In game of natural selection, some cactus species have adapted so successfully that their natural habitat can extend across many hundreds of miles—several USA or Mexico states. Now in darkest winter, it’s time to talk about the “Snowball Cactus” which is just such a one: Mammillaria candida (Scheidweiler 1838). The spine covering on Mammillaria candida is so dense that the cactus does appear like a big snowball or puffball. The flowers can be light pink, dark pink, white with dark midveins… or even yellow!

Its habitat stretches across several states in northeastern Mexico: Coahuila, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí, and Tamaulipas.

Mammillaria candida grown and photographed by Sentient Meat

Unlike some puffball-like mammillaria, Mammillaria candida has spines which really mean business. I thought it looked soft and friendly so I started to repot it without gloves. I thought if I moved slowly and gently I could just turn it upside down with one hand and rest it ever-so-lightly in my other hand. Big mistake! After trying this maneuver gingerly a couple times, I gave up. I can try again in the spring. With gloves.

Mammillaria candida (syn M. ortizrubiona) ML 656 - Photo : Michel Lacoste at Mammillarias.net

M candida is sometimes separated from the rest of Mammillaria into its own genus, Mammilloydia, because its seeds are not pitted and lack the perisperm found in all other mammillaria. Recent molecular studies, however, place M. candida squarely within Mammillaria, a huge genus which includes many cacti much more distantly related than Mammillaria candida.

Mammillaria candida - Photo : Willy at Mammillarias.net

See Also

Mammillarias.net gallery of species starting with C

These days as a person with a secular worldview, I must confess up front I have a slight distaste for statements of faith. It’s not that all my beliefs or actions have scientific evidence to back them up. I try, but that would be a standard of perfection beyond any sane person’s ambition. Besides as we all know, 99% of our interactions in life are one-off situations—minutiae of work and home life where the grand repeatable ideas of science don’t hold sway. Oh sure, the laws of physics still apply, but we don’t live our lives in controlled circumstances. We aren’t lab rats, let alone accelerated particles.

Rather it’s that the word faith conjures up herds of images and assumptions that repel me. The idea that we should positively esteem popular notions of faith, that we should actively seek to increase our beliefs in unprovable claims, particularly claims which bear on our lives or on the physical world—this strikes me as obviously foolish and harmful. I think we humans already operate with too much certainty about nonsense, not to mention actual falsehoods. We don’t suffer from a lack of faith.

But the Mormon testimony, ah! now that’s a special breed of faith. I wonder if mainstream Christians would recognize this exotic creature as a brother to their thing-called-faith. Or would they see it like I do, as a kind of fetish? The LDS faithful venerate and… yes, cherish… what they call their testimony in a unique set of rituals and practices. If you want to understand members (what they call themselves) of The Church (as members refer to their religion), you must appreciate the contours of the Mormon Testimony.

View from a Mormon pulpit, where members stand to say "I know The Church is true!" Photo at Wheat & Tares: If I Were In Charge: Make “I Believe” As Valid As “I Know” In Testimonies By: Mike S May 24, 2011

I look back on my 20-plus years of Mormon testimony without real bitterness, but with a measure of fondness and rue. It’s like reminiscing about a great love which ended badly. You know how it goes. It’s tempting to blame myself or tell myself I knew better all along, but in reality I bought the whole thing. I was like other Mormons. That “testimony” was more precious to me than most other things in life.¹

Most of my friends in high school weren’t Mormon. Sure, we talked about beliefs a lot, but they were bemused at best by my “testimony”. My best friend in high school practically dared me: if something that special had happened to me… if I possessed that kind of special knowledge, why didn’t I share it with the world? Why didn’t I talk about it even more than I did.

Here’s the thing. Mormons aren’t content to believe. Notice that verb, believe? They aren’t happy with a mere verb. They aren’t even content with a relatively tame noun: faith. Faith is to Mormon “testimony” what coca leaves are to pure cocaine. Mormons have concentrated faith to its most concentrated form, refined it into an intoxicating drug… to the hottest, most extreme form of belief I have ever witnessed in person. That is the Mormon testimony.

Witness the Mormon Fast and Testimony Meeting. Members of The Church gather once a month. They are instructed to attend this meeting in a state of fasting, forgoing food but not water for up to 24 hours, except children and infirm. The usual worship service, Sacrament Meeting, is suspended so that members can participate in this monthly ritual.

Members of The Church take turns rising to the pulpit, or in some cases standing in place and accepting a portable microphone from an usher. They begin a heartfelt recitation of the reasons they “know The Church is true”. This testimony is extemporaneous, but it is almost always built out of a few set phrases. Children are taught the accepted mode of this performance from a very young age, primarily by example.

Before I tell you the words which make up the typical Mormon “testimony”, let me emphasize that heartfelt again is too weak a word. How often in daily life do we share tear-soaked stories of what we hold “most precious”? How often do we gentiles (as Mormons call us non-members) get to publicly expose the most tender, intimate feelings of our heart? To express in fervent tones how “absolutely CERTAIN” we are that “Joseph Smith was a prophet of God”?

View of 1934 pulpit from http://ldsarchitecture.wordpress.com/

Here are some more of the tried-and-true phrases from Mormon “testimonies”. These words give you a small taste of the Mormon “testimony”, but you must remember that just knowing the phraseology is not enough. You have to imagine your friends and neighbors reciting these clichés every month: their heads, hands and voices shaking in fervent belief, their faces streaming with tears of sincerity… swelling with the desire to make you believe as they do.

• I promised myself I wouldn’t cry. [Yes. They. Say. This.]
• Jesus is The Christ.
• Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.
• The other day my ___ [puppy] was almost ___ [caught in a table saw]. When it miraculously ___ [went my way], I knew that ___. [The Church was True, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, Jesus was The Savior, etc.]
• I Know The Church Is True.
• … Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. [!!]
• I don’t just believe, I KNOW it! I know it!
• At funerals, the deceased are praised for the sweetness or strength of their “testimony”. How powerful it was.
• Members repeatedly refer to their “testimony” as their most prized possession, precious above anything else except their family… and sometimes even more so.

All of this has terrific impact. You cannot help but be affected by the sheer emotional power of Mormon members’ personal conviction. For most of us, quotidian life drones along with trouble and uncertainty. At monthly Fast And Testimony Meeting, Mormons receive a bear-tranquilizer dose of complete certainty—high emotions and bodily fluids dished out like freshly cut nerves on a platter.

I am not writing to ridicule this ritual, although any deep sentiment is vulnerable to ridicule. (In my daily post-Mormon life, I’m as deeply sentimental as the next guy, and I don’t believe in taking cheap shots.) Instead, I’m trying to explore how unique, how singular is this thing Mormons call their “testimony”.

Here’s the strangest part. Sometimes they will talk about their past selves, but they will identify more strongly with their testimony than with their actual self. They’ll say, “I went through a period where my testimony was severely tested.” See the difference? They don’t say, “Sometimes I believe less strongly, but now I believe very, very strongly.” In effect they are saying,

“This ‘testimony’ is my real, true self. The rest of me—that part of me which would ever question this “testimony”—is like a foreign object. It is an intruder and I reject it.”

What more can I tell you? Mormons obsess about the influence of The Adversary, The Devil, The Evil One, The Father of Lies. (2) This is another way they split their mind. The good part is themselves, their “testimony” or “The Spirit”. The bad part is “The Adversary”.

God help them if members of The Church ever find themselves questioning! This is as dangerous a word as you can find in the Mormon vocabulary. It brings up dark, shadowy feelings of eternal peril—paranoia about an Adversary who is “cunning” and never-tiring in his efforts to deceive “yea! even the very elect!” (the special ones who are Chosen of The Lord)

True, Mormons believe that Judgment Day will be even more dire for “apostates” or “sons of Perdition”—those who once “knew the truth” and now “actively fight against it”. But I would argue that greater psychological paranoia swirls around members who are questioning, because apostates are by definition lost causes, whereas members who are questioning stand in a liminal state. On the one hand, safety. On the other, hellfire… losing any chance at exaltation and eternal life. Total loss.

This part is reminiscent of North Korea. With the passing of Kim Jong-Il, you may have heard that North Koreans conceive of themselves as a uniquely pure and paradoxically vulnerable race. Mormons are somewhat similar. Because The Evil One has singled them out, he targets even those who were “most valiant in the Pre-Existence”… “that he may deceive, yea!, even the very elect”. Mormons refer to themselves figuratively as Israel and to Utah as Zion.

This is another manifestations of Mormons’ “Chosen People” status, their spiritual narcissism… one more side of Mormon religious chauvinism.

¹ Like most Mormons, I did share my “testimony” pretty often. But even in my teens I could see both sides of the issue. I could see that my mainstream Christian and nonbelieving friends had logically consistent positions. And besides even Mormons—who repeat the slogan, “every member a missionary!”—don’t want to crash a party when they’re not invited. Like most people, I was abashed at sharing my testimony where I feared it was unwanted or subject to ridicule.

² Yes, Mormons believe in a personal Devil as well as a personal Savior. The LDS leadership frowns upon dwelling too long on The Adversary. But many a “testimony” has meandered into a confessional blow-by-blow about the coarse charms of The Evil One. These poorly received “testimonies” are more like 12-step confessionals of personal sin. In my experience, they only happened every few months, maybe once a year.

Mike S writes If I Were In Charge: Make “I Believe” As Valid As “I Know” In Testimonies at Wheat & Tares Blog.

Last time I wrote that many Christians externalize their personal, human, emotional resources—as the influence of God, Jesus, the Comforter (Holy Ghost), so much that they think only Christians have these capabilities.

This kind of religious chauvinism runs even deeper in Mormons. Back when I was Mormon, we talked about one aspect of the Holy Ghost: The Comforter. When events in life are unbearable, Mormons believe The Comforter steps in to help righteous Mormons bear their troubles.

In fact, Mormons believe they are the only Christians who truly possess the Gift Of The Holy Ghost, which gives them special powers of discernment on spiritual matters and gives them special powers of clairvoyance and prescience when “prompted” by the “Holy Spirit” (synonym for “Holy Ghost” in Mormonism).

Mormons believe The Gift Of The Holy Ghost entitles them—and only them—to the constant companionship of the third member of The Godhead. This follows from their belief they are the only Christians authorized by God The Father (whom Mormons call Elohim) on the earth, the only latter-day heirs of the early Christian Church.

Mormons believe THE GIFT of the Holy Ghost is bestowed (only) through the laying-on of hands by Mormon Elders. This sharp distinction is an example of Joseph Smith’s obsessive word-splitting and parsing of words from the King James Bible. This sort of thing abounds in Mormon theology:

• The Holy Ghost. May fleetingly influence non-Mormons. Apparently sits in on Godhead board meetings, though they only need 2 chairs, because the Holy Ghost is the 1 member of the Godhead who doesn’t have a body. Third member of the Godhead: 3 separate personages who are “one in purpose”. This special caveat is so Mormons can claim to be monotheists even though they admit believing in 3 separate God-level beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ who Mormons identify with Jehovah, as well as the Holy Ghost or Holy spirit.
• The Gift Of The Holy Ghost. Special privilege, power, or faculty possessed only by Mormons. They must receive it in a ceremony of laying-on of hands by Mormon Elders, men authorized by the Mormon Church.
• The Light of Christ. Conscience possessed by everyone, including non-Mormons and—ironically—non-Christians. (Mormons group non-Mormon Christians with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and all other non-Mormons.) Mormons believe even atheists have the Light of Christ.

Mormons believe non-Mormons may occasionally be comforted by the Holy Ghost—or their inherent conscience, which Mormons call The Light of Christ. But only Mormons are entitled to the constant companionship (“The Gift of”) The Holy Ghost.

When Mormons disagree with non-Mormons, they sometimes chalk it up to the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I’ve overheard my brothers muttering darkly about some third person, “That shows how you can only understand these things with the help of the Holy Ghost.”

Mormons often believe they must be right because only they have special powers flowing from The Gift Of The Holy Ghost.

I was a Mormon for over 20 years. Many, many times believed I felt the “promptings of the Holy Spirit” (Joseph Smith left Holy Spirit as a synonym for Holy Ghost instead of teaching his followers that it meant yet some new baroque doctrinal curlicue, thank goodness).

For over 20 years now, I have been convinced those “promptings” were emotional self-talk similar to feelings of conviction or certainty—nothing more, nothing less.

As I said before, we all have the same resources, the same feelings. We just tell different stories about them.

Following up on previous post on ants and superorganisms and my call for a wide net in modeling cognition…

Here’s Christof Koch in 2009 setting the stage for Giulio Tononi‘s integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness.

The truth is that we really do not know which of these organisms is or is not conscious. We have strong feelings about the matter, molded by tradition, religion and law. But we have no objec­tive, rational method, no step­by­step procedure, to determine whether a giv­en organism has subjective states, has feelings.

The reason is that we lack a coherent framework for consciousness. Although consciousness is the only way we know about the world within and around us— shades of the famous Cartesian deduc­tion cogito, ergo sum—there is no agree­ ment about what it is, how it relates to highly organized matter or what its role in life is. This situation is scandalous! We have a detailed and very successful framework for matter and for energy but not for the mind­body problem. This dis­mal state of affairs might be about to change, however.

The universal lingua franca of our age is information. We are used to the idea that stock and bond prices, books, photographs, movies, music and our genetic makeup can all be turned into data streams of zeros and ones. These bits are the elemental atoms of information that are transmitted over an Ethernet cable or via wireless, that are stored, replayed, copied and assem­ bled into gigantic repositories of knowl­ edge. Information does not depend on the substrate. The same information can be represented as lines on paper, as elec­ trical charges inside a PC’s memory banks or as the strength of the synaptic connections among nerve cells.

So as a recovering mathematician eager to keep up with developments in the field of cognitive science, I realize now I’m at least a couple years behind. It looks like Tononi’s work is heading down the line I’ve wanted to see for a while.

Ah well, at least I’m no further behind with my favorite branches of science as I am with the latest music. And I’m a professional musician!

I just came across AntBlog.co.uk via Twitter and I’m glad I did.

Are Ants Conscious? (Part 1)

Bullant ant head detail, Taken by Fir0002, flagstaffotos.com.au, shared under GNU Free Documentation License

On questions of animal consciousness (or the nature of human consciousness), I find myself in the camp which cries, “wrong question!”. I think we overprivilege the notion of consciousness to the detriment of cognition, intelligence, sentience, ego… or other complex phenomena making up the self.

I also think it’s high time we develop more models of animal intelligence—or intelligences even more alien to our quotidian personal experience, such as superorganisms. I want to hear good ideas about how we would even recognize sentience or intelligence… nascent self-awareness… if and when we find it staring us in the face.

Blue sky here… I even want a branch of cognitive science to investigate how to remove—or abstract away—the time component from naive notions of intelligence, so we at least have the capability to recognize whether a virus complex or fungal mat might be modeled as some form of intelligence in the (chemical, genetic, sexual-reproductive) messaging between parts of its network. As a non-specialist, I keep looking for developments in this area.

Are Ants Conscious? (Part 2)

The Honey Bee has a brain one cubic millimetre in size, but in this space it crams just shy of a million neurons, giving it almost 10 times the density of its mammalian counterparts. Ants have fewer neurons, with (still impressive, given their size) 250,000; two and a half times as many as a lobster. Contrast this with a human’s one billion neurons, and we see that the ant and the bee are some way off in the synapse stakes. That said, it pays to remember that an Elephant has twice as many neurons as a human.

The neurons in a bees brain, as with other species, are interconnected in ways that we are yet to fully understand. Neuroscientist Christof Koch works on the neural basis of consciousness and has this to say on the subject of Bee intelligence; “Bees live in highly stratified yet flexible social organisations with group decision-making skills that rival academic, corporate or government committees in efficiency. They communicate information about the location and quality of food sources and can fly several kilometres and return to their hive. A remarkable navigational performance. Their brains seem to have incorporated a map of their environment”. He goes on to comment about the possibility of bee consciousness “Given all of this ability, why does almost everybody instinctively reject the idea that bees or other insects might be conscious?”

I’m interested in notions of selves (minds, psyches) as interacting complexes with strong feedback loops and intercommunication: both networks within a single brain, and networks of signaling between multiple brains.

As the year wraps up, it’s time for lists. I personally like end-of-year lists MUCH better than New Year’s Resolutions. Ugh. I really, really hate New Year’s Resolutions. I don’t think they work. But back to a more worthy cause…

This end-of-year list is out of the ordinary. It’s not time sensitive or tied to the year 2011. Instead this is a valuable attempt at addressing the worst of the disinformation and myths around vaccines. Much fake controversy and folk conspiracy theorizing has been swirling around vaccines.

True… to most of us with a science background, anti-vaxxer nonsense seems as persuasive as ghost stories or UFO chasing. If science-phobic, anti-vaxxer snake-oil salesmen had been alive to witness the ravages of polio or smallpox, they’d have no audience for their uninformed and paranoid rantings. It’s a shame that these mindworms of antivaxxer nonsense have infested the ranks of the college educated, who really should know better.

So now a link and the list itself. Down with pseudoscience and folk conspiracy theorizing. Here’s Dr. O’s work at dispelling the nonsense and cutting straight to the core facts of the matter. I’m figuratively voting this post up and hoping you’ll visit Dr. O’s work over at Scientopia.

Five dangerous myths about vaccines

1. Vaccination cause autism. WRONG. This is possibly the most pervasive myth about vaccines, instigated by two unfortunate correlations. Firstly, brain disorders, including autism and epilepsy, are often diagnosed the same age as the administration of certain vaccines. Secondly, the rise in autism rates over the past few decades follows the increase in vaccine development and availability. As a result, many studies have investigated the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism, yet found none. Further fueling this myth is a study repeatedly cited by anti-vaxxers, even though it was retracted due to findings by a British medical panel that the publishing doctor “had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules and showed a ‘callous disregard’ for the suffering of children involved in his research.” Evidently, the doctor had his own vaccine that would have been implemented upon MMR being taken off the market in Britain – no conflict of interest there or anything.

2. Vaccine additives are linked to autism and other neurological disorders. WRONG. Many vaccines used to contain small amounts (0.001 to 0.03%) of thimerosal, a vaccine preservative composed of ~50% mercury, to prevent the growth of microorganisms, which can and have caused lethal infections in vaccine recipients. Opponents of vaccination proposed that the levels of mercury in thimerosal caused epilepsy, autism, and other neurological disorders in vaccine recipients. No data has yet supported or refuted this claim, as correlative epidemiological findings are often difficult to prove or disprove. However, the elimination of thimerosal as a preservative in many vaccines in 2001 has not been met by a reduction in childhood autism rates, reducing support for this claim. Other theories have since been proposed by anti-vaxxers, NONE of which are supported by ANY existing scientific evidence.

3. Not vaccinating MY child won’t hurt YOUR child. WRONG. Vaccines work by challenging your immune system, with a harmless bug or bug component, so that your body immediately recognizes and destroys the corresponding virulent bug later on. Thus, an active immune system is necessary for vaccine function. Vaccines are less effective on infants, elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems. Additionally, some individuals are allergic to components of certain vaccines (eggs, for instance, in the case of the flu shot). Therefore, vaccine efficacy depends on herd immunity, the vaccination of a certain proportion of the population (about 90%), to prevent the spread of disease to those who are unable for any number of reasons to be. Herd immunity only works if all the people who CAN be protected by vaccination GET vaccinated. Otherwise, my young son, who won’t be vaccinated against measles, mumps or rubella for another few months, is at increased danger of getting sick with a very nasty and deadly disease.

4. Vaccines are ineffective. WRONG. I don’t know how the hell this ever became a thing, but I’ve actually heard this statement spewed in numerous comment threads of late. Vaccines prevent disease, plain and simple. It’s because of vaccination that we no longer have to fear diseases as deadly as smallpox, and it’s due to the refusal of anti-vaxxers to immunize their children that infants are dying from measles and whooping cough. Our toddler has a LOT of vaccines on his immunization schedule over the next few years, and that, my friends, is a miracle. The scientific cooperation, drive, and and ingenuity that has made possible the prevention, and even eradication, of certain infectious diseases gives me hope in humankind. Our little Monkey will get every last one of those immunizations, one tear and blood drop at a time.

5. But I keep reading and hearing about all these people who got their child vaccinated and all of a sudden they started having seizures and acting weird and they’ve never been the same since! ANECDATA IS NOT THE SAME AS SCIENTIFIC DATA. The most dangerous aspect of the internet is its microphonic property for fervent believers in pseudoscience. A cancer patient starts taking some homeopathic snake oil and subsequently finds out s/he is in remission. An coworker’s family doc gives him/her antibiotics on the third day s/he is suffering from a mild cough, and two days later s/he is feeling much better. Your child gets the MMR vaccine, then weeks or days later begins displaying characteristics of autism. Isolated, these coincidences are powerful for the individual. In an internet chat room filled with other cancer patients, victims of the common cold, or parents of autistic children, the power of these stories is amplified. The fact is the cancer patient was also receiving life-saving chemotherapy, the employee’s immune system could have cleared the infection in the same time frame without antibiotic intervention, and your toddler would have begun showing symptoms of autism regardless of MMR vaccine administration. Anecdata is powerful, especially when amplified by internet forums and tangled with the ever-echoing fears of parents. But anecdata does not compare to scientific evidence. One desperate mother’s story on a parenting forum may sound convincing, but it can’t, hasn’t, and won’t stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Published by Dr. O over at http://scientopia.org/blogs/guestblog/

I can’t look away from this octopus mozying around his tidepool. I keep hoping he’ll make it back to water…

…and he does.

—nod to Bora Zivkovic at Scientific American Blogs

In a Wired article, Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up, Jonah Lehrer writes about the ways our assumptions (and experience) blinker us from seeing new evidence, even when it’s staring us in the face.

Lehrer tells a layered story, rich with examples, such as Kevin Dunbar’s look at how scientists actually work.

[W]hen experiments were observed up close — and Dunbar interviewed the scientists about even the most trifling details — this idealized version of the lab fell apart, replaced by an endless supply of disappointing surprises. There were models that didn’t work and data that couldn’t be replicated and simple studies riddled with anomalies. “These weren’t sloppy people,” Dunbar says. “They were working in some of the finest labs in the world. But experiments rarely tell us what we think they’re going to tell us. That’s the dirty secret of science.”

This reminds me of my lower-division astronomy class at Caltech in the 1980s. Maartin Schmidt taught us about various methods for measuring Hubble’s Constant (for expansion of the cosmos) involving red shift measurements and type 1-A supernovae. The problem was, different methods for measuring distance yielded different values for Hubble’s Constant (and for the amount of mass in the cosmos). As measurements and computations became more precise, the discrepancy only got more glaring.

Then in the 1990s (long after I had decided an astronomer’s life was not for me), Dark Energy and Dark Matter were finally offered as the least bizarre explanations for what at first had seemed like experimenter error.

Scientific experiments are an attempt to screen out the chaos of everyday existence – to shine a beam of light narrow enough to illuminate a single, repeatable fact of nature. But the teeming world is always right outside the door of our neat little experiment, and often the chaos finds a way inside. Even when it doesn’t – and here is Lehrer’s main point – we have a human tendency to discard new results as mere gibberish. Our expertise gets in our way.

We can’t escape this tendency (so suggests Dunbar’s experiment where students’ brains were observed while they watched videos of falling balls), but our predicament is not hopeless. Lehrer offers up some helpful strategies for escaping the trap of our own preconceptions.

How to Learn From Failure
Too often, we assume that a failed experiment is a wasted effort. But not all anomalies are useless. Here’s how to make the most of them. —J.L.

1. Check Your Assumptions
   Ask yourself why this result feels like a failure. What theory does it contradict? Maybe the hypothesis failed, not the experiment.
2. Seek Out the Ignorant
   Talk to people who are unfamiliar with your experiment. Explaining your work in simple terms may help you see it in a new light.
3. Encourage Diversity
   If everyone working on a problem speaks the same language, then everyone has the same set of assumptions.
4. Beware of Failure-Blindness
   It’s normal to filter out information that contradicts our preconceptions. The only way to avoid that bias is to be aware of it.

So it seems the illness is chronic and the prescription takes constant work. But at least there is some kind of remedy.

Octopuses and other cephalopods have long been suspected to be more than just sentient. Evidence is mounting that they are highly intelligent and curious – the cognitive superstars of the invertebrates.

Rebecca Morelle reports for BBC News that scientists have observed octopuses digging up and using tools – coconut shell halves discarded by humans.

An octopus and its coconut-carrying antics have surprised scientists.

Underwater footage reveals that the creatures scoop up halved coconut shells before scampering away with them so they can later use them as shelters.
Writing in the journal Current Biology, the team says it is the first example of tool use in octopuses.
One of the researchers, Dr Julian Finn from Australia’s Museum Victoria, told BBC News: “I almost drowned laughing when I saw this the first time.
“He added: “I could tell it was going to do something, but I didn’t expect this – I didn’t expect it would pick up the shell and run away with it.”…

Watch the video and read the complete article

Even better is the longer video at Current Biology, where Dr Julian Finn and colleagues publish their latest results.

Octopus unearthing coconut half shell to use for shelter

1. Our protagonist octopus – call him or her Jamie – searches the ocean floor.
2. Jamie finds and unearths a buried half coconut shell.
3. Jamie picks up the shell between its legs… er, arms. (Picture yourself squatting on a beach ball and lifting it between your thighs.)
4. Jamie skitters along the ocean floor in a stiff-legged run. (Try doing that with the beach ball and see how awkward you look.)

Octopus behavior highly adaptable

What’s fascinating is that octopuses are apparently adapting positively to human changes in their environment. Soft and meaty, octopuses must be ever vigilant for predators. Since they are in constant need of protection on the wide-open ocean floors where they live, it stands to reason that halved coconut shells are very useful.
But the thing to remember is that these half-shell shelters have been available for this purpose for just a millisecond in evolutionary time – only since humans started cleaving coconuts and discarding the shells.