#bee whistler creations

[bee-whistler]

Easter potato.

[ccc-sarahjaneseddon]

Whakapapa is Genealogy. Among New Zealand Māori, such knowledge is encoded and recorded in a mental construct called whakapapa. Whakapapa functions as a genealogical table or family pedigree in which lineages connect to each papa or layer(a metaphorical reference to each generation of a family.) Māori use of whakapapa and narrative creates a “metaphysical gestalt” or whole, integrated pattern for oral communication of knowledge. In this example of reading it is based off plant and animal whakapapa, to understand plant and animal whakapapa requires knowledge. Also mentioned in this reading is that whakapapa is a key focus of many Māori concerns about GOM. The case study of the kūmara demonstrates that whakapapa and narrative serve important and legitimate cultural functions, such as making sense of a complex world, imparting moral guidance and concerning risk-taking activities and their consequences, and reaffirming deeply held cultural beliefs. A case study of the kūmara whakapapa shows that the Kūmara is thought to have originated in south America(whistler 1991, 52). Kūmara has also been mentioned in Māori Mythology, we traditionally link back to our knowledge of Māori mythology in whakapapa. We use ancestral knowledge in dicovering whakapapa. Whakapapa provides a cognitive template of great utility in an oral society. Whakapapa thus enable a wealth of knowledge to be conveniently situated, memoriesed, recalled and transmitted. This information provides the necessary sources of meaning and understanding required for variety of different purposes. It is possible for decedents alive today to recite from memory their whakapapa back to a canoe ancestor. All three whakapapa - of Kūmura, aruhe, and ti - demonstrate the importance of pragmatic as well as cultural considerations in their creation. There are some intriguing similarities and differences between both plant/animal and human whakapapa and modern scientific classifications based on the concept of phylogeny. All three share a similar concern with attempting to identify descent from a common ancestor or ancestors. But the human whakapapa involved only single species and therefore are more closely allied in terms of their underlying philosophy to modern phylogenetic classifications in their presumptions of relationships based on genetically. Inherited characteristics; Plant and animal whakapapa are specific to place, vary from region to region depending on, among other things, climate and biophysical Whakapapa can claim to bee genealogies in the sense that all things they encompass a closely shared genetic inheritance.

Short definition of Whakapapa:

Whakapapa is Genealogy. Whakapapa can be through the connection of plants and animals as well as humans by using ancestral knowledge and Mātauraunga Māori. For example, cosmological knowledge, ancestral knowledge, Mythology and narratives to determine the whakapapa. Case studies also have demonstrated Whakapapa, for example using Kūmara to clarify the rationale for the groupings and implied relationships included in this whakapapa. (pg 2) Kūmara case study has also been mentioned in Māori Mythology, we traditionally link back to our knowledge of Māori mythology in whakapapa.  Overall Whakapapa functions as a genealogical table or family pedigree in which lineages connect to each papa or layer(a metaphorical reference to each generation of a family.(pg1)

Roberts, Mere (Ngāti Apakura, Ngāti Hikairo), et al. "Whakapapa as a Māori mental construct: Some implications for the debate over genetic modification of organisms". The Contemporary Pacific 16.1, 2004, 1-28.

[rachelcarsoncenter]

This is the second installment on mosquitoes to coincide with the Rachel Carson Legacy Symposium “Mosquitopia? The Place of Pests in a Healthy World” being held this weekend (24–27 October 2019). Here, the authors summarize some of the main arguments against trying to rid the world of mosquitoes. This special feature is part of our ongoing blog series “Silent Spring Continued: A World without Insects.”

*Feature image: Pictorial Monograph of Birds (1885) by Numata Kashu (1838-1901). Digitally enhanced by Rawpixel Ltd, CC BY-NC 4.0.

By Marcus Hall and Dan Tamir

Far from a complete list, below we highlight some of the main arguments for saving mosquitoes.

Strategic: We must remind ourselves that we are ultimately battling disease, not mosquitoes, and that there may be more effective, more economical, more ethical ways to do this than mosquito control. Malaria once emanated from swamps and bad air, though with more evidence it became clear that mosquitoes were the vectors of this disease. Should we be putting greater efforts into battling the plasmodia pathogens rather than the carriers of them? Should we be focusing at still smaller levels, such as on the chemicals set in motion by the pathogens? Zoologist Marston Bates once called DDT the “sledge-hammer approach to mosquito control” since DDT caused so much collateral damage to other living things, from birds and fish to desirable insects such as bees.[1] Early anti-malarial medications such as Atrabrine was itself a sledge-hammer approach in human blood streams, since people felt pretty nauseous after taking this medication. Because there are pros and cons to every remedy, we need to return to cost-benefit analyses before marching forward with any one solution.

Mosquito administering vaccine. (Image modified, via pngimg, CC BY-NC 4.0)

Medical: Another issue focuses on the importance of maintaining discrete, residual levels of pathogens in a population so as to maintain an epidemiologic signal that our bodies can react to and maintain resistance against. When malaria was largely eradicated from parts of Madagascar, only to return five years later, it returned with atypically dangerous virulence. Maintaining some mosquitoes and so the disease, means that human physiologies would not become naively adapted to a malaria-free environment. A related issue is that certain kinds of less dangerous malaria can provide protection from more dangerous malaria: a person infected by Plasmodium vivax is given some protection from being infected by more dangerous Plasmodium falciparum. As a protective measure, humans could theoretically be artificially inoculated with P. vivax, yet mosquitoes will inoculate them for free.

Ecological: There are many ecological arguments that point to the beneficial role of mosquitoes in ecosystems. Metric tons of flying biomass certainly alter natural processes, whether as foodstuff for other organisms or modifiers of animal behavior, as in the case of caribou and Homo sapiens who move to avoid them. There are the parasites and pathogens carried by mosquitoes, which infect not only humans, but also many other mammals, as well birds and reptiles. Microbes transmitted by mosquitoes to bats help control bat numbers, and thereby also control the spread of human diseases propagated by bats. Some mosquitoes even control other species of mosquito, since adults of certain species feed on the larvae of others.[2] These mosquito-borne benefits are therefore good reasons for maintaining mosquitoes in ecosystems, or bringing them back if overly controlled.

Evolutionary: Parasites and hosts coevolve, sometimes with beneficial results for both, as each generally becomes more tolerant of the other through time. Or at least this is Joshua Lederberg’s argument for why the virulence of parasites can diminish over time.[3] Cautious, hands-off approaches to vector control therefore allow nature to take its course, with harmful results balanced increasingly by beneficial ones. In short, there are crucial long-term roles for our bodily symbionts, and human interferences in their transmission may produce more harm than good.

Man on mountain, via pixabay (public domain).

Ethical & Social: On a more fundamental level, do humans have the right to kill, or exterminate other creatures—even the right to transform or disrupt whole ecosystems? Is it justifiable to act when we are still quite unsure about how all the pieces of an ecosystem fit together? If we are placing ourselves at the top of the pyramid of creation, what does that tell us about ourselves and our place in the future? We have, to date, never been able to rid the earth of mosquitoes, despite dogged efforts to do so. What makes us think we can do so now? Hubris has been the rule and not the exception in the history of humanity. Yet is it even thinkable that humans have the right not to seek every means possible to control and curtail disease-spreading organisms? Can it be fair to pay more attention to insects than to humans made sick by them? And is it right to rely on expert opinion, when the individuals directly affected by anti-mosquito treatments have different viewpoints?

Economic: Millions of funds and thousands of individuals are now dedicated to vector control and related research. In terms of spending efficiency, should these limited resources be dedicated to other measures, such as bed nets, tighter houses, better-equipped hospitals, and health education? Mosquito control is one of many health measures, and perhaps one of lesser priority depending on circumstances. An ongoing challenge is to focus on effective resource allocation, which may change by the year. Another economic issue focuses on the potential utility of mosquitoes to science or medicine; for example, mosquitoes can detect miniscule quantities of C02, and produce amazing anti-coagulants, with both traits suggesting entrepreneurial opportunities, unless these are curtailed by exterminators.

Aesthetic: Insects in general and mosquitoes in particular, are exquisitely engineered organisms, marvelously adapted to their various roles, and elegantly effective in carrying them out. We cannot help but admire them, even paint them, sculpt them, and marvel at their buzzes. Mosquitoes manage to pair with each other by harmonizing the frequencies of their beating wings, and artists can amplify and project these harmonic sounds.[4]

John Singer Sargent’s “The Mosquito Net,” 1912. Public Domain.

Man at Table beneath Mosquito Net. James Abbott McNeill Whistler, 1854-55. Public domain, via wikimedia commons.

Mosquito art: mosquitoes near a flood light. Walid Mahfoudh, via flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0.

[1] Marston Bates in J. Logan, The Sardinian Project (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1954), x.

[2] O. Roux and V. Robert, “Larval predation in malaria vectors and its potential implication in malaria transmission: an overlooked ecosystem service?,” Parasites & Vectors 12: 217.

[3] Joshua Lederberg [1993] quoted at Pierre-Olivier Méthot, “Why do Parasites Harm Their Host? On the Origin and Legacy of Theobald Smith’s ‘Law of Declining Virulence’,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 34 (2012): 567.

[4] University College London, “Built-in sound amplifier helps male mosquitoes find females,” Science Daily (2018), 25 September 2018. Available at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925110014.htm. See also: http://robinmeier.net/?p=38 (thanks to Peter Coates for alerting me to this source).

Mosquitopia Part 2: A few Reasons for Saving Mosquitoes This is the second installment on mosquitoes to coincide with the Rachel Carson Legacy Symposium "

[bee-whistler]

And since I still have nothing to do, I’d like to apologize for not putting up even one tutorial five to six months ago after asking if anyone was interested. Here’s the extreme short version of the amigurumi jellyfish:

Find a good video tutorial on how to make the ball. Leave your starting strand long for hanging.

Crochet until you have 30 stitches, for this size. Then crochet 2 together for one round and tie off. Thread the end into the next stitch to smooth it out and then thread it underneath until it’s hanging from the middle.

For tentacles, I just make 2 long single chains, about 45-50 stitches long, tie off and leave the strands long, then sew the center of each to the underside with the long end strand. Then I crochet two more, about the same length, but turn and crochet back to the start so they’re nice and curly. Then I stitch them underneath on either side of the first two. Let any strands hang once the tentacles are secure.

Make a bunch and hang them all over, preferably with some ultraviolet light, maybe a nice ripple effect.

Under da sea.

Feel free to use as you see fit. No restrictions. Sell them if you think people will buy. Might make a nice mobile.

Also easy to make in other sizes, within reason. Too big and there might be structural issues. Also make good cat lures.

[bee-whistler]

I have crafted a slugpup pattern. Soon, finally, I will assemble one and see how I did. It stands a very good chance of turning out to be a freakish mockery of what I envisioned.

I’m so excited.

[bee-whistler]

Smiling dumb dog!

He is a Smiling Dumb Dog! He cannot lift he face! He is soft and he is dumb and he is the best nonspecific breed! Behold he snoot and rejoice!

Doubled in size since last time and adjusted here and there. He lay on he face and shall forever, amen.

[bee-whistler]

It’s done.

I warned you.

Smiling Dumb Dog! At least… that was the goal. I can say without false humility thay I have succeeded at the dumb part. As for smiling and dog? The cat ears and deer snout would say orherwise.

He may just need an entire head swap operation. The back of him seems puppy enough. With a few tweaks, the little monster might even smile.

[bee-whistler]

Mark II… still dumb, more dog. Absolutely not smiling. His eyes seem to have slipped sideways and his butt and back legs have gone horribly wrong. He looks profoundly sad. He looks like if Eeyore was a dog.

However… if I enlarge the pattern and make some needed adjustments, we might just achieve the smiling dumb dog. He isn’t supposed to be perfect. He’s just supposed to look like a smiling dumb dog.

[bee-whistler]

Hey, I know I don’t get much traction here with my original posts unless someone bigger reblogs me, but would anyone be interested in occasion craft tutorials? I’d lean toward what I consider easy ones (because “easy” is very much in the eye of the beholder). And I favor inexpensive as well.

I thought we could all use some occupational therapy, and inexpensive gift ideas are timely.

I’d probably start with this lil guy:

Simple crochet jellyfish.

[bee-whistler]

The coffin purse suffered from some predicted design issues so I’ve made a recycled jeans skull until I figure out a more functional design. This one was hard to sew and still somehow remains squishy. So we’ll see how she holds up.

[bee-whistler]

Feesh.

[bee-whistler]

This is just a test for a component of something I’m trying and I already love so much.

[bee-whistler]

The cosmos has been stupid. It owes me a favor. I will make a new pattern. I will call it Smiling Dumb Dog. I will report back with the results.

[bee-whistler]

Or… I guess it worked?

He is baby.

I have crafted a slugpup pattern. Soon, finally, I will assemble one and see how I did. It stands a very good chance of turning out to be a freakish mockery of what I envisioned.

I’m so excited.