Reptilian Rants

Awhile back I wrote a post about the importance of being a dream chaser. Now, I admit that the timing of the post did coincide with a part of the year that I find personally repulsive. As such, the tone came out rather dreary and whiny. I try not to bitch about things like this because every time I do, I seem to get reminded of people in far worse situations than I.

I like to think that these “lessons in humility” help to keep me in my place.

I have since come across a lecture that gives a message very similar to what I wrote, but in a far more articulate and powerful manner.

Judging from the amount of diggs this lecture has gotten, I’m thinking that I’m really just joining the choir. Nonetheless, if you are one of the few folks (like myself) who hadn’t yet seen this, I recommend watching the final lecture by professor Randy Pausch Ph.D.

Dr. Pausch is dying of pancreatic cancer. At the time of his final lecture, he had six months left to live. We’re on month six now, and Dr. Pausch is still with us. One can keep track on how well he is doing by heading to his official site.

In his final lecture, Dr. Pausch went over what it takes to achieve one’s dreams, and the importance of living an honourable life. His speech has been so moving and inspirational that it has been watched by over 6 million people across the world. Dr. Pausch really shows how perseverance, determination, and honour, can result in one achieving the dreams of childhood.

If one hasn’t seen it yet, I highly recommend watching his final lecture. There are two main versions to choose from.

1.) The original Carnegie Mellon lecture (runtime: 76:26)

2.) The abridged, but no less powerful version for Oprah (runtime: 11:32)

I recommend the longer one, simply because it is the most in-depth, and is (of course) the original. When it comes to things like these, I always feel that the first time is always the best time.

I would have been proud to have him as a teacher.

Randy Pausch is one of my heroes.

Please watch his lecture and see for yourself.

~Jura

Just a quick update for folks who don’t already know. Jeff Martz has responded to Spencer Lucas’s statements regarding the whole aetogate matter.

He also provides the necessary figures needed to understand the relevance of the case.

That’s if for now.

Back to transcoding.

~Jura

Visitors last night might have noticed the status of the front page got kinda screwy last night. I was attempting to meld my old Java applet menu, with the current menu. As is evident by today, I had no luck. So I’m still looking into fixing that. I’ve also been working on dragging the rest of my site into the 21st century, by making some simple, but useful CSS and PHP templates. Everything seems to be working out pretty well (though it sure takes a lot of time to sift through).

So far, I only have one page on my site using the template. Each page needs to be converted over, which means I have to make sure all the old code gets changed over. In the process I’m making sure everything stays XHTML compliant. For some pages, it’s easy. For others, eh, not so much. Feel free to leave an feedback on the new design (I already know that there is a format issue with screens running a 1024×768 resolution. I’m working on fixing that).

On the Aetogate front, Bill Parker and Jeff Martz have both provided comments to the DCA’s results and Lucas’s response(pdf). I can only link to Bill Parker’s response right now (I can’t find Jeff’s). It’s definitely worth reading. Parker provides plenty of supporting documentation to back up his claims and help remove the “he said. she said” stuff that was going on in Lucas’s response.

When I find Dr. Martz’s response, I’ll link to it here.

~Jura

As I’ve mentioned here before, the fact that defendants of Lucas and co. have insisted that the NMMNHS bulletin follows the same criteria for publication that other in house publications do, has me worried about the validity of these other publications. In particular, the AMNH Novitates and Bulletin series.

Three days ago, Mark Norell, curator at the AMNH, sent correspondence to DCA chair Stuart Ashman, setting the record straight on the publishing practices at the American Museum of Natural History.

Needless to say, my worries were unnecessary and my skepticism regarding the statements of Norman Silberling, and others, regarding publication practices of the NMMNHS bulletin, was well founded.

Head on over to Mike Taylor’s site, and give it a read, yourself.

~Jura

I thought about giving this post a name referencing the Walls of Jericho, but I thought nah.

So, as I mentioned earlier, the DCA results have been announced today. Once again I feel the need to send some respect to ABQ journalist John Fleck for keeping the public aware of what is going on, and making the results of the inquiry available to everyone in the pdf. Mr. Fleck has promised an in depth interview with Lucas and co in tomorrow’s journal. It should be worth reading.

Okay, so what about the review?

Well, as expected, Dr. Lucas and co. were found innocent of all charges. What can I say, when one fixes the race, it makes it really easy to predict the winner.

Let’s take a look at what exactly went on at this “inquiry.” For folks who wish to play along at home, feel free to keep a copy of the pdf open, while I go through it. Who knows, there might be a test afterwards.

For starters, the whole thing feels “bass ackwards” due to the way Mr. Fleck put the pdf together. All the minutes of what went on are at the end of the pdf, rather than the beginning. No matter though, the meat of the matter is probably the first 23 pages anyway. These contain the official written words of Spencer Lucas. Prior to this, Lucas had been stubbornly silent on the whole matter (something that has done little to help his innocence).

Lucas gives a rundown of the allegations brought about him by Jeff Martz and Bill Parker, including a point - counter point take on what Martz and Parker actually said.

So what does he have to say?

For starters (page 3), Lucas insists that the NMMNHS bulletin adheres to the review process that is used in other museum bulletins such as the AMNH bulletin. As I alluded to in a previous post, I sincerely hope this isn’t true.

Dr. Lucas devotes the first 17 pages (74%) of his review to handling Bill Parker’s claim of plagiarism/claim jumping. Throughout it all Lucas insists that he, nor anyone else at the NMMNHS had any knowledge of Parker’s intent to publish a new name for this aetosaur.

A large chunk of this point counter-point was very nit-picky. Lucas points out errors in Parker’s publication dates. Then Dr. Lucas proceeds to give a long “he said, she said” run-through of Parker’s story vs. his.

As I’m writing / reading through this again, something strange just caught my eye:

[page 4]
In his letter, Parker goes on to give the several reasons why he found Lucas’ comments disturbing based entirely on what he says was discussed during their conversation, which again, is not accurate. Nonetheless, we will continue to discuss Parker’s observations in detail:

Um, who the hell is we? According to Mr. Fleck, the first 23 pages of this response were Spencer Lucas’ written responses to these allegations. Yet throughout the point by point, Lucas continuously refers to himself in the third person. He also often uses “we” a lot in any “active tense” situations. I’m thinking that this was less a personal written response, and more likely a collaborative effort between Lucas and others. Add that to the long delay between accusation and actual public response, and this almost starts to have a whiff of conspiracy to it.

Then again, it could just as well be some form of apophenia. Besides, I hate conspiracies, so let’s just leave that alone for now.

On page 4 Lucas gives some rather interesting, and potentially damming information about Bill Parker’s visit to the NMMNHS in the spring of 2003. Namely, he apparently didn’t. At least there are apparently no known records of his visit there. As this is an important date in the entire scenario, it would be good if the validity of the time line could be better grounded.

Of course Lucas could have had Parker’s record expunged in order to create this whole….no, no. Bad conspiracy theory! Go way!

On page 5 Lucas states that Parker had not had contact with anyone at the museum regarding the whole Desmatosuchus naming issue. Yet it is now common knowledge in this case that Parker’s main contact at the museum was Andy Heckert. There’s no need to play dumb (as Lucas goes on to state that he knew about Heckert’s involvement with Parker).

Further down, Lucas states that no one had ever seen Parker’s Masters thesis, save for possibly Andy Heckert. Dr. Heckert’s testimony is sorely lacking from this entire review. Given how much seems to ride on Heckert’s involvement with Parker, it would have been nice if the DCA had gone to the trouble of getting him to partake in the review. Hell, they had Adrian Hunt give testimonial by telephone. Surely they could have done the same with Heckert.

Page 6 continues the rundown with Lucas stating that he had did not read the abstract by Parker in JVP, despite have subscribed to it. His retort to Parker’s allegation seems somewhat unbelievable.

Parker infers that because Lucas, Hunt and Spielmann subscribe to the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology they must have read his abstract (2003). Assuming that indeed Lucas, Hunt and Spielmann read the abstract, Parker’s abstract simply “notes” that Desmatosuchus chamaensis represented a new genus. There is no indication in Parker’s abstract that he planned to give it a new name.

The incredulity comes from the statement from Lucas that he wouldn’t have been drawn to anything regarding Triassic vertebrates. Especially if it involved aetosaurs; given that Lucas and co were studying aetosaurs at the time. Had Parker had been writing on turtles, this excuse might have sounded better, but as it currently stands, no way.

Also, for those playing the home game, I suggest keeping an eye on how many times Dr. Lucas brings up the excuse that though they knew Parker considered this aetosaur specimen to be a new genus, they insist that Parker gave no indication of naming it. Trust me, it will be important soon.

The next two pages (7 and 8) seem to involve Dr. Lucas repeatedly shifting the blame onto Andrew Heckert, in regards to why the material in question was still referred to as D.chamaensis. Nowhere throughout this time period does Lucas state that he disagreed with Heckert’s views on the aetosaur material. It is also here that we start seeing counter allegations being planted. Namely that they did not expect Bill Parker to publish on material that was known to be under study at the NMMNHS.

On the bottom of page 8 (#14), Lucas asks why Parker had never disclosed the publication of his forthcoming paper during their many moments of contact with each other. I don’t have an answer to this one, but I would like to hear Bill Parker’s take on Lucas’ view of this situation.

Point # 17 (page 9) is interesting as Lucas once again mentions that though they knew Bill Parker doubted the validity of the aetosaur material being a member of D.chamaensis, they had no idea that he was going to be giving it a new name.

That’s the 5th time this has been brought up; by the way. Think about that for a moment. Lucas had mentioned 5 separate times where he had known that Bill Parker had reasons to doubt this particular aetosaur material. That’s a lot of time to spend on a single aetosaur species. Maybe it’s just me, but I would have certainly asked Parker whether or not he had any intent to give a new name to the species, given how often he seemed to talk about it.

Lucas does apologize for not being more clear about publication rights for folks visiting to see specimens.

Page 11 continues Lucas’ insistence that he, nor any of his colleagues, had any prior knowledge of Parker’s upcoming paper. It does bring up the fact that there were 6 people that the paper had to get through before publication. Lucas insists that none of them knew about Parker’s paper, else they would have mentioned something. That both Jerry Harris and one other person on the team offered their apologies to Parker shortly after the paper was published, would suggest otherwise though.

Page 12 brings us to the summary of all of Parker’s allegations against Lucas. This summary quickly turns into a counter-allegation from Lucas. In it, he states that he believed that Parker had personally kept this information from him and his colleagues, in an attempt to publish something out from Lucas and co.

So now Lucas is the victim in all this? His claims that Parker should not have tried to do this, as it is customary not to publish on work that is currently under study, or at least to ask permission from the curator/collections manager, seems to fly in the face of a separate case of Lucas doing this with a Polish specimen (see here). It helps that Lucas is not on trial for that case.

The appendix (pages 13-17) offers up an interesting take on Parker’s case. Lucas presents evidence that Parker had visited the museum and took pictures of specimens without the knowledge of the staff. How true any of this allegation is remains to be seen, but it sounds an awful lot like what Lucas himself was claimed to have done in Poland. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Page 18 starts Lucas’ response to Jeff Martz assertion of plagiarism. It starts off with Lucas questioning the involvement of Matt Wedel and Mike Taylor in this whole mess. I’m not sure why. Is it now against to rules to seek outside help?

On the bright side, Lucas handles Martz case much better, and insists it was all a grand misunderstanding. There’s not much I can say about this section. The biggest point of contention (I could have said: bone, but I refrained) is a figure that Martz insists was from his thesis, but Lucas insists was from a different publication (Heckert et al, 1996). Lucas attached a comparison of the two figures, but it was not included in the pdf. I would be very interested in seeing how all three of these figures compare to one another.

Short of that, Lucas apologizes for not properly citing Martz work properly, and even suggested adding an addendum to a future publication of the bulletin, mentioning this.

Page 23 gives a brief list of suggested improvement to the NMMNHS bulletin. All of them seem like very good ideas that I hope will be implemented as soon as possible.

The rest of the pdf details the minutes from the actual inquiry.

Page 32 and parts of 33, contain Norman Silberling’s statements regarding the whole matter, and what his conclusions were. Given what Silberling has said in the past(pdf), I see no need to go over it again.

The remainder of page 33 has the other outside reviewer, Orin Anderson, giving his take on the matter. Anderson doesn’t focus much on the plagiarism accusations, and instead states that actions should be done to reform the way the NMMNHS bulletin is published. Overall, Anderson seems to have taken a fairly objective approach; at least with that matter.

From there, Adrian Hunt gets interviewed. It is at this point that I ask folks to take a moment and gets some fresh air. There is a large amount of ass kissing in this section. All three folks who were brought up to discuss the matter, offered a disturbing amount of praise to Dr. Lucas before giving their views. This was supposed to be an inquiry folks; not a retirement ceremony.

Much of Hunt and Silberling’s statements echoed what Lucas had already said, so there is not really much more to add here.

There we go. So what came out of all this mess?

Well, Lucas does insist on instating a new publishing policy for the bulletin, that would better reflect that of other journals (page 37). Other than that, what I read today bore an eery resemblance to a Fox News “hard hitting” interview with George Bush, or Dick Cheney.

Will there be outrage at this?

There already is. Now that we have official results, I don’t expect the heat to die down around the NMMNHS anytime soon.

However, I think it is less likely that we will see much more of a response from the DCA, or any other bureaucratic agency in NM, regarding this matter. As far as they are concerned, they threw us a bone. They put on a show so as to shut us up. They are done with this whole mess and will move on.

Probably the most apt statement from this entire inquiry, would be that of Orin Anderson:

Anderson believes that resolution to these allegations being considered today should be found within the scientific community, not within administration.

The ball’s in our court again. What are we going to do with it?

It’s out and it’s 39 pages long. As expected, Lucas and co are exonerated from all accusations. The details by which the reviewers have come to this conclusion are what currently interests me. I’m going over it now, and will be posting my thoughts on the matter later today.

Till then why not read it yourself. (pdf)

Well here it is, March 3rd already. I must admit I am shocked with how quickly the time has flown. I’m even more shocked that throughout it all, I had less than a week’s worth of “meh” posts. I’m also proud to say that barring one close call (due to coming in late from watching the hilarious movie: Be Kind Rewind), I was able to hit my daily deadlines with no trouble.

I guess this blogging stuff isn’t as hard as I thought. :)

Though the pressure to put out something new-daily, is now gone, I don’t intend to slack off. I probably won’t have something new everyday, but I will be keeping my eyes on the news, and when I come across a story that I think is worth following, I’ll let everyone know here. I also have a few rants built up that I’ve been itching to get out, so writer’s block no longer seems to be a problem.

Still this isn’t how I intended to end my 30 day challenge. As I reported two week ago, today was the day the Aetogate results were to be announced. Yet here it is almost 5 PM PST, and we’re still waiting to hear back from the NM Dept of Cultural Affairs. It looks like this might stretch into tomorrow.

Till then, I and much of the VP community will be waiting with baited breath.

Thanks for reading.

More to come.

~Jura

Ooh, I’m coming in under the wire this time (see the time stamp).

So when someone talks about pterosaurs, or flying reptiles, you probably think of something like one of these:

Pteranodon and Rhamphorhynchus. The two archetypes of pop culture pterosaurs.
Former image from here. Latter image by Charlie McGrady.

Few folks would normally think of this as a normal pterosaur:

Pterodaustro guiñazui (pic culled from Wikipedian artist: Arthur Weasley).

Its name was Pterodaustro guiñazui, and unlike other pterosaurs, which fed on fish, insects, or other types of meat, P.guiñazui was a filter feeder. It has commonly been compared to a Mesozoic flamingo (thus resulting in more than a fair share of flamingo like drawings). It sifted microorganisms from the waters that it lived near. Unlike today’s modern flamingo (Phoenicopterus), Pterodaustro could filter feed without dipping its head upside down. As far as pterosaurs go, it was certainly one of (if not) the strangest species to have come from this group.As is typical with the weird ones, though they are celebrated for their uniqueness; that is about all that is known about them.

Well, no more:

Chinsamy, A., Codorniú, L., Chiappe, L. 2008. Developmental growth patterns of the filter-feeder pterosaur, Pterodaustro guiñazui. Biology Letters. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0004 (online: first cite)

Abstract
Life-history parameters of pterosaurs such as growth and ontogenetic development represent an enigma. This aspect of pterosaur biology has remained perplexing because few pterosaur taxa are represented by complete ontogenetic series. Of these, Pterodaustro is unique in that besides being represented by hundreds of individuals with wing spans ranging from 0.3 to 2.5m, it includes an embryo within an egg. Here we present a comprehensive osteohistological assessment of multiple skeletal elements of a range of ontogenetic sizes of Pterodaustro, and we provide unparalleled insight into its growth dynamics. We show that, upon hatching, Pterodaustro juveniles grew rapidly for approximately 2 years until they reached approximately 53% of their mature body size, whereupon they attained sexual maturity. Thereafter, growth continued for at least another 3–4 years at comparatively slower rates until larger adult body sizes were attained. Our analysis further provides definitive evidence that Pterodaustro had a determinate growth strategy.

Pterodaustro guiñazui skull (photo from: http://www.pterosaurier.de)

I have yet to read the full paper, but from what it says here, it would appear that the filter feeding lifestyle took its toll on P.guiñazui, as its growth rate was remarkably slow. As this is the first time a growth series has been done on a pterosaur, it probably shouldn’t be assumed that this growth was typical of all pterosaurs (which would have had diets that were much higher in protein, thus aiding growth).Still the results are definitely interesting. Plus any new bits of info on the world’s strangest pterosaur, is a good thing in my book.

~Jura

Oh yeah, that’s right. You know what I mean.

They evolve…at the molecular level.

From: Trends in Genetics

Hay, J., Subramanian, S., Millar, C.D., Mohandesan, E., Lambert, D.M. Rapid molecular evolution in a living fossil. Trends in Genetics
Vol. 24 (3): 106-109

Abstract
The tuatara of New Zealand is a unique reptile that coexisted with dinosaurs and has changed little morphologically from its Cretaceous relatives. Tuatara have very slow metabolic and growth rates, long generation times and slow rates of reproduction. This suggests that the species is likely to exhibit a very slow rate of molecular evolution. Our analysis of ancient and modern tuatara DNA shows that, surprisingly, tuatara have the highest rate of molecular change recorded in vertebrates. Our work also suggests that rates of neutral molecular and phenotypic evolution are decoupled.

Okay, so what does all that mean? It’s been well established that creatures evolve at rates proportional to their generation times. Animals that have a higher generational turn over, show higher rates of evolution. It’s a simple numbers game. The more offspring one has, the more chances for there to be a beneficial mutation. The shorter the time from birth to reproduction, the faster natural selection can act on these mutations.

Hence why elephants are not exactly evolutionary racehorses, while insects rule the world. :)

It’s been thought that evolution at the molecular level should mirror what we see on the phenotypic, or morphological level. It makes sense logically. There has to be some connection between molecular evolution and phenotypic evolution. We know that the former gives rise to the latter.

So if one has a creature that has a short fossil history, or a particularly diverse one, then it suggests it is a fast evolver. Therefore one would expect to see speedy evolution on the molecular level too. This is one of the latest lines of evidence for automatic endothermy (i.e. warm-bloodedness) in dinosaurs and other fossil critters (don’t ask how we have molecular evidence for extinct animals. I just don’t know).

This latest discovery throws a whole wrench into that mode of thinking. Tuataras (Sphenodon) are one of the slowest animals on the planet. They take a long time to reach sexual maturity (11-13 years). They are commonly referred to as living fossils (though, that really isn’t right). They are the last critter that one would expect to be an evolutionary Speedy Gonzalez.

Yet, according to the work by Hay et al, that is exactly what has been discovered. Tuataras edge out all other animals studied so far. The closest any other creature comes, is the Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) of Antarctica. Yet as the graph below shows:

Tuataras are still significantly faster at their molecular evolution. So then, what does this mean regarding molecular evolution rates vs. morphological ones?

That’s a good question. The argument of molecular phylogeny vs. morphology, is already a heated one. Morphologists scoff at molecular systematists, while the molecular systematists think morphological phylogeny is pointless since it’s all DNA based anyway. It doesn’t help that molecular data has repeatedly come up with results that fly in the face of morphological based orthodoxy.

For example:

Morphologically, tuataras are the sister group to squamates.

Molecularally, tuataras have been found to nest with crocodiles and birds, in at least one study.

Molecular systematists have found the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelli) to nest with the true gharial (Gavialis gangeticus), while morphologists have consistently found T.schlegelli) to be a convergent animal more closely related to true crocodiles. This has resulted in heated back and forth arguments

Turtles, whose ancestry is still very nebulous, have been found to be anywhere from the base of the diapsid family tree (making them ancestral to all extant reptiles), to offshoots of pareiasaurs, which would place them as offshoots from the main reptile line (basically throwing another 30-50 million years on their divergence from other reptiles).

Molecular systematics, on the other hand, has found turtles to nest with archosaurs (crocs and birds). A few times (beware: PDF bomb), despite the lack of morphological correlates.

And then there was just weird stuff during the early days of molecular studies, that didn’t help with its validity problem.

So both camps are already very skeptical of the other’s findings.

Now this study suggests that rates of molecular evolution have no relation to morphological rates. Among other things, this seems to make the whole “molecular clock” idea even less tenuous.

It should be interesting to see what repercussions come from this study.

~Jura

This was something that I had meant to mention on my site for months now. In fact, I meant to write about it the day it was announced. It’s in regards to Alex, the African grey parrot.

Dr. Irene Pepperberg and Alex

Maybe I should be writing it: A.L.Ex. The name given to him was an acronym for: Avian Learning Experiment.

Alex was the pet/research subject/friend of Dr. Irene Pepperberg. He and Dr. Pepperberg made headlines time and time again for Alex’s remarkable vocabulary.

Alex could say over 150 words. That, in itself, is neat, but not noteworthy. What made things noteworthy was that Alex actually understood these words. Most parrots are taught words by their owners for the sheer novelty of it. The birds don’t really understand the meaning behind what they are saying, and the owners don’t really care about teaching them. Dr. Pepperberg and Alex showed that this need not be the case.

Alex was taught the meanings behind words. This was done in a manner similar (though exaggerated) to how children learn the meanings behind words. Dr. Pepperberg and an associate would enact scenarios where the word in question would be used.

For example:

A research assistant knocks on the door. Dr. Pepperberg answers the door and says: “Hello Arlene” (or whomever). Then she would say: “Hello Irene.” After several reenactments, the Dr. would then go to Alex and say: “Hello Alex.” By going through this process, Alex was able to associate the words he was saying, with the actions being performed.

Being a smart cookie, once Alex caught on to this, his vocabulary was able to increase substantially. Dr. Pepperberg did other studies. She showed that Alex could count to four (hmm, doesn’t that sound familiar), could distinguish the constitution of various objects (plastic, wood, wool, etc.), and could tell which items were larger than others. Towards the end of his life, Alex was even being taught to associate the written form of English words, to the spoken version. Alex’s accomplishments were astounding.

So, too, was his criticism. Anytime a scientist shows animals acting like people, others are ready to pounce on the anthropomorphic idea in an attempt to discredit it. This is all fine. After all, science is nothing without a healthy dose of skepticism. Sometimes, though, I feel that the critics tend to take their assumptions a little too far. An infamous example of this was found with the horse Clever Hans. The horse’s owner insisted that Hans could count and do arithmetic. People from far and wide would come to test the horse’s skills. All were astounded at the remarkable prowess of this equine to calculate their math problems. All, that is, except for psychologist Oskar Pfungst. Through a series of tests he discovered that Hans was not actually doing any math at all, but was instead reading the subtle cues of the questioner. If the questioner was expecting a certain answer, then Hans would get the math right. If Hans could not see the questioner, or the questioner did not know the answer themselves, then Hans would keep stomping till the cows came home.

One of Clever Hans’ performances

The results were unequivocal. Hans was not a math genius. This was fine, and totally agreeable. The expression from there that the animal was not intelligent at all, was where I draw the line. There was obviously a degree of mental work involved. The horse knew its name, and was able to read subtle body language that no one, not even the psychologists who did the study, could see. That’s damned impressive.

But I digress…

So there were all these criticisms that Alex was just doing an even more complex “Clever Hans effect.” Yet, despite criticisms of the results, no one ever showed that Alex was faking it. In fact, Alex showed continual improvements throughout his life. His use of human words to express what he saw around him was amazing.

More amazing, was how Alex would use his words to express his own feelings.

When Alex was tired of testing, he would say: “Wanna go back,” (in reference to his cage)

If the researcher was getting annoyed, Alex would say: “I’m sorry.”

Alex learned not only the names of objects that he was being tested on, but he also learned the words for all the rewards he would get. When Alex would get something right, he would then have to say what prize he wanted to have.

For instance, if he wanted a nut, he would say: “Want nut.”

If it was a banana then he would say: “Want banana.”

Throughout Alex’s thirty years of study, Dr. Pepperberg never once referred to what he was doing as language. She was always reticent of placing that symbol on Alex. This is understandable. Alex did learn to speak human words, but he had yet to learn syntax. That is to say, he couldn’t yet combine words for use in other situations other than their specific descriptions.

But he got awfully close. In one instance, Alex was presented with an apple. Alex had not learned the word apple at the time, so he came up with his own word for it. He called it a “banery.” Alex knew “cherry” and he knew “banana.” The result was the portmanteau: banery. This was not the only time he coined neologisms. Presented with the same scenario, only this time involving an almond, Alex called it: “cork nut.” Other neologisms of Alex included: “rock corn” (unpopped corn kernels), “pah-corn” (popcorn) and “grey nut” (sunflower seeds). For these last group of words, researchers would, essentially, reward Alex with food that came closest to the words he was uttering. If Alex liked the food, it would become part of his normal rewards, and he would retain the word. If he didn’t like it (e.g. “rock nut” for a Brazil nut that Alex couldn’t open, and didn’t eat even after receiving help), then he would not use the word and it would leave his vocabulary.

Alex doesn’t understand silly straws either.

Alex was amazing. Unfortunately Alex is no longer with us. Last September, Alex suffered an apparent heart attack and died in his sleep. He died at 31 years old; nineteen years short of the average lifespan for African grey parrots. Veterinary checkups two weeks before had found nothing suspicious, or at risk with Alex. His death came as a complete shock.

Though gone, Alex’s accomplishments will live on in scientific knowledge. Alex was one of the trailblazers for animal intelligence, and the concept of animal consciousness. He was bought at a local pet store. There was nothing special about him when he was acquired. His unremarkable origin helped to show that Alex’s abilities and his potential could be found in all African grey parrots. Dr. Pepperberg laid the groundwork for studies of animal intellect and consciousness in other species. If an African grey parrot can learn all this, could a macaw? How about a raven? Suddenly the term “bird brain” was no longer a derogatory one.

One of the most important things that Alex did for this field, was that he gave us ample proof that there is more going on inside a non-human mind than we are often willing to give credit. Much like Helen Keller, once Alex learned to talk, his personality and uniqueness became very apparent. Alex raised very pertinent questions about the use of animals in laboratory experiments, and the ethical ramifications that it brings up. Same for the slaughtering of animals for human consumption*.

Alex will be missed by all whose lives his work has touched. I only wish I could have written this earlier.

I’ll end this with the last words that Dr. Pepperberg (the last one to see Alex) heard Alex utter:

“She recalls the bird said: ‘You be good. I love you.’ She responded, ‘I love you, too.’ The bird said, ‘You’ll be in tomorrow,’ and she responded, ‘Yes, I’ll be in tomorrow.’”

~Jura