Month: August 2017
OIA, Spain — Since medieval times, the people of Galicia have ritually rounded up the horses that roam wild in the green forests and hills of northwestern Spain.
At least once a year, during the Rapa das Bestas, or Capture of the Beasts, the short and sturdy Galician mountain horses are corralled.
Ranchers, who let their horses roam free for most of the year, track them down to cut their manes and tails, which were once sold to stuff mattresses and shoulder pads. Nowadays, the ranchers disinfect the horses, and sometimes vaccinate them. New foals are branded before being returned to the wild.
Some ranchers also earn a small income by selling their animals for meat, even though few Spaniards eat horses.
The roundup “is a way of continuing what our fathers and grandfathers always did,” said Gerra González Alonso, 54, who tracked down four of his horses. “Some people love to hunt animals, but I prefer to search for my horses.”
But like many traditions, the roundup is colliding with modern rules and sensibilities that challenge its practices and threaten its longevity. Animal rights activists condemn the ritual as mistreatment of horses.
Galicia’s roundups differ in their timing, their scale and the methods that ranchers use to capture and handle their horses.
The roundup in Oia takes place in the hills above a monastery. The practice of keeping Galicia’s horses in the wild has a historical link with the Catholic Church, which allowed the clergy to own horses but not look after them.
According to legend, Galicia’s main roundup — 70 miles away in Sabucedo — started after horses were donated to the parish to thank the patron saint for sparing residents from the plague.
The ranchers consider putting their horses to pasture in the woods the most efficient way to manage the undergrowth in a region that is otherwise prone to wildfires.
“Horses are the best forest cleaners,” Mr. González Alonso said. “A cow will only eat grass, but a horse will go for anything around the trees.”
But tougher and more expensive insurance and identification rules have forced many ranchers to abandon keeping horses in the wild.
Over all, the number of horses kept in the wild has fallen to about 11,000 from 20,000 over the last 15 years, according to Xosé Henrique Bazal, the president of the roundup association in Sabucedo.
Over four days each July, Sabucedo’s ranchers round up horses and then overpower them by hand. It is a sellout spectacle that is officially recognized as a tourism fiesta and draws about 4,500 spectators.
Unlike Sabucedo’s paying event, Oia’s roundup is a low-key affair, attended only by ranchers and local spectators. Some arrive early to admire the horses, as they gradually emerge from the woods and are then corralled by ranchers on horseback.
“Everything they do is pure artistry,” said José Manuel Costas, a retired shipbuilder who has watched roundups for 70 years, since he was a small boy.
Rather than finding any evidence of animal mistreatment, he said, “I see here people who love animals and nature.”
Still, Oia’s event circumvents Spanish legislation that forbids the transport and slaughter of animals without full certification.
“Everything here has been going on in the same way for so long that the authorities turn a blind eye,” said Manuel Fernández González, a retired butcher.
Horse meat aficionados swear by the quality of the product. “It’s probably the healthiest meat you could eat, coming from a horse that’s really part of a natural forest ecosystem,” said Xabier Fernández, who buys a foal every year.
The ranchers, too, deny any mistreatment. Instead, they say activists unfairly lump their roundups in with their broader campaign to ban animal fiestas in Spain, particularly traditional bullfights.
The activism and tougher government regulations do little to protect horses and much to destroy an ancient way of life, they say.
The ranchers have held protests against Spanish legislation forcing horses to have identity chips, saying they are unnecessary.
“I can identify a horse by looking at it, without needing a chip that also requires investing in an electronic reader,” said Ignacio Español, a rancher. “We’re being pushed to abandon our horses because of all the regulations.”
The ranchers sued to be exempted from the regulation, but the Supreme Court ruled against them in July.
Mr. Español said he planned to insert the compulsory chip, but also continue using the traditional hot iron method to brand his foals.
Government officials say a chip and an insurance policy are essential to establish accident liability, in particular when horses leave the woods and run onto a road.
Three years ago, one of Mr. Español’s horses died after being hit by a car while crossing the coastal road that links Galicia to Portugal.
But the ranchers believe that the problem is mostly irresponsible drivers, who speed along country roads and “just don’t respect the horses,” said José Fernández Martínez, the president of an association of ranchers.
“Modern society is losing a way of life that has kept us and animals in harmony,” he said.
Laura Duarte, an official from Pacma, a political party promoting animal rights, said that checking on the health of horses was laudable, but that other aspects of the roundup were unjustifiable.
“We don’t criticize what’s being done, but how it’s been done,” she said, “because it causes terrible stress to animals that live in the wild and aren’t used to human contact.”
“To brand a horse with hot iron can only cause huge suffering,” she said.
Even if a roundup cannot be compared to bullfighting in terms of cruelty, Ms. Duarte added, “the argument in its defense is the same, which is to evoke tradition.”
“Any tradition that harms animals must be reviewed,” she said, “and doing something for a very long time doesn’t mean it shouldn’t now be adapted to our times.”
It appears that another animal will have to take over the fight being waged by Naruto, an Indonesian macaque monkey who is the named plaintiff in a lawsuit weighing whether animals have a right to own property. In this instance, it’s about whether animals can own US copyrights.
Naruto, via his self-appointed lawyers from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is in the process of dropping his lawsuit over the now infamous monkey selfies. That’s according to a Friday legal filing with the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is being asked to hold off on issuing a ruling that everybody believes is going to go against Naruto.
About every conceivable joke has been made about this Planet of the Apes-styled litigation that we’ve been following for two years now. A lower court judge had already ruled against Naruto, stating that monkeys cannot own US copyrights even if they snapped the picture (which actually happened in this case).
Naruto, whose appeal is pending, snatched the camera from a British photographer in 2011 and in the process took a few pictures of himself on the Tangkoko reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. The photographer, David Slater, published the photos in a book, Wildlife Personalities. Naruto and PETA sued him and the book’s online publishing platform, Blurb, for copyright infringement. (Slater’s ownership of the selfies are also in doubt because he didn’t take them. Wikipedia has declared them to be a part of the US public domain—an assertion Slater disputes.)
But again, all of this strangeness is about to come to a close. The lawyers for Naruto, Slater, and Blurb told the appeals court (PDF) Friday that an out-of-court settlement was near and that the court should refrain from issuing a ruling.
“The Parties have agreed on a general framework for a settlement subject to the negotiation and resolution of specific terms. Given the current progress of settlement discussions, the Parties are optimistic that they will be able to reach an agreement that will resolve all claims in this matter,” according to the filing.
Nobody would say publicly what the deal is, or why this is happening. But there’s a quirk in US copyright law that explains some, if not all, the reasoning behind it.
US law allows the “prevailing party” in a copyright infringement action, whether they be the plaintiff or defendant, to seek legal fees and costs of the opposing side—but they’re not always guaranteed to be awarded. And during oral arguments in the case last month, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals eviscerated Naruto’s arguments.
Two years of litigation amounts to a boatload of legal fees and costs. PETA could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars—a sum likely to be reduced or forgiven under terms of the upcoming settlement.
All of which means that PETA, which also made some outrageous arguments about online liability in this litigation, probably doesn’t want to keep the cash meter running. After all, based on decisions and court statements thus far, nobody really expected Naruto to prevail.
PETA’s lawsuit, however, prompted public discourse about the idea of animals owning property. And that’s why this lawsuit may have been about nothing more than monkey business all along.
ANIMALS ARE LIVING color. Wasps buzz with painted warnings. Birds shimmer their iridescent desires. Fish hide from predators with body colors that dapple like light across a rippling pond. And all this color on all these creatures happened because other creatures could see it.
The natural world is so showy, it’s no wonder scientists have been fascinated with animal color for centuries. Even today, the questions how animals see, create, and use color are among the most compelling in biology.
Until the last few years, they were also at least partially unanswerable—because color researchers are only human, which means they can’t see the rich, vivid colors that other animals do. But now new technologies, like portable hyperspectral scanners and cameras small enough to fit on a bird’s head, are helping biologists see the unseen. And as described in a new Science paper, it’s a whole new world.
Visions of Life
The basics: Photons strike a surface—a rock, a plant, another animal—and that surface absorbs some photons, reflects others, refracts still others, all according to the molecular arrangement of pigments and structures. Some of those photons find their way into an animal’s eye, where specialized cells transmit the signals of those photons to the animal’s brain, which decodes them as colors and shapes.
It’s the brain that determines whether the colorful thing is a distinct and interesting form, different from the photons from the trees, sand, sky, lake, and so on it received at the same time. If it’s successful, it has to decide whether this colorful thing is food, a potential mate, or maybe a predator. “The biology of color is all about these complex cascades of events,” says Richard Prum, an ornithologist at Yale University and co-author of the paper.
In the beginning, there was light and there was dark. That is, basic greyscale vision most likely evolved first, because animals that could anticipate the dawn or skitter away from a shadow are animals that live to breed. And the first eye-like structures—flat patches of photosensitive cells—probably didn’t resolve much more than that. It wasn’t enough. “The problem with using just light and dark is that the information is quite noisy, and one problem that comes up is determining where one object stops and another one starts. ” says Innes Cuthill, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Bristol and coauthor of the new review.
Color adds context. And context on a scene is an evolutionary advantage. So, just like with smart phones, better resolution and brighter colors became competitive enterprises. For the resolution bit, the patch light-sensing cells evolved over millions of years into a proper eye—first by recessing into a cup, then a cavity, and eventually a fluid-filled spheroid capped with a lens. For color, look deeper at those light-sensing cells. Wedged into their surfaces are proteins called opsins. Every time they get hit with a photon—a quantum piece of light itself—they transduce that signal into an electrical zap to the rudimentary animal’s rudimentary brain. The original light/dark opsin mutated into spin-offs that could detect specific ranges of wavelengths. Color vision was so important that it evolved independently multiple times in the animal kingdom—in mollusks, arthropods, and vertebrates.
In fact, primitive fish had four different opsins, to sense four spectra—red, green, blue, and ultraviolet light. That four-fold ability is called tetrachromacy, and the dinosaurs probably had it. Since they’re the ancestors of today’s birds, many of them are tetrachromats, too.
But modern mammals don’t see things that way. That’s probably because early mammals were small, nocturnal things that spent their first 100 million years running around in the dark, trying to keep from being eaten by tetrachromatic dinosaurs. “During that period the complicated visual system they inherited from their ancestors degraded,” says Prum. “We have a clumsy, retrofitted version of color vision. Fishes, and birds, and many lizards see a much richer world than we do.”
In fact, most monkeys and apes are dichromats, and see the world as greyish and slightly red-hued. Scientists believe that early primates regained three-color vision because spotting fresh fruit and immature leaves led to a more nutritious diet. But no matter how much you enjoy springtime of fall colors, the wildly varicolored world we humans live in now isn’t putting on a show for us. It’s mostly for bugs and birds. “Flowering plants of course have evolved to signal pollinators,” says Prum. “The fact that we find them beautiful is incidental, and the fact that we can see them at all is because of an overlap in the spectrums insects and birds can see and the ones we can see.”
Covered in Color
And as animals gained the ability to sense color, evolution kickstarted an arms race in displays—hues and patterns that aided in survival became signifiers of ace baby-making skills. Almost every expression of color in the natural world came about to signal, or obscure, a creature to something else.
For instance, “aposematism” is color used as a warning—the butterfly’s bright colors say “don’t eat me, you’ll get sick.” “Crypsis” is color used as camouflage. Color serves social purposes, too. Like, in mating. Did you know that female lions prefer brunets? Or that paper wasps can recognize each others’ faces? “Some wasps even have little black spots that act like karate belts, telling other wasps not to try and fight them,” says Elizabeth Tibbetts, an entomologist at the University of Michigan.
But animals display colors using two very different methods. The first is with pigments, colored substances created by cells called chromatophores (in reptiles, fish, and cephalopods), and melanocytes (in mammals and birds). They absorb most wavelengths of light and reflect just a few, limiting both their range and brilliance. For instance, most animals cannot naturally produce red; they synthesize it from plant chemicals called carotenoids.
The other way animals make color is with nanoscale structures. Insects, and, to a lesser degree, birds, are the masters of color-based structure. And compared to pigment, structure is fabulous. Structural coloration scatters light into vibrant, shimmering colors, like the shimmering iridescent bib on a Broad-tailed hummingbird, or the metallic carapace of a Golden scarab beetle. And scientists aren’t quite sure why iridescence evolved. Probably to signal mates, but still: Why?
Decoding the rainbow of life
The question of iridescence is similar to most questions scientists have about animal coloration. They understand what the colors do in broad strokes, but there’s till a lot of nuance to tease out. This is mostly because, until recently, they were limited to seeing the natural world through human eyes. “If you ask the question, what’s this color for, you should approach it the way animals see those colors,” says Tim Caro, a wildlife biologist at UC Davis and the organizing force behind the new paper. (Speaking of mysteries, Caro recently figured out why zebras have stripes.)
Take the peacock. “The male’s tail is beautiful, and it evolved to impress the female. But the female may be impressed in a different way than you or I,” Caro says. Humans tend to gaze at the shimmering eyes at the tip of each tail feather; peahens typically look at the base of the feathers, where they attach to the peacock’s rump. Why does the peahen find the base of the feathers sexy? No one knows. But until scientists strapped to the birds’ heads tiny cameras spun off from the mobile phone industry, they couldn’t even track the peahens’ gaze.
Another new tech: Advanced nanomaterials give scientists the ability to recreate the structures animals use to bend light into iridescent displays. By recreating those structures, scientists can figure out how genetically expensive they are to make.
Likewise, new magnification techniques have allowed scientists to look into an animal’s eye structure. You might have read about how mantis shrimp have not three or four but a whopping 12 different color receptors, and how they see the world in psychedelic hyperspectral saturation. This isn’t quite true. Those color channels aren’t linked together—not like they are in other animals. The shrimp probably aren’t seeing 12 different, overlapping color spectra. “We are thinking maybe those color receptors are being turned on or off by some other, non-color, signal,” says Caro.
But perhaps the most important modern innovation in biological color research is getting all the different people from different disciplines together. “There are a lot of different sorts of people working on color,” says Caro. “Some behavioral biologists, some neurophysiologists, some anthropologists, some structural biologists, and so on.”
And these scientists are scattered all over the globe. He says the reason he brought everyone to Berlin is so they could finally synthesize all these sub-disciplines together, and move into a broader understanding of color in the world. The most important technology in understanding animal color vision isn’t a camera or a nanotech surface. It’s an airplane. Or the internet.