Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 August 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4

Why males in animal species are considered the default variant instead of females?

Sorry, I don't know where This belongs. It seems male is sometimes seen as the default gender, such as in language (for example, the words actor and steward usually refer to males). Pictures I've seen of lions, deer, and mallards are mostly of adult male ones. Adult male lions have manes, adult male deer have antlers, and adult male mallards have green heads. However, it is only the adult males of these species which have these characteristics. Juveniles, whether male or female, of these species look like their mothers (juvenile lions are maneless like their mothers, juvenile deer lack antlers like their mothers, juvenile mallards are brown like their mothers. So how come the males of animal species are the ones which are usually considered the default variant, even though the females are the ones which have the typical look? Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's because the males usually look more conspicuous/more distinctive, as opposed to the females which are more generic-looking -- see Sexual dimorphism. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:9149:D64B:8DA2:C52C (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. In many cases the species can't as easily be identified by the females. Which of these can you most quickly identify as a mallard ? [1] StuRat (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yellow Sunstreaker: The same applies to humans too. Often, a stick figure of a human implies male. That is the default sex. A little triangle resembling a skirt implies female. In biology at the cellular level, the ovum is fertilized by male or female sperm. In language, male is the default gender. Female is the exceptional gender. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"female sperm" -- What are you talking about? Please give references when responding to queries at the reference desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think I used the incorrect terminology. I meant to refer to different sperm cells in the adult male. Some sperm can make a female child, and some can make a male child. See sexual differentiation in humans. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not an animal feature, it's a feature of human language, human sexism, and human ontology. See our nice article at male as norm. See other popular coverage here [2] [3] [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a feature of human language to assign a grammatical gender to species (or even things, even when the language has a neutral), but it's not always male (I am not even sure male is more frequent than female) and there are much variation depending on the language. English assign a female gender to ships (despite the fact that neutral exist), god knows why, and for sure Englishmen do not scorn ships, do they?

male as norm is just "A feminist" POV (not even "all feminists"), as evidence by its very first word "In feminist theory, etc.".

I know of a fierce feminist that feels pissed off (and let you know in dire words) if you dare use a specific female form when her sex is just out of scope -- that is, in pretty much every life situation, noticeably at workplace. In her POV, male is not the norm, it is neutral, sexless, applying to just everyone (that is, it is nothing, while female IS special); only when you want to specifically refer to someone sex, you have to use special language feature, female form for women, other sort of manhood trait for male (for lack of specific genre for them in language)

Gem fr (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• In species where the female is more interesting, she'll normally be the default type (the default bee is the worker, not the drone; the default anglerfish is the female with the fishing lure, not the male who is basically just a floating genital), and the same is true of domesticated species where the females are bred for their eggs/milk (see chickens and cattle/cows) or where males are relatively rare (ask someone to draw a sheep and they'll probably draw a ewe, not a ram, since farmers don't keep many rams to prevent fights). Smurrayinchester 09:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In pop-culture, this often gets subverted. Cartoon worker ants or worker bees will almost invariably be portrayed as male. (Antz,Bee Movie, B.C., etc.) I believe there's a kids' show (Possibly Octonauts?) with a robot anglerfish, and it's male.

So, yes. The female is the "default" of those species in the sense that it's the one people naturally think about. ... but our social bias comes back into play and we don't necessarily think of them as female.

So I think this reinforces the idea that the "default" nature of male animals is almost entirely our own society's lens, and not because males tend to be more biologically interesting. ApLundell (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to use the female only when sex/reproduction is involved. Now, as stated elsewhere, language is everything except logical, and gender is no exception. Gem fr (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Actually in a biological sense females are the default, at least in mammals. Our genes naturally produce a female body unless they are acted on by a substance called testis-determining factor, generated by the Y chromosome. Looie496 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

indeed, obviously only female are required, parthenogenesis works. Male are thought to be evolution out of a female default type through various Sex-determination system, that prospered through Fisher's principle. But we know of them since about 1 century ago so they did not explain the language or other stuff. All mammals do not even use the XY sex-determination system; simply lacking Y chromosome won't make you a female, it will make you turner syndrom affected, while TSD is not enough to be a full male, there exist XX male syndrome. Gem fr (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You mention the specific use of words like actor and steward - bear in mind that when these words originated there was no possibility of anyone except a male taking those roles. In Shakespeare's time only male actors were allowed on stage - and had to play the female roles as well. Wymspen (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Plant identification

Oranmental plant

Another oranmental plant

Hello, these two pictures are used on Auburn Botanic Gardens with an uninformative caption "oranmental plant". Can anyone identify them? Are they possibly cherry blossoms, peach blossoms or plum (ume) blossoms? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• The first one looks to me to be a Japanese cherry, a.k.a. Prunus serrulata. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This definitively is a Cherry blossom (look at pictures provided in this article), coming from some sort prunus, but i don't know enough to specify which kind of the many close-related prunus it is; "cherries" are the most common "oranmental plant" (sic), and come to mind naturally when the purpose is to imitate a Japanese garden (as in ABG), but peach or plum, that also are close related prunus, cannot be ruled out.

for Plant identification a flower (alongside fruit) is one of the most specific, most useful part. If you can, providing a close range picture of flower will generally help.

Gem fr (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can say with a high degree of confidence, based on the morphologies here, that these are definitely both varieties of cerasus (the subgenus taxon, not the species) and very probably japanese cherries (Prunus serrulata, as Tigraan notes above), and not another variety of prunus. The trunk morphologies (despite being divergent between the two varieties of specimen here), the blossom morphologies (as best they can be made out) and the textures of the bark (particularly the distinct striations/lenticels of this taxon) are enough for a positive ID of cerasus, despite the low resolution defeating a precise ID of the variants. There's a lot of different cultivars in this group and they are broadly dispersed; all of the last four residences I've lived at, despite their being separated by hundreds or thousands of miles (and in some cases oceans) have had a variety of serrulata (although, to be fair, I planted the last one!), but a casual observer could be forgiven for not recognizing them as variants of the same species. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

How is H+ (aq) + H2O distinguished from H3O+ (aq)?

How do chemists determine whether or not a given ionic compound, observed only in aqueous solution, has had its hydrogen ions merge with water molecules to form hydronium, i.e. whether or not H⁺_(aq) + H₂O_(l) → (H₃O)⁺_(aq) has occurred? NeonMerlin 13:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you are asking about H+ alone (then, that's simple: it HAS occurred, period. There may be some occasional free H+, but not enough to worry about), or about weak acid Acid dissociation constant (in which case, these article will answer you)

Gem fr (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume you're asking on an experimental basis. The hydronium article cites this very confidently worded paper describing how one of the proposed structures was established. I don't claim presently to understand some of the specifics. There has been enough back and forth with this, based on sophisticated processing of infrared spectra, that a person might go in to that paper with a skeptical prejudice, but this is the tool they have, and they can do a lot with it. Deducing a structure from numerical operations examining the period of vibrations detected in infrared is actually a little bit analogous to exoplanet discovery, and of course we know what remarkable things have been done there. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Chemical symbols written on paper is a model. The actual behavior of the atoms in an acid, aqueous solution is complex. Whether you represent the situation as "H+" or "H3O+" in a chemical equation depends more on what purpose you are writing the equation rather than either being a perfect representation of reality. --Jayron32 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not an expert of chemistry but I think it may help. The H+ ion is very small and so possesses a great ionic potential (the φ of Fajan's rule). Water is a polar substance. Oxygen is slightly negatively charged. So the H+ is attracted to the oxygen, resulting a strong hydrogen bonding. It may make the bonding with more molecules making H5O2+, H7O3+ etc. The bonded water molecule is even more polar than a free water molecule. It may be bound with other free water molecules too. Free H+ is very rare in water solution. The link https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/water/ may be helpful. (If this is found wrong, please let me know by editing this answer)Sayan19ghosh99 (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I should note we have a basic article Fajan's rules, though it mostly concerns whether compounds will be ionic or covalent, and a stub on ionic potential. Wnt (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Particle, field interaction

Is it correct to say that when a particle crosses a field, it creates a force? 82.132.236.20 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's more correct to say that a particle which exerts a force creates a field. See Field (physics). The field is the three-dimensional representation of a force. --Jayron32 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

the part See Field (physics) I concur. Force would obviously help, too.

The rest makes me exclaim "oh NO!".

A particle exerts a field whether it exerts a force or not!

Fields are related to potential force (a reason for them be also named "potential"), and do not represent actual, exerted, force.

Not the first time you post plainly wrong stuff, please be careful. Just sticking to providing ref is also a good way to protect yourself, you know. Gem fr (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time you tried to use pedantry to rudely makes yourself appear superior as though this were some kind of competition and that you somehow win because you got to slap someone down. Stay in your lane, bub. --Jayron32 16:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not incorrect, but not precise enough to be sure you understand what you are talking about.

when a particle crosses a field, then it is subject to a force (if, of course, it is subject to this kind of field). Newton's third law implies that since the particle is subject to this force, then an equal and opposite force is also created; this one can be seen as the effect of the particle's own field. hence, you can say that the particule creates a force, as you did, but that's just a small part of the story.

Gem fr (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What's the lowest air pressure Earth life can reproduce in?

Tardigrades can survive long stretches of hard vacuum but can't reproduce in it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is research published in 2010 : Exploring the Low-Pressure Growth Limit: Evolution of Bacillus subtilis in the Laboratory to Enhanced Growth at 5 Kilopascals

ApLundell (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as a side note to this inquiry, it can be very hard to isolate variables in the study of such limiting factors, since manipulating the pressure may necessarily require changing the availability (and/or bioavailability) of certain elements critical to growth of a given organism. You can still determine the point at which reproduction is sub-optimal, stalling, or ceased altogether, but it's difficult to say (even with the kinds of highly sophisticated and refined methodologies such as those used in the research supplied by APLundell above) exactly what biophysical mechanics are causing the bottleneck. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Evolutionary pressure in mating

If men chose women only due to their appearance and did not carry at all for their intelligence, would that put some evolutionary pressure driving female IQ down? That would be akin to women choosing strong men.--Hofhof (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The less intelligent the male is, the less likely it is that he'll be able to choose any woman at all. Count Iblis (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the answer would depend on whether or not appearance correlated with intelligence. If there were no correlation then the choice by males of attractive females would not put any "evolutionary pressure" on women not to be smart, and I have never heard of a correlation between female good looks and intelligence. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This paper may provide the answer. The abstract mentions that physical appearance can contribute to fitness perception, and both parties select for high intelligence, whatever that may be. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This title may also be of interest. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HYPOTHESIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL GENETIC FITNESS INDICATORS AND INDICES OF MATING SUCCESS. You may be able to find it through your public library. If not, you may alway contact the librarians and ask them for an Interlibrary Loan. Both articles contribute to the sexual selection theory. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This one is specifically about humor as an indicator of intelligence, and that it is greater in males than females. "Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males." For some reason, none of these titles are fully available in the database. So, if you have this issue, just check with your librarian and ask for an Interlibrary Loan. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether intelligence is sexually attractive. The question, as I understand it, is whether more-attractive women are generally more intelligent. We have not defined "intelligent". I think intelligence should be measured in accomplishments and abilities that are separate from the mating process. If we include in "intelligence" the ability to attract a mate through for instance good conversation, sense of humor, or musical or artistic abilities, then we are skewing the results to always find a high correlation between good looks and intelligence. I am taking as a given that men are attracted to the quintessential Marilyn Monroe. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Attractiveness is relative. Count Iblis (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Perceived female intelligence as economic bad in partner choice." That is the title. You can find the full article on the ResearchGate. Apparently, the abstract suggests that female attractiveness cannot be substituted by intelligence, while male attractiveness can. Also, it seems to suggest that the more physically attractive the female is, the more intelligent she appears to be to the male. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

simple answser: no. Even if "If men chose women only due to their appearance and did not carry at all for their intelligence", (and that's a strong "if"), that would not put some evolutionary pressure driving female IQ down. Putting appearance above intelligence is quite different to specifically look for non-intelligence. Unless of course the more stupid you are, the more attractive, which i dare say not true without any reference (any objection? looks like 50.4.236.254 objects and require citation and reference for this one. eventhough several have aleready ). And, don't forget men preference are not the only factor, women have their word, too, and intelligence help them. I think that if a smart, not ugly, girl wants THIS guy, nobody less smart than her stand a chance, not even Marilyn Monroe. Gem fr (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"citation needed" is not supposed to be a trolling tool, you know. If you are not trolling specify which part require citation according to you. Otherwise retire in your ip swamp. Gem fr (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not so much that I object. I am not sure if you are adding to what the provided research papers say in speculation or as a conclusion. Never mind. I think I misread your response. What you are saying seems in line with what the research papers suggest, which is that men place more importance on physical attractiveness than intelligence, and that higher physical attractiveness is linked to higher perceived intelligence, allowing stupid but beautiful women to be selected as well as beautiful, intelligent women to be selected. _{I don't know why Gem fr is accusing me of trolling. I am the only one who has provided actual research papers.} 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

the question was "what if men did this", the provided reference answsered "they don't", which is good, but not answering the question any more that if you asked "what if i was falling from the 30th story of a building" and you only got answer "you are not". I hope my answer did.

That was because of twice posting very large spectre "citation needed", with no other words, where you could be more specific. my apologies

Gem fr (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Then, the original question is speculative, and the answerers are encouraging the asker to ask speculative questions. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"If men chose women...". This is about some hypothetical other universe isn't it? Some men may have the status/money/power to be able to have their choice to a large extent. In everyday life the picture is more like that men are altogether happy to find a woman, any woman, who will bat their eyelids at them. In the end it works out that men and women are able to choose those who are about equally fit. As to beauty, that is a good indicator of health. And being able to dance nicely, which is a major way people join up, is a good indication of intelligence. Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Men choose women in ISIS-land, or Boko Haram-land, or what's left of them. True, I don't know if they get to see their faces... I also don't know if the nonagenarians have more money to bid (or more incentive), which might tend to reverse the evolutionary effect. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Marry a pretty girl and she eventually turns ugly. Marry an ugly girl, get a few drinks in you, and she starts lookin' good!" -- Flip Wilson ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Woman is the most powerful magnet in the universe... and all men are cheap metal." -- Larry Miller ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life / Never make a pretty woman your wife / So from my personal point of view / Get an ugly girl to marry you." -- Jimmy Soul ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, when the reference desks get shut down by the community partly because you have decided to make it a comedy club instead of a reference desk, will you feel even the slightest twinge of guilt? Or does your total immunity to any sort of peer pressure extend to a matching lack of introspection and self doubt? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon—I find nothing problematic about the above posts by Baseball Bugs. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

He'll then end up spending a lot more time with his ugly wife, so I guess he'll regret it. Count Iblis (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)