Time is the coin of your life

In my wallet I have a fortune from a fortune cookie which I opened long ago (I don’t remember where or when).  It says:

Time is the coin of your life.  It is the only coin you have and only you can determine how it will be spent.  

It is the only truly profound “fortune” I have received in one of those things.  It is attributed to Carl Sandburg.

(I have another one in my wallet that says, “You shall soon achieve perfection”.  I’m still waiting for that one to come true…)

I think one of the hardest things for me is making good decisions about how to spend those coins of time.  Perhaps it is because I like to do so many things that I have committed myself to too many projects; that is, I have committed my future funds multiple times over.  Alas, I find that I can’t simultaneously collect beetles, work with them under the microscope, write software, analyze my data, teach, help my communities (academic and otherwise), and have a life outside my work.  Funny the way that goes – it seems as if there is only one Thread active at any single time in my brain, and that I have only one Core, and that I can only be one place at any given time.   How I wish it were otherwise.

For better or worse, I have established a pattern in how I spend my time, and one aspect of this is to have long work hours.  I love so much about what I do in biology that much of my time is spend on that – it’s a rare week that I spend less than 50 hours at the office/lab, and usually it is more than that.  I also spend some of my time at home being a biologist.

But, as a faculty member who supervises people, I also have great difficulty formulating expectations and making judgements about how those who work with me should be spending their time.  For example, how many hours should a graduate student of mine be in the lab/at the office?

By default I tend to think about my own life.  When I was a graduate student, most of us would spend 10, 12, or more hours each day –  a bit less on weekends.  My pattern was to arrive at about 9:30 in the morning, and work all day into the night, having had several breaks during the day, the longest one for supper.  When I was in Edmonton, most of the graduate students in Entomology would be in and working at 10 pm or 11 pm, and we would often leave a bit after 11 pm so that we could make it to the Power Plant (a pub on campus) for last call.

But these days I find it rare to find a graduate student in the building in the evening, or on the weekends.  Yes, a few are in, but only a small fraction.  There are now personal computers, including laptops, which allow students to do some of their work at home.  But much of a biologist’s work involve things that can’t be taking home easily, and that have to be done at the office.  I certainly can’t do that much of my work at home – I come in as the specimens, microscopes, and molecular equipment are there.  It may be that students would be more productive if they came in more, but that younger generations have a different balance between work and the rest of their life.  It may be that more grad students have families than was true when I was younger.  I do not know.

I realize that this is as much about intensity as it is total number working hours.  It’s about “productivity-hours”, in the same sense as “degree-days“.  Someone who works intensely doesn’t need to work for as long.  Someone who works slowly, or with frequent breaks, would require more hours to accomplish the same amount.  With the allure of the Internet, and the ability to lose focus in the midst of the always-on interconnectedness of our social web, the amount accomplished per hour may have diminished. I can easily imagine a focused, intense person doing fine on less than 40 hours a week at the lab.

What I do know is that the productivity of the graduate students seems less than what it was during my grad school days.  I have done no study, and it is hard to compare eras fairly; perhaps my perceptions are faulty.  Perhaps it is less important now for each student to be as productive, as so many graduate students are now working on their supervisor’s projects (as opposed to having independent projects), and so perhaps the burden of the work is more distributed across multiple people.

I struggle with my emotions about this.  I get frustrated by the slow pace of some of the work in the face of grad students coming in for 30 hours a week.  I am not paying them for more than that, so what right do I have to ask more of them?  I can’t impose my way of life on them (it is not an easy life, even if it is a very good one), and some of them have family occupying much of their time.  I also recognize that, for some people, if hours are too long they become less productive.

Here I am, on a Saturday morning, in my office, and I am the only one in my area.  (I should say that one of my graduate students is very frequently in my lab in the evening and weekends; he just doesn’t happen to be here now.  I have had other graduate students who work long hours, but they are definitely the exception.)  I no longer expect students to be here on a Saturday morning, but it continues to surprise me that few come during off hours.  It has started me thinking (again, for the umpteenth time) about what I do expect, and what is reasonable.

(I should say, as a disclaimer, that I could have written this exact post 10 years ago or more; it is not about any particular student, current or past. And I have had some passionate, intense students who worked no less (perhaps more) than they should have given their life circumstances and career goals.)

Are modern grad students less engaged? Less passionate? That group of grad students I was with in Edmonton were not in at 10 pm at night because they felt pushed to do so by supervisors – we were in because we loved what we were doing. One relevant factor may be the changing nature of science.  When I was a Masters student in Edmonton, my grad student colleagues, the ones who spent the evenings in at work, had their own projects. We were not working on projects of our supervisor; we had our own self-designed project, for which we had much love and motivation to complete.  It may be that as more and more grad students work on their supervisor’s projects, there is less passion for the work, and less of a sense of ownership that would inspire long or intense hours.

Or are modern grad students more aware of a need to have a balanced life?

After taking several deep breaths, I realize that these students are not me, and they need to make their own decisions about how to balance their life.  I can do no more than to provide a context for my graduate students, and it is then up to them as to how they spend their time coins.  I can describe my expectations before I admit them.  They can also help set the context by telling me of their career goals and life circumstances.  Together we can set milestones for their projects, outline the consequences for failing to meet those deadlines, and then let them figure out how much effort (and time) is needed to accomplish them.  I can tell them that the amount of effort I put into their projects (including helping secure funding) will be in part based upon how much effort they put into their projects; I am less likely to help someone who does not work hard.  I can tell them that upon completion of their degree, if they wish to be research faculty at a university, they will be competing against a broad pool of people many of whom will be hard workers spending much more than 40 hours a week doing biology.  I can point out to them that it is a rare privilege to do the sort of work we do, and that any of us who are so lucky should make the most of it.  But once all this context is set, I need to simply let go.  And concentrate on spending my coins wisely.

Update: After posting this, Kip Will (in the comments) reminded me of an amusing, oft-told quote from my mentor, George Ball.  George is the kind of mentor who inspires his students to work long hours, in part by setting an example; he worked harder than any of us.  Several decades ago, one of George’s graduate students, in his first year with George, was struggling to do any research, as he was also taking five courses.  Upon lamenting his lack of research progress to Dr. Ball (as he would have been called at the time), George responded:  “there are always the hours between midnight and 6 am”.  At the time, we hoped that he wasn’t being entirely serious.  I don’t think George expected us to do this regularly, nor do I expect that of my students. But George did expect us to do the things that needed to be done, including putting in long hours in crunch times.

Update 2:  Maybe this is totally against blog post “rules”, but I reworked a few portions of the post to make my viewpoint clearer, and I have added a couple of paragraphs.  I’ve done this specifically because of Julia and Chris’s thoughtful comments, below, that made me realize I wasn’t translating onto screen what was going on in my brain.

Posted in Academia, Miscellany, Musings | Tagged | 20 Comments

Bountiful Bembidion

Bembidion can be quite abundant on the shores of bodies of water, such as along the Willamette River near Corvallis, Oregon:

Willamette River near Corvallis, Oregon

Willamette River near Corvallis, Oregon

Below are two videos showing me turning over some rocks on shore shown above.  There are four species that are very common in that habitat:  Bembidion (Plataphus) planiusculum, B. (Plataphus) vandykei, B. (“Ocydromus”) transversale, and B. (“Ocydromus”) striola.   Less common are B. (Hirmoplataphus) recticolle, B. (Melomalus) planatum, B. (Plataphus) “kuprianovii”, B. (Trechonepha) iridescens, and an undescribed species of B. (Peryphus).

Posted in Fieldwork, Revising Bembidiina | Leave a comment

Chipodiversity

This summer my lab has had, once a week, a “Guess the Potato Chip Flavor Day”.   It was inspired by my discovery in Vancouver, BC, of some intriguing potato chip flavors.

While growing up in Canada I was exposed to a good diversity of potato chip flavors.  There were ketchup-flavored chips, dill pickle, chicken and gravy, plus the standards (barbeque, salt and vinegar, plain, sour cream and onion). There may have been more – I don’t remember.  But let’s just say that I am open to many flavors, and I am delighted to see that new potato chip flavors are now being explored around the world.

As people who like exploring diversity, and identifying objects, my lab thoughtfully tastes each chip before forwarding their guesses.

Potato Chip Tasting

Potato Chip Tasting

(As an aside, I might point out that I have a rather biased lab at the moment.  In addition to Katy and Tiffany (not present when this picture was taken), I have, from left to right, Joe, Kojun, James, Jeff, and John.  So, with rare exceptions (e.g., Tiffany), you either have to be beardless and have name that starts with a K, or bearded and have a name that starts with a J.)

We’ve done flavors from Scottish, French, and American countries so far.  My favorite among the ones we have tried was Cherry Tomato and Herbs Potato Crisps from the Scottish company  Mackie’s.  The oddest in terms of names was Haggis and Cracked Black Pepper, from that same company – but the chips themselves were not that unusual.  Lay’s Chicken and Waffles was… distinctive.

chips

Posted in fun stuff | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Hiding in Plain Sight

In most groups of organisms there are taxa that are very isolated phylogenetically, and are structurally so distinctive that they are easy to recognize (the Australian platypus and Welwitschia mirabilis come to mind).  Some of these isolated taxa are considered to be single species.  Within carabid beetles, some examples in North America which come to mind are Opisthius richardsoni and Gehringia olympicaIf we see a large carabid on gravel shores in western North America that has that distinctive Opisthius look (see below) we know it is of course Opisthius richardsoni.  But is it?

Opisthius richardsoni

Opisthius richardsoni

I wonder how many of these isolated, distinctive taxa actually consist of multiple species, which we haven’t discovered because we don’t bother to look closely.  Perhaps there are other species hiding in plain sight, which we could see if we only looked.

Within Bembidion, one of the more distinctive species, phylogenetically very isolated, is Bembidion (Lindrochthus) wickhami.  It is the only member of its subgenus, and is immediately recognizable because of its pretty yellow spots and its iridescent elytra (the picture, below, doesn’t do the beetle justice – it is much prettier in real life).  There is nothing else like it in North America.

Bembidion wickhami

Bembidion wickhami

Bembidion wickhami is so distinctive that I’ve never paid much attention to variation within it – if I see a spotted, small Bembidion, with rainbow iridescence on the elytra, and that distinctive prothorax, I think, “that’s a Bembidion wickhami.”  But is it?

Continue reading

Posted in Revising Bembidiina, Taxonomic Process | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Mirror, mirror, …

… but not on the wall.

This image hurts my brain.  A lot.

Bembidion kuprianovi #3, male genitalia, right side

Bembidion kuprianovi #3,
voucher DNA3307, Alaska.
male genitalia, right side

I suspect that other folks who study Bembidion have sore brains as they look at this, too. Why? Continue reading

Posted in Morphological Techniques, Revising Bembidiina | Tagged , | 8 Comments

The excitement of discovering patterns in nature

When a pattern in nature emerges, suddenly revealed through new data, I get a high unlike any other.  It is this aspect of systematic and taxonomic work that I like the best, which keeps me enthralled, and which I crave whenever I get away from my beetles for too long.

Taxonomists discover patterns.  We are cartographers, mapping species and their boundaries.  We are often the first people to see the new lands of biodiversity, and it is thrilling to brush away the branches and see, for the first time, a new valley spread out before us, or to get hints of a new island off in the distance, and to have it come into greater clarity as we gather more data.  We discover these new species in the field, in the lab, and in museums, and we use as our tools data of all sorts, including (among others) knowledge of the habitats and habits of the organisms as we encounter them in the wild; the structure of the organisms, revealed by careful examination, for my beetles under the microscope; their  DNA sequences.

On Friday we received (from the ever-excellent Stacy Sotak at the University of Arizona’s UAGC facility) data for 384 DNA sequences from various species of ground beetles, mostly (of course) Bembidiina.  Those 384 sequences are a treasure chest of data about these beetles, and I have spent much of the past two days absorbed with seeing what the sequences reveal, what mysteries they answer, or what mysteries they pose.  In the last two days I have discovered that:

  • Bembidion gebleri, common and widespread on gravel river shores in western North America, is almost certainly at least two species – there are hints it might be three.  And here I have been previously disdainful of B. gebleri, as it is so boringly common! Who knew that several species lurked there!  I haven’t looked at the beetles’ structures yet to see if the patterns there match the DNA sequences – that is for later today.
  • Bembidion wickhami is certainly at least two species; these two species are even microsympatric, living together on the same creek shore.  Wow!  (This is worthy of its own post, which I will write shortly.)
  • There is a species in the B. (Plataphus) planiusculum group in the Altai mountains of Russia! Dave Kavanaugh sent me specimens of Bembidion from his recent expedition there, and in it was a most curious brown, flat, small-eyed Plataphus.  The DNA sequences show that it is a member of the clade I call the B. planiusculum group (including B. planiusculum, B. rufinum, B. gordoni, B. rufinum, B. simplex, and a few others), a group that I had previously only known from North America.

And there’s more, but these three are my favorites (so far – there are still a lot of sequences to look at).

Writing those discoveries down in simple, short prose does not capture the excitement involved in the events – the first initial hint that elicits a “wow!”, the close examination of the data (“really? is it real?”), and, best of all, the realization that two or more different sources of data point in the same direction (“all the ones with that 28S sequence have higher-contrast spots on the body!!!”).  The discovery that the pattern is repeated in multiple places (e.g., several different genes, morphological data, geography, habitat) is the best of the best.

Being a scientist is like reading a series of novels, with unexpected crises, resolutions, and moments of calm.  There are characters in which we have fallen in love, but not all of them survive, and we become accepting of a changing cast.  We have difficulty putting down the book, because the plot is so engaging; sometimes we wish we could turn the page more quickly than we can.   And, both to our delight and consternation, we know that the series of novels is endless, and we will never be able to finish the last page, close the book, and set it down.

If scientists had video cameras trained on them as they made their discoveries, the passion and joy that would be evident would surely excite many a child into becoming a scientist.  Perhaps when the next batch of my sequences arrive in a few weeks… In the meantime, enough writing – I need to look at those sequences more!  And I need to look at those specimens I took to all be B. gebleri, to see if I can see morphological patterns!

Posted in Academia, Musings, Revising Bembidiina, Taxonomic Process | Tagged , | 1 Comment

“Local” carrots

Here is a bag of carrots.  They were grown at a farm just outside of Corvallis, Oregon.  I bought them at the Farmers’ Market here in Corvallis.  I ate them in Corvallis.

carrots

And while I should feel pleased to have eaten local produce, thus avoiding the environmental costs of long-distance shipping, these carrots were eaten after they were discovered in the bottom of my cooler while I was cleaning it after the Big Loop Trip.  They had been in the bottom of the cooler for all 6165 miles of the Big Loop Trip.  So, they had 6165 miles of environmental cost weighing on them.  😦  But, amazingly enough, they still tasted like local carrots.

Posted in Fieldwork, Musings | Tagged , | 2 Comments

3D printing and custom tools in entomology

I am excited about 3D printing. Here’s why:

Custom-printed pinning block

Custom-printed pinning block specifically for point-mounted insects

That’s a pinning block, an aid to pinning insects.  It’s a custom-designed one, however, not the standard sort you can buy at an entomology supply company.  This one is specifically built for point-mounted insects.  It has holes going down vertically through each of its three steps.  The upper step is for the insect itself: with the insect on the point, by pushing the pin down into one of the holes on that step, the insect is pushed up to a standard height on the pin.  The middle step is for a first label, and the bottom step is for a second label.

I’ve never been satisfied with standard pinning blocks, as they are built for larger insects (those not mounted on points). They have the hole in the exact middle of each step.  That is a very awkward place for point-mounted insects; for point-mounted insects, the holes should be near the edge, so that the end of the point (onto which the insect is glued) can hang over the edge with legs etc. dangling down.  Standard pinning blocks have the steps set too low for pointed insects as well, as they are designed to accommodate the substantial depth of a large insect, rather than the shallow depth of a small, point-mounted insects.   Given my dislike for standard pinning blocks, I’ve had to make crude versions myself, which in the past has been laborious.  Until now…

Last year Julia, my daughter, designed using AutoCAD software a 3D model of my ideal pinning block.  A few weeks ago I uploaded this model to the company Shapeways’s website, paid them a bit over $40, and received the beautiful, hard, and perfectly functional pinning block pictured above.  Well, it was perfectly functional after I drilled the holes a bit wider – I’ll update the 3D model for version 1.1 to have slightly wider holes.  I am completely delighted by this, and will order a few more (maybe in different colors!).  If anyone out there would like to obtain one of these pinning blocks, I will see about making the (version 1.1) model available.

The power of being able to design a product yourself to your specifications and have it appear in the mail is extraordinary.  Or, at least it was extraordinary – and I am delighted that it is becoming ordinary.

Posted in Miscellany, Morphological Techniques | Tagged | 1 Comment

Two lineages, not one

I’m back, after a long hiatus.  We’ve been busy in the lab looking at the specimens from the Big Loop Trip, and sequencing them.  Over the next few weeks I will report on some of the results.  We’ve discovered some additional new species since I last wrote, and have learned a lot about the species in the southwest.

I’ll begin with a follow-up to my post pondering whether or not two species we discovered (one from the Red River in northern New Mexico, the other from mini talus slopes along Coal Creek in southern Utah) formed a previously undiscovered lineage of Ocydromus Complex species that live in cryptic habitats.

After I wrote that post, I made genitalic preparations of the single known specimen of the Red River species, and one of the talus species.  On seeing the male genitalia of the Red River species I was reminded of the genitalia of Bembidion rupicola, a widespread species  in North America that is related to Old World species in the subgenus Peryphus.  Here’s what B. rupicola looks like:

Bembidion rupicola

Bembidion rupicola

It doesn’t look all that close to the Red River species; here is the Red River species for comparison:

An undescribed species of the Ocydromus complex of Bembidion

An undescribed species of the Ocydromus complex of Bembidion

But the male genitalia are rather similar:

Male genitalia of Red River species

Male genitalia of Red River species

Male genitalia of Bembidion rupicola

Male genitalia of Bembidion rupicola

The male genitalia of the talus species, however, looks rather different, and gave me doubts about whether the Red River and talus species were related:

Male genitalia of talus species

Male genitalia of talus species

Our initial (and preliminary) DNA results confirm that the Red River and talus species are not closely related.  In fact, the Red River species is intermingled in a radiation that is primarily Old Word (as suggested by the genitalic similarities to B. rupicola), whereas the talus species is in the Nearctic Clade (a large clade restricted to the New World).  Here’s where the two species go (approximately) on the phylogeny of the Ocydromus Series of Bembidion from my 2012 paper. Exact placement will await sequencing more genes and a better analysis.

Ocydromus Series mod

While I am ever-so-slightly disappointed that these two new species aren’t the harbingers of a previously unknown radiation in North America, I am still very pleased by the discovery of new members of both the Nearctic Clade and a predominately Old-World radiation.  And, perhaps they are the harbingers of two previously unknown radiations!

Posted in Revising Bembidiina | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A new lineage of Bembidion?

On my recent field trip around the west, something occurred that has never happened to me before in North America:  I knew, in the field, that I had found a previously undiscovered species.  This has happened to me in South America (where more of the fauna is undescribed), but not here.  I’ve described a number of new species from North America, and know of many yet to be described, but the realization that those species were undescribed occurred in the lab, after examination under a good microscope, or by using DNA sequences.   On this recent trip I experienced the excitement of discovery twice while still in the field.

Continue reading

Posted in Fieldwork, Revising Bembidiina, Taxonomic Process | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments