Earlier this week I was a guest on Breakfast Television Vancouver to discuss the portrayal of science in some recent blockbusters. The recent surge in science content in films and TV is something that I find genuinely encouraging. Public interest in subjects from immunology to forensics and even physics is expanding in part due to increased visibility in popular media (see this interesting piece from the Guardian on the subject). However, in my opinion Hollywood has an important responsibility to get the science right. It’s no longer good enough to depict science in a flippant way, as a write off to the more ‘important’ aspects of the story (as one recent film does). More and more, directors are consulting closely with scientific experts in order to depict the subject matter appropriately – which is fantastic news for the movement to popularize subjects with ‘taboo’ status.

I’m looking forward to the spring lineup of films from both the mainstream and film festival circuits – there should be plenty to discuss when it comes to the portrayal of science. Stay tuned!

You can watch my interview HERE.

I’m thrilled to announce the second annual ‘Cyberscreen Science Film Festival’, to take place during the infamous Science Online conference January 19 – 21, 2012.  We’re building on the resounding success of the inaugural event last year with an increased submission period, a larger venue and some serious swag for our talented film-makers!

Here’s how it works:

*Science Film Category:

Send links to your science-themed films and videos along with a short introduction to yourself and your work.  Works from all fields of science and engineering are eligible.

Films must be under 5 minutes in length.  Submissions longer than 5 minutes will not be considered for the festival.

Films can be focused on any facet of science, they can be scripted or not.  We’re looking for diversity and creativity when it comes to communicating your scientific message.

*Maya Science Animation Catetory:

This year I’m so pleased to announce our partnership with the folks at Autodesk, developers of Maya software, who have generously sponsored our event.  We’re introducing an animated graphics category to our festival this year, open to science films (2-5 minutes) with content that has been created using Maya software.

Are you a student or teacher and want to give Maya a whirl?

Autodesk will provide a FREE Maya license to educators and students** who would like to create a film for Cyberscreen Science that uses the software for its animations or graphics. You can also use the Molecular Maya toolkit (created by Gaël McGill & Campbell Strong – Harvard  Medical School/Digizyme) to import, build, and animate molecular structures within Maya. The same rules apply (all fields of science/medicine/engineering are eligible, submissions must be under 5 minutes in length).

*ALL submissions in both categories will be carefully considered, and we will make our final selections for the film festival in early January. Deadline to submit is January 10th!  If you are selected for the film festival, we will contact you with further details for hard-copy submission.

** For download instructions please contact us directly at psivid@gmail.com

PRIZES! PRIZES! PRIZES!

Our grand prize winner in the Science Film Category will receive an iPad (16GB wifi model).  The winning film will also receive a full story here on my Scientific American film blog PsiVid, and will be featured as ‘Video of the Week’ on the Scientific American main blogs page.

Runner up in the Science Film Category will receive an original painting by Michelle Banks and a featured spot on PsiVid.

Third prize in the Science Film Category will receive an original piece by tile artist Jeff Zelnio and a featured spot on PsiVid.

Our winner in the Maya Animation Category will receive an iPad (16GB wifi model), a spot as ‘Video of the Week’ on the Scientific American main blogs page.

In addition to being showcased during the hottest event in online science commmunication, all films selected for the festival will be generously rewarded for their great work.  Our prize selection includes swag from the National Center for Science Education, VIVO, Kahootz 3-D software donated by Brendan O’Brien, original artwork by Nathaniel Gold, t-shirts designed by Amoeba Mike, temporary tatoos by Colin Purrington and more!

Here’s your chance to get your work seen by many of the most influential science communicators out there!  I look forward to receiving your video links, send them to psivid@gmail.com.

The Environmental Studies Department at Antioch University New England seeks an adjunct instructor to teach their spring semester Master’s level course, “Environmental Education in the Digital Age.” Candidates must have a MS in environmental studies or a related field. A specialization in environmental education or environmental communications is preferred. Professional experience with social media and computer technology is required, preferably in communication with a variety of environmental audiences. Sample social media include blogs and microblogs (e.g., Twitter), wikis, podcasts, social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+), photography, video, content communities (e.g., YouTube), among others. Ideal candidates have teaching experience in higher education, including strong skills in designing curricula and teaching through creative, experiential approaches. Capacity to actively engage students and facilitate their effective use of technology tools and processes to create relevant course products is required. Theoretical and practical experience with dilemmas associated with environmental communications, social media, computer technology and social marketing for environmental behavior change is highly preferred. Understanding of relevant current trends in environmental education/communication/studies, as well as access to professional networks and organizations is also desired. Ability to work with others and communicate effectively is essential. Additional qualifications include flexibility, strong interpersonal skills, capacity to work independently, and ability to network and seek out resources.

Applicants should submit a cover letter, CV, and names and contact information for three references to Rachel Thiet, Director of the Master of Science Program in Environmental Studies, at rthiet@antioch.edu, with “EE in the Digital Age” in the subject line. Application deadline is December 2, 2011.

Course Description:  Environmental Education in the Digital Age
How can digital and social media be used to educate, advocate, bridge social divides, and change environmental policies and behaviors? Are such technologies even suitable to these purposes? How can we be inclusive in our use of online communication when the majority of the world’s population has limited or no access to computers? What are appropriate technologies for various instructional needs in an era of globalization? This course covers current issues in educational technology and practical applications of 21st century technological skills essential for environmental leaders and educators in the digital age. Participants will explore theories, research, and innovative approaches to the use of technology in Environmental Education and Environmental Communications. Students will become familiar with strategies to use technology effectively in various environmental studies contexts.

–

For more info, contact:

Rachel K. Thiet, Ph.D.
Director, Master’s Program in Environmental Studies
Environmental Studies Department
Antioch University New England
40 Avon St.
Keene NH 03431
Phone:   603-283-2337
E-mai

Image copyright Carin Bondar 'The Nature of Human Nature'

I know several men who like to dress up like women; however, it’s not a phenomenon that is restricted to just one kind of sexual orientation or demographic.  The truth is that cross dressing in the human species is widespread and extremely common.  Having grown up in a pretty liberal city (Vancouver), I’ve seen many a drag queen that has got my butt kicked when it comes to being the most stunning woman in the room.  Homo sapiens males who dress up as females are definitely not alone in the animal kingdom; it turns out that males of several diverse animal taxa like to appear in drag during certain stages of their lives.  From insects to fish, birds and mammals we see various examples of cross dressing.  Several hypotheses exist to explain why males have evolved to appear as females (a phenomenon termed ‘female mimicry’), most of which involve subordinate males’ interactions with dominant males.  How could it possibly be advantageous to appear as a female?  Cross-dressing has several potential functions for an inferior male:  it could fool dominant males into allowing them close contact with females, it could serve to allow them access to high quality territories that they may not be able to secure on their own, or it may serve to reduce overall aggression within a group¹.  Any or all of the aforementioned reasons may apply depending on the kind of organism doing the cross-dressing and the social structure to which it adheres.

Individuals of the parasitoid wasp (Lariophagus distinguendus) undergo their developmental process in stored grain (much to the chagrin of the humans that are storing the grain…but I digress).  Females oviposit into a single grain, where each individual wasp develops.  Although each developing wasp is protected inside its own grain, entire developing populations are clustered in a similar area.  Before each female wasp emerges from her developmental home, she produces a pheromonal (smelly) signal.  This signal helps males find her, which is extremely important because each female mates only once.  A male wasp that has detected her signal will wait nearby for her to emerge from her grain in order to inseminate her before any other male gets the chance (can you imagine mating just as soon as you’ve hatched?!).  Now, this is all well and good for males that emerge early from their own grains, but what about those that emerge later?  The late-bloomers need a fair crack at the female market as well, so they have evolved a special technique to enable them to be more successful…appearing as females!  Male wasps mimic the female pheromonal signal while they are still within their grains, effectively causing other males to sit and wait for someone of the wrong sex².  The fact that some early-hatching males have been distracted by the ‘fake female’ pheromone means that the cross-dressing males have a greater chance of spreading their seed to the next generation.  This is an example of cross dressing in an olfactory (rather than a visual) sense, and that’s the one that matters if you are a parasitic wasp.

Capuchinbirds (Perissocephalus tricolor) take cross dressing to the next level.  Behavioral observations on this South American rainforest species have demonstrated a great deal of sexual mimicry.  Males appear as females, but females also appear as males³.  In this extreme form of cross-dressing subordinate males benefit by obtaining closer contact with true females (who are normally under the protection of a dominant male).  Copulation in this species is extremely fast (1-2 seconds), so a male stands a pretty good chance at successfully copulating if he can make his way to a sexually mature female without being detected.  Females benefit from appearing as males because they are not bothered by subordinate males whilst on their quest to copulate with the dominant male.  Generally, sub-dominant males continually chase females and she can therefore get a ‘break’ from this chasing by appearing as a male (ahhhh the irony of evolution!).  It might just be me, but it seems that actually finding a compatible sexual partner in this species is no small task!

By appearing as a member of the opposite sex, individuals of the species in the examples above have evolved ways to make themselves more successful in the reproductive sense.  Can this same logic be applied to sexual mimicry in the human species?  Do cross dressing men increase their chances of offspring production by using their disguise to invade another man’s home?  It seems to me that this is an example of human behavior without any biological basis whatsoever.  Reasons for cross dressing in our species have little to do with reproductive success or increased survival….it may simply be that the elaborate garmets generally worn by the female gender of our species are too lovely for some males to pass up…after all, who doesn’t want to feel pretty now and then?  I know that I’d certainly prefer a fabulous dress over a boring old suit any day.

¹Rainey, M.M. and G.F. Graether. 2007. Competitive mimicry: synthesis of a neglected class of mimetic relationships.  Ecology 88(10): 2440-2448.

²Steiner, S., J.L.M. Steidle and J. Ruthner. 2005. Female sex pheromone in immature insect males- a case of pre-emergence chemical mimicry? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55:111-120.

I happened upon a few GREAT videos a while back that showcase the lovely mating dances performed by males of several different animal species.  My favorite of these happens to be the group number of the Andean pink flamingo:

Enamored?  Check out the amazing dances of some of the other boys I profiled in my latest post at Scientific American.  There’s even a lowly Homo sapiens in the mix  Happy Weekend Everyone!

Missed the link?  HERE it is again!

Copyright Carin Bondar 'The Nature of Human Nature'

According to our biological mantra, any energy spent either finding, courting and or fornicating with a member of the opposite sex is only justified if such an act is a bona fide attempt at spreading one’s genetic blueprints.  Where’s the fun in that?  Homo sapien males engage in copious amounts of sex without the thought of reproduction, and actively seek out partners that are sexually sterilized (see ‘Yes I’m on the pill’) in order to engage in it without the ‘worry’ of the potential side-effects (i.e. offspring).  Biologists generally assume that most other boys in the animal kingdom are much more asute than this when it comes to leaving your share of genes in the pool for subsequent generations.  Indiscriminate sex should be a rare occurrence due to the fact that energy is wasted on dead-end sex as opposed to being used for other forms of survival (e.g. food gathering or avoiding predators) or reproduction (e.g. courting a viable mate or creating a favorable environment in order to attract one).  However, there are always exceptions…and like the human male, there are others who do not necessarily wait for Ms. Right to come along before attempting sexual relations.  Animal species that live in both sexual and asexual forms present an interesting conundrum when it comes to mate selection.  Females are generally the gender with both sexual and asexual morphs, leaving the males to determine where his sperm will be most usefully spent.  However, many are incapable of discriminating between sexually competent or sterile females, meaning that human males aren’t the only ones to discard sperm without regard for its future…

The New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is a lake-dwelling mollusc whose females can be either sexually reproducing (requiring male ‘input’ for successful embryo production), or asexually reproducing (clonally reproducing without sexual activity).  Further, many native populations of this organism are infected with a parasitic trematode that causes castration (sterilization) in females.  Hence, males in these populations have several factors acting against their sexual success, leaving them in quite a conundrum when it comes to allocating energy to reproduction.  One might imagine that the powers of evolution would have dealt these poor fellas a little help in the mate-discrimination department; however, that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Mate choice experiments in which males were given a choice of either a) sexual vs asexual females OR b) healthy vs castrated females revealed that they don’t do a whole lot of discriminating¹.  Males showed no preferance for viable over non-viable females, appearing instead to simply attempt copulation with whichever females they could find.  In this species the average copulation event lasts approximately 2 hours, during which both the male and the female involved in the act are relatively immobilized…leaving them more susceptible to predation.  Conclusion: a copulation event represents a fairly large cost to a male if he is mating with an asexual or a sterilized female.  So would he do it?  Although the possibility exists that there may be an even larger cost to a male (in terms of time and energy lost) if he were to attempt to discriminate between fertile and sterile females, the scientists conducing this study surmise that at some level the male mud snails are engaging in behavior that is simply not contributing positively to their biological fitness in any way¹.

Rotifers are tiny freshwater-dwelling organisms that also have two distinct female forms:  sexual and asexual.  Akin to the mud snail and the human, there are no clear physical differences between sexual and asexual females; although those females that are sexual must be fertilized when they are at a very early age (they are no longer fertile after 9-20 hours of life²).  Male rotifers show a distinct preference for fertilizing very young females (2-3 hours old) which slightly improves the liklihood of fertilizing a sexual female, although they do not specifically discriminate between sexual and asexual individuals³.  Why don’t the males preferentially select females with the capability to propagate their genetic lineages?  They have a short lifespan (approximately 48 hours) and a large-enough supply of sperm so as not to become completely tapped out during this short time (it takes a total of about 13 copulations for him to be spent), drastically decreasing the need to discern between sexual and asexual females.  If he had a lower amount of sperm to work with, it may lead to increased selection pressure to find the right girl rather than any girl.

As these examples show, if males cannot distinguish between fertile and sterile females, several of his sexual conquests may be in vain.  This could mean big trouble if you are a rotifer or a mud snail: reproduction is as important as survival to any particular individual, and if the chances to do so are impaired then biological fitness is automatically lowered.  So where does that leave the Homo sapien?  Far from the priorities of our cousins in the animal kingdom, many of ours (with respect to reproduction anyway) have been altered in order to minimize biological fitness.  Human males, unlike their snail and rotifer counterparts, actually seek out sterility in a potential partner….and for good reason: could you imagine if each of your own sexual conquests had resulted in offspring?  You might have the highest biological fitness of all of your friends, but to the Homo sapien this situation would be far from optimal.

¹Neiman, M. and Lively, C.M. 2005. Male New Zealand mud snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) persist in copulating with asexual and parasitically castrated females.  American Midland Naturalist 154: 88-96.

²Snell, T.W. and Childress, M. 1987. Aging and loss of fertility in male and female Brachionus plicatilis (Rotifera). International Journal of Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 12: 103-110.

³Gomez, A. and Serra, M. 1996. Mate choice in male Brachionus pllicatilis Rotifers. Functional Ecology 10: 681-687.

Image courtesy of Physorg.com

This week’s Cool Biology Job takes us over to Scotland, where there is an opening for a post-doctoral research assistant on a fully funded project to investigate the benthic assemblages found on seamounts of the southwest Indian Ocean Ridge. The post-doc will undertake the collection of benthic macrofaunal samples and be responsible for the sorting and identification of the fauna, in particular the polychaete worms, from five seamounts comprising a range of habitats and locations in the Southwest Indian Ocean.

The successful candidate will have experience in macrofaunal identification, analysing faunal datasets using statistical software such as PRIMER and CANOCO, creating species catalogues as well as a voucher specimen collection, writing papers and have excellent organisational skills for sample and data management.

You must have good microscope and taxonomic skills, have the temperament to undertake sustained periods of routine work at the microscope, be a team player, and have the ability to work independently. You must also be able to go to sea for a six week period starting early November 2011.

This is a collaborative project involving SAMS, the University of Oxford and the Natural History Museum, London.

Applicants should note that interviews will be held on Monday 5th September 2011.
For further information and to apply for this job online, go to: www.sams.ac.uk. Alternatively, please write to: Human Resources, Benthic Seamount Ecologist, D08/11.BN. The Scottish Association for Marine Science, Scottish Marine Institute, Oban, Argyll PA37 1QA or e-mail recruitment@sams.ac.uk

Get moving! The closing date for receipt of applications is Thursday 1st September 2011.

Certain animal species are both sexually and socially monogamous – meaning that strong pair bonds are formed between two individuals, and these bonds withstand the test of time.  Among the most faithful pair-bonded species are the Zebra finches, who have been shown to forge extremely long-lasting and exclusive partnerships that end only with the death of a partner.  Partners engage in several behaviours outside of those involving direct sexual contact, including mutual preening, nest defense and foraging.  It has been observed that zebra finches are capable of forming both heterosexual partnerships as well as homosexual ones – and researchers recently questioned the role of the sex ratio in determining the frequency of such affiliations.  Not only were they interested in the frequency of same-sex partnerships in skewed sex ratio conditions, but they were also interested in the NATURE of the same sex partnerships.

Are homosexual partnerships as stable as heterosexual ones?

Do homosexual partners engage in the same ritualistic behaviors as heterosexual couples?

How do homosexual VS heterosexual relationships compare when it comes to attentiveness and intensity of interactions?

Captive zebra finches (laboratory reared stock) were placed into experimental setups with varied sex ratios.  Generally speaking, at the population level you can expect a sex ratio of approximately 1:1; however, at local scales the ratios can become rather skewed due to various ecological factors such as emigration, habitat availability or social dynamics.  The sex ratios tested in this study were, 6:6 (male: female), 8:4, and 11:1.  In each case the finches were placed in their experimental setup and observed daily for the formation of partnerships as well as various characteristics relating to them.  The level of interaction between the partners, partner attentiveness, preening, feeding and several other behavioral characteristics were observed and quantified in order to give a sense of not only the quantity of homosexual vs heterosexual partnerships, but the QUALITY of these relationships as well.

The first set of results was not incredibly surprising:  when fewer females were present, males formed partnerships with each other instead.  However, what is extremely interesting about this work is the careful observation of the nature of the partnerships.  When it came down to measures of relationship strength, selectivity, stability and attentiveness between partners, NO DIFFERENCES were found in these qualities between heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.  In other words, the bonds formed between partners appeared to be very similar, regardless of the sex of the partner.  Same sex pairs were found to utilize the same behavioral repetoire as their heterosexual counterparts, including allopreening, nest displays, courtship and even copulation.

The last result from this work is little short of astounding.  Once male: male partnerships had been established, females were re-introduced to the experimental cages in order to assess whether they had the power to ‘break-up’ the homosexual couples.  It turns out that females could do little to tempt males out of their same-sex partnerships – males remained faithful to their homosexual partners REGARDLESS of the presence of extra females!

Establishing a strong partnership (regardless of the sex of your partner) is a critical part of survival for many bird species.  Zuk (2006) proposed the ‘Social Partner Hypothesis’, which states that forming a close bond with a monogamous partner trumps the need for that partner to be one of the opposite sex.  Advantages for survival (including nest defense and foraging) are much greater when one has an established and reliable partner, and in many cases homosexual bonding may be explained by such a phenomenon.  Being in a couple is critical to survival in these socially monogamous birds, and this could be the driving force behind the evolution of homosexual bonding.

I find these results fascinating – especially the last one where male: male partnerships withstood the test of extra female presence.  From a socially monoagmous standpoint this certainly makes sense, and is seen in some other species such as waved albatross (where female partners have been observed to form bonds that last for more than a decade).  However, at some point, an opposite-sex partner is required in order to produce offspring.  Female albatross seek out males exclusively for this purpose, and then they return to their female partner to rear and raise the offspring.  So far, this work with zebra finches has not looked at the long-term consequences of homosexual pairing, though I am actively anticipating it.  Seeing as homosexual couples both COURTED and COPULATED with each other, this shows that sexual behaviors between same sex partners are not out of the question.  However, long term studies will shed light on whether males will seek out females for the sole purpose of genetic propagation outside of their homosexual partnerships.  For the sake of their evolutionary future I hope they do

Zuk, M. (2006). Family values in black and white Nature, 439 (7079), 917-917 DOI: 10.1038/439917a

Elie, J., Mathevon, N., & Vignal, C. (2011). Same-sex pair-bonds are equivalent to male–female bonds in a life-long socially monogamous songbird Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology DOI: 10.1007/s00265-011-1228-9

My latest post at Scientific American concerns the portrayal of scientists in Hollywood’s current blockbuster hit ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes‘. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not in it to bash what was really an excellent and enjoyable film. It’s just that I want people to recognize that the movie has both serious parts AND ridiculous parts – and even the serious parts are ridiculous. James Franco is one BAD scientist…

`

`

A few notes about SCIENTISTS for those attending ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’…

Semi-spoiler alert – catch the movie first if knowing the outcome will bother you (although since this is a prequel you’re fairly out of the loop if you don’t know what happens in the end).

Caesar the chimp. Photo courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

Contrary to what you might be thinking, this isn’t a post to completely pick apart the massive scientific oversights of Hollywood’s current blockbuster. After a $54 million opening box office weekend it’s a veritable truism that people don’t really mind when science is portrayed in a rather indulgent way – and as a fan of the movie I’m also willing to forgive a certain level of scientific silliness.

You can check out the full post HERE.   Enjoy!

Image Copyright Carin Bondar, 'The Nature of Human Nature'

Having been pregnant 4 times in my life, I have grown used to both the ups and downs that come with having a basketball attached to your front midsection.  It’s difficult mobility-wise, sleeping is nearly out of the question, and the need to urinate is constant.  However, I’ve found that the reception I get from the general public, members of my species with whom I do not have a close social bond, is just plain nice.  Women let you pass them in line for the public restrooms, people of all ages and sexes hold doors for you, smile at you and even offer to carry things for you.  It’s as though there is a general recognition that a pregnant lady is doing her part for the human race and she should be rightly rewarded for the valiant effort she is making…or maybe it’s just that people empathize that you are physiologically exhausted and need a little help.  In any case I find this display of human nature refreshing in our world where most of the time people forget to just be nice…the good will of other people is very genuinely appreciated (by me at least) because let’s face it:  I really am not in a position to wait all that long to go to the bathroom, I feel fat and I am very, very tired.   Late stages of gestation carry high physiological costs not only for members of our species but for most others as well.  Do other animals treat their grossly pregnant females to similarly altered (nice) behavior?

Gravid female collared lizard. Photo via Casey Lazik Reptiles.

For most species, the late stages of pregnancy are not as visually obvious as they are for humans.  However, it has been observed for several lizard species that a distinctive coloration reflects a females’ current stage in the reproductive cycle¹.  When burdened with a heavy load of fertilized eggs (i.e. ‘pregnant’, but in egg-laying organisms this is termed gravid) females develop a bright red coloration on their throats.  This coloration signals to her conspecifics that she is ‘in a delicate condition’ and must conserve her energy for this purpose.  Indeed, these lady lizards experience a greater rate of predation from creatures like snakes and birds…both because of the bright visual cue, and the fact that with a heavy burden of eggs they are unable to move as fast (a no brainer to any human female who’s ever tried to run during their last trimester!).  It is therefore advantageous for the gravid female to be able to communicate to her conspecifics that she is not to be disturbed.  It seems that the throat coloration in lizards serves this exact purpose.  Males of the tropical lizard Microlophus occipitalis are less likely to engage in courtship behaviors with red-throated females, whether the red coloration is natural (as documented through field observations) or painted on (as documented during experimentation)².  The bright red coloration provides a clear message to would-be suitors:  CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE!  Although they aren’t exactly rushing to help her with grocery bags, the males cool their courtship rituals and leave her alone.  Without the need to fend of the advances of her male counterparts, the gravid females experience a reduced predation risk and reduced energy expenditure, both of which are major advantages for mother and offspring.

In a similar fashion to lizards, females of several primate species undergo physical changes in accordance with sexual cycles, exhibiting a bright red coloration on the hormone-sensitive areas of the face and anogenital regions.  In the third trimester of a 5^1/2 month gestation, female Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) display the deep red signals of pregnancy, and they are treated differently by other members of their social group.  Lip-smacking behavior, which is generally associated with aggressive avoidance and appeasement in macaques³, is observed by both males and females in response to a pregnant female, indicating that the bright coloration can serve as a warning against aggressive encounters (i.e. don’t pick a fight with me, I’m pregnant!).  In addition, males engage in higher levels of ‘self directed behavior’ when in the presence of pregnant females, indicating that the coloration also serves as a warning against the copulatory advances of male conspecifics.

There is no question that behavior in both lizards and macaques in response to females in late stages of gestation carries similar undertones as those behaviors in humans.  Helping the burdened female such that her energy is conserved for her ultimate biological purpose is the right thing to do…even if she is of no genetic relation. The bottom line:  give the preggo a break.  She needs it.

¹Cooper, W. E., Jr & Greenberg, N. 1992. Reptilian coloration and behavior. In: Biology of the Reptilia: Hormones, Brain, and Behavior (Ed. by C. Gans & D. Crews), pp. 298–422. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

²Watkins, G.G. 1997. Inter-sexual signaling and the functions of female coloration in the tropidurid lizard Microlophus occipitalis. Animal Behavior 53: 843-852.

³Gerald, M.S., Waitt, C. and Little, A.C. 2009.  Pregnancy coloration in macaques may act as a warning signal to reduce antagonism by conspecifics. Behavioral Processes 80: 7-11.