Slashdot Mirror
WETA Working on Robotic Lizard For Science
Roland Piquepaille writes "The tuatara, which is both related to lizards and snakes, is one of the planet's oldest reptile species. It's been living in New Zealand for about 200 million years. Scientists still don't know much about their behavior, so they've asked Weta Workshop, a Wellington-based company known for its work on 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy, to build a robotic male tuatara. It is equipped with cameras which will help the researchers to discover how real male tuatara attract and keep females. The goal is to help conservation managers to the genetically fittest, most productive males. But what will happen if a female tuatara discovers that the robot is an impostor?"
Maybe I'm missing the point here... but are they trying to replicate the appearance and behavior of an animal to study the behavior of real version of the animal? ...I sense a logic error.
But really- what about all the chemical signatures? Hormones, pheromones, various smells, etc.
Wouldn't they want to use a female to learn about male behavior instead of a male. Yes, with a male they can do aggression tests with robot vs. animal. However, with a female that attracts males, they can see real animals vs. animal aggression and behavior.
lizard bar + lizard booze + sexy lizard whore = some bad ass lizard dominance.
Mark Tilden is the father of robots that mimic biology. What he has clearly demonstrated is that behavior, especially in insects, obeys very simple rules.
His insect robots have almost no processing power and yet mimic the behavior of real bugs very well.
Based on Tilden's experience, it would seem that these lizard? experimenters may actually be on the right path.
http://home.earthlink.net/~douglaspage/id25.html
YAY, now I can get an evening of peace while his lizard love bot entertains him!!
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
Complete Satisfaction?
The tuatara isn't actually a lizard (any more than a crocodile is). They're pretty neat reptiles -- as a poster notes below, they have a "third eye" (they're not unique in this regard, some iguana species do as well, but not as well-developed as the tuatara's) -- and they require cold temperatures. Non-New Zealand zoos that get tuatara have to have triple cooling methods.
Perhaps they could have survived easily on their own if humans didn't go and do damnfool things like put stoats on uninhabitied islands? It's mainly due to human actions these animals are endangered.
the tuatara has vestigal third eye. According to wikipedia ...
Widipedia does not refer to it as vestigial, it gives some possible functions:
"Its purpose is unknown, but it may be useful in absorbing ultraviolet rays to manufacture vitamin D,[7] as well as to determine light/dark cycles, and help with thermoregulation.[8] Of all extant tetrapods, the parietal eye is most pronounced in the tuatara. The parietal eye is part of the pineal complex, another part of which is the pineal gland, which in tuatara secretes melatonin at night.[8] It has been shown that some salamanders use their pineal body to perceive polarised light, and thus determine the position of the sun, even under cloud cover, aiding navigation."
it is interesting that the pineal gland is thought to be a vestigal third eye.
Neither is the pineal gland thought to be vestigial. The reference to the "third eye" in the "Mythologies, cultures and philosophies" section.
there is a clear relation between visualisation/consciousness and an eye.
A relationship between visualisation and eyes? You don't say!
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
That's almost like equipping an android (or in lieu of that, a geek) with cameras to figure out how "real" men "attract and keep females".
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
It looks like, basically, what's been created is a realistic robot tuatara designed to attract females and essentially turn them on sexually through dominance displays. And at least in theory, it's real enough that they can't distinguish it from the real thing. If we have this technology - why are we wasting it on lizard-snakes?? Where's my robot girlfriend?
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Yes, clearly Tuaturas are more advanced than humans. On the second page of the linked article it says that Tuaturas have methods of avoiding aggression. Humans, on the other hand, kill other humans over anything that will make money, like restricting the supply of oil to make more profit.
It would be so, if humans weren't destroying everyone's habitat.
The fact is, those animals evolved (via natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc) to live in, say, a jungle, not in a place where jungles are razed down and replaced with either a concrete nightmare or with farms to produce biodiesel/ethanol/whatever. Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years, and those animals just don't get that to adapt to the new environment.
Even something as apparently benign as putting a road through their habitat can screw those animals big time, because they just didn't evolve the sense to look out for cars coming at 100 mph. Sure, they _might_ evolve that sense in another 100-200 thousand years, but they might not survive that long.
And then there's stuff where humans deliberately mess with the balance there. E.g., some wise guy decided to introduce rabbits to Australia, but without predators they multiplied like rabbits (if you pardon the pun), and squeezed the native equivalent (the Bilby) into near-extinction. E.g., then some wise guy introduced foxes, but then these multiplied like rabbits too because the native fauna just hadn't evolved the instincts to run away from a predator. So whole species were nothing but fox chow suddenly. And the rabbits just proved a little extra meal, helping the foxes pretty much overrun Australia.
It's just not the environment in which those animals evolved. We're changing the rules and the game there, and the animals just don't have the time to evolve a defense. The half a century it took european foxes to spread across Australia is just a tiny blip at evolutionary time scales. It's not survival of the fittest, it's a massacre.
It's, if you will, like filling your room with chlorine gas and then saying "ah, wtf, you should have evolved to the new environment. If you didn't, hey, not everyone must survive." Evolution just doesn't work that way.
And then there are species which the humans actively hunted. It's damn hard to evolve a defense against a species with rifles in the first place, especially since it's not a modification of an existing threat. And we've had guns, for, what? Maybe half a millenium? (And guns which also have a decent range and/or accuracy, for at most two centuries.) Evolution just doesn't work that fast.
If you want a species where hunting them was senseless too, take the Dodo. It was a harmless bird whose meat tasted bad too. It was perfectly adapted for its original habitats, but wasn't prepared for massive deforestation and being hunted. Not only it was hunted to provision ships quickly anyway (bad tasting meat is better than no meat, after all) and by the refugees, there are reports of colonists killing them with sticks and stones just for fun. You know, the, "haw haw, lookit the dumb bird who's too stupid to run away" kind of fun. It went extinct pretty fast.
That's really the whole point of these preservation efforts. It's species which we already know will go extinct if noone protects them, because we changed the rules of the game too fast for them to evolve.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Just as an extra random thought: evolution and natural selection never had to work their was to being a perfect defense. Yet with human hunters that's the only thing that would work.
E.g., the defense of rabbits isn't being too fast for any fox. Part of the defense is the natural balance of it all: if the population of rabbits declines too much, some foxes starve to death too, so the population of rabbits gets a chance to rebound. So some _will_ survive anyway, it just happens that on the average it will be the fitter ones.
When dealing with human hunters, that's just not the case. If the population of rabbits drops too much, humans will eat other stuff and continue hunting the rabbits anyway. That's how we drove the wooly mammoth, or the wolves and lynxes in most of Europe, extinct for example: even when the populations dropped dangerously low, these new two-legged predators just wouldn't follow the normal cycle, and continued hunting them just as fast and furious.
We didn't even have to hunt every last one, btw. Just push a species under a certain number or density, and from there it will die off anyway.
There also just isn't an obvious mechanism by which the fitter would have a significantly higher chance to survive. When a lioness chases some gazelles, it will generally settle for the slowest. Even being marginally fitter makes a huge difference in survivability. You don't have to outrun the lioness, you just have to outrun the slowest pack member. That's really what drives the survival of the fittest for a lot of species.
Another factor, and it works even for non-herd animals, is that you only need to be a less attractive target than some other species there. See how the european foxes in Australia preferred the native species, and only picked on the european rabbits when nothing else was available. So the rabbits most of the time could survive even while being the slowest in that group, because the fox would prefer a bilby instead.
With a human with a scoped rifle, it just doesn't work that way. Even being the fittest deer doesn't mean you won't get targetted just the same. In fact, for some species it will just make you a better trophy, so you'll be a more likely target.
Briefly, expecting survival of the fittest to work against humans... just won't work. Ever. Since the stone age we've been fitter than any species, and disproportionately more able to drive them extinct. If you go by survival of the fittest, then the only survivors will be the humans.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Can people please stop capitalising the name. It's Weta Workshop and Weta Digital.
A weta is a big fuck off insect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weta
Also, it's pronounced Wet-a. Not Weeta.
What's with the capitalization of the title? It's not like "WETA" stands for anything.
=w=
The same thing, I suspect, that happens with human females:
She'll be very satisfied, until the batteries die.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Why don't they just come to the USA and borrow our very own robotic lizard, Dickie Cheney???
I just want to say that this is the coolest Slashdot headline I've seen in a while. All it needs is proper capitalization and punctuation:
And for best results, do a Magnus Pike impersonation when reading it.