chocorandom
My wife in a cage with a monkey.
chocorandom
+
orphanblack:

#CloneClub Meetup group pic!
+
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.
So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.
We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 
+
thatfunnyblog:

i love this picture of my mom because she just gave birth and she not even impressed

will u ever be proud of me mom
+
neurosciencestuff:

(Image caption: Granule cells connect with other cells via long projections (dendrites). The actual junctions (synapses) are located on thorn-like protuberances called “spines”. Spines are shown in green in the computer reconstruction. Credit: DZNE/Michaela Müller)
A protein couple controls flow of information into the brain’s memory center
Neuroscientists in Bonn and Heidelberg have succeeded in providing new insights into how the brain works. Researchers at the DZNE and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) analyzed tissue samples from mice to identify how two specific proteins, ‘CKAMP44’ and ‘TARP Gamma-8’, act upon the brain’s memory center. These molecules, which have similar counterparts in humans, affect the connections between nerve cells and influence the transmission of nerve signals into the hippocampus, an area of the brain that plays a significant role in learning processes and the creation of memories. The results of the study have been published in the journal Neuron.
Brain function depends on the active communication between nerve cells, known as neurons. For this purpose, neurons are woven together into a dense network where they constantly relay signals to one another. However, neurons do not form direct contacts with each other. Instead they are separated by an extremely narrow gap, known as the synapse. This gap is bridged by ‘neurotransmitters’, which carry nerve signals from one cell to the next.
Docking stations

Specific molecular complexes in the cell’s outer shell, so-called ‘receptors’, receive the signal by binding the neurotransmitters. This triggers an electrical impulse in the receptor-bearing cell and thus the nerve signal has moved on one neuron further.
In the current study, a team led by Dr Jakob von Engelhardt focused on the AMPA receptors. These bind the neurotransmitter glutamate and are particularly common in the brain. “We looked at AMPA receptors in an area of the brain, which constitutes the main entrance to the hippocampus,” explains von Engelhardt, who works for the DZNE and DKFZ. “The hippocampus is responsible for learning and memory formation. Among other things it processes and combines sensory perception. We therefore asked ourselves how the flow of information into the hippocampus is controlled.”
A pair of helpers
Dr von Engelhardt’s research team specifically focused on two protein molecules: ‘CKAMP44’ and ‘TARP Gamma-8’. These proteins are present, along with AMPA receptors, in the ‘granule’ cells, which are neurons that receive signals from areas outside of the hippocampus. It was already known that these proteins form protein complexes with AMPA receptors. “We have now found out that they exert a significant influence on the functioning of glutamate receptors. Each in its own way, as chemically they are completely different,” says the neuroscientist. “We identified that the ability of a nerve cell to receive signals doesn’t depend solely on the actual receptors; CKAMP44 and TARP Gamma-8 are just as important. Their function cannot be separated from that of the receptors.”
This was the result of an analysis in which the researchers compared brain tissue from mice with a natural genotype with brain tissue from genetically modified mice. Neurons in the genetically modified animals were not able to produce either CKAMP44 or TARP Gamma-8 or both.
Long-term effect
The researchers discovered, among other things, that both proteins promote the transportation of glutamate receptors to the cell surface. “This means they influence how receptive the nerve cell is to incoming signals,” says von Engelhardt.
However, the number of receptors and thus the signal reception can be altered by neuronal activity. The von Engelhardt group found that in this regard the auxiliary molecules have different effects: TARP Gamma-8 is essential to ensure that more AMPA receptors are integrated into the synapse following a plasticity induction protocol, whereas CKAMP44 plays no role in this context. “Synapses alter their communication depending on their activity. This ability is called plasticity. Some of the changes involved are only temporary, others may last longer,” explains von Engelhardt. “TARP Gamma-8 influences long-term plasticity. It makes the cell able to strengthen synaptic communication for a prolonged time-period. The larger the number of receptors on the receiving side of the synapse, the better the neuronal connection.”
The number of receptors doesn’t change suddenly, but remains largely stable for a certain amount of time. “This condition may last for hours, days or even longer. This long-term effect is essential for the creation of memories. We can only remember things if the connections between neurons undergo a long-lasting change,” says the scientist.
Fast sequence of signals
However, CKAMP44 and TARP Gamma-8 also act over shorter periods of time. The research team discovered that the molecules affect how quickly the AMPA receptors return to a receptive state. “If glutamate has docked on to a receptor, it takes a while until the receptor can react to the next neurotransmitter. CKAMP44 lengthens this period. In contrast, TARP Gamma-8 helps the receptor to recover more quickly,” says von Engelhardt.
Hence, CKAMP44 temporarily weakens the synaptic connection, while TARP Gamma-8 strengthens it. Through the interplay of these proteins the synapse is able to tune its sensitivity to a specific level. This condition can last from milliseconds to a few seconds before the strength of the connection is again adapted. Specialists refer to this as “short-term plasticity”.
“These molecules ultimately influence how well the nerve cell is able to react to a rapid succession of signals,” the scientist summarises the findings. “Such a rapid firing enables neuronal networks to synchronize their activity, which is a common process in the brain.”
Sensitive balance
Much to the researchers’ surprise, it turned out that the two proteins influence not only the synapse but also the shape of the nerve cells. In the absence of these auxiliary molecules, the neurons have fewer dendrites to establish contact with other nerve cells. “The organism can use CKAMP44 and TARP Gamma-8 molecules to regulate neuronal connections in a number of ways,” von Engelhardt says. “This ability depends on the balance between the partners, as to some extent they have a contrary effect. The way in which the neurons of the hippocampus react to signals from other regions of the brain is therefore highly dependent on the presence and the expression ratio of these molecules.”
Since the two molecules act directly on the structure and function of synapses of granule cells, Jakob von Engelhardt considers it probable that they also have an influence on learning and memory.
+
doloresdepalabra:

Cool Walking by Cento Lodigiani
Christmas-Gifs
A project curated by Ryan Todd and built by Enjoythis
+
Why Mixed with White isn't White
+
bpod-mrc:

25 July 2014
The X File
This deceptively simple image revolutionised molecular biology. It also represents one of the most notorious controversies in science. ‘Photo 51’ was taken by Rosalind Franklin, who was born on this day in 1920. It is an x-ray crystallography image of DNA, created by bombarding a tiny DNA sample with x-rays for more than 60 hours. To most of us, this striped cross might not mean much, but to a few scientists in 1953 it held the secret to the structure of DNA. The controversy surrounds the instant Maurice Wilkins, who worked in Franklin’s lab, showed the photo to Francis Crick, a molecular biologist at Cambridge University, without Franklin’s knowledge. Crick published a paper with his colleague James Watson describing DNA’s double-helix structure. Wilkins, Crick and Watson shared the Nobel Prize in 1962. Franklin, whose peers never accepted her, died of cancer four years earlier, and couldn’t receive the prize posthumously.
Written by Nick Kennedy
—
Image by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond GoslinCopyright held by Oregon State University Libraries
—
You can also follow BPoD on Twitter and Facebook
+
merismo:

How small can an animal get? 
This organism is a gastrotrich, an invertebrate found in the sediment of aquatic environments. They can be as small as .06 mm, or about the size of 10 human red blood cells laid flat end to end. And keep in mind that red blood cells are smaller than most of our cells!
Despite their size, these multi-cellular animals come with their own complete digestive system, nervous system, reproductive organs, and muscle tissue. They may not be the smallest (some rotifers and obligate parasites are smaller), but they certainly push the limit for how small an animal can be. 
(Photos are mine, information source is Animal Earth by Ross Piper and this)
merismo:

How small can an animal get? 
This organism is a gastrotrich, an invertebrate found in the sediment of aquatic environments. They can be as small as .06 mm, or about the size of 10 human red blood cells laid flat end to end. And keep in mind that red blood cells are smaller than most of our cells!
Despite their size, these multi-cellular animals come with their own complete digestive system, nervous system, reproductive organs, and muscle tissue. They may not be the smallest (some rotifers and obligate parasites are smaller), but they certainly push the limit for how small an animal can be. 
(Photos are mine, information source is Animal Earth by Ross Piper and this)
merismo:

How small can an animal get? 
This organism is a gastrotrich, an invertebrate found in the sediment of aquatic environments. They can be as small as .06 mm, or about the size of 10 human red blood cells laid flat end to end. And keep in mind that red blood cells are smaller than most of our cells!
Despite their size, these multi-cellular animals come with their own complete digestive system, nervous system, reproductive organs, and muscle tissue. They may not be the smallest (some rotifers and obligate parasites are smaller), but they certainly push the limit for how small an animal can be. 
(Photos are mine, information source is Animal Earth by Ross Piper and this)
merismo:

How small can an animal get? 
This organism is a gastrotrich, an invertebrate found in the sediment of aquatic environments. They can be as small as .06 mm, or about the size of 10 human red blood cells laid flat end to end. And keep in mind that red blood cells are smaller than most of our cells!
Despite their size, these multi-cellular animals come with their own complete digestive system, nervous system, reproductive organs, and muscle tissue. They may not be the smallest (some rotifers and obligate parasites are smaller), but they certainly push the limit for how small an animal can be. 
(Photos are mine, information source is Animal Earth by Ross Piper and this)
+
shaun-alejandro:

the-beast-inside-the-boy:

To celebrate 1000, here’s me, after work and feelin’ adorkable.

Oh my