoms of illness are caused by a derangement of the ‘vital force‘ assumed to be present in a living organism and substances which elicit the same derangement (i.e. symptoms) will rid the body of the illness. This was originally identified in the context of homeopathy by Hahnemann with reference to cinchona bark (source of quinine) and malaria. The previous proposed mechanism of effectiveness of quinine against malaria was its bitterness, but Hahnemann sensibly identified that other bitter substances did not offer the same protection. Instead, after taking cinchona and experiencing a reaction similar to the reaction he associated with malaria, he hypothesised that it was this similarity in symptoms that made cinchona bark effective.

Modern homeopaths still use a similar method to identify their treatments. When in a healthy state they try a preparation and keep a detailed diary of any effects that they feel the treatment has on them. This is called ‘proving’ although what it is supposed to prove is hard to determine since there are no rigorous controls in place and the results are not statistically tested to see if they are anything other than random. Consider the perceived effects of taking peregrine falcon blood for example:

Short statement on peregrine falcons:

The Peregrine Falcon is widely renowned for its incredible speed. Estimates vary, but commonly cited top velocities are in the range of 290-320 km/h (180-200 mph), achieved only during the characteristic swoop (hunting dive)…the Peregrine Falcon is the fastest creature on earth.

Observation during proving:

‘Drove back from the party (had some wine but not so much) quite fast but well, changing speed as necessary. It seemed faster to the others in the car than to me.’

I heartily recommend reading the entire page about the proving of peregrine falcon blood – it is an education into how homeopaths derive their information about the treatments they prescribe (and it is ludicrous to the point of hilarity). Is this really a rigorous approach to testing healthcare products or is this more about symbolism, appeal to the mystical and delusion?

Evidence based medicine occasionally does use elements of  similia similbus curantur such as with inoculation and vaccination – where a small or denatured dose of a disease causing agent is introduced with the intent of stimulating an autoimmune response that will prevent the full blown disease from becoming established should the person come into contact with a large active dose of the pathogen.

Foxglove

Also, many physiologically active compounds have medicinal uses because they act on particular organs and metabolic pathways via a biochemical route that can have apparent similarities to the illness being treated. For example, digoxin is a cardiac glycoside found in foxgloves that decreases heart rate and increases force of heart contraction – fatal in large doses, but useful for treating atrial fibrillation in small doses – so at a very gross level this could be considered ‘like treating (rather than curing) like’. It is also vaguely plausible that a substance which elicits a physiological response which mimics symptoms of an illness that arise as part of the body’s  immune response (such as raising temperature) may have the effect of fighting an infection (although I have not seen any evidence for this).

Hahnemann’s experience with cinchona happened in 1790 when the medical community of the time was still dominated by the miasma theory and humourism of the Middle Ages. Vitalism was a standard of the medical profession at the time, with good health being dependent on balancing the four vital humours. The idea of a biochemical autoimmune system did not take shape until a century later, but when it did it revolutionised the medical field, bringing about treatments with previously unprecedented success (eradication of smallpox anyone?). Hahnemann had no idea about the mechanism by which the body actually heals itself, he also had no idea that malaria was not caused by a miasma, but by a microscopic parasitic protist of the genus Plasmodium.

Plasmodium falciparum – the protozoan that causes malaria

In short Hahnemann was trying to fit his limited observations into a theoretical framework consistent with the body of assumed knowledge available at the time. The same way that scientists have always worked. However, over time the body of knowledge has changed – vitalism has been rejected as evidence has been amassed which demonstrates that all of the functions historically proposed for vital energy are demonstrably biochemical in nature. Disease is now well recognised as being caused by bacteria, viruses, proteins and biochemical abnormalities rather than by derangement of ‘vital energy’. The idea of a vitalistic treatment for a biochemical problem seems rather at odds with the facts, particularly since there is no evidence to suggest that vital energy even exists. Sticking with malaria, we now know that the antimalarial component of cinchona is quinine, which is no longer effective as an antimalarial due to the resistance evolved by Plasmodium – how such immunity might have evolved in response to vital energy is hard to fathom.

Homeopathy also subscribes to the principle that the smaller the dose, the more effective it is at influencing the vital energy – to the point where homeopathic remedies are diluted until they no longer contain even one molecule of their active ingredient. Indeed it would take a ball of water the size of the solar system to contain one molecule of active ingredient in the more ‘potent’ homeopathic remedies – making them even less tangible than the Emperor’s new clothes. Of course this idea of smaller doses having a bigger effect flies in the face of everything that is demonstrated in evidence based medicine, where dose dependent effects increase with increasing dose size, through a therapeutic window until a plateau is reached or there is an overdose.  The Ten23 campaign was all about this misplaced faith in super-dilution.

If homeopaths were able to demonstrate that vital energy exists then homeopathy might have a theoretical leg to stand on, as would chiropractic and a suite of Ayruvedic medicines, but without any evidence for vital energy they remain theoretically unfounded. Interestingly, mainstream medicine was once based on the concept of vital energy, which has only been discarded due to improvements in experimental methods. Vital energy is one of those strange forces in nature that becomes harder to see the harder you look for it – probably because it only exists as a cultural concept that has no relevance in the physical world. This erosion of evidence for vital energy not only leaves homeopathic theory unfounded, but necessarily rejected.

Headstone for 9 month-old girl who died because her parents chose homeopathy over conventional treatments

Theory aside, if there was strong evidence for efficacy of homeopathic remedies then there would be very good reason to question the laws of physics and our current understanding of biology and medicine. However, there is no persuasive evidence for homeopathy’s efficacy. As such it seems bizarre that people still hold on to this outdated and superseded faith-based system of medicine; but then again there are still Flat EarthersFaith healers and people who drink their own pee, so I suppose it’s no great surprise. There are dangers however – if people choose to use homeopathy in place of medicines that have evidence of efficacy, they run the risk of harm or even death – and I think that’s something everyone should be aware of.

Friday mystery object #47

It’s Friday again (huzzah!) so that means it must be time for my mystery object. This week I’m going to give you something that is being moved from the Natural History offices at the Horniman to our Study Collection Centre, where our reserve collection is housed. The delicate bony structure of this object really caught my eye and I hope you find it as interesting as I do (click on image for higher resolution):

As always, feel free to ask questions about the object or make suggestions about what you think it looks like – I’ll do my best to answer or respond, although I’m at a conference, so apologies if my answers are sporadic and perhaps a little brief. Good luck!

Friday mystery object #46 answer

Last Friday Mark Carnall from the Grant Museum of Zoology provided a guest mystery object in the rather unpleasant looking form of this:

It looks a bit like part of a spinal column, but it isn’t. It looks like a worm of some kind, but it isn’t. So what is it?

David Craven and Dave Godfrey came through with the goods on this one. It is a parasitic crustacean related to the tongue worms (a misnomer because they are not worms at all) and it is in the genus Continue reading

Friday mystery object #46

This Friday we have a guest mystery object, supplied by the curator of the excellent Grant Museum of Zoology, Mark Carnall (the man who threatened the whole of humanity with the doomsday virus in Back from Extinction). Any idea what this fluid preserved specimen might be?

Given the general look of it and Mark’s history of terrormongery I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a body-snatching alien, if such things were in general circulation. If you’d like to see this critter  from a different angle click here.

As usual, suggestions and questions below in the comments section and I’ll do what I can to point you in the right direction. Good luck!

Friday mystery object #45 answer

On Friday, whilst I was in the lovely friendly town of Portaferry catching up with some old friends,  I gave you this mystery object to identify:

Unfortunately my phone seemed reticent to work properly, making it hard to respond to everyone’s questions, so thanks to Debi Linton for fielding some of the questions/suggestions. This object is one of those that is so characteristic in its structure that once you’ve seen one you will probably be able to spot another with ease, even though they have a huge variety of shapes, as pointed out by Benjamin Brooks in his comment (which provides a link to an image hosted by the Oceans of Kansas Paleontology site who incidentally have a mystery object of their own).

If you click on the image I provided you’ll see more detail, which makes it very clear that this is something composed of interlocking units that look like shiny bone. Shiny bone (that looks like a piece of ceramic) usually means bone with an enamel layer, which usually means teeth. These teeth are arrayed in a plate and if you look at the top of the plate you’ll see that it is discoloured, pitted and well worn. Clearly only this top part of the plate has seen much use and that use has been heavy, given the wear.

So why have all the rest of the tooth plate if it isn’t being used? Of course, the rest of the plate will be used, it just hasn’t moved into position yet – so what animal has teeth that move like a conveyor belt and are constantly being replaced? Sharks are the first things to come to my mind, but they don’t tend to have big flat plates, so think of something related to sharks that might need big flat plates for crushing something that very hard, probably marine molluscs.

If you haven’t worked it out already, this is a tooth plate from a  Continue reading

Friday mystery object #45

This Friday’s mystery object is one of those that you immediately recognise, or are immediately puzzled by. However, with appropriate questions and a bit of reasoning you can probably work out what this is (click image for bigger): 

If you are one of the people that recognises what it is immediately, can I request that you try to provide an answer using a bit of ingenuity (riddles, poetry, links), so it gives others a chance to work it out for themselves?

As usual I will do my best to answer any questions, although I am in Northern Ireland down by Strangford Lough for a long weekend, so I can’t guarantee reception on my phone – I will do my best though. Best of luck!

Friday mystery object #44 answer

On Friday I gave you an Anthropological mystery object for a bit of a change:

I asked what it was, what the head is made from and where is it from and I got some great answers, including the (more or less) correct one. The fact that this is a projectile weapon was quickly identified, although there was some wavering between spear and arrow.

The locality was harder to pin down and the composition of the head was a real challenge. In the end, Neil managed to get it right (apart from the spear vs arrow issue) – it’s an Continue reading

Friday mystery object #44

It’s been a busy week looking at cat skulls with Manabu Sakamoto from Bristol Uni. Lots of lovely pics which will hopefully eventually make their way on to the Horniman website once Rupert (our new Documentation Manager) works his magic with our database. Since cat skulls are pretty easy to identify I was a bit concerned that I might not find a sufficiently challenging mystery object for today, but fortunately Helen (our Collections Access Officer) and Nick (one of our awesome volunteers) came through with this (click for bigger):

So what is this object (easy) and more importantly, what is the head of it made from (tricky) and where does it come from (pretty easy once you get what it’s made from)?

Suggestions and questions below – I’ll do my best to answer in good time. Good luck!

Friday mystery object #43 answer

On Friday I gave you this skull to identify:

I used this skull because the shape really appealed to me when I stumbled across it in one of my office drawers – here are another couple of views of the same specimen:

Most of you quickly worked out that this skull belongs to a rodent – and a big rodent at that.  The inflated nasal region was also quickly picked up by some of you and I think that’s what led Jonpaulkaiser to the correct answer first, followed by Neil who also managed a species level identification. Well done to everyone though, there were lots of very close attempts, with several of you missing out by a quill’s breadth – if you’ll excuse the frankly awful pun. This is of course (if you didn’t guess from the bad pun) a Continue reading

Friday mystery object #43

I am back at the Horniman this week, after last week’s soujourn to Plymouth. Yesterday I was working through some of the collections that I’ve been in the process of transferring from my office space to our stores building, when I came across this specimen:

I love the shape of this skull so much that I just had to have it as a mystery object. It would be too easy if I gave you a side-view, so you’ll just have to wait for that until Monday. Make your suggestions below and I’ll do my best to respond (although my home internet has been down for the past week, so I may be limited in how much opportunity I have to reply to questions).

Best of luck!

Friday mystery object #42 answer

On Friday I was at the NatSCA conference, hosted by the Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery. The conference was excellent (thanks Jan and Helen) and I really enjoyed the natural history collections on display – particularly this piece of partially made taxidermy:

I asked you to identify what species of bird this mannequin is intended to represent. The only actual bits of the bird are the legs, head and wings, so these are the bits you should have concentrated on.

I was a bit surprised that no-one managed to get this. Most people went down the line of thinking that it was a fairly long-legged and long-necked bird, but that is without taking into account that the feathers are missing! Feathers considerably alter the shape of a bird, smoothing the contours of the neck (which has a strong curvature in life which shortens it) and providing a substantial amount of insulation. Feathers also layer quite densely on top of one another, with a stiff rachis down the middle of each, which provides structural support, changing the outline.

In the end there was one person who came close – Neil, who correctly identified that it was a corvid of some description and his suggestion was supported by Bob O’H. It is in fact a Continue reading

Friday mystery object #42

This Friday the mystery object is coming to you from Plymouth where I am currently attending the Natural Science Collections Association conference. The natural history gallery here has some great material and I thought it might be nice to have one of the specimens as this week’s object. So do you have any idea what this partially stuffed bird is:

As usual you can put your suggestions in the comments section below – I will endeavour to answer any questions, although I may not have much opportunity whilst the conference is in full flow.

Hope you enjoy it!

Friday mystery object #41 answer

On Friday I gave you this formidable looking object to identify:

Many  suggestions related to the saw-like appearance of this object, proposing either a human-made saw or the rostrum (nose) of a saw-fish (which are endangered cartilaginous fish of the genus Pristis). The closest answers all made reference to the articulation at the end of this object, which is the significant clue as to what this object is – the “teeth” are just secondary details.

Jake was the first to come close, followed by Kevin the epic and KateV, who gave a sensible mechanical breakdown of the likely use of this element. I’m not all that surprised to say that this week no-one worked out that the mystery object is a Continue reading

Friday mystery object #41

It’s hard to believe that it’s a year ago today that I started this blog – how time flies! The mystery object didn’t start until four months in and I strongly feel that it provides the backbone of the blog. So here is my forty-first mystery object – I hope you enjoy trying to work out what it is (whatever it might be, it looks pretty vicious):

As usual put your suggestions and questions below and I will do my best to answer (without giving it away). The answer will be posted on Monday.

Good luck!

Friday mystery object #40 answer

On Friday I gave you this skeleton to identify:

It looks a bit like a snake, but there are a couple of give-aways that mean it must be something else. First of all, snakes may look like they’re all tail, but actually they have quite short tails in relation to their body length (hint – the tail starts just after the ribs end) and second, a snake’s skull has a very open light structure (as I’ve discussed before). Both of these snaky features can be seen in this image taken by dbking:

Viperid snake skeleton (image by dbking)

Viperid snake skeleton (image by dbking)

So, if it’s not a snake, what is it? There are quite a few animals that have a long slim body with no limbs, from eels to caecilians to a variety of lizards (including, but not restricted to snakes, which are a discrete subgroup within the lizards). However, this is not an eel because their ribs don’t form a cage – they form vertical projections for their muscles to work against, it’s not a caecilian because they have even shorter tails than snakes, which leaves us with the non-snaky legless lizards (as recognised by Gimpy).

Legless lizards crop up in at least three major groups of lizard (not counting snakes) so there is a fair amount of choice out there. The Amphisbaenia are really weird and the mystery object doesn’t have the right skull shape to be one of them. The Pygopodidae are legless members of the same group as the geckos – and the mystery object could probably be one of them, except it’s not. It is in fact a member of the Anguoidea (more particularly the Anguidae) and it was identified correctly by Jim (and seconded by Neil) as being a  Continue reading

Friday mystery object #40

Last week’s object was totally unrelated to natural history, but this week I am returning to my area of interest. Any idea what this might be:

(Length across specimen approx 45cm)

It’s a bit of an easy one, but next week I’ll make up for it with something a more difficult.

As usual you can ask questions or make your suggestions in the comments section below – I’ll do my best to answer, but I won’t be in the office for most of the day, so I can’t guarantee a rapid response. Good luck!

Ask A Biologist

I’ve been involved with Ask A Biologist (affectionately known as AAB) for quite a while now, so I am excited that the site is being relaunched today with a substantial make-over that should make it easier for everybody to use (you may notice that I’ve given my blog a make-over as well). The site was started by my buddy Dave Hone of Archosaur Musings fame and I feel fortunate to have been a part of it since its first tenuous steps.

AAB is a fantastic free resource that provides a direct line to researchers in the field of biology, palaeontology, medicine and other associated biosciences. We have fielded all kinds of questions, from Do Crocodiles play around to  Functional heterologous complementation. The site is intended to give authoritative answers whenever possible and informed opinions where answers are simply not available. This reflects the true nature of science, where the answer “I don’t know” is sometimes the most honest answer; one that can usually followed by a suggestion based on what is known. These are often the most interesting answers, because they lead to discussion and sometimes full debate – something that stimulates the development and testing of ideas (Dromaeosaur claws is a great example).

The public is composed of a huge variety of people with diverse backgrounds and very different experiences. This means that the contributors to the site are often faced with questions phrased in terms that they have not encountered before; it’s amazing how helpful this fresh perspective can be when you’re totally immersed in an area of study. If you are involved in bioscience at a professional level and you want to engage more fully with the public I would strongly recommend getting involved with AAB – it’s voluntary, but the rewards are substantial. For those of you who are not professional biology types, but you have questions about something to do with biology, I would recommend searching the archives of AAB and if you can’t find the answer there, then go  ahead and Ask A Biologist.

[For more information about registering as a contributor please leave a comment below and I will contact you with details]

Friday mystery object #39 answer

On Friday I deviated from my usual natural history theme when I gave you this object:

There were a host of suggestions, from a tea caddy to part of the Large Hadron Collider, however, one person managed to identify that this is actually a pin cushion – here it is folded out in all its glory:

So well done to KateV (who is also known as mum by me)!

This particular pincushion is European and made of cardboard and fabric – I would tell you more, but out database doesn’t seem to be responding this morning, so any additional information will have to follow once that’s up and running, since I am a total ignoramus about such cultural items. Hopefully more to follow…