Of all the skills required to be a great teacher, this one is my favorite.
I have always been interested in the relationship between creation, perception, and delivery. When forming a sentence, the end of the sentence is not thought out, it just comes along seamlessly, one word at a time. This is because we have a high understanding of the skill required (talking) and of the point which is to be made via the skill (the meaning of our sentence). The brain allows us to create and perceive the words, structure, and meaning of a sentence, as well as support a point of view, simultaneously. This is the simplest form of improvisation. It occurs so naturally, subconsciously in fact, that we do not even perceive we are improvising until something new is introduced to the creativity/perception/organization/delivery relationship: a subject which is not easily processed by our brain due to lack of functional practice.
Ever talk to someone (remember, speaking is improvising) and speak fluidly until you try to express deep emotion? It becomes hard to do and we usually get hung up on our words, failing to organize a functional sentence, or we organize a sentence with great effort that may not deliver the exact meaning we want or feel. This is because we are attempting to process emotions that are not regularly processed as words in a fluidly constructed sentence. I other words, we do not have a complete intuitive and technical understanding of what we are attempting to deliver as well constructed thoughts. There is a break down within the creativity/perception/organization/delivery relationship. The better functional understanding we have of our surroundings, emotions, structural material (to be delivered) and delivery process, the better we will be able to process and apply the information as we "create" it or remember it on the spot.
As a public speaking competitor, I was always obsessed with the ability to improvise. Improvisation was always a necessary part of my competition arsenal because it added spark and life into my presentations. It let the judges know I wasn't a robot reciting a script in my head, but that I had talent and could deliver a great speech. It also served me well in the case that I saw my competition use a speaking technique I liked or if I had a new idea just moments before going before the judges. After a while, if I felt my judges were not emotionally invested in my performance, I would begin improvising to change or improve the speech as I spoke. Eventually, I started practicing giving speeches with no prepperation at all. I was obsessed with determining how well I could create ideas in my head that I understood, structure a sentence, and deliver it, all the while building on to a bigger structure: that of the fully formed and functionally structured speech. This skill has served me well. As early on as age eleven, I was giving speeches and science presentations. I improvised every chance I had. Like any skill, you only get better with practice and that practice must be done in a variety of settings under multiple conditions.
When I was fifteen, I began teaching high school science classes at a private co-op. Many of my students were older than I was. Ever since that first class, I have realised how important this skill is. Here's why.
(1) It adds life to your class and reassures the students that you aren't reading from a script. The last thing you want is a lifeless teacher who never chases rabbit trails or adds spice to the class by changing the routine. I guess when you hear "Bueller....? Bueller....? Anyone....? Anyone....?" you know it's too late.
(2) Possibly most important of all, classes don't always go your way. Heck, what ever does ALWAYS go your way? Nothing, that's what. When a problem occurs it's best if you don't fight it, but roll with it and find a way to not only keep teaching, but use the problem to your advantage and make your class/speech/presentation the better for it. I have seen countless (I'm not talking 50 or 60, but thousands) classes or speeches hit a problem and stop in its tracks. Teachers freak out and have no clue what to do. If you ever want to see how people usually fail to improvise, watch a state level public speaking competition. I have always believed in watching my competition, which is something I learned from combat sports. When you watch fifty speeches in a day, you will see at least fifty things go wrong. At least...
This occurs for the same reason vacations are postponed, we get sick before important events, microphones fail, flights get delayed, and fish don't bite. It all seems so shocking; "How could this go wrong?" or "Why does this have to happen now?". But it's actually quite simple: you can't control time and space, period. Things happen all the time without our permission, scheduling, or approval. We only notice it when we make plans in such a manner that we begin to think we can actually, through our plans and schedules, control the chaotic environment around us. There's a lot more than just us in the mix. What happens in life is a result of a complex web consisting of God, me, you, the other 6,000,000,000 people on the planet, the 3,699,653,106,579,668 pathogen species that exist along side us and infect us every day, the weather, the geology of the planet, the spin of the Earth, the sun and moon, the tides, gravity, the 30,000,000 animal species on the planet, the climate, modern technology, the coriolis effect, the different biomes that cover our planet, the second law of thermo dynamics, and some good old fashioned random chance to name a few. Who are we to think we can have perfect, uninterupted plans? Better learn to improvise.
The first step to mastering improvisation is simple: do your homework and know your material better than anyone. You could be the best improvisation artist in the world, but if I asked you to give me, without any preperation, a five minute speach on the practical application of the "Wigner Distribution" within Quantum mathematics, something tells me you won't be able to do it. You won't be able to do it because you have no idea what I'm talking about (if you are reading this Joel, discard that last comment..). Our minds cannot create new information. Our minds can only connect pieces of information, combine pieces of information, change existing information, or rearange the way in which information is processed. Improvisation is like living in a big city, like New York. The better you know the city, the more ways you can get around in it. The better you know your subject material, the more ways you can deliver info on it or make connections with it to other information stores within the mind (comparrisons and examples are born from this).
Another important thing to do is to intentionally put yourself in demanding teaching/speaking/presentation positions and intentionally go in unprepared. It forces you to improvise, to react and create from the stores of knowledge in your head and from impulses from the environment around you. When I was working as a substitute teacher, I would walk into a class (all grades but mostly high schools) and teach actual lessons the entire day on whatever subject they were studying, without preparation. I would try something a little bit different each class period, experimenting to see what teaching methods worked best. This allowed me to improvise better and better each time, both in teaching the lesson and in dealing with the students. I consider that year the time when I really learned how to adapt on the spot. When someone causes trouble or something goes wrong in your class or program, don't panic, but thrive on it. Love the moments when you are challenged to adapt. I would often ask what other teachers thought the hardest classes were and who the worst students were, then I would specifically ask to sub for those classes. I did this to test my skills and improve. When you think about it, adaptation has always been the most crucial quality to the survival of any living organism. It's so important that it's even listed as one of only six current qualifications for life. It's by far one of the most important qualifications to be a teacher.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Scully vs. Mulder: Do Giant Snakes Exist in The Wild?
This is part two of my post on the scientific accuracy concerning the legends of giant snakes in the wild. Part one was dedicated to laying out the ground rules on how to determine which species of snake grows to be the "largest", as well as documenting the largest snakes on scientific record. Part two will focus on the legends of giant snakes in the wild and will take a scientific look into the validity of such reports.
The world is divided into two types of people and only two: Fox Mulders and Dana Scullys. Yes, I'm referring to the X-Files. The Fox Mulders of the world believe in the strange and wonderful without evidence to back them up and, in some instances, despite the evidence against them. Fox Mulders are not necessarily wrong on their views and tend to have more faith to carry them through hard times when they need it. However, Fox Mulders are often led astray and can be blinded by their own faith in the unseen. Dana Scullys on the other hand are natural skeptics who believe only the scientific evidence they can observe for themselves. Stories and strange phenomena are no match for simple logic and accurate data in a Dana Scully's eyes. Dana Scullys are much safer investigators and don't fall prey to false data. However, Dana Scullys tend to turn a blind eye to events they cannot explain and can lose hope without a Mulder. As much as it pains me to say it, I am a Dana Scully. Plain and simple.
I feel very qualified to write a bias free post on something as controversial as the existence of giant snakes because I have, at different points in my life, held both viewpoints: that of the Mulder and that of the Scully. Having said that, zoology is a science and works off of data that can be verified and tested. It's from this point of view that we will examine the possible existence of giant snakes in the wild. Now it is important to understand, keeping with the World Conservation Society's definition, that the term "giant snake" is generally accepted as referencing a snake fifty or more feet in length. Such a snake has never been accurately documented or accepted by any zoological facility or organization as being real. This is not evidence against their existence but merely a starting point in understanding where we currently are in the search for giant snakes.
The idea of giant snakes reaching lengths of fifty feet or more is mostly restricted to the tropical regions of South America, though some reports of giant pythons do surface from time to time. Essentially, though the reticulated python is the longest snake officially on record, reports and legends of giant snakes seem to be centered almost entirely around the Green Anaconda. The idea of giant snakes is an old one to say the least. Indians of the South American tropics have long histories and stories of giant snakes and these stories are often woven into their religious beliefs. Among most tribes and villages, this supposed animal is referred to as "Sucuriju Gigante". It is believed by some native tribes and supporters of the giant snake theory to be either an extraordinarily large green anaconda, or an unknown subspecies of the green anaconda that enjoys such lengths as its average size. The idea of there being an entire undiscovered subspecies of anaconda is in itself a subject of debate, let alone whether or not such a snake would grow to such tremendous lengths. For now, let's treat the supposed Sucuriju Gigante as an extraordinarily large specimen of the green anaconda.
Though the earliest claims of giant snakes can be found in the religions practiced by various tribes of the Amazon region, I want to begin with reports of the early explorers instead. My reasoning here is that although the native Indians of those regions are more familiar with their homeland than anyone else, they are also incredibly superstitious and attribute supernatural powers to these snakes of myth and legend. In many of their tales, for example, this snake is a type of deity responsible for carving out the Amazon river as it slithered across the jungle. What I'm interested in is not legend, but finding perhaps what is the source of that legend. When dealing with these ancient tales, sorting myth from fact becomes impossible. When dealing with the reports of early explorers, while there may be just as much myth, it's easier to separate from the facts.
The most commonly cited report of giant snakes is the supposed encounter of Lt. Colonel Percy Fawcett, a British Royal Army officer who had retired to do survey work ("survey work" here refers to exploring uncharted territories in South America, not the typical road side survey work you might think of). This reportedly took place while he and a team of men were near the Bolivian/Peruvian border on a charting mission for the Royal Geographic Society of London in 1907. The only source of the report, despite the fact that multiple men supposedly experienced the incident, is Lt. Colonel Fawcett's diary. In his diary he wrote:
We were drifting easily along the sluggish current not far below the confluence of the Rio Negro when almost under the bow of the igarit'e [boat] there appeared a triangular head and several feet of undulating body. It was a giant anaconda. I sprang for my rifle as the creature began to make its way up the bank, and hardly waiting to aim, smashed a .44 soft-nosed bullet into its spine, ten feet below the wicked head."
He continues...
"We stepped ashore and approached the reptile with caution. It was out of action, but shivers ran up and down the body like puffs of wind on a mountain tarn. As far as it was possible to measure, a length of forty-five feet lay out of the water, and seventeen feet in it, making a total length of sixty-two feet. Its body was not thick for such a colossal length-not more than twelve inches in diameter-but it had probably been long without food. I tried to cut a piece out of the skin, but the beast was by no means dead and the sudden upheavals rather scared us. A penetrating foetid odour emanated from the snake, probably its breath, which is believed to have a stupefying effect, first attracting and later paralyzing its prey. Everything about this snake was repulsive."
Fawcett's description of the snake is interesting to say the least, especially considering that he positively states the snake was an anaconda. Though in fairness, Fawcett was a military officer who served with distinction and was known by close friends and colleagues as a meticulous recorder of facts, I am convinced that this incident is something less than accurate.
Both species of anaconda, the green anaconda and the smaller yellow anaconda, are both extremely thick and heavily proportioned to their length. Fawcett states that the snake in question was no more than twelve inches in diameter. I'm sorry, but even a 16 foot anaconda will have a body diameter pushing nine or ten inches and a twenty foot anaconda, though extremely rare and for the most part, poorly documented, will easily beat a twelve inch diameter. Fawcett does act surprised, stating that perhaps the snake had "been long without food". However, even allowing that a snake could somehow reach the incredibly length of 62 feet as Fawcett claims, no amount of starvation would cause it's body size to shrink down to a diameter of 12 inches. The body proportions that are possessed by the green anaconda, as well as the smaller yellow anaconda for that matter, would dictate that a 62 foot specimen would have to be several feet in diameter at the very least, even despite it's best attempt to play Gandhi. As Dana Scully would put it, "A sixty-two foot specimen of a green anaconda with a twelve inch diameter just isn't possible, Mulder!"
(Even this anaconda specimen held by snake researcher Jesus A. Rivas and associate,
despite being only around the twelve foot mark, has a width pushing ten inches)
The reason that no zoological facility has yet to accept claims of a giant snake is because no documented specimen has ever been brought to light. Like the many instances before and since where supposed giant snakes are concerned, Fawcett was unable to accurately measure the specimen with any real degree of certainty. He states very clearly that it was difficult to measure and that half the body lay in the water. Although it is possible for estimates under such conditions to be correct, it is not likely and certainly not substantial evidence. This leads me to my next point: Fawcett himself.
Lt. Colonel Percy Fawcett was a man of exaggerated ideas. Even Agent Mulder would raise an eyebrow at some of the Lt. Colonel's claims. It's important to understand that Fawcett was well aware of and very educated on the folklore of giant snakes. He believed whole heartedly in these stories before ever setting foot into the Amazon jungle and it isn't unreasonable to suspect or even suggest that he let these beliefs influence his judgment. In addition to this giant snake incident -I say "this" because there was supposedly another- Fawcett also made claims of finding giant spiders the size of dinner plates capable of killing a human victim with one bite and turning their blood black. While, just like the anaconda incident, the spider itself may very well be an actual documented species such as the Goliath bird eating spider (a tarantula subspecies that grows the size of a dinner plate), Fawcett greatly exaggerates the attributes and characteristics of those animals based upon myths told in native South American communities. And as I mentioned above, there is something that most people are not aware of concerning Fawcett's snake adventures: the other snake incident. In Fawcett's writings, he tells of finding yet another giant snake in the jungle, only this snake was supposedly 80 feet long and made what Fawcett described as a loud roaring noise. While the size that a snake may attain is certainly debatable, the simple fact is that snakes are not equipped with vocal cords that would allow any vocalizations that could be described as a roar. The only snakes that produce audible noises or, more specifically, vocalizations, are the rattlesnakes and cobras, respectively. Rattlesnakes obviously produce their trademark sound by rapidly vibrating the excess skin that forms the rattle at the end of the tale and do not actually produce "vocalizations". The cobra on the other hand merely hisses at an elevated volume, producing a sound similar to a deflating tire. Being that all snakes are deaf, both of these noises are used specifically to warn predators and alert large foraging mammals to the snake's presence, allowing the snake to avoid being crushed (as opposed to being used for communication between members of the same species as in other animals). An eighty foot anaconda would not only lack the biological requirements for such vocalizations, but would have no biological need to develop such an adaptation in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that Lt. Colonel Percy Fawcett greatly exaggerated in the majority of his claims and because of this, neither giant snake story can be taken as much more than that, a story.
(The popular sketch of Fawcett's supposed encounter with a 62 ft. anaconda)
While there are many more stories and reports of giant snakes, in all likely hood they suffer from the same exaggerations as the Fawcett incidents or were simply distorted by poor observational skills and inaccurate estimates concerning weight and length. Guessing the length of an object alone is very difficult to do. Consider that I spent six years living in my current house before my front porch was added. I had seen the front of my house every day for six years straight and estimated it to be 20 feet from the corner to the front door. When it was finally measured to build the porch, that distance turned out to be 27 feet. After seeing that section of my house every day for six years, I had missed my estimate by nearly 25%. Don't think for a second that one glance at an unfamiliar animal such as an anaconda or reticulated python as it moves through the water or dense undergrowth of a tropical jungle will yield a perfect estimate. Consider that the professional reptile keepers at the Pittsburg Zoo inaccurately estimated the length of their largest python Colossius, who they cared for and observed on a daily basis for several years, by nearly eight feet.
Not only is there a severe lack of proof for the existence of giant snakes, but there is what I believe to be substantial evidence against their existence as well. As Bill Nye The Science guy would say, consider the following...
(1) Though supposedly residing in the Amazon for thousands of years, not a single snake carcass has been recovered measuring even half the supposed length of Sucuriju Gigante. I understand that in the hot tropics of the Amazon jungle anything that gives up the ghost is soon decomposed by scavengers and high levels of humidity. But to suggest that not even one of the 400 vertebrae or pairs of ribs that would be possessed by not just one, but each individual representing an entire population of giant snakes mind you, would be discovered after so long is somewhat impractical. Researchers discover countless species measuring mere centimeters living in the dense rainforest every other day, and many of them are discovered by complete chance. How is it that researchers are completely unable to find any remains of an 80 foot snake when they are specifically searching for it?
(2) Anacondas have a variety of prey to choose from in the dense tropics and wetlands of Central and South America including capybara, caiman, and even turtles. A typical anaconda will eat a small meal about once every week or a large meal once every month or so. As with all animals, the larger the snake, the more energy it requires and therefor, the larger or more abundant it's food suply must be. An anaconda measuring fifty feet would need to consume a prey animal as large as a small to moderate sized cow on a monthly basis. It would be nearly impossible for a 50 foot anaconda to attain a constant food suply of this type in the wild, let alone an 80 foot anaconda. This leads me to my next point.
(3) The largest snakes that have been reliably documented are those in captivity, the largest of which was Samantha, the 26 foot reticulated python housed in the Bronx Zoo until 2002. I mentioned above that it would be very unlikely that a snake could find sufficient amounts of prey in the wild to attain and then sustain a length of fifty feet. On average, animals in captivity attain a larger size and greater weight than specimens of the same species in the wild. Considering that captive snakes that are well fed on a regular schedule and receive quality medical treatment to ensure their survival will rarely reach a length of 20 feet and are not known to exceed 26 feet, it is highly unlikely that a wild specimen that might fall victim to disease, drought, predators, and a lack of food would live to grow three times that length.
(4) Anacondas are, of course, reptiles. As with any reptile, anacondas grow relatively slowly. Unlike many reptiles however, snakes are relatively short lived and usually have a maximum life span of 20 years. Keep in mind, that's a maximum life span for captive anacondas that receive the free food and expert medical care I mentioned above. Not only do anacondas reach greater lengths in captivity, they reach a greater age too. My point here is that anacondas in the wild will generally live less than 20 years and this is not nearly enough time for said anaconda to reach even half the supposed length of the mysterious Sucuriju Gigante.
(5) Any debate student can tell you that an obvious hoax, however elaborate, is not proof against the existence of a mysterious animal. However, I believe that in this instance, one specific type of elaborate hoax can actually serve this purpose. At the very least, it serves as the catalyst for what I believe to be the false rumor that is Sucuriju Gigante. In many parts of the world, constrictors such as anacondas and pythons are hunted for their meat and skin. While the meat is consumed, the skin is sold and highly prized as decoration. As with most products, the larger the skin, the higher the cost. Generations of fur trappers and skinners from around the world have made an honest living from their trade, no doubt. But I can only imagine the temptation that came with the discovery of that most unusual and highly lucrative property of snake skin: it stretches. I don't mean it slightly stretches, or it stretches a few inches. I mean you can take the skin of a 15 foot anaconda and stretch it an additional 10 or 15 feet, nearly doubling the size of the original skin without any distortions. This is a common practice anywhere the skins of large constrictors are sold and it has been happening since the first day an anaconda skin found it's way into the local market and fetched a price. It's not unreasonable at all to suspect that this form of hoax is not only responsible for helping spread the rumor of the giant snake, but partially responsible for starting it as well.
(Snake skins, like this green anaconda skin, are easily stretched during the
tanning process and are not sufficient evidence of giant snakes)
Since I proposed that I would write this article from an unbiased view point, it's only fair to mention what is thought to be proof for the existence of giant snakes. Having already discussed the most common citation of evidence, which is eye-witness testimony, I will focus here on the remaining two pieces of often cited evidence: photographs and unusually large snake spoor. I'll begin by discussing the latter.
People native to the regions that make up the habitat of the green anaconda often sight unusually large spoor (tracks) of snakes that measure several feet in diameter. This would be the correct size for a snake measuring fifty feet and would certainly serve as a form of physical evidence, if not for one detail. Although it cannot be proven that these tracks do not belong to the supposed Sucuriju Gigante, they can't be proven to belong to the mysterious giant either. While venomous and non venomous snakes go about killing their prey differently, all snakes consume their prey the same way: swallowing the animal whole, usually head first, by stretching their incredibly elastic jaws and inching their mouths over their prey. This allows snakes to consume prey animals many times the size of their head and girth of their body. The reason that such large snake spoor is insufficient evidence for the existence of giant snakes is because an anaconda measuring 20 feet can consume prey as large as caiman and in some rare instances, deer. A twenty foot snake, having eaten a sufficiently large prey animal will bulge in the middle during the digestion and leave a track at the widest point of its body. A 20 foot snake that has consumed such a large animal would easily leave a track two or more feet in width and would likely be the source for the supposed giant snake spoor.
Photographs of giant snakes do surface from time to time and while some are certainly fakes, models, or photoshopped, some do show real anaconda and python specimens. Unfortunately for those who believe in the existence of giant snakes, none of these photographs offer any means of scale. A snake shown in a photograph may appear to be quite large, but if there is no scale of comparison, it is impossible to determine the size of the animal shown. While there are many reports of supposed giant snakes, no suitable photographs exist. I say "suitable" because there are two regularly cited photographs of supposed giant snakes.
(A supposed 60 ft. anaconda)
The first photo shows what is reported to be a 60 foot anaconda that was shot in the water. Although the photo is genuine in the sense that it was not tampered with and certainly shows a genuine anaconda specimen (most likely dead at that), there is no scale of comparison. This snake could be sixty feet long. It could also be sixteen feet long. Or six feet long. There's no way to know for sure.
(This snake was supposedly shot by a military squad in South America in 1948 and was
reported to be 115 feet long)
The other photo also shows what I believe to be a genuine anaconda specimen, but unfortunately the scale of comparison in this photo is precisely what leads me to believe the snake, though genuine, is not nearly the size it was reported to be. Three men are shown behind the snake at what is clearly a distance and different level of height. The snake is in focus and the men behind it are not, which, as any photographer will tell you, is typical of a camera's inability to capture clear images of multiple objects at different distances. This photo shows little more than a normal anaconda on an elevated platform with several men positioned rather far off behind it.
Although the idea of giant snakes will always exist and continue to intrigue people around the world, it is unlikely that it will ever come to be more than just that: an idea. Evidence is a stubborn thing and is completely indifferent to either side of an argument. It is what it is.
Of course, let's not let the idea of a giant snake spoil us. Anacondas and pythons have been well documented at over 25 feet in length. These snakes are true giants of their species and are just as fascinating as any mythical creature. Let's not allow our interest in the unseen to destroy our love and fascination for the incredible creatures we do have.
It looks like Dana Scully was right on this one, Mulder. Now what is this about a "fluke man", you say?
The world is divided into two types of people and only two: Fox Mulders and Dana Scullys. Yes, I'm referring to the X-Files. The Fox Mulders of the world believe in the strange and wonderful without evidence to back them up and, in some instances, despite the evidence against them. Fox Mulders are not necessarily wrong on their views and tend to have more faith to carry them through hard times when they need it. However, Fox Mulders are often led astray and can be blinded by their own faith in the unseen. Dana Scullys on the other hand are natural skeptics who believe only the scientific evidence they can observe for themselves. Stories and strange phenomena are no match for simple logic and accurate data in a Dana Scully's eyes. Dana Scullys are much safer investigators and don't fall prey to false data. However, Dana Scullys tend to turn a blind eye to events they cannot explain and can lose hope without a Mulder. As much as it pains me to say it, I am a Dana Scully. Plain and simple.
I feel very qualified to write a bias free post on something as controversial as the existence of giant snakes because I have, at different points in my life, held both viewpoints: that of the Mulder and that of the Scully. Having said that, zoology is a science and works off of data that can be verified and tested. It's from this point of view that we will examine the possible existence of giant snakes in the wild. Now it is important to understand, keeping with the World Conservation Society's definition, that the term "giant snake" is generally accepted as referencing a snake fifty or more feet in length. Such a snake has never been accurately documented or accepted by any zoological facility or organization as being real. This is not evidence against their existence but merely a starting point in understanding where we currently are in the search for giant snakes.
The idea of giant snakes reaching lengths of fifty feet or more is mostly restricted to the tropical regions of South America, though some reports of giant pythons do surface from time to time. Essentially, though the reticulated python is the longest snake officially on record, reports and legends of giant snakes seem to be centered almost entirely around the Green Anaconda. The idea of giant snakes is an old one to say the least. Indians of the South American tropics have long histories and stories of giant snakes and these stories are often woven into their religious beliefs. Among most tribes and villages, this supposed animal is referred to as "Sucuriju Gigante". It is believed by some native tribes and supporters of the giant snake theory to be either an extraordinarily large green anaconda, or an unknown subspecies of the green anaconda that enjoys such lengths as its average size. The idea of there being an entire undiscovered subspecies of anaconda is in itself a subject of debate, let alone whether or not such a snake would grow to such tremendous lengths. For now, let's treat the supposed Sucuriju Gigante as an extraordinarily large specimen of the green anaconda.
Though the earliest claims of giant snakes can be found in the religions practiced by various tribes of the Amazon region, I want to begin with reports of the early explorers instead. My reasoning here is that although the native Indians of those regions are more familiar with their homeland than anyone else, they are also incredibly superstitious and attribute supernatural powers to these snakes of myth and legend. In many of their tales, for example, this snake is a type of deity responsible for carving out the Amazon river as it slithered across the jungle. What I'm interested in is not legend, but finding perhaps what is the source of that legend. When dealing with these ancient tales, sorting myth from fact becomes impossible. When dealing with the reports of early explorers, while there may be just as much myth, it's easier to separate from the facts.
The most commonly cited report of giant snakes is the supposed encounter of Lt. Colonel Percy Fawcett, a British Royal Army officer who had retired to do survey work ("survey work" here refers to exploring uncharted territories in South America, not the typical road side survey work you might think of). This reportedly took place while he and a team of men were near the Bolivian/Peruvian border on a charting mission for the Royal Geographic Society of London in 1907. The only source of the report, despite the fact that multiple men supposedly experienced the incident, is Lt. Colonel Fawcett's diary. In his diary he wrote:
We were drifting easily along the sluggish current not far below the confluence of the Rio Negro when almost under the bow of the igarit'e [boat] there appeared a triangular head and several feet of undulating body. It was a giant anaconda. I sprang for my rifle as the creature began to make its way up the bank, and hardly waiting to aim, smashed a .44 soft-nosed bullet into its spine, ten feet below the wicked head."
He continues...
"We stepped ashore and approached the reptile with caution. It was out of action, but shivers ran up and down the body like puffs of wind on a mountain tarn. As far as it was possible to measure, a length of forty-five feet lay out of the water, and seventeen feet in it, making a total length of sixty-two feet. Its body was not thick for such a colossal length-not more than twelve inches in diameter-but it had probably been long without food. I tried to cut a piece out of the skin, but the beast was by no means dead and the sudden upheavals rather scared us. A penetrating foetid odour emanated from the snake, probably its breath, which is believed to have a stupefying effect, first attracting and later paralyzing its prey. Everything about this snake was repulsive."
Fawcett's description of the snake is interesting to say the least, especially considering that he positively states the snake was an anaconda. Though in fairness, Fawcett was a military officer who served with distinction and was known by close friends and colleagues as a meticulous recorder of facts, I am convinced that this incident is something less than accurate.
Both species of anaconda, the green anaconda and the smaller yellow anaconda, are both extremely thick and heavily proportioned to their length. Fawcett states that the snake in question was no more than twelve inches in diameter. I'm sorry, but even a 16 foot anaconda will have a body diameter pushing nine or ten inches and a twenty foot anaconda, though extremely rare and for the most part, poorly documented, will easily beat a twelve inch diameter. Fawcett does act surprised, stating that perhaps the snake had "been long without food". However, even allowing that a snake could somehow reach the incredibly length of 62 feet as Fawcett claims, no amount of starvation would cause it's body size to shrink down to a diameter of 12 inches. The body proportions that are possessed by the green anaconda, as well as the smaller yellow anaconda for that matter, would dictate that a 62 foot specimen would have to be several feet in diameter at the very least, even despite it's best attempt to play Gandhi. As Dana Scully would put it, "A sixty-two foot specimen of a green anaconda with a twelve inch diameter just isn't possible, Mulder!"
(Even this anaconda specimen held by snake researcher Jesus A. Rivas and associate,
despite being only around the twelve foot mark, has a width pushing ten inches)
The reason that no zoological facility has yet to accept claims of a giant snake is because no documented specimen has ever been brought to light. Like the many instances before and since where supposed giant snakes are concerned, Fawcett was unable to accurately measure the specimen with any real degree of certainty. He states very clearly that it was difficult to measure and that half the body lay in the water. Although it is possible for estimates under such conditions to be correct, it is not likely and certainly not substantial evidence. This leads me to my next point: Fawcett himself.
Lt. Colonel Percy Fawcett was a man of exaggerated ideas. Even Agent Mulder would raise an eyebrow at some of the Lt. Colonel's claims. It's important to understand that Fawcett was well aware of and very educated on the folklore of giant snakes. He believed whole heartedly in these stories before ever setting foot into the Amazon jungle and it isn't unreasonable to suspect or even suggest that he let these beliefs influence his judgment. In addition to this giant snake incident -I say "this" because there was supposedly another- Fawcett also made claims of finding giant spiders the size of dinner plates capable of killing a human victim with one bite and turning their blood black. While, just like the anaconda incident, the spider itself may very well be an actual documented species such as the Goliath bird eating spider (a tarantula subspecies that grows the size of a dinner plate), Fawcett greatly exaggerates the attributes and characteristics of those animals based upon myths told in native South American communities. And as I mentioned above, there is something that most people are not aware of concerning Fawcett's snake adventures: the other snake incident. In Fawcett's writings, he tells of finding yet another giant snake in the jungle, only this snake was supposedly 80 feet long and made what Fawcett described as a loud roaring noise. While the size that a snake may attain is certainly debatable, the simple fact is that snakes are not equipped with vocal cords that would allow any vocalizations that could be described as a roar. The only snakes that produce audible noises or, more specifically, vocalizations, are the rattlesnakes and cobras, respectively. Rattlesnakes obviously produce their trademark sound by rapidly vibrating the excess skin that forms the rattle at the end of the tale and do not actually produce "vocalizations". The cobra on the other hand merely hisses at an elevated volume, producing a sound similar to a deflating tire. Being that all snakes are deaf, both of these noises are used specifically to warn predators and alert large foraging mammals to the snake's presence, allowing the snake to avoid being crushed (as opposed to being used for communication between members of the same species as in other animals). An eighty foot anaconda would not only lack the biological requirements for such vocalizations, but would have no biological need to develop such an adaptation in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that Lt. Colonel Percy Fawcett greatly exaggerated in the majority of his claims and because of this, neither giant snake story can be taken as much more than that, a story.
(The popular sketch of Fawcett's supposed encounter with a 62 ft. anaconda)
While there are many more stories and reports of giant snakes, in all likely hood they suffer from the same exaggerations as the Fawcett incidents or were simply distorted by poor observational skills and inaccurate estimates concerning weight and length. Guessing the length of an object alone is very difficult to do. Consider that I spent six years living in my current house before my front porch was added. I had seen the front of my house every day for six years straight and estimated it to be 20 feet from the corner to the front door. When it was finally measured to build the porch, that distance turned out to be 27 feet. After seeing that section of my house every day for six years, I had missed my estimate by nearly 25%. Don't think for a second that one glance at an unfamiliar animal such as an anaconda or reticulated python as it moves through the water or dense undergrowth of a tropical jungle will yield a perfect estimate. Consider that the professional reptile keepers at the Pittsburg Zoo inaccurately estimated the length of their largest python Colossius, who they cared for and observed on a daily basis for several years, by nearly eight feet.
Not only is there a severe lack of proof for the existence of giant snakes, but there is what I believe to be substantial evidence against their existence as well. As Bill Nye The Science guy would say, consider the following...
(1) Though supposedly residing in the Amazon for thousands of years, not a single snake carcass has been recovered measuring even half the supposed length of Sucuriju Gigante. I understand that in the hot tropics of the Amazon jungle anything that gives up the ghost is soon decomposed by scavengers and high levels of humidity. But to suggest that not even one of the 400 vertebrae or pairs of ribs that would be possessed by not just one, but each individual representing an entire population of giant snakes mind you, would be discovered after so long is somewhat impractical. Researchers discover countless species measuring mere centimeters living in the dense rainforest every other day, and many of them are discovered by complete chance. How is it that researchers are completely unable to find any remains of an 80 foot snake when they are specifically searching for it?
(2) Anacondas have a variety of prey to choose from in the dense tropics and wetlands of Central and South America including capybara, caiman, and even turtles. A typical anaconda will eat a small meal about once every week or a large meal once every month or so. As with all animals, the larger the snake, the more energy it requires and therefor, the larger or more abundant it's food suply must be. An anaconda measuring fifty feet would need to consume a prey animal as large as a small to moderate sized cow on a monthly basis. It would be nearly impossible for a 50 foot anaconda to attain a constant food suply of this type in the wild, let alone an 80 foot anaconda. This leads me to my next point.
(3) The largest snakes that have been reliably documented are those in captivity, the largest of which was Samantha, the 26 foot reticulated python housed in the Bronx Zoo until 2002. I mentioned above that it would be very unlikely that a snake could find sufficient amounts of prey in the wild to attain and then sustain a length of fifty feet. On average, animals in captivity attain a larger size and greater weight than specimens of the same species in the wild. Considering that captive snakes that are well fed on a regular schedule and receive quality medical treatment to ensure their survival will rarely reach a length of 20 feet and are not known to exceed 26 feet, it is highly unlikely that a wild specimen that might fall victim to disease, drought, predators, and a lack of food would live to grow three times that length.
(4) Anacondas are, of course, reptiles. As with any reptile, anacondas grow relatively slowly. Unlike many reptiles however, snakes are relatively short lived and usually have a maximum life span of 20 years. Keep in mind, that's a maximum life span for captive anacondas that receive the free food and expert medical care I mentioned above. Not only do anacondas reach greater lengths in captivity, they reach a greater age too. My point here is that anacondas in the wild will generally live less than 20 years and this is not nearly enough time for said anaconda to reach even half the supposed length of the mysterious Sucuriju Gigante.
(5) Any debate student can tell you that an obvious hoax, however elaborate, is not proof against the existence of a mysterious animal. However, I believe that in this instance, one specific type of elaborate hoax can actually serve this purpose. At the very least, it serves as the catalyst for what I believe to be the false rumor that is Sucuriju Gigante. In many parts of the world, constrictors such as anacondas and pythons are hunted for their meat and skin. While the meat is consumed, the skin is sold and highly prized as decoration. As with most products, the larger the skin, the higher the cost. Generations of fur trappers and skinners from around the world have made an honest living from their trade, no doubt. But I can only imagine the temptation that came with the discovery of that most unusual and highly lucrative property of snake skin: it stretches. I don't mean it slightly stretches, or it stretches a few inches. I mean you can take the skin of a 15 foot anaconda and stretch it an additional 10 or 15 feet, nearly doubling the size of the original skin without any distortions. This is a common practice anywhere the skins of large constrictors are sold and it has been happening since the first day an anaconda skin found it's way into the local market and fetched a price. It's not unreasonable at all to suspect that this form of hoax is not only responsible for helping spread the rumor of the giant snake, but partially responsible for starting it as well.
(Snake skins, like this green anaconda skin, are easily stretched during the
tanning process and are not sufficient evidence of giant snakes)
Since I proposed that I would write this article from an unbiased view point, it's only fair to mention what is thought to be proof for the existence of giant snakes. Having already discussed the most common citation of evidence, which is eye-witness testimony, I will focus here on the remaining two pieces of often cited evidence: photographs and unusually large snake spoor. I'll begin by discussing the latter.
People native to the regions that make up the habitat of the green anaconda often sight unusually large spoor (tracks) of snakes that measure several feet in diameter. This would be the correct size for a snake measuring fifty feet and would certainly serve as a form of physical evidence, if not for one detail. Although it cannot be proven that these tracks do not belong to the supposed Sucuriju Gigante, they can't be proven to belong to the mysterious giant either. While venomous and non venomous snakes go about killing their prey differently, all snakes consume their prey the same way: swallowing the animal whole, usually head first, by stretching their incredibly elastic jaws and inching their mouths over their prey. This allows snakes to consume prey animals many times the size of their head and girth of their body. The reason that such large snake spoor is insufficient evidence for the existence of giant snakes is because an anaconda measuring 20 feet can consume prey as large as caiman and in some rare instances, deer. A twenty foot snake, having eaten a sufficiently large prey animal will bulge in the middle during the digestion and leave a track at the widest point of its body. A 20 foot snake that has consumed such a large animal would easily leave a track two or more feet in width and would likely be the source for the supposed giant snake spoor.
Photographs of giant snakes do surface from time to time and while some are certainly fakes, models, or photoshopped, some do show real anaconda and python specimens. Unfortunately for those who believe in the existence of giant snakes, none of these photographs offer any means of scale. A snake shown in a photograph may appear to be quite large, but if there is no scale of comparison, it is impossible to determine the size of the animal shown. While there are many reports of supposed giant snakes, no suitable photographs exist. I say "suitable" because there are two regularly cited photographs of supposed giant snakes.
(A supposed 60 ft. anaconda)
The first photo shows what is reported to be a 60 foot anaconda that was shot in the water. Although the photo is genuine in the sense that it was not tampered with and certainly shows a genuine anaconda specimen (most likely dead at that), there is no scale of comparison. This snake could be sixty feet long. It could also be sixteen feet long. Or six feet long. There's no way to know for sure.
(This snake was supposedly shot by a military squad in South America in 1948 and was
reported to be 115 feet long)
The other photo also shows what I believe to be a genuine anaconda specimen, but unfortunately the scale of comparison in this photo is precisely what leads me to believe the snake, though genuine, is not nearly the size it was reported to be. Three men are shown behind the snake at what is clearly a distance and different level of height. The snake is in focus and the men behind it are not, which, as any photographer will tell you, is typical of a camera's inability to capture clear images of multiple objects at different distances. This photo shows little more than a normal anaconda on an elevated platform with several men positioned rather far off behind it.
Although the idea of giant snakes will always exist and continue to intrigue people around the world, it is unlikely that it will ever come to be more than just that: an idea. Evidence is a stubborn thing and is completely indifferent to either side of an argument. It is what it is.
Of course, let's not let the idea of a giant snake spoil us. Anacondas and pythons have been well documented at over 25 feet in length. These snakes are true giants of their species and are just as fascinating as any mythical creature. Let's not allow our interest in the unseen to destroy our love and fascination for the incredible creatures we do have.
It looks like Dana Scully was right on this one, Mulder. Now what is this about a "fluke man", you say?
Friday, May 11, 2012
"Animal Guess Who"
Here's a game for you. It's easy to explain, simple to play, extremely fun, and quite possibly holds supernatural powers over any kid that plays it. The jury is still out on that last theory, but it is definitely a game that all kids can relate to and as of yet, I haven't met a single child who didn't become completely content playing it for however long I let them. It's called "Animal Guess Who", a name suguested by one of the children playing said game during a wildlife education program I was working. Let me explain how the game is played, then I'll sugguest some good opportunities for you, the teacher and/or child supervisor, to put it to good use.
It's played very much like the electronic game "20 Questions" or a similar game "Gues Who", where it obviously got it's name. To play, have all the participants sit on the floor (or chairs if you prefer) except one. This participant will think of a specific animal species, say an African lion for example (yes, there are lions living in India too, thank you very much). This participant will remain standing infront of the other players who will attempt to guess the animal that he or she has chosen. However, they must ask in yes-or-no question form. For example, you might guess "does it have fur?" or "is it a carnivore?" rather than a question like "what does it eat?" For the most part, the standing participant will answer with "yes" or "no". It must be a yes-or-no question and the more hint type questions that are asked, the closer all the participants will be to getting the right animal as well as making the game much more fun than if everyone simply tried to guess the animal on their first try. Keep in mind that unless you are playing with a room full of wildlife biologists, it might help to start things off kind of simple. The game may not be that fun for everyone if, for your animal, you were to choose, say, a hoatzin or oxoloti. Eventually, whoever guesses the animal correctly takes the standing participant's place and it is now their turn. Very simple.
This game can be played any place, any time. Obviously, I find it particularly effective during education programs related to or specifically about wildlife. While there are an abundance of reasons that you may wish to have this game at your disposal, I believe that ultimately it can be narrowed down to the following two.
(1) Use It When Your Group Is Waiting On Something.
Often times during educational programs, you will find yourself between activities trying to keep your group focussed and organized while waiting for any number of things outside your control. Perhaps you are sending your group to the bathroom one at a time and need to keep those waiting occupied with something fun and educational. Maybe you are doing a rotation with other teachers and you finish first or they take longer than you had anticipated. Don't panic, use this game. As long as you can explain it in a fun and exciting way, you will be truly astonished at how long the kids will play this game without losing a hint of interest in it. Remeber, killing time is only a bad thing if one, your students aren't learning anything, and two, your students are aware of it.
(2) Use It To Establish Order
I'm not necessarily a believer in the ADD and ADHD epidemic that seems to plague just about every kid in the world these days. That's not to say ADD and ADHD aren't legitamate diagnosis for some kids. I'm sure they are. But I think they get thrown around a lot more often than they need to be. What I'm getting at is that kids are naturally more energetic than adults and their attention span is shorter. So when you are having children attempt to sit or stand in a straight line or perfect circle all "criss crossed, apple sauce, hands in their laps" for any longer than ten seconds, you are going to have difficulties. I honestly believe kids have trouble giving their attention for long periods of time not because they are bad students or suffering from one of the numerous alphabet attention difficiency syndromes, but rather because most teachers are completely incompitent. A good teacher knows that learning is fun, and why yell at kids to sit still when they will do this on their own as long as it's part of having a good time? Using this game is an excellent way to bring order to your students while having them sit down, switch gears between activities, giving them something to do between activities (there is a difference), or simply behave while sitting in an orderly line. All you have to do is modify the rules to fit your needs. After I introduce the game and give the rules, I explain to my group that they can only guess if they are sitting in the manner I want, while being super quiet (kids like the word "super" even if it is used to make them be quiet, no joke) and are called on by the standing participant after raising their hand. You will be amazed by the results. Not only does it work incredibly well as they are playing the game, but it is good practice for them on how to behave during the rest of your program (being quiet, raising hands for questions, etc.). Keep in mind, the kids will want to be still and quiet so they can eventually have their turn to try and guess the animal. If one student is constantly overlooked, they will eventually loose their incentive to behave, so you may want to encourage the standing participant to pick a new person to guess each time, or perhaps you could say something to the effect of "Hey Billy, I don't think anyone from that end of the line has guessed yet, why don't you pick one of them?"
The game works wonders. I have yet to see a single group of kids who did not absolutely love this game. It works off of their love of sharing things about themselves. Kids like to tell you stories, share facts about their hobbies, and definitely tell you what their favorite animals are. For the students, this game is the perfect opportunity to do exactly that. Kids love attention, sharing things about themselves, talking about animals, and playing games. This game is all of that rolled into one. And it keeps them behaving too. It's definitely worth adding to your teaching arsenal. Give it a try!
It's played very much like the electronic game "20 Questions" or a similar game "Gues Who", where it obviously got it's name. To play, have all the participants sit on the floor (or chairs if you prefer) except one. This participant will think of a specific animal species, say an African lion for example (yes, there are lions living in India too, thank you very much). This participant will remain standing infront of the other players who will attempt to guess the animal that he or she has chosen. However, they must ask in yes-or-no question form. For example, you might guess "does it have fur?" or "is it a carnivore?" rather than a question like "what does it eat?" For the most part, the standing participant will answer with "yes" or "no". It must be a yes-or-no question and the more hint type questions that are asked, the closer all the participants will be to getting the right animal as well as making the game much more fun than if everyone simply tried to guess the animal on their first try. Keep in mind that unless you are playing with a room full of wildlife biologists, it might help to start things off kind of simple. The game may not be that fun for everyone if, for your animal, you were to choose, say, a hoatzin or oxoloti. Eventually, whoever guesses the animal correctly takes the standing participant's place and it is now their turn. Very simple.
This game can be played any place, any time. Obviously, I find it particularly effective during education programs related to or specifically about wildlife. While there are an abundance of reasons that you may wish to have this game at your disposal, I believe that ultimately it can be narrowed down to the following two.
(1) Use It When Your Group Is Waiting On Something.
Often times during educational programs, you will find yourself between activities trying to keep your group focussed and organized while waiting for any number of things outside your control. Perhaps you are sending your group to the bathroom one at a time and need to keep those waiting occupied with something fun and educational. Maybe you are doing a rotation with other teachers and you finish first or they take longer than you had anticipated. Don't panic, use this game. As long as you can explain it in a fun and exciting way, you will be truly astonished at how long the kids will play this game without losing a hint of interest in it. Remeber, killing time is only a bad thing if one, your students aren't learning anything, and two, your students are aware of it.
(2) Use It To Establish Order
I'm not necessarily a believer in the ADD and ADHD epidemic that seems to plague just about every kid in the world these days. That's not to say ADD and ADHD aren't legitamate diagnosis for some kids. I'm sure they are. But I think they get thrown around a lot more often than they need to be. What I'm getting at is that kids are naturally more energetic than adults and their attention span is shorter. So when you are having children attempt to sit or stand in a straight line or perfect circle all "criss crossed, apple sauce, hands in their laps" for any longer than ten seconds, you are going to have difficulties. I honestly believe kids have trouble giving their attention for long periods of time not because they are bad students or suffering from one of the numerous alphabet attention difficiency syndromes, but rather because most teachers are completely incompitent. A good teacher knows that learning is fun, and why yell at kids to sit still when they will do this on their own as long as it's part of having a good time? Using this game is an excellent way to bring order to your students while having them sit down, switch gears between activities, giving them something to do between activities (there is a difference), or simply behave while sitting in an orderly line. All you have to do is modify the rules to fit your needs. After I introduce the game and give the rules, I explain to my group that they can only guess if they are sitting in the manner I want, while being super quiet (kids like the word "super" even if it is used to make them be quiet, no joke) and are called on by the standing participant after raising their hand. You will be amazed by the results. Not only does it work incredibly well as they are playing the game, but it is good practice for them on how to behave during the rest of your program (being quiet, raising hands for questions, etc.). Keep in mind, the kids will want to be still and quiet so they can eventually have their turn to try and guess the animal. If one student is constantly overlooked, they will eventually loose their incentive to behave, so you may want to encourage the standing participant to pick a new person to guess each time, or perhaps you could say something to the effect of "Hey Billy, I don't think anyone from that end of the line has guessed yet, why don't you pick one of them?"
The game works wonders. I have yet to see a single group of kids who did not absolutely love this game. It works off of their love of sharing things about themselves. Kids like to tell you stories, share facts about their hobbies, and definitely tell you what their favorite animals are. For the students, this game is the perfect opportunity to do exactly that. Kids love attention, sharing things about themselves, talking about animals, and playing games. This game is all of that rolled into one. And it keeps them behaving too. It's definitely worth adding to your teaching arsenal. Give it a try!
Monday, May 7, 2012
Giant Snakes: Myth or Reality? (Part One)
This is the first of a two piece article on the scientific accuracy concerning the subject of giant snakes in the wild. This section will establish some ground rules (how to define the term "largest" when measuring snakes), as well as look into the subject of what truly was or is the largest snake accurately recorded to date. Part two will focus on the subject of giant snakes in the wild and the reports and stories that support such ideas.
In 1910, the World Conservation Society (formerly the New York Zoological Society) posted a standing offer of $50,000 for what has become the true holy grail of herpetology: a snake specimen, alive or dead, measuring fifty or more feet in length. In 2002, the offer was discontinued, still unclaimed. The search for a truly giant snake has been underway for centuries and is based largely upon the reports of early explorers and the oral legends of the people native to habitat of large species of snakes. It's no secret that some snakes do grow to very impressive lengths by anyone's standards, but do they really reach the truly giant proportions that legends elude to?
There are close to 2,900 species of snake in the world and they are categorized into 18 families, including the three families of blind snake. Of those 18 families, only two grow to the proportions necessary to be regarded as a true giant among snakes: the boidae family and the pythonidae family. These are the boas (including anacondas) and the pythons. For the most part, pythons are distributed across Africa, South East Asia, and Australia whereas the large boas are generally restricted to Central and South America. The fact that both of these snakes prefer to reside in the tropics doesn't do much to help the success rates of anyone searching for them, especially considering the terrain that makes up the habitat of these snakes is so rough that the American military kindly nicknamed such territories in Panama as "The Green Hell". But we'll discuss the difficulties in finding the world's biggest snakes after we define what the word "big" actually means.
There is much debate over which type of snake should be considered the biggest. The claim to the crown falls between two species, the green anaconda and the reticulated python. The anaconda is definitely the heaviest, having a girth and weight much, much greater than it's Asian cousin. The reticulated python however generally reaches greater lengths, at least in reliably recorded specimens. It's a tough call because a fifteen foot anaconda will easily outweigh a twenty foot reticulated python. With other animals, such as mammals, the animal with the greater mass and weight is usually considered "larger", even if that animal yields a height or length advantage to another species (think elephants and giraffes). Going by these rules, the advantage would clearly go to the anaconda, but the unique shape and build of snakes seem to dictate that length must be an equal consideration when determining which species is truly the "biggest". Unless a truly giant specimen that shatters all current size records is recovered and well documented, this question will not be answered.
In 1991, The Guinness Book of World Records listed the longest snake ever found to be a reticulated python specimen killed in Celebes, Indonesia (now Sulawesi, Indonesia) in 1912. It measured 31 feet, 9 inches. The weight was either lost or not recorded, though if those measurements are accurate, I'm sure it weighed a lot. Unfortunately, this entire incident, let alone the snake itself, was poorly documented and is largely based on a single quote that can be found in "Tales of the Giant Snake" by Murphy and Henderson (1997). In fact, the naturalist responsible for the quote did not actually see the snake at all, but was merely shown a photograph and the estimated length paced out on the ground by the villagers who killed it. As much as it pains me to say it, the well accepted report of the world's longest snake is highly unreliable and most likely inaccurate. The longest reliably measured snake was a reticulated python caught in Borneo in 1993 and transferred to the Bronx Zoo. Samantha, as she was to be called, measured a staggering 26 feet and weighed in at 275 pounds, which is a massive weight for a python. Samantha passed away on November 21st, 2002. Considering that the Bronx Zoo was founded by the Word Conservation Society (who offered the $50,000 reward that expired along with Samantha's death) in addition to the Bronx Zoo being one of the top zoological facilities in the country, added to the fact that Samantha was certainly measured after death (for an autopsy) and wouldn't have offered any resistance, you can bet the alimony those measurements are accurate. Adding to the accuracy of Samantha's measurement is the fact that unlike many other snake specimen that are destroyed or lost after death (I never could figure out how one loses a twenty-plus foot python) Samantha's body is carefully preserved and stored in the American Museum of Natural History. However, there are other top contenders for "world's largest snake" which include Cassius, a python formerly held at the Knaresborough Zoo in Yorkshire England. Cassius was reported to have been 27 feet long but no accurate records for such information seem to be available, the zoo having closed down in 1985. There is also Fluffy, former resident of the Columbus Zoo in Ohio, who measured in at 24 feet and was, until her death in 2010, recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest snake currently living in captivity. As of November 2011, the tittle holder is reported by the World Records Academy to be Medusa, a (supposed) 25 foot reticulated python being held in Kansas City, MO at the "Edge of Hell" haunted house attraction. When one sees just how many organizations claim their snake to be the largest on record, combined with the fact that these snakes are continually growing in length and fluctuating in weight based upon when they eat, it's easy to see why it's so hard to determine which serpent is truly the largest.
(I do find it interesting as a note of observation that no zoological facility seems to claim any member of the boa family, including anacondas, as the largest snake on record)
Of course, there are captive snakes that were claimed to be larger than the ones mentioned above, such as Colossios, the supposed 28 foot python in the Pittsburg Zoo, or the supposed 49 foot giant that MSNBC News reported in 2003 was being held in the Curubsewu park on the island of Java. In both of these cases, measurements were merely estimated, often adding extra feet to "account for the wrinkles" and un straightened bodies of the snakes. Both snakes, when finally measured accurately, were in the neighborhood of 21-22 feet. Enormous snakes to be sure, but hardly the giants of myth and lore we were lead to believe they were. Interestingly, when the snake in Curubsewu Park was measured at 21 feet in length, the keepers and park curator shook their heads with what I'm sure was less than honest astonishment, stating that they were amazed at how the snake could just suddenly shrink like that. Sorry, Charlie, no dice.
But do such giants exist in the wild? The rainforest may be shrinking, but there's still plenty of room to hide some really big snakes, right? Catch my next post for part two, where we'll explore the idea of truly giant snakes living in the wild.
In 1910, the World Conservation Society (formerly the New York Zoological Society) posted a standing offer of $50,000 for what has become the true holy grail of herpetology: a snake specimen, alive or dead, measuring fifty or more feet in length. In 2002, the offer was discontinued, still unclaimed. The search for a truly giant snake has been underway for centuries and is based largely upon the reports of early explorers and the oral legends of the people native to habitat of large species of snakes. It's no secret that some snakes do grow to very impressive lengths by anyone's standards, but do they really reach the truly giant proportions that legends elude to?
There are close to 2,900 species of snake in the world and they are categorized into 18 families, including the three families of blind snake. Of those 18 families, only two grow to the proportions necessary to be regarded as a true giant among snakes: the boidae family and the pythonidae family. These are the boas (including anacondas) and the pythons. For the most part, pythons are distributed across Africa, South East Asia, and Australia whereas the large boas are generally restricted to Central and South America. The fact that both of these snakes prefer to reside in the tropics doesn't do much to help the success rates of anyone searching for them, especially considering the terrain that makes up the habitat of these snakes is so rough that the American military kindly nicknamed such territories in Panama as "The Green Hell". But we'll discuss the difficulties in finding the world's biggest snakes after we define what the word "big" actually means.
There is much debate over which type of snake should be considered the biggest. The claim to the crown falls between two species, the green anaconda and the reticulated python. The anaconda is definitely the heaviest, having a girth and weight much, much greater than it's Asian cousin. The reticulated python however generally reaches greater lengths, at least in reliably recorded specimens. It's a tough call because a fifteen foot anaconda will easily outweigh a twenty foot reticulated python. With other animals, such as mammals, the animal with the greater mass and weight is usually considered "larger", even if that animal yields a height or length advantage to another species (think elephants and giraffes). Going by these rules, the advantage would clearly go to the anaconda, but the unique shape and build of snakes seem to dictate that length must be an equal consideration when determining which species is truly the "biggest". Unless a truly giant specimen that shatters all current size records is recovered and well documented, this question will not be answered.
In 1991, The Guinness Book of World Records listed the longest snake ever found to be a reticulated python specimen killed in Celebes, Indonesia (now Sulawesi, Indonesia) in 1912. It measured 31 feet, 9 inches. The weight was either lost or not recorded, though if those measurements are accurate, I'm sure it weighed a lot. Unfortunately, this entire incident, let alone the snake itself, was poorly documented and is largely based on a single quote that can be found in "Tales of the Giant Snake" by Murphy and Henderson (1997). In fact, the naturalist responsible for the quote did not actually see the snake at all, but was merely shown a photograph and the estimated length paced out on the ground by the villagers who killed it. As much as it pains me to say it, the well accepted report of the world's longest snake is highly unreliable and most likely inaccurate. The longest reliably measured snake was a reticulated python caught in Borneo in 1993 and transferred to the Bronx Zoo. Samantha, as she was to be called, measured a staggering 26 feet and weighed in at 275 pounds, which is a massive weight for a python. Samantha passed away on November 21st, 2002. Considering that the Bronx Zoo was founded by the Word Conservation Society (who offered the $50,000 reward that expired along with Samantha's death) in addition to the Bronx Zoo being one of the top zoological facilities in the country, added to the fact that Samantha was certainly measured after death (for an autopsy) and wouldn't have offered any resistance, you can bet the alimony those measurements are accurate. Adding to the accuracy of Samantha's measurement is the fact that unlike many other snake specimen that are destroyed or lost after death (I never could figure out how one loses a twenty-plus foot python) Samantha's body is carefully preserved and stored in the American Museum of Natural History. However, there are other top contenders for "world's largest snake" which include Cassius, a python formerly held at the Knaresborough Zoo in Yorkshire England. Cassius was reported to have been 27 feet long but no accurate records for such information seem to be available, the zoo having closed down in 1985. There is also Fluffy, former resident of the Columbus Zoo in Ohio, who measured in at 24 feet and was, until her death in 2010, recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest snake currently living in captivity. As of November 2011, the tittle holder is reported by the World Records Academy to be Medusa, a (supposed) 25 foot reticulated python being held in Kansas City, MO at the "Edge of Hell" haunted house attraction. When one sees just how many organizations claim their snake to be the largest on record, combined with the fact that these snakes are continually growing in length and fluctuating in weight based upon when they eat, it's easy to see why it's so hard to determine which serpent is truly the largest.
(I do find it interesting as a note of observation that no zoological facility seems to claim any member of the boa family, including anacondas, as the largest snake on record)
Of course, there are captive snakes that were claimed to be larger than the ones mentioned above, such as Colossios, the supposed 28 foot python in the Pittsburg Zoo, or the supposed 49 foot giant that MSNBC News reported in 2003 was being held in the Curubsewu park on the island of Java. In both of these cases, measurements were merely estimated, often adding extra feet to "account for the wrinkles" and un straightened bodies of the snakes. Both snakes, when finally measured accurately, were in the neighborhood of 21-22 feet. Enormous snakes to be sure, but hardly the giants of myth and lore we were lead to believe they were. Interestingly, when the snake in Curubsewu Park was measured at 21 feet in length, the keepers and park curator shook their heads with what I'm sure was less than honest astonishment, stating that they were amazed at how the snake could just suddenly shrink like that. Sorry, Charlie, no dice.
But do such giants exist in the wild? The rainforest may be shrinking, but there's still plenty of room to hide some really big snakes, right? Catch my next post for part two, where we'll explore the idea of truly giant snakes living in the wild.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Ivory Hunting and the Nature of Shrinking Animals
Before the term "proffessional ivory hunter" became synonomous with "proffessional criminal", the big game hunters that dared to risk their lives to exposure, hostile tribes, and of course, death via pachyderm, were seen as nothing less than the finest sportsmen the world had to offer. I'm not talking about the chest beating money tychoons who assasinate elephants from two-hundred yards with long range rifles between games of billiards and glasses of scotch (with ice, of course). I'm talking about the dirt poor, early African adventurers who got up close in the thick African bush to bet their lives on a single shot as they were charged by twelve thousand pounds of angry elephant from mere yards away. Keep in mind, as Peter Capstick points out, that elephant hunting yards are much shorter than Super Bowl yards. These men made a living like this. And as they passed their deadliest of trades on from one generation to the next, something very interesting started to happen. Over time, it became increasingly difficult to find what is reffered to in big game hunting lingo as a "big tusker".
We have all heard this before. If you don't hunt then you no doubt know someone who does. And the stories are always the same. The biggest fish, well, that one was caught a long time ago before you were born. That trohpy deer on the wall, the really fine one with twelve points, you won't see those anymore. And oh yes, the "big tuskers" that seemed to be everywhere so long ago aren't much more than a story now. And although most of these stories are chalked up by the younger generations as modern tall tales of yesterday's sportsmen, there is an uncomfortable amount of truth to them. You see, big game animals are disapearing and the ones that are left seem to be getting smaller and smaller. This is most evident in the records of pro ivory hunting.
The largest elelphant on record, dead or alive, was shot in the Cuando river region of Angola in 1955 by J.J. Fenykovi. It stood a massive 13 feet and 2 inches tall and weighed in at 24,000 pounds! It is currently on exhibit in the rotunda of the U.S National History Museum. The tusks weighed in at almost 200 pounds per side. But those aren't the biggest tusks on record. The biggest tusks on record are generally thought to be from an elephant either shot or found -depending on who you ask- on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro late in the 19th century. They fetch a weight in the neighborhood of 210 pounds per side and were reported to weigh 226 and 214 pounds per side when originally found (ivory dries out over time and loses weight). They measure an incredible length of 10 feet, 2 1/2 inches and 10 feet, 4 inches. Elephant tusks of this size are unheard of today.
Should you be interested in ivory hunting as a fan of hunting or merely for historical records concerning the history of human interaction with elephants, you will no doubt become familiar with names such as W.D.M. "Karamojo" Bell, Aurther Newman, and Wally Johnson. These are the big names of elephant hunting and in the case of Aurther Newman, African big game hunting in general. Should you pick up a copy of Rolland Ward's Record Book, which is the official log for records in African big game, you will no doubt find these names enshrined there. In studying these giants of hunting, it is very interesting to notice how in the chronological order of their respective hunting careers, each man recorded seeing fewer truly large elephant and tusk specimens than the hunter before him. Ivory hunters refered to elephants by the weight of their heaviest tusk. If the elephant being mentioned had a pair of tusks that weighted 80 pounds and 78 pounds per side, that elephant would be refered to as an "80 pounder". Wally Johnson mentiones off handidly in his autobiography "The Last Ivory Hunter" that he had seen more than a few "100 pounders" and what he presumed, most certainly correctly after fifty years experience, to be a "150 pounder". Peter Capstick, the co-auther and editor of Johnson's biography, himself a renowned hunter and elephant cropping officer, reports in his book "Death In the Long Grass" that in his entire career he had seen only three that cut the 100 pound mark. Today, most elephants are closer to fifty pounds per side.
The reason elephant ivory, along with other specimen of game, seem to be continually shrinking is because they have been caught in the balance between genetics and human nature. In nature, predators target the smallest and weekest prey animals to ensure their chances of a successful kill. Wolves for example, target the young, sick, or genetically inferior elk specimen within the herd. Because this animal is killed, it is unable to pass it's genes on to the next generation and because of this, the stronger and healthier elk survive and breed the next season. Through this process, the elk become bigger, stronger, and faster over time because those are the genes that survive to be passed on to the next generation. When human beings hunt, the process works exactly the opposite. Because we as humans prefer to hunt for trophies, we intentionally target the biggest, strongest, and healthiest animals we can find. We effectively eliminate the healthiest genes from the gene pool and because of this, only the smaller and weaker animals, be they deer, bass, or the mighty elephant, survive to breed the next season. The reason elephant ivory is smaller than it used to be is because the genes for large ivory were not passed to future generations of elephants. The animals that posseded those genes are stuffed and mounted in the African exhibits of the world's museums and private game collections. It is natural selection in reverse. I understand that strict seasonal laws, game tag limits, and proper hunting regulations are intended to limit this problem, but the results speak lounder than the legislation. Game animals, on average, are getting smaller and smaller. It's no coincindence that your grandfather has more stories about big fish than your dad, who undoubtedly has more stories about said fish than you.
Such is the nature of elephant ivory and shrinking animals. Wouldn't you know it's our fault?
We have all heard this before. If you don't hunt then you no doubt know someone who does. And the stories are always the same. The biggest fish, well, that one was caught a long time ago before you were born. That trohpy deer on the wall, the really fine one with twelve points, you won't see those anymore. And oh yes, the "big tuskers" that seemed to be everywhere so long ago aren't much more than a story now. And although most of these stories are chalked up by the younger generations as modern tall tales of yesterday's sportsmen, there is an uncomfortable amount of truth to them. You see, big game animals are disapearing and the ones that are left seem to be getting smaller and smaller. This is most evident in the records of pro ivory hunting.
The largest elelphant on record, dead or alive, was shot in the Cuando river region of Angola in 1955 by J.J. Fenykovi. It stood a massive 13 feet and 2 inches tall and weighed in at 24,000 pounds! It is currently on exhibit in the rotunda of the U.S National History Museum. The tusks weighed in at almost 200 pounds per side. But those aren't the biggest tusks on record. The biggest tusks on record are generally thought to be from an elephant either shot or found -depending on who you ask- on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro late in the 19th century. They fetch a weight in the neighborhood of 210 pounds per side and were reported to weigh 226 and 214 pounds per side when originally found (ivory dries out over time and loses weight). They measure an incredible length of 10 feet, 2 1/2 inches and 10 feet, 4 inches. Elephant tusks of this size are unheard of today.
Should you be interested in ivory hunting as a fan of hunting or merely for historical records concerning the history of human interaction with elephants, you will no doubt become familiar with names such as W.D.M. "Karamojo" Bell, Aurther Newman, and Wally Johnson. These are the big names of elephant hunting and in the case of Aurther Newman, African big game hunting in general. Should you pick up a copy of Rolland Ward's Record Book, which is the official log for records in African big game, you will no doubt find these names enshrined there. In studying these giants of hunting, it is very interesting to notice how in the chronological order of their respective hunting careers, each man recorded seeing fewer truly large elephant and tusk specimens than the hunter before him. Ivory hunters refered to elephants by the weight of their heaviest tusk. If the elephant being mentioned had a pair of tusks that weighted 80 pounds and 78 pounds per side, that elephant would be refered to as an "80 pounder". Wally Johnson mentiones off handidly in his autobiography "The Last Ivory Hunter" that he had seen more than a few "100 pounders" and what he presumed, most certainly correctly after fifty years experience, to be a "150 pounder". Peter Capstick, the co-auther and editor of Johnson's biography, himself a renowned hunter and elephant cropping officer, reports in his book "Death In the Long Grass" that in his entire career he had seen only three that cut the 100 pound mark. Today, most elephants are closer to fifty pounds per side.
The reason elephant ivory, along with other specimen of game, seem to be continually shrinking is because they have been caught in the balance between genetics and human nature. In nature, predators target the smallest and weekest prey animals to ensure their chances of a successful kill. Wolves for example, target the young, sick, or genetically inferior elk specimen within the herd. Because this animal is killed, it is unable to pass it's genes on to the next generation and because of this, the stronger and healthier elk survive and breed the next season. Through this process, the elk become bigger, stronger, and faster over time because those are the genes that survive to be passed on to the next generation. When human beings hunt, the process works exactly the opposite. Because we as humans prefer to hunt for trophies, we intentionally target the biggest, strongest, and healthiest animals we can find. We effectively eliminate the healthiest genes from the gene pool and because of this, only the smaller and weaker animals, be they deer, bass, or the mighty elephant, survive to breed the next season. The reason elephant ivory is smaller than it used to be is because the genes for large ivory were not passed to future generations of elephants. The animals that posseded those genes are stuffed and mounted in the African exhibits of the world's museums and private game collections. It is natural selection in reverse. I understand that strict seasonal laws, game tag limits, and proper hunting regulations are intended to limit this problem, but the results speak lounder than the legislation. Game animals, on average, are getting smaller and smaller. It's no coincindence that your grandfather has more stories about big fish than your dad, who undoubtedly has more stories about said fish than you.
Such is the nature of elephant ivory and shrinking animals. Wouldn't you know it's our fault?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
On The Scientific Art of Teaching
The specific purpose of this blog is to serve not only as a means of education for those who are passionate about the natural world, ecco friendly living, environmental issues, and assorted types of wildlife, but as a resource for educators. A resource for teaching strategies, philosophies, and accurate information on issues concerning wildlife conservation. I've always felt it a great shame when truly knowledgable individuals lack the means of sharing what they know in a way that is fun, engaging, and inspiring. It was this issue on my mind that convinced me that the first post on this blog should be for the educators. I wrote this some time ago and I feel it is a perfect beginning for this blog.
My self chosen purpose is to be a teacher. No matter what I do, through that endeavor, I will be a teacher. This does not mean going to school for a teaching degree or spending twenty plus years in a classroom, although some great teachers do just that. This means I am able to use a subject or endeavor as a medium to reach, inspire, and to ignite the inner spark and life in individuals who I would call students. Teaching is a scientific art, meaning it is both subjective and based largely upon personal style, as well as being dictated by intricate strategic principles that have measurable results. In my opinion, nothing is harder and at the same time more rewarding. I have never sucomed to the old saying that those who can't do, teach. I would imagine whoever said that was the victim of what is one of the single most dangerous enemies of inspired learning: a half hearted, uninspired teacher. I believe there are two kinds of teachers: those who are teachers because they have a piece of paper that says so, and those who are teachers because they posses a rare quality that allows them to inspire others. Of the hundreds and hundreds of teachers I have seen and worked with, ninety-nine percent of them fall into the first catagory. The individuals in the second catagory that I have had the amazing priveledge to witness, I can count on my hands. This note is a tribute to those individuals as well as a scientific and artistic break down of what, in my opinion, makes a great teacher.
I once heard it said, or read rather, that the most important facet of art is emotional content. I believe this to be true, especially in light of the fact that art is rather subjective. I also believe emotional content to be the most important aspect of any endeavor, be it artistic, scientific, or other. When someone puts their very heart and soul, their most powerful emotional and mental conviction behind an act or practice, they tend to be on the greater end of the spectrum of individuals in that field. People I could name that put complete emotional content into their endeavors would form quite a familiar list: Mozart, Muhammad Ali, Sir Isaac Newton, John Lennon, Nichola Tesla, etc. When you cut through all the conventional reasons listed for the greatness of these and similar individuals, I believe it ultimately comes down to who reaches down into their soul and takes that driving force that makes them tick, that need for the realization of a concept or idea so strong that it becomes necessary for their very existance, and applies it to the application of their chosen endeavor. And that's how greatness is born. I believe this is the first and most important step in becoming a great teacher. A great teacher must be of this line of thinking. They must truly need to be powerfuly effective in helping to improve the lives of others through their work and they must need this so badly that it becomes necessary for their very existance. It must be a desire strong enough that is rises up along side our very instincts of survival. To me, teaching is not a question of what you do, but rather who you are.
When it comes down to the teacher and student, what is it that we strive to impart? Grades, knowledge, experience? The burning desire to be a great and effective teacher I wrote about above still does not answer the question as to what a truly great teacher does. To me, the answer is simple. Teaching is not about credentials, degrees, or grades. the most important thing a teacher can impart to a student is the inspiration to explore their own potential and the confidence needed to carry that out. I have said before that I do not believe in motivation because motivation wares off. But inspiration lasts a lifetime. Motivation emplores people to pursue something because of a goal which is external, whereas inspiration emplores people to reach something because of that which is internal. As a great teacher once explained to me, it's not what you do that makes you great, it's what you are made of. In other words, helping students to find the passion and courage to explore what they are capable of accomplishing is the single most important job a teacher can strive to accomplish themselves. Some teachers teach style, knowledge, or facts, but the truly great teachers teach "substance". They help students find the ability to put substance behind that which they do. I decided to become a teacher when I was fifteen when I realized that which holds most people back from the actualization of their true potential is the simple mistaken belief that their are limmits to one's potential and that they lacked the courage needed to challenge this idea within themselves. I do not see myself as a giver of truth, but rather as one who can point you in the right direction to finding the truth about your own remarkable, limitless abilities. To me, these two things are not merely important, necessary, or helpful. They are sacred. The responsibility one holds as the potential key to unlocking the barrier within an individual's understanding of unlimmited potential and pursuit of greatness, is daunting. It is the most prestigious and honorable task I can set myself to and it is why I do it. I take pride in being a teacher, not because it is my occupation but because it is who I am as a human being.
This note is dedicated to the following people: Joe Lewis, Bruce Lee, Jeff Corwin, Bill Wallace, My mother Jill, The Houston Zoo Overnight Education Team, DeAndra Ramsey, Bill Nye The Science Guy, Brandon Beaver, Joel Puryear, Benny Urquidez, and Jennifer Reed.
My self chosen purpose is to be a teacher. No matter what I do, through that endeavor, I will be a teacher. This does not mean going to school for a teaching degree or spending twenty plus years in a classroom, although some great teachers do just that. This means I am able to use a subject or endeavor as a medium to reach, inspire, and to ignite the inner spark and life in individuals who I would call students. Teaching is a scientific art, meaning it is both subjective and based largely upon personal style, as well as being dictated by intricate strategic principles that have measurable results. In my opinion, nothing is harder and at the same time more rewarding. I have never sucomed to the old saying that those who can't do, teach. I would imagine whoever said that was the victim of what is one of the single most dangerous enemies of inspired learning: a half hearted, uninspired teacher. I believe there are two kinds of teachers: those who are teachers because they have a piece of paper that says so, and those who are teachers because they posses a rare quality that allows them to inspire others. Of the hundreds and hundreds of teachers I have seen and worked with, ninety-nine percent of them fall into the first catagory. The individuals in the second catagory that I have had the amazing priveledge to witness, I can count on my hands. This note is a tribute to those individuals as well as a scientific and artistic break down of what, in my opinion, makes a great teacher.
I once heard it said, or read rather, that the most important facet of art is emotional content. I believe this to be true, especially in light of the fact that art is rather subjective. I also believe emotional content to be the most important aspect of any endeavor, be it artistic, scientific, or other. When someone puts their very heart and soul, their most powerful emotional and mental conviction behind an act or practice, they tend to be on the greater end of the spectrum of individuals in that field. People I could name that put complete emotional content into their endeavors would form quite a familiar list: Mozart, Muhammad Ali, Sir Isaac Newton, John Lennon, Nichola Tesla, etc. When you cut through all the conventional reasons listed for the greatness of these and similar individuals, I believe it ultimately comes down to who reaches down into their soul and takes that driving force that makes them tick, that need for the realization of a concept or idea so strong that it becomes necessary for their very existance, and applies it to the application of their chosen endeavor. And that's how greatness is born. I believe this is the first and most important step in becoming a great teacher. A great teacher must be of this line of thinking. They must truly need to be powerfuly effective in helping to improve the lives of others through their work and they must need this so badly that it becomes necessary for their very existance. It must be a desire strong enough that is rises up along side our very instincts of survival. To me, teaching is not a question of what you do, but rather who you are.
When it comes down to the teacher and student, what is it that we strive to impart? Grades, knowledge, experience? The burning desire to be a great and effective teacher I wrote about above still does not answer the question as to what a truly great teacher does. To me, the answer is simple. Teaching is not about credentials, degrees, or grades. the most important thing a teacher can impart to a student is the inspiration to explore their own potential and the confidence needed to carry that out. I have said before that I do not believe in motivation because motivation wares off. But inspiration lasts a lifetime. Motivation emplores people to pursue something because of a goal which is external, whereas inspiration emplores people to reach something because of that which is internal. As a great teacher once explained to me, it's not what you do that makes you great, it's what you are made of. In other words, helping students to find the passion and courage to explore what they are capable of accomplishing is the single most important job a teacher can strive to accomplish themselves. Some teachers teach style, knowledge, or facts, but the truly great teachers teach "substance". They help students find the ability to put substance behind that which they do. I decided to become a teacher when I was fifteen when I realized that which holds most people back from the actualization of their true potential is the simple mistaken belief that their are limmits to one's potential and that they lacked the courage needed to challenge this idea within themselves. I do not see myself as a giver of truth, but rather as one who can point you in the right direction to finding the truth about your own remarkable, limitless abilities. To me, these two things are not merely important, necessary, or helpful. They are sacred. The responsibility one holds as the potential key to unlocking the barrier within an individual's understanding of unlimmited potential and pursuit of greatness, is daunting. It is the most prestigious and honorable task I can set myself to and it is why I do it. I take pride in being a teacher, not because it is my occupation but because it is who I am as a human being.
This note is dedicated to the following people: Joe Lewis, Bruce Lee, Jeff Corwin, Bill Wallace, My mother Jill, The Houston Zoo Overnight Education Team, DeAndra Ramsey, Bill Nye The Science Guy, Brandon Beaver, Joel Puryear, Benny Urquidez, and Jennifer Reed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)