Bio 103, Lab 2, Darwin's Voyage Revisited Revisited

We, Claire, Kristell, Laura, and Emily traveled to planet farther to compare what we observed aw to what the astronauts before us observed. Our macro-observations generally matched those of the previous explorers, but upon closer observation (with a magnifying tool), we found more forms of life (so we suspect). We spotted a rather large, mostly brown object which matched a description the previous group had. The previous group had claimed that when they "attacked" it, it had something fly at them-- i.e. it defended itself. When Emily did the same, at first there was no reaction from the "organism". Upon shaking the organism more vigorously, however, about five things flew at/fell on her from above, but did not harm her. We do not know whether this was a voluntary action or a physical reaction (involuntary) due to the force Emily applied.

Smaller observations:

We observed what we thought was a family of organisms that were mostly similar but had some variation in the shapes of their appendages (see figure A). Upon a closer look, we observed that each organism shared the following similarities: they were all green, and they all had the same general structure (a tall, upright, thin protrusion from the ground and one or many appendage(s) at the top). Where there was variance in height or appendage size, we concluded that the difference(s) did not necessarily indicate different breeds-- the smaller versions tended to be lighter green, and attached to the larger versions of the same appendage shape. That made us believe that the smaller, lighter versions were the younger, newer regenerations of the larger organism(s). When we used a magnifiying glass we observed that there were similar patterns on every one of the different appendage shapes, looking roughly like human skin does (a hand, for eg) under a magnifying glass. It had a triangular pattern with "pores." We believe that the different appendage shapes indicates the different breeds of the same species.

Similarities in our catagorization/classification scheme in comparison to the two previous explorers' schemes:

-green

-bound to ground

-evidence of growth

Differences/additions in our catagorization/classification scheme in comparison to the two previous explorers' schemes:

-free moving, individual organisms

-Close-up patterns in appendages (leaves)

-White as a new color signifying life (and ground-bound)

Most of these observations were made with the aid of the magnifying glass. There were more patterns (or lack thereof) between similar things (organisms?) that lent themselves to further, detailed comparison and contrast between species or breeds.

Theories:

-that closer inspection of detail lets us get closer to figuring out whether things are related or not.

-all the green, appendage-bearing objects are all connected to the ground, so they could all be the same organism-- or they could be separate ones (when a small appendage-protrusion object is pulled from the ground, it comes out with thin fibers on the end of it-- but we do not know whether these fibers were attached to other fibers underground).

-the free moving organisms are most likely diffrent organisms from the groung-bound one(s), because they seem to be more autonomous. For example, when Emily blew on the eight-legged organism, it moved quickly away, and continued to move farther than the force of Emily's breath should have pushed it.

Our group separated all of the organisms into seven main groups, some were subdivided, others were placed in between groups, essentially classified based upon the appearance of the organism. Our main groups were: 

1) Four limbed organisms

     I.  W/opposable thumbs

    II.  Large land creatures

   III.  Slimy looking organisms

            A.  Large slimy organisms

            B.  Small slimy organisms

2) Swimming organisms

3) Organisms with out limbs

4) Winged organisms

     I.  Flying

     II.  Non-flying

5) Organisms with more than four limbs

     I.  Aquatic

    II.  Non-aquatic

6) Plants/Fungi

     I.  Land Plants

         A.  Tall land plants

         B.  Small land plants

     II.  Aquatic Plants

         A.  Tall aquatic plants

         B.  Small aquatic plants

7) Organisms too small to be seen with the naked eye

There were a few organisms could not fit solely into one category, the  jelly fish, lobster, octopus, and starfish fell between categories 2 and 5,  while the eel fell between categories 2 and 3.  The butterfly and fly fell between categories 4 and 5.

The pros of our system are that it more easily lines up with everyday human experience, allowing for easy-to-memorize subdivisions between categories that mesh with the expected classification system.  The purpose of categorization is utility, and this is a useful way to categorize things if you need to make comparisons in everyday life.

The cons are that while the system makes sense for snap judgements, it is very vague, allowing for more disagreement over categorization over a more specified system.  Because we don't have tools for close examination of the organisms, close biological investigation may reveal more important links between creatures.

We believe there is some evidence of nested clumpy diversity but we need more organisms to get a more complete picture of the connections between life forms.

After updating our equipment and informing our initial observations, we returned to the distant planet Nearer to begin the classification process. Focusing on plant-life, we devised a hierarchical system of categorization so as to enable a dialogue and further study about the life on Nearer. The following is a brief summary of our system.

Beginning under the grand umbrella of plant life, we began our divisions based on plants with stalks and plants without stalks.

Plants with stalks were father divided between wooded and non wooded plants. Since most wooded plants exceeded the height of 1 meter, we mainly focused on non-wooded plants. The basic distinction between non wooded plants with stalks is whether or not these plants have leaves, or are a single blade. The next categories were based upon the thickness of either the leaves or the blades, whichever category the plants are in. Since this is somewhat subjective, plants with leaves broader than half a centimeter are not considered to have thin blades or leaves. To further distinguish between leafed plants, we added categories for small hairs on the plant body, and finally the general direction of primary growth, either upwards (away from the ground) or outwards (spreading away from a central point).

The division of the non-stalk plants (moss) began with the separation of the fibrous and leafy varieties.  To begin with the fibrous variety, we further divided this section by the thickness of the moss.  From this division, there emerged different two groups.  The fibrous moss found to be less than 1.49 cm (the first group) were classified as the species "brittle moss," and those that are over 1.5 cm (the second group) were divided into two different species the "pillow moss" and the "rug moss." Leafy moss was similarly divided. All plants under 1 cm were deemed "cactus moss" and all plants over 1 cm were deemed "ivy moss." These distinctions were made based on height while the names focused on the particular look of the plant and its potential earthly correlate.

-Dr. David A Richardson, PhD

-Julia M Stuart, = )

-JJ

-Lili Elsesser

-Herman Marcia