text:
User talk:Bethenco

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

snoyes 15:56, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Creative Commons
Hey, just wanted to let you know that you can use the   template on your user page to update your Creative Commons license to include version 2.0 as well as version 1.0. -- Ram-Man 03:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Weeds ep212.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Weeds ep212.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Vertical Skateboard.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Vertical Skateboard.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  15:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bethenco


text:
Talk:Bee learning and communication

Untitled
Hi there-- You'd put back into this article at the top material that was previously there, perhaps under the impression that someone had taken your material out. They hadn't! All the material is still in the article, but a lot of additional material has been added so your original work is scattered through. I've therefore reverted to the version we had on 19th November. seglea 16:10, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Major component is missing
Bees dance to communicate not only the discovery of worthwhile sources of nectar, but also to communicate the discovery of worthwhile sources of pollen, and the dances are different. Also, research has been done that indicates that bees are using sound to complement the movements involved in their dances.

Another major component is the use of dance by swarms to decide upon a nest location. Tom Seeley of Cornell ( http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/seeley.shtml ) has stressed this use of dance in many papers and both his books, but I am uncertain as to which of his many works might make the best citation for this point.

Under "Odor Plume", I think it is telling that despite a substantial amount of verbage on the issue, the two numbered points lack citations:

" 1. clinical experiments with odorless sugar sources which show that worker bees are unable to recruit to those sources and

2. logical difficulties of a small-scale dance (a few centimeters across) giving directions precise enough to hold the other bees on course during a flight that could be several kilometers long. Misreading by even a few degrees would lead the bee off course by hundreds of meters at the far end."

Both these should be branded "[Citation Needed]".

In refutation of both points, we have the work of William F. Towne, of the Kutztown University in Pennsylvania, such as this paper: http://faculty.kutztown.edu/towne/Towne_2008_JEB_211_3737-3743.pdf, in which he shows succinctly that bees can be fooled into recruiting foragers via dancing about a location in the opposite direction from the actual food source when introduced into a "mirror image" terrain and deprived of the navigational reference provided by the sun. When the cloud cover passes, the bees dances, and the resulting forager visits both become accurate once again, which is compelling evidence in favor of "dance".

I am new to Wikipedia, so please excuse if my attempts at an "edit" are less-than elegant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packetfire (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading comments related to Wenner's anti-dance theory
For example I believe it may be misleading to say there are two main hypotheses. I think, in general, the dance-language hypothesis is accepted and pretty much cemented. Wenner is seen as being on the fringe, especially after James L. Gould's experiment.

Also the quote about von Fritsch doubting his theory. He lived long enough to see Gould's experiment and I think he probably saw that as vindication, like with almost everybody else at the time. --C S 20:17, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy
The issue I deal with has been dealt with on Wikipedia before, but never in such detail, nor in such unequivocal terms.. Many have probably heard of the greatest discovery ever made in the behavioral science, i.e. the discovery of the honeybee "dance language" (abbreviated here as: DL), which was first published by K. von Frisch in a scientific journal, in 1946, and soon became a revered ruling paradigm. The discovery has been touted practically everywhere, in the professional scientific-media, as well as the the popular scientific media. It was taught as gospel to college students and high-school kids, and even to pre-kindergarten children. It earned v. Frisch numerous tokens of admiration, including honorary membership in scientific academies all over the world, The Magellanic Premium Prize, awarded by the American Philosophical Society (in 1955), The Kalinga UNESCO Prize (in 1958), a Balzan Prize, considered second in importance only to the Nobel Prize, (in 1962), and finally (in 1973), also the Nobel prize in Medicine or physiology (which v. Frisch shared with Konrad Lorenz & Niko Tinbergen, the two co-founders of the general approach to the study of behavior, known as European Ethology). Nonetheless, the discovery of the honeybee DL is a "discovery" of something that never existed., and constitutes the greatest goof in the history of science, not for any one specific reason, but for the awesome weight of many different reasons combined; including the fact that the "discovery" helped Lorenz & Tinbergen share v. Frisch's Nobel Prize. What v. Frisch claimed to have discovered, and experimentally confirmed, was the claim that honeybee-recruits use spatial information contained in foragers'-dances about the approximate site of the foragers' food-source, to help them find the source. The claim initially met with disbelief, but several highly influential scientists became quickly converted, and sent the sensational claim on its quick way to becoming a revered ruling paradigm. When v. Frisch was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1973, this happened 6 years after Wenner & his team had already launched their fully justified critique of the DL hypothesis, based on experimental work, in the journal Science (in 1967); claiming that honeybee-recruits use odor alone all along. This led to a severe backlash that soon turned Wenner & his team into pariahs. You can find some information about it, and much more, in the book by Wenner & Wells (1990): " Anatomy of a Controversy: The Question of a "Language" Among Bees", published by Columbia University Press. Eventually, it turned out, however, that when Wenner's team discovered, and published in 1967, that honeybee-recruits use odor alone all along, they unknowingly re-discovered what v. Frisch himself had already discovered and published, on the basis of his own experimental results, at least as early as 1923, i.e. that honeybee-recruits use odor alone and no information about the location of any food; which v. Frisch had discovered some 50 years before he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his "discovery" that they use information contained in foragers'-dances about the location of the foragers'  food-source. When honeybee-foragers are trained to a feeder with a scented sugar-solution far from the hive, they perform figure-eight waggle-dances, where the 2 curved haves of the figure are joined by a straight waggle-run, during which the foragers waggle their abdomens, vibrate their wings, and also emit a pulsed sound. The dancing foragers turn out of the waggle-run alternately to the right, and left. As the feeder is gradually brought closer to the hive, the foragers are less exhausted when they dance, and as a result they dance faster. This causes the curved portions of the dance to become longer, the waggle-run, to become shorter, with fewer waggles, and alternate waggle-runs to become separated by an angle; until finally the curved portion extends to more than a full circle, and the waggle-run is performed so quickly that the dancing foragers have no time to waggle at all. They then perform what are known as perfect round dances. In v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, done with the local Austrian honeybee-strain (and published in an extensive summary in 1923), foragers were trained to a dish with a scented sugar-solution only 13-16 m. from the hive, and, thus, performed only round dances without a trace of a waggle. (In fact, at that time he did not even know they could at all perform waggle dances. He believed that round dances were performed for nectar, or its experimental substitute, i.e. a solution of sugar in water, while waggle dances were performed for pollen.) V. Frisch then distributed in the field other, very small, identical dishes with the same amount of the same scented sugar-solution, capturing and counting all new-arrivals. In some tests he deliberately placed dishes with a sugar-solution that had a different food-odor right next to dishes with the foragers' food-odor, i.e. practically at the same site. In some tests he captured new-arrivals, individually marked them, and released them to verify that they indeed came from his experimental hive, and not from just any hive in the apiary. His recruits found all the dishes with the foragers' food-odor, and none of the dishes with a different food-odor, up to a distance of 1,000 m. from the hive (the greatest distance then tested). Since they found, among others, also dishes to which the foragers were not flying, and could noteven have known existed at all, he fully justifiably concluded that recruit find food with the foragers' food-odor, not by following foragers in flight all the way from the hive to the food, nor by using any information about the location of any food, but by use of odor alone. According to his DL hypothesis (first published in a scientific journal more than 20 years later), round dances cause recruits to find food only within the round dance range; which is not more than 100 m. from the hive for the Austrian honeybees. The experimental results v. Frisch had obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, thus, grossly contradicted his DL hypothesis long before its inception, and the DL hypothesis was, therefore, very clearly and obviously stillborn. An inadvertent test carried out by a colleague of his in 1943, during the extremely turbulent period of WWII, led v. Frisch to conclude that his initial conclusion that recruits use odor alone all along, must have been an error, (which it never was), and gradually replace it with his sensational DL hypothesis (published shortly after the War). It is very interesting and important to understand how, and why that happened. We now know that what tripped v. Frisch was primarily his very early erroneous conclusion (of 1919), based on his own experimental results, that honeybees had a very poor, human-like sensitivity to odors. (V. Frisch made that error at a time when it was only too easy to make, and before he even turned to study honeybee-recruitment.) The details of his first study on honeybee-recruitment showed that the closer a dish with the foragers' food-odor was to the hive, the earlier it was found by recruits, and the greater the number of new-arrivals it received. V. Frish, therefore, had to explain how recruits, with their presumably very poor sensitivity to odors, searched for attractive odors, to produce the details of the results he had obtained. His result meant to him that the closer a dish was to the hive, the earlier recruits had to get close enough to the dish, so as to even sense the odors from the dish. And this left v. Frisch no choice but to assume that the way recruits searched for attractive odors was, by conducting a circular-search that gradually expanded around the hive, and extended (when necessary), to the limits of the foraging area of the colony. This assumption regarding how recruits use odor alone all along, required him to expect basically the same results in all future tests, i.e. that the closer a dish was to the hive, the earlier it would be found by recruits, and the greater number of new-arrivals it would receive. The case was closed, and it remained closed for another 20 years; until 1943. V. Frish tells all about what happened in 1943 in his definitive book on the honeybee DL:"The Dance language and Orientation of Bees" (1967), translated from the original German edition of 1965, and published by Harvard University Press. A colleague of his trained foragers to a dish with a scented sugar-solution 500 m. from the hive. She then wanted to have another foragers'-dish very close to the hive. V. Frisch does not explain what she intended to test, but he gave her what he believed was a very good piece of advice. In order to save herself the chore of training foragers to such a dish, he advised her to set the dish near the hive, fill it with the same scented sugar-solution she was using at the 500 m. site, and let the bees do her work for her. He expected that new recruits would now first find the dish near the hive. Instead, recruits continued to arrive at the 500 m. site. To v. Frisch this meant that his initial conclusion that recruits used odor alone all along must have been in error, and that in addition to odors they must have used something else, which enables them to know where to go. An examination of the dances of the foragers from the 500 m. dish revealed that they were performing waggle-dances, instead of the round dances he expected them to perform; which meant that the type of dance did not depend on the type of food, but on the distance of the food from the hive. This, soon led to the discovery of the distance and direction information contained in foragers' waggle-dances; which seemed to v. Frisch to provide that which recruits were using in addition to odors. They were apparently using the spatial information contained in the dances, and then (when necessary), supplementing that by searching for attractive odors only within a relatively short range around the point reached by use of the spatial information alone. And the rest is history! The stillborn DL hypothesis gradually rose all the way to the status of a presumably fully properly experimentally confirmed hypothesis, and win the Nobel Prize. Today we know, however, that the only reason v. Frisch's expectations from use of odor alone all along failed in that inadvertent 1943 test (as well as in other similar tests), was not at all due to any error in his initial 1923 conclusion regarding what honeybee-recruits use,  but only due to his erroneous expectations from use of odor alone all along; which were based on his erroneous conclusion regarding how recruits use odor alone all along; which was, in turn, based on his error regarding the sensitivity of honeybees to odors. Wenner & his team had to re-discover on their own that recruits use odor alone all along, because they could not have known of v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment. After the inception of his DL hypothesis v. Frisch phased out the results he had obtained in that study. He never repeated the tests done in that study. Instead, he carried out 2 new tests with round dances, using a drastically different number and arrangement of small dishes with the foragers' food-odor, than he used in his first study on honeybee-recruitment. This time, recruits found all the dishes within 100 m. of the hive, and none of the dishes that were available outside that range, just as was expected according to his DL hypothesis. (He could not have known he was doing anything wrong, because the number, and geometric arrangement of the dishes is expected to have a major effect on use of odor alone all along, but only provided honeybees have an exceptionally high sensitivity to odors; a possibility that did not exist for v. Frisch.) In his 1967 (1965) book he did not provide the results he had obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment. Instead, he provided the results of those 2 new-tests with round dances (actually done in 1962). And since he repeatedly claimed to have experimentally confirmed his DL hypothesis, DL opponents naturally examined only his evidence for that claim, and did not bother to check any of his earlier publications, where such evidence could not have been found. Little did we know what we could find there! Eventually I accidentally stumbled on a short article by v. Frisch, published in 1939, in the Annual report of the Smithsonian Institution in the US. The publication was a reprint of a 1937 publication, based on a guest-lecture v. Frisch had delivered at the University College of London in 1937, summarizing his whole earlier honeybee-research; including his first study on honeybee-recruitment, and his fully justified conclusion, based on that study, that recruits use odor alone, and no information about the location of any food. I published the find in J. theoret. Biol., 84: 775-800 (1980), but no one except the handful of DL opponents paid attention. V. Frisch's error regarding the sensitivity of honeybees to odors was discovered by the British honeybee-researcher, Ribbands, and is presented in his book: " The Behaviour and Social Life of Honeybees ",published by IBRA (the International Bee Research Association, in 1953. . In his 1967 (1965) book, v. Frisch did his best to discredit Ribbands, and brought up the results of 3 new studies on the sensitivity of honeybees to odors, each done by a single researcher, using a different technique, all vindicating v. Frisch vs. Ribbands, and all, interestingly done by researchers who were directly, or indirectly associated with v. Frisch. So great was v. Frisch's prestige, that Wenner had to inadvertently also re-discover on his own, and publish in 1971, what Ribbands had already discovered and published in 1953, i.e. that, contrary to v. Frisch, honeybees had an exceptionally high sensitivity to odors. This is today fully established to the point that scientists are working on ways to train honeybees to sniff explosives in mine-fields. Ribbands, however, either could not see how v. Frisch's error regarding the sensitivity of honeybees to odors tripped him and misled him into his DL hypothesis. Or else, Ribbands might have been influenced by another faulty argument for the DL hypothesis, often raised by DL supporters, starting with v. Frisch himself. V. Frisch discovered that honeybee-dances are not learned, which led to the erroneous conclusion that they must be "instinctive", i.e. genetically predetermined. As such, they had to be adaptive, as one whole behavior; all the more so since they involve the expenditure of a considerable amount of time & energy on the part of both dancer & dance-attendants. There is, however, no conceivable adaptive value for honeybee dances as one whole behavior, except to serve in a DL that utilizes the spatial information contained in the dances. The honeybee DL, therefore, simply had to exist! The assumption that honeybee dances constitute one whole, genetically predetermined behavior is, however, unwarranted. instead, the dances apparently comprise many different component-responses, some learned, and some not learned. At any rate, Ribbands remained a faithful believer in the existence of the honeybee DL. V. Frisch correctly took it for granted that his sensational DL hypothesis could not, and should not be accepted without a proper experimental confirmation. He believed, however, that he had repeatedly provided such a confirmation; which he actually never achieved. Attempts to experimentally confirm the DL hypothesis have been going on ever since v. Frisch published the hypothesis in 1946, i.e. for almost 60 years; by now at the expense of a considerable amount of time & talent, and millions of dollars of good research-funds. Every few years DL supporters publish a new claim of having finally achieved the required experimental confirmation. The scientific publications of such claims is often accompanied by considerable hype in the popular scientific-media. Nonetheless, none of those claims have ever passed the rigorous scrutiny given them by DL opponents. And this includes even the latest such claim, publicised on the Internet for at least a year and a half prior to publication, then, finally published in the journal Nature on May 12 (2005), and  immediately touted  everywhere, starting with the BBC. DL opponents can always detect serious, and sometimes even utterly incredible errors, in such publications. For instance, the honeybee DL hypothesis was formulated specifically in order to explain how honeybee-recruits find their foragers' food-source, and other sources with the same odor, in the field. In the study underlying the latest claim (published in Nature of May, 2005), only two of the radar- tracked bees (out of 19 bees fitted with transponders and released at the hive, for which radar-tracks are available), are reported to have landed at the feeder. One of the authors (U. Greggers), however, advised me (through e-mail exchange), that those 2 bees actually landed on the feeder-stand, but never found the feeder. This means that none of the bees radar-tracked in that specific study found any food. It is, however, in principle impossible to address the problem whether honeybees do, or do not, use a DL to help them find food in the field, by studying only bees that never found any food. But, as soon as you give recruits a chance to find food (by adding scent to the food, which the authors deliberately avoided), new bees invariably arrive at the feeder through an upwind zigzag from as far as they can only be spotted by observers at the feeder with the naked eye, i.e. from a distance of at least 10 m. away. This alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis. Both the distance-information, and the direction-information, contained in the dances, have a normal distribution, with a maximum that indicates the distance & direction of the foragers'-feeder. Recruits are, therefore, often expected to get much closer to the feeder, by use the distance & direction information alone (coming from the direction of the hive), and if they hit a point within the odor-plume that extends downwind from the feeder, they are, then, expected to reach the feeder through a very short upwind zizag. That never happens! This is, in fact, expected to happen also in the case of other identical sources of attractive odors in the field, but it is expected less often the further such a source is from the foragers'-feeder. The expectation has never materialized in observations on the arrivals of thousands of new-bees, in many studies done by both DL opponents, and DL supporters. Now, most claims by DL supporters, to have experimentally confirmed use of the DL (though not all), are based on the interpretations of distributions of new-arrivals among various, small, identical, man-made sources of attractive odors scattered  by experimenters in the field. Such data can not provide any confirmation for use of DL information, because in the first study that launched the opposition to the DL hypothesis by Wenner's team, in 1967, the authors had already discovered that the distributions of new-arrivals are totally independent of DL information. (You can obtain the same distributions of new-arrivals with different DL information, and different distributions, with the same DL information). Interestingly, initially v. Frisch captured and removed all new-arrivals. Eventually, however, he began to use odor without food at all his sites (stations), except, of course, at the foragers'-feeder (the foragers'-station). He, then stopped capturing new-arrivals, which did not always actually land at stations other than the foragers'-station, and introduced instead, the criterion of counting all bees that were observed to arrive within at least 20 cm. of a station, through an upwind zigzag, from outside the visual field for spotting honeybees in flight. He was, thus continually looking at evidence concerning the typical manner of arrival, which alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis. He was, however, so intent on obtaining data on where recruits arrived, with the hope that he would, thus, be able to obtain the required experimental confirmation that honeybees have a DL, that he did not "see" that which was continually right in front of his eyes.

The failure of DL supporters, for almost 60 years, to achieve the required experimental confirmation of the DL hypothesis, is not surprising at all. It is impossible to revive a DL hypothesis that was so clearly stillborn more than 80 years ago, thanks to v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment.! Warning signs against the DL hypothesis kept continually cropping up, in the form of "anomalous" results, in the experiments done by DL supporters themselves, starting with v. Frisch. The way v. Frisch usually handled such "anomalies" was by introducing never experimentally confirmed, or even tested, ad hoc revisions, i.e. auxiliary hypotheses that made it possible to incorporate the "anomalous" results within the now revised version of the DL hypothesis. Other DL supporters followed v. Frisch's example. Except that eventually they were obliged to introduce so many auxiliary hypothesis, that they, inevitably, ended up contradicting one another, and sometimes even themselves (since they failed to carefully fully examine all the implications of each, and every auxiliary hypothesis). As a result, by now no one even knows anymore what the DL hypothesis really stands for, beyond the core-claim that somewhere, somehow, some honeybees, use the spatial information contained in foragers'-dances. A hypothesis that can not predict anything more definite than that, cannot be tested, and, does not, therefore, qualify as a scientific hypothesis at all. Now, scientists can go to a hive, observe a dancing forager, and determine approximately at which distance & direction the forager had foraged. However, the only way scientists can do that is, by relying on a detailed preliminary research on the relations between various aspects of the dances, and the distance & direction of the foragers'-food; which must be done separately for each honeybee species, and strain. Honeybees obviously do not engage in any scientific research. So, how can they obtain the spatial information contained in the dances? Well, DL supporters have always assumed that the bees do it all "instinctively", i. e. with the aid of some genetically predetermined, computer-like mechanism in the brain, that does it for them. European Ethology is based on the misguided belief in the existence of genetically predetermined "instincts". This is how the erroneous belief by the 1973 Nobel Committee, that the existence of the honeybee DL had already been properly experimentally confirmed, provided European Ethology with its most impressive validation. Genes predetermine a whole range of potential individual development, as well as what is outside that range. They do not, however, alone, predetermine what will actually materialize in individual development. This is determined, instead, by inseparable effects of both genes & environment. Just consider a one-celled fertilized egg (which is how most individual lives begin). It is always possible to apply environmental conditions that would snuff an individual life at that very early, initial stage. Obviously, it is not genetically predetermined that an individual life should develop into anything beyond that very early, initial stage. There is obviously much more to be said about the honeybee DL controversy that has been going on for close to 40 years, and constitutes the most important reflection of a general, basic controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science, which has been going on since the mid-30's of last century. But I shall say no more here. Sincerely, Ruth Rosin ("Prickly pear")

 * This has been extensively discussed in academic journals and subject-matter discussions such as BEE-L. While there have been some experiments challenging the dance language hypothesis, those studies have been challenged on methodological grounds.  You described the weaknesses in some of the initial studies but gloss over the more recent experiments which have supported the dance language theory.  Based on my own readings, I do not believe that the odor-alone theory is able to explain all the experimental data.  For example, odor-alone is unable to explain the successful recruitment of foragers when the sugar source is downwind of the hive.  Odor-alone is also unable to explain the results of this study in which flight-paths of foragers were radar-tracked after being moved to alternate release points.  The tracked flight-paths were offset from the original flight-paths by essentially the same distance that the release point had been displaced.  (In fairness, those studies have often been over-hyped in the media and have sometimes been challenged on methodological grounds.)

 * For part of the bee-researching community, the debate has become very polarized with a few people strongly advocating that the dance theory was completely mistaken and that odor-alone is sufficient and a few other people loudly (and sometimes rudely) ridiculing those claims. (On the flip side, as far as I can tell no one arguing that odor plays no part.)  From everything I can tell though, the majority of bee researchers continue to support the dance-language theory to one degree or another.  To say that the dance language hypothesis has been disproven or "was stillborn" is an overstatement.  From my own readings, the general consensus is that the dance language communicates the gross directions and that odor and to a lesser extent vision are used to hone in on the final location.

 * Having said that, you have added a great deal of detail about the controversy. The full history of this debate should be captured in the article-space, not just on the Talk page.  This is probably a significant enough discussion to deserve its own breakout article if you want to start one.  Rossami (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This user created an article The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy with the above text, and this is now up for AfD. As it stands, the article needs a strong wikifying, citing and balancing of the two sets of data - but I agree the controversy is easily worthy of its own article, albeit one better than the current one.  If those more au fait with animal behaviour could comment at the AfD that would be very useful.  Many thanks, Aquilina 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Both article and commentary are badly in need of revision. I don't have time to do it but please note recent article on use of lidar to prove waggle dance function.    We need to but this nonsense debate to rest, it's becoming akin to arguing in defense of the flat earth theory.

 * I strongly agee with the above. Although she does so with vim and enthusiasm, Ruth Roisin is virtually the only voice propounding these views, which she tends to do at inordinate lenght. Some of her views (the denial any instinctive behavior, the notion that insects are incapable of behaviour which require an element of calculation) are distinctly eccentric. There is in fact, no more controversy over the existnce of a dance language in bees than there is over whether the earth is or is not flat. It is absurd that the 'odor plume' theory (which is a kind of bee equivalent of creationism, only less popular) takes up more room here than the dance language description. Cooke 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Likening critics to creationists is an effective ad hominem, but it isn't honest. The critics of a "dance language" are scientists, often distinguished scientists with long careers who have done seminal work and have spent decades in the field studying and working with bees, like Adrian Wenner.  He may be wrong, but he is nothing like a creationist, and his views can't be dismissed just by calling them "absurd" or declaring them false. Such dogmatism is just the sort of thing that Wenner criticizes as "pathological science", demonstrating that such dogmatism has led the scientific community astray in the past, due to selective acceptance of confirming experiments using dubious methodologies.  But science is best built on falsification, not confirmation,and people too in love with their theories fail to try to falsify them. -- 71.102.194.130 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. As far as I know there are NO, that is NO, peer-reviewed, replicable experiments which indicate, much less prove, that bees never, under any circumstances, interpret the physical movement of other bees. Which is the sum total of the 'odor-plume' argument. QED 88.97.15.184 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are strong objections, I shall trim the 'odor-plume' theory, which will probably do it no harm anyway, to make it more concise, but also briefer. 88.97.15.184 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Neural Map
I am doing my research in Artificial Intelligence, and I will soon be posting some of my findings (of insect intelligence) online. Does anyone know where would be the most appropriate place? Is there a Wikiproject Insect Neural Map I should consult? Paskari 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The most appropriate place is a refereed scientific journal. It certainly doesn't belong at Wikipedia, where original research is not allowed. -- 71.102.194.130 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading Bee's Minds
"When scouts returned to the hive to communicate their find, other bees refused to go with them, not expecting to find food in the middle of a lake"

Really? They "refused"? We know what bees "expect"? I guess their language skills really are quite amazing.

This article has a lot of problems, with its barely concealed contempt for critics of the "dance language" theory, but the section on Gould is the worst, reading like a press release. An encyclopedia should report the factual details of his experiments, and what interpretations he or other scientists have placed on them, but it should not make interpretive claims itself, especially not such absurdly anthropomorphic ones. -- 71.102.194.130 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of von Frisch's discovery
This article claims von Frisch discovered this behavior in 1947. However, according to this book I am reading (Harvey Einbinder, The Myth of the Britannica (New York: Grove, p. 235), von Frisch discovered this in 1923 -- although his research was confirmed after WWII. Looking at von Frisch's biographical article, his paper "Über die ‚Tiersprache|Sprache‘ der Bienen. Eine tierpsychologische Untersuchung" (published in Zoologische Jahrbücher (Physiologie) 40 (1923), 1–186) is mentioned, & from the title this appears to be the publication of his discovery. So is the 1947 date properly when his research was verified? -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bee learning and communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060914171408/http://www.msu.edu/~fcdyer/pubs.html to http://www.msu.edu/~fcdyer/pubs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bee learning and communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106042950/http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Social_InsectsLab/BensPDFs/Johnson&2002JHered.pdf to http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Social_InsectsLab/BensPDFs/Johnson&2002JHered.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Odor Olume - acknowledge text from Yates
Some of the text has been taken from section 6.21.2 of "Beekeeping Study Notes (Modules 5,6,7 & 8)" by J.D. & B.D. Yates, published 1997. ISBN 978-0-905652-72-6. The following entry is almost word for word. The book and authors need to be acknowledged. "The primary lines of evidence used by the odor plume advocates are experiments with odorless sugar sources which show that worker bees are unable to recruit to those sources[14] and logical difficulties of a small-scale dance (a few centimeters across) giving directions precise enough to hold the other bees on course during a flight that could be several kilometers long. Misreading by even a few degrees would lead the bee off course by hundreds of meters at the far end.[citation needed] Neither of these points invalidate the dance theory, but simply suggest that odor might be involved, which is indeed conceded by all proponents of dance theory.[citation needed] Critics of the odor plume theory counter that most natural nectar sources are relatively large—orchards or entire fields— so, precision may not be necessary or even desirable. They have also challenged the reproducibility of the odorless source experiment."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bee learning and communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031203211713/http://beesource.com/pov/wenner/jib2002.htm to http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/jib2002.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119014905/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/969 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bee learning and communication


text:
Digital waveguide synthesis

Digital waveguide synthesis is the synthesis of audio using a digital waveguide. Digital waveguides are efficient computational models for physical media through which acoustic waves propagate. For this reason, digital waveguides constitute a major part of most modern physical modeling synthesizers.

A lossless digital waveguide realizes the discrete form of d'Alembert's solution of the one-dimensional wave equation as the superposition of a right-going wave and a left-going wave,

 * $$y(m,n) = y^{+}(m-n) + y^{-}(m+n)$$

where $$y^{+}$$ is the right-going wave and $$y^{-}$$ is the left-going wave. It can be seen from this representation that sampling the function $$y$$ at a given point $$m$$ and time $$n$$ merely involves summing two delayed copies of its traveling waves. These traveling waves will reflect at boundaries such as the suspension points of vibrating strings or the open or closed ends of tubes. Hence the waves travel along closed loops.

Digital waveguide models therefore comprise digital delay lines to represent the geometry of the waveguide which are closed by recursion, digital filters to represent the frequency-dependent losses and mild dispersion in the medium, and often non-linear elements. Losses incurred throughout the medium are generally consolidated so that they can be calculated once at the termination of a delay line, rather than many times throughout.

Waveguides such as acoustic tubes are three-dimensional, but because their lengths are often much greater than their cross-sectional area, it is reasonable and computationally efficient to model them as one-dimensional waveguides. Membranes, as used in drums, may be modeled using two-dimensional waveguide meshes, and reverberation in three-dimensional spaces may be modeled using three-dimensional meshes. Vibraphone bars, bells, singing bowls and other sounding solids (also called idiophones) can be modeled by a related method called banded waveguides where multiple band-limited digital waveguide elements are used to model the strongly dispersive behavior of waves in solids.

The term "digital waveguide synthesis" was coined by Julius O. Smith III who helped develop it and eventually filed the patent. It represents an extension of the Karplus–Strong algorithm. Stanford University owned the patent rights for digital waveguide synthesis and signed an agreement in 1989 to develop the technology with Yamaha, however, many of the early patents have now expired.

An extension to DWG synthesis of strings made by Smith is commuted synthesis, wherein the excitation to the digital waveguide contains both string excitation and the body response of the instrument. This is possible because the digital waveguide is linear and makes it unnecessary to model the instrument body's resonances after synthesizing the string output, greatly reducing the number of computations required for a convincing resynthesis.

Prototype waveguide software implementations were done by students of Smith in the Synthesis Toolkit (STK).

The first musical use of digital waveguide synthesis was in the composition May All Your Children Be Acrobats (1981) by David A. Jaffe, followed by his Silicon Valley Breakdown (1982).

Licensees

 * Yamaha
 * VL1 (1994) — expensive keyboard (about $10,000 USD)
 * VL1m, VL7 (1994) — tone module and less expensive keyboard, respectively
 * VP1 (prototype) (1994)
 * VL70m (1996) — less expensive tone module
 * EX5 (1999) — workstation keyboard that included a VL module
 * PLG-100VL, PLG-150VL (1999) — plug-in cards for various Yamaha keyboards, tone modules, and the SWG-1000 high-end PC sound card. The MU100R rack-mount tone module included two PLG slots, pre-filled with a PLG-100VL and a PLG-100VH (Vocal Harmonizer).
 * YMF-724, 744, 754, and 764 sound chips for inexpensive DS-XG PC sound cards and motherboards (the VL part only worked on Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME, and then only when using .VxD drivers, not .WDM). No longer made, presumably due to conflict with AC-97 and AC-99 sound card standards (which specify 'wavetables' (sample tables) based on Roland’s XG-competing GS sound system, which Sondius-XG [the means of integrating VL instruments and commands into an XG-compliant MIDI stream along with wavetable XG instruments and commands] cannot integrate with). The MIDI portion of such sound chips, when the VL was enabled, was functionally equivalent to an MU50 Level 1 XG tone module (minus certain digital effects) with greater polyphony (up to 64 simultaneous notes, compared to 32 for Level 1 XG) plus a VL70m (the VL adds an additional note of polyphony, or, rather, a VL solo note backed up by the up-to-64 notes of polyphony of the XG wavetable portion). The 724 only supported stereo out, while the others supported various four and more speaker setups. Yamaha’s own card using these was the WaveForce-128, but a number of licensees made very inexpensive YMF-724 sound cards that retailed for as low as $12 at the peak of the technology’s popularity. The MIDI synth portion (both XG and VL) of the YMF chips was actually just hardware assist to a mostly software synth that resided in the device driver (the XG wavetable samples, for instance, were in system RAM with the driver [and could be replaced or added to easily], not in ROM on the sound card). As such, the MIDI synth, especially with VL in active use, took considerably more CPU power than a truly hardware synth would use, but not as much as a pure software synth. Towards the end of their market period, YMF-724 cards could be had for as little as $12 USD brand new, making them by far the least expensive means of obtaining Sondius-XG CL digital waveguide technology. The DS-XG series also included the YMF-740, but it lacked the Sondius-XG VL waveguide synthesis module, yet was otherwise identical to the YMF-744.
 * S-YXG100plus-VL Soft Synthesizer for PCs with any sound card (again, the VL part only worked on Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME: it emulated a .VxD MIDI device driver). Likewise equivalent to an MU50 (minus certain digital effects) plus VL70m. The non-VL version, S-YXG50, would work on any Windows OS, but had no physical modeling, and was just the MU50 XG wavetable emulator. This was basically the synth portion of the YMF chips implemented entirely in software without the hardware assist provided by the YMF chips. Required a somewhat more powerful CPU than the YMF chips did. Could also be used in conjunction with a YMF-equipped sound card or motherboard to provide up to 128 notes of XG wavetable polyphony and up to two VL instruments simultaneously on sufficiently powerful CPUs.
 * S-YXG100plus-PolyVL SoftSynth for then-powerful PCs (e. g. 333+MHz Pentium III), capable of up to eight VL notes at once (all other Yamaha VL implementations except the original VL1 and VL1m were limited to one, and the VL1/1m could do two), in addition to up to 64 notes of XG wavetable from the MU50-emulating portion of the soft synth. Never sold in the US, but was sold in Japan. Presumably a much more powerful system could be done with today’s multi-GHz dual-core CPUs, but the technology appears to have been abandoned. Hypothetically could also be used with a YMF chipset system to combine their capabilities on sufficiently powerful CPUs.
 * Korg
 * Prophecy (1995)
 * Z1, MOSS-TRI (1997)
 * EXB-MOSS (2001)
 * OASYS PCI (1999)
 * OASYS (2005) with some modules, for instance the STR-1 plucked strings physical model
 * Kronos (2011) same as OASYS
 * Technics
 * WSA1 (1995) PCM + resonator
 * Seer Systems
 * Creative WaveSynth (1996) for Creative Labs Sound Blaster AWE64.
 * Reality (1997) - one of the earliest professional software synthesizer products by Dave Smith team
 * Cakewalk
 * Dimension Pro (2005) - software synthesizer for OS X and Windows XP.

title: Digital waveguide synthesis


text:
Annus horribilis

Annus horribilis (pl. anni horribiles) is a Latin phrase that means "horrible year". It is complementary to annus mirabilis, which means "wonderful year".

Origin of phrase
The phrase "annus horribilis" was used in 1891 in an Anglican publication to describe 1870, the year in which the dogma of papal infallibility was defined in the Catholic Church.

1992
The expression was brought to prominence by Queen Elizabeth II. In a speech at Guildhall on 24 November 1992, marking her Ruby Jubilee on the throne, she said: "1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis."

The "sympathetic correspondent" was later revealed to be her former assistant private secretary, Sir Edward Ford. The unpleasant events which happened to the royal family in this year include:
 * Publication of photographs pertaining to an affair between Sarah, Duchess of York, and Texan oil millionaire Steve Wyatt (18 January)
 * Separation of the Queen's second son Prince Andrew, Duke of York, from his wife Sarah (19 March)
 * Divorce of the Queen's daughter, Anne, Princess Royal, from Captain Mark Phillips (23 April)
 * Publication of Diana, Princess of Wales' tell-all book Diana: Her True Story, revealing the problems in her marriage to the Queen's eldest son, Charles, Prince of Wales particularly his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles (The Sunday Times, 7 June)
 * Publication of photographs of Sarah, Duchess of York, sunbathing topless with her friend John Bryan (20 August)
 * Publication of intimate conversations between Diana and James Gilbey from a tape recording of their phone calls (24 August)
 * Fire in Windsor Castle, one of the Queen's official residences (20 November)

After her speech had been recorded, one more notable event transpired: the separation of Charles and Diana (9 December).

2019
2019 was described by some commentators as a second annus horribilis for the British royal family. In January that year, 97-year-old Prince Philip crashed his car into another carrying two women and a baby, and subsequently surrendered his driving license. Later on in August, the Queen was involved in a constitutional crisis when Prime Minister Boris Johnson unlawfully advised her to prorogue Parliament. Prince Andrew gave a universally-criticised BBC Newsnight interview about his relationship with convicted child-sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and there was increased tabloid scrutiny regarding rifts between the Cambridge and Sussex households.

Boris Yeltsin
Time magazine described 1998 in Russian politics as an annus horribilis because of Boris Yeltsin's isolationist and militarist policies, the East Asian financial crisis, and Western countries cutting off the reform money that they gave to the Russian government in prior years.

Ben Affleck
Hollywood actor and filmmaker Ben Affleck once described that the year 2003 was his annus horribilis. Affleck starred in the films Daredevil and Gigli, both of which received negative reviews from critics. Gigli bombed in the box office and drew particular ire from Hollywood critics and moviegoers, which culminated in six wins at the 24th Golden Raspberry Awards. In addition, Affleck and his fiancée and later second wife, Jennifer Lopez, were mocked and criticised by the public for their seemingly accommodating attitudes to and henceforth over-exposure in the tabloid media.

Kofi Annan
Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, used the phrase in his year-end press conference on 21 December 2004. He reflected: "There's no doubt that this has been a particularly difficult year, and I am relieved that this annus horribilis is coming to an end." His remarks were widely interpreted as having alluded to persistent allegations of corruption in the UN's Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. He also spoke of upheaval and violence in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Palestine, and Sudan; the ongoing process of UN internal reform; and "persistent...criticism against the UN" and himself personally. Annan's remarks came five days before the deadliest event of the year (and one of the deadliest natural disasters in history), the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December, when 227,898 people died.

Juan Carlos I
In 2007, the Spanish royal family, in particular King Juan Carlos I, faced a difficult year. Family tragedy and a series of controversies led Spanish newspapers to refer to the year as the king's annus horribilis.
 * In February, Érika Ortiz Rocasolano, the youngest sister of Letizia, then the Princess of Asturias, died of a sedative overdose in her apartment.
 * In July, a humour magazine, El Jueves, published a drawing that ran on the cover, depicting Felipe VI (then the Prince of Asturias), and the aforementioned Princess Letizia having sex, with a caption reading: "Just imagine if you end up pregnant. This will be the closest thing to work I've ever done in my life." It satirized a proposal by the government to give 2,500 euros to the parents of newborn children. The magazine was banned and removed from distribution, which led to a censorship controversy.
 * In September, Catalan separatists were tried for having burned photographs of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía at an anti-monarchy and Catalan separatist rally in Girona while the royal couple toured the city.
 * In early November at the XVII Ibero-American Summit, after a verbal altercation between Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela, and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain, the king asked Chávez, "¿Por qué no te callas?" ("Why don't you shut up?").
 * Shortly after the summit, the royal house announced the separation of the king's daughter, the Duchess of Lugo, and her husband, Jaime de Marichalar. The couple has two children, Felipe and Victoria.

COVID-19 pandemic
The year 2020 was widely remarked as being an annus horribilis for the entire world in general, most notably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide throughout 2020. 2020 was also awarded a "Special Governors' Award for The Worst Calendar Year EVER!" at the 41st Golden Raspberry Awards. At the end of the year, Netflix released Death to 2020, a mockumentary discussing the events of the year.

title: Annus horribilis


text:
Lone pair

In chemistry, a lone pair refers to a pair of valence electrons that are not shared with another atom in a covalent bond and is sometimes called an unshared pair or non-bonding pair. Lone pairs are found in the outermost electron shell of atoms. They can be identified by using a Lewis structure. Electron pairs are therefore considered lone pairs if two electrons are paired but are not used in chemical bonding. Thus, the number of electrons in lone pairs plus the number of electrons in bonds equals the number of valence electrons around an atom.

Lone pair is a concept used in valence shell electron pair repulsion theory (VSEPR theory) which explains the shapes of molecules. They are also referred to in the chemistry of Lewis acids and bases. However, not all non-bonding pairs of electrons are considered by chemists to be lone pairs. Examples are the transition metals where the non-bonding pairs do not influence molecular geometry and are said to be stereochemically inactive. In molecular orbital theory (fully delocalized canonical orbitals or localized in some form), the concept of a lone pair is less distinct, as the correspondence between an orbital and components of a Lewis structure is often not straightforward. Nevertheless, occupied non-bonding orbitals (or orbitals of mostly nonbonding character) are frequently identified as lone pairs.

A single lone pair can be found with atoms in the nitrogen group, such as nitrogen in ammonia. Two lone pairs can be found with atoms in the chalcogen group, such as oxygen in water. The halogens can carry three lone pairs, such as in hydrogen chloride.

In VSEPR theory the electron pairs on the oxygen atom in water form the vertices of a tetrahedron with the lone pairs on two of the four vertices. The H–O–H bond angle is 104.5°, less than the 109° predicted for a tetrahedral angle, and this can be explained by a repulsive interaction between the lone pairs.

Various computational criteria for the presence of lone pairs have been proposed. While electron density ρ(r) itself generally does not provide useful guidance in this regard, the Laplacian of the electron density is revealing, and one criterion for the location of the lone pair is where L(r) = –∇2ρ(r) is a local maximum. The minima of the electrostatic potential V(r) is another proposed criterion. Yet another considers the electron localization function (ELF).

Angle changes
The pairs often exhibit a negative polar character with their high charge density and are located closer to the atomic nucleus on average compared to the bonding pair of electrons. The presence of a lone pair decreases the bond angle between the bonding pair of electrons, due to their high electric charge, which causes great repulsion between the electrons. They are also involved in the formation of a dative bond. For example, the creation of the hydronium (H3O+) ion occurs when acids are dissolved in water and is due to the oxygen atom donating a lone pair to the hydrogen ion.

This can be seen more clearly when looked at it in two more common molecules. For example, in carbon dioxide (CO2), which does not have a lone pair, the oxygen atoms are on opposite sides of the carbon atom (linear molecular geometry), whereas in water (H2O) which has two lone pairs, the angle between the hydrogen atoms is 104.5° (bent molecular geometry). This is caused by the repulsive force of the oxygen atom's two lone pairs pushing the hydrogen atoms further apart, until the forces of all electrons on the hydrogen atom are in equilibrium. This is an illustration of the VSEPR theory.

Dipole moments
Lone pairs can contribute to a molecule's dipole moment. NH3 has a dipole moment of 1.42 D. As the electronegativity of nitrogen (3.04) is greater than that of hydrogen (2.2) the result is that the N-H bonds are polar with a net negative charge on the nitrogen atom and a smaller net positive charge on the hydrogen atoms. There is also a dipole associated with the lone pair and this reinforces the contribution made by the polar covalent N-H bonds to ammonia's dipole moment. In contrast to NH3, NF3 has a much lower dipole moment of 0.234 D. Fluorine is more electronegative than nitrogen and the polarity of the N-F bonds is opposite to that of the N-H bonds in ammonia, so that the dipole due to the lone pair opposes the N-F bond dipoles, resulting in a low molecular dipole moment.

Stereogenic lone pairs
A lone pair can contribute to the existence of chirality in a molecule, when three other groups attached to an atom all differ. The effect is seen in certain amines, phosphines, sulfonium and oxonium ions, sulfoxides, and even carbanions.

The resolution of enantiomers where the stereogenic center is an amine is usually precluded because the energy barrier for nitrogen inversion at the stereo center is low, which allow the two stereoisomers to rapidly interconvert at room temperature. As a result, such chiral amines cannot be resolved, unless the amine's groups are constrained in a cyclic structure (such as in Tröger's base).

Unusual lone pairs
A stereochemically active lone pair is also expected for divalent lead and tin ions due to their formal electronic configuration of ns2. In the solid state this results in the distorted metal coordination observed in the tetragonal litharge structure adopted by both PbO and SnO. The formation of these heavy metal ns2 lone pairs which was previously attributed to intra-atomic hybridization of the metal s and p states has recently been shown to have a strong anion dependence. This dependence on the electronic states of the anion can explain why some divalent lead and tin materials such as PbS and SnTe show no stereochemical evidence of the lone pair and adopt the symmetric rocksalt crystal structure.

In molecular systems the lone pair can also result in a distortion in the coordination of ligands around the metal ion. The lone-pair effect of lead can be observed in supramolecular complexes of lead(II) nitrate, and in 2007 a study linked the lone pair to lead poisoning. Lead ions can replace the native metal ions in several key enzymes, such as zinc cations in the ALAD enzyme, which is also known as porphobilinogen synthase, and is important in the synthesis of heme, a key component of the oxygen-carrying molecule hemoglobin. This inhibition of heme synthesis appears to be the molecular basis of lead poisoning (also called "saturnism" or "plumbism").

Computational experiments reveal that although the coordination number does not change upon substitution in calcium-binding proteins, the introduction of lead distorts the way the ligands organize themselves to accommodate such an emerging lone pair: consequently, these proteins are perturbed. This lone-pair effect becomes dramatic for zinc-binding proteins, such as the above-mentioned porphobilinogen synthase, as the natural substrate cannot bind anymore – in those cases the protein is inhibited.

In Group 14 elements (the carbon group), lone pairs can manifest themselves by shortening or lengthening single bond (bond order 1) lengths, as well as in the effective order of triple bonds as well. The familiar alkynes have a carbon-carbon triple bond (bond order 3) and a linear geometry of 180° bond angles (figure A in reference ). However, further down in the group (silicon, germanium, and tin), formal triple bonds have an effective bond order 2 with one lone pair (figure B ) and trans-bent geometries. In lead, the effective bond order is reduced even further to a single bond, with two lone pairs for each lead atom (figure C ). In the organogermanium compound (Scheme 1 in the reference), the effective bond order is also 1, with complexation of the acidic isonitrile (or isocyanide) C-N groups, based on interaction with germanium's empty 4p orbital.

Different descriptions for multiple lone pairs
In elementary chemistry courses, the lone pairs of water are described as "rabbit ears": two equivalent electron pairs of approximately sp3 hybridization, while the HOH bond angle is 104.5°, slightly smaller than the ideal tetrahedral angle of arccos(–1/3) ≈ 109.47°. The smaller bond angle is rationalized by VSEPR theory by ascribing a larger space requirement for the two identical lone pairs compared to the two bonding pairs. In more advanced courses, an alternative explanation for this phenomenon considers the greater stability of orbitals with excess s character using the theory of isovalent hybridization, in which bonds and lone pairs can be constructed with spx hybrids wherein nonintegral values of x are allowed, so long as the total amount of s and p character is conserved (one s and three p orbitals in the case of second-row p-block elements).

To determine the hybridization of oxygen orbitals used to form the bonding pairs and lone pairs of water in this picture, we use the formula 1 + x cos θ = 0, which relates bond angle θ with the hybridization index x. According to this formula, the O–H bonds are considered to be constructed from O bonding orbitals of ~sp4.0 hybridization (~80% p character, ~20% s character), which leaves behind O lone pairs orbitals of ~sp2.3 hybridization (~70% p character, ~30% s character). These deviations from idealized sp3 hybridization (75% p character, 25% s character) for tetrahedral geometry are consistent with Bent's rule: lone pairs localize more electron density closer to the central atom compared to bonding pairs; hence, the use of orbitals with excess s character to form lone pairs (and, consequently, those with excess p character to form bonding pairs) is energetically favorable.

However, theoreticians often prefer an alternative description of water that separates the lone pairs of water according to symmetry with respect to the molecular plane. In this model, there are two energetically and geometrically distinct lone pairs of water possessing different symmetry: one (σ) in-plane and symmetric with respect to the molecular plane and the other (π) perpendicular and anti-symmetric with respect to the molecular plane. The σ-symmetry lone pair (σ(out)) is formed from a hybrid orbital that mixes 2s and 2p character, while the π-symmetry lone pair (p) is of exclusive 2p orbital parentage. The s character rich O σ(out) lone pair orbital (also notated nO(σ)) is an ~sp0.7 hybrid (~40% p character, 60% s character), while the p lone pair orbital (also notated nO(π)) consists of 100% p character.

Both models are of value and represent the same total electron density, with the orbitals related by a unitary transformation. In this case, we can construct the two equivalent lone pair hybrid orbitals h and h ' by taking linear combinations h = c1σ(out) + c2p and h ' = c1σ(out) – c2p for an appropriate choice of coefficients c1 and c2. For chemical and physical properties of water that depend on the overall electron distribution of the molecule, the use of h and h ' is just as valid as the use of σ(out) and p. In some cases, such a view is intuitively useful. For example, the stereoelectronic requirement for the anomeric effect can be rationalized using equivalent lone pairs, since it is the overall donation of electron density into the antibonding orbital that matters. An alternative treatment using σ/π separated lone pairs is also valid, but it requires striking a balance between maximizing nO(π)-σ* overlap (maximum at 90° dihedral angle) and nO(σ)-σ* overlap (maximum at 0° dihedral angle), a compromise that leads to the conclusion that a gauche conformation (60° dihedral angle) is most favorable, the same conclusion that the equivalent lone pairs model rationalizes in a much more straightforward manner. Similarly, the hydrogen bonds of water form along the directions of the "rabbit ears" lone pairs, as a reflection of the increased availability of electrons in these regions. This view is supported computationally. However, because only the symmetry-adapted canonical orbitals have physically meaningful energies, phenomena that have to do with the energies of individual orbitals, such as photochemical reactivity or photoelectron spectroscopy, are most readily explained using σ and π lone pairs that respect the molecular symmetry.

Because of the popularity of VSEPR theory, the treatment of the water lone pairs as equivalent is prevalent in introductory chemistry courses, and many practicing chemists continue to regard it as a useful model. A similar situation arises when describing the two lone pairs on the carbonyl oxygen atom of a ketone. However, the question of whether it is conceptually useful to derive equivalent orbitals from symmetry-adapted ones, from the standpoint of bonding theory and pedagogy, is still a controversial one, with recent (2014 and 2015) articles opposing and supporting the practice.

title: Lone pair


text:
Talk:Lumbricus

Most of the content of this article is already present in earthworm, thus it should be incorporated there instead of being duplicated here. The article title Lumbricidae is about a family, however the beginning of the article is written to describe the genus Lumbricus only - but there are at least the following genera in this family: Allolobophora, Dendrobaena, Eisenia, Eiseniella, Lumbricus, Octolasium. andy 16:30, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * moved the page to Lumbricus. A separate family level article is needed.  Definitely most of this should just be put in the general earthworm article.  WormRunner 02:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lumbricus


text:
User talk:Wikichatter

Wikichatter, you'd better stop adding offensive content. It will be deleted anyway, and if you don't stop it, your account will be blocked very soon. Please go to Sandbox for experiments. Kosebamse 16:35, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikichatter


text:
Pieter Aertsen

Pieter Aertsen (1508, Amsterdam – 2 June 1575, Amsterdam), called Lange Piet ("Tall Pete") because of his height, was a Dutch painter in the style of Northern Mannerism. He is credited with the invention of the monumental genre scene, which combines still life and genre painting and often also includes a biblical scene in the background. He was active in his native city Amsterdam but also worked for a long period in Antwerp, then the centre of artistic life in the Netherlands.

His genre scenes were influential on later Flemish Baroque painting, Dutch still life painting and also in Italy. His peasant scenes preceded by a few years the much better-known paintings produced in Antwerp by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

Career
Aertsen was born in Amsterdam, and was apprenticed to Allaert Claesz. He later travelled to the Southern Netherlands and took up residence in Antwerp, first with his compatriot Jan Mandijn. Aertsen became a member of Antwerp's Guild of Saint Luke. In the official books of the Guild he is recorded as "Langhe Peter, schilder" (Tall Peter, painter). In 1542 he became a citizen (poorter) of Antwerp. Aertsen returned to Amsterdam in 1555-56.

Subjects and style
After beginning by painting religious works, in the 1550s he developed the painting of domestic scenes in which he reproduced articles of furniture, cooking utensils, and food with great flair and realism. His Butcher's Shop, with the Flight into Egypt (Uppsala, 1551) "has been called the earliest example of Mannerist inversion of still life in Northern painting", showing the "lower" subject matter far more prominently than the subject from history painting. A similar inversion in landscape painting had been developed by Joachim Patinir in Antwerp several decades earlier when he invented the world landscape. Unlike these, in Aertsen's works the genre material dominates the front of the image, with the history scene, normally religious, easy to overlook in the background. This pictorial technique drew on the paintings of another Antwerp artist, Jan Sanders van Hemessen, whose genre treatments of religious and moral scenes had smaller scenes inset into the background in a similar way.

In the Uppsala painting the zones behind the butcher's stall show (from left) a view through a window of a church, the Holy Family distributing alms on their journey, a worker in the mid-ground, with a merry company eating mussels and oysters (believed to promote lust) in a back room behind. The sign at top right advertises the land behind as for sale. The painting offers the viewer a range of options for life, in an allegory on physical and spiritual food. The painting carries the coat of arms of Antwerp, suggesting it was a civic commission, perhaps by the rich Butcher's Guild. Such subjects were mostly painted before about 1560. In the Renaissance, the classical example of the painter Peiraikos, known only from Pliny the Elder, was important in justifying genre and other "low" subjects in painting. Aertsen was compared to Peiraikos by the Dutch Renaissance humanist Hadrianus Junius (Adriaen de Jonghe, 1511–1575) in his Batavia, published posthumously in 1588, which compares Aertsen at each point of Pliny's description in a wholly laudatory manner. An article by Zoran Kwak argues that a painting by his son Pieter Pietersz the Elder (1540–1603), normally called Market Scene with the Journey to Emmaus, which features prominently a half-naked figure who is clearly a cook (with Jesus and his companions as smaller figures behind him), in fact represents a self-portrait in a partly comic spirit, depicted as Peiraikos.

Later in life, he also painted more conventional treatments of religious subjects, now mostly lost as during the iconoclasm of the beeldenstorm several paintings that had been commissioned for Catholic churches were destroyed. Several of his best works, including altarpieces in various churches in Amsterdam, were also destroyed during the days surrounding the event known as the Alteratie, or "Changeover", when Amsterdam formally reverted to Protestantism from Catholicism on 26 May 1578 at the start of the Eighty Years' War. One surviving religious work is the Crucifixion in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp. Aersten's exact formula of still life and genre figures in the foreground, with small scenes from history painting in the background only persisted for the next generation (or two, as Joachim Wtewael painted some similar works), but history paintings with very prominent and profuse still life elements in the foreground were produced by Rubens and his generation, and in the 17th century both Flemish Baroque painting and Dutch Golden Age painting developed important genres of independent still life subjects, which were just occasionally produced in Aertsen's day.

Unlike Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Aertsen's genre figures (especially the women) were mostly depicted idealized with considerable dignity and no effort at comedy, using poses that ultimately derived from classical art. In some cases they appear to have been borrowed from the contemporary court portraiture of artists such as Anthonis Mor. Two unusual individual genre portraits (probably not actual individuals) of female cooks in Genoa and Brussels, one full-length and the other in the three-quarter length format devised by Titian for royal portraits, show them holding roasting spits with poultry as if they were Marshall's batons.

Legacy
Notable pupils who trained in his workshop included Stradanus and Aertsen's nephews, Joachim Beuckelaer and Huybrecht Beuckeleer. Joachim Beuckelaer continued and further developed Aertsen's style and subject matter of painting.

Personal life
He married Kathelijne Beuckelaar, the daughter and sister of an Antwerp painter and aunt of Joachim Beuckelaer and Huybrecht Beuckeleer. Of the couple's eight children, three sons, Pieter, Aert, and Dirk became successful painters.

title: Pieter Aertsen