News

Danielle Parsons, The Ohio State University and Bryan Carstens, The Ohio State University

Taxonomy, the study of how living organisms relate to one another as species, has been around since the 1700s. Though scientists and philosophers have long debated what makes a species a species, taxonomists treat each species as a group of organisms that share common biological characteristics.

Discovering and describing new species is essential to biology researchers and conservationists because they use species as a unit of analysis. Species are also economically important to agriculture, hunting and fishing, and have special legal status, such as under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Despite this, scientists have been able to formally name and describe only an estimated 10% of species on the planet, based on discovery trends over the years.

This gap in knowledge is known as the Linnean shortfall. It remains unclear whether poor research methodology, disagreements on how to define a species, or other factors are to blame for this gap.

We are scientists in evolutionary biology, and figuring out ways to better identify species is central to our research. Using genetic analysis and artificial intelligence, we were able to disentangle hidden species that have been lumped together in a single group and predict where and what types they might be. Our findings also pinpoint a potential cause for this shortfall in species identification: an underinvestment in the science of taxonomy. https://www.youtube.com/embed/dnfaiJJnzdE?wmode=transparent&start=0 Determining what makes a species can get complicated.

Hidden species remain to be discovered

For this study, we chose to focus on mammals. Because of their relatively large size and importance to people as a source of food, companionship and entertainment, we predicted that it was more likely that a large proportion of mammalian species have been already been identified.

Our first task was to identify known species that might actually contain two or more species. To do this, we analyzed 1 million gene sequences from 4,300 named species, identifying clusters of sequences that showed high genetic diversity and fitting the data to an evolutionary model.

We found potentially hundreds of hidden species that were previously classified as a single group. This finding was expected, as it mirrors results from previous studies, albeit on a larger scale.

Where and what are these hidden species?

Once we identified the presence of these potentially hidden species, our second task was to determine what specific traits they have in common. To do this, we used a data science technique called random forest analysis, a form of machine learning that draws information from a large number of different variables in order to make a prediction about a particular outcome. It’s similar to the technique that Netflix uses to suggest shows you might be interested in watching. https://www.youtube.com/embed/cIbj0WuK41w?wmode=transparent&start=0 Random forests is a machine learning algorithm that makes predictions using multiple decision trees.

In our case, we wanted to predict whether a known species contained hidden species. The predictor variables we used spanned environmental factors, such as the climate of common mammalian habitats, and species-specific factors, such as physical traits, geographic range, reproductive and survival patterns. We also included research-based factors on the techniques scientists used to conduct their studies. In total, we collected some 3.8 million data points to build our model.

Based on our model, we found that three types of predictor variables stood out the most.

The first type comprised attributes of the species itself, such as body mass and geographic range. These results suggest that small mammals with relatively large ranges are more likely to have hidden species. This makes sense as, all things being equal, it is more difficult for scientists to recognize physical differences in smaller animals than larger ones.

The second type was climate – there are likely to be more hidden species in wet, warm areas with a large difference in day and night temperatures. This likely reflects the fact that tropical rainforests tend to have very high levels of mammalian diversity.

The third type was research effort, including the geographic dispersion of samples in museum collections and the number of recent publications mentioning the scientific name of a known species. This implies that researchers are generally effective in identifying new mammals, as how much attention the scientific community has focused on a specific mammal predicts whether that creature is identified. This is supported by how the general characteristics we’ve identified match new mammalian species described over the past 30 years, as well as the fact that our model recognizes areas that scientists are already investigating for hidden species.

Unknown species face extinction

At a time when Earth is facing its greatest extinction crisis since an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs, we believe that identifying and describing the many undiscovered species on Earth is crucial to aiding the preservation of its biodiversity.

Even though our study still found a large number of mammals waiting to be discovered, mammalian diversity is already relatively well captured compared with that of other species. We found that roughly 80% of existing mammal species have already been described, a proportion far higher than in nonmammal groups with even higher diversity such as beetles or mites.

Discovering and describing new species, as with all scientific research, takes a village. Natural history museums are largely responsible for collecting the raw data we analyzed, and genetic and biodiversity databases provided the infrastructure to make it accessible to us. A culture of information sharing among peers and large computer networks supported the thousands of hours of computation time we needed. Our work was made possible only by ongoing investments in taxonomic research.

Biodiversity scientists are racing to better understand the processes that create and maintain biodiversity while in the midst of the planet’s sixth mass extinction, one that is entirely caused by human actions. Taxonomists face the challenge of describing the species around us before they go extinct. As our findings suggest, there is still a long way to go.

^^^

Danielle Parsons, PhD Candidate in Evolutionary Biology, The Ohio State University and Bryan Carstens, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image by David Selbert / Pexels

Sarah Oates, University of Maryland

The Russian media is a powerful propaganda machine. Russian media outlets have been closely controlled by the government over the past several decades, and since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, many journalists and editors have been turned into mere mouthpieces for the government line.

But a few recent examples of journalistic defiance show that the Kremlin can’t guarantee full control over Russian journalists during the war. At the same time, Russians’ access to online information about the war constantly challenges the Kremlin’s lies about the invasion.

Some Russian journalists have left the country since the end of February, while others have resigned from their jobs.

“For the most part, even the state media employ people with normal moral standards. Most of them are not all in with what’s happening now – all this hell and horror,” said commercial television NTV anchor Lilia Gildeeva, who resigned over the invasion and has left Russia.

For now, most Russian journalists, many apparently driven by fear of arrest or worse, are publicly going along with President Vladimir Putin’s lies about the war. And it’s certainly not clear if the exodus of individual journalists will result in systematic change in Russia.

But even in authoritarian states, journalists can have power.

I believe that if enough journalists take a serious risk and reject the Kremlin’s control, they can significantly undermine Russia’s war on Ukraine by telling the public the true story of what is happening. I base this on 30 years of studying the Russian media, from how state control of media destroyed nascent political parties to the way the internet challenges Kremlin control.

‘Stop the war’

Russian television news editor Marina Ovsyannikova walked on the news set of state-run First Channel on March 14, 2022, and held up a sign behind the newscaster that said “no war” in English and “stop the war, don’t believe the propaganda” in Russian. Her unprecedented protest was cut off in seconds, but it illuminated a crack in the facade of the state-aligned Russian media.

Since the invasion, Russia has enacted new laws that make saying there is a “war” or “invasion” in Ukraine a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The law applies to all journalists, no matter whether they work for state or commercial news outlets. Indeed, the Kremlin controls all major media outlets whether they are owned by the state or commercial enterprises.

During the first week of March alone, Russia blocked approximately 30 Russian and Ukrainian independent media sites.

So far, Russian media are mostly toeing the Kremlin line. For example, Russian television features a constant barrage of brave Russian soldiers, grateful Ukrainians and citizens demonstrating their support for Mother Russia. Scenes of destruction and desperation in Ukraine are blamed on Ukrainian forces.

While Putin relies heavily on Russian journalists to disseminate lies – that Ukraine is committing genocide, for example – and to justify the war, he cannot control the first livestreamed war. Citizens can still post videos online that are viewed by millions despite the Russian government blocking many internet platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, since the invasion.

Unless Putin is able to enforce a ban on virtually all of the internet, digital-savvy Russians will continue to find ways to share information through virtual private networks and the Tor browser, which allow users to bypass government restrictions.

TV becoming less popular

Research by the Yuri Levada Analytical Center, a Moscow-based independent survey organization, shows television is a fading force in Russia.

While 88% of Russians used TV as their primary news source in 2013, this dropped to 62% in 2021, according to the Center. During the same time period, the percentage of Russians using social media as their primary source for news rose from 14% to 37%.

The difference across generations is stark: While 86% of Russians aged 55 or older were turning to television for news in 2021, only 44% of those aged 18-24 were doing the same.

Russian television has high production values, with news and political talk shows that would look familiar worldwide. News content, however, is purely authoritarian: Forces friendly to the Kremlin are praised, enemies are vilified, and inconvenient facts are ignored or twisted.

Russian television, for example, has falsely reported that American agents “seek to deploy anti-Russian bioweapons” and “Ukraine’s leaders are hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons” to attack Russia.

Disinformation does not necessarily turn viewers away, particularly in a country in which distrust of the West in general and America in particular runs high.

Focus groups in Russia show that people – especially older viewers – often seek reassurance and patriotism, rather than objective information, from TV. Those who seek more factual information are likely to go online.

Russia cracking down on media

Journalists in Russia have sometimes challenged the regime to a degree, reporting the truth about situations ranging from rigged elections to the war in Chechnya.

Since Putin took office, all Russian journalists have faced increased restrictions, including arrest, attacks and murder of those who directly challenge the Kremlin. At least 58 Russian journalists have been killed since 1992, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Two of the remaining voices of independent journalism fell silent in early March 2022. The Echo of Moscow radio station and Dozhd TV, known as Rain, went off air after Russian authorities blocked access to their websites.

Other outlets have chosen to self-censor, while many journalists have fled the country.

There are other signs that the Kremlin’s hold over the media is loosening, as several high-profile Russian journalists have resigned since the invasion, including veteran reporters and prominent broadcasters.

These journalists have fallen silent and have no options for working in Russia, but their refusal to go along with the heightened propaganda regime shows that Putin’s control over journalists is not absolute.

Ukraine war propaganda

Ovsyannikova’s protest on TV was a single event. A Russian court fined her US$215 for violating protest laws, and she is at further risk, having been accused of being a British spy.

Even some who have produced state propaganda for years think war propaganda about Ukraine has gone too far, as Ovsyannikova said she did. Other journalists who have been loyal to the Kremlin for years or even decades may now also be questioning their roles.

This means the Kremlin is fighting a war for media control on two fronts.

When loyal journalists won’t fall in line, or even choose to speak out against the war, it could have a significant effect on the Russian audience that closely follows television.

At the same time, the Kremlin can’t stop the inevitable spread of online content that shows what’s really going on in Ukraine.

^^^

[The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.]

Sarah Oates, Professor and Senior Scholar, Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“We all think,in a way, that if only there was a firm hand to provide order, we would all live better, more comfortably, and in safety. [But], in fact, this comfort would be short-lived because this firm hand will be tight and very quickly strangle us and … it will be instantly felt by every person, then in every family.”

Vladimir Putin, 1996

Slate Magazine cited this old quote from a younger Putin in an incisive article by Ben Judah that appeared today about Russia’s slide into authoritarianism and now towards totalitarianism.

It might be nice if today’s Putin would listen to his younger self.

Michael Blake, University of Washington

Whatever happens in the coming weeks, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will go down as the face of Ukrainian resilience during the Russian invasion of his country.

His response to the Russian invasion of his country has been widely praised, both at home and abroad. His speech to the European Parliament in early March received a standing ovation. Western press outlets have referred to him as a “hero,” as the “voice” of his nation, and as a “focal point” for democratic resistance to tyranny.

Some of this acclaim can be explained simply with reference to the fact that Zelenskyy is the president of a beleaguered nation standing up against a powerful and belligerent aggressor.

The Russian invasion is widely regarded as a brutal act of violence, cynically clothed in the language of “de-Nazification.” Any president who resisted this invasion would likely receive some portion of moral praise.

As a political philosopher, however, I would argue that something else is at work in the widespread reverence shown to Zelenskyy.

Zelenskyy has demonstrated, during the invasion, a style of political presentation that is the antithesis of that shown by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Matters of political style – the choices made by leaders about the words they use, the jokes they tell, even the clothes they wear – are frequently taken to be unrelated to matters of substantive political justice. The history of thinking about authoritarian politics, however, demonstrates that anti-democratic politics, and a certain sort of personal style, often come together.

Putin demonstrates a tendency toward authoritarianism in both political action and in political style. Zelenskyy, in contrast, presents a more modest and understated vision of political leadership – one more appropriate for democratic institutions, in which the leader is not thought to be morally superior to the governed. If the world is increasingly suspicious of democratic ideals and practices, then Zelenskyy might represent one of the few recent signs that those in favor of democracy have reasons for hope.

Masculinity and authoritarianism

There are three key aspects worth noting about Putin’s carefully crafted political image. Putin is particularly concerned to present himself as a traditionally masculine male, frequently appearing shirtless and often competing in – and (improbably) winning – athletic competitions, including both ice hockey and judo.

He presents himself as shrewd and contemptuous of his opponents, frequently showing a smirk in response to any showing of weakness. He was, for instance, visibly happy to see German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s discomfort in the presence of his dog Konni. This casual cruelty is expressed even toward his own subordinates, as seen in his recent public humiliation of spy chief Sergei Naryshkin.

He is, finally, keen to present himself as uniquely chosen by history to restore an empire he believes unjustly dismantled – in particular, the Soviet Union, whose dissolution Putin described as the “greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco noted that traits such as these three may seem superficial – but that they speak of an authoritarian hostility to disagreement, and ultimately to democracy itself.

Eco notes that when a leader emerges who promises to use traditional masculinity, and thereby restore the former greatness of the nation or the polity, that leader is inevitably drawn toward the rejection of limits to centralized power. Such limits include, in the end, such notions as democratic accountability and human rights. In Eco’s words: For such a leader, disagreement is treason, and those who are weak deserve nothing but contempt.

Zelenskyy’s leadership style

If these arguments are correct, however, then Zelenskyy’s style of leadership represents a symbolic repudiation of Putin’s authoritarianism. Zelenskyy is, to begin with, unconcerned with presenting himself as traditionally masculine. Before his life in politics, for instance, he appeared – in a variety of vaguely comic costumes – on the Ukrainian edition of “Dancing With the Stars.” He has, as the Russian invasion continues, presented himself unshaven and exhausted – as vulnerable, frightened, but nonetheless unbowed.

He is, finally, inclined more often to speak about Ukrainian unity in the present than about any glorious history. As a Ukrainian of Jewish descent, many of whose relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, he invokes history more as warning than as aspiration.

Democracy and the freedom to speak plainly

In this, Zelenskyy represents an image of not only resistance to authoritarianism, but also how leaders might appear as they engage in such resistance. Eco, who grew up in fascist Italy, describes his surprise at how simple was the speech of those who took over after fascism’s fall. Democracy, Eco marveled, entailed the freedom to speak plainly. It was not only freedom from fascist political institutions, but also freedom from rhetoric.

When Zelenskyy is lauded for his resistance to the Russian invasion, it is because he is demonstrating a number of central virtues – including the courage to remain where he is, in the line of Russian fire. But at least some of this praise, I am convinced, is the result of his style of governance, in which he resists not only authoritarian violence, but the authoritarian style of political presentation – including Putin’s assertions that he is unique in both destiny and in masculine strength.

There is, however, some irony at work in the moral symbolism ascribed to Zelenskyy.

The democratic hope ascribed to Zelenskyy reflects the thought that the leader is no better than those who are led; that the president does not have to be uniquely strong, or endowed with a unique historical destiny. He has frankly admitted that he is afraid of dying, afraid of his family’s dying – and that he remains in Kyiv out of duty, rather than any desire for glory or for warfare. The president, instead, is a person much like anyone else.

[Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]

It is natural for the West to pin a great many hopes on Zelenskyy, in his resistance to the authoritarianism of Putin. The West should, however, not forget the most central lesson of democratic politics – that the leaders are no better, morally speaking, than those they lead.

If Zelenskyy represents a democratic hero, it should nonetheless be remembered that democracy does not need – and should not seek – the sorts of hero worship that authoritarians like Putin demand.

^^^

Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.