The Skeptical Spider: Cryptozoology Examined

THE SKEPTICAL SPIDER

The Skeptical Spider is a monthly column from Relax. I'm an arachnologist. which takes an unapologetic stance on science and skepticism with just a touch of humor. While it's focus is primarily arachnology, there is nothing that is off limits. It may contain some harsh language and may deal with issues and present concepts which some individuals may find offensive. If you wish to submit an idea for future topics, leave a comment on this post. 

This month's subject is: 

CRYPTOZOOLOGY EXAMINED

     For every science, there seems to be a pseudoscience that trails happily along in its wake, gaining proponents even though they seldom make any real discoveries for themselves. Sometimes these are precursors to modern scientific disciplines (for example, the science of astronomy and the pseudoscience of astrology) or are completely new ideas that have formed after major discoveries in a legitimate scientific field (example: Deepak Chopra's "quantum consciousness" hypothesis in the wake of real discoveries made in quantum mechanics). Biology in general, and zoology in particular, has it's own pseudoscience counterpart - cryptozoology, the "study of hidden animals". This has seemingly become quite a popular subject for the layperson, something that seemingly responsible "science" program channels (Science channel, Discovery, and Animal Planet) have picked up on. Animal planet has released no less than three pseudoscience documentaries ("Dragons: A fantasy made real"; "Mermaids: The Body Found"; "Mermaids: The New Evidence", at least two of which were not properly and clearly labeled to viewers as fiction) and Discovery began it's 2013 Shark Week run with a similar pseudoscientific, cryptozoological mockumentary "Megaladon: The Monster Shark Lives."

     To reiterate the position I'm taking on this, I should acknowledge the fact that, in my pre-academic life, I was a big proponent of cryptozoology. And that is the hub of which this essay rests, the things which I eventually realized weren't accurate with that position. There are, at best, two credible personages in the cryptozoology movement - the first is Idaho State University professor of anatomy and anthropology Don Jeffery Meldrum, who collects and has analyzed perported Sasquatch foot-casts and has extensively analyzed the infamous video (more on that later); the other is host of the Animal Planet series "River Monsters" Jeremy Wade, if he can even be said to be a cryptozoologist (he defines himself as simply a biologist). Most other personas in the "field" are nowhere near reliable, taking too much stock in eyewitness testimony (the lowest form of evidence in science). Then there are the outright frauds, like (as I will discuss in detail later) "Doctor" Melba Ketchum, who claims big things about sasquatch. But more on that later.

A Brief Overview 

     Cryptozoology is often billed by proponents as the study of hidden animals. By hidden, they mean undiscovered by science, although several of the animals they search for (dubbed cryptids by believers) have existed in the past; such animals include Megalania and the Tasmanian wolf. (A partial list can be found here.) The lure of the unknown is powerful, and the idea of discovering a new animals is something that drives every imagination wild. But is cryptozoology really what is claims to be, the engine that searches for new zoological discoveries? Are they on the precipice of a new ape species, or a totally new form of life that feeds off the blood of goats in Latin America?  

     We first have to establish what science is, and what science is not. For example, science is the appropriate use of the scientific method to discover truths about the natural world in which we live. Physics, chemistry, and biology are the three main examples, on which all other disciplines (organic chemistry, biochemetry, theoretical physics, arachnology, anthropology) are based. Preceding those, and perhaps the only discipline with the ability to prove anything with certainty, is mathematics. Science does not look to prove things, rather, it looks to disprove them; this is done with a pair of hypotheses (usually a pair, although, in more complicated scenarios, more than two hypotheses can exist), a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position, and it is the hypothesis which is always worked on initially. (Example: "Giant spiders do not exist in the Amazon rain forest.") The alternative hypothesis is, essentially, all other hypotheses that are not the null (Example: "Giant spiders do exist in the Amazon rain forest.") and it is important to note that, unless the null hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, nothing is ever done with the alternative hypothesis. Null and alternative are widely used in statistics, but can be applied to all science disciplines. 

     Another aspect of science is that the scientific process takes into account the well known pitfalls of the human brain. The human brain, as remarkable as it is, is not perfect. Healthy brains commit logical fallacies all the time (we are, for example, prone to think that if one thing follows the other, the first must have caused the other, which is obviously not always the correct assumption), and have even been known to hallucinate. Fear, or other strong emotions, can alter the way our brains receive, interpret, and store information in what is known as a "flashbulb memories" which, although people may swear by them, are often found to be erroneous. Primo Levi, the Italian-Jewish chemist and writer, once described memory as

Human memory is a marvelous but fallacious instrument. The memories which lie within us are not carved in stone; not only do they tend to become erased as time goes by, but often they change, or even increase by incorporating extraneous features.

     Despite popular opinion, and what people may claim until they're blue in their face, people don't always know what they saw. Of course, if there are more eyewitnesses, it can be assumed that the details are more accurate; after all, what are the chances that multiple people will have the same hallucination or make the same mistake in assessing the situation they are looking at? This could be debated, but there is no reason to assume that more eyewitnesses means that the story is accurate. The brain is suggestible, a suggesting that that floating log may be the Loch Ness Monster may taint other eyewitnesses on the seen who, until recently, thought they were just looking at a log (this is essentially how the purported phenomena of "electronic voice phenomena", or "EVP", works; nobody can understand what it says until somebody makes a suggestion, and then everybody can suddenly hear it crystal clear.) The group of people may simply just be out to make money or get attention; with things such as cryptozoology apparently good moneymakers, "seeing" the Nessie might be assessed as a slick way to make some cash. Or it may be a simple mistake by all of them; expecting to see the legendary Scottish lake monster may lead them so take every floating log or every wake as evidence of Nessie (or the monster herself). Such mistakes are known as pareidolia, or apophenia.

A well known case of apophenia is the face on mars. Subsequent,

 better quality,photographs show the lack of any facial features in the 

famous Martian geological formation; the original face was nothing more 

than the brain looking for meaning in random patterns.

     Perhaps the most important thing science allows the human brain to do is to objectively assess a situation or a concept. Humans are not the best when it comes to being objective; we've all our pet ideas or pet peeves. A well known example of this is called the confirmation bias - people will look for evidence, but will only accept the evidence which fits their existing worldview or opinions. Any evidence which would negate that worldview - however qualified and accepted that evidence may be - will simply be ignored. This is one of the most common, and most intellectually damning, of all the logical fallacies. The other being the famous post hoc ergo propter hoc, in which two events are seen, and the immediate conclusion of the human brain is to assume the first event caused the second. 

     Cryptozoology is chalk full of such logical fallacies. Cryptozoologist believe that the giant lizard Megalania prisca is still alive in the Australian outback, despite all evidence to the contrary, because of a few anecdotes from farmers. This is utter poppycock; as an animal that fed on the Australian megafauna, Megalania would, without a doubt, be taking out cows at least once in a while, and we would probably expect to see kangaroo populations take a hit as well. This would all prompt a search for the missing animals and, ultimately, the lizards discovery. This is because farmers, wherever they are, depend on their herds for their livelihood; if even one goes missing, they're going to bug out about it until they either have their cow back or some answers in lieu of the cow; likewise, game wardens aren't likely to sit around while kangaroo and other native species populations inexplicably decrease.
     But there is one cryptid which may, in fact, be at least more plausible than the rest, even though the search for it is as laden with poppycock as the rest of cryptozoology.

Sasquatch - The Great American Non-Human Ape?

     If there is one terrestrial cryptid that has serious street credit, it is undoubtedly Sasquatch. The reported North American ape has a level of credibility few other cryptids have for the simple fact that, as the famous skeptic Michael Shermer is quoted as saying in Don Jeffrey Meldrum's book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science:

.....while occasionally eliciting an acerbic snicker, [it] enjoys greater plausibility [than the jackalope] for a simple evolutionary reason: large hirsute apes currently roam the forests of Africa, and at least one giant ape - Gigantopithecus - flourished some hundreds of thousands of years ago alongside our ancestors. 

     Also known as "Bigfoot", Sasquatch is a large, bipedal, non-human ape that is said to roam the wilds of North America, particularlly the Pacific Northwest and the upper potion of California. The story originally appeared in the public eye in 1958, with the famous Bluff Creek trackway, now believed to be a hoax. It is widely held by skeptics (myself included) that while it is possible for such a substantially sized animal to exist in North America, many of the reported sightings and trackways are wrong identifications or outright hoaxes.Several individuals have indeed come out claiming to have hoaxed people, including: Tom Biscardi (a cryptozoologist), who hoaxed people on the paranormal radio show Coast to Coast AM; the son of Ray Wallace, who hoaxed the original Bluff Creek footprints, who has in his possession the original wooden feet used to perpetrate the hoax; Bob Herionimus claims to have been the Sasquatch in the Patterson/Gimlin film (the subject lovingly referred to as "Patty");  Rick Dyer and Matthew Whitton, of Georgia, United States, claimed to have had a dead non-human, native ape in their possession, only to reveal that it was nothing more than a monkey suit in a freezer. In 2012, a man in Montana, who had actually dressed in a Ghillie suit to hoax a Sasquatch, was actually hit by two cars and killed.

One of the photographs of the Gerogia bigfoot hoax. 

Spoiler alert: carcass made in China. 

     So there we have it. Sasquatch is nothing but a hoax, a funny or cruel (depending on your position) joke played by practical jokers. Mystery solved, we can all go home now.
     Well, before we close the case on this, we have to remember one thing: if people can't be famous for doing good, they'll go for infamous for doing something stupid. Many debunkers jumped on the story when Bob Heironimus claimed to have been the man in the suit at Bluff Creek when the P/G film was shot. Why would he lie? Well, aside from the hoaxed Surgeon's Photograph of Nessie, Heironimus would have been involved in one of the most successful hoaxes in recent history. His walk in the monkey suit would have tricked millions; he would have a lot to gain by claiming to be the hoaxer, as it turns out. And, indeed, it would seem he is telling the truth, as he passed a polygraph test - until you realize that polygraphs are unreliable and incredibly controversial themselves.
     The P/G film brings us to the person involved with the Sasquatch phenomena who is perhaps the most qualified to make any claims about it - Professor Don Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho State University. Holding B.S. in biological sciences specializing in vertebrate locomotion and a Ph.D. in anatomical science with an emphasis on biological anthropology, Meldrum is a far cry from the other "cryptozoologist" such as Matt Monkeymaker, Loren Coleman, or any of the other Sasquatch "researchers" (who have apparently all decided that hunting for an unknown ape cannot possibly be done without some style of cowboy hat).

Professor Don Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho 

State University. With a large collection 

of "Sasquatch" trackways, he is also probably

the only popular Sasquatch researcher with such 

a handsome and professional-looking beard.

 Professor Don Jeffrey Meldum interviewed by Joe Rogan 

on the show Joe Rogan Questions Everything.

     Despite his qualifications, Meldrum has found himself at odds with other respectable authorities. When an anomalous photo of a creature surfaced (image below), forest officials identified it as a bear with mange, while Meldrum said that the limb proportions were not proportional with the limbs of a bear. Having a background in vertebrate locomotion, Meldrum's main interest in the Sasquatch reports is footprints. As such, he has collected a large sampling of Sasquatch casts. 

And then there's this. An ape, or a bear with mange? Does

anybody have any idea? Anybody at all?

     These casts are what set the Sasquatch idea apart from other, more nebulous cryptozoology ideas. While most "cryptozoological mysteries" revolve almost entirely around eyewitness testimony, the Sasquatch movement has (rather refreshingly) objective evidence which can be seen by anybody, and which (more importantly) has been collected, looked at, and catalouged by a person with the proper background to be doing such work. Meldrum is a likable fellow, with the proper background to evaluate the evidence, which is (alarmingly) a rare thing in a "discipline" with such rabid proponents as cryptozoology. Where's your Jeff Meldrum, Loch Ness? 

     

The "Doctor" Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA "Study"

     On the opposite end of the spectrum from Jeff Meldrum is Melba Ketchum, a person who even outdoes Matt Moneymaker (the lead "investigator" from Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot) in terms of Squatchiness. Based in Texas and the figurehead for the Sasquatch Genome Project, she recently made headlines when she announced the findings of a DNA study. The results of this were astonishing for two reasons: (1) the announcement was made before the article on the findings had even been successfully submitted to any scientific, peer-reviewed journal, and (2) it not only verified the DNA tested as belonging to a Sasquatch, it was announced that it was a hybrid of a non-human/unknown ape and a human female, and that, to further complicate the issue, they should be issued human rights under the American Constitution. Yeah, you read that right.

Melba Ketchum, lead author of the "Sasquatch

DNA study" and figurehead of the "Sasquatch

Genome Project". 

     Is this the conclusive proof everybody has been waiting for? Will this finally solve the mystery of the non-human North American ape? Spoiler alert: no. Not only did Ketchum catch a lot of trouble from skeptics, but she was ridiculed by people in the Bigfoot community itself. Think about that - her paper and conclusions were so out there that people who believe Sasquatch is an alien from a UFO were making fun of her. That's a hard thing to pull off. 

The Issues with the "Study"

Issue #1: The major submitter of samples was also a major financier of the project.

     The first issue with this study is that, while Ketchum claims to have done everything needed to prevent contamination of the samples tested, she did not collect said samples herself. She was sent them from another party; as such, no matter how careful her and her team were not to contaminate the samples, no direct statement can be made on the purity of the samples. They may very well have been contaminated before they came into her possession. They were collected from "dozens of individuals and groups from thirty four separate hominin collection sites across North America" (from Ketchum's own paper). Essentially, they studied random submissions from people who had told her they had access to unknown ape genetic material. 

     This doesn't seem so bad at first. This is how most genetic testing is done - somebody claims to have a sample they want analyzed, they find a genetics laboratory that is willing to do the work, and they end up - some time and some cost later - with an answer. Sometimes the answer isn't what they want - such as "this shows that your werewolf was really a raccoon", "this man wasn't the killer", or "these Sasquatch samples are at best inconclusive, at worst outright frauds" - and other times the answer is what they wanted to hear. 

    

One of the submitters even went so far as to release the above photograph of a "sleeping juvenile Sasquatch". It seems totally legit - if you think a generic, somewhat-human looking lump of random fur is enough to prove the existence of a legendary creature, as cyrptids are sometimes referred to. Some, if not all, of the groups which submitted evidence have names that smack of confirmation bias: "Arizona Cryptozoological Research Organization"; "Crypto Four Corners"; "North American Bigfoot Search"; "TexLa Cryptozoological Research Group"; "The Erickson Project"; "The Olympic Project;" and "Weird Research and Investigating the Haunted". Oh, yeah, another side note that utterly destroys the objectivity of this so-called "study" - one of the primary individuals who funded this research was Adrian Erickson, the person who founded "The Erickson Project" and who took the above picture of a sleeping "Sasquatch". 

     Yes, that's right. The guy who is paying Dr. Ketchum's team to "discover" this unknown ape species through genetic research also happens to be one of the guys who brought them their samples and photographic evidence, all while maintaining he's in contact with real-life non-human, North American primates. According to the Sasquatch Genome Project, Erickson started his Sasquatch project not to determine if such a creature actually existed (because, remember, he's sure he knows what he saw), but to verify what he thinks he encountered. If this isn't a clear case of confirmation bias, we must not know what confirmation bias is. 

"I'm Adrian Erickson, and I have no idea 

what a null hypothesis is."

     

     Issue #2: Lack of proper peer review of the article, The DeNovo Journal, and claims of bias from "mainstream" science journals.

    Another issue with the study is that is was never properly peer-reviewed by a major scientific journal. Dr. Ketchum, of course, attributes this to an inherent bias in the way science works. Such a claim is usual in those who do not understand the checks and balances which are built into the process of science; by using peer-review from experts around the world, all vying for substantial scientific recognition among their peers. This means that, if there is a bad idea or a faulty study, it is going to be called out, and eventually culled from the herd of ideas making their way through the scientific community. This is why science is the most important way by which we know what is true and what is not true. 

     Ketchum's claims of turning away her study because it found a new human/ape hybrid species is bloody bollocks. Such a discovery would make whoever discovered it (in this case, Ketchum et al.) and the journal it appeared in famous overnight. Scientists don't go down in history for being yes-people; Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, and others are all famous not for finding evidence which supported prior concepts, but for discovering ideas which overturned or severely modified preexisting scientific principles. In science, the most exciting thing is not the validation of the null hypothesis, but the rejection of the null hypothesis; it may ultimately lead to a Nobel Prize. There's no doubt that, if the Ketchum "study" had been a legitimate scientific endeaver, Nature would love to publish the article. It would be the publisher of one of the major news stories of the new century. 

     So, what did the Ketchum do once the bullies of mainstream science rejected her obviously brilliant and not-at-all-biased-or-incorrect study? She bought - bought - a small journal known as DeNovo, which she then used to distribute her study. Originally, it could be bought for $30 dollars, which is rather steep for an online journal. Especially when said online journal only has one article in it. 

DeNovo - Accelerating science, or science fiction?

Issue #3: Online behavior for the Dr. Melba Ketchum Facebook page.

     Another main issue isn't so much with the article or the study itself, but with the way Melba Ketchum and crew run the Melba Ketchum Faecbok page - namely, if you're not offering your unquestioning support to their quest to overcome the Sasquatch-denying bigots, then you're blocked from commenting. And don't try to message her (or them?) asking how they can verify the validity of their results, because they won't get back to you. Trust me, I've tried. They later took down the message feature so that only they can post things, and the only people who can comment on their posts are people who are telling them what a wonderful job their doing. Now, can we say that the entire project is bunk simply because they don't want to deal with skeptical critics of their work. Of course, not. But we can say that such behavior is most unusual, especially from somebody who really should have anticipated such a reaction from scientifically literate people. 

Meanwhile, In Arachnology.....

     To compare the fruits of cryptozoology with the fruits of other biological sciences, let's choose a discipline almost at random. Arachnology - the study of spiders, scorpions, and their kin. Reddit, Facebook, and online science websites were set ablaze when a bizarre, silken fence was discovered in the Amazon rainforest. While not technically a subject of arachnology (the species of animal which made this has yet to be identified, and it may be a moth or butterfly just as well as a spider), it is a perfect example of the redundancies of cryptozoology. This is a bizarre biological puzzle that has people scratching their heads, and not once was it made to be something it's not. It's been hypothesized that whatever made this fence and cocoon/eggsac may be a species previously undiscovered by science.Why didn't cryptozoologists ever talk about things like this? Probably because cryptozoologists seem to think that all "hidden animals" are big, sexy beasts and not small insects, arachnids, or microorganisms, when the truth is almost the complete opposite. For example, ~43,000 species of spiders are known, and it's estimated that at least that many remain unknown to science. On the few occasions when cryptozoologists look at the possibility of undiscovered spider species, they always assume it's a giant spider (or sulfugid), even though such a thing would be a clear violation of the square-cube law. 

What a surprise; once again, History misrepresents science 

and promotes ignorance on something that should be 

perfectly obvious.

While it is indeed possible that these could have been made by a caterpillar of a moth or butterfly, 

it seems more likely that, given the complexity of the silk-work, it would have been made by a 

spider - organisms known for their elaborate silk weaving.

     Scientist love to name things. Especially if they can name if after themselves (although their findings are often named after the major financier of their research). This is what makes the central principle of cryptozoology so outlandish - they seem to believe that scientists have stopped looking for new things completely. Any scientist would love to be the one to find a new species and have his name go down in the textbooks. Zoologists are always looking for new species, and they're usually better trained in the use of scientific devices (as well a critical thinking and scientific methods) than the self-proclaimed cryptozoologists. Arachnology has found several new species of spiders and is discovering more about them every day. It was recently suggested by evidence that spiders may have personalities. Think about that - spiders, the very animals so many people fear, may have personalities, making them more like to us than before. We value personalities in ourselves, we see them in dogs, we see them in cats and other complex beings - to discover evidence which suggests that spiders have personalities is utterly amazing, something that can blow the mind. 

     Another example from arachnology that trumps anything cryptozoology could produce are the recent spider discoveries. Two new species of previously unknown spiders were found in Uruguay. The story was reported on Science Daily on October 3, 2013.  The two species, dubbed Chaco castanea and Chaco costai, were discovered in river coastal habitats. Before that, in July 2013, a one centimeter long wandering spider called Ctenus monaghan was discovered during the filming of a documentary called "Wild Things." 

"By all means, keep looking for el Chuparabra. That way you 

won't squish me."

    

     

Where Does That Leave Cryptozoology?

     Allow a blunt assessment of the "field" of cryptozoology - it is at best an unregulated, unscientific hobby in which the vast majority of self-labeled "researchers" lack the objectivity and scientific training to substantiate the claims which they assert, and, at its worst, cryptozoology is the promotion of outright frauds and fables to honest people as truth in exchange for money. New species are discovered all the time, but cryptozoologist routinely tell the public that science has stopped looking, or is hiding and/or ignoring evidence of unknown lake monsters, chimeras, or ape/human hybrids. They insist that every unknown animal is a sexy mystery when the majority of unknown animals are tarantula-sized or smaller. Cryptozoologists themselves are unnecessary; of the animals they claim support the field of cryptozoology, not one animal has been found by a cryptozoologist. Every animal has either been found by complete chance (the Coelocanth, long touted by cryptozoologists as proof their field is necessary, was found by a fisherman), by respected explorers, or by mainstream zoologist. While cryptozoologists cite the discovery of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), the mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei), the Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), the giant squid (Architeuthis dux), the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni), and the okapi (Okapia johnstoni) as animals that were once thought to be cryptids, they remain unable to accurately and reliably predict the discovery of new animals. While it could be said that the discovery of the giant and colossal squids could be legitimately used as examples of prediction, their predictions never ventured much beyond their supposed existence; they have not been able to, for example, accurately predict the habitat or life styles of these animals. 

     As James Randi has famously said, "enjoy the fantasy, the thought, the story, but make sure that there's a clear sharp line drawn on the floor. To do otherwise is to embrace madness." When we hear stories of legendary beasts, it is alright to enjoy the though that they might be out there, lurking in the underbrush or in the deep lakes of the hidden back country. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a good campfire story. But the danger comes when we take them too seriously, when we give credence to ideas and propositions that are outlandish and without any evidence. It is not wrong to tell somebody that they may have been hallucinating when the saw the Dover Demon cross the street, for that does not mean they are crazy. It simply means that their brain is as fallible as the rest of ours, and that they, like us, need to constantly remember that what we think we see isn't always what we think it is, just as how answers we get to some questions - like is there a monster in the depths of Loch Ness or Lake Ogopogo - are not the answers we wish we had found. 

     That concludes this month's column of the Skeptical Spider. It has been written by R. Troy Peterson, founder and arachnologist at Relax. I'm an arachnologist. If you wish to see more content, feel free to like the Relax. I'm an arachnologist. Facebook page. R. Troy Peterson is an arachnology student at Central Washington University, and specializes in using arachnids to promote science and skepticism and a general love of arachnids to the public. The views contained within this column are strictly those of R. Troy Peterson, and do not reflect those of Central Washington University, it's faculty, or any affiliated organizations and/or persons. 

Questions and Answers with the Skeptical Spider 1

THE SKEPTICAL SPIDER
(brought to you by Relax. I'm an arachnologist.)

Questions and Answers 

with the Skeptical Spider

-INTRODUCTION-

Why be Skeptical?

     Welcome to the premiere of the 2013-2014 essay series of the Skeptical Entomologist. As the first full series of essays (the previous four-essay collection that ran from April to June 2012 was a mere preview), the Skeptical Entomologist will dive deep into the intellectual detritus to pull up some real nuggets of wisdom. As the Bug Dude does, indeed, have more varied interests than just his love of invertebrates (even though one may more aptly call that love "obsession"), the topics of the return Skeptical Entomologist essay series will be more varied, although it will relate everything covered to the science of invertebrates. To kick off the series, and to celebrate the grandeur of the scope which the series, R. Troy Peterson will be answering some questions submitted to the Bug Dude Facebook page. There were no guidelines other than

(1) The questions had to be concise and well thought out;

(2) The questions had to be serious inquiries;

(3) The questions had to be suitable for a family audience. 

     Albert Einstein once said

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead --- his eyes are closed.[1]

     So, to, can the beauty be missed by focusing too tightly on simply one discipline. As noble, interesting, entertaining, and educational as the study of insects and arachnids may be, they are far from the only discipline in the catalogs of science. All around us and them is a massively impressive cosmos that can inspire us. The Bug Dude is no stranger to this emotion; the wonders of the distant cosmos can cause the mouth to gape, and seeing our own blue world in the skies of Mars can bring a tear to the eye. 
     But even though there is much in science to be awed at and to learn from, there are also ideas that take up the mask of science (so to speak), not for the betterment of humanity or for the love of discovery and exploration, but for deceit. For selfishness, greed, to fulfill that minute and mischievous corner of the human mind. These are the frauds, those who deal wolf tickets and snake oil, those who take advantage of the spoils of scientific literacy while they mock and deny the very principles, people, evidence, and system of inquiry which has allowed such spoils to be achieved. These are the pseudoscientists.
     The way around such pseudoscientific thinking is not through violence or verbal assaults - the way to promote true scientific skepticism and literacy is by promoting it. That's it. Show the world how wonderful and amazing the universe is without sinking to the level of those who twist the true face of the universe into a mask they use to pry the coins from the pockets of others. It was for this reason the Skeptical Entomologist exists; to spread one man's love of not only insects and arachnids, but of the universe and science as well. To spread ideas worth sharing, to try to bring the world together to discuss things which should be discussed. Because we are human beings; the bipedal ape Homo sapien sapien, which experiences on this earth are - at the very best - finite and ephemeral in the grandeur of the universe. It should be spent in joyful, intellectual discussions and peace, not in deceitful words and violence. 

The Importance of Skepticism

     

Skepticism - a questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts. [2]

     There are some incredibly good reasons as to why a skeptical outlook on life is important. While the term "skeptic" has become somewhat tarnished in recent years (thanks to the associate people seem to make between skepticism and cynicism), there is really nothing wrong with skepticism. Rather, it is the real basis of science, the driving tool behind it. Science is, after all, really nothing more than the set of intellectual tools we use to better direct that most basic of human traits - curiosity. Every human is a natural scientist; to a young child, the world is entirely unknown to him. What does this do? Why does this hurt? Why is this salty or that sweet? Where does this come from? What IS this? Also, much like a toddler, unbridled curiosity tends to pull toward whatever is appealing at the moment. Curiosity is a great thing, but it needs to be applied in a systematic, organized way so that what is learned can be cataloged and remembered, not just by that generation, but by generations after. Skepticism is an essential part of curiosity; one could say that is is a refined curiosity. To the curious, any answer will do, and then it's on to the next thing. To the skeptical, each answer must be weighed by the available evidence, and although some concepts (such as the theories of evolution, microorganisms, or plate tectonics) may be what could be confidently called a fact, a skeptic understands that knowledge isn't written in stone. Things may change, and even though some things (once again, evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics) are undeniably fact, there is a chance (albeit minuscule) that, in a rare fossil find, they may be turned on their heads. 

     Perhaps that is the reason why so many people are seemingly turned off by skeptical thinking these days. It's not very reassuring to think that something you hold to be true, however close, could one day be proven wrong. It's never an easy thing to change one's worldview. But a skeptical person knows that being skeptical is not so black and white. It is, at it's very core, a way to become more educated about the cosmos in which we live. It can open our eyes to the very beauty which we try to attain through other means. It can also provide us with immediate benefits in our every day lives - scams avoided, arguments prevented. Being skeptical may certainly prevent one form blundering into a situation like a fool. As the great Carl Sagan once put it,

Science is more than a body of knowledge, it's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, which comes ambling along.[3]

     Perhaps nobody could say it better than Carl Sagan, whose books and television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage inspired generations.  

...And Here's the Point 

     As Relax. I'm an arachnologist. is primarily an arachnology community, the subjects covered will all be related back to and compared with the science of invertebrates, particularly insects and arachnids. Some of these will be more apparent than others - say an example is given of human social interactions; the obvious invertebrate comparison to this would be to bees, wasps, ants, and termites, all insects which often have large, bustling communities. Others, such as the need to be ethical or more pseudoscientific concepts, may be more difficult to ascertain the ways in which they may be related to the science of invertebrates. Because of their diversity, such animals naturally lend themselves to metaphor and comparisons. Society, particularly in the United States, has long called murderous women with a tendency to kill their husbands "black widows", after the genus Latrodectus, of which the females are purported to eat their male counterparts after copulation. 

     The point of this essay series is to demonstrate how diverse scientific disciplines are different, and yet how they are alike. To show the reader how skepticism is as useful when determining whether a spider is dangerous as well as when determining if a claim heard on the street is true. Over the course of this series you will encounter a variety of seemingly unrelated topics, from determining the truth of pseudoscientific claims such as crytpozoology and UFO visitation to economics and ethics, and much more. And so here we stand, at the precipice of the first full run of the Skeptical Spider essay series, ready to dive into the world of science and skepticism. The Skeptical Spider relates everything back to the study of insects and arachnids because, at heart, that is what interests him. His love for these animals is obsessive and active, always looking to learn, to teach, to share. As the late Steve Irwin once said, 

I believe that education is all about being excited about something. Seeing passion and enthusiasm helps push an educational message.

     And if R. Troy Peterson is passionate about anything, it's about terrestrial invertebrates. 

-QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH THE SKEPTICAL ENTOMOLOGIST-

     To get things started, we'll take a question from the Bug Dude Facebook page. 

QUESTION - Would you consider doing care sheets? For species available in the herp hobby? I always enjoy reading care sheets from different people to see what they choose to do and try. Also nice to compare my own experience with inverts. 

ANSWER - I've done something similar to care sheets in the past, although it wasn't about animals available as pets per se. When I started the Bug Dude, I had a little gimmick I called the "Terrestrial Invertebrate of the Day". In this little bit, I'd Google images of random invertebrates and choose one. I'd then research the animal and post the image along with the basic information, such as habitat, distribution, length, diet, and one interesting fact. While individual fact was varied, it often wasn't very detailed, and the images were almost never credited. 

     After a while, mostly due to demands form school, the "Terrestrial Invertebrate of the Day" just stopped. It wasn't didn't peter out; it just stopped popping up on the page. I rather liked doing the research, as it helped me learn myself each time I did it. Perhaps the biggest issue was that it was supposed to be uploaded every day, which at times became almost impossible to do in addition to my normal work load. Another factor that led to the demise of the segment - I read an article by Alex Wild in which he talks about how I Fucking Love Science didn't credit the photographers. As I had not been crediting the photographers for the segment (often they weren't given), this article made me feel rather guilty. That played a part in the end of the segment as well. 

     I have been considering doing something similar, but more in line with what the Bug Dude has become. As I want to not limit the page to mere insects and spiders, but other terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, the segment would be much more varied - mollusks, echinoderms, arthropods, all of those may be fair game to appear. I'll also be making them more detailed, including, when applicable, how they should be maintained in captivity. 

========================================================================

QUESTION - Care to comment on this? Think it's bug related?

ANSWER - This is an interesting topic, and even more interesting that I was asked this because - as luck would have it - I'm going to discuss this at length in a later essay this year (sorry, no spoilers). It would certainly appear to be, at first glance, bug related - or, perhaps, more accurately, I would peg it as spider related, as it would seem to be more likely that such intricate silk work would originate from an organism we already know uses silk in intricate ways. Assuming, or course, it is not a hoax (I have no reason to suspect it would be presently).

     Science stories like this are excellent reminders that, even despite our mastery of the planet (or supposed mastery, perhaps), there are still things that we do not understand in our figurative backyard. Such discoveries baffle our brains and provide us with a chance to test our skeptical and scientific abilities, as well as our determinism to find the truth. We all have our own ideas about this bizarre fence-like web, but until it it conclusively attributed to an organism, we can never be completely sure of its origin. 

========================================================================

QUESTION - Besides daddy long legs, what is the best spider to have in your house, and more or less crawling on your in general? 

ANSWER - This is a question that could be answered in two ways. The first part is relatively simple to answer. Every spider in your house could be potentially beneficial to have around. Perhaps the most beneficial spider species would be jumping spiders. These spiders are usually small, generally un-spiderlike in appearance, and fun to observe. As they are active hunters, they won't produce webs, which (as it turns out) many people find aesthetically unpleasant. In the Pacific Northwest, a common spider is Tegenaria agrestis, the hobo spider; this spider, despite it's reputation, is harmless and hunts on the ground. Other genera, such as intimidating Lycosidae, the medically significant Latrodectus spiders and Loxosceles reclusa, and (even though they're not spiders) individuals of the order Solifugae and Scorpiones, can be picked up and moved outside to locales where human interaction is not likely to occur. 

     As for what is best to have crawl on you, that is a more difficult question to answer. There are some spiders, such as the American grass spider, the house spiders (T. agrestis and T. domestica), and essentially any other spider you find, which are not considered to be medically significant. These are safe for essentially anybody to handle, provided care it taken during the process. Larger spiders found in the pet trade, most notably new- and old-world tarantulas, could be said to be more appropriate for larger children, teens, and adults, since they're larger size means (naturally) larger fangs. Although some species can cause medically significant effects (for example, the bite of the king baboon spider, Pelinobius muticus, has been known to cause hallucinations and an itch that lasted for days.[4]), the primary cause for concern is the size of the fangs - on such large spiders, a better way to look at a bite medically is in the form of a minor stab wound. A rose hair tarantula, Grammostola rosea, has very week venom; as such, in case of a bite, most of the attention would be directed to the site of the bite and potential risk of infection. 

     Handling more dangerous spiders is even more dependent on the person. A Latrodectus hesperus, the western black widow (I should mention, of course, that I own one; it is in a well enclosed cage on my nightstand), can inflict a bite that varies - a healthy human adult may feel some severe discomfort and have to take pain medication (some people have been known to self medicate black widow bites by taking hot baths to relax the muscles; this is because the antivenin is used as a last resort, and only the pain is largely treated), but a young child may be fighting for his life. Medical science has made even the bite of the infamous Sydney funnel web spider less than fatal. The question is - even with the knowledge you will not likely be killed, would you still want to hold one?

     This question is also hinged on the experience of the handler, their level of nervousness, and a variety of factors that neither the handler nor the spider can control. I am not overly comfortable about holding black widows, but it's something I can do if I have my wits about me. I'd be even more hesitant about holding a funnel web form down under, but if I had the antivenin on hand, I suppose I'd give it a go. However, if you wish to get people more accustomed to spiders, I suggest the handling of jumping spiders, aggressive and domestic house spiders, and grass spiders. These are all harmless, and although at times they can be fast and intimidating, are not only useful for teaching a love of spiders, they make great pets for children. 

========================================================================

-CONCLUSION-

This concludes the first essay of the Skeptical Spider. Due to outside influences, the first essay was not as long as originally plan. Nevertheless, it is the author's hope that it was entertaining, educational, and thought-provoking. Questions can always be submitted to the Facebook page, and questions may be included as bonus content on upcoming essays. 

        

  

[1] R. H. Popkin, The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (rev. ed. 1968); C. L. Stough, Greek Skepticism (1969); M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition (1983); B. Stroud, The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism (1984). Encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com
[2]http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/a-day-to-remember-carl-sagan/
[3] Klátil, L., Sklípkani, Zlín 1998, p. 37 and 40

The Effects of Alcohol on Oxygen Consumption in Acheta domesticus.

The Bug Dude presents The Skeptical Entomologist 

The Effects of Alcohol on 

Oxygen Consumption of Acheta domesticus 

ABSTRACT

                Chemical processes are the basis by which all life on earth functions. The set of all chemical reactions which take place inside of an organism is known as metabolism. Metabolism can be influenced by several factors, including diet, activity, the organism’s immediate environment, and exposure to chemicals. To test the effects of alcohol consumption, this experiment was designed to look at the effects of alcohol on the nymphs of Acheta domesticus, better known as the European house cricket. One group was used as a “sober” control, while two were exposed to alcohol. Crickets from the three different groups were placed in microrespirometers, which were then placed inside tepid water baths; a solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH) was used to determine the rate of respiration from the crickets. Experimental results suggest that exposure to alcohol does affect metabolic and respiratory rate of A. domesticus.

INTRODUCTION

Chemical reactions are essential for life to exist. Metabolism is the collective term for the chemical changes which occur inside an organism’s cells. It can be broken down into two distinct processes: catabolic (deconstruction) reactions and anabolic (construction) reactions. Catabolic reactions, in which complex sugars, proteins, and lipids are broken down, are often associated and completed with the use of enzymes. The overall metabolism of an organism is largely dependent on the nutrients available; on the chemicals which are found in its immediate vicinity; and on whether the organism produces and maintains a constant temperature.

Many different organisms could be used to scientifically investigate the complex relationships which affect an organism’s metabolism. One of the easiest organisms is the European house cricket, Acheta domesticus, which is hardy and easy to breed in captivity. Due to its hardiness and ease of care, A. domesticus is largely captive bred for uses in science, as a feeder animal in the pet trade, and, increasingly, for use in the culinary arts. As European house crickets are ectothermic invertebrates, their metabolism is highly influenced by their immediate environment. Crickets raised at lower ambient temperatures have been observed to require longer intervals in which to reach adulthood when compared to crickets raised even a few degrees higher; A. domesticus also used more energy in its metabolism (Booth, Kiddel, 2007). Especially relevant to this experiment is the method by which insects take in atmospheric oxygen; while many other animals have a respiratory system which includes lungs, insects such as A. domesticus lack such complex structure. Oxygen is taken in through holes on the sides of their bodies known as spiracles; these openings lead to an inner system of trachea and tracheoles, through which gas exchange occurs. Also of relevance to this experiment is the circulatory system of insects: such animals have an open circulatory system, in blood sinuses play the role of the cappilaries found in closed circulatory systems. Also of interest, the “blood” of arthropods is not actually blood, but rather an analogous substance known as “hemolymph”, in which hemocyanin acts as a proxy for hemoglobin.  

In this experiment, the focus was the effect of alcohol on the metabolism and respiration on A. domesticus. Alcohol is a complex organic molecule (such as C₆H₁₀O₅), which produces various effects when consumed; effects range from impaired mental abilities to increased blood pressure, and induces higher degrees of detrimental until eventually causing death if sufficiently high quantities are consumed. The effects of alcohol consumption on cricket nymphs was measured with a device known as a microrespirometer, a simple device, easily constructed for an impromptu experiment, which measures the volume of gas inside. (Lee Jr., 1995)  A microrespirometer is constructed of weights, a syringe, a micropipette, and is relatively simple to make.  While this device can be used to determine the rate of metabolism, the resultant figures may vary significantly, and add an amount of error to the experiment. (Van Voorhies., 2008) The experimental null hypothesis was that there would be no alterations on the respiration and metabolic rates of A. domesticus. The alternative hypothesis was that A. domesticus, when exposed to alcohol, would exhibit altered rates of respiration as well as metabolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To study the effects of alcohol on the respiration and metabolism of Acheta domesticus, three separate microrespirometers were constructed out of a syringe, a micropipette tube, and three metal washers (to ensure stability while immersed in the water bath). Prior to construction, each syringe was checked to ensure proper seals. Using a hot glue gun, nine metal washers were glued together in groups of three. Once the glue had been allowed to set, each group of three was then glued onto the bottom of a syringe plunger. Then, three micropipette tubes were glued into the tips of the three syringes, once again via a hot glue gun. Once the seals had sufficiently dried, the parts were assembled. The three microrespirometers were ready to be used, and each one was weighed.

Six Acheta domesticus nymphs were then obtained, of which three were immediately distributed into one of the three microrespirometers; the new weight (cricket plus apparatus) was recorded. The remaining three individuals were placed in a plastic container in which cotton swabs bathed in alcohol had been placed, thus ensuring the animals would be exposed to the alcohol without drowning. The microrespirometers were then placed in baths of tepid water, resting on the three washers. Each cricket was allotted five minutes to acclimate to the air/water temperature differential. Upon the conclusion of the acclimation period, a drop of potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution was added to the tip of the micropipette tube, after which the three A. domesticus underwent observation for 20 minutes. The respiration rate was determined through the movement of the KOH solution down the micropipette tube; as the animal consumed more atmospheric oxygen, the KOH solution was pulled down the tube a proportional amount. The height of the KOH solution was recorded every five minutes (0; 5; 10; 15; 20 minutes) throughout the trial, and the behavior of the A. domesticus was noted as well.

Once the control/sober trial had reached completion, the micropipette tubes were properly disposed of, and replaced with fresh ones; the simple machines were then weighed, as were the original microrespirometers. The sober crickets were then fed to captive Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudacris regilla). Then, the three experimental A. domesticus, which had become “intoxicated” via breathing the alcohol fumes (which had evaporated off the cotton swabs), were obtained and placed in the fresh microrespirometers. The cricket/microrespirometer combination was weighed, and the weight of the cricket determined. The refreshed microrespirometers were then placed, plunger down, in the tepid water bath, and, once again, the nymphs were allotted five minutes to acclimate to the ambient temperature of the water. Once acclimated, one drop of KOH solution was added to each micropipette tube, and, as in the control/sober trial, the nymphs were observed for a duration of twenty minutes. Again, the height of the KOH solution was noted every five minutes.

Once the experimental trial had been completed, the intoxicated A. domesticus were humanely dealt with. The raw data was compiled and calculated: the volume of the capillary tube was divided by the length of the capillary tube (units: µl/mm); the resultant value was then multiplied by the absolute value of the height differential (final minus initial, in mm). The resultant value is then divided by the mass of the cricket, and, finally, that value is divided by the time of the trial run (in hours; 20 minutes = 1/3 hours). These calculations were carried out for each microrespirometer in each trial. Once completed, they resulting values were averaged, and the trials were compared to each other. The experiment was over.

RESULTS

Once the data had been calculated, the results were compared. The experiment yielded results which would be highly unlikely if the null hypothesis were true. The intoxicated A. domesticus nymphs exhibited an immensely higher level of oxygen consumption than sober nymphs. Intoxicated individuals were calculated as consuming oxygen at a rate of 29.19 µl/(g*h), whereas the control trial averaged a rate of 12.60 µl/(g*h). Exposure to high levels of concentrated alcohol seemingly caused an increase of over twice the normal oxygen consumption; as oxygen consumption can be used to determine metabolic rates of minute arthropods, it can be reasonably stated that the alcohol affects metabolic process of A. domesticus, at least while the animals are nymphs.

.

DISCUSSION

                The experiment successfully rejected the null hypothesis. The results make it readily apparent that exposure to alcohol at sufficiently high levels have an apparent effect on oxygen consumption and, by tentative association, metabolic rates of A. domesticus nymphs. While the direct effect on nymph metabolic processes cannot be directly determined from so simple and impromptu an experiment, it does provide enough information to warrant further study. Exposure to alcohol certainly increases respiration rate.

                New Mexico State University scientist have  concluded the measurements taken by such simple instruments to be insufficient in accounting for all of the complexities which are present in the metabolic processes of an animal, even as small as a cricket. As such, it is important to remember that no direct claims regarding the metabolic processes of A. domesticus can be rejected (or fail to be rejected) from this experiment; this experiment only serves to examine whether or not alcohol affects the rate of oxygen consumption in such animals. As the results deviated highly from what would be expected until a normal distribution, it would not be unreasonable to assert that alcohol consumption does indeed produce observable results on Acheta domesticus. The experiment does leave behind several unanswered questions: did exposure to alcohol induce such effects only because the animals were nymphs, or would adult A. domesticus exhibit the same behaviors? Was the rate of respiration due exclusively to the exposure of alcohol, or was it a combination of “drunkenness” and exposure to the lower temperature of the water bath? Were the results influenced by the stress and mild trauma of the experimental processes, such as being caught, being dropped into a syringe, and so on? Were the respiratory rates directly correlated to the metabolic processes of the animals, or is it simply an indicator which may be used as a rule of thumb, without directly attesting to the unseen chemical processes proceeding within a living cricket? Such questions can only be determined through more experimentation, using more sensitive technologies, using different populations of Acheta domesticus.

                Also worth noting is the physical behavior of the intoxicated crickets; those exposed to alcohol seemed more inclined to behave sluggishly than their sober counterparts (conversely, one or two drunk individuals were severely hyperactive when compared to sober animals). This could also be attributed to the consumption of high concentrations of alcohol fumes; such high levels of a poisonous gas could have very likely interfered with normal functioning of the central nervous system. While it is possible to receive such an assortment of individuals exhibiting these behaviors from a normal population distribution, the probability of doing so is so small that it is more likely the observed behaviors were alcohol induced, and not the result of genetic predisposition or temperament.

REFERENCES

Booth, DT; Kiddell, K. "Temperature and the energetics of development in the house cricket     

            (Acheta domesticus)." J Insect Physiol. 2007 Sep;53(9):950-3. Epub 2007 Mar 30.                 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezp.lib.cwu.edu/pubmed/17481649)

Lee, Jr. Richard A. "Using microrespirometers to measure O₂ consumption by insects & small      invertebrates" The American Biology Teacher. Vol. 57, No. 5 (May, 1995), pp.284-285

Van Voorhies, Wayne A.; Melvin, Richard G.; O. Ballard, J. William; Williams, Joseph B.          

                  "Validation of manometric microrespirometers for measuring oxygen     consumption in small   arthropods". Journal of Insect Physiology Volume 54, Issue 7,     July 2008, Pages 1132-1137, ISSN 0022-1910, 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2008.04.022.

                    (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022191008000863)