The Muleskinner Bookrecommendations # 34 ½ /"The time before time")

 

”In fact recent use of radiocarbon dating in the cave Cougnac

has shown that there may be as much as 10,000 years

between the earliest and the latest prehistoric paintings.

Among the earliest images is one of a megaloceuros (giant deer),

a creature that was apparently extinct in the region

by the time of the later painters. It is quite reassuring

in a way to think that these later peoples

would have been as perplexed by these images as we are today.”

From Secrets of the Stone Age, p137. (Rudgley, 2000)

The Land of the Painted Caves

(p. on 2000s; 661 p.) ; The Earth's Children-series

by Jean Untinen-Auel

...and some suggestions of (possible, accompanying) co-reading(s):

Aczel, Amir D., The Cave and The Cathedral (p 2000s; 242 pages)

Scarre, Chris (ed.), The Human Past. World prehistory and the development of human societies. (Thames & Hudson 2009 ; 784 pages).

[Recommendation(s) / 2012]

I guess, greater part of our selections from recently published fiction literatures/novels, etc., has represented popular fiction. Has it's reason, of course; I'm not very much reading past half the century's ”serious” fiction, and recently I've actually found most enjoyment from this field of fiction (say it then...”easy” fiction. Anyway, I don't also much care to draw any line between those, as you might have noticed).

I also formerly considered that these reviews wouldn't contain other books from prehistoric topics. As I meant w. that only science books et similar, leaves me some means of escape from that definitive sounding statement...and select this book for the additional recommendation of that stuff. Of course, the novel belongs for frustratingly well-known serie, but with my limited familiarity from the 'prehistoric fiction', I've not much alternatives. Most of the 'popular prehistoric' is crap, anyway (acc. my finding,). To the merit of the book, it's also so that prior Untinen-Auel's series, written from since 1980s, there wasn't (much) anything noteworthy of it's kind. Finally, favors the selection also my liking from historical fiction/novels, this ranks well as a 'prehistoric historical novel'.

About the book/serie itself I'm to say not very much. Possibly, if one wishes point out some weakness, book would've been better some 200-300 pages shorter. (I feel) the strongest elements in book/series are the depiction/description of prehistoric people for the emotional, living beings (wasn't so common prior it). On the other hand, selection of a femine character for it's main 'heroines' probably was equally important choice at the time of series early begin. Also, some of the main themes or elements in the books/series is the possible/likely  interactions of the anatomically modern humans - that's probably nowadays the usual term preferred from our Homo sapiens ancestors, believed have developed ca 200000 to 150000 y.a. in the Africa - and the Neanderthals. (Latter, of course, means Homo neanderthalensis-peoples).

The human hands - from The Human Past (book cover)

...Although I've even in the past sometimes seen an additional .sapiens 'stamped' for the first mentioned 'species', ie: H. sapiens ”sapiens” - notice my apostrophes. ...I actually think that occasionally used addit. definition in question only to serve for some ridiculence. In particular, because it so obviuosly seems meant for to separate us, the humans of the present days from any preceding periods peoples or (human-) 'species'...and to emphasize our (imagined) great differences if compared for those distant ancestors. If you ask me – and in lack of any precise knowledge from how to relate the species mentioned, not just biologically, but also culturally (the latter knowledge we are perhaps unlike ever reach) – I think the only valid 'categories' are .sapiens and .neanderthalis. (Further still, one could also question the usability of those terms too, but them are the most generally used. ...whether we'd think the Neanderthals for a separate human lineage; as the co- or subspecies genetically or morphologically defined, doesn't really matter on this). 

 

Anyhow, both 'species' are known have co-existed in parallel close-by through a minimum of some 100000 years. In the prehistoric pasts, the .Neanderthal- and .Sapiens-humans are also known from have lived subsequently, or in turns at parts of the N.Africa (Levant), and for a briefer period on the post-glacial Mid-/S. Europes (at the southward range from the edge of the retreating ice-sheets during that period). Probably both also lived at scattered mobile groups (more or less) adjacent to each other. So, seems at least possible, if not likely assuming, them (more or less) having had cultural contacts and effect for each other. Famously, relative soon after the end of the latest glaciation, the Neanderthal disappeared and during roughly same time the Sapiens seem have dispersed for their former areas at the European continent. (Neanderthals latest known regions of stay from different parts of Europe seem generally timed for - smtgh like – 45000 to 26000 y.a., BC, so noticeably, that covers a huge time-gap. Some newer genetic studies seem also say that the Neanderthals are believed been generally relative few by numbers; The estimated figures based on DNA-researches, I've noticed ranging for between 10000 to 70000 at the most...but I don't take that for too granted, it's an estimate still.) 
 

...Like one should except from a good (pre-)historical fiction, this recommended book (Untinen-Auel) don't offer any simple answers for that embarrassing mystery, or a question about Neanderthal the disappearance...debated ever since the wider acceptance (late 1800s) about existence of the human species having preceded our own ”race” (...here too, pay some attention for apostrophes). I'm neither claiming to have, or favoring, any theory for to explain that...but lots of theories exist. Anyway, also was (at least earlier) a lot discussed about the aspect if Neanderthals might have possessed any symbolic culture (and if they did, whether they mostly just might have adopted it from the 'modern humans'). As I personally believe them to most certainly having developed their own forms of symbolic culture, I leave it for anyone make one's own opinions about that (and read from topic by yourself). The Neanderthal burials containing pollen of various plants are most famous (indicating placing the flowering plants along w. deceased, although explanation is said bit controversial); But, also there's other 'clues' one often sees referred for; the sophisticated tools, burial objects, decorative shells, coloring the body w. ochre, etc... (Also, an informative box on The Human Past – on listed books above - seems state: ”...the emergence and spread of 'modern human behaviour' was more complex than a replacement of Neanderthals by Aurignacians.”)

The prehistoric research also seems divide that late ice-age era for various periods (Based most apparently, on various different stone-age 'technologies' used; lithics, projectiles, etc., but also established on finds of cultural objects, as well as what known about the behavioral traits) - Ie the most important cultural periods are separated for (All these just roughly timelined for this): Aurignac - ca 40000 to 20000 y. in the past; Gravettian, ca 29000-14000, and Magdalenian - generally from so called glacial maximum at 22000 to 19000 BC until the early Holocene. 
 

The early (anatomically modern) human ancestors at the European area/close regions are most widely known by term the Cro-magnons (named on basis of the places of first finds at 1800s, likewise were named the Neanderthalensis too). As the archeological history also sometimes might have focused too much on that – so called ”Cro-magnon myth”, acc. my own terms and opinion - I leave that also for anyone to think by oneself in particular, too (...With the preceding, I mostly refer for that sometimes claimed 'remarkably different symbolic culture of the Cro-magnons, if compared for the Neanderthals, fx. And, from their exceptional capability for the speech – that Neanderthal's didn't possess similar means for spoken language, it was also formerly debated lot about, but now studies (from the anatomy of their vocal tract) seem said indicate that there was no reason why Neanderthals could not have produced complex range of sounds needed for speech. It seems even now confirmed that they possessed similar gene that permits speech on us.) ...But in combined, of course, very little about such distant times is known too well. Seems it also that surprisingly much new information they've been able acquire during the few recent decades (with the aid of newer molecular techs, ao other methods). Most what I can gather from that seems (to me) to favor a view that, very possibly, our direct human ancestors were equally influenced on that interaction and not just 'played' the influensive role.

...After our lenghtysome pre-thoughts, for the prehistoric cave-art (main theme on our book-recommendation), we can only devote a few lines here. Aczel seems in passing notice that in fact there's not any direct evidence from that all (or most) of those renown paintings would've been created by Cro-magnons and not Neanderthals (However, also says the location of most caves, and their closeby camp-sites known, fx, seem link it for the cultures of 'our species' - or more correct term maybe is 'our direct human ancestors'). Seems it also that there's now datings from some of the oldest paintings, suggesting them older than formerly believed/and therefore (possibly) been made by Neanderthal peoples...But probably all that's still quite controversial.

 

More interestingly, is fx that it's believed with some certainty (there's fx found remains of some musical instruments from caves) that those places likely served also for ritual/ religious gatherings during when the paintings were accompanied with other art-forms; music and dance, spoken words fx, likely. ...In that sense Cathedral seems indeed quite suitable term for name of the book about cave-art. The book itself appears most readable introduction to that, although not too comprehensive guide, if very 'enthusiastically' interested for and about. Along w. it I cursorily read some chapters concerning these topics from The Human past - mostly it's, say, some 'middle-of-the-road' knowledge about many topics it covers...And along our other recommended reading(s), the Rudgley-book, referred on begins, is also interesting. It makes some effort for questioning the 'general consensus' from human evolutionary history and to exhibit quite a lot contradicting evidence. (So also occasionally does that The human past-book, but naturally it aims cover/discuss lots other stuff, too.)

The cave-art, been created during a very lenghty period of time, finally came to end at early Holocene (ending along with the hunter-gatherer cultures that produced it.) Similar to many later regionally outlined phenomenoms/cultures there wasn't any clear cultural followings for it (/recognizable successive resembling art-styles). All of that, and the vast distance of time the cave-art covered, adds some part for it's great mystery; Precisely, the question (any viewer) could need ask is perhaps not just what kind worldview those painters had, but how did they know their environment. Did they thought it coherent or complex? Were them merely communicating or transmitting? Etc...)

...Finally to mention; I find this selection nicely fitting as some 'continuation' of our prehistoric recommendations: First was that book from the mammalian early days. Then a book about the primates/species ancestral for the later emerged 'human lineage'. And now this novel from the ”recent” prehistoric pasts, an era when all those major cultural transitions described were taking place (the story is situated at about 30000 y. BC.) If we shall then have any additional recommendation on this 'serie', following our (accidentally emerged) timeline, it should likely be smtgh about emergence of the civilizations. ...No scarcity from possible alternatives, some contenders I could think for are fx the Mesoamerican/pre-Inca Andean cultures, ancient Egypt(/the Nile valley), Indus civilizations...

...And additionally (to mention), any of these 'XXX & half''-recoms could quite well represent actual parts on this serie (I guess I could 'elevate' them all for those as well). I've mostly ranked them this way, just because I'm having time to write only a fewsome paragraphs from each of these... (;W-G.) 

 

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Undesigned Chapter, pt. IX / "The flies on the windscreen"

...Sequel IX is– kind of - logical following to our previous post (;the sequel VIII from beetles). I've not too much rearranged these posts, or, seeked to find any especial proper species presented on these. So, similarly than was the manner on previous sequel, I just picked a few suitable examples as decoration of this.

This also not contains any particular views from the insect evolutionary pasts, for it was (but briefly) discussed in the previous sequel. Perhaps we can only on this notice that the so called 'modern' insect orders evolved (smtgh like, approx.) about +/- 200 M. years ago to the past. Mostly that took place along the evolution of Angiosperms (ie the flowering plants, whose appearance closely was interactive and co-dependent within the insects evolution). 

 

This (to the right) is some from the nicest Hover-/Flowerflies (Syrphidae). There's about 250 species at Fennoscandia ranges, of various sizes and looks; Some are quite 'robust', some lot smaller and thinner. Most, at least from the easily noticeable species, seem mimic the looks of wasp/bees.

 

Basically, suffices (at this) if we only refer for the other main three orders usually described for the 'modern insect families'. (Seems that) them all did evolve along the appearance of flowering plants. Of other large groups, there's Beetles (...presented already on the previous sequel, but them are said also represent the largest insect group in the world by singular species). Then is Lepidoptera (Moths /Butterflies which also have been quite much represented on our previous posts.) Then, Hymenoptera (Bees, Wasps, Sawflies, Ants, etc...) which I actually considered possibly the insect group on this post ...but then I realized there are very numerous species and they're much resembling each other. So, fx many Bumble-bees that have Fennoscandian presence look quite similar and I therefore decided drop them aside. Leaves us the Diptera – ie the Flies (although that contains some other related genera too).

 

"Fly on the wall" (To the left) - Similarly than from the most larger insect groups, there's both flower-going and predative species on flies. This is predative (from Rhaginiodae). Often found closer swamps and some shallow wetland(s).

Among the most renown of (actual) flies in the world, probably, is Tset-Tse (Glossina sp.), a blood-sucking species at the mid-Africa that spreads the Sleeping sickness disease. (More precise, it carries the small Tryponasoma-parasitoids, that spread the sleeping sickness. Often fatal disease for the domesticated animals and can influence the humans badly too. The disease doesn't influence the wild animals, so the Tset-Tse fly is sometimes on  ecologist literatures been described as the 'best conservation agent' on Africas, due it long time prevented human agricultures and cultures from reaching large regions at continent. Although, some other tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue also are often mentioned having appeared so commonly that some places remained inhospitable to the Europeans and outside their colonial interventions well until the 20^th century. Anyway, actually there exists a so called Tset-tse-belt accross middle parts from Africa.)
 Then, there's at least the Common House-fly (Musca domestica), sometimes described for the most widespread insect species in the world – to most places where's humans it also has spread. Like was noticed typical for the flies, it is also been said from having a considerable role at the spreading of some diseases, stomach-related mainly.

...This by somewhat resembles what most people would describe as typical outer looks of a fly (ie the House-fly). (But this belongs at the Sarcophagidae, most common species on forests. There's about, 35 Fennosc. species from those, solely.)

Usually most flies are felt with some remarkable disgust by humans, generally. In addition, many species show quite 'horrifying' from their appearance (w. their large compound eyes and hairy outer looks). Some also (often) tend increase and swarm on the rotten smelling carcasses and dung. Not all flies show such detestive manners, but a typical place to find amount of flies, is fx a heap of manure on some swineyard backyard. Them are also often mentioned from spreading various diseases, like was mentioned. (...Remembering the above said aspects it's also perhaps not too surprising that some from (a few) successfull remakes from old horror-movies on the recent decades features fly as it's main 'character'; I mean that David Cronenberg film - sometime at 1990s by the same name, Fly, if I recall that correctly. As you might remember, it has a Frankensterian plot from the scientist who invents some transmutative machine and – by accident – happens to unite his genes with those of a House-fly.)

However, or from the positive side, flies also have other qualities than the repulsive manners that usually are given most concern. Some are fx very competent fliers; Watching the various Syrphid-flies (see exemplary species above) when their visiting some flower bush, one can easily recognize that. They can fx remain practically motionless on air, except from the wings goin' on. (Not very surprisingly the Syrphids (Hover-/Flower-flies) are probably the most easily tolerated flies of the human perspective.)  Then there's other species that on fast flight can make about 90'angle turns, not the least difficult of tasks at flight for sure. (Also not very surprisingly, if one thinks the common names for many insect groups – most, although not all – seem carry naming that refers for the flies /or, for flight. There's fx Butterflies, Caddisflies, Mayflies, Dragonflies, Snakeflies, Scorpionflies, Craneflies, etc., ….So, for an observer it soon becomes clear how these flying creatures were named in the first place, or which probably were the first recognized insects by humans. Although, not on all languages they're so uniformly or similarly.)



(To the right) Laphria flava (..likely). ; It's from the Robber flies (Asilidae), that are among the most 'hideous' of the pretative species. Completely harmless to humans, but on the insect world it's respectable player; The robber flies are said capable to force down large beetle off the flight, and biting through it's protective cover-wings. Also, them can deliver poisonic bite (dealy to other insects), so even a wasp is for 'no match' (...albeit, I see no reason why they'd hunt those). (...Robber flies are species adapted for the sun and warmth, so their less numerous on Fennoscandias. At the past decades were somewhat declined...and some species, at least, seem still listed for threatened.)

In the the Diptera (all in all, including also fx the Crane flies and Mosquitos) there appears about well over 5000 species on Fennoscandia range - or, probably somewhat more by now which are been recognized as the separate species. Of course, far more could have been presented at this sequel. With the far more particular characteristics presented, far more detailed descriptions, etc., etc., ...but let's (for now) call it quits from this sequel. (;W-G.)

 (To the right) ...Some species with a quite exciting elongated looks too. On leaf of a Birch (Betula pendula). Apparently - but far less usually than some other insects - there's flies that lay their eggs on plant leafs. (Or, likely so I'd guess). However, many favor the decayed wood, also.

 ------------

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Undesigned Chapter, pt VIII / "The class of 250+ million years"

”Just as the Paleozoic is often called the age of the trilobite, modern time is often called the age of the insect.” 

- From the Wikiped. article Phylogeny of the insect 

    (from Paleozoic, See)

...Of the (multitudes from) insect genera and species having existed during their ”early evolutionary path, past the millions and millions years”, not very comprehensive view seems possible acquire. Quite understandable, because the insects appear small, often tiny animals, that lack any skeletal parts which would fossilize (Instead, they have so-called exoskeleton). Also, the insects do 'regenerate' quite rapidly - for they are short-lived, and a short period of time can often produce many successive generations. As result (from that and other related aspects) – any view from their evolutionary past seems always been (very) fragmented and incomplete some.

 

However, of that past evolution a brief general 'walk-through' can be presented (at least I try, on basis of what I've been able to gather from some general books dating almost couple decades old now. Naturally, you can easily seek much newer information about it, too. I only picked a few interesting topics for the purposes of this...) 

 

Seems – or, at least was formerly believed – that of the still extant insect genera most archaic forms contain (at least) the Ephemeroptera (ie Mayflies), Blattodea (ie Cockroaches ; how surprising...) and Orthoptera (Grasshoppers, crickets and katytids). All these are believed have existed (in their earliest origins) already closely some 300 M. year ago (on the Carboniferous-age, or perhaps even since from Devonian period). Most archaic forms were of course lot different compared to their modern ”descendants”...but sometimes them are also believed (relative) little changed of their early origin. (So, fx also the Odonata (Dragonflies) are believed very ancient by origin and did exist already during the Carboniferous. Already then they did fly and the group contained some from largest and earliest flying insects known from; Yet, their modern forms - similar or resembling to current species - seem believed having evolved 'only' during the Late Triassic, about 200 M. y. ago) Of the other rather old groups seems it believed that the Plecoptera ('earliest' Antlions, Lacewings, etc....However, seems that the correct class or 'group' from these would be Neuroptera...but the Plecoptera are also believed rather ancient...), Hemiptera (the 'true' Bugs, whatever that exactly means...), and - the Coleoptera (Beetles) – did evolve approx. some 250 Million y. in the past. Also, Mecoptera (Scorpion flies, etc.) may have existed at least around +200 M. y. ago ; And, interestingly, I saw someplace said that the more modern insect genera – fx the Flies and earliest Butterflies/Moths - might have evolved from some (unknown) separate/co-existent lineage of that group, by origin. 

 

...However, some of these dates maybe are 're-evaluated' by now since there's probably lot more recent studies that what I've viewed. Also, there's of course lots insect groups that one would suppose having existed long ago in the past, but which are 'lot less exiting' from features (fx, the Bristletails - so called Arghaeognatha - are some wingless insects that seem believed represent some from the very oldest species/order). And one could easily suppose that there's possibly not any clues been preserved (fossilized) of many genera because they appear so small tiny creatures (fx some species comparable in sizes to the 'modern' termites and fleas).

So, the insect evolution obviously is some particularly fragmentary and scattered puzzle. Yet, there's also one aspect which seems serve as functional way for to dividing between their old and more ”modern" genera. That is, if the insect species have only partial metamorphosis- or, more correctly it's the gradual metamorphosis (so called Hemimetabolism). Alternatively, them might have the complete metamorphosis (ie Holometabolism). The first category (partial/gradual) contains (fx) Mayflies, Cochroaches, Grasshoppers (...etc.), Dragonflies, the Bugs (Hemiptera) and Lacewings(...apparently?). However, the Beetles and Mecoptera (+ anything later evolved) usually seems represent the complete Metamorphosis. ...And likewise most other from 'modern insects', but this dividing is not considered too universal anymore; For example, there's the Thrips (Thysanoptera) some tiny small insects that are said to represent quite different manner from metamorphose which comptetely doesn't resemble either of the above described. (Seems said them (Thrips) are yet believed rather old group, and also appear pollination agents of some plants (on tropics and the Nothern latitudes, although that's apparently about the same procentual amount from all than the birds, ie smtg less than 0,5 per cent...by supposed, estimated figure).

(...This is (possibly) some common species of the Ground beetles (Carabacidae). (Dead, but...) of the pic a typical Coleopteran structure is quite observable. Shows fx the Elytron (hard, scelerotized cover-wings), which all/most Beetles have as their protection.)

 (...To the right,  Bee beetle (Triachus fasc.), on flower at garden fence. Like one can see it nicely mimics the bumble-bee, at first I considered it a bee...)

The Beetles (it is interesting to notice) we find also believed for some good candidates as the original pollinators for some earliest flowering plants.  ...But, it is believed) the Hymenoptera (Bees) maybe instead finally emerged as the more 'common-place' representatives on the pollination process. That so (seems it said) possibly due because the Beetles contain a lot of ferocious plant pests (ie leaf-eating species). Whichever the reasons/how evolution might actually have selected at that on the distant past, is at least noticeable there being about 200, 000 plants pollinated by the Coleopterans (means: 80 per cent of all...!). And, in comparison only about 1/6 - from all plants - is pollinated by the Hymenoptera (although many of those appear major crops). But these are probably rather general figures (from that Nabhan - Buchmann book, 1990s) – ie their estimates…At the moment I don't recall/have not any precise idea from how this is been counted (...more to the point; it's of course very difficult to estimate from any 'exact numbers', for many plants are pollinated by more than some singular species, some are (also) pollinated via the wind, and there's some pollinated by insects only on 'unfavorable/favorable' circumstances ie the insects sometimes serve only as the secondary method to pollination at some particular plants...etc.). Seems (to me) it fx likely that many of the Coleopteran pollinators may be species that specialize on certain plants, while there's more general pollinators on hymenopteran. Also, the coleopteran are most numerous on tropics, so feels likely that most of those pollinated plants (in question) also appear tropical by range...or, so I just guess on this basis...

 

(...This, on the right, is some from commonest Cerambycidae-species (ie the Long horn beetles). Looks rather fond of  Meadowsweet - like the beetles often are, I've noticed...)

(..This below also belongs for the Cerambycidae, I guess it's the Musk beetle (Arom. Muschata). Quite common, but seems it only appears sparsely on Fennoscandian Nature; More usual at the warmer latitudes. On fennoscandia it mainly increases on Willow.)

Among insects the Fennoscandian Coleoptera are quite much studied, in comparison for the most insects in the World. Yet, also there's lot that are not so well known. Fx, there's only a few species of Blister beetles (Meloidae) that do appear on N. Europes. Of those, at least half (two species) were found disappeared around early/mid of the last century, but seems that no actual reasons for that were to be found. ...I didn't bother check if they nowadays have any better idea about it (or if some species from those have been rediscovered), but that's actually quite typical for the insect-human relations. Often when we happen notice them, the species might be gone already (like usually is remarked from the lot more numerous species appearing on the tropical regions).

From some insect species the populations may also vary lot between years by natural reasons. For that reason, it is also often not too well known from how many of the species tolerate human-made change. (Yet, fx renownly much of the Cerambycidae don't well adapt to economic forest uses on Northern boreal forests. From the Finlands species, fx majority of the currently extant species are some adapted for the younger forests - ie some that age under 100 years.) 

 Finally to mention, this (brief introduction) only represented to provide some text along the pics from these few Fennoscandian Beetles. They're all of course usual and common species - In fact, due the relative recent time has passed since the latest ice-ages, not any insect species appear endemic solely to the Fennoscandian range. Most also appear at more southern ranges (But there's some very distinct, especial sub-species/genera.) 

...So, on the light of these views, I provided at begins of this also pic from that magician – it's Merlin. What Merlin really says is my actual view-point; What's mutual to the insect and humans at these ”manmade dead-ends”. For the dead-ends those are, solely if thinking about the distant, magnifient past evolution of the insects (Which I shortly tried to outline on paragraphs above.) ; (G.U.J.)

(...likely the Green Rose Chafer (Cetaria auralia), also found from the Meadowsweet at mid-summer. ...For some speciality, it's said that they have a small openings on sides, permitting them fly cover wings closed - unlike most other Coleopteran...)

Fairfun.

...Still not believing in Fairies ?

(I might have presented this earlier sometime, but...Inspired from this recent post of ours I thought it fits well here). In case you're still suspicious...

Of course we haven't seeked any photos, or similar misleading stuffs for some evidence. Indeed, most are fakeries. At least those famous photographs from the early part of that art (ie about from 1900's or 1910s.) Them were proven fakes (many many years ago in the past). But, interestingly, lot of people choose not to believe it...and so the story did go on. And, in overall, for the majority of peoples, it likely had the positive influence.

But, I have a living proof here. It's from the Carl Barks story Scrooge's Private Island (1953).  Probably the story is "loaned" from the Hawain/Polynesian legengs and myths - and as such probably also is little worked up for the "middle-class imagination" of it's publication time (1950s). ...Anyway, says it there that the 'little-folk' (or their counter-parts on that Pacific island the story situates)  can only be seen when they're not knowing of been watched. So, the nephew (Huey?) there looks via looking-glass and sees...

...Fairies.

No question about it, there's always more than meets the eye. More than we 'choose to see', so to say. ...And 'even angels will fall', like the words on that horrible advert. (In case you'd ask for my personal opinion, I'd probably say... ;) ; [W-G.]

From diary-pages of the Part-time Vegetarian (Seq. II)

”How often, under the shadow of these rocks, 

have I shared your outdoor repasts, 

which cost no animal their lives. 

[...] Gourds full of milk, of newly laid eggs, 

of rice-cakes upon banana leaves, 

baskets laden with potatoes, with mangoes, with oranges, with pomegranates, with bananas..."

(From Paul & Virginie, a novel by Bernardin de Sainte-Pierre)

...Acc. above cited romantic figure (& forerunner social utopist/adventurer of his own times), people of the best healths maintain vegetable diets. (He even lists the pythagorians(?) and Spartacians, those much admired antique "folks". Also, acc. St. Pierre ; ”The peoples living on vegetable foods, are, of all men, the handsomest, the most vigorous, the least exposed to diseases and to passions, and whose lives last longest.” )

...If I should believe that (as such) for a fact, is a whole lot different matter, but can't say of been disappointed to my vegarian diet during these summery Months. The above cited view against the animal eating I actually thought to as cite for the latter sequel of these 'vegarian posts' (The last chapter I – at the moment - plan to devote to more 'philosophic matters' ie it shall mostly discuss the vegetarian ethics.) Each of these sequels is supposed carry some 'motto', so that makes a few good old classic 'verses', very often cited also elsewhere...and I also suppose, that people on his times (St. Pierre's) were as much eager to adopt those high ideals but far less for adopt them in practice.

Map-Butterfly - Since few recent decades it has established itself on Fennosc...But not too often can be seen on open; (I think) it prefers moisturic meadow. (For some speciality, also has two completely different looking generations at Summers.) The caterpillarts feed on nettles.

So, (Therefore having that problem from the admirable role-models and false noses now neatly solved) I also decided offer a place on this the nice and beautiful Fennoscandian butterflies. Just from reason – what like any insect enthusiasists would know – butterflies are the most exclusively vegetarians of any insect group. They're also some of most numerous, and yet; Not a single species  preys directly other animals. ...Meaning predative on their adult phases, of course. Caterpillars of some species do live as parasites at other insects nests, fx (Lycaenids in the ant nests, perhaps most famously). And, also many butterflies actually do favor digesting the minerals and liquids from rock surfaces, rotten carcasses, ao places (instead of the nectar from flowers.) – Yet, no predative species on adults. (At least acc. my knowing; And of the day-time species; And if that should still represent the most recent findings by science...The Moths perhaps are not too well known from and about, for they mostly fly only at nighttime.) 

 ...Often/sometimes that orthodoxic dietary specialisation is explained from their (relative) recent evolution – In lack of any other available ecological niches in the natures, the butterflies have evolved that strickt dependency/relation with the plants. (As actually quite a logical following from that, many, like the Moths caterpillars especially, are known being very serious pests of certain trees, food crops, etc.). Naturally, we don't have get (too) serious about this and so – for the fun of it - I just think of the butterflies as some advanced vegarians (In fact, them are among most evolutionary advanced order from insects). So let these 'idealized fairies' now give us some guidance from the sustainable diet and all the other good things in life... (Although, I've yet to see any wearing that Foxglove-hat.)

Anyway, during these diets of mine (and, much like I expected/ You might have guessed...), I've found it not any kind of trouble living without meat past these summery Months. A bit more surprising (to me) is that...I've also discovered feeling somewhat better and healthier due because that. Yet, I've fx noticed that living mostly on veggies demands some properly maintained system and...I've probably eaten my meals on more regular scheduel, perhaps.

As I've probably also eaten a bit more often (and slightly more by amount), gives me a place for an additional joke (If you allow me this comparison...:) Probably, earlier I ate little like a (large) bird, but now I'm eating even more continuosly and steadily, like some ruminant or a horse. (But, I don't have any additional stomachs, of course.)

Mostly/mainly this manner from eating because I regularly consume quite lot physical energy on movement; walking, biking, ao. Of course, there's also regular pauses like should be for any healths sakes. ...What comes for those few physical obstacles mentioned on preceding post, they're gone (for good). But, if you have lot body mass and/or feel like running (/jogging /whatever) much, I suggest it's probably sensible start first slowly by reducing the amount of meats from diets...or smght like that.

(Like was mentioned), my diets regularly also have contained some fish. At first I planned it so because it felt necessary for body healths (contains selenium, magnesium, ao). Also, as I've eaten quite often salads outdoors, I usually also take some schrimps with them. But now having gotten little more accustomed to this 'partial veganism' of mine, I've actually noticed that one mostly can get those ingredients of elsewhere too. (Fx, the dietary selenium can be acquired from nuts, cereal, meat, mushrooms, fish and eggs, acc. the Wikip. ...From the magnesium seems it say that rich sources for that are spices, nuts, cereals, coffee, cocoa, tea, also green vegetables like spinach). And so I've also regularly eaten some seeds and nuts too. About once a week, earlier perhaps twice a week, I've eaten some fish and still do....But I've also not at all tried to replace the animal proteins with the fish (or with anything else). 

 

You might say this veganism of mine ain't too stricktly maintained, and I agree. However, if you ask me (of course you don't, but...) the balanced/ multisided diet is actually the best. ...Earlier on begins of this 'experiment' I even tried acquiring the necessary proteins from only fishes, or soya, or eggs (one week each) + the regular eaten veggies and crops – But I can't recommend that, and maybe it also brought those slight pains at my foots.

Eggs I noticed probably the least necessary part for my diet. Yet, I've also eaten them (quite) regularly, maybe 1-2 pack per week (...of 6 parcel. On occasional weeks I've eaten about that 1 per day, sometimes more, but on some weeks I ate eggs not at all. ...So I guess the said makes about an average. Yet to mention that them appear quite useful on many bakings.)

From the Soya I at first was slightly shun, trying perhaps favor fx the fish and eggs instead. But now I've noticed it a good addition and there's on our times also quite many products of the soya available. (So, that Yoghurt recipe on last post actually now has important part on my current diets.) Then there's also various other soya-products; for example there's grains, slices, tofu, some (soya-)milks, and the sole beans for to cook (make any of the previous by oneself, if wish...) ...Having experimented most of the manufactured Soya-products, I must say I didn't learn to like any of them, except the Soya-Yoghurt and -milk. The soya-sausages and '-beefs' I actually noticed best to avoid for them make one's stomach feel so swelled...but, on a few times I also made a 'quick' meal of those. ...To some conclusion; Unless you have some good alternatives for the soya – and I can't figure what - it's probably necessary eat some (In case maintaining any absolute vegarian diet).

Small Copper. 

(...It's range even reaches from West Euraasia to N.americas.)

In short, what from this 'experiment' (so far) now turns out, as the foremost finding, is that it's basically not necessary at all to have meats on the diet of human personnel (Of the adult, obviously, I've not changed my view about that for the under-aged it's probably recommendable to eat some meat.). I've felt completely and satisfactorily eaten, even without the red meats or poultry.

 ...However, my conclusions are also based solely on maintaining this 'dietary experiment' at conditions of our technologized modern world. (On circumstances where we basically have enough, even excess of the foods...and not need consume very much physical energy on the movement between places, fx.) I don't fx consider rational spending the winter time on similar diet, I feel like it's more practical eat at least some meat then, mainly because of the cold. On cooler regions and during the cold phase of the year some amount of animal proteins and fat is probably useful for body-health. But, not quite so on the warmer parts of the world – I guess, I'd say...ca from 50^th latitudes Southwards about. (Or, perhaps it's more proper say that on the regions where's no colder winter spell.) Aforementioned reservations met – not very much daily physical stresses and the adequate provisions of the food in general – I see not any physical necessicity to (an adult) personnel for eating meats. Of course, I don't either feel like one should have to be too determined or absolute from that...but that's just the plain fact I discovered from this. (...What follows as the logical conclusions is that for a personnel living at our developed world societies, leaving the animal foods for less is probably not just most efficient 'sustainable step' one can do, if wish, but also the easiest some.)

- I suppose you're now humming to yourself; 'But that's just not for me' ...Well, me neither, I don't plan to quit the beefs and meatballs completely, I just mean to reduce those, considerably.

Chestnut He

ath

...Also a straight  vegetarian.

(The caterpillars feed on hays.)

The following 'list' then tries combine most other ingredients of (my) regularly consumed veggies and food-stuffs:

...Of crops I have to say eaten from quite wide variety; (I think) the people didn't start cultivating them by coincidence, many – wheat fx, contain lots of energy.

(Even that the white bread solely is rather unrecommendable food choice.) And; invariably I've also regularly eaten rice, rye, oat, quinoa (,maize, on tortillas), at least ; ...Of the seeds, nuts and milk-products I mentioned on the preceding post (I've used butter less frequently now). ; ...Of my main other 'usual veggies', there's at least, onions & peppers, also spinach. (Ate that often on Spring.) And I suppose shall also use mangold when it becomes harvestable (/Ward, possibly also the word used from it.)

Of the same 'family' there's also this favored tuber of mine, beet. And, of course, carrots, squashes, beans and potato make some of my regular staples (Potatoes I've intentionally mostly tried avoid for those are so common on every other meal; mashed potatoes, french fries, crisps... Still, I guess I've eaten them relative often) ; ...Also I've regularly bought some exotic imported ”delicacies” like the avocados and cassava – and also consumed those usual (imported) fruits like the oranges, pears (and apples), lemon, grapefruit, water melon, banana...In fact, fresh fruits are very important to eat by somewhat. ; ...Of cabbages (and other veggies not yet mentioned) I've probably mostly used broccoli, celery, and swede (and asparagus, of course.) ; ...Various fungi also, every once in a while (Mushrooms mostly, but occasionally some other when available.)

Along with the sometimes bought ready-mades (mixed salads and vegetable stakes mostly) – those were about my main ingredients on dinners. Also pasta I've eaten quite often (w. pesto/bolognese sauce). When eating outdoors I've usually favored salad, more rarely veggie-pizza or soups. The Berries weren't yet that much available - but soon you can harvest of the blueberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blackberries…

Sweets and other sugarines I don't count but likely I've eaten those relative much (but probably lot less than before beginning this.)

Black-Veined White

...And equally much a straight vegarian. Not too common species, but during flight time, on suitable places emergences sometimes in abundance. (Here on Meadow Crane's-bill.)

”Confezziones” 

 /...During this 'experiment of diets' – that I began from the mid of March - my only dietary exceptions were the following:

 On 9.5 ...I ate a one chicken leg (From my refrigerator and by the excuse from avoiding wasting the excess food. However, it tasted pretty awful.) 

14.5; I ate a batong sandwich (with ham) ...with the excuse from needing a pic of some meat-product to this post as comparables to veggies (Changed my mind from the 'decorations' later then...)

27.5; To offer myself English breakfast I made some from eggs, marmalade and two slices of bacon. (Tasted relative good...Although I had no beans or toasted bread at the moment to it)

14.6 ...Ate one cold sausage, with the excuse from avoiding any waste of foods. (Didn't taste very good, neither bad, just a...sausage.)

On 22.6 ...Ate left-overs from the grilled steak (Prepared for the Mid-Summer feast, and about half-eaten)

30.6 ..Ate a complete steak (of pork)...With the excuse from returning from quite exhaustive stays at the countrysides. (It tasted like typical service station food – Meaning, didn't taste much anything. Yet, as I was quite hungry it wasn't too bad...But not very recommendable either.)

...And soforth, that was about all of the foods and dinners at the Diary page 2 of the part-time vegarian. Final chapter shall (mostly) discuss from and about the ethics for vegetarian diet. I try to find some good exert to cite on begins of that...And no place for recipes this time, so the suggestion is to make some veggie-lasagne (I used for that some onion, swede, beets, fungi, chard + spices etc). The final part...about the harvest time, late August/ October perhaps.
Happy trails! ; [W-G.]

The Muleskinner Book Recommendation #34

The Shrinking World: Ecological consequences of Habitat Loss
By Ilkka Hanski
(2005. International Ecology Institute)


[Recommendation(s) II / 2012]

This present sequel on our book recoms is yet from the Conservation biology (Or books of the Natures in overall, et similar topics, already well presented prior this). But appears it that this selection is a book about population ecology and I think it has lots to say. Just due because I am not  too much familiar with the subject, I try to keep this recommendation brief.

Heath Fritillary (Melitaea Athalia) 
; Fairly common on Fennoscandian Nature, 
but lot declined on fx Great Britain.
(...And, a species adapted to cultural landscape, 
so re-establishing traditional 
agroforestry practices,
was there found favoring it's recovery)

Population ecology emphasizes largerly (/or mostly) on the study of dispersion, or perhaps disappearance, of animal species natural environment (often that's described on terms as Habitat loss.) Seems it said that the formerly prevailing, or at least more common, on population biology were the studies about ecological niches singular species occupy. Or alternatively, studies of the biotic communities separate species can form on any particular habitat(s) were more usual. Since about 1970s the focus (of researches) has been on Habitat loss, and it's consequences. ...Term appears probably easily understandable and also is actually a recognizable 'phenomenom' on almost anywhere of the current World; The human developments continuously extend for and limit the original Natural landscape to more fragemented parts. So, not very unsurprisingly fx various species capability to survive at the human altered habitats is some from the main concerns of it (ie of ecology), nowadays. I guess, the name of the book - Shrinking World – in it's entity, quite strikingly describes just that.

Of the books content I can't offer a too precise summarization, possibly. It's (relative) usual readings for the conservation biologists (et similar), likely, but the metapopulations (-study, or -dynamics) aren't too straightforward understandable topics for any common reader. There's fx quite much from the spesific methodology; formulations for calculating any singular species metapopulation capacity on any local spot of it's living habitat(s). Many things can affect for a population enflourishing or diminishing; The other species, migration/immigration to and away from that spot, etc... And so, it's said that any view from the expected/projected development from metapopulations always is an estimate. Yet, the theory aims to predict at which circumstances species can survive in the fragmented habitat.

Most examples at book are from the Northern boreal forest. Also, major part of the singular case studies, or metapopulation examples, are of researches by Hanski's (and his pupils) of the Fennoscandian Checkerspots (Melitaeinae); Their some butterfly species that - similarly as elsewhere on Europes – are found have declined/diminished along the disappearance of the former 'traditional landscape' and ending of the 'old time' farming practices. But then there's also wide variety other studies and examples referred, actually from many other parts of Globe. (Fx; from Costa Rica, Amazon - or the rainforests in general, from observed changes at adaptations of the urban birds on Europes cities during some decades scale, from various microhabitats of Palearctic forests, etc..)

However, the general reader probably does well to familiarize with concept from extinction debt. In short, and like the book also compactly acknownledges, in the fragmented habitat the survival (of species) appears secured only if new metapopulations form fast enough and close for the original living area - to replenish the disappearing some. So, unless the extinction debt isn't compensated by creation of suitable environments where specimens can move to, the 'debt' realizes as species losses (by varying extent and also often can happen during longer timescales projected for the futures.)

...But I don't claim this to represent but a few of the things discussed at the book more in particular. There's fx chapter on how the conservation areas would best be designeted in the light of the study of metapopulations, ao. Certainly, it's informative book and well readable, although some of the stuff is rather complex. Or, so I felt when reading it, since many concepts aren't too straightforward understandable without former biologist/naturalist backgrounds or education. (Very probably, of course, there is nowadays also several comparable books from metapopulation research.)

Now, having promised to keep the recommend short, I'll just cut this off for these few paragraphs. And further no sequels of the biology/naturalist books...Even though, I might happen find something of interest about the insects, and in that case...:)  [/W-G.]

From Diary Pages of the Part-Time Vegetarian (Part I)

”The Soul gets the better of the body,
after wasting illness or when a vegetable diet
may have mingled too much ether in the blood.

Vapors then rise up to the brain
and take the shapes that often image falsehood,
but sometimes truth.”

- The Blithedale Romance by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1852)

Was briefly referred on our earlier post, that I was planning some vegetarian diet. Now that I've been (mostly) on veggies for some Months, I'll here makes some series of (short) commentaries from experiences and feelings arised from that.  (You might notice that I'm not following any too strickt vegetarian order, fx I'm eating fish, eggs and milk-products by somewhat. Actually I've only decided to exclude – almost completely – the poultry and meats of my dietary choices. Also due because I was in the Spring exercising relative much, I've not tried to keep this 'experiment' at too absolute. But so far I've actually kept stricktly on this partial vegetarism.)

My motives  to try this kind of diets were mostly ideological, intentional avoidance of the unhealthy foods and - as much as that is possible - avoid the (so called) factorized foods of that 'meat-chain'. Also this was practical choice; Veggies make easy preparable (and cheap) choices as foods. Principal reasons maybe also from the ecological motives, but then this is also a philosophical experiment; 'To eat better is to lead a better life', to loan a most compact and simple statement on this (a phrase, So to say...) However, I've not intentions of complete changing to vegetarianism – even considering the formerly discussed points-of-views of domesticated animals and foods production (I guess I'm just not that motivated, So to say...) But it doesn't seem too unthinkable to limit my consumption of red meats et similar for a period of time. I didn't eat those too much even earlier, but I've not before much tried any vegan diets either.
(Also, it's perhaps noticeable that for anyone like me, living in the developed societies, this is rather easily maintained diets; Significance of it arises just from the fact that we don't have any actual lack of foods here. Wouldn't consider anything like this at the different circumstances. So, this also has ethical motive.)

At this and some later posts I – sort of – try representing some impressions about my physical and mental impressions in during this 'diet' (I plan it to last until the  Autumn.) Brief observations based on this dietary experiment; the feelings, dislikes, or whatever...
Sort of putting at the practice some bad old methods of the behavioral sciences (past 'sect' on the psychology, et similar...), but – instead of observing some guinea pigs – turning that careful scientific watching eye for to observe myself. As you can see, actually this makes just some plain science. (When with the term science is meant solely some empirical methods and results of the lab tests, mostly). However, I'm going on this experiment without laying the consequences  for anyone else's carrying...As for some difference of the favored practice here at the MSW.

...Now, on basis of the preceding paragraph(s) you might think that I'd be considering this for some burden or obstacle, but the truth is quite contrary. Of course, the vegatarism isn't any manner exceptional or rare any more, these days. Most (sensible) people probably think that as much common place as any other habits or everyday choices people do make. Nowadays it's possible, at least on many places/restaurants,  to choose from the vegetarian alternative and also appears (almost) as regular phenomenom like some typical hobbies, (fx jogging, snobbing, diving) – So to say.
Then; On the other hand there's often those everlasting discussions about the pros and cons of veganism (versus meat-rich diets). ...And that claimed necessity or unnecessity of the regular consumption of animal proteins (on human diets). So: If just find the following some bore of the same, part of that never-ending discussion, you can simply bypass these rhetoric questions that I'm asking here from myself at the following. (You can bet your shirt that I'm not trying to claim myself having any neutral opinion about this; You can actually decide from that by yourself on basis our former writings of the foods, meats, etc...)

In during this (partly) vegarian diet, have I felt any weakness or lack of strenght, since I having left the meats out of my foods?

No, not at all. More like I've felt feeling better and healthier of physical condition. Have felt – So to say – more from that 'Lightness of being' (to loan a phrase from name of that popular book by  Milan Kundera. This lightness hasn't felt any manner unbearable, however.) Generally, it feels to me also that eating (somewhat) lighter makes you feel also more optimistic, or smtgh like that...

Have I felt some eagerness to have some meat; Or have I felt any continuous hunger or need to have some meat to chew?

Answer to this also no, not at all. Actually, I've felt very increased dislike towards any meats. I'd say, that on begins of this I was perhaps a bit concerned if was I eating enough, especially from the proteins part, etc. Yet, soon after my body seems been accustomed to this (partial) vegetarism and now I feel no taste for any red meats at all. Of course, like you might be reminded, I've maintained quite much comparables on my diet (fish, schrimps, soya, ...). ...But, I think that the argument from that (claimed) desperate need for animal meat is just a false propaganda of the foods and slaughterhouses industries...So to say. Simply crap. (Some H*******t, so to say.).

And, have I felt any aches or pains on my body parts during this experiment of mine?

Oddly, this is the only question for which the answer is yes (at least slightly). Reasons why are not quite clear to me. Possibly, it may be due from that I've certainly exercised lot more in during the Spring-time than I would in the Summers, so it's maybe just some little aches on my old bones from that...And, I've come to a conclusion that it's at least sensible avoid too heavy exercise at this kind of diet. It hasn't prevented me from going on my regular joggings and skiing (...but everyone possibly has one's own best suitable amounts of the physical stress, found by trial and error, so to say.)  But, if you continuously do some heavier physical task/works I wouldn't propably recommend from complete abstainment of the animal foods part.

...But I guess, I'll have to let the time show if this latter rhetoric question has any relation for my vegetable diets. 

...Partly related to aspects on above paragraphs (perhaps) is the issue from necessity of milk-products on human diets. However,  it can't be blamed of these (little) 'pains and aches' on my case, for so far I've also consumed milk quite regularly - About  acc. the adviced amounts by Health Department (or whatever the name of the official...), couple glasses a day at least (and/or cheese and yoghurt). ...Finally, whatever might be the truth about that Osteoporosis, mentioned for an increased disease on Western societies, fx Saffran Foer on that book of his seems say that there's actually most osteoporosis at countries of world where people eat most milk-products. But I've not any clear opinion or view from that...

All things said for this time, but this seem leave not any place for food favorites  on this part. So, I'll just mention having 'traded' those meat products for to eat (ao foods) quite much of the seeds and nuts (all kinds of.) Also, during summers I plan to eat more berries and fruits, along w. other vegetarian food.  
- A good morning/evening 'snack' I did find from some mag: Pour together some Sunflower seeds, Peanut-/Cashew-Nuts, Flax seeds, Sesame seeds, and crush them together. Then mix that to some Soya-yoghurt and enjoy for breakfast. (There's nowadays lot of these soya-products on sales at the market. Some I've noticed quite eatable, some are just simply awful acc. my tastes. If not following an exclusive vegarian diet, it's not necessary use soya on this and that can be replaced for some natural yoghurt, if wish.)

(END OF DIARY PAGE ONE.)