- Email: [email protected]
Are the pyramids deified dung pats?
TREE vol. 3, no. 2, February
some degree of local research in their own field of interest. Argentine graduates are engaged in almost all areas of ecological research: limnology, invertebrate and vertebrate population ecology, community ecology, animal ecophysiology (particularly ecological ethmarine ecology, plant ology), and evolutionary ecophysiology, ecology. Most of our graduates have in common a relatively good command of field and laboratory techniques in their respective areas of research; however, they lack adequate analytical tools, and sometimes theoretical and conceptual knowledge. It is usual for a young researcher to have been working for one or two years and to have accumulated a fair amount of data, but to require some orientation for its analysis and interpretation, and the writing up of the results. In some cases, additional help in terms of and laboratory work sampling design might also be needed. The visiting ecologists would provide direct assistance to individual Argentine graduates in the analysis and interpretation of their data. Occasionally, some formal courses or informal seminars in different institutions of the country might also be expected. And, of course, the visiting ecologist would perform
ecological research that he or she would like to carry out in Argentina. In order that each visiting ecologist may assist approximately IO-15 graduates per year, we propose a mode of operation following an ‘adaptive-interactive’ scheme. For example, assuming a six-month stay, the visiting ecologist would circulate twice to each of three different institutions, allowing for an evaluation (in a second visit to the same institution) of the work that graduates had performed during the visitor’s absence. For longer stays, the number of places and/or the length of time spent in each would also increase, allowing for additional interaction with local research groups, resulting in possible cooperative research projects. The main administrative seat of SPIDER is the city of Buenos Aires, where the visiting ecologists will have their main quarters. However, six additional centres have been selected to cover a variety of ecological areas as well as different ecological interests: Mar del Plata, La Plata, Cordoba, Mendoza, San Miguel de Tucuman and Puerto Madryn. These six places are not necessarily the only ones; other regions may be more suitable in particular cases. The Argentine Scientific and Tech-
798&
nical Research Council (CONICETI has allocated funds for carrying oul this project, covering most of the logistic expenses. Where necessary, limited money will be available to supplement the visiting ecologist’s income, and this will be increased if other expenses (such as international travel, per diems, etc.) can be covered by the visiting ecologist (sabbatical leaves, research funds) or by binational and/or international agreements. SPIDER has a staff of five: Jorge Rabinovich, ecologist, responsible investigator to CONICET of SPIDER; Marcel0 Aizen, biologist, full-time collaborator; Paula Gronda, biologist, half-time collaborator; Carlos Verona, ecologist, one-fourth-time consultant; and Laura Neumann, half-time Spanish/English secretary. We are engaged in making SPIDER possible, not only trying to see thal the visiting ecologists can do a good job, but also working towards making their stay pleasant.
ArethePyramids Deified DungPats? Ilkka Hanski ONE OF THE MARVELS of the insect world is the elaborate nesting behaviour of large dung beetles (for comprehensive reviews see Refs 1 and 2). Most of the interesting species live in tropical savannas or away from the centres of forests’! population biology, which may partly explain why dung beetles, in spite of their highly evolved sexual cooperation and parental care, have been practically ignored by biologists other than dung beetle enthusiasts. The large scarabs (family Scarabaeidae) can be divided functionally into two groups, the tunnellers and the rollers. The tunnellers dig a simple or a more complex tunnel system2 directly below a dropping, into which they push dung for feeding or to start breeding. The rollers,
llkka Hanski is at the Dept of Zoology, University of Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland. 34
either one sex alone or a pair of beetles together, first form a ball of dung then roll it some distance away before burying it into the soil. Fights about the balls are commons: dung is often in short supply, and even if it were not, a stolen ball means saved time in ball construction and perhaps, for a male, a won mate. Nest architecture varies widely, and a nest may contain from one to tens of dung balls with an egg in eachz. It is well known that the ancient Egyptians paid particular attention to one dung beetle, Scarabaeus sacer (Fig. I), a widespread Mediterranean species, unmistakably depicted in numerous Egyptian writings and drawings. It has been more difficult for egyptologists to explain the cause of this interest. The word kheper means ‘to come to existence’ and also signifies the scarab beetle, but no particular importance has been attached to this ‘coincidence’. To understand the scarab’s high
esteem in ancient Egypt, one needs to know the biology of dung beetles as well as the Egyptian culture. A recent study4 by Yves Cambefort at the Natural History Museum in Paris combines knowledge of these two disciplines in a captivating study of beetles and people. Cambefort first points out the great importance of cattle to the Egyptians, and how everything related to cattle was sacred and closely observed (as is still the case in some oastoral cultures). The ancient Egyptians made an association, evidenced by their writings, [ of the scarab beetle and the sun. The scarab’s 1i head Fig. 1.
1758 (life size).
TF’EE vol. 3, no. 2, February
1988
resembles the rising sun (Fig. 1). Beetles arrive at cow pats before st_nrise, and continue to form and roll balls until early morning. After the ball has been rolled for some di,stance, it is buried in the soil, where a nest chamber is excavated. Beetles work in bisexual pairs, but mating occurs in the tunnel or in the breeding chamber and is rarely observed. Cambefort suggests that the Egyptians interpreted the breeding cycle as a union between the beetle and the earth. The product of this union is the scarab larva inside the nesting ball. The nest of S. sacer represents a very simple type in dung beetles, usually consisting of a diagonal tunnel from the soil surface to the nesting chamber, in which a single nest ball is located. Following oviposition, the female leaves the nest and begins to construct another one. [In the related genus Kheper, also represented in Egypt, the female may stay in the nest during larval development, which necessarily leads to very low fecundity, down to the absolute nlinimum of a single offspring per breeding (rainy) season in K. nigroaeneus in southern Africas.] At the end of its development, the larva turns into a pupa, and eventually a new scarab emerges. That acute ooserver of natural history, J-H. Febre, was perhaps the first to liken the scarab pupa inside the nesting ball to a mummy6 (Fig. 2). Cambefort turns Fabre’s remark around and
suggests that it was the scarab that gave the idea of mummification to the Egyptians. The scarab’s nest becomes the burial chamber, in which the pupa-mummy awaits its solar resurrection. The dung ball was made out of a cow pat. One is not surprised that Cambefort draws the logical conclusion, even if tentatively, that pyramids are nothing but idealized cow pats. With numerous pieces of evidence, Cambefort identifies the scarab with Osiris, the first mythical king of Egypt. Horus, the son of Osiris, is the new scarab that emerges from the pupa-mummy (Fig. 2). Another fascinating finding is a drawing of a scarab with the sign of shen behind the abdomen. Cambefort argues convincingly that the shen sign in this position represents the feces of the scarab. The scarab that eats the dung ball (the sun) ejects the sign of shen, ‘the universe that the sun illuminates’. The same sign was used by the Egyptians as a frame for the names of their pharaohs and other royalty. To appreciate the force of Cambefort’s arguments one needs to read the original paper and, perhaps, be a competent egyptologist - with a keen interest in dung beetles. For a population biologist, it is enthralling to observe the links between the highly evolved dung beetle breeding behaviour and one of the most remarkable of human cultures.
a
b
Fig. 2. The scarab larva (a) and pupa lb) inside the brood ball, and a drawing from the period of Ramses VI, depicting Osiris, Horus and the sun. Cambefort’s interpretation: Osiris is the scarab larva (note the body form), from which its son i-torus (the new scarab) emerges, with hands bent to the shape of the scarab’s forelegs Osiris and Horus are inside the ‘brood ball’, the burial chamber.
References 1 Halffter, G. and Matthews, E.G. (1966) Folia Entomol. Mex. 12-14,1-312 2 Halffter, G. and Edmonds, W.D. (1982)
The Nesting Behavior of Dung Beetles de Ecologia, (Scarabaeinae), lnstituto Mexico, D.F. 3 Matthews, E.G. (1963) Psyche 70,75-93 4 Cambefort, Y. (1987) Rev. de /‘/-list. des Religions cciv-1,3-46 5 Edwards, P.B. (1984) XV// Int. Congr. Entomol., Abstracts, p. 338 6 Fabre, J-H. (1897) Souven. Entomol. P SBrie, Paris
35
some degree of local research in their own field of interest. Argentine graduates are engaged in almost all areas of ecological research: limnology, invertebrate and vertebrate population ecology, community ecology, animal ecophysiology (particularly ecological ethmarine ecology, plant ology), and evolutionary ecophysiology, ecology. Most of our graduates have in common a relatively good command of field and laboratory techniques in their respective areas of research; however, they lack adequate analytical tools, and sometimes theoretical and conceptual knowledge. It is usual for a young researcher to have been working for one or two years and to have accumulated a fair amount of data, but to require some orientation for its analysis and interpretation, and the writing up of the results. In some cases, additional help in terms of and laboratory work sampling design might also be needed. The visiting ecologists would provide direct assistance to individual Argentine graduates in the analysis and interpretation of their data. Occasionally, some formal courses or informal seminars in different institutions of the country might also be expected. And, of course, the visiting ecologist would perform
ecological research that he or she would like to carry out in Argentina. In order that each visiting ecologist may assist approximately IO-15 graduates per year, we propose a mode of operation following an ‘adaptive-interactive’ scheme. For example, assuming a six-month stay, the visiting ecologist would circulate twice to each of three different institutions, allowing for an evaluation (in a second visit to the same institution) of the work that graduates had performed during the visitor’s absence. For longer stays, the number of places and/or the length of time spent in each would also increase, allowing for additional interaction with local research groups, resulting in possible cooperative research projects. The main administrative seat of SPIDER is the city of Buenos Aires, where the visiting ecologists will have their main quarters. However, six additional centres have been selected to cover a variety of ecological areas as well as different ecological interests: Mar del Plata, La Plata, Cordoba, Mendoza, San Miguel de Tucuman and Puerto Madryn. These six places are not necessarily the only ones; other regions may be more suitable in particular cases. The Argentine Scientific and Tech-
798&
nical Research Council (CONICETI has allocated funds for carrying oul this project, covering most of the logistic expenses. Where necessary, limited money will be available to supplement the visiting ecologist’s income, and this will be increased if other expenses (such as international travel, per diems, etc.) can be covered by the visiting ecologist (sabbatical leaves, research funds) or by binational and/or international agreements. SPIDER has a staff of five: Jorge Rabinovich, ecologist, responsible investigator to CONICET of SPIDER; Marcel0 Aizen, biologist, full-time collaborator; Paula Gronda, biologist, half-time collaborator; Carlos Verona, ecologist, one-fourth-time consultant; and Laura Neumann, half-time Spanish/English secretary. We are engaged in making SPIDER possible, not only trying to see thal the visiting ecologists can do a good job, but also working towards making their stay pleasant.
ArethePyramids Deified DungPats? Ilkka Hanski ONE OF THE MARVELS of the insect world is the elaborate nesting behaviour of large dung beetles (for comprehensive reviews see Refs 1 and 2). Most of the interesting species live in tropical savannas or away from the centres of forests’! population biology, which may partly explain why dung beetles, in spite of their highly evolved sexual cooperation and parental care, have been practically ignored by biologists other than dung beetle enthusiasts. The large scarabs (family Scarabaeidae) can be divided functionally into two groups, the tunnellers and the rollers. The tunnellers dig a simple or a more complex tunnel system2 directly below a dropping, into which they push dung for feeding or to start breeding. The rollers,
llkka Hanski is at the Dept of Zoology, University of Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland. 34
either one sex alone or a pair of beetles together, first form a ball of dung then roll it some distance away before burying it into the soil. Fights about the balls are commons: dung is often in short supply, and even if it were not, a stolen ball means saved time in ball construction and perhaps, for a male, a won mate. Nest architecture varies widely, and a nest may contain from one to tens of dung balls with an egg in eachz. It is well known that the ancient Egyptians paid particular attention to one dung beetle, Scarabaeus sacer (Fig. I), a widespread Mediterranean species, unmistakably depicted in numerous Egyptian writings and drawings. It has been more difficult for egyptologists to explain the cause of this interest. The word kheper means ‘to come to existence’ and also signifies the scarab beetle, but no particular importance has been attached to this ‘coincidence’. To understand the scarab’s high
esteem in ancient Egypt, one needs to know the biology of dung beetles as well as the Egyptian culture. A recent study4 by Yves Cambefort at the Natural History Museum in Paris combines knowledge of these two disciplines in a captivating study of beetles and people. Cambefort first points out the great importance of cattle to the Egyptians, and how everything related to cattle was sacred and closely observed (as is still the case in some oastoral cultures). The ancient Egyptians made an association, evidenced by their writings, [ of the scarab beetle and the sun. The scarab’s 1i head Fig. 1.
1758 (life size).
TF’EE vol. 3, no. 2, February
1988
resembles the rising sun (Fig. 1). Beetles arrive at cow pats before st_nrise, and continue to form and roll balls until early morning. After the ball has been rolled for some di,stance, it is buried in the soil, where a nest chamber is excavated. Beetles work in bisexual pairs, but mating occurs in the tunnel or in the breeding chamber and is rarely observed. Cambefort suggests that the Egyptians interpreted the breeding cycle as a union between the beetle and the earth. The product of this union is the scarab larva inside the nesting ball. The nest of S. sacer represents a very simple type in dung beetles, usually consisting of a diagonal tunnel from the soil surface to the nesting chamber, in which a single nest ball is located. Following oviposition, the female leaves the nest and begins to construct another one. [In the related genus Kheper, also represented in Egypt, the female may stay in the nest during larval development, which necessarily leads to very low fecundity, down to the absolute nlinimum of a single offspring per breeding (rainy) season in K. nigroaeneus in southern Africas.] At the end of its development, the larva turns into a pupa, and eventually a new scarab emerges. That acute ooserver of natural history, J-H. Febre, was perhaps the first to liken the scarab pupa inside the nesting ball to a mummy6 (Fig. 2). Cambefort turns Fabre’s remark around and
suggests that it was the scarab that gave the idea of mummification to the Egyptians. The scarab’s nest becomes the burial chamber, in which the pupa-mummy awaits its solar resurrection. The dung ball was made out of a cow pat. One is not surprised that Cambefort draws the logical conclusion, even if tentatively, that pyramids are nothing but idealized cow pats. With numerous pieces of evidence, Cambefort identifies the scarab with Osiris, the first mythical king of Egypt. Horus, the son of Osiris, is the new scarab that emerges from the pupa-mummy (Fig. 2). Another fascinating finding is a drawing of a scarab with the sign of shen behind the abdomen. Cambefort argues convincingly that the shen sign in this position represents the feces of the scarab. The scarab that eats the dung ball (the sun) ejects the sign of shen, ‘the universe that the sun illuminates’. The same sign was used by the Egyptians as a frame for the names of their pharaohs and other royalty. To appreciate the force of Cambefort’s arguments one needs to read the original paper and, perhaps, be a competent egyptologist - with a keen interest in dung beetles. For a population biologist, it is enthralling to observe the links between the highly evolved dung beetle breeding behaviour and one of the most remarkable of human cultures.
a
b
Fig. 2. The scarab larva (a) and pupa lb) inside the brood ball, and a drawing from the period of Ramses VI, depicting Osiris, Horus and the sun. Cambefort’s interpretation: Osiris is the scarab larva (note the body form), from which its son i-torus (the new scarab) emerges, with hands bent to the shape of the scarab’s forelegs Osiris and Horus are inside the ‘brood ball’, the burial chamber.
References 1 Halffter, G. and Matthews, E.G. (1966) Folia Entomol. Mex. 12-14,1-312 2 Halffter, G. and Edmonds, W.D. (1982)
The Nesting Behavior of Dung Beetles de Ecologia, (Scarabaeinae), lnstituto Mexico, D.F. 3 Matthews, E.G. (1963) Psyche 70,75-93 4 Cambefort, Y. (1987) Rev. de /‘/-list. des Religions cciv-1,3-46 5 Edwards, P.B. (1984) XV// Int. Congr. Entomol., Abstracts, p. 338 6 Fabre, J-H. (1897) Souven. Entomol. P SBrie, Paris
35