Size Does Matter in Bats' Evolution

AP ^ | Jan 24, 2006 | WILLIAM KATES

[Pharmboy]

Hard to know where to begin...

[Pharmboy]

Big family jewels, small brain ping list...

[Blueflag]

First of all, it is bad science in ANY genre to 'generalize from the particular'. One can only CONCLUDE what the data actually support. One can THEORIZE anything.

Like ...

Well-endowed males share the female sluts with other well-endowed males. While others don't 'share' promiscuously.

[Pharmboy]

True enough...and it is also a bit misleading, since size usually refers to the penis rather than the testes.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

"Quick...to the Batpole."

[Blueflag]

Also, scientifically, he apparently presumes a leap of faith NOT supported broadly in-fact -- that larger testes result in more viable sperm in the ejaculate of mammals. Gametogenesis is not directly related to testicular size across mammalian species, IIRC.

BTW, what a job to have as a grad student - measuring the size of bat balls, the volume/nature of bat semen, and the copulation patterns of individual bats in a population. FWIW, the practicality of gathering accurate data, given a likely small grant size, leads me to wonder if the data are even close to valid. I wonder what the sample size, error variance and confidence intervals were. Frankly, I doubt the research at face value. (and I don;t intend to read the paper ;-)

[HiTech RedNeck]

You did ... what!?! ... to bats?

[mewzilla]

What about the variations in weight among male bats? Wouldn't fat bats and or scrawny bats skew the sample?

[RoadTest]

See, God didn't need to use evolution, as Henry Ford did, because, unlike Henry, he could see the final product before he made the first one.

So - - - Bingo! He makes fish. Bingo! He makes horses. Bingo! He makes humans. Etc. Etc. Etc. All finished from the start.

Got it?

[stuartcr]

Promiscuous bats?

[PatrickHenry]

"Size Matters" Ping List Don't ask to be added to or dropped from this list; I know what you like.

[ko_kyi]

I guess there is an intersection of the curves on the graph - a "sweet spot", if you will.

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

males had testes starting at 0.11 percent of their body weight and ranging up to 1.4 percent.s>>

1.4 percent of bodyweight! For a 170 lb male human that would be... hoo boy. Never mind.

[Just mythoughts]

LOL

Just hmmmmm, so is evolution all about sex or maybe sex is all about evolution?

[ken5050]

I'm both stuned and beebed..over a dozen posts, and not one "big brain & little brain" comment..

[Chanticleer]

A research team led by Syracuse University biologist Scott Pitnick found that in bat species where the females are promiscuous, the males boasting the largest testicles also had the smallest brains. Conversely, where the females were faithful, the males had smaller testes and larger brains.

Um.... I'm speechless.

[MonroeDNA]

That explains my Mensa membership.

[Cliff Dweller]

Deja Vu all over again. This was posted two weeks ago.

[Malsua]

8.5 percent of the males' mass (in the Rafinesque's big-eared bat)

I'm thinking someone mis-named this bat. It ain't just his ears that are big.

8.5% of their mass eh? In a 200 pound Human male, he'd have 17 pounds of uhm, er. I imagine it would chafe.

[DustyMoment]

Get ready for the feminazis to jump on this . . .