Randomly assembled (christian) cat

The early embryology of the chick

The early embryology of the chick Link to pdf of the book.
Better versions of the figures available here, at the UNSW Embryology pages.

Patten, Bradley M. (Bradley Merrill) P. Blakiston’s Son & Co. 1920

Introduction

The only method of attaining a comprehensive understanding of embryological processes is through the study and comparison of development in various animals. Many phases of the development of any specific organism can be interpreted only through a knowledge of corresponding processes in other organisms. The beginning student, however, must acquire his knowledge of embryology through intensive study of one form at a time, depending at first on older workers in the field for interpretation of the phenomena encountered. Building on the familiarity with fundamental processes of development thus acquired, he may later broaden his horizon by the comparative study of a variety of forms.

The chick is one of the most satisfactory animals on which student laboratory work in embryology may be based. Chick embryos in a proper state of preservation and of the stages desired can be readily secured arid prepared for study. Used as the only laboratory material in a brief course they afford a basis for understanding the early differentiation of the organ systems and the fundamental processes of body formation common to all groups of vertebrates. In more extended courses where several forms are taken up, the chick serves at once as a type for the development characteristic of the large-yolked eggs of birds and reptiles, and as an intermediate form bridging the gap between the simpler processes of development in fishes and amphibia on the one hand and the more complex processes in mammals on the other. In medical school courses where a knowledge of human embryology is the end in view the chick not only makes a good stepping stone to the understanding of mammalian embryology, but also provides material for the study of early developmental processes not readily demonstrable in mammalian material.

My Funny Valentine Song, by Keith Jarrett Trio

lncRNAs transactivate STAU1-mediated mRNA decay by duplexing with 3′ UTRs via Alu elements

lncRNAs transactivate STAU1-mediated mRNA decay by duplexing with 3′ UTRs via Alu elements

Chenguang Gong & Lynne E. Maquat

Nature 470, 284–288 (10 February 2011) doi:10.1038/nature09701

Annual Valentine’s Day Stoning Of Happy Couple Held

I Like Wikipedia…

check out this Wikipedia t-shirt. Did you know that Kangaroos are actually not born with wings but develop them later in life? Guess where I learned that!

An anteroposterior wave of vascular inhibitor downregulation signals aortae fusion along the embryonic midline axis

An anteroposterior wave of vascular inhibitor downregulation signals aortae fusion along the embryonic midline axis

Robert J. Garriock, Catherine Czeisler, Yasuo Ishii, Alicia M. Navetta and Takashi Mikawa

Development 137, 3697-3706, doi: 10.1242/dev.051664

part of fig 1 of the paper

Ideal Anthropomorphic Values of the Female Breast: Correlation of Pluralistic Aesthetic Evaluations With Objective Measurements

This was in my “Notch” PubMed alert!

Ideal Anthropomorphic Values of the Female Breast: Correlation of Pluralistic Aesthetic Evaluations With Objective Measurements.

Liu YJ, Thomson JG.

Ann Plast Surg. 2011 Feb 4. [Epub ahead of print]

wikipedia: Expert barriers to Wikipedia

There is a survey out there if you have something to say about Wikipedia, and I tried to go through it. Stopped at around 50 %, didn’t hit the submit button, I promise to reconsider if a new questionary come up in the future.

Wonder who prepared the questions/responses and who approved them.

First page, About yourself, your usual data with some questions to add if you have already edited a Wikipedia article.

Second page, Wikipedia among your peers, where you can express some of the concerns about how contributions are handled and most importantly if you think that Wikipedia’s content can be considered as reliable or not… and much more.

Third page, and it’s here where I started being uncomfortable with the question/responses combinations, Wikipedia and you:

Editing Wikipedia may help build my scientific reputation

---

Strongly motivates me? what kind of masochist would answer that?

---

Editing Wikipedia may undermine my scientific reputation
Again, Strongly motivates me?

---

I am not allowed to write about my original research in Wikipedia
Strongly motivates me? That’s a Wikileaks candidate

---

My legitimate contributions may be arbitrarily reverted or removed
Strongly motivates me! yeah, right…

---

I dislike engaging in discussions with anonymous contributors
Strongly motivates me… ROLF

---

I dislike arguing with amateur contributors
Yep, Strongly motivates me is still an option.

---

Wikipedia is a reliable source for educational purposes in my field
Let’s change it a little bit, Strongly discourages me…

---

I edit Wikipedia because it’s fun
Of course, Strongly discourages me, who likes having some fun?

Fourth page is about More about yourself, you are the hero of the survey after all… Now, there is a very interesting question here : “Would you consider helping rate/review wiki articles in your field of expertise?” Is this the beginning of a peer-review process by experts? That would be nice!

As I LOLed a little bit to hard with page 3 I abandoned there.

You may want to give it a try.

Imagine

This is a Song Around the World, from the Playing for Change crew: John Lennon’s Imagine

Not as epic as the Stand By Me by beautiful anyway.