The article I chose is “Exclusive: ‘I’ve never seen anything like it.’ Video of mating deep-sea anglerfish stuns biologists”, published in Science. It covers the discovery and reactions of scientists who happened upon a female fanfin anglerfish, which had a male freshly attached to her side. Deep sea anglerfish mate by having the male attach to the female with his mouth, and essentially he dissolves into her flesh, until only gonads remain. This was the first time a live male was found attached to a live female, with all other observations from dead female anglers, and this finding confirms many scientists’ theories on the behavior of the anglerfish.
The article began as a structured story, starting with the scientists first seeing the anglerfish, and explaining what an anglerfish is, and why seeing a live one with a mate is so important. The article then goes into the history of anglerfish research, and how the footage of this anglerfish was captured. It then went into the analysis done by other scientists, and their thoughts. At this point, the article loses the story-like structure, and dissolves into explanatory paragraphs of the differences between anglerfish sexes, more interviews with the scientists, and concludes with the diversity of anglerfish and hopeful future of deep sea exploration. The article is interesting. The footage used to begin it is beautiful and dynamic, with slow, panning, rotating shots of the female, and zoomed-in shots of the male. The story it puts together is one of wonder and mystique towards these tiny fish, and really pushes the importance of this never-before-seen behavior. The portion of the article with interviews from the scientists is the least interesting part, as the information is dry, and the scientists all state the same thing, that the anglerfish is amazing and it’s exciting to see. The information the article presents is accurate, as it is straight from the scientists who found the fish and analyzed the footage. This information, for the most part, is easy to read, but as mentioned previously, the interview portion is repetitive, and the information is not cohesively put together in that section. Otherwise, the article is easy to read and entertaining. I would most like to take the story-information blend that the author uses, as that would be most useful to “selling” the parks we will be observing. We need to be able to explain the aesthetic, environmental, and educational value of the parks, and by doing so in an easy to read and informative way, which will attract people to the physical locale. Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/exclusive-i-ve-never-seen-anything-it-video-mating-deep-sea-anglerfish-stuns-biologists
1 Comment
The text I am analyzing is a paper put out by the Patek Lab of Duke University, where researchers studied the forces behind the punch of a Peacock Mantis Shrimp, an organism capable of throwing punches at speeds of 23 meters per second. The scientists took high speed footage of the shrimp’s punch and found that there are four main points of impact, two from the two arms, and two from the cavitation bubbles following the punches, which exceed forces up to 2500x the shrimp’s weight (see glossary for definitions).
The article begins by explaining what mantis shrimp are, how they capture prey, and the brief history of research on them. The wording is concise, with explanations given relating back to easily visualized examples, such as mantis shrimp grabbing food the same way praying mantises do. The only question within the paper is the introduction to the concluding paragraph, which underlies areas of future research, and serves to inspire questions within the reader. The word choice and phrasing makes the article relatable and interesting, which it should be if the topic involves the word “shrimp”, which most people associate with food or small subjects. The examples they use to explain topics, such as cavitation, as previously mentioned, are easy to visualize. When cavitation bubbles, essentially bubbles of vapor, collapse, they form light and heat, which is strong enough to melt holes into boat propellers when they are poorly designed. This destructive power is then associated with the shrimp’s punch, which causes the reader to make an association between the two. There are few transitions within the article, with topics being broken up by spaces between paragraphs, but not smoothly enough to facilitate a flow of ideas. Additionally, metaphor was not used at all, with alliteration being sparse, and most likely coincidental. The ending line as well is, for the most part, weak, with it being a vague summary of the findings, and draw to further research. I would like to take the language and style of explanation from the article, as it makes a foreign subject interesting and easy to understand. I would also use more alliteration than these writers did, as it makes the paper more entertaining to read, and therefore more easily processed by the readers. Link to the article: https://pateklab.biology.duke.edu/mechanics-movement-mantis-shrimp The portion of Caesar’s Last Breath we were instructed to read was an introduction to air as a concept, what it consists of, and the history and varied uses it had, in terms of natural and human.
Kean’s audience appears to be people interested in physical science, or history, who do not have a deep understanding of science, but enough to understand basic concepts. His purpose for writing the book appears to be bringing about an awareness of the space around us, due to the reverence he holds for air when describing it, and its functions throughout all of earth’s processes. This purpose is visible due to the examples he highlights throughout the section, the information he provides, and the detail he goes into his examples and the science behind the processes. Kean tells his story mainly through examples of extraordinary people and situations, or ideas not commonly considered, starting with the idea that the air all humans are currently breathing is the same air that has always existed on the planet, throughout the entire time it has existed. Every example he uses would appeal to some demographic. Those interested in war would be curious on the chlorine gas, or gardeners in the creation of artificial fertilizer. Kean touches on violence, politics, religion, and science interwoven into all of these topics, each of which would relate to any person at least at a basic level. Kean’s process of telling each story, which also covers a property or concept of gas, begins with the history of the situation he uses as an example, then delves into the chemistry involved, and concludes with the end result of the situation, and how that chemistry affects the world today. It is a format that is both easy to read and efficient in delivering the information Kean presents. If anything, it is this format that I would try to employ into the final project of observation / story, and information / logistics. When Kean visits, I would want to ask about how he chooses his examples for a topic he is examining, and how the example interacts with the subject at hand. |
Details
AuthorZachary Wagner Archives |