text:
Cookbook talk:Coriander

Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, M = minor edit

* (cur) (last). . M 08:09, 21 Feb 2004. . Viajero (quiclky --> quickly ) * (cur) (last). . 08:08, 21 Feb 2004. . Mkweise (never cook the leaves) * (cur) (last). . 05:05, 8 Feb 2004. . Kristof vt   * (cur) (last). . M 17:03, 18 Jan 2004. . Cbm * (cur) (last). . M 05:12, 8 Dec 2003. . Ojigiri (+ja) * (cur) (last). . 06:16, 3 Dec 2003. . 80.144.9.60 (de) * (cur) (last). . M 13:27, 15 Nov 2003. . Kpjas * (cur) (last). . 08:31, 10 Nov 2003. . ( (combined Coriander (plant) and Coriander (spice))   * (cur) (last) . . 12:09, 16 Oct 2003 . . Dgrant (redirect to coriander (spice) for now. Disambiguation later perhaps?)   * (cur) (last) . . M 13:27, 15 Oct 2003 . . Dgrant (wki)    * (cur) (last) . . 13:27, 15 Oct 2003 . . Dgrant (added preparation)    * (cur) (last) . . 13:26, 15 Oct 2003 . . Dgrant (created)    * (cur) (last) . . 11:33, 15 Oct 2003 . . Dgrant (moved to "Coriander_(plant)")

title: Cookbook talk:Coriander


text:
Cookbook:Meat

 * Basic foodstuffs

Meat refers most broadly to the muscle tissue of animals, and usually to mammals and birds. It is considered culinarily distinct from seafood.

Characteristics
Meat consists primarily of water, protein, and fat. The bulk of the meat structure is made up of groups of muscle fibers arranged in bundles, and these fibers coagulate during cooking. Distributed among the muscle fibers are fatty and connective tissues. Fat in meat carries a large amount of flavor, and it contributes tenderness and juiciness. Connective tissue is tough and is greater in older animals and more highly-exercised muscles, and it consists of collagen and elastin. Collagen can be broken down during cooking, while elastin must be either removed or broken down by grinding, cutting, and/or pounding.

Red meat
Red meat is frequently defined as meat that is red when raw and dark when cooked, although it can also be defined as meat that has a relatively high myoglobin content. It always includes meats like beef, bison, mutton/lamb, and venison. Pork is sometimes considered red meat and sometimes not. Red meat can feature marbling, which is where fat is distributed within the meat, and high marbling is usually very prized.

Poultry
Poultry meat is primarily divided into light and dark meat. The light meat contains less fat and connective tissue, while dark meat contains more. As a consequence, light meat generally cooks faster than dark. Chickens and other birds that don't fly very much tend to have light breast and wing meat with dark leg meat. On the other hand, duck, goose, and squab are all dark meat.

Game

 * Wild sheep and goat, antelope, springbok, 'bush meat', gnu, water buffalo, zebra, venison, rabbit, squirrel
 * Snipe, woodcock, pigeon, squab, guineafowl, partridge, grouse ptarmigan, widgeon, wild duck and goose

Other meats

 * Alligator, frog, lizard, snake, snail, insects, whale, dog, iguana

Organ meat
Organ meats can include liver, sweetbreads, brains, kidney, heart, tongue, gizzard, and tripe. In general, organ meats are highly perishable and must be cooked soon after purchasing. Those made of muscle tend to be tough, while glandular non-muscular meats are tender and easily overcooked.

Aging
After slaughter, most meat is tough from rigor mortis and is called green meat. Over time, the meat softens and develops more in flavor, and for certain meats this process can be carefully extended in a process called aging. In dry aging, the meat is stored in a cool dry environment with high air circulation to prevent spoiling. Usually only beef and lamb are significantly aged.

Storage and handling
Raw meat is highly perishable, and care must be taken to protect it from spoilage. In the refrigerator, meat should optimally be stored in a way that promotes air circulation, although the surfaces should still be covered to prevent drying. In general, meat stored this way only keeps for up to several days, and ground meat has a lower shelf life due to the increased surface area.

Freezing meat will significantly prolong its shelf life by preventing the growth of mold and bacteria.

There are three ways to defrost meat: in the refrigerator, in cold water, and in the microwave. Never defrost on the counter or in other locations. It's best to plan ahead for slow, safe thawing in the refrigerator. To defrost in cold water, do not remove packaging. Be sure the package is airtight or put it into a leakproof bag. Submerge the package in cold water, changing the water every 30 minutes so it continues to thaw.

When microwave defrosting meat, plan to cook it immediately after thawing because some areas of the food may become warm and begin to cook during microwaving. Holding partially cooked food is not recommended because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed.

Foods defrosted in the microwave or by the cold water method should be cooked before refreezing because they may potentially have been held at temperatures above 40 °F allowing harmful bacteria to grow.

Put packages of raw bison in disposable plastic bags (if available) to contain any leakage which could cross contaminate cooked foods or produce. Take packaged bison home immediately and refrigerate at 40°F; use within 3 to 5 days, or freeze. If kept frozen continuously, it will be safe indefinitely.

Cooking
Cooking meat causes proteins to coagulate, fat to render, and connective tissue to break down. The longer the cooking, the more the connective tissue breaks down; however eventually the protein coagulation will squeeze out too much water and cause the meat to become dry and stringy. As a result, different kinds and cuts of meat should be cooked in the way best suited to their particular characteristics.

Doneness
Doneness refers to the degree of cooking meat has attained. The most accurate way to evaluate doneness uses a thermometer, but this is not always possible when cooking smaller or thinner cuts of meat. When using a thermometer is not possible, sight and touch can be used to check doneness for smaller cuts of meat. In smaller birds, the doneness can also be assessed by checking on the looseness of the joints and how the meat pulls away from the bone. The following table notes common characteristics of various stages of doneness: Beef can be cooked anywhere from very rare to well done. Pork and most poultry are generally cooked until well-done. Tender cuts of meat and cuts low in fat can quickly become overdone and dry out, which will make them dry and stringy.

Note that the temperature of meat will continue increasing for a short period after it is removed from the heat, and this should be taken into account when aiming for a specific level of doneness.

Dry heat cooking
Dry heat cooking methods like grilling, frying, and broiling are most suitable for tender cuts of meat. Smaller sizes are usually best, the cuts should be evenly thick all over, and most extra connective tissue and fat should be removed.

Roasting meat is different from the other types of dry heat cooking in that it often involves larger pieces of meat, lower heat, and longer cooking time. Ideally the heat is only raised at the end of the cooking period to brown the surface. Having a layer of fat at the surface helps keep the roasting meat moist.

Tougher meats may be seared before moist cooking in order to develop flavor from the browning. A common myth is that searing meat closes pores and "seals in" juices, but this is not the case.

Moist heat cooking
Steaming and poaching are moist heat cooking methods that should be used for small, tender pieces of meat.

Stewing and braising are excellent methods for tough pieces of meat, as the low-and-slow cooking breaks down connective tissue into gelatin. This method also produces very flavorful food, as tougher meat is usually higher in flavor and any released juices become part of the sauce. Do not cut the meat into too-small pieces, as this can cause them to dry out. Tender meats can also be braised, but it should be at a lower temperature and for less time. Never cook meat above a simmer. Boiling should be avoided to prevent overcooking.

Safety
When an animal is butchered, many meats can become infected with various bacteria, such as Staphylococcus, Campylobacter jejuni, and E. coli O157:H7. This can occur because the intestines can be accidentally cut into, releasing contaminated fecal matter, and butcher's knives can bacome contaminated. Infection chances are greatly reduced by thorough cooking.

Index
For a complete list of all meat and poultry ingredient pages available on the Cookbook, please see Category:Meats, or browse below.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cookbook:Meat


text:
User:Bcorr

en:User:Bcorr fr:Utilisateur:Bcorr de:Benutzer:Bcorr

title: User:Bcorr


text:
Dichotomous Key/Aves

Key to Aves

 * Neognathae: Has the ability to fly.
 * 2: Does not have the ability to fly.

2

 * 5: Feet are webbed or lobate.
 * 6: Feet are not webbed or lobate.

5

 * Spheniscidae: Wings modified into flippers
 * 7: Wings not modified into flippers

6

 * 8: Height is over 70 centimeters
 * 9: Height is less than 70 centimeters

7

 * 10: Head is solid black or brown
 * 11: Head is at least half white

8

 * Struthio camelus: Two toes present on each foot.
 * 14: Three toes present on each foot

9

 * 16: Horn-like spongy crest present on forehead
 * 17: No crest present on forehead

10

 * 12: Dark brown to tan coloration clearly present in plumage.
 * 13: Dark brown to tan coloration not clearly present in plumage.

11

 * Podiceps taczanowskii: Plumage a mix of black and white only; Eyes are red.
 * Rollandia microptera: Plumage a mix of black, brown, and white; Eyes are black.

12

 * Anas aucklandica: Plumage color change from head to body gradual; Birds of the Auckland Islands.
 * Anas nesiotis: Plumage color change from head to body abrupt; Birds of the Campbell Islands.

13
unfinished

 * Nannopterum harrisi, Flightless Cormorant
 * Tachyeres pteneres, Fuegian Steamer Duck
 * Tachyeres brachypterous, Falkland Steamer Duck
 * Tachyeres leucocephalus, Chubut Steamer Duck

14

 * Dromaius novaehollandiae: Flaps wings when running; Small claw present at tip of wing.
 * 15: Wings spread while running, acting as sails; Small claw absent at tip of wing.

15: Rheas

 * Rhea americana: Adult is over 120 centimeters tall; Weight is 45-60 pounds; Bill measures 8-11 centimeters long; Birds of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
 * Rhea pennata: Adult is less than 120 centimeters tall; Weight is 33-60 pounds; Bill measures 6-9 centimeters; Birds of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru.

16: Cassowaries
unfinished

 * Casuarius casuarius, Southern Cassowary
 * Casuarius unappendiculatus, Northern Cassowary
 * Casuarius bennetti, Dwarf Cassowary

17
unfinished

 * 18: Kiwis
 * 19: everything else

18: Kiwis
unfinished

 * Apteryx australis, Southern Brown Kiwi
 * Apteryx haastii, Great Spotted Kiwi
 * Apteryx mantelli, North Island Brown Kiwi
 * Apteryx owenii, Little Spotted Kiwi
 * Apteryx rowi, Okarito Brown Kiwi

19

 * Strigops habroptilus: Two forward facing toes and two backward facing toes
 * 20: Feet not arranged with two facing forward and two facing back.

20

 * 21: Chest plumage appearing to have zebra-like black and white stripes.
 * 22: Chest plumage with a solid color or if not, then plumage not appearing to have zebra stripes.

21
unfinished

 * Aramidopsis plateni, Snoring Rail;
 * Gallirallus rovianae, Roviana Rail;
 * Gallirallus owstoni, Guam Rail;
 * Gallirallus okinawae, Okinawa Rail;
 * Gallirallus insignis, New Britain Rail also Pink Leg Rail

22
unfinished

Tasmanian Nativehen, Gough Island Moorhen, Makira Wood Rail, Samoan Wood Rail, Takahe (bright blue/green plumage), New Guinea Flightless Rail, invisible rail, Red-eyed Crake, Inaccessible Rail, Calayan Rail, Lord Howe Woodhen, New Caledonian Rail, Weka, Woodford's Rail, Giant Coot

title: Dichotomous Key/Aves


text:
Cookbook:Cuisine of Italy

| European cuisines

Introduction
Italian cuisine has a tradition of dishes based on wheat products (such as bread and pasta), vegetables, cheese, fish, and meat, usually prepared in such a manner as to preserve their ingredients' natural qualities, appearance, and taste.

This kind of cuisine puts a stress on lightness and healthy nutrition with natural unprocessed foods, and tends to vary greatly not only with the seasons but also between the various regions of the country: mountainous regions have dishes rich in proteins, and prefer meat, butter, and cheese, while seaside regions have dishes rich in vegetables and fish.

In this way, the cuisine is born of the people, the territory and the seasons, and is not pulled out of nowhere for no rhyme or reason.

Cooking techniques
Owing to its peasant roots, classic Italian cooking is inherently simple, and the cooking techniques used therein are those that were accessible to people who worked long hours and had limited resources. This explains the absence of dishes that include elements such as fine pastry or delicate sauces—things which require long, close attention and precise temperatures.

The most common techniques in Italian cooking are:
 * Boiling or simmering: food is cooked in hot water. Examples of this include pastas, rice, vegetables, and tough but flavorful cuts of meat.

 * Pan frying: food is quickly cooked in a small amount of very hot fat—butter or vegetable oil. This is what we commonly think of as “sautéing.” Although some dishes are cooked in larger amounts of oil—say, an inch or two—deep-fat frying, which requires a large amount of oil, is rare.

 * Braising: food is browned in hot fat, then cooked in a moderate amount of flavored liquid (wine, broth or vegetable juice), most often with aromatic vegetables and other seasonings. A good example of braising is Osso Buco, braised veal shanks. In some respects, risotto is a braised dish; though similar to braising, its method of preparation is entirely unique.

 * Pan roasting: similar to braising, the food is initially browned in hot fat; it is then cooked in a small amount of liquid—just enough to keep it moist. This is most often used for chicken, rabbit, and certain cuts of pork and veal—flavorful cuts of meat which are often spit-roasted or, in modern kitchens, oven-roasted.

 * Grilling: food is quickly cooked over the embers of a hardwood or charcoal fire. This is used for tender, well-marbled cuts of beef and pork, small game birds, and, on the coast, certain kinds of seafood.

Dishes which are oven-baked, like pizza or lasagna, usually require no more than 15-20 minutes baking time to finish. These were traditionally prepared at home, then taken to the local bakery for the final baking.

Dishes
The following is a list of some Italian dishes, divided into general categories.

Appetizers (Antipasti)

 * Bruschetta
 * Olive Ascolane
 * Caponata

Sauces

 * Pesto
 * Marinara Sauce

Polenta

 * Basic Polenta
 * Pork chops with tomato sauce and polenta

Pasta

 * Pasta with Pancetta and Cauliflower
 * Italian Pasta
 * Lasagna
 * Lasagna con la Ricotta
 * Lasagna with bean sauce
 * Pasta Marinata
 * Pasta e Fagioli
 * Pasta al pomodoro
 * Spaghetti alla carbonara
 * Spaghetti alle vongole
 * Spaghetti alla puttanesca

Rice

 * Risotto
 * Minestrone of Rice and Turnips

Soups

 * Soup with Supplì

Meat

 * Veal Parmigiana
 * Ossobuco Alla Milanese
 * Italian Meatballs

Vegetables

 * Melanzane alla Parmigiana (Aubergines/Eggplant Parmigiana)
 * Zucchine ripiene (Stuffed courgettes)

Desserts

 * Tiramisù
 * Meringata
 * Panna cotta
 * Struffoli

Drinks

 * Latte di Suocera

Breads

 * Focaccia
 * Focaccia with Onion Marmalade, Blue Cheese, and Walnuts
 * Garlic Bread

Pizza

 * Pizza
 * Pizza Vanegas
 * Deep Dish Pizza
 * Garlic Knots

Livre de cuisine/Recettes de cuisine italienne

title: Cookbook:Cuisine of Italy


text: Template:Lucid Dreaming/LDTOC

title: Template:Lucid Dreaming/LDTOC


text:
Wikibooks talk:Copyrights

This needs to be updated
Now that I'm going to actually publish a book from Wikibooks, I've discovered a whole bunch of problems relating to copyright status that need to be covered. Essentially, I think we need to take most of the contents regarding hard copy printing and throw them out.

According to U.S. law (and perhaps others), every single author needs to be given attribution, not just the top 5 contributors. Or perhaps we need to get a second opinion on this. Is is the top 5 edits by edit count? What other criteria are we going to use? What about requirements for nationality and place of residence? (This is for formal copyright registration.)

I'm going to take this discussion to Wikipedia for some wider comment as well, but it needs to be updated and modified here, especially as it relates to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be interesting to get an update to learn if there were any results from this. --Swift 03:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why GFDL instead of GPL?
The GFDL looks as though it tries to give the original authors control over derived works by allowing invariant sections. I have seen mention of one document where the author has specified the whole of the document as an invariant section (I'll try to find a link). This makes a nonsense of any supposed ability to create derived or improved works. It seems that Wikibooks has made a deliberate attempt avoid this by stating that there will be no invariant sections, no front matter, etc. This seems to reduce the GFDL to something approaching the GPL so why not use the GPL instead?

I can imagine circumstances where it would be desirable to include some of these books (if any of them ever attain the necessary quality) in Debian. But the GFDL is incompatible with the Debian social contract (as interpreted by Debian) so it can't be done; see http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html.

 * It would have been nice for you to sign this statement with a ~ (four tildas) to let us know who you are and your opinion here. See the editing help page on Meta for more details.  Going through the history log I can also find this information, but by omitting the sig, it seems as a random comment and hard to seperate out from other content.

 * I for one agree that the GFDL does have problems that need to be resolved, and is in need of some major overhaul...much more than the GPL. If you go to the Free Software Foundation website you can find some discussion about this issue as well, and be able to help change the GFDL to overcome some of the objections you are talking about.  I will say also, however, that the GPL is missing some key components for textual literary works that are not needed for computer source code or binary distribution, so the GPL is also insufficient to cover everything that you need for a literary work.  Wikibooks, and indeed all Wikimedia Foundation projects actually use a specific subset of the GFDL that cover the GFDL with "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts."  This is a key distinction that avoid many of the common objections, but there are others to worry about as well, as you've pointed out. BTW, you might want to do a very careful read of version 1.2 of the GFDL to see that some of the objections have also been dealt with.  It appears as though the Debian position statement was for the GFDL version 1.0, which is different from the 1.2 version (although not apparent from the discussion).  Of particular note is that the transparent vs. opaque discussion IMHO is totally wrong.  Opaque copies  are the literary version of binary distribution.  PDF files are a good example, although this is primarily concerned with printed copies that don't even require computer technology to be able to "read" them.  The attempt in this section is to encourage people recieving printed works that they don't have to go through a Distributed Proofreaders type of OCR conversion (with editing rounds) just to have the ability to reprint the book they are reading.  If you have ever read a manual that was a 6th or 10th generation photocopy of some other document, I hope you appreciate what having the original "source material" as a machine readable text can mean.  The GPL has similar requirement for binary distribution together with the source, and as a matter of policy myself when distributing software (I am a software engineer who has also used the GPL for some projects) I include a copy of the source as well... especially at the download site (which is critical).  Unfortuately when you buy a book in a bookstore, the "download site" into your hands to read the book usually does not have a computer network terminal or other convinent means to get the source material.  The same could be said if you bought a CD-ROM with GPL software (I've done that too), but if you abide with the spirt of the GPL, the source would also be included.  Some of this is also derived from the fights over items like Tivo that are reluctant to release source code for GPL'd software modification that consumers are indirectly using.  This makes it clear that you as an end-user should be able to get raw machine readable source material somehow.  I've also been involved with an unscrupilous supervisor who "GPL'd" some software for one day only, and "copyied" the software for his own personal use when he left the company.  A similar issue happened with the Gnutella network software when it was released by Netscape just before the AOL buyout (or was that right afterward?) There are other legal issues that pertain only to literary works that the GFDL attempts to deal with that are not really covered with any other licese, although Creative Commons does try to do a good job.  The GPL/GFDL incompatability issues are a huge deal, and that is something that IMHO the Free Software Foundation can and should deal with (particularly since they wrote both licenses).  In short, if you want to make a copyleft literary work available, what license would you suggest?  Also keep in mind that this issue has been throughally vetted in other forums, including when Wikipedia, Nupedia, and Gnupedia all were started.  These are essentially the same thing...or at least have similar roots and the projects all merged together at some point.  As far as how this affects Wikibooks, on the other hand, is another issue.  We do, however, have to maintain compatability with other Wikimedia projects, and keep in mind that all existing content on all Wikimedia Foundation servers (slightly over 1 TB of data, from what I've seen, and growing at a rate of about 4-7% per month) is already GFDL'd, so changing licenses is going to be a huge deal, not something done as a casual unsigned comment on an obscure page is going to change.  We treat this issue seriously, however, and invite discussion of what changes can be done to help encourage a copyleft distribution of literary content.  At this point, however, the GFDL may have to be changed than for us to change to something other than the GFDL.... and it may be easier to accomplish as well.  --Rob Horning 10:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of signature, I'm afraid I'm not very competent at editing yet. kwhitefoot 18:57:43, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't know what license would be best and I'm not really qualified to pronounce on it anyway. What I want is that any content that I provide be available to anyone to use for whatever purpose they wish and for those who distribute derived works to be required to give the same freedoms to everyone else. Additionally I do not want to burden those who might want to create a derived work from a small part of a document with requirements to attach verbose licences (WikiTravel has a discussion on exactly this point explaining why they rejected the GFDL). Any incompatibility between GPL and GFDL would be especially important to me and to many programmers because we write both code and manuals for that code. A substantial program might also have a textbook associated with it. The point is to encourage the free flow of information. I do understand that there are a lot of documents in these Wiki's now that are covered by GFDL but I can't agree that that is a reasonable argument against change, only against careless change. Circumstances change all the time. Anyway how could you change the licence of existing text? Wouldn't you have to contact all the contributors? I'm aware of the clause in both GPL and GFDL that state that the creator of a derived work can follow the rules in 'any later version' but I wonder how that would stand up to a legal challenge if the terms were to change significantly. Sorry about the mutiple edits, finger trouble on the refresh button. kwhitefoot 09:17:47, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

 * If you want to get a glimpse at the magnitude of your request, see User list, which is a list of all of the registered users here on Wikibooks. And keep in mind that a substantial number of people also contribute "anonymously", so technically you would have to dump the entire database and restart the entire project if you decided to switch licenses.  This is currently under discussion at Wikitree (a genealogical website that wants to become a part of Wikimedia sometime in the future... if possible).  The problem there is that the person who started the site made the license CC-by-SA-NC, which made it incompatable with the GFDL and the GPL in a major way (the non-commercial use only clause).  A debate there over what license should be used is occuring, and they are facing the very real possibility of throwing away their entire database and restarting the project.  It is only a couple of months old, so that may be a real possibility, and they do consider that the project proposal is still in beta.  License issues at the beginning of a project are critical.  This debate is also ongoing at Wikinews, and their "solution" to the problem is to simply make all content put into the public domain (no license at all).  That way it is compabatable with all copyleft licenses until they can come to a decision as to what specific copyleft license that they want to use, even if they have to draft that license themselves.  That also misses the legal protections that a copyright license affords to keep people abusing the "commons", but in the case of Wikinews it was not perceived to be as big of a deal.  The #1 complaint there is the license republishing requirement of the GFDL made it absurd to use GFDL (as would the GPL under similar circumstances) for any short 5-10 paragraph news articles by commercial news outlets (like a small-town newspaper that decided to trash their annual AP wire fee and use Wikinews instead... or even as a suppliment). Particularly so visible of a project like Wikimedia Foundation projects do indeed get notice from the Free Software Foundation, and it is having a major impact in the future of the GFDL.  There are discussions going on right now (on some mailing lists that I don't know the URL for at the moment) about future changes to the GFDL that has included comments from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia users, and taken very seriously.  Particularly when you note that Wikipedia alone is perhaps close to 50% of current content written using the GFDL (or more...but stats like that would be hard to come by).  Both the GPL and the GFDL are due for an update soon and both have been announced by Richard Stallman.  The GPL update is a bigger concern because Linus Torvald got rid of the "or later update" clause in the GPL for the Linux kernel, which "freezes" the GPL at it current version.  Linus did that for a specific legal reason, and debate over that decision can be found elsewhere on the web. Slashdot has done a particularly good job of covering that specific issue (especially within the user comment areas), but you do have to dig real hard. If you do want to get involved with this issue and bring it up to a larger audience that includes people who can make a change (at least within the Wikimedia Foundation) I would suggest that you look at The Wikimedia Foundation mailing list (also refered to commonly as Foundation-l on Wikimedia projects).  There are a couple of hot-button ideas at the moment, but I'm sure you would get a solid reply as to why the GFDL is being used.  You might want to dig through the archives as well if you might be interested.  There are a couple of computer programming Wikibooks where issues of GPL/GFDL compatability are of importance, so there is some reason to try and hit this issue as well.  --Rob Horning 12:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Compatible licences
Is there a list of licences that are compatible with the GFDL?

What I mean is: is there an easy way to discover whether a document or an excerpt from a document can be incorporated in a WikiBook without having to read carefully through all the complicated clauses. For instance, is the OpenOffice Public License compatible (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html).

A concrete example: I would like to take some information from Programming OpenOffice.org with Visual Basic (http://www.kalitech.fr/clients/doc/VB_APIOOo_en.html) but it is under the OO public license which looks to me as though it isn't compatible, but I'm not sure. kwhitefoot 09:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I would recommend that you take a look at the GNU License List that compares several licenses to licenses authored by the Free Software Foundation. Look toward the bottom of the page for the GFDL compatable licenses as opposed to the GPL.  There are a couple licenses listed there that are compatable, and this list should be expanded.  If you are interested in researching this topic, it would be a good discussion to add to the Wikimedia Meta Server and adding a list of compatable licenses to the GFDL.  In addition, writing to Richard Stallman or somebody else at the Free Software Foundations with some document licenses that may be compatable with the GFDL would be useful as well.  This is something that Mr. Stallman in particular is interested in and will give you some sort of reply on the matter... especially if the website in incomplete from what you have found out.  I've had contact with Mr. Stallman in the past, and he has been very gracious and reasonable in his replies if you are also reasonable with your request.  --Rob Horning 00:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Orphan works
I have found a number of web pages that would make worthwhile additions to Programming:Visual Basic Classic but have failed to make contact with the copyright holders. It isn't just that the email isn't answered, sometimes it bounces and even Google fails to turn up a plausible alternative address.

I wonder if anyone has any suggestions about how to track down the copyright holders of such orphan works. It seems to me that there is a lot of material on the web that is effectively unuseable because it has neither an explicit license granting free use nor a live contact who can be asked for permission. Sadly academic sites seem to be frequent offenders in this regard, even where they have an email address specifically noted as the one to use regarding copyright the mail often goes unanswered. --kwhitefoot 21:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is an ugly can of worms that you have just opened up. Prior to the "internationalization" of U.S. copyright (at least in the USA) that occured in the mid 1970's, all copyrighted works in the USA were required to file a formal registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, which is a part of the Library of Congress.  As a part of the registration process, you needed to list the address of the publisher and other contact information, as well as the complete names and nationalities of all authors for the copyrighted work.  This registration still occurs, but now it is voluntary and is seldom done except for items that are widely published or for people that don't mind paying the registration fee to do the formal paperwork.  By registering the copyrighted work now, you gain statutory damages of $175,000 or more for a single copyright violation... that is above and beyond actual damages which can also be included.  That copyright damage award can even be assessed against copyleft documents like Wikipedia (if somebody copies Wikipedia content, for example, without including the GFDL fine print or if they in turn claim copyright on the content).  If the stuff you are trying to locate has been registered, you can contact the Library of Congress and get the publisher contact information.  You may even be able to get that information on-line without having to actually talk to somebody.

 * For internet web pages, you can also try to find the domain registration information. For example, you can go to:

http://www.internic.org/whois.html

 * and look up the whois information about the domain. Try to type in wikipedia.org in the domain area as an example to find who "owns" wikipedia.org.  Back in the "good old days" this information was rather accurate, but the U.S. Dept. of Commerce has totally screwed up the internet and this registration is now close to meaningless.  Still, you might get a clue as to who might have set up the internet domain, and sometimes people are honest when filling out these domain registrations.  These addresses are usually Snail-Mail but also include sometimes e-mail addresses as well.  I have seen addresses on Mars or Alpha Centari, so you can take those sort of addresses with a grain of salt.  Better than having no contact information, however.  By going through internic, you may have to do a domain search on a registrar's server, but internic has the names of the secondary registrars that you have to look up the information with, and generally where to go.  The Whois information is supposed to be free to the public, but sometimes a bit of a pain to get to and some registrars don't exactly make it easy to find the "Whois" button on their web page.

 * The Library of Congress just had a symposium on what to do with orphaned works, and I believe is still seeking written comments about changes to copyright law. This issue is also likely to come before some future session of the U.S. Congress in the near future, so make sure you write to your local congressman if you are an American (or even if you aren't but want to weigh in on the issue.)  Orphan works in particular would not be an issue with the old copyright laws, as a copyright which expires in just 20 years would normally be no big deal.  With the current life+75 years, and no legal way to even know when a given author died unless they are incredibly famous, you can consider the current copyright term to be about 200 years.... basically the works of Thomas Jefferson would still be under copyright if the powers that be had their way.

 * In general, unless you have explicit permission in the form of something like the GFDL or something written by the author in your possession, consider most written works to be under copyright and untouchable for the purposes of Wikibooks. If you havn't guessed, I do have some strong political opinions on this subject.--Rob Horning 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Quote: 'consider most written works to be under copyright and untouchable for the purposes of Wikibooks'. That's pretty much what I concluded.  The contact problem is generally not that I can't find out who is likely to be the copyright holder but that I can't get them to answer email even when I can be certain that they have received it.  In one instance I even got an autoreply which said that the recipient was off work sick and I still didn't get a real reply.  I just can't believe that most people get so much email that they can't afford the time to write one line saying yes or no.  I think that I'll just have to admit that large chunks of the Visual Basic Classic book just won't ever get written because I'm too lazy to write the introductory stuff and have failed to get permission to copy anything else and haven't been able to persuade anyone else to contribute either.  (Insert your favourite swear word here!) :-( --kwhitefoot 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Permission Statements
What is the correct procedure when one has obtained permission to incorporate a copyrighted work? Where should that permission be stored? Is there any way of ensuring that the permission is not accidentally or deliberately overwritten or changed? See Programming:Visual Basic Classic/Coding Standards for an example. I placed the permission on the page where the work will eventually be written simply as a placeholder, I want to move it to a more logical place so that it is not in the middle of the actual text, but where? The talk page for that module doesn't seem right to me because modules can be radically changed so that the talk page no longer applies. Neither does the talk page for the main page of the book seem the right place as there is so much else there. Perhaps there should be a specific repository for such things? --kwhitefoot 07:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Update: I've added a separate page in the book for such things. --kwhitefoot 10:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-commercial only distribution of Wikibooks content
There is a part of the LD wikibook (the CAT method in Appendixes) which may only be distributed freely if it is in its entirety and used non-commercially. Do I put the document (which has no official website) in its own page, so that it will be protected from editing? Do I remove the method? Do I replace it with a link to a forum post where he posted it? Do I contact the copyright holder to ask for a more liberal (yes, POV of me) license? r3m0t (cont) (talk) 16:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll try to contact you directly on your use page about this issue, but yes, we need to make sure all content added to Wikibooks follows the terms of the GFDL, including the capability of commercial entities redistributing the content. If there is a non-commercial use only clause, such as the CC-by-SA-NC license, or even explicit non-commercial entities only, it is a copyright violation to have that content on Wikibooks.  There are already several commercial mirrors of Wikibooks, and that is legal to do as long as they abide by the terms of the GFDL.  --Rob Horning 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes to content page
This should start with, which would currently display as "Copyright © 2003 – 2024", so that the year automatically gets updated. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 22:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Changed - Thanks for pointing this out. --Rob Horning 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor thing: Under Use in hard copies (which is under Publication by third parties), number 5.1 says Provide a floopy disk, which should be changed to Provide a floppy disk 70.59.165.242 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. --Derbeth talk 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation licensing
I anticipate making a change to the page regarding WMF policy for official trademark and logo licensing agreements consistent with my earlier comments on Foundation-L. I will post the draft langauage here for comment.--BradPatrick 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to know what is a trademark of the WMF (from the viewpoint of the WMF) as well, as the ™ and ® symbols are currently not being used with much of what I would think are legitimate trademarks of the WMF. BTW, thanks for trying to address this issue. --Rob Horning 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Great. I presume this will apply across-the-board to all WM-wiki content. pfctdayelise 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I hope you can eventually do the same regarding licensing of any copyrights held by the WMF. -anon

Interwikis
es:Wikilibros:Copyrights

ja:Wikibooks:著作権 --Wikimi-dhiann (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Books under alternative licenses
Currently the project page states:
 * All content is considered to be released under the following terms unless otherwise indicated (for example; a clearly-marked quotation);

I find this a little ambiguous. How prominent does the licensing statement have to be? Is a it enough to put it on the main page or does every page need to have it as well? What about talk pages? Would a link suffice or would the statement actually have to be there? --Swift 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some additions
I would like to add text to this policy that indicates the following: These two points both follow directly from the GFDL, although many people have not completely read the text of that license and there is some confusion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Once a license has been granted to Wikibooks for material, an author may not remove or alter that license (follows from Section 9 of the GFDL).
 * 2) That the page histories count as a byline, and serve as legal attribution under the GFDL. Additional lists of authors are completely optional, are not considered "Invariant sections", and are not binding.

 * Support. I didn't see this before but I do not object to either of these changes. I'm not sure what you mean by a byline, I think we can just call it a "history" since the GFDL counts that as a legitimate attribution as well in the "combinations" section. Mattb112885 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mixed view - while certainly something that can give credit to contributors, the page histories of MediaWiki does not really give enough information to effectively credit authors. I think it is something that can be worked with and derived from most page histories, but we shouldn't be establishing any legally binding opinions here.  Certainly we shouldn't claim that this is legal attribution.  It is a form of attribution that can be used to help determine who the authors really are, and with some work (quite a bit of work, actually) you can obtain the necessary information for proper legal attribution.  I should note that the "invariant sections" of the GFDL is one of those things that causes huge complications when doing legal interpretations of the GFDL, and is one of the more controversial parts of this license.  I could give some suggestions on how to meet the requirements of section 2(b) of the GFDL (author lists), but randomly grabbing five people from the page history is certainly not sufficient.  --Rob Horning 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be sufficient for MediaWiki itself ("copyright (C) 2001-2007 Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Lee Daniel Crocker, Tim Starling, Erik Möller, Gabriel Wicke, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Niklas Laxström, Domas Mituzas, Rob Church and others"), although that is the GPL. Having said that, full history importing will always be the ideal. GarrettTalk 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, this is in agreement with what has been stated on Wikipedia (heck, there they say that even a backlink may be sufficient). If these methods were legally insufficient I'm sure someone would have brought it up by now. GarrettTalk 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've gone ahead and added the first point, since it seems to be supported, but I'm not sure how best to address the second point though in the text. --dark lama  23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link to Vietnamese Wikibooks
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this page:

vi:Wikibooks:Quyền tác giả

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 14:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page linking to a rejected policy?
From Copyrights:
 * In some situations you may encounter material on Wikibooks that has been added according to the Fair Use Policy.

From Fair Use Policy:
 * REDIRECT Fair use policy

From Fair use policy:
 * This page documents a rejected Wikibooks policy or guideline proposal that should not be followed.

Why does this policy incorporate by reference a policy that has been rejected? Why does it not link to Media instead? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because someone forgot to update it when WB:MEDIA was made policy instead of this. --dark lama  19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Wikibooks also switch to CC-by-SA
In June 2009, Wikipedia switched to CC-by-SA. . I honestly don't really understand all the implications. Should Wikibooks also switch to CC-by-SA? (a) to maintain compatibility with Wikipedia? (b) for the same reasons, whatever they were, that Wikipedia switched? --DavidCary (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed that all Wikimedia projects have made that transition, including Wikibooks. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 * According to the history of the Copyrights page, it never mentioned CC-by-SA until the change of 6 July 2009. I am sorry I "missed that" change. To avoid a repeat of this problem, please tell me -- how can I see events that happen over a week in the future? --DavidCary (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Let's all keep level heads here. Mike just assumed you saw the sitenotice before promoting the vote on the change to CC-BY-SA. I think there was also a sitenotice announcing the results of the vote as well. Today I've added a new notice reiterating the change. Hopefully now everyone will be aware of the licensing change. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed David had read the link he posted, which explains that all Wikimedia projects were moving to CC-by-sa. — Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you can understand how my little brain is confused when I hear one thing and see another -- when I hear that "all Wikimedia projects have made that transition", but I see that the edit screen links to Copyrights which had not yet made that transition.
 * Now that we all agree that Wikibooks *has* made that transition, and now that the edit screen links to the new Terms of Use, do we still need the old Copyrights page? Should we make that page merely a redirect to the new terms of use? Or perhaps a subordinate local copy of those terms? --DavidCary (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The copyright page has made that transition, if you take a look at the update needed section below. The edit message update reflects what the WMF wanted, so presumably they still see a need for projects to have there own copyright policy. --dark lama  21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Update needed
With the switch to dual licensing between the GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0, this page needs to be updated. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I thought that would of been taken care of too when the other things were updated, but I guess not. I used Wikipedia's updated copyright policy to update our own. I think the spirit is still basically the same as before, so it should hopefully not be an issue. I hope it is enough to satisfy any requirements the WMF may have implemented for updating the copyright policy though. --dark lama  11:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Update needed: book donations
The " book donations" page currently implies that "All books on Wikibooks must be released under the GFDL." and that using "CC-BY-SA... can be problematic.".

It sounds to me like the "book donations" page was written sometime before Wikibooks switched from GFDL to CC-BY-SA in 2009, and no longer reflects the current situation.

Should I simply delete all the stuff on that page about copyrights and replace it with a link to Copyrights, or would something else be more useful to our readers? --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Recipes
Greetings, I would like to update Cookbook:Berbere based upon a recipe published in an actual cookbook (some background, if you're interested). My understanding is that a list of ingredients is not protected by copyright (at least, not in the US), although the preparation steps are protected. I don't think it would be too useful to have one without the other, and I'm not sure it's really possible to reword the preparation and still come up with an original work. I've looked at Cookbook_talk:Table_of_Contents/Archive_6 but it seems inconclusive (while Cookbook_talk:Table_of_Contents/Archive_1 suggests an [external site http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=US%20Copyright%20for%20Recipes] for guidance). Another possible issue, unrelated to copyright, is that the source cookbook is in Amharic, not English (on the other hand I've yet to find an English source that is authoritative). Any general tips on importing (or not importing) cookbook recipes into Wikibooks? Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
As far as I can tell, this edit (from 2006) infringes copyright of Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach, 5th Edition, by James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross, ISBN 0-13-607967-9, pp214-215. (Probably an earlier edition was used, as the 5th edition is copyright 2010.) The book is mentioned as a source but the text, in my opinion, infringes and is in any case not properly attributed. Can anyone advise how to proceed? I know what to do on en.wiki, but not here. Thanks! (PS: courtesy note of any reply on en.wiki, my home wiki, appreciated.) Frank (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * If you can clearly identify something that was a copyright violation, please mark it with the copyvio template. This alerts the site administrators there may be a problem and allows other editors on Wikibooks to try to rework or replace that content.  Copyright violations are usually a high priority item for admins to deal with, and rank pretty close to vandalism in terms of how serious it is treated.  That you found something from an edit several years ago is unfortunate, but I'm glad that you caught it.  Hopefully a current admin will see this comment at some time in the near future.  --Rob Horning (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it and will look at it soon. The section has been extensively edited so it may no longer be a copyright violation or it may be a copyvio of a different version of the book (as Frank notes) QU [[User talk:QuiteUnusual|TalkQu] ]|undefined 14:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Was this forgotten ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't remember if I forgot! <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with your initial statement (after taking a closer look). One question remains, since the copyrighted content continues to exist in the revision history. Is it possible to redact it from these logs ? If so, then the copyvio is resolved, as the infringement can no longer be considered to be published (available). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I've deleted all revisions from the history that contain the copyright violation. There are no authors in that history who are not present elsewhere, so there should be no future attribution problem. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This probably occurs more than we notice. Frank was capable of detecting it because of the source reference and probably by a sprout of activity. People often use copyrighted source material and rewrite it to not only fit their purposes but remove the rights claim and make the content usable, a similar example is when we use wikipedia's content. There we have more content surviving, but wikipedia's articles most of the time go way beyond the simplest encyclopedic format. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pls add this interwiki link
ta:விக்கிநூல்கள்:காப்புரிமைகள்
 * ✅ --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Transcribing Audio Books: Fair Use ?

 * does transcribing Audio Books fall under "Fair Use" ?
 * does translating while transcribing Audio Books fall under "Fair Use" ? --Eternal-Entropy (discuss • contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Not a lawyer. Having said that the fair use is not limited by medium, that is you have the same freedom of the use of protected content than for instance using of a text.
 * Translation constitutes a derivation of the original work, it is by itself not related to the fair use. I think you may be confusing fair use with something else, fair use is an exception that permits in some instances the use of part of a protected work.
 * See Fair use for a general overview. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess transcribing Audio Books in Full in it's language is not Fair Use. Ok, Let me rephrase the other question...
 * Does Wikibooks allow Audio Books that is translated & transcribed by a Wikibooks editor ? --Eternal-Entropy (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the content is right for a textbook and the original is under a license compatible with Wikibooks, yes... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is the key point - the copyright exists in the original material. You can't just convert it into another format to avoid the copyright. For example, a DVD doesn't become free to use because you convert it into an MPEG-4 video. If the original audio book is copyrighted, then you can't transcribe it here. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 18:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks --Eternal-Entropy (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Compatibility of the ETHZ Oberon license with CC-by-SA.
The Oberon license is at ftp://ftp.ethoberon.ethz.ch/ETHOberon/license.txt. In case it is offline, there is a copy at http://easthope.ca/OberonUsage.html; scroll down a little to see it. According my elementary understanding, the Oberon license is compatible with CC-by-SA. Within Wikibooks, is there a formal process to determine compatibility? Can anyone offer an opinion? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only process I know is to ask on w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo
Change "the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, ..." to "the GNU Free Documentation License, unversioned, ...". (This same typo existed on English Wikipedia (and was removed earlier today) and still exists on English Wikispecies currently). --Pokechu22 (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Update to CC 4.0
The license has been already updated from CC 3.0 to 4.0. Could you please update this page? Thanks. cc SCP-2000 (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Copyrights


text:
Cookbook:Leek

The leek is a vegetable related to onions, chives, and garlic. Also in this species are two very different vegetables: The elephant garlic (A. ampeloprasum var. ampeloprasum) grown for its bulbs, and kurrat which is grown for its leaves in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Rather than forming a tight bulb such as the onion, the leek produces a long cylinder of bundled leaf sheaths which are generally blanched by pushing soil around them (trenching). They are generally considered to have a finer flavor than the common onion.

Recipes featuring leeks include

 * Vegetable Pie
 * Zupa Ogórkowa
 * Rosół
 * Onigiri (garnish)
 * Bouillabaisse

Kookboek/Prei

title: Cookbook:Leek


text:
Cookbook talk:Leek

This module, or a version stored in the page history, includes text taken from the Wikipedia article Leek. At the time the text was taken, the page history was:

* (cur) (last). . 16:09, 29 Feb 2004. . UtherSRG (update taxobox) * (cur) (last). . M 16:02, 29 Feb 2004. . Bryan Derksen (fix a link) * (cur) (last). . 23:11, 13 Jan 2004. . WormRunner (more info and taxobox) * (cur) (last). . M 06:07, 1 Jun 2003. . Hofoen (lat. author) * (cur) (last). . M 06:05, 1 Jun 2003. . Hofoen (link) * (cur) (last). . 11:35, 23 Jan 2003. . GrahamN (National symbol of Wales) * (cur) (last). . M 17:53, 18 Jan 2003. . Zoe * (cur) (last). . 17:52, 18 Jan 2003. . 216.102.200.82   * (cur) (last). . M 05:15, 16 Jan 2003. . Liftarn (sv) * (cur) (last). . M 14:36, 30 Nov 2002. . Heron (wikified) * (cur) (last). . 14:12, 30 Nov 2002. . Renata * (cur) (last). . 14:08, 30 Nov 2002. . Renata

title: Cookbook talk:Leek


text:
General Biology/Evolution of Life

Key Terms
Evolution: Any change in allele frequency in a population, often the result of natural selection.

Natural selection: differential reproduction of genotype within a population; one genotype reproduces more successfully than another and donates more copies of itself to the next generation. This means that allele frequencies change within a population. Natural selection is the only mechanism known to produce complex adaptations in nature.

Natural selection can occur in any population that has heritable fitness differences.

Fitness: the ability of an individual to contribute its genes to the next generation. Differences in fitness are central to natural selection. Relative fitness: fitness of an individual compared to others in its species.

Hardy–Weinberg principle states that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant or are in equilibrium from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced.

Natural Selection

Both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace proposed natural selection. Wallace went to Darwin for help getting published and the result was that the two presented their papers together.

Natural selection is the result of violation of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, a state of stability in a population where allele frequencies do not change. A population stays in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium when five assumptions (or prerequisites) are maintained:
 * Large population size
 * No differential immigration or emigration of alleles (no gene flow in or out of the population)
 * No mutation
 * No natural selection
 * Random mating (with respect to genotype), that is, individuals in species do not choose mating partners based on their genotype

Results of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium:
 * allele frequencies remain unchanged
 * genotype frequencies are in equilibrium
 * equilibrium reached in one generation of random mating

Q: What happens when we violate one of the five assumptions of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? A: Allele frequencies change.

The Hardy-Weinberg principle is named after English mathematician G. H. Hardy and German physician G. Weinberg, who independently came to similar conclusions in 1908.

Note: In our lab computer simulation lab experiment, we relax the H-W restriction against natural selection, resulting in simulated evolution. When not all phenotype fitnesses are equal, selection occurs, allele frequencies change, and evolution results.

Q: Will a dominant allele take over a recessive allele in frequency? A: No. The Hardy-Weinberg principal shows that any allele that confers greater fitness will become more frequent in the population than an allele that confers lesser fitness, and disproves the easy assumption that a dominant allele would overtake a population over time. Allele frequency is based on fitness, not whether it is dominant or recessive.

Hardy-Weinberg equation:

$$(p + q)^2	= p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1.0$$

 * Allele one: $$f(A) = p$$
 * Allele two: $$f(a) = q$$
 * Sum of the alleles: $$p + q = 1.0$$
 * Reduced fitness: $$1 - s$$

Examples of adaptation due to natural selection Skin color of the Australian Death adder: brilliant orange skin very unusual in an animal but quite similar to the local soil color. Likely that the snake moved towards this color over time as snakes with brownish and then orange coloring experienced higher survivorship than other-colored snakes.

Pesticide resistance in insects: Pesticide DDT (developed in ‘30s to combat malaria by knocking out its vector, malaria-carrying mosquitoes) had an initially high kill rate that diminished over time until it became essentially ineffective against insects. Hundreds of similar pesticide resistances have been developed in other insect species.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria: disease-causing bacteria have followed a similar adaptive path to the insects. This is caused by incorrect use of antibiot-ics for disease treatment. An incomplete application of antibiotics kills most of the disease-carrying microbes in a patient’s body. The most antibiotic-resistant germs have then been selected. These multiply and can become increasingly uncontrollable by further antibiotic treatment. Public health officials fear that this process when repeated over time will create super-germs that will be re-sistant to all drugs. Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease currently following this path of increasing antibiotic resistance.

There are various mechanisms of acquired chemical resistance:
 * Behavioral change
 * Increased detection of chemical
 * Decreased sensitivity to chemical at target site
 * Degradation of the target

Industrial melanism in English pepper moth (Biston betularia). The moth has two naturally occurring morphs, or varieties: typical (light-colored) and carbonized (dark-colored). The more common morph has historically been the typical, but a change in its habitat led to an increase in frequency of the carbonized. (Air pollution killed off light-colored lichen on tree trunks, leaving moths exposed on dark bark instead of lighter lichen. Predatory birds acted as an agent against the more visible morph of the moth, which responded to the natural selection by increasing the frequency of the less visible morph.

Monkeys who kill others’ young: Observed by Sarah Hrdy. Langur monkeys live in social troops with one male presiding over several females and their young. Female young stay within the troop but male young are kicked out to roam the fringes of the troop and try to take over other troops. Incoming male leaders kill suckling young, as well as the babies of females with whom he hasn’t mated.

Q: Why? A: Because lactating females are in irregular estrus cycle and unavailable to become pregnant. Killing their young frees them up to become pregnant sooner with his babies. The counter adaptation in females: they mate with the new male even if already pregnant, as the new leader will not then not later kill their baby. (Similar situations have since been observed in other species, such as mice).

Selfless turkey problem: 1st generation male descendants of one female turkey set up a brotherhood, a tiny social hierarchy headed by the alpha male. The brotherhood courts females as a group. A female selects one brotherhood for mating, usually a larger one, then mates with the alpha male only.

Q: Did natural selection shape the behavior of these brother turkeys? A: No answer given, but an implied “yes”.

Q: Has natural selection tuned all characteristics of every organism? A: No. Example: The Indian rhino has 1 horn, and the African rhino has 2 horns. This difference is likely a historical accident, not an adaptation, as two horns don’t seem to give an advantage over one.

Five constraints on evolution:
 * Historical constraints
 * Formal constraints
 * You-can’t-get-there-from-here constraints
 * Time/variation constraints
 * Pleiotropic constraints

Historical constraints: “present variation biases future possibilities”. Variation comes on top of past history.

Formal constraints: Variation can’t defy laws of physics. Ex: pigs don’t fly, and insects are limited in size by their exoskeletons.

You-can’t-get-there-from-here constraints: An advantageous end result must follow many tiny advantageous steps. Ex: There are no live-bearing birds, possibly because the thin eggshell necessary for gas transfer if incubated inside the bird is so disadvantageous for a egg development outside the bird. However, flight feathers evolved from reptilian scales because each tiny change to the scales over time was advantageous, and afterwards allowed the evolution of flight.

Time/variation constraints: new alleles formed thru random mutation, which needs time and is ultimately pushed by mathematic probabilities rather than pulled to a specific end. In limited time, limited results. Ex: Human heart disease the possible result of recent changes in human diet (last 100s of years as opposed to last 100,000s of years of human evolution).

Pleiotropic constraints: (pleiotropy: when one gene has multiple phenotypic expressions) one allele may have several effects, some good & some bad. If the sum of parts is positive, the allele is favored (even if it carries along some unfavorable baggage). Ex: Cystic fibrosis allele may have been advantageous against cholera in pre-industrial Europe.

Mutation: a random process that is the “ultimate” source for natural selection. Little mutation results in advantageous change, and so is very inefficient.

Q: Why does it work at all? A: Because:
 * It has lots of time to work
 * Each individual divides burden as a source of potential mutation; lots of chances for something to go well

Sampling error: the difference between a sample and the actual population. Greater for smaller sample sizes. Unrelated to population size, based on abso-lute size of sample.

Q: What happens when the population size is limited, restricting Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? A: In small populations, chance events can dramatically change allele frequencies.

Example: “A” and “a” alleles are in equal frequencies in a population:

$$p=f(A)=.50$$ $$q=f(A)=.50$$

In a sample size of four organisms from this population we would expect to find:

$$p\prime=f(A)=.50$$ $$q\prime=f(A)=.50$$

However, 30% of the time we would have the following result, with a shift favoring one allele:

$$p\prime=f(A)=.75$$ $$q\prime=f(A)=.25$$

And about 8/1000 of the time (1%):

$$p\prime=f(A)=.00$$ $$q\prime=f(A)=1.0$$

One allele is completely eliminated! (If the population size is 40, the chances of this are 1/500,000).

In this way, alleles can be eliminated from a real population.

Q: How can small sample sizes occur in real populations?
 * Genetic bottleneck: population experiences a crash in numbers (this likely occurred recently in cheetahs, who have very little genetic variation)
 * Founder effect: small group of “colonists” forms a new population
 * Genetic drift: population lingers in low numbers, as in an endangered species.

Virtual small population size: a small proportion of individuals in population cover reproductive resposibilites. Usually occurs with males, sometimes females. Ex: Mammals such as seals, where one giant male guards over and mates with harem of many females. This is because the females go to an isolated spot to birth to avoid predators, then go into heat just days after giving birth. A large male fights other males for the privilege of guarding these females and their offspring as “beach master”. The females intermittently go off to feed, coming back to feed their calves. Result in males is that they are much larger than the females; they store lots of body fat so they can stay on the beach a long time (as soon as they leave another male will come take their spot). Effective breeding population for one generation is therefore much smaller than actual number of living members.

Another example: in wolves, only the alpha male and alpha female breed, and the others just help raise their young. So a wolf population of sixty may have a breeding population of just six.

Immigration / emigration: “gene flow” – individual moves in from a different area & brings new allele frequencies. “A little bit can do a lot”. Ex: interracial marriage.

Mutation: produces variation in gene pool. Rates are low and work very slowly: just 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 mutations occur per locus per gamete per generation. Mutation alone is not enough to drive an allele to a higher frequency. A general rule: any allele with a frequency of 1% or more of the total population was not driven there by mutation.

Non-random mating: individuals choose mates based on genotype. (Positive) assortative mating: choosing a mate with a genotype similar to your own, leading to homozygotic offspring. Dissortative mating: choosing for dissimilar genotype, leading to heterozygotes.

Inbreeding: mating with close relatives: a way to mate with your own genotype (and produce homozygotic offspring)

Note: the average human has about thirty lethal recessive allele loci in his total chromatin. Mating with close kin increases the possibility of an offspring with double recessive lethal alleles. Many species have outbreeding behaviors to discourage inbreeding. Ex: langur society: females born in a troop remain in their troop but males are booted out, discouraging brothers mating with sisters.

Non-random mating can change genotype frequencies but NOT allele frequencies by itself, therefore not responsible for evolution. But it can expose certain alleles to selection by making them homo or heterozygous in the genotype.

Aging senescence: decline in performance in the general body of an organism with increasing age. This is a selectable trait and is not present in all organisms. Tissue does not “need” to be senescent. Some protists basically “live forever”; fruit flies can be bred for longevity.

Q: Why is this? A: Gibson does not say why, but suggests that it is a selectively favored trait. After class the professors seem to say that senescence is not necessarily an evolutionarily favored trait as much as a byproduct of the processes that led to higher development. In order to achieve delayed reproduction, more resources were put towards early survivorship at the expense of later survivorship. A related example is the difference between salmon in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Atlantic salmon live through multiple spawning seasons but Pacific salmon have been selected to put all their energy into one, difficult spawning cycle, where they die right after.

Types of selection:
 * Stabilizing selection
 * Directional selection
 * Disruptive selection

Stabilizing selection: Selection that moves organisms toward the center of their range of possible traits. Ex: human birth weight; especially large and small babies suffer greater infant mortality, favoring babies of intermediate weight. A stabilizing environment results in fossil records that are unchanged for millions of years, such as for the body plans of sharks and horseshoe crabs.

Directional selection: Selection that acts to eliminate an extreme from an array of phenotypes. Ex: Metals such as copper are usually almost lethal to some plants. A strain of copper-resistant grass has developed over many generations of growing in contaminated high-Cu soil.

Disruptive selection: Selection that tends to eliminate intermediate type. Ex: African seedcracker: has two bill sizes, one large and one small, each one best suited for a different kind of locally-abundant seed. Intermediate bill types are unfavored by selection because they are poorly suited for either kind of seed. Here, the homozygote that results in one bill type or the other is favored over the heterozygote, which produces the intermediate bill type.

Consider a population that has the following genotypic frequencies for a given locus having two alleles, “A” and “a”:

Q: What is the allele frequency for “A”? (i.e., what is p?) Q: Does the population appear to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium?

Steps to solve:
 * 1) Add everything together to find total
 * 77 + 14 + 49 = 140
 * 1) Divide each number by the total
 * ( Note that: .55 + .10 + .35 = 1.0 )
 * 1) Find allele frequencies for “A” and “a”.
 * A: .55 + (.10/2) = .60
 * a: .35 + (.10/2) = .40
 * ( Note again that .60 + .40 = 1.0 )
 * 1) Plug these derived genotype frequencies into the equation:
 * 2) * $$p^2 + 2pq + q^2$$
 * 3) * $$(.6)^2 + 2(.4)(.6) + (.4)^2$$
 * 4) * .36 + .48 + .16
 * ( Again, all total to 1.0 )
 * ( Again, all total to 1.0 )

We see that the genotype frequencies change from their initial values to their final vales. Therefore the population was not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Q: If the numbers are only somewhat dissimilar how do we tell if they should be considered similar or dissimilar? A: This is determined with statistical and mathematical analyses beyond the scope of this class.

Tests have been done on breeding many organisms for a certain trait by divid-ing successive generations into groups based on phenotype. Ex: Fruit flies (Drosophila) artificially selected into two groups: one with many abdominal bristles, one with few bristles. We find that neither of the two resulting groups even overlaps the bristle range found in the starting generation. This mimics the results of natural selection on a wild population under certain circumstances. This is similar to the process used for thousands of years by plant and animal breeders.

Heterozygote advantage: when heterozygote genotype confers greater fitness than a homozygote. A classic example of this is sickle-cell anemia. This human disease occurs when a person is homozygotic for the recessive allele. The recessive allele increases survivorship against malaria in the herozygotic carrier. Natural selection works in high malaria areas to increase the frequency of this allele in humans. The allele frequency is highest in central Africa, where malaria has been a big killer.

Speciation:

Q: How do we get a new species?

Q: What is a species? A: There are different definitions, but only one that we will go over in depth. Biological species concept (BSC): of Ernst Mayer. A species defined as a reproductively isolated population. If two organisms can interbreed, they are one species; if they cannot, they are not of the same species. Not a perfect definition as lions and tigers can interbreed in captivity, and this works only with sexually reproducing organisms (dandelions reproduce asexually). Phenotypic definition: species defined by phenotypic gaps in a population. Cladistic definition: populations or population groups which are members a single clade

Clade: a branch of the evolutionary tree.

Two ways to name a new species:
 * Anagenesis: an arbitrary / convenient way to name a new species after it has undergone enough change through a single evolutionary line
 * Cladogenesis: the creation of clades

Cladogenesis has three splitting models / hypotheses based on patra, “homeland”
 * Allopatric speciation (allos: “other”; aka geographic isolation model, common) Allopatric species: don’t occur together.
 * Sympatric speciation (sym: “together with”; common in plants)
 * Parapatric speciation (para: “beside”; uncommon)

Parapatric speciation: perhaps the only example we have of this is found in the copper-resistant mine grass previously discussed. Selection strongly favors the genotype homozygous for the Cu-resistant allele. This has resulted in an adaptation in the pollination time to make it different than the pollination time for the surrounding grasses, avoiding cross-fertilization. Here is speciation without geographic isolation caused by the intense selection.

Sympatric speciation: (is this info right? Book seems to conflict with lecture) a common source of new species in plants but uncommon in animals, this occurs when gametes from two different species cross and create a viable new species. This believed to be the source of ½ of the flowering plants. Polyploidization: the most important model of sympatric speciation. Or, the doubling of chromosomes that can lead to sympatric speciation. Allopolyploid: polyploidization triggered by an interspecific hybridization event.

The resulting zygote may be unviable or infertile. If viable, it may later develop fertility. This is due to the differences between cell divisions in mitosis and meiosis (and we thought that we had escaped). In mitosis, chromatids self-replicate. In meiosis, each chromatid has to “find” its homologue. If no homologue is present, the result is viable but infertile. However, with an abnormal mitotic event, cytokinesis (division of the cytoplasm after nuclear division) does not occur, resulting in a cell with double the normal number of chromosomes. If this cell enters meiosis, it can be fertile. (Many examples of this). Ex: Bread wheat is the result of two successive grass hybridization events. Grass went from having 14 > 28 > 42 chromosomes.

Geographic speciation

Geographic variation: Differences in a species based on geographic location, usually genetically based. Found in humans, where genotypes from one place are different than those from another. More common in less mobile populations as it is opposed by gene flow. Ex: yarrow, a plant which is found to be shorter at higher altitudes. Q: Is this variation due to genes or to environment? A: a “common garden experiment” finds the answer. Seeds of different origins are grown in the same environment. Result is that seeds from higher altitudes grow into shorter yarrow plants, revealing an underlying genetic factor. Ex: common garter snake, Thamnophis surtalis, common throughout the US and Canada, is divided into various local sub species with local colorations. As garter snakes are not highly mobile, the populations can become locally adapted. In mallard ducks this geographic variation does not occur as each generation a male hooks up with a female in the southern “win-tering grounds”, then follows her up to her northern home, which may be very distant from his other home. This results in a genetic shuffle each generation independent of location.

One population can be broken into different, isolated populations for a time, al-lowing two distinct evolutionary pathways. Ex: a glacier advances over North America and splits a population into SW and SE groups. When the barrier is removed (the glacier retreats) the populations can come into contact again, called secondary contact. Q: Then what happens? A: If inbreeding results in fertile offspring, they are still of the same species. If not, they are now new species. Isolating mechanisms: anything that acts to prevent the production of viable zygotes between two organisms. Classified into two groups: The prezygotic mechanisms prevent the fertilization of an egg by the sperm, and hence the production of a zygote, commonly when male courtship is unrecognized by the female. Postzygotic isolating mechanisms result in a zygote which Ex: A cross between a donkey and a horse produces a mule, which is sterile.
 * prezygotic
 * post zygotic
 * isn’t viable (dies), or
 * cannot reproduce.

Geographic separation can result in two quite morphologically different popula-tions that interbreed on secondary contact and are therefore one biological species. Like, they can look all different and stuff but still breed with each other. And sometimes, a seemingly slight difference prevents interbreeding. The point: the “amount” of differences that arise during the isolation of two populations doesn’t necessarily determine whether they will successfully interbreed upon secondary contact and therefore be considered one or two species.

Ex: Eastern and western meadow larks are almost identical in appearance (morphologically similar) but are distinct biological species. This is possibly the result changes which occurred during isolation caused by glacial separation. On secondary contact these two populations apparently did not respond to each other for mating, becoming two biological (reproductive) species. (There are various examples like this one).

Peripheral isolates: a relatively common version of geographic isolation. At the edge of a species range an organism lives at the limit of its survivability. When these areas become separated from each other, allopatric speciation can occur, high rates of selection can push allele frequencies.

Habitat islands: areas where a habitat favorable to a species is surrounded by an area where the species does not survive. Ex: a volcanic island in an ocean. In this case, founder populations arrive and find ecological vacuums, or different conditions, that influence adaptation. Adaptive radiation, a series of adaptation events, occurs as various species interact and adjust through evolution. Ex: the variation found in Darwin’s finches was caused when a founder population of finches adapted to the unique conditions of each island). Note: even greater variation is found amongst the finches of the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii is also the home to countless species of Drosophila (fruit flies).

Binomial nomenclature: “two-named naming” (bi: two, nomin: name) originated by Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné) of Sweden. Each species of organism has its own unique two-part name, made up of
 * Genus name, which is capitalized, and denotes a group of species
 * Species epithet, not capitalized, describes one species within the genus. (Epithet: “descriptor”, or according to www.m-w.com “a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing”.) Note that not all species epithets by themselves are unique to a species; in fact some are reused frequently, such as vulgaris, used in Pinguicula vulgaris and in Sturnus vulgaris, the scientific names for the common butterwort and the European starling (vulgaris: “common”). Species epithets commonly refer to such things as color.

Homo sapiens is the binomial name for the modern human. Homo is a genus of related primates (all but mankind are now extinct) and sapiens is a descrip-tor, “wise”. When typed, this two-part name is customarily italicized, and when handwritten, underlined.

The naming system is hierarchical, with succeeding levels dividing organisms into more specific taxonomic groups. The broadest division is that of kingdom (or domain, a more basic designation now accepted by many biologists. Here is the full list from most general to most specific. (Domain) >> Kingdom >> Phylum >> Class >> Order >> Family >> Genus >> Species.

There are subdivisions that are sometimes used between these levels (for example, subphylum) but we are not responsible for knowing them.

The higher the level, the greater the difference between groups, reflecting pro-gressively earlier speciation events.

Q: Why does Linnaus’ naming system neatly fit the evolutionary tree, as he invented it outside an evolutionary context? A: The organisms are related in a genealogical way with inherently hierarchical relationships.

Taxon: a given group of organisms at some given rank. Ex: the taxon “Canis”, a group of dogs at level genus, vs. the taxon “canidae”, at level family. (Taxonomy: orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships.)

Monophyletic taxon: a species set, or grouping of species, made up of Ex: great apes
 * a common ancestor
 * all its descended species.

Paraphyletic taxon: a grouping of species just like the monophyletic taxon except that it excludes species that have diverged farthest from the common ancestor. Ex: Great apes, minus humans.

Polyophyletic taxon: grouping of species that excludes the most recent common ancestor. Ex: A grouping of whales and sharks, without their common primitive ancestor (whatever that might be).

There are two taxonomic schools of thought:
 * Traditional (also poorly called “evolutionary”, poorly because the alternate is evolutionarily based as well)
 * Cladistic (or phylogenetic, or Hennigian, after founder Wm Hennig)

Both schools agree on how to draw the evolutionary tree, as well as that: However they disagree in the treatment of the middle ground, paraphyletic taxonomic groups. The traditionalists say: These groups are OK, as they reflect important evolutionary change. The cladists say, paraphyletic groups are NOT OK, as the identification of “important” changes is based on people’s opinions. Cladism prefers greater objectivity.
 * the best way to group is in monophyletic groups, and
 * the worst way to group is in polyphyletic groups.

Q: How do we estimate evolutionary sequences? A: Derived homology, or transition from [ a -> a’ ], ex: a species’ loss of a digit thru time. Synapomorphy: Gibson says that synapomorphy gives the only real idea of branching sequence
 * a “shared derived similarity”
 * derived character state, shared under two or more taxa under consideration
 * used to infer common ancestry

symplesiomorphy:
 * a “shared, ancestral similarity”
 * an ancestral character state
 * inherited from the common ancestor of the taxa

Evolutionary branching Q: How can we generate hypotheses about evolutionary branching? (How can we figure out which branching sequence is most likely the historical one?) A: There are various ways to do this. Generally, we start by considering certain characters, then arrange them into possible trees. Characters are found in either a more ancestral or more derived state, and sometimes the trait can disappear completely or even reappear. When a species goes from having one version of a trait to another version, it is called a trait change.

One way to determine the most likely branching sequences is by creating examples of all the possible sequences. Although this is a simple process, it is not feasible in many cases because the number of possible branching sequences is so great. For example, a group of just 10 species has over 34 million possible evolutionary trees. (Certain methods are used to eliminate many of these options and make the process simpler). The simplest sequence is the one that has the smallest number of trait changes, and is preferred. They are then used as a basis for further refinement that comes with more data.

Punctuated equilibrium: a hypothesis about the tempo and mode of evolution, presented by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge as a challenge to the traditional view known as phyletic gradualism.

Current thought sees evolutionary change as neither of these two extremes but rather somewhere in between, or sometimes more like the one and other times more like the other.

Evolutionary “novelties” Q: How can we explain macroevolution? Can the incremental changes of microevolution lead to the big changes of macroevolution, such as flight in birds? What other processes can lead to major changes in species?

Preaptation (co-opting)
 * A structure that serves one function and then is co-opted to serve another function
 * Ex: flight feathers from reptilian scales
 * Ex: Mammals’ mammary glands from… modified sweat glands?

Allometric growth
 * A change in proportions which comes with increasing size, or different parts grow at different rates
 * Selection for one body part may lead to development in another
 * Ex: antler size in Irish elk, where huge antlers came as a result of oversize elk (antlers were still in proportion to normal deer antlers)

Paedomorhosis (paidos: child)
 * retention of juvenile characteristics in adult, or in extreme, reproduction in larval state
 * Ex: gills retained from juvenile aquatic salamanders to normally land-habiting adult, and reproduction at aquatic, juvenile stage
 * Adult chimps have greater change in skull shape from infancy than humans experience: chimp and human babies have similar skull shape, which the human more closely maintains to adulthood than the chimp

Isometric growth: all parts grow at the same rate and stay in proportion, as in a growing salamander and in most organisms

Algometric growth: different parts grow at different rates, resulting in changing proportions thru growth cycle, as in human, and in the godwit, a bird whose beak grows exponentially faster than its head does

Analogous structures: two structures that serve a similar function but have different origins. Examples: wings of a butterfly and a bird, leglessness in snakes and in certain lizards, white eggs in various diverse bird species

Antennapedia: mutant fruitfly has small legs on head in place of normal antennae, caused by inappropriate development of cells into homologous part

Bithorax: ancestors to modern insects had two full pairs of wings but today some of these have evolved the second pair into small balancing structures called halteres. (Some extant insects, such as the dragonfly, retain all four wings, one pair on the second and third segments of the thorax). Insects with only two wings are called dipthera, meaning “two wings”. In the bithorax mutant, halteres develop into a second full set of wings.

Homeodomain: series of 60 amino acids (180 nucleotides) which encodes development and has remained similar throughout the evolution of very different organisms, spanning the animals and apparently extending into parts of the plant kingdom as well. Reveals the strong conservation of genes thru evolution.

title: General Biology/Evolution of Life


text: Template:Lucid Dreaming/LDRCTOC

title: Template:Lucid Dreaming/LDRCTOC


text:
Cookbook:Bison

Bison refers to the North American buffalo (Bison bison) and its meat. The name is used to differentiate the American buffalo from the Asian Water buffalo and African Cape buffalo.

Characteristics
Bison meat is much like beef but differs in a couple ways. Bison tends to have a deeper red color prior to cooking due to a lack of fat marbling and high iron content. Overall, it is much leaner than beef, having a total fat content of about 2% compared to 15–20% for beef. It is also said to have a sweeter, richer flavor than grain-raised beef, similar to that of grass-fed cattle. However, retail cuts of bison are similar to those of beef.

Selection and storage
Handle and store bison meat the same as any other type of meat.

Use
Overall, bison can be used much like beef, though with some specific considerations.

Since it is lean and lacks marbling, bison can cook and dry out faster than other red meats. As a result, care must be taken to not overcook bison—this is easiest to accomplish using low moist heat and longer cooking times, especially for larger and less tender cuts. You can also wrap the meat in a fatty material such as bacon to help keep it moist. For thin-sliced and ground bison, you can use quick cooking methods such as broiling and pan frying. Internal temperatures should read 145 °F (medium rare), 160 °F (medium), or 170 °F (well done). For safety, cook ground bison meat to 160 °F.

title: Cookbook:Bison


text:
Cookbook talk:Bison

This module uses text adapted from the Public Domain US Department of Agriculture page Focus on Bison.

title: Cookbook talk:Bison


text:
Dichotomous Key/Plantae

Plants are mainly multicellular, predominantly photosynthetic eukaryotes of the kingdom Plantae.

The term is today generally limited to the green plants, which form an unranked clade Viridiplantae (Latin for "green plants"). This includes the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns, clubmosses, hornworts, liverworts, mosses and the green algae, and excludes the red and brown algae. Historically, plants formed one of two kingdoms covering all living things that were not animals, and both algae and fungi were treated as plants; however all current definitions of "plant" exclude the fungi and some algae, as well as the prokaryotes (the archaea and bacteria).

Green plants have cell walls containing cellulose and obtain most of their energy from sunlight via photosynthesis by primary chloroplasts, derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria. Their chloroplasts contain chlorophyll a and b, which gives them their green color. Some plants are parasitic and have lost the ability to produce normal amounts of chlorophyll or to photosynthesize. Plants are characterized by sexual reproduction and alternation of generations, although asexual reproduction is also common.

There are about 300–315 thousand species of plants, of which the great majority, some 260–290 thousand, are seed plants. Green plants are the basis of most of Earth's ecologies, especially on land. Plants that produce grains, fruits and vegetables form humankind's basic foodstuffs, and have been domesticated for millennia. Plants play many roles in culture. They are used as ornaments and, until recently and in great variety, they have served as the source of most medicines and drugs. The scientific study of plants is known as botany, a branch of biology.

Start

 * 1: Green algae; mostly aquatic. Chlorophyta and Charales.
 * 2: Not Green algae; aquatic or terrestrial. Streptophyta / Embryophyta.

1
'''Green algae; mostly aquatic. Chlorophyta and Charales'''.

2
'''Not Green algae; aquatic or terrestrial. Streptophyta / Embryophyta'''.
 * 3: Non-vascular land plants. Bryophyta, including liverworts, hornworts, and mosses.
 * 4: Vascular plants with tissue for conducting water. Tracheophyta, including clubmosses, horsetails, ferns, seed and flower producing plants.

3
'''Non-vascular land plants. Bryophyta'''.

4
'''Vascular plants. Tracheophyta'''.
 * 5: Spore producing plant. Clubmosses, spikemosses, horsetails, and ferns.
 * 6: Seed producing and flowering plants. Gymnosperms and angiosperms.

5
Spore producing plant.
 * 10: Leaves thin, needle-like. Clubmoss, spikemoss, or horsetail
 * Fern: Leaves thin to broad, often branching pinnately or multi-pinnately. Fern.

6
Seed producing and flowering plants.
 * Cycad: Trunk is cylindrical and does not branch; leaves grow directly from trunk, usually clustered near the top. Cycad.
 * 7: Trunk absent or branches extend from trunk; Leaves generally grow on branches rather than directly from trunk.

7
Trunk absent or branches extend from trunk.
 * 8: Plant produces flowers. Angiosperm.
 * 9: Plant produces cones. Gnetophyte.

8
'''Flowering plant. Angiosperm'''.

9
'''Non-flowering plant. Gnetophyte.'''
 * Ginkgo biloba: Leaves have dichotomous venation (veins continuously divide into 2).
 * Conifer: Leaves do not have dichotomous venation.

10
Leaves thin, needle-like.
 * Horsetail: Leaves (if present) needle-like, arranged into whorls at equal spacing along stem. Horsetail.
 * 11: Leaves not needle-like or no spacing / unequal spacing between leaves on stem.

11

 * Spikemoss: Leaves are scale-like and bear a ligule. Two different types of spores present.
 * Clubmoss: Only one type of spore present.

title: Dichotomous Key/Plantae


text:
User talk:Jaknouse

Welcome to Wikibooks, Jaknouse, and thanks for helping out with the dichotomous key... I don't really know enough taxonomy or biology to really know what I'm doing, so any help is much appreciated TUF-KAT 06:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jaknouse


text:
Cookbook:Lamb

| Basic foodstuffs | Meat and poultry

Lamb is meat from sheep less than 1 year old. Most are brought to market at about 6 to 8 months old.

Lamb is usually tender because it is from animals less than 1 year old. However, look for good marbling (white flecks of fat within the meat muscle), and meat that is fine textured and firm. In color, the meat should be pink and the fat should be firm, white, and not too thick.

Cuts
There are five basic major (primal) cuts into which lamb is separated: shoulder, rack, shank/breast, loin, and leg.

The "rack" is the unsplit primal rib (sometimes called the hotel rack) of the carcass which includes ribs 6 through 12. The rack is split to make two primal lamb rib roasts. A "lamb crown roast" is made by sewing two rib roasts together to form a circle or crown.

Chops can come from various primal cuts. "Loin" chops and "rib" chops are the most tender. Less expensive "blade" and "arm" chops (from the shoulder) and "sirloin" chops (from the leg) can be just as tender, but they are not as visually attractive because the meat is separated by bands of connective tissue.

Fell
The fell is the thin, paper-like covering on the outer fat. It should not be removed from roasts and legs because it helps these cuts retain their shape and juiciness during cooking. The fell has usually been removed at the market from smaller cuts, such as chops.

Lamb as red meat
Oxygen is delivered to muscles by the red cells in the blood. One of the proteins in meat, myoglobin, holds the oxygen in the muscle. The amount of myoglobin in animal muscles determines the color of meat. Lamb is called a "red" meat because it contains more myoglobin than chicken or fish. Other "red" meats are beef, veal, and pork.

Raw Lamb
Select lamb just before checking out at the register. Put packages of raw lamb in disposable plastic bags (if available) to contain any leakage which could cross-contaminate cooked foods or produce. Lamb is kept cold during store distribution to retard the growth of bacteria.

Take lamb home immediately and refrigerate it at 40°F for use within 3 to 5 days, or freeze (0 °F). If kept frozen continuously, it will be safe indefinitely.

It is safe to freeze lamb in its original packaging or repackage it. However, for long-term freezing, overwrap the porous store plastic with storage wraps or bags to prevent "freezer burn," which appears as grayish-brown leathery spots and is caused by air reaching the surface of food. Cut freezer-burned portions away either before or after cooking the lamb. Heavily freezer-burned products may have to be discarded for quality reasons. For best quality, use lamb within 6 to 9 months.

Ready-Prepared Lamb
For fully-cooked, take-out lamb dishes such as Kabobs, Gyros, or Chinese food, be sure they are hot at pickup. Use cooked lamb within 2 hours (1 hour if the air temperature is above 90 °F) or refrigerate it at 40 °F or below in shallow, covered containers. Eat within 3 to 4 days, either cold or reheated to 165 °F (hot and steaming). It is safe to freeze ready-prepared lamb dishes. For best quality, use within 2 to 3 months.

Safe Defrosting
There are three safe ways to defrost lamb: in the refrigerator, in cold water, and in the microwave. Never defrost on the counter or in other locations. It's best to plan ahead for slow, safe thawing in the refrigerator. Ground lamb, stew meat, and steaks may defrost within a day. Bone-in parts and whole roasts may take 2 days or longer.

Once the raw product defrosts, it will be safe in the refrigerator 3 to 5 days (for roasts and chops) and 1 to 2 days for ground lamb before cooking. During this time, if you decide not to use the lamb, you can safely refreeze it without cooking it first.

To defrost lamb in cold water, do not remove packaging. Be sure the package is airtight or put it into a leakproof bag. Submerge the lamb in cold water, changing the water every 30 minutes so that it continues to thaw. Small packages of lamb may defrost in an hour or less; a 3- to 4-pound roast may take 2 to 3 hours.

When microwave defrosting lamb, plan to cook it immediately after thawing because some areas of the food may become warm and begin to cook during microwaving. Holding partially-cooked food is not recommended because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed.

Foods defrosted in the microwave or by the cold water method should be cooked before refreezing because they may potentially have been held at temperatures above 40 °F.

It is safe to cook frozen lamb in the oven, on the stove, or grill without defrosting it first; the cooking time may be about 50% longer. Do not cook frozen lamb in a slow cooker.

Lamb recipes
Recipes featuring lamb as a main ingredient can be found in the lamb recipe category.

title: Cookbook:Lamb