I spotted this meme over on Green Gabbro, and thought I'd give it a go. Because I'd like a banana AND a squirt of water (I'd prefer a squirt of margarita though). It's a nice short one.

The rules:

1. List 3 writing tips
2. Tag 3 people whose writing style you would like to imitate

My tips then:

1. Write the introduction and abstract last. And when doing so remember (although it is incidental) that one helluva lot of undergrads, if they ever read your paper, will only read the abstract, introduction and conclusion.
2. Don't let anyone's preconceived ideas of when you "should" be working stunt you. If you get a major productivity spurt only after 9pm, and are useless to man or beast before midday, don't sweat it.
3. Have one day of just writing, without worrying about references, to get the prose down. Then the next day go back and put the references in. Alternate as needed (with thanks to Mike Taylor for that one).

And I tag:

1. The one and only ethical husband, at Clamouring To Become Visible
2. Ask Doctor Vector - I want Matt's sauropod-paper-writing insights
3. Newly minted Dr BrianR of Clastic Detritus, since he must have a few tips

Here's a question for the technologically-minded.

Given that I have a five-year extended warranty until September 2009, covering repair and replacement of hardware (except batteries) on my laptop, how many times do I have to completely reformat my hard drive before PC World accepts that I need a new hard drive?

I'm looking at my fourth reformatting in the space of just over six months.

My hard drive is no more. It has ceased to be. And I fear its metabolic processes are now history. Thankfully I haven't lost anything (although I will have to start from scratch on Christopher's Linnaeus' Legacy banner). And I'll be away for the weekend so even if I reformate everything it's going to be another week before that's ready.

So on the basis that until further notice I can only really use my work computer, and therefore can't do too much in the way of blogging, if everyone in the palaeontological community could try to keep the publication of groundbreaking research to a minimum until my laptop is repaired or replaced, I'd much appreciate it...

I just saw this on the BBC News, and I feel a bit sick:

Sea lions massacred in Galapagos

53 sea lions, including 13 pups and 25 juveniles, slaughtered for no reason at all, no matter how flimsy. In a World Heritage Site that has already been listed as "in danger". Does anyone know how many sea lions there are in the Galapagos? Wikipedia says the species is "vulnerable":

Likely to become endangered unless the circumstances threatening its survival and reproduction improve.

I'm sure ceasing to brutally wipe out 50 at a time can only ameliorate their situation. Now, I know there are other animals that occasionally kill for the hell of it, but we are the animals with the conscience, with the ability to overcome our animal instincts and consider the consequences of our actions. Evolution gave us big brains. Maybe now is a good time to start using them.

We really don't deserve this world at all. Not when we destroy it like this.

A few weeks ago I threw a wobbly over YoungFemaleScientist's suggestion that women should be voting for Hillary Clinton, otherwise they are allowing sexism to proliferate. I suppose, Ms PhD, I would make a start on my crusade by not mis-spelling Mrs Clinton's first name every single time in your post (seriously, go back and check it out!), but what do I know about loyalty within the Sisterhood?

I've not got time today for a long post, so I'm going to send you over to the Huffington Post, to read Michelle Cho's entry about America's Next Top President (I'm kicking myself for not publishing that title myself, as for a couple of weeks I've been saying "Congratulations, Barack/Hillary/John, you're still in the running to become America's next top President").

The style of the article as a whole may not be to everyone's taste, but I thoroughly agree with Michelle on this:

I too am insulted at the idea that just because I am a person of color and a woman that I should be expected to automatically vote for Obama or Hillary. Why are white men allowed to look at the issues and judge for themselves and the rest of us are expected to take sides grade school style? That is racist and sexist and dumb. That is like if all the stupid people voted for Huckabee (please God let this not happen).

It's just as racist/sexist to expect black people and women to vote for the black guy or the woman purely because the voters concerned are black or female as it is to choose not to vote for the black guy or woman because he's black and she's female. And I'm a bit surprised that CNN, supposed bastion of liberal reporting in the USA, is jumping in head first on the "Black women have to vote for their race or their gender" discussion. Not to mention the fact that, if the Democrat race boils down to Clinton versus Obama, all the white guys are going to have to choose whether to vote for their race or their gender too!

I hope there are a lot of very sensible people of all races and both genders examining the issues and making an educated decision on who to vote for. I've been following the progress of each party. So far I'm giving the Democrats an A-, and the Republicans a B to B- for leading candidate. I want to see Edwards and McCain doing much better in their respective parties come close of play on Super Tuesday.

So loyal readers, any of you had to vote yet? How do you think it's going? Are you feeling optimistic about November despite the fact no candidate has been named the outright winner in either party? Talk amongst yourselves - I have a PowerPoint presentation to write. I'll see you this evening...

You wait ages for one and then three come along at once...

First up, Yami has the fifth edition of The Accretionary Wedge, at Green Gabbro. It's about geological misconceptions and pie. Mmmm, pie...

Then Will gets an epic Boneyard up at The Dragon's Tales. Lots of super-keen palaeontologists there, and multiple entries a-go-go!

And a new plant-related carnival germinates in the form of Berry Go Round, at Seeds Aside. Lots of discussion about Tahina spectabilis, as one would expect.

Well, that lets me off the hook on the posting front for a little while... Go read!

In the UK, this weekend has been the RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch. Members of the public have been encouraged to sit in their garden or a nearby park and count the number of birds they see in one hour.

Now, despite living in the flight path of the UK's Busiest Airport^TM, we're usually pretty lucky with the bird life. Bubba the Squirrel has been well and truly stumped by the ethical husband's cunning plan to peg the fat balls out on the washing line rather than on the altogether too squirrel-friendly hanger, and we're getting a fair few of the little dinosaurs visiting. Now that the neighbours who had the cat have moved out (sad to see the cat go but really really happy to see the crack addict go), I hope the family of robins will be okay this year.

But it seemed that, as I was sitting out this afternoon, the little buggers had decided to hide from me. Because I saw almost naff all during my hour outside. Let's see - there was one wood pigeon, one blackbird, one great tit, and a parakeet. Yes, London's most common bird is now a ring-necked parakeet. So, because I doubt most of those theropods have crossed the Atlantic ocean, here for your viewing pleasure are the three British birds I saw today (photos courtesy of the RSPB website - click on them to be taken to the information page):

    

Oh yeah, and have a look at the ring-necked parakeet too. I'm lucky - usually when there's one there are very rapidly a dozen of them, all screaming like anything. Somehow I suspect the RSPB would have thought I was taking the piss if I reported a pigeon, a blackbird, a great tit and 12 parakeets...

I feel quite fortunate having them around though - they're such a splash of vivid colour. And they seem to be as outraged by cold weather as we are, shrieking through the air seemingly saying "What the fuck is this shit?!". It's one of the sounds of London, at least out where we are - the roar of the airport, the late night lullaby of police sirens, and some rather bewildered tropical birds.

I sometimes do online surveys for money. It's never more than a couple of quid, but hey - I offer you my opinion for free most of the time, so I may as well get some money for it on occasion. And yesterday I was doing one particular survey for a well-known company that is often cited in the press as the source of opinion polls. I got this question (and while the answers were all vertically arranged I've had to bunch them up otherwise you'll get fed up reading...):

Which, if any, of the following best describes the MAIN degree subject you are studying? If you are studying for joint honours, please tick BOTH subjects.[Please tick up to two subjects]

Accounting, Advertising, Archaeology, Architecture, Art, Banking, Biology, Business Studies, Chemistry, Chinese, Classics, Criminology, Computing/Computer Science/IT, Dentistry, Design Studies, Economics, Education, Engineering, English Language or Literature, Finance, French, Geography, German, Greek, History/Ancient History, Human Resources, Japanese, Journalism, Latin, Law, Marketing, Mathematics, Medicine, Music, Nursing, Optometry, Pharmacology, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Physics, Research Methods, Social Work, Sociology, Spanish, Sports Science, Theology/Religious Studies, Tourism, Zoology, Other subject

First off, why are there actual degrees (not diplomas but qualifications that make you a bachelor or master of said subject) in advertising, banking, finance, human resources and tourism? Yes, I'm a privileged Oxbridge snob, but our universities are overcrowded and underfunded enough without vocational qualifications being bumped up to degree status. Actually, on second thoughts, maybe we do need degrees in human resources, as I've seen some things that make Catbert look downright human. I suppose it could take three years to familiarise yourself with the Employment Act if you're a really slow reader...

But what has happened to earth sciences? Why is geology not on the list? Are there seriously more people studying Latin and Ancient Greek than geology? Are there more minted optometrists than there are geologists? Or has geology now been deemed to be a poncy type of geography? At my college, there were three geologists. One classicist. Probably about 20-30 medics and 20 engineers. Should think about the same number of modern linguists. A dozen lawyers and a dozen english. There were probably four or five chemists and no more than 10 physicists. There was one geographer, a handful of musicians and briefly two historians of art. University-wide there were about 35 geologists in each year group. Out of a total natural sciences spread of between 600 and 700, and given that there were probably 15-20 specialist subjects within the Natural Sciences Tripos, I think we held our own pretty well.

So I'm wondering why earth sciences have slipped off the radar. You'd have thought, given that climate change is one of THE most popular topics of conversation at the moment, that the Powers That Be might be taking more notice of us rock-bashers. I know I only have one data point, but have you noticed any marginalisation of the earth sciences recently? Have you seen your student populations of geologists decimated as everyone decides they can get a degree in babysitting? Or were the designers of the survey mistaken in thinking that earth sciences is just an "other subject"?

I meant to blog about this ooh at least a week ago. I even started writing it back on 15 January when the research came out. I got a copy of the paper from one of the authors, Sarah Werning, and I read it on the train home. And then Life Got In The Way. But at least I'm approaching it fresh, having forgotten previous newspaper articles.

Certainly the most frustrating thing about palaeontology is the lack of soft part preservation. This presents palaeobotanists and invertebrate palaeontologists with their own special set of problems, but for vertebrate palaeontologists we are left with trying to ascertain age, sex, metabolism, diet, social structure and all sorts of other anatomical and behavioural features, with incomplete skeletons, trace fossils, the odd coprolite, and if we're lucky, a bit of mummification^[*].

And until recently it has been extremely difficult to obtain estimates of growth rates, age and reproductive maturity in dinosaurs. However, lines of arrested growth (LAGs) in bone are rather like tree rings, and palaeontologists can use them to estimate the age of the animal at death. Once you have age estimates, these can be plotted against size to show the animal's growth curve. The slowing of the growth rate generally coincides with reproductive maturity in extant animals, so this growth curve is of particular interest. And reproductive maturity can now be identified courtesy of the presence or absence of medullary bone. It's already been found in Tyrannosaurus rex, and the authors found more in Allosaurus fragilis and Tenontosaurus tilletti. This is cool - always good to see a study include saurischians and ornithischians (although it would have been even cooler if it had been done on a sauropod too!). And they used medullary bone and skeletochronology (the use of LAGs) to infer when the three specimens reached reproductive maturity.

They re-estimated the ages of the three specimens at death as 8 years (Tenontosaurus), 10 years (Allosaurus) and 18 years (Tyrannosaurus). And the fact that medullary bone was present in all three specimens implies that these ages were the maximum age of onset of reproductive maturity. There is no sign of growth slowing down, which the authors say indicates that all three specimens were still growing actively while reproductively mature. In other words, as the headlines have delighted in pointing out, dinosaurs had teenage pregnancies.

Lee and Werning demonstrate quite thoroughly that dinosaurs could not have grown at the same rate as living "reptiles". They say to have achieved this:

...Requires that individuals of these taxa (i) started growth as relatively massive neonates, (ii) reached [reproductive maturity] at unreasonably low body masses (<<one-tenth asymptotic size), and (iii)grew potentially for 50-100 years.

There is no evidence for any of this! However, reproductive strategies are similar in that dinosaurs, living "reptiles" and medium- to large-sized mammals reach reproductive maturity while still growing. This, according to the authors, increases lifetime reproductive success. In contrast, smaller mammals and all living birds attain full size rapidly and do not reproduce in their first year. Lee and Werning conclude that prolonged growth is correlated with relatively early reproductive maturity.

Early reproductive maturity is also correlated with high adult mortality in amniotes, so it is likely that dinosaurs also experienced high adult mortality, and that dinosaurs were born "relatively precocial". Early reproductive maturity also allowed reasonable generation times, and this is where the authors mention my beloved sauropods! While it would have taken many decades to achieve full size, sauropods could probably have reproduced at 19 years. Brilliant.

I saw Sarah's presentation on this at SVP, and it blew me away. The paper did likewise. My only complaint is that surely there must have been some sauropods with medullary bone kicking around somewhere. I never got a chance to read the Schweitzer et al. (2005) paper on Tyrannosaurus medullary bone (pre-PhD and therefore pre-journal access), so to my shame I have no idea if Mary screamed from the rooftops "This means we can tell which dinosaurs were male and which were female without worrying about robust/gracile characters or tail chevrons!". If she didn't, I'd have maybe liked to see it made a bit more obvious in this paper that we now know what sex our dinosaurs were. Obviously about 50% of dinosaurs wouldn't have had it at any age (something I have never forgotten since I nearly complained to the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History that their Arctodus simus specimen didn't have a baculum and what did they think they were doing censoring it because there was nothing rude about a penis bone...).

But oh, this was such a thorough paper! It's hard to explain - the work was complicated, and the conclusions profound. But it was just laid out in such a way that one was almost expecting the next point. Back in 2004, I gave a presentation on the geometric morphometrics of ornithopod skulls at SVP, and while I was only vaguely aware of there being a few people in the audience, my husband was able to observe the members of said audience. And he said one particular palaeontologist (who has always been so supportive to me) sat almost as though he had an internal checklist of things he was hoping I'd say, and every time I said one of his "bullet points" he nodded vigorously. Even though I didn't have an internal checklist, I felt as though I was nodding vigorously at every point Andrew and Sarah made.

They've thoroughly deserved all the media attention (which has been really positive, although I suspect The Sun called them "boffins" or "dino-detectives"), and I hope their research continues to go from strength to strength.

Lee, A.H., Werning, S. (2008). From the Cover: Sexual maturity in growing dinosaurs does not fit reptilian growth models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(2), 582-587. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0708903105

About 15 minutes ago, I received my 20,000th hit for the Ethical Palaeontologist blog.

I've been tracking my webstats as they approached the 20,000 mark, and decided that I would offer my loyal 20,000th visitor with a small token of appreciation - a limited edition Ethical Palaeontologist bumper sticker:

And the winner is...

*drumroll*

Will Baird of The Dragon's Tales! Thank you for your many, many months of loyal reading, Will. And if you would like the bumper sticker, drop me an e-mail with your most convenient postal address.

I'll give away a t-shirt for the 50,000th visitor...

I like Gullible.Info. I enjoy trying to work out which are the facts that seem plausible but are actually not true, or facts that are outlandish but true (I suppose either way I could end up being considered gullible if I got it wrong). The owner comments that it is a parody trivia site, encouraging people not to swallow every fact they're given, and to query pieces of information. I guess thinking about the "facts" then is the point.

So what do you think about this one:

In a poll of over 25,000 8th graders in the US, "schist" was voted the geological term they are most uncomfortable using.

I'm tempted to say this is bollocks, for a few reasons:

1. Saying "sheeted dyke" is always uncomfortable. And "cleavage" or "bedding" should also be pretty embarrassing for a 14-15 year old to say.
2. "Schist" is funny. Anything that sounds like a swear-word is funny. In fact, swear-words are funny. Especially "bollocks". What teenager doesn't enjoy the opportunity to nearly swear but get away with it?
3. A quick Google search for a variety of terms used only throws up the Gullible.Info website.
4. Why on earth would one ask 25,000 students what geological term they feel most uncomfortable using? Who would commission such a study? ICR in an attempt to prove that earth sciences are the tool of Satan?
5. Who teaches 8th graders more advanced geology than igneous-metamorphic-sedimentary, or at a push granite-basalt-sandstone-limestone-marble-slate?

So, here's a question for you on a Friday afternoon. What's the geological term that makes you giggle like a naughty schoolboy looking at an underwear catalogue? Mine is "cummingtonite".

*snigger*

This one made me feel all happy and warm inside (and wondering if I can get one for the back garden).

Gian palm tree puzzles botanists

Christ it's a big bugger! The Grauniad has more about the palm, including the fact that the new genus has been named Tahina spectabilis. Most of the media outlets have cocked this one up amazingly (sadly, courtesy of a dud press release from the Linnean Society, who need to give their press officer a talking to), saying that "spectabilis" means "to be protected" or "blessed". Umm... I know of a couple of readers who probably know a bit of Malagasy, but I'm sure the rest of you were under the impression that "spectabilis" was a Latin word... I think they mean the word "Tahina" is the Malagasy word for "blessed", but you never know with the mass media.

And in fact, as the Meeja blog points out, the whole flowering-then-dying thing is nothing that unusual in nature. I'm not a botanist, so I don't know if it's all been garbled from an unknown source Q-like in nature, and whether it's unusual because it is literally the amount of energy expended in producing the flower that kills it (do other monocarpic plants die in that manner or is their death a natural senescence or a chemical signal?). What is interesting is that all other members of that family (Chuniophoeniceae), are from Asia. I'd like to read more about that. The journal article is available here but I don't have access. Humph.

But nevertheless, it's an awesomely huge palm. Not as tall as some of the palms I've seen on Venice Beach (are they Washingtonia? If so, I'm going to need a bigger garden already), but the flowering stalk is massive. So for being so oversized (and not for the fact that it dies after flowering - let's face it, death soon after reproduction is not unusual in the plant or animal kingdom), and for bewildering botanists, it's very very cool.

I've had to block a few IP addresses. They were using a site ripper to download my husband's websites, contrary to the Creative Commons Licence, so he's advised me to do likewise. Now, if you're a regular subscriber (since you may be able to get the feed but not the actual website) and when you click through you get a Forbidden message, let me know, as you may have accidentally got caught up in the block.

I appreciate that if you're blocked and you're not a subscriber but merely a reader, then this message is useless (a bit like a public speaker asking "Can you hear me at the back?"), but if you know of anyone who's been blocked, let me know so I can investigate.

Sigh. Thought I was over all this, but it's one of the hazards of being in the blogosphere, I suppose. Especially as Paul and I have never made any secret of our real names.

Over the past 48 hours, our newspapers have featured an appalling crime - a teenage girl was kidnapped, raped, and then had caustic drain cleaner poured over her, purportedly to cover up any DNA evidence. The poor girl has severe burns and is in a lot of pain, and will no doubt be scarred for life.

But every single newspaper I have seen has reported the story with one serious inaccuracy, even within the headlines. They're referring to this as the "Acid Rape" case.

Telegraph: Teen charged over acid rape attack on girl
Metro: Teenager charged with rape acid attack and Gang "burned rape victim with acid to hide DNA"
Sun: Rapists throw acid on girl
Even the Press Association: Youth charged over rape

The liquid has been described as "caustic acid", "acid" and "caustic soda", but mainly "drain cleaner". The victim apparently said she had been burned with acid. While I would not expect the victim to distinguish between acid and alkali it seems to have been sloppy journalism to take it as rote, especially when it is almost certainly a caustic soda solution.

I wouldn't know the difference between an acid burn and an alkali burn on sight (fortunately the treatment is washing with warm water in both cases). Hell, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an acid and an alkali on sight - that is why we have labels on chemical bottles in labs. One colourless liquid looks a lot like another, as my grandfather drummed into me by reciting:

Little Johnny's dead and gone
His face we see no more
For what he thought was H₂O
Was H₂SO₄

How would I determine whether it was an acid or alkali? First stop, litmus or universal indicator (although I think phenolphthaleine rocks, and in small doses it can, according to my GCSE chemistry teacher, act as a potent laxative, I think there are regulations on using it now). But I presume the forensic scientists attached to the Metropolitan Police have run a mass spec or similar to determine the precise chemical composition. The spokesman for the Met has said the substance is believed to be drain cleaner.

The overwhelming majority of drain cleaners are alkaline, at the opposite end of the pH scale to acids. Alkaline materials are commonly referred to as being "caustic". An acid is rarely (if ever) described as such, even though the etymology is from the Latin causticus and Greek kaustikos, meaning "burning", something an acid is as capable of doing as an alkali. Alkaline drain cleaners contain bleach (sodium hypochlorite), sodium hydroxide (aka caustic soda) or potassium hydroxide, and can be bought easily in any supermarket. Acid drain cleaners contain 90% sulphuric acid (Little Johnny's downfall) and are only available to professional industrial cleaning companies - when you consider that battery acid is a mere 33% sulphuric acid, you can see why. It could also damage iron pipes, and in contact with metals can release hydrogen (if you need to know why that's dangerous, look up the Hindenburg.

Scientific inaccuracies are often dismissed as being irrelevant. But what if it was an economic inaccuracy? What if, within an article, a journalist had written "House prices are increasing", and headlined it with "House price crash"? The only sensible thing would be to admit "House prices are increasing and our headline should have said boon rather than crash"/"The substance was caustic soda/bleach and our headline should have said alkali rather than acid", or to say "It's definitely a crash, and we were unwise to use the word increasing as it means the opposite"/"It's definitely an acid, and we were unwise to use the word caustic as it means the opposite".

Is it better to have a scientific inaccuracy than an economic inaccuracy? Shouldn't all journalists at least attempt to make the article as factual as possible, no matter what spin is put on it? Have we had to sacrifice fact for the sake of an incorrect word ("acid") that scares people more than the correct word ("alkali")? I'd give up reading the newspapers, but sadly it's part of my job. I become more and more disappointed every day though - especially with the Telegraph, as their science editor has always been a pretty good journalist.

I've tweaked some bits and actually ended up removing a couple of sentences here and there on the Cetiosauriscus paper. And I honestly think I can do no more until the phylogeny has been re-run and a bit of comparative anatomy inserted. So I've sent the document to PU. At 4892 words and 13 pages double-spaced at least it's long enough for a regular JVP article - I was a little worried for a while that it would only be worth a short communication (given my paranoia and seeming inability to write LOADS).

Nothing more from Birkbeck, although a very nice man from the fees department has said he will phone me if he can't sort it all out by tomorrow, when they arrange refunds. Here's hoping for no phone calls. And I still don't know for sure who it was calling me (I'd like to think that my supervisors would have e-mailed by now if it had been either of them).

So with Cetiosauriscus in the hands of my much more experienced co-author, I can now turn my attention back to the Ornithopoda paper. Oh yes, and maybe the rest of my PhD research. I'm working myself up over how I'm going to manage to do collections work on 20 days' annual leave, and debating whether I should take unpaid leave (which I might not be granted) or negotiate a lower salary for a greatly increased number of days off.

Is it really tragic that I seriously hope every week that we'll win the jackpot on the National Lottery? Just so I can pay all my bills, have somewhere nice and big with my own office and not have to have a job while I do my PhD. I can dream.

Zach has done an excellent job with this fortnight's Boneyard, which you can find at When Pigs Fly Returns.

Yami at Green Gabbro is hosting the next edition of the Accretionary Wedge, and has asked us to supply posts in the following vein:

• Your (least-)favourite geological misconceptions
• Pie and the earth sciences

I am well aware that pie is important to geologists. Although I think British geologists and American geologists are talking about different things when they mention pie. I think Americans are mostly talking about sweet pies, whereas Brits are almost invariably talking about meat pies. I met up with three friends from my undergrad geology days just before Christmas, and their faces lit up when I suggested going to the pub that had a special pie menu. The steak and stilton pie was seriously good, and if any of you are ever in the Mayfair area of London, let me know and I will recommend the place.

But apart from a good meat pie being one of the most welcome sights at the end of a hard day of fieldwork (alongside the pint of real ale of one's choice), I'm struggling with that option, so geological misconceptions it is. And I reserve the right to assume that palaeontology is a type of geology...

Misconception 1: Anything extinct is a dinosaur

Mammoths are not dinosaurs. Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. Ichthyosaurs are not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are all the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops, or Passer and Triceratops, or Megalosaurus and Iguanodon (I've seen all written down recently). So that excludes all mammals, all aquatic "reptiles", komodo dragons, early tetrapods, Dimetrodon and Godzilla. Godzilla is freakin' awesome, but not a dinosaur. I refer you to my post back in February 2007, when I ranted about this at greater length.

Misconception 2: Only dinosaurs died out at the K-P_g Boundary

Not true. On the land, the Pterosauria (not dinosaurs, see above) became extinct, although I don't think the early mammals were that affected, or small terrestrial diapsids. In fact, one group of dinosaurs, the birds, did not become extinct. So dinosaurs themselves did not completely die out. In the oceans, however, large groups within the Foraminifera, Mollusca, Echinodermata and marine Diapsida were wiped out. Terrestrial plants were devastated too, although ferns flourished in the immediate aftermath. And that's why it's so damn difficult to find an explanation for the mass extinction that leaves everyone 100% happy.

Misconception 3: Dinosaurs and humans co-existed

If you include birds within your definition of "dinosaur" then dinosaurs and humans co-exist even today. In fact there are some rather bewildered-looking avian dinosaurs outside my kitchen window wondering how Bubba the Fat Squirrel managed to steal the fat balls from 1.5m high up on our dispenser. But non-avian dinosaurs (which are the ones everyone thinks of) became extinct 65 million years ago, and modern humans only appeared about 200,000 years ago. No human has ever set eyes on a living non-avian dinosaur (or even one that was simply dead rather than fossilised).

Misconception 4: Herbivorous dinosaurs were "peaceful plant-eaters"

Stegosaurus: huge fuck-off Thagomizer^TM (as coined by Gary Larson). Triceratops: long pointy horns. Diplodocus: whiplash tail. Given how many people each year are trampled by elephants, gored by buffalo, and no doubt bitten by iguanas, is there any reason on Earth why big herbivorous dinosaurs should be any less aggressive? Don't you think a female dinosaur protecting her young is going to fight as hard as a female rhinoceros? Would it not be as dangerous to be hanging round Wyoming 67 million years ago during the mating season as it is in Wyoming today?

I'm off for a lie-down now. Blood pressure. Too high.

I had a very cuboidal Christmas. Got mostly books (and a fair bit of dino-bilia too - must get a good photo of the earthenware Stegosaurus now guarding my garden). I was just talking to Brian and said I must blog about my books, so here goes. I picked up most of these at SVP, courtesy of massive discounts.

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R Prothero & Carl Buell

I read a bit of it in the hotel at SVP, but had to stop myself getting too far into it (bad form to read one's Christmas presents in October). This is going to be a key weapon in the "War On Intelligent Design" (and check out Brian's excellent review towards the bottom of the page).

Seismosaurus
David Gillette & Mark Hallett

It's a book about a sauropod dinosaur. It's like research porn for me. Please can we have one book per sauropod genus? I'd offer to write the book on Cetiosauriscus but you'll be waiting 30 years for it.

Thunder-lizards: The Sauropodomorph Dinosaurs
Virginia Tidwell & Kenneth Carpenter

In the absence of one textbook per sauropod dinosaur genus, I will quite happily take this. The book is next on my actual PhD reading list once I've cleared the morphometric literature.

The Complete Dinosaur
James O Farlow, MK Brett-Surman & Robert F Walters

Looking forward to reading this, especially Tom Holtz's chapter on the osteology of dinosaurs. I'm ashamed to say I haven't even cracked the cover, so I don't know what the Technology chapter is about, but I'd hope it includes some morphometrics as it's by Ralph Chapman.

The Dinosaur Papers
David B Weishampel & Nadine M White

I nearly spent a fortune on this at the SVP silent auction, but then found it for a pittance on Amazon. Can't wait to get stuck into all the classic old papers - thanks little bro.

Why is nothing ever simple? Back in October, I was awarded a College Research Studentship by the Earth Sciences Dept, which will pay my tuition fees for three years, subject to satisfactory academic progress, starting this year - 2007-2008. I filled in a form and returned it to my tutor. In the meantime, I had to pay my tuition fees, so I set up my direct debit, and duly coughed up just over £200 (one-eighth of my fees) on 15 October.

When I got back from SVP on 23 October, I had a letter from the Registry, confirming my studentship, and asking me to sign the acceptance form. Not only had they posted a letter during the postal strike (it should have arrived before I went away to Texas), but they'd managed to not include the all-important form. So the next day I phoned the Registry, and managed to get them to send me a Word document of the form, which I signed and faxed over, with about three hours to spare before the closing date. I had an e-mail acknowledging receipt.

By 14 November, however, there was no record of a studentship being applied to my account, so I phoned up Fees. The member of staff I spoke to said it was probably in his inbox, and that I should just cancel my direct debit. I'd probably get a letter asking me why I hadn't paid, but I should ignore it, and he'd get onto processing my studentship asap.

I logged on to my account just after Christmas, and was surprised to find still no studentship and two months of no payment on my account. I decided to phone the Registry as soon as I was sure they were open for the spring term. However, before I had a chance (I was ill last week, and work has spanked me good and proper this week), I had a missed call at lunchtime today from a Birkbeck number. They didn't leave a message (I HATE it when that happens). I was at a meeting in Cambridge, and could do nothing until I made it back to the office. Called up the Registry, who said the studentship had come through and that it was probably Fees calling me about the refund of the £200 I paid in October (which would be nice).

So I was transferred to Fees. Who put me on hold for a bit and then said they'd have to talk to my Dept, and they'd call me tomorrow. By 15 January I'll be three months behind. Obviously I'm a little scared about being booted out for not paying my fees, and I'm also scared about the prospect of having to suddenly find £600 if I need to. I can't see why I would need to, because the Dept received my initial form, and the Registry received my acceptance form.

I just want to stay in good standing with the University, and to get my refund. I thought when the money was coming from one part of Birkbeck and going to another part of Birkbeck, it would be easy. I hope it usually is, because I'm more than a bit worried.

And I still don't know for sure whether it was Fees who called me or not.

For reasons unknown I'm getting error messages when I try to respond to your comments, as does the ethical husband on his Haloscan comments. You're probably being told to wait another -33000 seconds or so, and the number is (obviously) increasing. Not good!!

Hold tight, and hopefully it'll be back on track soon. It's evidently Haloscan-wide. And I'd composed a really nice long comment to Ewan as well!

While I'm here then, I'll be updating the blogroll tonight. I'll be adding The Other 95% (long overdue, sorry Kevin), I Has A Hotdog, Green Gabbro, Lounge Of The Lab Lemming, Beer In The Evening, The Daily Coyote (if you don't subscribe to this blog you are missing out Big Time) and last, but by no means least vetSchool.

I am set to be published earlier than I thought. Sorry Mike, it's not Cetiosauriscus. It's the fruits of one of my MRes projects from four years ago. However, over the years, the other two authors have done much more work on it, and while I think there's some data in there that can be attributed to me, it really is all their hard work. I am grateful to be included on the author list though. Because it's only in the process of being submitted, I'm not going to tell you the title, the journal or the other two authors. I am still so naive about the academic process, and I don't want to do anything to jeopardise the review.

There were no fireworks accompanying the wondrous climax of the "Submit" button. On one (very small and insignificant) level I am sad not to have been involved in the "excitement" of the submission process - I am still none the wiser when it comes to my own submissions (even if the Ornithopoda paper is ready before Cetiosauriscus I'll probably wait until the latter has been submitted just so I've been through the process and know exactly what's expected).

But, it's almost all the other authors' own research (it's not for me to muscle in), and I'm thrilled to bits to see the research dispatched safely to the journal. I have other MRes projects that just aren't publishable, so I'm glad to see that this is good to go. You can be sure I'll be blogging about it once it's been published. Would it be okay at this point to say "Woo yay"?

Woo yay!

I still remember talking about it to another interviewee at Chicago back in 2003. He patiently listened to me telling him about the MRes work, before the ego landed.

Him: "Well, I don't want to make you feel bad at all, but I did all that for fun when I was 13."
Me: "Oh, right. Did you happen to use [X data]?"
Him: "Um, no."
Me: "And did you use the [Y algorithm]?"
Him: "No, I wasn't quite that advanced."
Me: "And did you publish it?"
Him: "No."
Me: "Then I don't feel bad at all!"

Really can't wait to see it in print now! Who thinks I should send the guy above a reprint?

Will over at The Dragon's Tales took the Presidential Candidate Quiz, and got quite a nice balanced result, showing that he likes some aspects of both the Republican and the Democrat candidates. Possibly supporting evidence for the assertion (made by a lot of TV pundits) that this is the most wide open election on both sides in a long time.

So I thought it would be fun for me to do it...

84% Mike Gravel
84% Dennis Kucinich
81% John Edwards
79% Chris Dodd
78% Hillary Clinton
78% Barack Obama
74% Joe Biden
73% Bill Richardson
39% Rudy Giuliani
28% John McCain
28% Tom Tancredo
27% Ron Paul
25% Mitt Romney
20% Mike Huckabee
11% Fred Thompson

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Well. I think if any of you had any doubts about how I would vote in a US presidential election (were I a US citizen), you don't anymore.

THIS! IS! MY! 300TH! POST!

And unfortunately I have almost nothing to say for it, as I'm just composing myself after a little Gerard Butler moment.

Well, since we're discussing Sparta, I may as well point you in the direction of the earthquake near Sparta on Sunday morning, as reported by Reuters. The article quotes the Athens Observatory as saying it was 6.5 "on the Richter Scale", and the USGS saying it was a magnitude 6.1. Because I am very bad at geophysics, I hope some of you geologists can tell me quickly whether this is a difference in the instruments used, in the proximity of the instruments to the earthquake itself, or whether this is the discrepancy between the Richter scale and the moment magnitude.

Earthquakes didn't overly impress the Ancient Spartans either. Some 15 years earlier they'd fought the Persians at the famous Battle of Thermopylae. I've been fascinated by Thermopylae since 2000, when we went to Greece on a field trip. We stopped at the Leonidas Monument, with its inscription that loosely reads "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough".

We killed the lining of our noses at the sulphurous springs (being told "You're safe as long as you can still smell the hydrogen sulphide"). We ooed and ahhed at ophiolite, massive polished fault planes and Mount Parnassos. We swam in the Gulf of Corinth and skinny-dipped in the Gulf of Evvia. I recommend mainland Greece to anyone wanting a holiday that's really off the beaten track - it's not very touristy, especially not inland, and it's not on the "cool" list of unusual places to visit. The spectacular geology far outweighs the risks of seeing said geology in action.

Now I will have to dig out my old field trip photos. Watch this space.

YoungFemaleScientist has raised an interesting point - the possibility that sexism is responsible for Hillary Clinton's poor standing in the polls, and that people aren't voting for Clinton because they don't "like" her, presumably because she's a woman.

A couple of years ago, the ethical husband and I thought Clinton would be the best bet (although we have always liked Edwards and how genuine he is) - she was (and is) strong, a good speaker, and very experienced in politics and the workings of the White House. But we don't trust her - not because she's a woman, but because she has made poor decisions politically, she has backtracked on the Iraq war (among other things), and because she and her husband take holidays with the Bushes. Is Obama untrustworthy? Maybe. YoungFemaleScientist thinks so. I disagree. But she prefers Clinton. It's all part of the rich tapestry of life, and what will make the election so interesting (even for me as a foreign observer).

But YoungFemaleScientist is upset that young women are not voting for Clinton, and (if I've misinterpreted this though, please tell me so - you can all click through and read for yourself) attributes this to said young women's ignorance of just how sexist the Real World is. We have been told how much better life is for women and how much more we're achieving, and we think we've done enough. Problem solved so we don't have to vote for women just to make sure a woman gets the position.

I am under no illusion about how sexist the world is. For anyone who is new to the blog, let me summarise. I was sexually assaulted by my male PhD supervisor, and then cut out from his research when I wouldn't play ball. He then went on to have a relationship with another female student who did pretty well until she decided to get his ass fired. I then got a job working for a female senior judge, who was harassed verbally and physically by older male judges who didn't see why they should take orders from her. When they drove her into depression I was also dismissed, coincidentally soon after I had asked my manager (a different person to the judge) about maternity benefits within the company. Even today, I dealt with an enquiry from someone who wanted to talk about statistics who thought I was my boss's PA and not, in fact the junior member of the trade policy department who was solely responsible for statistics. I have been screwed over by garages who talk to my husband rather than me. I have been dismissed by computer tech support staff who hear my female voice or see a pair of breasts coming towards their helpdesk and are surprised I even know which way round my laptop goes. Sex discrimination is every day, whether in academia or not.

I suppose before I go further I have to ask what we, as women who are discriminated against, want. Do we want to be treated as equals with men or do we want to receive preferential treatment until we have equalised numbers at all levels of society? Almost all companies (especially in the public sector) "particularly welcome applications from minorities". Minorities must be given equal consideration. But must we go really out of our way to employ more than a proportional number of minorities just to "redress the balance"? Is that not positive discrimination? Can that not be as harmful as negative discrimination?

I'm sure the black voters who have opted for Clinton, Edwards, Richardson - hell, there must be some who've voted for Huckabee or Romney! - would reel if they heard other black people accusing them of thinking racism doesn't exist because they haven't voted for the black guy. And I think it's a bit simplistic to suggest that the young women haven't opted for Clinton because they don't think sexism is a problem.

I think it's fantastic that another woman has overcome sexism (in any of its forms) to be considered a serious nominee for the US presidency. I also think it's fantastic that a black man has overcome racism to be considered a serious nominee for the US presidency. But I don't want to see either Clinton or Obama voted for because they are female or black. If either of them win, I want them to win because they are the best person for the job. No minority wants to be given the job just because their employer has a quota to fill. No woman wants to be the "token woman". Clinton does not want to be the "token woman". Being the "token woman" negates the achievement, because it has been given to the woman concerned, probably by a group of old white men. Better to win the election fair and square on your own merit as an equal with the men you run against.

Hillary Clinton is a good politician. She has two good terms as New York state's first female senator. She is cited as a good role model for women. When was the last time a white guy was cited as a "good role model" for other white guys?! I don't think her policies are right for the USA and I don't think they're right for the world (and as I mentioned before, America, your election affects the world and whether or not you choose to consider that when you vote, you must at least acknowledge that it is our business). But it is down to you to decide who you think is the best person for the job. Voting for the woman because you're a woman is as educated as those old bigots who say "I've voted Republican all my life, I'm voting Republican again" without any clue as to whether their Medicare is going to be fucked over if a Republican gets in again. If you have read the manifestos, watched the debates, talked to your friends and colleagues and formed an educated decision, then vote for that person.

If women vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is another woman then that does Clinton no favours, and it makes the women concerned look like they can't cope with serious politics.

There's a new Linnaeus' Legacy carnival up at Greg Laden's Blog. If you're craving something taxonomic, head over there.

*Makes mental note to write more taxonomic posts...*

From the US Department of Homeland Security website:

10-Fingerprint Scanners to Deploy at all Ports of Entry
The Department of Homeland Security plans to replace the current two-fingerprint scanners with new 10-fingerprint scanners at all U.S. ports of entry over the next year.

On November 29, 2007, Homeland Security will begin the initial transition at Washington Dulles International Airport. In early 2008, nine U.S. airports will also collect additional fingerprints from international visitors. They include:

• Boston Logan International Airport (Boston, Mass.)
• Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Chicago, Ill.)
• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (Detroit, Mich.)
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (Atlanta, Ga.)
• George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport (Houston, Texas)
• Miami International Airport (Miami, Fla.)
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York, N.Y.)
• Orlando International Airport (Orlando, Fla.)
• San Francisco International Airport. (San Francisco, Calif.)

The Department of State currently uses 10-fingerprint scanners at most of its visa-issuing posts and will complete deployment worldwide by the end of 2007.

The transition from collecting two digital fingerprints to collecting 10 fingerprints from international visitors is one of the department's top priorities because it furthers the department's ability to keep dangerous people out of the United States, while making legitimate travel more efficient.

Damnit. Do you know how long it took me to change my name from Ahmed Hamas Al-Qaeda Deathtoamerica Bin Laden to Julia Heathcote, get the passport of a homely British girl, have the sex-change operation and extensive plastic surgery to look like her, and harvest her index fingerprints? Now I'm going to have to go and find the body and see if I can get those other eight fingertips back. They're going to be a bugger to sew on.

But seriously. I cannot wait to see the political/statistical bullshittery that went into backing up the case for 10-fingerprint machines. Is there any evidence that terrorists with innocent-looking index fingers have been getting through immigration? Americans, do you feel any safer just because all visitors to the USA now have to present all their fingers rather than the two they pick their noses with?

I challenge all foreign visitors to see if they can flip the immigration staff the bird without them noticing.

Sometimes I can hardly believe that it's been four years since I stood in the basement of Blueberry Hill, on the Delmar Loop in St Louis, and listened to John Edwards speak. I can't remember exactly when it was - it was definitely before my birthday, and it was after Paul had arrived, so either the last week of January or the first two weeks of February 2004. Some of my fellow students had been to see Howard Dean that afternoon (before the I Have A Scream speech, I think). But Paul and I, always the keen observers of the quaint traditions the colonies have, decided to go to hear Edwards. Paul may still have the photoshopped badge with Edwards' head superimposed on a cartoon Superman's body - we thought they were cool, and certainly not what a prospective prime minister would have done in the UK.

After (at that point) seven years of a Labour government (Blair was coming up to his 10th anniversary as leader of the Labour party), Paul and I consider ourselves to have pretty good politician bullshit detectors. We detected none in John Edwards. On nothing more than this, a cursory look at the campaign pages of the other candidates and the almost hourly analysis on NPR, Paul and I figured an Edwards-Clark Democrat ticket was a good plan. Wes Clark was a former military man, which is probably a good quality for a Commander-In-Chief. I'm a firm believer that (however it is obtained) anyone responsible for sending thousands of men and women to die should be fully aware of the harsh realities of war, and perhaps if Dubya hadn't dodged the draft he might not have been so keen to invade multiple Middle-Eastern countries.

But I digress. 2 November 2004 was the evening before SVP, and Paul and I arrived in Denver to some very excited palaeontologists. By the next morning it was all over. Colleagues were close to tears. Even more people had voted for Bush this time (perhaps following the tongue-in-cheek bumper sticker which said "Bush-Cheney '04: Why change horses mid-Apocalypse?"). Kerry lacked charisma, had lost a fair bit of trust, and just did not gel with Edwards. Surely a prospective president and vice-president have to look like they can work together? Even Bush and Cheney managed that, and Clinton and Gore certainly did, although they were like chalk and cheese.

Now, we had been keeping up-to-date with the "Clusterfuck to the White House" via the wonderful Daily Show with Jon Stewart, but obviously recently it hasn't been on air. I'm relying more on the BBC's Vote USA 2008 site. On one hand I sometimes think it's none of my business, but on the other hand the 2008 presidential election is every bit of my business, and that of everyone else on the planet. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the president of the USA is the most powerful person in the world (yes, even including the Rothschilds and the Bilderbergers), and the USA has the most impact on global economy, warfare and yes, probably even environment (albeit with China and India not far behind - Europe is doing better).

The USA traditionally appoint the head of the World Bank (with the European Union traditionally appointing the head of the International Monetary Fund). It is incredibly difficult to raise a UN peacekeeping or NATO task force without the blessing and/or participation of the USA. The UK is only slightly humorously known as "America's aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic", and Tony Blair metaphorically assumed the position of Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.

And without a US president who is prepared to do whatever it takes to reverse the man-made global warming, we are all doomed.

I'd started off liking Hillary Clinton. I'd thought she could have taken on Bush in 2004, but it takes a lot of effort to overthrow an incumbent president. Perhaps more than even Hillary could muster. It had seemed like a two-horse race between her and Barack Obama (I REALLY liked his Chicago Bears Monday Night Football advert).

I was delighted when John Edwards announced he would run again though. He's put global warming at the top of his "to do list", and with the exception of the "strengthen home security" bit (as a British non-terrorist visitor with a love-hate relationship with US Immigration I get a bit concerned about these things) I think every one of his pledges is sound. Wish we had a politician prepared to do all those things.

So post-Iowa, Obama seems to be doing really well. But that's one state, and anything could happen. He could scream at his audience for one thing, and then it would all be over. But what if he continues to do really well? He seems like a strong presidential candidate. He's certainly a good antidote to Mike Huckabee (sounds like a chintzy all-American family restaurant serving really bland all-American food, but he's waaaay more dangerous than that) and Mitt Romney (the religious right will never elect a Mormon - I think he'll have problems south of the Mason-Dixon line). But Obama up against John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? I just don't know.

McCain and Giuliani are reasonably socially liberal. We Europeans like that. It makes us feel less embarrassed when we look west. We also like Fred Thompson because we really enjoy watching "Law & Order". But seriously. In an ideal world I would like to have seen Edwards-Clark four years ago. I can't turn back time. Edwards I don't think will get the top nomination for the Democrats. If Obama gets it, I doubt Clinton would run as VP. If Clinton gets it, Obama might, but really the two of them have attacked each other so publicly it would be surprising. Obama-Edwards is my gut feeling.

And if Obama-Edwards ran against McCain-Giuliani then I don't think the rest of the world would be too fussed about the result. But I think any other Republican combo could be bad for the rest of the world, and really dangerous for America.

That's just my 2p (currently worth about 4c...). I haven't followed it all closely. I expect to have pro-X readers telling me I haven't considered all the many faults of Y, and I accept this. I've heard a lot of science bloggers wailing and gnashing their teeth over the Republican nominations, but what about your own guys? What do you all think about the Democrat candidates? Have I missed a big skeleton in Edwards' cupboard or do you agree with my uneducated assessment so far? I'm off to read more about all the nominees' science and technology policies on Geek The Vote 08. Back soon.

I've been in bed with this awful cold for three days now, and all I can say is thank FSM for wireless broadband and my reluctance to replace my laptop with a desktop PC. From time to time, when I feel my blood pressure is getting too low, I like to read the BBC News Have Your Say page.

One of the debates today was: "Should new coal power station be built?". I'll get onto my own thoughts about that later. I rarely read the comments in chronological order, preferring to go to the "readers recommended" tab and read the first few pages to get an idea of how the arguments have been progressing. And it was obvious that it had rapidly become "Of course we should build another coal power station - you lefty liberal scientists have been feeding us rubbish - there's no evidence at all for man-made global warming" (as my entire readership goes *headdesk*...). I thought this was an excellent and very succinct response:

Added: Thursday, 3 January, 2008, 09:25 GMT 09:25 UK
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for MMGW, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Erroneous arguments or that do not properly cite references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world's scientific community awaits your response.
Erwin Schrodinger

Only to find it being responded to thus:

Added: Thursday, 3 January, 2008, 11:10 GMT 11:10 UK
The reality is that the journals will select reviewers they agree with and even if published, the IPCC will only select articles that support MMGW because its stated role is to access, and I quote here, "the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change". That's not science.
Silenced Majority

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought journals selected reviewers who were experts in the field in which the paper is based. And I thought authors could suggest possible reviewers (whom the editors may or may not choose). And I thought authors could name experts in the field who may have a conflict of interest or may not give a fair review. And I would like to think that an expert, regardless of whether they "liked" the authors' conclusions, would have the integrity to accept a paper with an unfavourable conclusion as long as the methods were sound.

So anyway, the proposed new power station in Kent. As I understand it, the new "clean coal" power station is to replace an older coal-fired power station. I haven't seen the science first-hand, so I can only go on E.ON UK's statement that the new power station will be 20% cleaner (all the details are here - I guess I have a bit of reading to do!). I would hope that means that the new power station will emit only 80% of the greenhouse gases that the older model currently emits.

I guess they're trying, but I can't help but think that's like being given the choice of being punched in the face five times or being punched in the face four times. It's still going to hurt. I'd had high hopes for E.ON UK (formerly Powergen) - they'd marketed themselves as being really up on renewable energy, and I thought we were going to see them investing in more offshore wind-farms, tidal stream turbines and wave energy converters. It's great that we have ways of using fossil fuels with fewer dangerous emissions, but firstly it's sad that we have to entirely demolish a power station to rebuild it (what's the carbon footprint and the amount of waste that will be generated in the course of the demolition, and how long will it take for the new power station to "pay it back"?), and secondly, we're still having to use fossil fuels, which are a finite resource.

I do wonder whether we should be trying to market this "clean coal" power station to the Chinese and Indian power companies. They have coal. They're going to burn coal. And they're going to (understandably, I have to say) tell us to go fuck ourselves if we try to preach to them about the dangers of fossil fuels. Maybe this would be a good temporary solution? If only it was simply a few boxes of catalysts that strapped onto the chimney. That worked with sulphur dioxide in the late 1980s-early 1990s.

Woke up this morning with a temperature, a vice-like headache, shivers, aches and pains and a constantly runny nose. What a way to start a new year. We welcomed in 2008 with mugs of tea and coffee rather than the champagne we'd planned, but I'd have taken the champagne hangover over this illness every time, not least because by lunchtime I'd have felt like a greasy fry-up.

A peculiarly Scottish new year (or Hogmanay) tradition is that of first-footing. Ideally, the first person to cross your threshold in the new year should be a tall, dark, handsome man bearing gifts of coal and shortbread.

Now, for the past two years (since we were married), the ethical husband and I have spent New Year's Eve together, just the two of us. A little difficult to first-foot, as Paul would have to be outside for the bells and I like to be able to kiss him on the stroke of midnight. So we rigged up something last year with a box of shortbread.

Now, this year, we didn't have any shortbread, so we got a box of chocolate chip cookie mix as shown:

And we tied a length of string round it:

We put the cookie mix outside our front door:

And shut the door, ensuring there was enough string inside the front door that we could grab and pull without having to put any part of us outside:

The bells rang, we wished each other happy new year, and then Paul went to the front door to drag in the box: