Posts filed under 'Words'
. . . or something like that. Courtesy of JK Keller, these Volumetric Redundancies represent the number of times a word appears in a given text.
Red cubes represent non-unique words, with size depending on number of occurrences; blue cubes are unique words. The X-axis represents the order of the text, from beginning (top) to end (bottom). The diameter of the column is determined (somehow) by length of paragraph.
As to why The Art of War looks so different, I can only guess it’s because it’s shorter, and thus the blue cubes - which ought to be equivalent in size in each text, since they represent single occurrences - appear bigger merely because we’re zoomed in on a smaller virtual object. But really, I have no clue. They’re just real durn pretty, ain’t they?
Via Moon River
January 17th, 2008
A New Year’s tradition: some truly yummy words I learned in the past twelve months. I love adding to my vocabulary, though odds are I’ll never use a single one of these in conversation.
1. aquamanile
2. scacchic
3. imbricated
4. snowclone
5. quisling
6. apotropaic
7. ofermod
8. ephemeris
Earlier: words I learned in 2006
December 29th, 2007
The World’s Fair started a meme to identify phrases for which your blog is the #1 Google result. It seems like there ought to be an algorithm to do this for you, but after much trial and error, bioephemera is the world authority on:
museum lust
sawdust viscera
cephalopodmania
susini anatomical venus (or susini medical venus)
miss piggy gets medieval
and of course, the name of the blog, bioephemera. Because I made it up.
PS. In related news, SCQ/World’s Fair is campaigning to ensure that truth is indeed the #1 Google result for, well, truth. It would have been much easier if they had picked a phrase like “sawdust viscera.” But I guess they just aren’t about easy. Typical scientist overachievers.
November 10th, 2007
Typosperma
Oded Ezer
Typographer/artist Oded Ezer says,
The main idea of the ‘Typosperma’ project was to create some sort of new transgenic creatures, half (human) sperm, half letter. These imaginary creatures are cloned sperms, that typographic information has been implanted into their DNA.
A frequent topic of concept art is (hypothetical) aesthetic genetic modification. In at least one case, that of Alba, Eduardo Kac’s fluorescent bunny, such plans have been carried out to create an actual living “artwork.” This project is a little different. The modified “organisms,” sperm, have a lifespan of mere days - if you can even call it “lifespan,” since they’re just chromosome-carrying vehicles. Their whole point is to fertilize an egg. One of the diagrams on Ezer’s site shows the modified sperm approaching an egg (gamete); what will happen when they fuse? Is the idea to generate a modified baby with some further typographic alteration? Are these even human sperm?
Ezer leaves the big picture ambiguous, since the point (I presume) is to generate questions. Burdened by their bulky typographic inclusions and the little “serifs” on their flagella, these sperm are about as streamlined as a 1975 Winnebago. Sperm this abnormal don’t win races. The world is safe from transgenic typographic babies. . . for now.
Via Next Nature
May 10th, 2007
eternal
Berkeley, CA, 2003
The Visual Dictionary is a photographic compendium of found words (from signage, advertising, etc). The goal is to eventually represent every English word as at least one image; users can search the database for a word, or contribute a word yourself.
I actually found this site last fall, but for a while, the editors were uploading very slowly. They seem to have caught up now. So for those who share my fascination with typography, here’s an excuse to go word-hunting: there are just under 3K words in the visual dictionary, but over half a million in the 2nd edition of the OED. Take your digital camera and fill some gaps!
May 2nd, 2007
Language Log: Foolish Hobgoblins
It’s been many long years since I was an English major. That’s my standard justification when I get sloppy and split some infinitives, or use “which” when I ought to write “that.” I put punctuation inside and outside of quotation marks as it suits me, and use British spellings on a whim. As long as my meaning is clear, and it doesn’t violate my aesthetic sense, I just don’t feel strongly about consistency. This Language Log post summarizes my attitudes pretty well. It’s a relief to hear from such a qualified source that I’m not completely alone in my negligence.
I’ve wondered if some of my linguistic laxity derives from my science training - not only through lack of writing practice, but through an elevated tolerance for uncertainty. In science, there is no conclusively “right” answer. You always consider several possible models, and although eventually experimentation narrows these possibilities down, in the meantime you must respect them all. In short, in the absence of good evidence, you shouldn’t arbitrarily prioritize one hypothesis over another. I feel the same way about language. When the meaning is plain, and several alternatives are used by equally good writers (whether from different historical periods, different countries, or different academic cultures - the Language Log post gives a number of good examples) I don’t feel there’s good reason to prioritize one usage over another.
In genetics, you learn to look past variation that isn’t relevant to the issue under investigation. Every gene exists in multiple versions, or alleles, but only some of those alleles have significantly altered functions. The rest are pretty much equivalent. The RNA codons GCA and GCG both encode alanine, so I don’t particularly care which is used in a gene, because I get the same protein either way. It’s like a regional variation in pronunciation: if we all understand what’s meant, why nitpick?
![codon[1].gif](http://bioephemera.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/codon%5B1%5D.gif)
Two representations of the RNA codon table. Sources: (1), (2)
When discussing equivalent codons, I dislike the adjective “degenerate.” I prefer “redundant” because “degenerate” has negative connotations (an example) that can mislead students. Reserving several ways to encode a given amino acid does not make the genetic code less effective or elegant - in many ways, it makes the code more robust. Moving up a level, genetic diversity is the basis for evolution, and for the health and stability of ecosystems. When you see subtle variation as beauty and bounty, it’s harder to arbitrarily winnow it out - even in the names of Strunk & White.
Of course, not all variations are equally optimal in all contexts. Sometimes, there are valid, utilitarian reasons to prefer one usage over another. Different species tend to prefer different codons for certain amino acids and express those codons more efficiently - a significant concern for genetic engineers who are “transplanting” genes from one organism into another. A cloned gene may be less effective in its new host, if the host has different codon preferences; some tweaking to match those preferences may be required to optimize the gene’s performance. In this case, the preference for one codon over another isn’t arbitrary - it improves the gene’s function in its new context. Anyone who has submitted an article to multiple journals, and had to reformat the citations each time to meet each journal’s unique specifications, knows exactly how this process works.
Codon preference was part of a long-running patent dispute between several biotech companies, including Monsanto and Dow, whose researchers used the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin gene to create pest-resistant corn and cotton crops. Optimizing Bt toxin production in the new host plants required tweaking the cloned Bt gene to match the host’s preferences. Like the construction “y’all” - melodious in a Louisiana accent, but not so pleasant in a Boston accent - the Bt toxin allele native to Bacillus wasn’t the best choice for cotton, a dicot plant. The Bt gene had to be edited so it would read fluently in a “dicot accent.” (The patent dispute focused on the methodology used to do this. Among other issues, the meaning of the phrase “codon preference” was disputed. See a summary of the long-running dispute here. Patent writing, like genetic engineering, has tighter linguistic constraints than blogging, and little tolerance for inconsistency).
The bacterial Bt allele wasn’t the best choice for a dicot plant like cotton, but it still worked. Similarly, when choosing among variants of spelling, pronunciation, or phrasing, different writers may make different choices because more than one variant works. If one variant is sometimes more effective than the others, that actually argues against enforcing consistency, because the best choice will depend on context. That’s why many black-and-white rules intended to enforce consistency, like Conservapedia’s insistence on Americanized spellings, seem silly to me. Is consistency really that big a virtue? If so, I’m an unrepentant sinner. And Conservapedia will no doubt agree.
PS. I was pleasantly surprised to see as I posted this today that two books about the consistency issue are reviewed in today’s NYT, one
by Ben Yagoda:
His book, an ode to the parts of speech, isn’t about the rights or wrongs of English. It’s about the wonder of it all: the beauty, the joy, the fun of a language enriched by poets like Lily Tomlin, Fats Waller and Dizzy Dean (to whom we owe “slud,” as in “Rizzuto slud into second”).
and one 
by David Crystal:
When he’s not being cranky, Crystal is fascinating and insightful, often funny. He’s especially good on the Middle Ages. When printing came to Britain in 1400, English was a merry old mess. Choices had to be made, he says, and typesetters were often the ones making them. “If a line of type was a bit short on the page, well, just add an -e to a few words.” And if it was too long? Just “take out some e’s.”
More books for my Amazon Wishlist!
March 11th, 2007
Now there’s a proverb for the ages. . . or a random sentence generated with the procrastinatory Random Sentence Generator, which also suggests random words of various types (nouns, verbs, common, obscure, etc.) Be warned: if you choose “obscure” words, you’ll get results like “voetsek” and “whillikers.”
Tim at Sciencesque is using the Generator to supply topics for his random crawl of OMIM, the human gene database. You can read his efforts (thus far) at the new carnival “Gene Genie”; the inaugural issue is up at ScienceRoll.
Unlike Tim, I’m using it for utterly frivolous reasons: as a loquacious Magic 8 Ball! Plus, there are profound cognitive implications: if I hit “new sentence” a zillion times, will I ever get “colorless green ideas sleep furiously?” Let’s ask!
It says:
The conservative rectangle fails.
Hey! This isn’t a political blog.
It replies:
When will the rectangular collective choose?
Darn if this thing couldn’t pass a Turing test!
My custard bays before an under convict.
Ok - cancel that Turing test. But it’s still some fine frivolity.
February 20th, 2007
WORD STRIPS - word game from Flash By Night
There clearly aren’t enough ways to waste time on the internet(s) yet. This is kind of fun, although I still prefer good old-fashioned Boggle.
January 31st, 2007
This is the poster for the 2008 Australian and New Zealand Shakespeare Association (ANZSA) conference:
Possible topics might include, but are not limited to: Shakespeare and histories and theories of the body, representations of the body, the actor’s body, cultural appropriations, Shakespeare and the senses, phenomenology, embodiment and gender.
Pluses: it’s in New Zealand! Get thee to thy computer and write a proposal, if only so you have an excuse to go there and worship at the shrine of Peter Jackson.
Minuses: if Shakespeare weren’t already dead, I’d be very concerned for his health. I mean, he’s a marble torso with a dollop of entrails. Is it wrong that I find this just as disturbing as anything by Susini?
ANZSA Conference - Home
January 13th, 2007
- inchoate
- aleatory
- ambit
- echt (ok, I actually learned that in 2005, but I just saw it again)
- lusus naturae
- aetiology (I really should have known that one already - no excuse)
- alible
- amerce
- mutatis mutandis
- deictic
- pogonip
- enchiridion
- virgule
Sometimes it seems the only place I encounter new words, besides the dictionary (I like the Free Dictionary), is the New Yorker. Bless the New Yorker, for keeping me from degenerating into complete illiteracy whilst practicing lab science and subsequently living in red rural America!
December 31st, 2006
A friend sent me a link to this new magazine called GOOD. It includes features such as “The Color of War: An embedded artist chronicles Iraq” and “Search And Destroy: Ramming and sinking whale boats wherever they can be found.” To be sure, neither of those topics is Martha Stewart’s kind of “good thing” - but it sure sounds interesting! Heck, they even have a section called “Provocations”.
The best part is that if you subscribe to GOOD, your entire $20 fee will go to the charity of your choice (they have twelve to choose from, including DonorsChoose, Teach for America, UNICEF and WWF.) They say they’re doing it in order to self-select subscribers that fit their readership model, and I think it’s going to work! Their goal is to get 50,000 subscribers and so far they have just over 10,000.
So if you were going to do some end-of-the-year donations anyway, you might want to channel some of your money through GOOD and get something good for yourself, too.
December 28th, 2006
Schmies Vocabulary Quiz
I found this old but still amusing thing whilst rooting around online at 4am. (Procrastinator::Me.) I usually find vocab quizzes pretty easy, but this one’s tougher than usual. See if you can beat my score (183).
December 24th, 2006
The words that manufacturers use in product packaging can be a little ambiguous. In an earlier post, I noted that the FDA permits the adjective “light” to be used in reference to the texture or appearance of a food, for example “light and fluffy,” as long as the manufacturer’s meaning is clear. That last bit is included because “light” also can mean “reduced-calorie” or “reduced-fat.” To avoid misleading consumers, Canada allows only this last sense of “light” in packaging, and forbids its use in reference to texture or color.
The Canadian regulation seems a bit harsh. After all, qualitative descriptions of “light and fluffy” food easily predate today’s obsession with the calorie. Almost all my mother’s cookie recipes ordain that I “beat until light and fluffy” some unhealthy melange of sugar, butter, and/or eggs. Google Book Search offers up this heart-stoppingly saturated vintage Buttermilk Cake recipe (from the Chicago Dietetic Association’s “Recipes for Institutions”, 1922):
100 servings? Ms. Fischer was efficient.
A consumer can reasonably be expected to understand that, even if “light and fluffy,” Buttermilk Cake batter is not a reduced-calorie food. But other adjectives place an undue burden on the consumer, because they are not clearly defined. Hypoallergenic is arguably the worst of these. Many people aren’t even aware that they don’t know what it means.
Test yourself: which of the following is the best definition of hypoallergenic?
A. does not cause an allergic reaction
B. has a diminished potential for causing an allergic reaction
C. will reduce the number of allergens in the environment of the user
D. contains only extensively hydrolyzed proteins and/or free amino acids
E. fragrance-free
F. safe
The answer is, unfortunately, that it depends on whom you ask. The OED gives (B), but some dictionaries don’t list hypoallergenic at all, because it does not have an unambiguous medical or legal meaning. Like many other scientific-sounding but nebulous words, hypoallergenic was invented for use in mid-century advertising, apparently by combining hypo- (less, below) with allergen. Thus, a hypoallergenic product has reduced allergic potential. But some people may still be allergic to hypoallergenic products, and the severity of their allergic response cannot be predicted. A hypoallergenic product could cause anaphylaxis in a sensitive user. Hypoallergenic does not mean (F) safe.
A substance with no allergenic potential at all, as in definition (A), would be non-allergenic. It is practically impossible to prove that organic products like foods and cosmetics are non-allergenic, because the immune system can potentially recognize millions of molecules as allergens. Some consumer, somewhere, could be allergic to anything. Anti-allergenic products are supposed to reduce other allergens (C). HEPA (High efficiency particulate air) filters are sometimes described as anti-allergenic, as are chemical agents for killing dust mites.
Proteins are potent allergens, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics decided in 2000 to recommend definition (D) for hypoallergenic infant formula. 2-3% of infants are allergic to cow’s milk formulas, but breaking the allergenic milk proteins down completely (through hydrolysis) renders them unrecognizeable by the infant’s immune system, and threfore safe. The AAP even specifies how the formula should be tested:
These tests should, at a minimum, ensure with 95% confidence that 90% of infants with documented cow’s milk allergy will not react with defined symptoms to the formula under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions. Such formulas can be labeled hypoallergenic. If the formula being tested is not derived from cow’s milk proteins, the formula must also be evaluated in infants or children with documented allergy to the protein from which the formula was derived. It is also recommended that after a successful double-blind challenge, the clinical testing should include an open challenge using an objective scoring system to document allergic symptoms during a period of 7 days. This is particularly important to detect late-onset reactions to the formula.
In contrast, cosmetics manufacturers may use hypoallergenic to mean (E), fragrance-free, because fragrance ingredients are likely to be irritating when applied to the skin. Many, perhaps most, cosmetics are never tested to determine whether they induce an allergic skin response, because no agency requires them to do so. Each manufacturer is free to decide what they mean by “hypoallergenic,” and their chosen meaning is not vetted by any outside authority. The FDA says quite clearly,
There are no Federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term “hypoallergenic.” The term means whatever a particular company wants it to mean. Manufacturers of cosmetics labeled as hypoallergenic are not required to submit substantiation of their hypoallergenicity claims to FDA.
The FDA has been aware of the potential confusion here for some time. In 1975, the FDA attempted to clear it up by creating a specific regulatory definition for “hypoallergenic,” which would have required manufacturers to test their products and submit proof that they had a low risk of adverse skin reaction in humans. However, the FDA was challenged in court by Almay and Clinique, two manufacturers who relied heavily on the term “hypoallergenic” in their advertising. The FDA initally won, but in 1977 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held the FDA regulation invalid because the FDA had not demonstrated that consumers understood “hypoallergenic” in the way the FDA had defined it. Basically, it seems the FDA attempted to clear up public confusion about the term “hypoallergenic,” but public confusion about the term rendered their effort unenforceable. Puzzling, to say the least!
To give allergy sufferers some measure of protection, the FDA does require that ingredients, including allergenic ingredients, be listed on cosmetic and food packaging. However, the consumer is responsible for checking the label and knowing whether they suffer from an allergy to the ingredients included in the product. (Also, cosmetics labels do not need to specify the individual components of a fragrance - so allergic individuals probably want to choose “fragrance-free” products even if they’re not demonstrably hypoallergenic).
Interestingly, some infant formula manufacturers recently tried to get out of listing milk whey as an ingredient in infant formula, because they claimed it had been so extensively hydrolyzed, it qualified as hypoallergenic (according to the AAP standards). The FDA denied the petition, because the tests conducted by the manufacturer did not prove the product met the AAP requirements for hypoallergenicity. So at least in the case of infant formula, the word does have some regulatory meaning. It’s just hard for the average consumer to know what that meaning is, or when to trust it.
Recently, the word “hypoallergenic” has become attached to a new type of product: cats. I’m planning to write more on this topic later, but Allerca Lifestyle Pets claims to have bred cats which lack the major cat allergen, Feld1. Allerca is now taking orders for hypoallergenic kittens, at $3950 a pop.
Although the supporting data is not yet published, Allerca says that cat-sensitive patients experienced reduced allergic reaction to their hypoallergenic cats, compared with a control cat. If that’s true, it seems fair to call Allerca’s cats hypoallergenic. Anyone who claims “there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic cat” are incorrect. There is no such thing as a non-allergenic cat. But it’s quite possible for a cat to have a reduced potential for allergenicity, compared with other cats.
Several cat breeders cried foul at Allerca’s announcement. They claim that certain cat breeds, including Siberians, Cornish Rexes, and Devon Rexes, are already hypoallergenic (and cheaper). The evidence for this is mostly anecdotal. But since there are no legal or medical standards for using “hypoallergenic” to describe cats, if there is any benefit at all for allergy sufferers to having a Siberian over another cat, Siberian breeders could claim that their cats are hypoallergenic.
At this point, we can’t determine which cats (Allerca’s or Siberians) are more hypoallergenic. No published tests have compared the two breeds of cat. But this is what Allerca claims on their website, in a section entitled “hypoallergenic cats”:
The cat allergen is a potent protein secreted by the cat’s skin and salivary glands. ALLERCA has focused on naturally occurring genetic divergences (GD) already present in cats that do no harm to the cats in any way. The resulting ALLERCA GD hypoallergenic cats will now improve the health and quality of life for millions of cat-allergy sufferers.
While some breeds of cats have been promoted as having less allergen than others, scientists that have tested this hypothesis have shown that all cats, regardless of breed, produce allergens. The ALLERCA GD cat is the only scientifically-proven cat that helps those individuals with feline allergies and was developed using proprietary methods under ALLERCA’s pending patents.
Hold on there! Even if the Allerca cats completely lack the allergenic glycoprotein Feld1, which they have not proven, the Allerca cats would still have other potential protein allergens. There is not, and cannot be, a non-allergenic cat. But that doesn’t invalidate the proposition that some breeds of cat “have less allergen than others.” Given the genetic variation between individual cats, it seems quite possible that some would produce less Feld1. In fact, Allerca claims they created their hypoallergenic cats by screening for animals with a naturally occurring “genetic divergence” in the Feld1 gene. Allerca’s statement is technically correct, but misleading, insofar as it implies that Allerca is the only source of cats with reduced allergic potential. Allerca has not yet proven that Siberian cats aren’t just as hypoallergenic as the Allerca cat. Show me the data, Allerca.
The bottom line: be skeptical of the word “hypoallergenic.” It does not mean “safe,” and the person using it is usually trying to sell you something expensive.
And while you’re at it, you might want to stay away from that Buttermilk Cake too. You might not be allergic to it, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
December 11th, 2006
But people usually think my accent is Canadian. . .
| What American accent do you have?
Your Result: The Inland North
You may think you speak “Standard English straight out of the dictionary” but when you step away from the Great Lakes you get asked annoying questions like “Are you from Wisconsin?” or “Are you from Chicago?” Chances are you call carbonated drinks “pop.”
|
| The Northeast |
|
| Philadelphia |
|
| The Midland |
|
| North Central |
|
| Boston |
|
| The South |
|
| The West |
|
What American accent do you have?
Take More Quizzes |
November 10th, 2006
Aposematism, 2006. Watercolor on illustration board
“Aposematism” is a type of protective signalling mechanism, usually but not always involving bright coloration, that draws the attention of predators. It might seem counterintuitive that potential prey would make themselves more conspicuous, but aposematic prey are defended by stings, venom, foul tastes, or other weapons, and they need to warn predators of that.
A yellowjacket wasp’s bright yellow grabs a bird’s attention, warning that this particular prey can fight back with a sting. A skunk’s stripe warns of a different, but equally unpleasant, defence. Bold stripes, bright colors, and other distinctive patterns help the predator associate the prey animal’s appearance with the unpleasant result. Like someone who gets the stomach flu after visiting a certain restaurant, they will avoid that food source in the future.
Familiar color patterns recur in aposematic animals. Honeybees and yellowjacket wasps both use yellow and black stripes. Although each species’ pattern differs, bees and wasps have successfully collaborated to make their predators strongly associate their shared defense, stings, with their shared yellow and black coloration. Resemblance across different aposematic species is called Mullerian mimicry. The mimicry is arguably more beneficial to the bee, because deploying its barbed stinger has fatal consequences, while the carnivorous yellowjacket can sting an attacker repeatedly and still escape in good health. But both hymenopteran families benefit from sharing one common, clearly understood warning signal.
Unpalatable butterflies and their caterpillars also use high-contrast black and yellow or black and orange patterns (some engage in Mullerian mimicry). Venomous snakes, like the coral snake, are yellow, black and red to warn their attackers off. Tropical poison dart frogs are yellow and black (some with stripes), but also hot pink, aqua, and neon orange. What do predators think of all these bright colors and patterns?
It turns out that chicks tend to avoid black and yellow food, even if they have never come in contact with it before. Schuler and Hesse (1984) painted mealworms with either a conspicuous yellow and black pattern or a drab olive color (created by mixing the yellow and black paint). They found that although newborn chicks would peck at the black and yellow striped mealworms as often as they pecked at the olive mealworms, the chicks did not eat as many of the black and yellow mealworms. Since the mealworms were identical (and harmless) except for the paint, the chicks had no incentive to ignore the black and yellow ones. Schuler and Hesse concluded that the chicks have a native aversion to black and yellow prey based on color alone.
To exploit such predatory prejudices, some animals mimic aposematic coloring despite having no defences of their own. The hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) is a very convincing replica of a yellowjacket, though like all moths, it lacks a sting. If it’s lucky, the moth’s superficial resemblance to a more dangerous species will protect it from predatory birds. This type of mimicry is called Batesian mimicry. Bees and wasps, who are defended by stings, derive no benefit from the hornet moth’s Batesian mimicry of them. Mimicry can work against the model species: if a predator eats a Batesian mimic and experiences no ill effects, it may learn to doubt the reliability of yellow and black warnings, and begin to eat both defenceless mimics and defended model species. To avoid this problem, hornet moths must be significantly outnumbered by the authentic bees and yellowjackets encountered by the predator.
Coral snakes also have Batesian mimics. There are over a dozen species of American snakes with red, yellow and black stripes that resemble corals, more or less. Batesian mimicry apparently doesn’t have to be exact, just reminiscent enough of the genuine coral to give a predator pause.
The mnemonic “red on yellow kills a fellow, red on black venom lack” helps to distinguish venomous coral snakes, in which the red stripe is surrounded directly by yellow, from nonvenomous mimics such as the Mexican milk snake, with the red stripe insulated from the yellow by black. Unfortunately, this mnemonic is not always accurate. Its usefulness depends on geographic location, and much like the coral snake, it has many confusingly similar variations (”black on red, friend to Fred,” etc). In an episode of Seinfeld, Kramer reverses it so the “red on yellow” snake, the coral, is harmless. (He’s corrected by Elaine.) It also pops up occasionally as “black on yellow kill a fellow,” which is misleading, because black touches both red and yellow in the harmless milk snake. Check this helpful page for photos of coral snakes, some of their nonthreatening mimics, and a good explanation of the stripe pattern.
In evolutionary terms, it remains unclear how a species initially makes the transition from cryptic (camouflaged) coloration to conspicuous, aposematic coloration. Conspicuous prey seem more likely to be seen and eaten than cryptic ones, and it may take a predator several tries to learn that conspicuous prey should be avoided. If there are just a few conspicuous animals in a population, they should be picked off too quickly to reproduce. However, some recent studies modeling predator-prey interactions suggest that predators’ food preferences are complex, and conspicuous coloration may not be the fatal disadvantage it was once thought.
Humans have co-opted the high-contrast color combinations characteristic of aposematism for our own purposes. Warning signs (both traffic and industrial) tend to use yellow, red, or orange in combination with black. The familiar yellow caution tape depicted in this painting is so close to the natural coloration of the yellowjacket, the insect almost disappears against it. Note that this effect is a completely artificial inversion of the normal function of aposematic coloration, which should be the very opposite of camouflage. In the wild, against a background of green, brown, or grey, the yellowjacket would be clearly visible: “Danger! stinger here.”
Although yellow and black patterns do catch our attention, we aren’t chicks. These colors don’t make us lose our appetite (although mealworms might). Quite the opposite - yellow and red are often used with black as color schemes in the fast food industry (McDonald’s, Burger King, Carl’s Jr., KFC, Denny’s, Wendy’s, Taco Time, etc). In a recent article in Voice, David Barringer discusses the conflicting “danger” and “hunger” impulses evoked by yellow and red. One theory is that mammals tend to associate these colors with fruit, and picking them out against a dull background was an evolutionary key to success in foraging. Our eyes became optimized to identify fruit colors, and the colors might have innate positive food-related associations for us. Studies have shown red makes people hungry.
But it’s more complex than that, obviously. We learn simultaneous negative and positive associations for the red and yellow of fire (danger, burns, warmth, cooking); and the black-on-yellow “danger: flammable” sign has different connotations than a yellow-on-black sign for a flame-grilled hamburger. Barringer points out that many of the fast food joints using these colors could simply be emulating McDonald’s mid-century decision to go with gold, and benefiting from accidental association with an already well-known food brand — McDonaldsian mimicry. Yum.
November 4th, 2006