Contents
           
 
|
Animal Magic
|
Gadzooks! Giant Tropical Penguins! |
Thoroughly Modern Tropical Penguin
|
As many of our dear (and tolerant) readers already know, the CMB editorial
crew have a penchant for whacky wildlife stories, with a particular bias to those stories
that involve sharks. What you may not know is that some of us also have a particular affinity
with penguins (weird, perhaps, but perfectly harmless, we assure you). So we were delighted
to read in the international press that scientists have recently found the fossilised remains
of a giant tropical penguin off the coast of what is now Peru. This is an exciting discovery
(well, we think so, anyway). The prehistoric penguin Icadyptes salasi lived around 36
million years ago, at a time when the Earth was much warmer than today. It stood 5 feet
tall (that is BIG for a penguin) and had a hugely elongated beak, shaped like a spear. Now,
although most modern penguins prefer to live in the cool of the Antarctic, you do of course
have an exception with the tropical Galapagos penguin, which prefers a warmer climate. But
up until now, it was thought that the Galapagos penguin (which is in any case smaller than
the Antarctic type) was a relatively recent arrival in evolutionary terms, arriving in the
tropics only after the earth had cooled down after a major period of global warming. So it
comes as a surprise to scientists to discover that some ancient penguins were apparently so
fond of warm weather that they made their way Northwards towards the Equator. We, however,
have always been convinced that one day penguins would take over the world.
|
Sandcastles are more dangerous than sharks
Deadly
|
In previous issues we pointed out that sharks tend to get a bit of a bad
press. If we remember rightly, early in the Bugle’s history, in the
February edition, we supplied you with the quote from Humane Society
International that “you have more chance of being killed by a falling
vending machine than by a great white shark”. This month we find that
according to the New England Journal of Medicine (via The Guardian
online) sandcastles have been responsible for a greater number of
fatalities in the US since 1990 than shark attacks. For those of you who
are interested in the figures, sandcastles have apparently accounted for
16 deaths whereas shark attacks have accounted for 12. So what makes
sandcastles so dangerous? Is it that people trip and impale themselves
on the little flags used as embellishments? No, Let’s be fair, it’s not
the actual sandcastles that are the problem, but the “sand holes and
tunnels that are the by-product of sandcastle building and other
juvenile beach fortifications” that pose a hazard, in that people sink
into the sand and get buried.
Benign
|
Clearly, it’s not a nice way to go, and one death from this type of accident is one death
too many. However, these incidents are extremely rare, which makes the actions of the beach
patrol on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts seem somewhat over the top. Lifeguards are under
strict instructions to stop children digging deep holes in the sand. If the hole is more than
waist deep, the children are ordered to fill it in. Surprise, surprise, this move is not
incredibly popular with beachgoers. In a similar vein, some of you who were at the
Midsummer Solstice Party (more of that later) may remember(?!) a conversation about human
risk assessment, pop-up toasters, alarm clocks and airplane crashes. For those of you who
weren’t there, to cut a long story short, it would seem that if one discounts all other
variables, and merely refers to deaths per annum, then alarm clocks are very dangerous
indeed. Anyway we see mileage in the “You’ve got more chance of being killed by a …..
[apparently harmless object] than a great white shark” theme for Bugle readers.
|
Don’t Slander a Pirhana
 |
Pirhanas
Just eat
Bananas? |
 |
Apparently it is not only the shark that has been misrepresented by
the media. A research team from St Andrew’s University in Scotland,
recently returned from the depths of the Amazon in Brazil has made a
startling claim regarding one of the most feared fish on the planet.
The small but supposedly savage pirhana, (let’s call this one Percy,
for the sake of argument) has a terrifying reputation for giving
people a seriously nasty bite which lets blood seep into the water
which then in turn leads (Percy) the pirhana to gang up with all of
his or her mates so that they can mercilessly eat you to pieces.
Really good scene in an ancient James Bond movie where the villain
has a pool full of pirhanas in his living room….(this is by the by).
However, the Scottish research team - who we hope and pray were
nowhere near any indigenous small scale community that relies on
psychoactive cactus to aid communication—would argue differently.
According to them, most pirhanas are omnivores, and are shy and
sensitive souls. So is it safe to go swimming with pirhanas? Well,
if you go by some of the scars of the locals, no, not really,
pirhanas will still give you a nasty bite—as will ‘cuddly nice-guy’
dolphins if they’re pissed off. and / or re-routed to the Amazon. So
how did Percy gain his reputation for being a ‘vicious little
fish?’. All Theodore Roosevelt’s fault in 1913, apparently, as a
result of a staged stunt by hospitable locals trying to make his
holiday in South America a little bit more exciting. I wonder what
locals would have done if Teddy had gone to Portsmouth - let loose
Horatio, the Horrific Hampshire Haddock |
|
|
