The Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) is similar to the Giant desert hairy scorpion ( Hadrurus arizonensis ) but is smaller and much more toxic, and in this video Brian Cox was clearly brave enough to encountering the most dangerous scorpion in the United States, which also occur in the north-western Mexico where is one of the major hazards
My grandma once game me a necklace made of acrylic globs with parts of a scorpion inside each glob, so it glowed in the dark. You could see a pincer in one glob, a sting in another, and so on. Pretty cool.
The scorpion featured in the video is an Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) which is the most dangerous scorpion in the United States, although is rarely lethal to healthy people, but is so beautiful when it glow under the ultraviolet light, is a wonder of the nature
Mohamed Farouk Basically the definition of controversial is that there are strong opposing opinions about something, so what you just said was an oxymoron.
Could it be that it acts as a form of sunscreen? I'm aware that they're nocturnal hunters but if it's adapted to reflecting so much UV light, is it plausible that that is to enable it to travel further or for longer during the day than it would otherwise be able to?
Monkey I find it so strange so many scientists think everything has to have an evolutionary purpose. I mean either I'm smarter than most scientists or I'm really ignorant. To me it seems obvious that many, if not most, traits will be just an accident. After all evolution works by random mutation and natural selection. That selection isn't full proof. One of the worst diseases humans can get, Huntington's disease, is the result of a fatal DOMINANT gene, not recessive. It only becomes deadly in the late 40s and 50s, with no symptoms before, giving time to the unsuspecting victim to have chldren which will have a 50-50% chance of getting the disease. How cruel is that? Also, how incompetent is natural selection that a dominant gene variation can be fatal? And scientists keep thinking animals have EVERYTHING for a purpose... A lot of it is probably, you know... RANDOM, as in RANDOM mutation.
RoScFan Well for a start you say that "many if not most traits will be just an accident" which implies that some are done on purpose, which is ridiculous. Plus you're equating random genetic mutations with the natural mutation, when in reality they're two distinct processes; genetic mutations lead to natural selection, the good mutations are selected for and the bad (or even useless) ones are selected against because they use energy unnecessarily. Now obviously evolution is not perfect, it's an ongoing process for most species, but it is very good at getting rid of negative traits. Another mistake you make is assuming that evolution exists for the benefit of the individual, as is obvious with your point about Huntington's, which is demonstrably false. It exists for the benefit of the species, it doesn't "care" if the individual dies after producing offspring, once you've done that, you've completed your evolutionary purpose. The species lives on, and that's all that matters. So to answer your earlier point; no, you're not smarter than most scientists.
Monkey The accident part was a poor turn of phrase, surely you understood what I meant given the context and you're just nitpicking. Of course i didn't mean traits are done on purpose, I meant some some traits have endured from generation to generation because they are useful and were selected for and some just endured by chance, without having any use. Traits that negatively affect the survival will be removed, but some have no effect one way or the other and are there just by chance. "equating random genetic mutations with the natural mutation" That doesn't make sense, what is natural mutation? Considering you didn't follow up with an explanation of what natural mutation is, but you decribed natural selection, I assume it was a typo and you meant natural selection. In which case I should mention I absolutely did not confuse natural selection with random mutation, and I don't see how you could think I was equating the two. My original comment clearly talked about those two phenomenon as being distinct. The benefit of the species is not independent of the benefit of the individual, the two are correlated: better surviving individuals means better surviving species. Yes, it is not strictly necessary for individuals to flourish for the species to survive, but individuals having better lives is one potential strategy for the survival of the species. Anyway, the point about survival of the species and the part about evolution not being perfect just further support my original comment: not every trait a creature has has to have an explanation in the form of "this traits exists because it gives this advantage". Some traits just are, for no reason.
+Vineeth Mohanan Yeah, that bugs me as well. He may just have hyperbolize the statement just to make it sound more epic. I mean, if the sensory system was so precise, it would overwhelm nervous system rather quick.
+Vineeth Mohanan Human eyes detect wavelengths from 400 to 700 nanometres. "but an atom is 10 times smaller than 1 nanometre" you might say...Okay then, well the human ear is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than one billionth of an atmospheric pressure. The "threshold of hearing" (hearing at its lowest in volume) corresponds to air vibrations on the order of one-tenth of an atomic diameter, that means a human ear can detect a vibration (hear) with a wavelength of 10% of an atom. I know they're different sensory organs sight and hearing in the human and touch in the case of the scorpion but I hope I've put a little perspective on the fact. : )
+Vineeth Mohanan It's more than likely true, the threshold of hearing in a healthy human is when the eardrum moves around half the diameter of a hydrogen atom, so scaled down to an arachnid makes that quite believable.
Probably. Scientists have found that some scorpions can detect vibrations smaller than 1 nanometer. An atom is 0.1 nanometers long, so it's likely they could detect a change that small as well. If not, it's close enough to warrant the comparison. For anyone in the future looking through the comments: Source- link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00613080
There are only two dangerous species of scorpions in the United States, the Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) in Arizona, Colorado, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah, and the Durango bark scorpion ( Centruroides suffusus ) in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas
There's a 1992 paper from Japan; that showed beta carboline forming a yellow pigment. I think that since evolution just repurposes what's already there... And considering the propensity for bioluminescence in aquatic creatures... Scorpions might have adapted some chemicals that were once used in bioluminescence to make the yellow pigment they needed in the desert environments (well.. terrestrial at least)
It is possible that this specific trait has no significant purpose. But considering that the material of shell is still costly to synthesize, it is most likely that it has a certain function, that let the trait exist in these conditions. My take is on UV protection: as you see it absorbs some portion of UV and radiates it as light . So, the absorbed energy could just radiate as heat thus not allowing UV to damage molecular bonds in cells
+Ken Catus Fluorescence is usually quite efficient, producing little heat. The conversion of UV to green does remove UV while making green light. Heat would be a problem in the already very hot and dry dessert.
I wonder if the luminous skin has anything to do with *protection from the SUN and being able to identify each other in the pitch black desert nights?* anyone care to chime in?
+Mr Epifany There's naturally no UV light after dark so it can't be to recognise each other at night. As to whether it's a type of sunblock, that's an interesting theory. Something along the lines of determining the exact composition of the chemical and then doing UV transmission tests would answer your question. Fluorescence is usually when a material is excited by a particular wavelength and then retransmits it at another. This could conceivably move the UV wavelength energy to a frequency where it does less damage, i.e. UV to green. I don't know a lot about the interactions between living tissue and visible wavelengths of light, but UV is better at breaking chemical bonds than longer wavelengths.
here's a horror story :
you are inside a dark cave
you switch on your ultraviolet torchlight
and all you see is a sea of moving white
If that looks white to you I would suggest getting your eyes checked out
Lobsters are like scorpion mermaids
+mukul4305 Type in "Sea Scorpion" in google and you'll see what a scorpion mermaid would have actually looked like.
kind of true ngl
@@dkouvasaa Brian Cox encounter the deadly Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) in this video
The Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) is similar to the Giant desert hairy scorpion ( Hadrurus arizonensis ) but is smaller and much more toxic, and in this video Brian Cox was clearly brave enough to encountering the most dangerous scorpion in the United States, which also occur in the north-western Mexico where is one of the major hazards
I'm not afraid of scorpions, in fact i love them
ultraviolet scorpion captures prey...its like something out of a science fiction movie.
My grandma once game me a necklace made of acrylic globs with parts of a scorpion inside each glob, so it glowed in the dark. You could see a pincer in one glob, a sting in another, and so on. Pretty cool.
scorpions are so metal!
Phone numbar
the funny thing when u hire a beetle to die but there is another volunteer
Rad scorpion.
Fallout
كأنهم متكلفين شوي. الله يعطيهم العافية؟؟؟
very very goood!!!!!
Cool video
It looks fabricated, almost like it's been generated from a computer in the late 1990s.
Brian Cox is so brave enough to encounter the most dangerous scorpion in the United States, the Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus )
it's about time one of those tarantula hunters got owned
The scorpion featured in the video is an Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) which is the most dangerous scorpion in the United States, although is rarely lethal to healthy people, but is so beautiful when it glow under the ultraviolet light, is a wonder of the nature
Arizona bark scorpion eating a moth
Ultraviolet Scorpion could just be created this way. I'm just saying. And this is not to debate over creation or evolution, guys.
Mohamed Farouk Well saying something dumb like that is obviously going to spark that kind of argument.
Mohamed Farouk Basically the definition of controversial is that there are strong opposing opinions about something, so what you just said was an oxymoron.
Mohamed Farouk You were the one who responded to the troll, I was making serious points.
of course it is. Except it's not a debate.
Does this mean scorpions are Apex predators
Here's the good reason to going into the desert with an ultraviolet light
Scorpions are like Toph from Avatar!
Their fearsome reputation is 95 percent false
Could it be that it acts as a form of sunscreen? I'm aware that they're nocturnal hunters but if it's adapted to reflecting so much UV light, is it plausible that that is to enable it to travel further or for longer during the day than it would otherwise be able to?
Monkey I find it so strange so many scientists think everything has to have an evolutionary purpose. I mean either I'm smarter than most scientists or I'm really ignorant. To me it seems obvious that many, if not most, traits will be just an accident. After all evolution works by random mutation and natural selection. That selection isn't full proof. One of the worst diseases humans can get, Huntington's disease, is the result of a fatal DOMINANT gene, not recessive. It only becomes deadly in the late 40s and 50s, with no symptoms before, giving time to the unsuspecting victim to have chldren which will have a 50-50% chance of getting the disease. How cruel is that? Also, how incompetent is natural selection that a dominant gene variation can be fatal? And scientists keep thinking animals have EVERYTHING for a purpose... A lot of it is probably, you know... RANDOM, as in RANDOM mutation.
RoScFan A large part of the problem is you don't understand how evolution works.
Monkey If so, enlighten me. I thought I understood it very well.
RoScFan Well for a start you say that "many if not most traits will be just an accident" which implies that some are done on purpose, which is ridiculous. Plus you're equating random genetic mutations with the natural mutation, when in reality they're two distinct processes; genetic mutations lead to natural selection, the good mutations are selected for and the bad (or even useless) ones are selected against because they use energy unnecessarily. Now obviously evolution is not perfect, it's an ongoing process for most species, but it is very good at getting rid of negative traits. Another mistake you make is assuming that evolution exists for the benefit of the individual, as is obvious with your point about Huntington's, which is demonstrably false. It exists for the benefit of the species, it doesn't "care" if the individual dies after producing offspring, once you've done that, you've completed your evolutionary purpose. The species lives on, and that's all that matters.
So to answer your earlier point; no, you're not smarter than most scientists.
Monkey The accident part was a poor turn of phrase, surely you understood what I meant given the context and you're just nitpicking. Of course i didn't mean traits are done on purpose, I meant some some traits have endured from generation to generation because they are useful and were selected for and some just endured by chance, without having any use. Traits that negatively affect the survival will be removed, but some have no effect one way or the other and are there just by chance.
"equating random genetic mutations with the natural mutation" That doesn't make sense, what is natural mutation? Considering you didn't follow up with an explanation of what natural mutation is, but you decribed natural selection, I assume it was a typo and you meant natural selection. In which case I should mention I absolutely did not confuse natural selection with random mutation, and I don't see how you could think I was equating the two. My original comment clearly talked about those two phenomenon as being distinct.
The benefit of the species is not independent of the benefit of the individual, the two are correlated: better surviving individuals means better surviving species. Yes, it is not strictly necessary for individuals to flourish for the species to survive, but individuals having better lives is one potential strategy for the survival of the species.
Anyway, the point about survival of the species and the part about evolution not being perfect just further support my original comment: not every trait a creature has has to have an explanation in the form of "this traits exists because it gives this advantage". Some traits just are, for no reason.
Bring that bad boy to a rave
The desert at night with ultraviolet light
"Get over here"
The wonders of nature
detecting vibrations of wavelength of size of "single atom". puzzling!!!!!!
Is this real fact ?
+Vineeth Mohanan Yeah, that bugs me as well. He may just have hyperbolize the statement just to make it sound more epic. I mean, if the sensory system was so precise, it would overwhelm nervous system rather quick.
+Vineeth Mohanan Human eyes detect wavelengths from 400 to 700 nanometres. "but an atom is 10 times smaller than 1 nanometre" you might say...Okay then, well the human ear is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than one billionth of an atmospheric pressure. The "threshold of hearing" (hearing at its lowest in volume) corresponds to air vibrations on the order of one-tenth of an atomic diameter, that means a human ear can detect a vibration (hear) with a wavelength of 10% of an atom. I know they're different sensory organs sight and hearing in the human and touch in the case of the scorpion but I hope I've put a little perspective on the fact. : )
+Ken Catus Wrong!! Why? check below.
Alexander Cummins
Where did you took the information with ear capable of detecting such low pressure changes?
+Vineeth Mohanan It's more than likely true, the threshold of hearing in a healthy human is when the eardrum moves around half the diameter of a hydrogen atom, so scaled down to an arachnid makes that quite believable.
"Single atom"
Is that true?
Probably. Scientists have found that some scorpions can detect vibrations smaller than 1 nanometer. An atom is 0.1 nanometers long, so it's likely they could detect a change that small as well.
If not, it's close enough to warrant the comparison.
For anyone in the future looking through the comments:
Source- link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00613080
There are only two dangerous species of scorpions in the United States, the Arizona bark scorpion ( Centruroides sculpturatus ) in Arizona, Colorado, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah, and the Durango bark scorpion ( Centruroides suffusus ) in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas
I personally think this video take place in the Sonoran desert of Tucson Arizona
A YEAR??
That's why they make great pets! You can leave them alone on vacation and they'll be fine!
I think the prey animal in this video is a moth
There's a 1992 paper from Japan; that showed beta carboline forming a yellow pigment.
I think that since evolution just repurposes what's already there...
And considering the propensity for bioluminescence in aquatic creatures...
Scorpions might have adapted some chemicals that were once used in bioluminescence to make the yellow pigment they needed in the desert environments (well.. terrestrial at least)
I think this video is set in Tucson in Arizona, or maybe also in the mexican region of Sonora
Is that correct? Can they feel an atom vibration? lol
OnceUponATimeThereWasAPersonWithALongUsername.TheElongationOfThatUsernameWasPlainlyLegendary
Thanks, "big name man".
It is possible that this specific trait has no significant purpose. But considering that the material of shell is still costly to synthesize, it is most likely that it has a certain function, that let the trait exist in these conditions. My take is on UV protection: as you see it absorbs some portion of UV and radiates it as light . So, the absorbed energy could just radiate as heat thus not allowing UV to damage molecular bonds in cells
+Ken Catus Fluorescence is usually quite efficient, producing little heat. The conversion of UV to green does remove UV while making green light. Heat would be a problem in the already very hot and dry dessert.
I'm thinking that's the future Radscorpion, anyone else share my thoughts?
Is desert during Halloween
I wonder if the luminous skin has anything to do with *protection from the SUN and being able to identify each other in the pitch black desert nights?* anyone care to chime in?
+Mr Epifany There's naturally no UV light after dark so it can't be to recognise each other at night. As to whether it's a type of sunblock, that's an interesting theory. Something along the lines of determining the exact composition of the chemical and then doing UV transmission tests would answer your question. Fluorescence is usually when a material is excited by a particular wavelength and then retransmits it at another. This could conceivably move the UV wavelength energy to a frequency where it does less damage, i.e. UV to green. I don't know a lot about the interactions between living tissue and visible wavelengths of light, but UV is better at breaking chemical bonds than longer wavelengths.
An Halloween desert 🎃🌵👻
0:18 -What kind of fake reaction is that?
Oussama Erraji don't ask people to prove something to you and then turn off replies to your comment.
This is halloween
I thought you were a fizzasist? Don't you think you should be assisting fizz somewhere and not glowy little pincher bugs?
Not an atom
I think the narrator and guy was creepier than the scorpion tbh