SAT Pastpaper with Solutions

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

This passage is adapted from Saki, “TheSchartz-Metterklume Method.” Originally published in 1911.Lady Carlotta stepped out on to the platform ofthe small wayside station and took a turn or two upand down its uninteresting length, to kill time till thetrain should be pleased to proceed on its way. Then,in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse strugglingwith a more than ample load, and a carter of the sortthat seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animalthat helps him to earn a living. Lady Carlottapromptly betook her to the roadway, and put rather adifferent complexion on the struggle. Certain of heracquaintances were wont to give her plentifuladmonition as to the undesirability of interfering onbehalf of a distressed animal, such interference being“none of her business.” Only once had she put thedoctrine of non-interference into practice, when oneof its most eloquent exponents had been besieged fornearly three hours in a small and extremelyuncomfortable may-tree by an angry boar-pig, whileLady Carlotta, on the other side of the fence, hadproceeded with the water-colour sketch she wasengaged on, and refused to interfere between theboar and his prisoner. It is to be feared that she lostthe friendship of the ultimately rescued lady. On thisoccasion she merely lost the train, which gave way tothe first sign of impatience it had shown throughoutthe journey, and steamed off without her. She borethe desertion with philosophical indifference; herfriends and relations were thoroughly well used tothe fact of her luggage arriving without her.She wired a vague non-committal message to herdestination to say that she was coming on “byanother train.” Before she had time to think what hernext move might be she was confronted by animposingly attired lady, who seemed to be taking aprolonged mental inventory of her clothes and looks.“You must be Miss Hope, the governess I’ve cometo meet,” said the apparition, in a tone that admittedof very little argument.“Very well, if I must I must,” said Lady Carlotta toherself with dangerous meekness.“I am Mrs. Quabarl,” continued the lady; “andwhere, pray, is your luggage?”“It’s gone astray,” said the alleged governess,falling in with the excellent rule of life that the absentare always to blame; the luggage had, in point of fact,behaved with perfect correctitude. “I’ve justtelegraphed about it,” she added, with a nearerapproach to truth.“How provoking,” said Mrs. Quabarl; “theserailway companies are so careless. However, mymaid can lend you things for the night,” and she ledthe way to her car.Unauthorized copying or reuse of any part of this page is illegal. CONTINUEDuring the drive to the Quabarl mansionLady Carlotta was impressively introduced to thenature of the charge that had been thrust upon her;she learned that Claude and Wilfrid were delicate,sensitive young people, that Irene had the artistictemperament highly developed, and that Viola wassomething or other else of a mould equallycommonplace among children of that class and typein the twentieth century.“I wish them not only to be TAUGHT,” said Mrs.Quabarl, “but INTERESTED in what they learn. Intheir history lessons, for instance, you must try tomake them feel that they are being introduced to thelife-stories of men and women who really lived, notmerely committing a mass of names and dates tomemory. French, of course, I shall expect you to talkat meal-times several days in the week.”“I shall talk French four days of the week andRussian in the remaining three.”“Russian? My dear Miss Hope, no one in thehouse speaks or understands Russian.”“That will not embarrass me in the least,” saidLady Carlotta coldly.Mrs. Quabarl, to use a colloquial expression, wasknocked off her perch. She was one of thoseimperfectly self-assured individuals who aremagnificent and autocratic as long as they are notseriously opposed. The least show of unexpectedresistance goes a long way towards rendering themcowed and apologetic. When the new governessfailed to express wondering admiration of the largenewly-purchased and expensive car, and lightlyalluded to the superior advantages of one or twomakes which had just been put on the market, thediscomfiture of her patroness became almost abject.Her feelings were those which might have animated ageneral of ancient warfaring days, on beholding hisheaviest battle-elephant ignominiously driven off thefield by slingers and javelin throwers.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

Saving Our Cities and Ourselves from the Automobile. ©2012by Taras Grescoe.Though there are 600 million cars on the planet,and counting, there are also seven billion people,which means that for the vast majority of us gettingaround involves taking buses, ferryboats, commutertrains, streetcars, and subways. In other words,traveling to work, school, or the market means beinga straphanger: somebody who, by choice or necessity,relies on public transport, rather than a privatelyowned automobile.Half the population of New York, Toronto, andLondon do not own cars. Public transport is howmost of the people of Asia and Africa, the world’smost populous continents, travel. Every day, subwaysystems carry 155 million passengers, thirty-fourtimes the number carried by all the world’s airplanes,and the global public transport market is now valuedat $428 billion annually. A century and a half afterthe invention of the internal combustion engine,private car ownership is still an anomaly.And yet public transportation, in many minds, isthe opposite of glamour—a squalid last resort forthose with one too many impaired driving charges,too poor to afford insurance, or too decrepit to getbehind the wheel of a car. In much of NorthAmerica, they are right: taking transit is a depressingexperience. Anybody who has waited far too long ona street corner for the privilege of boarding alurching, overcrowded bus, or wrestled luggage ontosubways and shuttles to get to a big city airport,knows that transit on this continent tends to beunderfunded, ill-maintained, and ill-planned. Giventhe opportunity, who wouldn’t drive? Hopping in acar almost always gets you to your destination morequickly.It doesn’t have to be like this. Done right, publictransport can be faster, more comfortable, andcheaper than the private automobile. In Shanghai,German-made magnetic levitation trains skim overelevated tracks at 266 miles an hour, whisking peopleto the airport at a third of the speed of sound. Inprovincial French towns, electric-powered streetcarsrun silently on rubber tires, sliding through narrowstreets along a single guide rail set into cobblestones.From Spain to Sweden, Wi-Fi equipped high-speedtrains seamlessly connect with highly ramified metronetworks, allowing commuters to work on laptops asthey prepare for same-day meetings in once distantcapital cities. In Latin America, China, and India,working people board fast-loading buses that movelike subway trains along dedicated busways, leavingthe sedans and SUVs of the rich mired indawn-to-dusk traffic jams. And some cities havetransformed their streets into cycle-path freeways,making giant strides in public health and safety andthe sheer livability of their neighborhoods—in theprocess turning the workaday bicycle into a viableform of mass transit.If you credit the demographers, this transit trendhas legs. The “Millenials,” who reached adulthoodaround the turn of the century and now outnumberbaby boomers, tend to favor cities over suburbs, andare far more willing than their parents to ride busesand subways. Part of the reason is their ease withiPads, MP3 players, Kindles, and smartphones: youcan get some serious texting done when you’re notdriving, and earbuds offer effective insulation fromall but the most extreme commuting annoyances.Even though there are more teenagers in the countrythan ever, only ten million have a driver’s license(versus twelve million a generation ago). Babyboomers may have been raised in Leave It to Beaversuburbs, but as they retire, a significant contingent isfavoring older cities and compact towns where theyhave the option of walking and riding bikes. Seniors,too, are more likely to use transit, and by 2025, therewill be 64 million Americans over the age ofsixty-five. Already, dwellings in older neighborhoodsin Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Denver, especiallythose near light-rail or subway stations, arecommanding enormous price premiums oversuburban homes. The experience of European andAsian cities shows that if you make buses, subways,and trains convenient, comfortable, fast, and safe, asurprisingly large percentage of citizens will opt toride rather than drive.Figure 1 and figure 2 are adapted from the American Public
Transportation Association, “A·Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys.” ©2007 by American Public Transportation Association.

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

This passage is adapted from Thor Hanson, Feathers.©2011 by Thor Hanson. Scientists have long debated howthe ancestors of birds evolved the ability to fly. Theground-up theory assumes they were fleet-footed grounddwellers that captured prey by leaping and flapping theirupper limbs. The tree-down theory assumes they were treeclimbers that leapt and glided among branches.At field sites around the world, Ken Dial saw apattern in how young pheasants, quail, tinamous,and other ground birds ran along behind theirparents. “They jumped up like popcorn,” he said,describing how they would flap their half-formedwings and take short hops into the air. So when agroup of graduate students challenged himto come up with new data on the age-oldground-up-tree-down debate, he designed a projectto see what clues might lie in how baby game birdslearned to fly.Ken settled on the Chukar Partridge as amodel species, but he might not have made hisdiscovery without a key piece of advice from the localrancher in Montana who was supplying him withbirds. When the cowboy stopped by to see howthings were going, Ken showed him his nice, tidylaboratory setup and explained how the birds’ firsthops and flights would be measured. The rancherwas incredulous. “He took one look and said, inpretty colorful language, ‘What are those birds doingon the ground? They hate to be on the ground! Givethem something to climb on!’ ” At first it seemedunnatural—ground birds don’t like the ground? Butas he thought about it Ken realized that all thespecies he’d watched in the wild preferred to rest onledges, low branches, or other elevated perches wherethey were safe from predators. They really only usedthe ground for feeding and traveling. So he broughtin some hay bales for the Chukars to perch on andthen left his son in charge of feeding and datacollection while he went away on a short work trip.Barely a teenager at the time, young Terry Dialwas visibly upset when his father got back. “I askedhim how it went,” Ken recalled, “and he said,‘Terrible! The birds are cheating!’ ” Instead of flyingup to their perches, the baby Chukars were usingtheir legs. Time and again Terry had watched themrun right up the side of a hay bale, flapping all thewhile. Ken dashed out to see for himself, and thatwas the “aha” moment. “The birds were using theirwings and legs cooperatively,” he told me, and thatsingle observation opened up a world of possibilities.Working together with Terry (who has since goneon to study animal locomotion), Ken came up with aseries of ingenious experiments, filming the birds asthey raced up textured ramps tilted at increasingangles. As the incline increased, the partridges beganto flap, but they angled their wings differently frombirds in flight. They aimed their flapping down andbackward, using the force not for lift but to keeptheir feet firmly pressed against the ramp. “It’s likethe spoiler on the back of a race car,” he explained,which is a very apt analogy. In Formula One racing,spoilers are the big aerodynamic fins that push thecars downward as they speed along, increasingtraction and handling. The birds were doing the verysame thing with their wings to help them scrambleup otherwise impossible slopes.Ken called the technique WAIR, for wing-assistedincline running, and went on to document it in awide range of species. It not only allowed youngbirds to climb vertical surfaces within the first fewweeks of life but also gave adults an energy-efficientalternative to flying. In the Chukar experiments,adults regularly used WAIR to ascend ramps steeperthan 90 degrees, essentially running up the wall andonto the ceiling.In an evolutionary context, WAIR takes onsurprising explanatory powers. With one fell swoop,the Dials came up with a viable origin for theflapping flight stroke of birds (something glidinganimals don’t do and thus a shortcoming of thetree-down theory) and an aerodynamic function forhalf-formed wings (one of the main drawbacks to theground-up hypothesis).

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Passage 1That half the human race is excluded by the otherhalf from any participation in government; that theyare native by birth but foreign by law in the very landwhere they were born; and that they areproperty-owners yet have no direct influence orrepresentation: are all political phenomenaapparently impossible to explain on abstractprinciple. But on another level of ideas, the questionchanges and may be easily resolved. The purpose ofall these institutions must be the happiness of thegreatest number. Everything that leads us fartherfrom this purpose is in error; everything that bringsus closer is truth. If the exclusion from publicemployments decreed against women leads to agreater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes,then this becomes a law that all Societies have beencompelled to acknowledge and sanction.Any other ambition would be a reversal of ourprimary destinies; and it will never be in women’sinterest to change the assignment they have received.It seems to us incontestable that our commonhappiness, above all that of women, requires thatthey never aspire to the exercise of political rightsand functions. Here we must seek their interests inthe wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that theirdelicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, andthe many duties of motherhood, set them apart fromstrenuous habits and onerous duties, and summonthem to gentle occupations and the cares of thehome? And is it not evident that the great conservingprinciple of Societies, which makes the division ofpowers a source of harmony, has been expressed andrevealed by nature itself, when it divided thefunctions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct amanner? This is sufficient; we need not invokeprinciples that are inapplicable to the question. Let usnot make rivals of life’s companions. You must, youtruly must allow the persistence of a union that nointerest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understandthat the good of all demands this of youPassage 2Contending for the rights of woman, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that if shebe not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge and virtue; for truth must be common toall, or it will be inefficacious with respect to itsinfluence on general practice. And how can womanbe expected to co-operate unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen herreason till she comprehend her duty, and see in whatmanner it is connected with her real good? Ifchildren are to be educated to understand the trueprinciple of patriotism, their mother must be apatriot; and the love of mankind, from which anorderly train of virtues spring, can only be producedby considering the moral and civil interest ofmankind; but the education and situation of woman,at present, shuts her out from such investigations....Consider, sir, dispassionately, theseobservations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed toopen before you when you observed, “that to see onehalf of the human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstract principles, itwas impossible to explain.” If so, on what does yourconstitution rest? If the abstract rights of man willbear discussion and explanation, those of woman, bya parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the sametest: though a different opinion prevails in thiscountry, built on the very arguments which you useto justify the oppression of woman—prescription.Consider—I address you as a legislator—whether, when men contend for their freedom, andto be allowed to judge for themselves respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust tosubjugate women, even though you firmly believethat you are acting in the manner best calculated topromote their happiness? Who made man theexclusive judge, if woman partake with him the giftof reason?In this style, argue tyrants of everydenomination, from the weak king to the weakfather of a family; they are all eager to crush reason;yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to beuseful. Do you not act a similar part, when you forceall women, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping inthe dark?

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder

Honey bees are hosts to the pathogenic largeectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Varroa mites).These mites feed on bee hemolymph (blood) and cankill bees directly or by increasing their susceptibilityto secondary infection with fungi, bacteria or viruses.Little is known about the natural defenses that keepthe mite infections under control.Pyrethrums are a group of flowering plants whichinclude Chrysanthemum coccineum, Chrysanthemumcinerariifolium, Chrysanthemum marschalli, andrelated species. These plants produce potentinsecticides with anti-mite activity. The naturallyoccurring insecticides are known as pyrethrums.A synonym for the naturally occurring pyrethrums ispyrethrin and synthetic analogues of pyrethrums areknown as pyrethroids. In fact, the human miteinfestation known as scabies (Sarcoptes scabiei) istreated with a topical pyrethrum cream.We suspect that the bees of commercial beecolonies which are fed mono-crops are nutritionallydeficient. In particular, we postulate that the problemis a diet deficient in anti-mite toxins: pyrethrums,and possibly other nutrients which are inherent insuch plants. Without, at least, intermittent feeding onthe pyrethrum producing plants, bee colonies aresusceptible to mite infestations which can becomefatal either directly or due to a secondary infection ofimmunocompromised or nutritionally deficient bees.This secondary infection can be viral, bacterial orfungal and may be due to one or more pathogens.In addition, immunocompromised or nutritionallydeficient bees may be further weakened whencommercially produced insecticides are introducedinto their hives by bee keepers in an effort to fightmite infestation. We further postulate that the properdosage necessary to prevent mite infestation may bebetter left to the bees, who may seek out or avoidpyrethrum containing plants depending on theamount necessary to defend against mites and theamount already consumed by the bees, which inhigher doses could be potentially toxic to them.This hypothesis can best be tested by a trialwherein a small number of commercial honey beecolonies are offered a number of pyrethrumproducing plants, as well as a typical bee food sourcesuch as clover, while controls are offered only theclover. Mites could then be introduced to each hivewith note made as to the choice of the bees, and theeffects of the mite parasites on the experimentalcolonies versus control colonies.It might be beneficial to test wild-type honey beecolonies in this manner as well, in case there could besome genetic difference between them that affects thebees’ preferences for pyrethrum producing flowers.Pathogen Occurence in Honey Bee Colonies With andWithout Colony Collapse Disorder