LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature book. Happy reading LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature Pocket Guide.

Advertisement Hide. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. Arago, Compte Rendus Acad. Google Scholar. Marignier, Le Photographe, No. Marignier, Nature , CrossRef Google Scholar. Marignier, J. Wedgwood and Sir H.

Davy, J. Royal Inst. Liquid CS 2. Like petroleum for lamps.

Get e-book LIGHTNING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER : Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature

Notice about Heliography. In fact it was a copper plate covered with a thin foil of silver. The Paris line is an old unit of measurement of the eighteenth century. This is a thorough study of the subject, written in nontechnical language for the layman with a scientific inclination or just curiosity about nature.

No reviews were found. Please log in to write a review if you've read this book. Login Join. Time to read. Store Lightning as a 'Photographer'. Retail Price:. BookShout Price:. At first, Fisher argued, females might evolve preferences for certain valueless traits, like bright plumage, that just happened to correspond with health and vigor. Although Fisherian selection was certainly not ignored, it was ultimately overshadowed by a series of hypotheses that seemed to rescue beauty from purposelessness. Extravagant ornaments, Zahavi argued, were not merely indicators of advantageous traits as Wallace had said — they were a kind of test.

If an animal thrived despite the burden of an unwieldy or metabolically expensive ornament, then that animal had effectively demonstrated its vigor and proved itself worthy of a mate. Similarly, in , the evolutionary biologists W. Hamilton and Marlene Zuk proposed that some ornaments, in particular bright plumage, signaled that a male was resilient against parasites and would grant his children the same protection.

Many scientists began to think of sexual selection as a type of natural selection. After more than 30 years of searching, most biologists agree that although these benefits exist, their prevalence and importance is uncertain. A few compelling studies of frogs, fish and birds have shown that females who choose more attractive males typically have children with more robust immune systems and a greater chance of survival. On the whole, however, the evidence has not equaled the enthusiasm. In the summer of , around the same time that biologists were rekindling their interest in sexual selection, Prum and the nature documentarian Ann Johnson who would later choose him as her husband traveled to Ecuador to continue studying manakins.

The first morning, while hiking through a cloud forest, Prum heard odd bell-like notes, which he took to be the murmurings of parrots. Later that day, on the same trail, he heard the strange sounds again and followed them into the forest. He was astonished to find that the source was a male club-winged manakin, a small cinnamon-bodied species with a red cap and black-and-white mottled wings. The manakin was jumping around in a showy manner that suggested he was courting females.

Alabama Public Television Program Information

Male club-winged manakins had feathers with contorted shafts that rubbed against each other times a second — faster than a hummingbird beats its wings. Whereas a vast majority of birds have light, hollow bones in service of flight, Bostwick has recently shown via CT scans that male club-winged manakins have solid ulnas — wing bones — which they need to withstand the intense quivering. Female manakins have inherited related anomalies as well.

The self-perpetuating pressure to be beautiful, Prum argues, has impeded the survival of the entire species. Because the females do not court males, there can be no possible advantage to their warped bones and feathers. All the while, he never stopped thinking about sexual selection. Prum formally presented his theory of aesthetic evolution in a series of scientific papers published between and , proposing that all sexual ornaments and preferences should be regarded as arbitrary until proven useful.

Despite his recent Pulitzer nomination, Prum still stings from the perceived scorn of his academic peers. At the same time, nearly every researcher I spoke to said that Prum inflates the importance of arbitrary preferences and Fisherian selection to the point of eclipsing all other possibilities. Although he admits that certain forms of beauty may be linked to survival advantages, he does not seem particularly interested in engaging with the considerable research on this topic. Like Darwin, Prum is so enchanted by the outcomes of aesthetic preferences that he mostly ignores their origins.

Toward the end of our bird walk at Hammonasset Beach State Park, we got to talking about club-winged manakins. I asked him about their evolutionary history.

  1. Photos of the Loch Ness Monster, revisited.
  2. NPR’s Book Concierge.
  3. Lightning as a 'Photographer': Revisiting a Forgotten Phenomenon of Nature?
  4. The Quizmasters Book of 2000 Quiz Questions.

Over time, this sound became highly attractive to females, which pressured males to evolve adaptations that made their rustling feathers louder and more noticeable, culminating in a quick-winged strumming. But why, I asked Prum, would females be attracted to those particular sounds in the first place? To Prum, it was a question without an answer — and thus a question not worth contemplating. Even if we were to accept that most beauty blooms from arbitrary preferences, we would still need to explain why such preferences exist at all.

But where Prum celebrates caprice, they seek causality. Molly Cummings, a professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin, is a leading researcher in the field of sensory ecology. When I visited her last spring, she drove us to one of her field laboratories: a grassy clearing populated with several large concrete basins. The surface of one basin was so packed with woolly algae and pink-flowered water lilies that we could hardly see the water.

Cummings began pushing some of the vegetation out of the way, forming shady recesses that permitted our gaze at the right angle. A paper-clip-size fish swam toward us.

Navigation menu

I leaned in for a closer look. He darted back and forth in front of the female, shimmying as he went, his scales reflecting whatever light managed to breach the murk.

As we toured the facilities, Cummings told me about the arc of her career. While an undergraduate at Stanford University, she spent a summer scuba diving in the giant kelp forests at Hopkins Marine Station, adjacent to the world-renowned Monterey Bay Aquarium.

We spoke to photographer Sean Coyle about his work memorialising crime scenes.

Cummings thought about the fish she had observed in California and Australia. She was astounded by the dynamic beauty of surfperch in the kelp forest: the way they communicate through the color and brightness of their skin, flashing blue, silver and orange to attract mates. Equally impressive was the diversity of their aquatic habitats.

Some patches of water were sparkling and clear; others were cloudy with algal muck. In Australia, sunlight bathed the many vibrant species of reef fish almost constantly, but they lived against a kaleidoscopic backdrop of coral. How did fish evolve effective and reliable sexual ornaments if the lighting and scenery in their homes were so variable? After earning a postgraduate degree in Australia in , Cummings began a Ph.

For several years, she studied various species of surfperch, repeatedly diving in the kelp forests with a Plexiglas-protected spectrometer to quantify and characterize the light in different habitats. At night, she would use powerful diving lights to stun surfperch and take them back to the lab, evading the hungry seals that routinely trailed her in hopes of making a meal of the startled fish. After hundreds of dives and careful measurements, Cummings discovered that water itself had guided the evolution of piscine beauty. Whichever males happened to have scales that best reflected these wavelengths were more likely to catch the eye of females.

In her studies, Cummings showed that surfperch living in dim or murky waters generally preferred shiny ornaments, while surfperch inhabiting zones of mercurial brightness favored bold colors. Later, Cummings found that Mexican swordtails occupying the upper layers of rivers, where the clear water strongly polarized incoming sunlight, had ornaments that were specialized to reflect polarized light — like a stripe of iridescent blue.

These findings parallel similar studies suggesting that female guppies in Trinidad prefer males with orange patches because they first evolved a taste for nutritious orange tree fruits that occasionally fell into the water. What a creature finds attractive depends on more than the unique qualities of its environment, however; attraction is also defined by which of those qualities cross the threshold of awareness.

Consider the difference between what we see when we look at a flower and what a bumblebee sees.