Talking Elephant


Talking elephant is something that we usually leave to other elephants. They make a series of low rumbles whilst in a group. Their full range of vocal statements is quite broad, ranging from contented rumbles through squeals to trumpets. Clearly other elephants know what all this means, but we are left guessing.

Some humans are good linguists while many of us are what are best described as failures and resort to the goodwill of those speaking other languages to learn ours. I thought that this was a trait of many English speakers, but is apparently more widely spread.

 In the Everland Zoo in South Korea, Koshik, an Asian Elephant, is on his own own and can rumble or chirp with no response from his keepers who are his only friends. At twenty years old he has been feeling the need for the occasional chat and so has had to compromise and learn a few words of Korean.

In addition to learning the Korean words for Hello, No and Good, he can also tell his keepers to Sit Down or Lie Down. Stoeger et al have studied Koshik’s linguistic abilities by listening, of course, but also by recording the spectral pattern of what he says (1). They show a good match between Koshik’s utterances and a human saying the same thing.

The sound frequency lies clearly between the low frequency rumbles and the high frequency chirp. It isn’t the usual frequency for talking elephant; so it seem that we have a talking elephant who not only talks elephant, but who has learnt a few words of Korean.

It turns out that this is quite a feat for a talking elephant; as they don’t use that frequency range beloved of humans, so how does he do it? He sticks his trunk into his mouth to modify the sound coming from his vocal chords. Clearly this will limit his conversation, as it is difficult to carry out a long conversation with your mouth full of trunk.

It is probably as much of cry for help as anything else, though, as twenty or so years on your own with no one to talk to must be hard.

  1. Stoeger et al., Current Biol., (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.022

Walking Your Moai

Photo Bjarte Sorensen, Creative Commons

Walking your moai is not a task to be undertaken lightly. Weighing in at a 10,000 pounds and up, you will need to have a team to help. The good news is that they won’t dash off chasing rabbits like your dog. In the first place there are no rabbits on Easter Island and the moai are just standing around staring into the distance and don’t seem very interested in the world around them.

Easter Island has been famous for it’s moai (huge stone statues) for a couple of centuries, but the how and why has been topics of controversy. The sculptors quarried and carved then from one location and roads were built to take them to their allotted places. Some fell by the wayside, but about 900 made it.

The ongoing controversy is how they got from A to B. A being the quarry and B being their home turf. A popular view was that they were rolled the road along in a recumbent posture on logs and propped upright when they arrived. The problem is that the heaviest are ~ 160,000 pounds and there aren’t that many trees around, though there may have been once. But the big problem is the weight and how to lift that.

The more recently espoused idea is that they walked from their quarry where they were carved upright. Perhaps shuffled is the best description, aided by groups of well wishers holding onto ropes to pull and cajole them along.

A 10,000 pound concrete replica was built by Lipo et al and walked along a track using three strategically placed teams on ropes (1, 2). They made a good walking rate of 0.06 miles per hour. They conclude that that is the favorite methodology for their location and the design of the base lends itself to the shuffling motion.

However not everyone agrees that the demonstration proves the point, so the controversy rumbles on. But there is something attractive about imagining all those huge stone statues shuffling along from their quarry to to settle down to nice viewpoints along the road.


  1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312004311
  2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/25/easter-island-statues-walked-into-position

Familiar Face – Don’t I know You?


A familiar face in the crowd is something we look for and instantly makes us feel more relaxed and at home (– unless it is someone we don’t want to meet because, well perhaps we shouldn’t ask.)

So if we see someone who looks like us, then we feel good about that as we see someone familiar who is probably related as our doppelgangers are few and far between. Kinship is a good thing and we can obviously trust our kin  to do the right thing by us.

That was the starting point of Giang et al who published their study in last weeks Public Library of Science (1). They took 58 men and women in their early 20’s as their subjects to play with themselves (unwittingly of course). They game was on.

Specifically it was a social cooperation game in which you and the other player invested money, only small sums, so the players didn’t have to be one percenters. If the partner invested the same amount, you did well, but if they cheated and only said they would and didn’t, you lost money.

In past published experiments, players tended to invest more money when the image of the other player looked like a likeable person. Now what’s not to liked about a possible family member? Well, we’ll see.

The experiment started with photographs of the participants and then these were morphed a little to look like someone different, but not totally. Hence you would be playing with yourself, but not quite yourself, more a familiar face.

When all the results came in, shock horror but not the expected outcome. What happened was that the players didn’t trust themselves (well familiar face person) any more that someone different. Of, course not everybody would look “likeable” after morphing, but not trusting people that could look like a possible sibling? Well who’d have thought it.

Sibling rivalry seems to be alive and well amongst the students of Heinrich Heine U in Düsseldorf.

  1. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047809

Schools Of Dolphins


Schools of dolphins in Australia’s Shark Bay are well studied. The Shark Bay Dolphin project started back in 1982 when some scientists stepped out on Monkey Mia beach and found the bottlenose dolphins were friendly. In fact they would come in to the shallows to greet the waders and be hand fed.

Now the schools of dolphins are some of the best studied, but they also have some unusual habits. The bottlenose dolphins go foraging, as regulations on feeding make sure that they don’t become spongers on the generosity of tourists in fishing boats.

Foraging, though, has its hazards. They have to stick their noses into things that other fish wish they wouldn’t and that can have painful consequences – certainly for the fish. The Shark Bay schools of dolphins have an answer to that problem. They stick a sponge on their nose for protection.

It seems that they have been sponging their noses for some time and Kopps and Sherwin have been puzzling over how that is taught (1, 2). Is this something that genetics passes along, or was it something that one clever girl shows the others?

As nobody speaks dolphin, the next best thing is to simulate how long it would take to produce the behavior patterns observed in the bay. Computers being wonderful tools, they cranked out results in short order, but they did not correspond with the actual observations.

It seems that social learning is the answer. So we can think of this as schools of dolphins have home schooling to learn the best sponging techniques. (To catch their own fish, of course.) Sponging from the tourist voyeurs is a no-no. In any case, sponging by Shark Bay schools of dolphins has been going on long before the tourists – about 150 years more or less.

  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19909635
  2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347212003806

Cloaking Devices


Cloaking devices are a big thing in Sci-Fi stories. They are the dream of some physicists working hard to bend light round objects. So far some success with small objects has been won, but we’re still a long way from something as big as the Starship Enterprise.

Nature doesn’t hang around waiting. The evolutionary pressure of predation is a great spur and small fish have had a lot of predatory pressure to evolve for quite a while. Jordan, Partridge and Roberts from Bristol U have been taking a look at fish like sardines and herrings, or at least trying to when the light is right (1, 2).

They have shown that the silvery skin, which gives that shimmery appearance as they move in and out of sight, has layers of crystals in them. Each layer has the crystal axis perpendicularly oriented to the next layer. The crystals are guanine.

The article in Discovery News focuses our attention on guano as though it was something that we higher beings might find just a tad distasteful (1). But we should remember that we are laced through and through with guanine as it is one of the four components of our DNA. Without guanine we would just be part of an very old primordial soup.

So having established that guanine is good for us, we can continue eating sardines and herrings without thinking about bird droppings. The way their skin works to confuse is by not confusing. When light is reflected from a mirrored surface, the fraction of the light that is reflected is the fraction that is polarized horizontally – that is parallel to the surface. The vertical components do their best to penetrate.

Our multilayered little piscatorial wonders have alternate layer which tackle the horizontal and vertical components because of their crystal orientation. Hence, wonder of wonders, they don’t reflect and if they don’t reflect, the predators don’t see them. So they, in their way, are like little stealth aircraft which don’t reflect radar waves back to the detectors, and “fly” about in the sea while being difficult to make out clearly.


  1. http://news.discovery.com/animals/fish-break-law-of-physics-become-invisible-121021.html
  2. http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphoton.2012.260.html