With our faddish nature I’m always surprised fishermen aren’t more fashion conscious. Our weakness has always revolved around something new as a wholesale fix for all our fishing ailments.
In the Eighties it was Polypropylene – lighter than air and a couple of turns on a hook shank would make a fly float all day. The Nineties were typified by gummy latex and a veritable flotilla of eye catching synthetics.
The last decade was dominated by pearlescent, opalescent, and oily duck’s arse – and the renewed promise that only a couple strands would make a fly unsinkable.
Now it’s the Ultraviolet spectrum and every vendor is hell-bent on squirting chemicals we can’t detect (and of dubious UV qualities) on everything from salmon eggs to dry fly hackle, claiming the “fish killing qualities of the ultraviolet are virtually infinite.”
… and in all this frenzy, Reed F. Curry’s book – “The New Scientific Angling, Trout and Ultraviolet Vision” makes it’s debut.
Reed’s task is Herculean. Bring the stuffy lab-coated world of ocular physics out of its chaste mathematical surroundings, remove the obfuscation of scientific jargon, and adapt the material for fishermen, then drop the polished treatise onto the coffee table – there to compete with Playboy, People, and Guns N’ Ammo.
It’s a singular work, and his timing is impeccable.
Those of you familiar with The Contemplative Angler recognize that Reed’s quiet and biting humor is a common thread throughout his work; how he could remain stiff-lipped and scholarly was surely going to be a trial … and I was pleased he failed … miserably.
The book is reminiscent of a High School science text with the salient points highlighted by color in the margins. In this case, Reed spills both wit and angling reality into the colored boxes, a clear demark between the Science and Angler-humorist.
Fly tiers will read it like Playboy. Pictures first and text second – and the concepts of UVA (Ultraviolet absorption), UVR (Ultraviolet refection), and VIS (visible light) are featured in multiple pictures per page – which keeps the scholarly segments easy to absorb and engaging.
There is an enormous amount of real meat for the angler, and the segment of greatest interest to me was the discussion of “pattern matching” that answers that most elemental of all questions, “Why do fish think this is food?”
As the Quill Gordon floats within the trout’s range of vision – and here I am going to avoid the complex issues of Snel’s Circle, reflection and refraction and simply assume that the visual sensory input is very detailed and complete – the trout’s brain receives input of the fly exactly as it appears from below, in the full trout spectrum. VIS and UVR. The trout brain now gathers the elements that are attached to each other – hackle, body, wings, tail – ignoring floating particles of foam nearby, and assumes that it forms the whole unit. Against this gestalt the trout brain uses pattern matching, just as we would. The order of conditions is presumably the same:
- First, check for danger. Is the object a known threat? “No.”
- Next , check for food. Is the object a food item? “Yes,” “No,” “Maybe.”
And that is the crux of it. If as anglers we can establish “Maybe,” we have won the first part of the game. “Maybe” can indicate insufficient information which may lead to further investigation through other trout senses – Taste and Touch. In order for the fish to touch and taste, he takes an object in his mouth, hands being in short supply.
The section on “the composite insect” and how it fits into a fish’s pattern recognition “database” is enough to send any fly tyer into a reproductive frenzy.
Schweibert, Flick, and Swisher & Richards all gave us wonderful tomes about mayflies, most with wings intact and inviolate. Reed suggests that the all important “Maybe” that spurs trout to eat – may lie in the thousands of images of mayflies (caddis, etc) stored in memory.
Crippled, in the water and out, half in, struggling, fluttering, landing – double the images to account for the broadside view, quadruple that to take in the fore and aft of all the above, and you quickly get to millions of possible watery lumps that “maybe” food.
Which is why those old archaic flies we know don’t work like the McGinty, the Royal Coachman, and the Trude – all non-scientific flies, get eaten, and often.
“The trout’s pattern for mayfly wings, therefore, must be quite vague, perhaps simply a small extension from the body, light in color and displaying a hint of UVR. A trout that only eats mayflies with perfectly formed wings is missing a lot of food.”
As humans we view insects and their imitations with only the visible spectrum (VIS). Fish can use both visible and UV light to recognize prey, and at depth or during low light conditions where both are active, a mixed image is likely.
“Through UVR in combination with VIS, trout have an opportunity to see fine details of the chitin, the outer surface of an insect’s body and wings. How deep this vision goes depends, of course, on the individual trout, the conditions, and the insect.
… (trimmed by KB)
So, surface texture is significant because, despite what we see with our more limited vision, the trout can detect in the UV that natural flies are not perfectly smooth.”
The book’s photography covers the full gamut of angling gear as well as specific sections dealing with insects, fly tying materials, and the UV signature of colors in general.
Baitfish get some UV love as well. Rather than pile on more UV materials onto a hook shank – knowing which components of smaller fish are most visible in the UV spectrum suggests a thoughtful placement of materials – versus the “more is better” broad paintbrush.
… and while Reed answers more questions than he poses, it’s plain that both vision and perception suggest there is a great deal of unexplored territory left in the classic stalk and seduction of trout – and any other UV equipped gamefish.
This is a wonderful reference work for all anglers, likely to turn some of your notions about fly fishing on their ear. Careful study of the colors and their qualities under UV will assist in fly selection, clothing choice, and fishing qualities like retrieve and how depth may play into fly selection.
… and for the fly tier the color plates alone justify inclusion into your reference library. An essential book if you’re attempting to navigate the vendor offerings and add UV aids in insect imitations.
Me? My next fishing vest will be Bright Yellow … waders painted with a similar retina scorching disjointed color pattern – a not so subtle mix of the Bismarck and Elvis.
Pikeminnow rolling lazily between my feet as I’m completely invisible …
Amazon lists the book at $27.95, with only two copies left. Jump on it.
Full Disclosure: Singlebarbed did trade two (2) pairs of Sixth Finger Scissors to Messr. Curry for the privilege of owning such a superb reference work. Tears were involved … his mostly.
Tags: Reed Curry, The New Scientific Angling Trout and Ultraviolet Vision, Overmywaders.com, The Contemplative Angler, trout vision, ultraviolet spectrum, visible light, baitfish, insects, fly tying materials,
Pingback: Reviews of "The New Scientific Angling - Trout and Ultraviolet Vision" are starting to come in - The Contemplative Angler
I haven’t finished the book, but from what I’ve read so far, I will definately be tying flies with a different(improved) perspective. Thanks Reed!
A nice review and it looks as though there is some interesting stuff in the book. But, and it seems to be a big but, as I wrote back in September, I still don’t see how the fundamental premise is supported. Only very young/small trout are able to see in UV, a trait that is irreversibly lost as the fish smolt, ie well before they become targets for fly fishermen.
Eccles,
It appears that scientists have conflicting research and conclusions. While it was once thought they lost UV vision as part of smoltification, that may no longer be true.
Research concluded in the last 6 years suggest the UV capabilities are retained. Please don’t ask me to prove it … I’m having a hard enough time translating their learned scientific journal already.
Well, no not really. There may be only a couple of things I have going for me but in this context they are access to and the ability to read the scientific literature critically. Research in the last three years categorically (both by direct examination and experimental manipulation) states that the UV capacity is irreversibly lost in trout following smoltification. The end results of the reference chain I cited when I posted about this are unequivocal and have not been refuted since the main paper (establishing irreversible loss of UV sensing in rainbow trout) has been published.
It may be true that anadromous fish regain some UV capacity but the criticism levelled at the techniques used to demonstrate this still leave one thinking it has yet to be clearly established. And anadromous fish and feeding behaviour are a slightly different kettle of….err….fish.
I don’t know where Reed Curry gets his info from (I have tried to post a question on his site but the blog thinks I am a robot…possibly the nicest thing a computer has ever said to me) but any reading of the proper literature wouldn’t, as it currently stands, support a role for UV vision in trout feeding behaviour.
I hear a sigh when you talk about scientific journals..I can always send you the most relevant papers……
aye
KB,
Do you mind if I step in here? Thanks.
Eccles,
Since the book is also being critically reviewed by one of the same scientists who originally wrote of the regeneration or non-loss of UV cones in the dorsal retina, I should have something to chew on then.
The word “unequivocal” is not a scientific term. Everything is open for discussion. Now, you are basing all of your firm statements about rainbow trout on a study that didn’t even use rainbow trout riboprobes but coho salmon instead. That was/is a nasty piece of work by Cheng and Flamarique both in tone and technique. Alison et al, contested their conclusions, in fact the whole study, based upon the use of coho salmon, the length of segment used and one other point I don’t recall. That is hardly “unequivocal”.
Cheng saying that the salmon are similar totally ignores the fact that evolution follows temporal needs; the coho don’t require the same vision for life in the sea that trout do in rivers.
You also seemed to miss the fact that Cheng and Flamarique never actually proved anything with rainbow trout as regards the dorsal retina “Our results demonstrate that single cones in the rainbow trout
retina switch opsins from SWS1 (maximally sensitive to UV
light) to SWS2 (maximally sensitive to blue light) in a
transformation event that begins in the ventral retina and
proceeds *toward* the dorsal retina. This event starts before full
yolk sac absorption (Cheng et al., 2007) and continues
throughout the juvenile period such that the adult (sexually
mature) rainbow trout lacks UV expression throughout the *main*
retina. These results are similar to those obtained by analysis of
retinas from multiple Pacific salmonid species with the coho derived
riboprobes used in this study (Cheng and Novales
Flamarique, 2004; Cheng et al., 2006; Cheng et al., 2007).” Note their comparison, once again of anadromous and non-anadromous salmonids. Use of the coho-derived riboprobes disqualifies this study immediately. It is not dissimilar than using bats to study the vision of humans because genetically they are similar – their vision needs are not equivalent, no matter how close the DNA.
Why not read the book before deciding? I did 🙂
Hi Reed,
Thanks very much for highlighting these points. You are quite right to say that “unequivocal” is not a very helpful term, and I retract it.
You make a number of good points and I would like to address them and ask you some more about what you have said. I am not sure whether that is best here or somewhere else – your blog perhaps? Keith do you mind Singlebarbed being hijacked for a bit while we discuss this?
Before getting Keith’s OK on this I would add that I have been at pains, particularly in my original post about your book, to highlight the fact that I may have missed something that would make me see the topic differently, some piece of work I have overlooked or misinterpreted. I am interested in understanding the relevance of the topic first and foremost not in taking and sticking to any one particular viewpoint. With that in mind I would love to continue this if Keith is happy.
aye
Eccles
Gentlemen,
The floor is yours. I’ll provide cold drinks and hammer the bell – expecting you to retire to respective corners.
For the curious, Reed and Eccles are likely two of the most thoughtful and articulate fellows you’ll encounter in the blogosphere. Eccles is the author of Turning Over Small Stones and Reed needs little introduction, as he is the author of said tome.
Keith,
that’s very gracious of you. I’m working right now, vacillating between computer and computerless rooms so just a quick coupla question to Reed to get it going.
Can I ask which of the authors is reviewing the book? The first author of the (2006) paper you cite, Allison WT, has moved from University of BC to Uni Michigan and has not published on UV and fish since nor has the second author Dunn. The third author Veldhoeven has but the papers do nothing more to illuminate the subject and the senior, last, author Hawryshyn also has but again does not get to grips with the Cheng et al. issues. Hawryshyn has published a recent paper that may talk about UV perception but I only have the abstract and will have to go to the library to get the full paper. The point here is that there is no criticism of the Cheng et al 2007 paper in the scientific literature so I am unsure where you got the info that Allison et al. contested Cheng et al. findings.
There are a number of other points that I want to raise about the Cheng et al. paper in response to your comments Reed. But I will have to do that a little later as duty calls.
I will put down a more detailed response once I have some time this evening.
aye
Eccles
Eccles,
First let’s make sure we are reading the same papers. By Cheng and Flamarique I meant “Chromatic organization of cone photoreceptors in the retina of rainbow trout: single cones irreversibly switch from UV (SWS1) to blue (SWS2) light sensitive opsin during natural development” from JEB 2006.
In that paper C&F mention “The latter is
very important to resolve, as discrepancies in results have been attributed by Allison et al. (Allison et al., 2006) to the use of riboprobes of different origin (coho vs rainbow trout), nucleotide length, and related methodology (e.g. incubation time of sections in proteinase K treatment). The suggestion of
a difference in results due to riboprobe (species) origin has been put forward (Allison et al., 2006) despite a >97% sequence identity between our coho-derived UV and blue riboprobes and the corresponding mRNA sequences for the UV and blue opsins in rainbow trout (Cheng et al., 2006).”
The Allison et al paper referred to is “Degeneration and regeneration of ultraviolet cone photoreceptors during development in rainbow trout. J. Comp. Neurol. 499, 702-715.
by Allison, W. T., Dann, S. G., Veldhoen, K. M. and Hawryshyn, C. W. (2006).
So, you see, Allison et al had already in 2006 objected to the C&F study and, so far as they were concerned, disproved it. Why should they invest any more time with a bad study? Here is part of what they said in the paper above:
“Recent publications also acknowledge that apoptosis is the primary mechanism of UVS cone loss in salmonids Novales Flamarique, 2000, 2005; Cheng and Novales Flamarique, 2004), although they propose other events prior to UVS cone death that are not supported by the
available data. These articles argue that all single cones in small salmonids express UVS (SWS1) opsin mRNA and subsequently all single cones express SWS2 opsin mRNA.
Methodological details requisite for this interpretation were not presented, including hybridization stringencies and riboprobe lengths that impart labeling specificity. Importantly, the interpretation of other (microspectrophotometry)data in those studies required the assumption that recently produced opsin be confined to the base of the cone outer segment (Cheng and Novales Flamarique,
2004; Novales Flamarique, 2005). Although this is true in rods, cone opsin shows no such spatiotemporal pattern because it diffuses quickly throughout the topologically continuous cone outer segment (Young, 1969, 1971, 1976, 1978; Besharse, 1986; Eckmiller, 1987, 1993, 1997). Regardless, the conclusion that pink salmon O. gorbuscha single cones all express UVS opsin early in ontogeny, and
subsequently all express SWS2 opsin (Cheng and Novales Flamarique, 2004; Novales Flamarique, 2005), is not true for rainbow trout (Allison et al., 2003; current work) or S. salar (Forsell et al., 2001) as determined by labeling cone specific mRNA and protein. UVS and SWS opsin have been cloned from the retinal mRNA of pink salmon smolts (and other salmonid species, Dann et al., 2004a), indicating that UVS expression is not lost entirely in these species.”
Check and Mate by Allison et al.
I must get back to work now. I think you will like my book, Eccles, at least give it a try. Amazon.com can get you a copy, no fear.
Warm regards,
Reed
Reed,
Thanks very much for more detail and sorry for the delay tonight.
So I had some stuff to say about your former comment but your last one above needs some clarification as there is indeed confusion about publications which I would like to address.
Yes we are talking about the same Cheng & Flamarique paper but crucially it was published in 2007 in JEB not 2006. Hence it can, and obviously does, refer to Allison et al. 2006 and the other papers from that group whereas the latter paper is not actually referring to this Cheng & Flamarique 2007 paper but to their previous publications. In fact the sections you quote from do not refer to this 2007 paper – they could not, it hadn’t been published yet.
This is a crucial point as C&F 2007 directly respond to some of the statements you quote above. They take into account the potential difference between rainbow and coho derived riboprobes and demonstrate that there is none and there are a number of figures side by side in the paper demonstrating their lack of difference (eg fig 3 C&F 2007). It is not bats and humans. They look in detail at the change in UV expression in single cones during development and clearly show no UV labeling in adult trout including in the dorsal region (Figs 7 and 11 and re your first comment).
So if I may let me just recap here and go back through some of your specific comments.
1) The regeneration in the dorsal retina studies were published before C&F 2007.
2) C&F 2007 use both rainbow and coho derived riboprobes, not just coho as you state. They adequately demonstrate the results are the same whichever is used.
3) Allison et al have not contested the work of C&F 2007 because they published in 2006. C&F 2007 is a direct examination of the flaws of Allison et al. and other previous studies from their lab and other groups. Allison et al. nor any of their co-workers have since published studies in kind indicating any flaws in C&F 2007’s conclusions. It is also worth pointing out that JEB is a very good journal which has published a number of these kind of papers previously. The peer review process means the paper will have been sent to two other independent scientists who have knowledge of the field for review. They would pick out the glaringly bad methodology you suggest and decline it for publication.
4) C&F 2007 do demonstrate, both in the text and in a number of figures the loss of UV labeling from the dorsal area of the retina.
5) Again at the end of your first comment C&F do not solely use Coho derived riboprobes but both Coho and rainbow trout riboprobes and demonstrate they give the same results. It is clearly there in any number of their figures.
6) In your second comment you mix up publication dates. Allison et al. are not referring to the C&F 2007 paper but to papers prior to 2006 as is well demonstrated in the literature cited in the section you quote.
More generally you call the C&F 2007 paper nasty in tone and technique. I don’t get that at all. This is what science is about. Investigations by more than one lab go back and forward, some criticism, some acknowledgement of the others etc etc. THis seems to be exactly what happens here with both labs producing a number of papers, Allison et al. critiquing C&F and then C&F getting back to critique Allison et al. once they have carried out more detailed experiments addressing the criticisms. The to and fro generally stops when a lab demonstrates work that is rounded, fills the technical and interpretation gaps and is of a quality that can’t be refuted. Allison et al. and any of the other workers who demonstrated regeneration of UV perception have had ample opportunity to carry out studies and publish them since the C&F 2007 paper. They haven’t and given the number of papers produced prior to this the subsequent silence is a yawning void. The check mate you suggest Allison et al. have uncovered is not realised as C&F moved last with no subsequent defence being heard – isn’t that check mate?
So Reed, I think the chronology is important here. I am happy to continue if there are some points you would like to get back to me about. And I will be getting your book. I may not agree with some of it but it looks sumptuous and I don’t agree with a lot of what i read anyway.
Phew, Keith where are the drinks??? I think we are entering round 4.
Eccles,
Is it round four?
First I will acknowledge that I misread the timing of the papers. Sorry about that.
However, when we examine the 2007 C&F paper we find that they are still avoiding the measures suggested in Allison 2006. First, the length of the sequences used:
“A few bases at the 5foot and 3foot end of each probe sequence were omitted to allow for optimal PCR conditions; these omissions were less than 1.2% and 3.6% of the total UV and blue riboprobe sequences, respectively,
used by Allison et al. (Allison et al., 2003) and were functionally insignificant for hybridization purposes.”
Note that C&F are already stepping outside optimal parameters for convenience and deciding what is “functionally significant” without citing authority for that statement.
Later they say:
“In these experiments (Figs·2, 3), labelling by rtBL was generally more pronounced than that by coBL, probably because treatment with proteinase K in the in situ protocol was longer for rtBL (10·min) (Allison et al., 2003)
than for coBL (5·min) (Cheng et al., 2006). As well, the difference in length between riboprobes may have contributed to these results.”
So, first they say, without citing authority, that the length of the riboprobes was “functionally insignificant” then they say the difference in length “may have contributed to these results.”
Which is it??
Next the Allison paper noted “Importantly,
the interpretation of other (microspectrophotometry) data in those studies required the assumption that recently produced opsin be confined to the base of the cone outer segment (Cheng and Novales Flamarique,
2004; Novales Flamarique, 2005). Although this is true in rods, cone opsin shows no such spatiotemporal pattern because it diffuses quickly throughout the topologically continuous cone outer segment (Young, 1969, 1971, 1976, 1978; Besharse, 1986; Eckmiller, 1987, 1993, 1997).”
C&F 2007 repeats the use of the base of the cone outer segments because that was convenient for the device in use. Note that “cone opsin… diffuses quickly throughout the topologically continuous cone outer segment” not “diffuses uniformly”. The opsin may not have been retained in the base, thus Allison suggesting that the entire cone should have been examined, which C&F 2007 did not do.
The onus was on C&F to meet the criteria established by their peers in terms of methods and practice. How else could they – C&F – prove their case? Yet, both in riboprobe sequence length and in examination of the cones, C&F avoided the conditions that would be necessary to prove their work. C&F 2007 merited no response, it was essentially a repeat of the previous study with the addition of rainbow trout riboprobes, but not the RT riboprobe sequence lengths as stipulated.
What is interesting, Eccles, is that your wholesale discard of the multitude of studies proving rainbow and brown trout retention of UV vision capability in adulthood is not based upon the science of biology, but on psychology. From the beginning, you suggest that C&F conclusions must be right, not because of their methods or conclusions, but because no one had bothered to refute those conclusions. That says that the human ego dictates truth in science, not empirical fact. It also overlooks the many reasons – personal, business, and psychological – why Allison et al might not have responded to C&F 2007 (if that is indeed the case – “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”).
If I were Allison et al, I would simply walk away from the process. Clearly, C&F were pulling the old Monty Python pet shop (#2) sleight-of-hand – put the dog back in the box, pull it out again, and now call it a cat. (“Perfectly good cat”)
Warm regards,
Reed
Reed,
Lots of tooing and froing today so my replies will likely get a bit piecemeal.
Liked the Monty Python analogy – don’t agree with it but liked it. I’ll get back later about that bit
Quick question and comment before I leave the computer for a bit (I will be back to it though). Do you have some scientific training, a background in biological research? I ask because I am not exactly a lay person but this specific field is not my speciality, though I have worked on stuff with people for whom it is. Even with some experience I would be loathe to criticise a detailed methodology such as in C&F without comment from someone who knows about designing PCR primers (for eg). I really couldn’t say (though I am asking a molecular biologist colleague who I hope can) whether the small alteration in primer design bears any significance to the findings. However the reviewers of the paper didn’t think it does and though you may not like me harping on about it Allison et al 2006 and the others who are cited in C&F 2007 haven’t got back to say that the methodologies used in the latter paper are wrong. Simply walking away is just not what is done when there is a debate/contretemps/downright disagreement in science, it is not how science is conducted. What happens is the area is thrashed out via papers, comments, opinion pieces etc until a general consensus is agreed.
More of the above and some specific responses later.
aye
Eccles,
I just pulled a few notes that didn’t make it into the book. Here is one that is relevant from 2008 –
“A SWS1 opsin was also identified even though no UV-sensitive cones were found by MSP in this or our previous study (Shand et al., 2002). The discrepancy is, however, not unexpected as sampling by MSP of UV-absorbing cones presents technical difficulties. From
the coding sequence, the opsin would be expected to generate a UV-sensitive pigment (see below).”
from “The influence of ontogeny and light environment on the expression of visual pigment
opsins in the retina of the black bream, Acanthopagrus butcheri”
Julia Shand, Wayne L. Davies, Nicole Thomas, Lois Balmer, Jill A. Cowing, Marie Pointer,
Livia S. Carvalho, Ann E. O. Trezise, Shaun P. Collin, Lyn D. Beazley and David M. Hunt (Australia) from JEB 2008 accepted 21 Feb 2008
So, according to these Australian researchers, in two studies they performed MSP (microspectrophotometry) which failed to identify the SWS1 cones. MSP is the procedure used by C&F 2007.
In 2001, Hawryshyn, Haimberger and Deutschlander presented a paper on application of MSP using CCD’s rather than visual. [“Microspectrophotometric measurements of vertebrate photoreceptors using CCD-based detection technology” – JEB 2001] so they were aware of the limitations of the MSP when asking C&F to retest differently in 2006.
Indeed as early as 2001, N.S. Hart wrote – “The main drawback of the microspectrophotometric technique is that measurements are made from only a fraction of the total photoreceptor population and it is possible that some photoreceptor types can be overlooked.” (“The Visual Ecology of Avian Photoreceptors” 2001)
and now for something quite new (pub 2009, online dec 2008):
“Microspectrophotometric measurements are notoriously difficult in the UV region of the spectrum (300–400 nm)due to a number of factors, including low UV transmission by most of the microscope objectives used, low UV
content in the measuring beam and because the effects of optical aberrations and scattering by the tissue are more profound at shorter wavelengths. For both the starling and leiothrix, the absorbance spectra of their UVS pigments have poorly defined peaks that would have introduced error when calculating the kmax. The predicted kmax values for these species’ UVS pigments are more similar to
those obtained from other, higher quality UVS visual pigment absorbance spectra (Table 1) and, given the low variation seen in UVS visual pigment kmax in many animals, may well represent the true situation in these bird
species.” from “Assessing the use of genomic DNA as a predictor of the maximum
absorbance wavelength of avian SWS1 opsin visual pigments” by Anders Odeen, Nathan S. Hart, Olle Hastad – J Comp Physiol A (2009)
Eccles, it is not the onus of any one person, or any one team, to challenge the results of a peer-reviewed study. The entire scientific community simply plods forward and speaks quietly, each in their way. Your assumption that Allison et al, should devote their time, money, and energies to disprove C&F 2007 is fallacious. It is the invisible cat fallacy – “There is an invisible cat on that chair.” “I don’t see a cat.” “That proves my point, you can’t see an invisible cat.”
Are we done with this yet? My advice to you remains the same – buy the book, enjoy it, examine all my premises for evolution of UV vision in trout, wander through my theories of vision vs perception, and then tell me what you think.
Warm regards,
Reed
Eccles,
Well, that was entertaining and I see that our minds run in parallel — which means they never meet 🙂
Once you have taken the time to read the book, do get back to me through my website – http://www.overmywaders.com – with your assessment of my work. Until then, have a very happy holiday.
Warm regards,
Reed
While the two parties retire gracefully from the field, some commentary from your host:
As displayed above, the world of science, optics, and genetics can be a hideous, contentious and baffling subject.
Reed’s book translates this scientific minutae into plain text that is easily absorbed by the average angler.
Reed,
No not done yet, just finding the time to address your comments appropriately rather than off the top of my head. I may have a couple of hours this pm sitting in an airport lounge to say some more stuff but for now here is the response from the molecular biologist colleague I asked to put his eye over the papers with specific reference to your problems with the PCR design. He says…
“I wouldn’t have a problem with the techs used in 2007. Primers is not an issue… What they appear to be doing is using specific probes (riboprobes) to identify the presence (expression) of their target opsins in retinal sections (primers used to amplify cDNA [from mRNA]). Done this before myself (to find the location of microsporidians in tissue sections). The difference between the two papers seems to be that in the 2007 paper the riboprobes were decreased (minimally) in length – they are f**king [MY EDIT – SORRY HE IS A BRIT FROM NORTH LONDON WITH A PARTICULARLY COLOURFUL WAY OF EXPRESSING HIMSELF] long still. I would have like to have seen some sort of diagram showing primer/probe binding sites, but strongly suspect that all is above board: the probes would still be highly specific and therefore the results comparable.”
My colleague does this for a living, has worked on a number of different systems (one of which he refers to) in a number of different labs and has published numerous papers using PCR and rt-PCR. I asked him specifically to compare the Allison et al 2003, 2006 and Cheng & Flamarinque 2007 papers to see if the slight (“minimal” as he puts it) change would make any difference. I also asked him whether if he was reviewing the C&F paper he would have any problem with the methodologies more generally. Clearly he has none. His assessment, the editor handling the paper for JEB and the reviewers for JEB had no problem with it. I would go with these experts then.
You seem to selectively quote the section about labelling and proteinase K. In the next paragraph they amply demonstrate that this is not an issue.
Your detailed comments about microspectrophotometry also require examination which I will have to get to later.
Your suggestion that I think “C&F conclusions must be right, not because of their methods or conclusions, but because no one had bothered to refute those conclusions” is a misrepresentation. I am saying their findings are likely to be right because the methodologies are appropriate (see above for an example)and the conclusions they draw from the results obtained by these methodologies do not seem unreasonable. The editor of JEB and the reviewers of the paper agree else it wouldn’t have been published. The fact that there has been no response (and many journals allow “reply to..” or “comment on …” from the authors who are being critiqued in a paper the journal is about to publish) suggest scientists still studying in this area have little problem with C&F 2007.
Can’t do more now, later.
aye
Keith,
Very remiss of me not to say thank you for allowing this topic to be thrashed around a bit and apologies, in my haste to get that last comment in I hadn’t noticed you had wound up already.
Reading it again I find it somewhat disappointing that the thrust of the discussion bogged down in the detailed scientific methodology (neither of us I fear really qualified to criticize) rather than the functional significance of any putative UV ability. My fault for playing catch-up.
I’ve orded the book and when I have read it and received some replies from researchers in the field I’ll have another go at pulling it all together over my way.
many thanks again
Eccles
Eccles,
I think the crowd was much entertained and perhaps educated by the whole discussion, but the scientific minutae is hard to decipher for us lay-types.
… which is why no one “piled on” in the discussion.
Reed’s book has some items in addition to the UV issue that I find most interesting. The concept of the “composite” mayfly, and the “maybe” seduction.
I think you’ll like the book on a number of levels – as I did. The UV photography and color plates are most educational. Our sport is often guilty of embracing “new” with too much fervor, rather than waiting for the follow on detail that shows which colors really benefit – or have a markedly different appearance in that spectrum.
I found it a fast, enjoyable read – that didn’t require a PhD to understand many of the concepts Reed was illuminating, UV or otherwise.
Pingback: There’s always some fellow that wants to paint outside the lines | Singlebarbed
Pingback: The Fusion fly: Where we expose our ample hindquarters to scorn and levity | Singlebarbed
Pingback: Free Range dubbing proven to exist in other dimensions | Singlebarbed
So…….Did you ever stop to wonder why they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?