AP Biology Petey
DeJoy
Article Review 2/11/13
Rat-Sized Ancestor
Said to Link Man and Beast
Wilford,
John Noble. "Common Ancestor of Placental Mammals Plucked From
Obscurity." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08
Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/science/common-ancestor-of-mammals-plucked-from-obscurity.html?pagewanted=2>.
This
article discusses the family tree of mammals, and at which point the
distinction between man and animal is lost. This occupant of the fossil record
is referred to as Protungulatum Donnae. This animal had several anatomical
characteristics for live births that anticipated all placental mammals and led
to many different kinds of species, from elephants to humans. This animal is
thought to have been a rat-size animal that had a long furry tail and lived on
insects. Researchers found some key similarities between this species and
humans. For example, the Protungulatum was found to have a two horned uterus
and a placenta in which the maternal blood came inc lose contact with membranes
surrounding the fetus, as it is in humans. This is a very important discovery because
it was discovered using a publicly accessible database called MorphoBank, which
has software that can handle an extremely large compilation of data. Because
they used this new technology, many other scientists are already signing up to
use MorphoBank. This whole project was financed by the National Science
foundation as part of its Assembling the Tree of Life Program.
I
found this article very interesting because it relates to what we are learning
in Biology. We currently are discussing genetics, and this is an extremely
significant discovery in this field. It ties into the hereditary history of all
humans, and therefore it pertained to my contemporary life.
This
article was definitely not perfectly written. Although it is a scientific
article, it was written at a very esoteric level, referencing techniques and
devices that the amateur reader would not understand. Furthermore, they did not
wholly address the absolute significance of this discovery; they seemed to just
discuss the significance of different techniques used in finding it. It also
was a little off-topic at points, digressing into different fields. In the end,
I thought this article was definitely interesting.
Petey did a very nice job reviewing John Noble Wilford’s article, "Common Ancestor of Placental Mammals Plucked From Obscurity", from The New York Times. The original article was rather long, and at times confusing, but Petey did a really good job paraphrasing the most important pieces of information. Petey also made very strong critiques of the article that I agreed with. One was that the article was, “… written at a very esoteric level, referencing techniques and devices that the amateur reader would not understand.” At points while reading the article, it became very hard to follow, but Petey did a very good job explaining it. Also, I agree with Petey that the article, “…did not wholly address the absolute significance of this discovery; they seemed to just discuss the significance of different techniques used in finding it.” After reading the article, although the process and idea were interesting, the whole thing seemed rather worthless and uncertain, for the article didn’t delve into the research’s importance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Petey’s review was very good, he could have improved his comment by adding in more quotes from the original text. The concept and process for finding this organism was rather complex and confusing, so it might have been more helpful had Petey added in expert quotes from the article. In doing this, the reader might have had a better idea of the real process. Also, Petey could have done a better job relating it to the world. His connections were rather vague and short, so adding more information, could have really improved the comment. He could have gone into more detail about the program for Assembling the Tree of Life, and explained why this foundation was established, for this might explain the scientists reasoning for researching mammal’s common ancestor.
This article and its connected review were overall very interesting. The whole idea of finding a common ancestor seems very exciting and beneficial, but it seems a little concerning that many scientists are arguing over whether or not this is the right animal, for many say that,” The common ancestor itself appeared more than 36 million years later than had been estimated based on genetic data alone.” This means that many people believe that the common ancestor dates even further back in time, but it is still impressive that we have found a common organism from that far back.
Declan
ReplyDeleteCE Comment
Petey’s review of the article, “Common Ancestor of Placental Mammals Plucked from Obscurity,” was very informative. His report was concise and made sense of a rather complicated article. In the piece from the New York Times’ Science Times, author John Noble Wilford described how scientists pooled together evidence and data, using modern technology including Morphobank, to establish Protungulatum donnae as the link between mammals, humans and other animals in the evolutionary family tree. Petey expressed strong but well founded criticism of the article, which was impressive. I like that he included actual scientific description in his review of how the human uterus and placenta are quite similar to that of the Protungulatum, and the biological and evolutionary significance of these findings. In doing so, Petey helps provide credibility and interest to his review.
Nonetheless, Petey could have further stressed and explained the importance of finding the evolutionary common ancestor of mammals. This is a groundbreaking discovery for the world of biology, and it should be recognized as such. In addition, while perfectly sensible and informative, Petey’s writing style and diction could be more precise and directed. His grammar could have been used to better get his point across and support his argument, because with some grammatical imperfections, his point was slightly diminished. Overall, I thought Petey’s report was well done. He wrote a strong summary of a confusing article, which in itself has huge potential meaning for science. What the future of biology holds for us, and what how these findings will be employed in a useful way for humanity remains to be seen.