Doug Miller wrote:
In article , lid (Drew Lawson) wrote:

Got to wonder how those cycles evolved. Yeah, yeah, google ...

But it's be more interesting if someone here knows.

General thought is that it avoids preditors getting adapted to them.
Cicadas aren't agile and they aren't stealthy. So it helps that
nothing is used to eating them on a regular basis.

Now why those *specific* time spans, I have no clue.

Because they're prime numbers. A predator that's around every year will catch
them only every 13 (or 17) years; a predator that's around every other year
will catch them only every 26 (or 34) years; a predator that's around every 3
years will catch them only every 39 (or 51) years; and so on. It makes it
*much* more difficult for a predator to co-evolve a synchronous hatching
period: suppose they appeared every 12 years instead of every 13 -- then
they'd be vulnerable, potentially, to predators that hatched every 12, 6, 4,
3, 2, or 1 years.

Damn! Learn something new every day. That is absolutely awesome!

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Thanks, Doug!

--
www.ewoodshop.com

"Swingman" wrote in message
The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that mathematically
inclined.

"Upscale" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that mathematically
inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

--
www.ewoodshop.com

Swingman wrote:

it's origins

Farkin' iPad speel checquer added an apostrophe!?! WTF?

--
www.ewoodshop.com

Swingman wrote:
"Upscale" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that
mathematically inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

most things with spiral based shells are based upon the fibinocci sequence

chaniarts wrote:
Swingman wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that
mathematically inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

most things with spiral based shells are based upon the fibinocci sequence

I'd say shells came first. According to Wikipedia: The Fibonacci
sequence is named after Leonardo of Pisa, who was known as Fibonacci.
Fibonacci's 1202 book Liber Abaci introduced the sequence to Western
European mathematics.

It sounds familiar, but, since you brought it up, How are shells related
to the Fibonacci sequence? It surprises me that all shells would have
this commonality. I would have expected the kind of variance that you
see in the growth rings of trees.

Bill

Bill wrote:
chaniarts wrote:
Swingman wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that
mathematically inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

most things with spiral based shells are based upon the fibinocci
sequence

I'd say shells came first. According to Wikipedia: The Fibonacci
sequence is named after Leonardo of Pisa, who was known as Fibonacci.
Fibonacci's 1202 book Liber Abaci introduced the sequence to Western
European mathematics.

It sounds familiar, but, since you brought it up, How are shells related
to the Fibonacci sequence? It surprises me that all shells would have
this commonality. I would have expected the kind of variance that you
see in the growth rings of trees.

Bill

Answering my own question (by copying from Wikipedia):

It is sometimes stated that nautilus shells get wider in the pattern of
a golden spiral, and hence are related to both φ and the Fibonacci
series. In truth, nautilus shells (and many mollusc shells) exhibit
logarithmic spiral growth, but at an angle distinctly different from
that of the golden spiral.

Bill

"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
"Upscale" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that
mathematically inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

most things with spiral based shells are based upon the fibinocci sequence


As is the Sunflower ...

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
"Upscale" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that
mathematically inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

most things with spiral based shells are based upon the fibinocci
sequence


As is the Sunflower ...

You didn't read my other post? Sweeping generalizations like that, sweet
as they may be, are often wrong. Can you cite a reference for your
claim about the Sunflower?

Bill

In article
Swingman writes:
"Upscale" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that mathematically
inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

Um, y'all have this slightly backward.

It isn't that nature knows advanced math. It is that advanced math
is what it takes for humans to describe nature. Fibonacci didn't
define a sequence just to amuse college freshmen. He did it to
make sense of the way that plants tend to be formed -- one stem,
two leaf groupings, three leaf groupings, five petals, eight petals,
etc..

Maybe there's a Great Mathematician drawing on the chalkboard.
Maybe there's mathematical structure making us imagine a chalkboard.
Ether way, it is pretty amazing how things tend to fit/work together.

--
Drew Lawson | Pass the tea and sympathy
| for he good old days are dead
| Let's raise a toast to those
| who best survived the life they led

On 5/21/2011 7:47 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In
writes:
wrote:
wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that mathematically
inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

Um, y'all have this slightly backward.

It isn't that nature knows advanced math. It is that advanced math
is what it takes for humans to describe nature. Fibonacci didn't
define a sequence just to amuse college freshmen. He did it to
make sense of the way that plants tend to be formed -- one stem,
two leaf groupings, three leaf groupings, five petals, eight petals,
etc..

Maybe there's a Great Mathematician drawing on the chalkboard.
Maybe there's mathematical structure making us imagine a chalkboard.
Ether way, it is pretty amazing how things tend to fit/work together.

I don't have it backwards, mon ami ... that is exactly what I am in awe of!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"chaniarts" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:
"Upscale" wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message

The implications of that mechanism, and it's origins, is absolutely
mind-blowing!!

Certainly makes one wonder if mother nature really is that
mathematically inclined.

Not religious, but maybe I oughta be ... Makes you wonder. A bug using
prime numbers for survival ... Sheeeeeesh!

most things with spiral based shells are based upon the fibinocci
sequence


As is the Sunflower ...

You didn't read my other post? Sweeping generalizations like that, sweet
as they may be, are often wrong. Can you cite a reference for your claim
about the Sunflower?

Bill




http://www.popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/r...sunflower.html

--
"I'm the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo ..."