‘Nother nature post
The devil’s lambs? Surely not…
You always see one or two black sheep in a field of white ones. I’ve always assumed it was a one-off recessive gene thing - like a kind of inverse albinoism. (I suspect the idiomatic meaning has also affected my understanding).
A couple of fields away, there’s a field of ewes with their little ones. The lambs are still at the stage when they run for their mum if they see a person. There’s the requisite couple of black ewes. One of them has twins. Black twins, clearly belonging to her.
I wonder, what are the chances of that? A recessive gene that’s come to the forefront?
Then it occurred to me that white wool is probably easier than black wool to dye into different colours. Also, historically, black sheep have been seen as bad: ’In 18th and 19th century England, the black color of the sheep was seen as the mark of the devil.’ (But those were definitely not the devil’s lambs I saw, I’m telling you). Hence the idiom, presumably.
It would make sense, then, that the breeding of black sheep has been actively suppressed, or, at the very least, not encouraged. Sheep breeders certainly pay attention to the tiniest detail when it comes to colouring, as I discovered when I was looking for information on all this. Interesting.
From red to grey to black…the rise and fall of different squirrels…
This story has been around for a while. Black squirrels are slowly becoming the dominant breed in areas of Britain, ousting greys. It’s started in the Eastern counties, but is slowly spreading West. These newcomers are a genetic mutation of the grey ones - a difference in melanin/pigmentation, combined with ramped-up testosterone, apparently. The bit that makes me smirk a little is that the grey lady squirrels find the hypermasculine black ones irresistible, and are much preferring to mate with them. Slappers. (Or could it be that the grey male squirrels are just being chased off by these new supersquirrels? I mean, I know who I’d bet on in a squirrel!fight).
Some of the articles I’ve seen on this have a tone I’m not sure about: ‘Well, the greys are interlopers anyway, they’re just getting what they deserve’, sort of thing (despite the fact greys were introduced by people in the first place…there was nothing natural about it)… I’m quite fond of grey squirrels. Having said that, many of the city ones seem to be quite fat and lazy - there was one on a branch near my grannie’s flat and I swear it was cat-sized. Survival of the fittest, anyone?
I did learn, though, that red squirrels are stubbornly thriving in certain areas of the UK - notably parts of Scotland and the Isle of Wight. I had no idea - I thought they were much scarcer, or even extinct. I’ve certainly never seen one in the flesh. It’s heartening, isn’t it? Despite the grey squirrel completely dominating in certain parts of the country, the native reds have managed to hang on, even if the two can’t coexist in the same area. The greys should take note right now.
I wonder what colour squirrel will be visiting us next…?
Yes, yes, bees are disappearing…
It’s been around a couple of years, this phenomenon. I must admit, at the start I was mildly concerned, but tending to dismiss it. Who ever counted bees, anyway, I thought. I wondered if it was an internet myth, especially when Donna kept going on about it on Doctor Who.
But it’s true, and serious - beekepers from all over the world are saying their colonies are dying/disappearing The investigations can’t pin it down to one factor. Various theories have been put forward, from mobile phones to pesticides. The link above gives an extremely comprehensive account of all the major theories - it seems perfectly possible, after reading, that:
Global warming has had a dual effect - bees’ bodies can’t cope with the extreme swings in temperature and conditions, and the earlier blossoming of plants and flowers has thrown their internal timings (and selves) into a tailspin. Put plainly, the bees have got stressed, both physically and mentally, and as a result of this their immune systems have weakened. (NB: It’s possible, but by no means proven, that pesticides and radio waves could be a contributory factor here too).
Hence, all sorts of diseases and parasites have run rampant and unchecked through colonies. This, in part, could explain why no single uniting ‘illness’ can be found - the autopsies (or whatever you call them when you do it on bees) have discovered varying causes of death, similar within a colony, but different ‘patches’ on a national or international scale.
It’s proving impossible to tie it to a single, unifying cause thus far, so scientists seem at a loss as to how to stop it. How important is this? Well, it’s not completely necessary for honeybees to pollinate crops. There are other potential ‘pollinators’ - it says so in the link above. I’m assuming that refers to other breeds of bee, as I can’t think of anything else that might act as a pollinator - potentially another insect, perhaps; I don’t know - perhaps someone can enlighten me?
However, if these particular bees are dying out, what’s to stop that death from crossing breed or species? A Newsround article seems to summarise the impact it could have on our food supplies - although perhaps even this is too mild - potatoes and wheat are plants after all. Who knows.
On the other hand, I can’t help feeling that the scattergun approach the scientists seem to be taking may not be the most effective. It does seem the most logical - go for what they think are the most likely causes (i.e. things put by humans in the bees’ immediate environment) to try and exclude them. But all that has done is give us a really long list of things that it could be. So many potential contributory factors.
But what if it’s none of these things? Or what if they only make up a tiny bit of the reason. What if it’s more to do with the ongoing evolution of the bee? Something naturally incompatible with them? Isn’t it a little egotistical (and masochistic) to assume human agency, however likely/inevitable we may feel it is. Yep, it is commonly accepted we’ve ruined the planet. I can’t disagree. It’s a fact that when we have meddled (knowingly or not) with the natural order of things, there have been unforseen, damaging consequences. But we aren’t the only species of flora or fauna here. It might be worth the scientists’ time to broaden their scope a little.
Says me. Who claims no authority on these matters whatsoever - it’s all my own opinion and observation. Anyone who knows anything about it will probably see how naïve (and, quite probably, misguided) I am. I just seem to spend a bit of time pondering such things these days.
Speaking of which, just as an endnote, when I was reading about the bees, I found this: A mystery disease is killing bats. Damn.
Hm. Well I went into all sorts of areas I didn’t intend to there. I started by seeing some sheep, and ended up wondering about how (or even if) you can draw a line between evolution/development of species, and human agency. Have I come to the conclusion that ultimately, the latter will be gobbled up within the former? I’m not sure. I’m certainly not giving a get-out clause, or advocating anti-environmentalism (if such a thing exists). I’m just, uh, not underestimating nature. Or something. It’s a tricky thing, agency and awareness, for a species. I am…fairly confused.