Miscellaneous desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 24[edit]

What was a "martin box" ?[edit]

Hello, referents ! I see on some old (circa 1910) photos taken in some remote parts of USA : a box (about 10x10x15 in.) standing on the top of a pole which I think may be a telephone or telegraph pole. The legend of the photo, somewhat sibylline, says that "it is a martin box". What was that box ? (WP sends back to "Martin Bax" , your archives don't know it...). Thanks a lot for your answer 90.52.66.62 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google tells me that these are just bird boxes for Purple Martins. There are a number of examples of the various box types on Commons and on the wider internet. Nanonic (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This result from Google Books suggests it is a bird box of some kind. DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information here. Googling suggests that they were (or are) encouraged in order to reduce the numbers of mosquitoes, which they eat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent idea - if Massachusetts were free of mosquitoes it would be almost fit for human habitation! DuncanHill (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, it is an urban myth that they eat mosquitoes. CS Miller (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do eat mosquitos, but not as much as advertisers of martin houses would claim. Here's reliable source of 13 interesting 'unique' things about martins: [1] , which says

" The numerous studies that have been conducted on martin diet reveal that it prefers larger, more energetically-rewarding, insects such as dragonflies, damselflies, butterflies, moths, grasshoppers, katydids, mayflies, cicadas, beetles, flies, wasps, midges, and flying ants. In most of these diet studies, not even a single mosquito was found in the martins' stomachs. But when they were found, they comprised less than 3% of the martin's diet"

Note that martins will eat many insect pest species, but also some beneficial ones. If your goal is mosquito management, there are better ways to do it. But martins can put a serious dent in the insect population of the area, which can benefit your garden, and provide much entertainment and beauty for your yard. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is pretty and eats flies, wasps, midges and flying ants is a Good Thing. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...except that they still poop. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's good luck when a bird craps on your head. DuncanHill (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One factor to keep in mind is the balance of nature theory. Specifically, the predators won't eradicate the prey, they'll merely keep its numbers down somewhat. If the predators eradicated the prey, they would either starve to death or move elsewhere. If you're interested in eradication, try a bug zapper. Don't try it on me though; I'm resistent to charge. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, to extend the theory further, anything which threatened the species with eradication would put extreme evolutionary pressure on it to adapt to survive. Thus, if bug zappers ever wiped out a significant portion of the insect population, they would ~~learn~~ evolve an instinct to avoid them. StuRat (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To extend the theory far too much, if human intelligence threatens an insect species with extinction, they will evolve the ability to out-think us. 213.122.21.4 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. A defense need not be the same as the attack. For example, reproducing quickly is an effective defense against many attacks. StuRat (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, StuRat - statements like that are easily misinterpreted as teleological. If something threatened a species with eradication, either it would be eradicated, or some individuals would escape. If their escape was in any way connected with some particular trait they had (as opposed to pure chance) then their escape would itself be selection for that trait, and the species would evolve. "Learning" probably does not come into the picture. --ColinFine (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't like the word "learn", we can say "evolve an instinct" instead. Change has been made. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not teleological but lamarkist. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can't really evolve something they don't have. But if some small percentage of the mosquitoes had a tendency not to be attracted to bug zappers, eventually the only mosquitoes left in the neighborhood would be the ones that tend to avoid them, thanks to the humans having inadvertently implemented Artificial Selection. (All the better for birds that like them fresh rather than fried.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can evolve anything it doesn't already have, then I suppose you and I are both still single-celled organisms. :-)

I assume you meant that it can't quickly evolve a new trait, in which case, I agree. However, an extremely rare trait, perhaps one that only occurs due to an occasional mutation, can quickly become the majority trait, when a species is under extreme pressure. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. True on all counts. It's in no small part, a function of the reproductive cycle's frequency. We've seen how quickly new strains of viruses and bacteria come along. Your average elephant species, though, can't evolve overnight to adapt to a radically changed environment. And your typical squirrel still has not figured out that it can't outrun a car. Insects reproduce quickly, but if they don't already have some genetic capability for some desirable trait (desirable for them, not necessarily for us), then acquiring that trait could take quite awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, Bugs: introduction of natural predators is unlikely to eradicate prey. However, fair warning-- the 'balance of nature' concept is simplistic and vague at best, and often misleading or wrong, depending on the system. Note the many criticisms described in our article. In short, modern empirical findings, theoretical ecology and population dynamics find very little evidence of the 'balance of nature' (i.e. in terms of stable equilibria) that our article describes. See e.g. succession_(ecology) for a wide class of example systems that are clearly not at equilibrium. This thread is pretty far off-topic by now, so if anyone wants to further discuss 'the balance of nature', please start a new question or drop by my talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No question that "balance of nature" is simplistic. Nature is never "stable". Stability would be more like an "average" situation, for example some sort of approximate ratio between prey and predators. The practical effect of artificial selection is seen in, for example, the American deer population. A deer hunting season is not only a recreational sport, it's necessary for keeping the deer in check, thanks at least in part to humans having eradicated natural predators such as wolves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If humans didn't hunt them, the population would be controlled by starvation, disease, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they're allowed to be hunted. In effect, humans have replaced the natural predators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Dryer power[edit]

While shopping for a new one recently, I noticed that all models among all manufacturers have the same power rating: 1875 watts. Is there something magical about that figure? I looked at about 20 different models in a variety of stores, and found no model with higher or lower wattage. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1875 watts is (near enough) 15 amps at 125 volts; in other words, it's the maximum current that the hair dryer can draw on an ordinary household circuit with a 15-amp circuit breaker or fuse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the UK where we have 240 volts and 13 Amp Fuses on most of our appliances (except lower wattage ones of course)? Hence I can use a 3 Kilowatt heater with no danger. 92.4.46.33 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP doesn't live in the UK? No one said 1875W hair dryers were the norm in the UK. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster identifies himself as living in the United States on his user page (I checked before I replied), so I used values appropriate for U.S. household wiring. As the IP notes, household appliances in the UK can draw more power from standard outlets; among other things, the UK consequently enjoys faster-boiling electric kettles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overpowered hair dryers get lawsuits from people without common sense. 3Kw would fry your head fairly quickly. Collect (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediums and Psychics[edit]

Why are these con artists not prosecuted for taking money off people under false pretences? Mo ainm~Talk 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual justification is that they are "just entertainment", and not presenting themselves as really knowing the future. At least that's what they claim when the authorities come for a look. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to see one but is that what they claim it is for entertainment? Mo ainm~Talk 23:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very entertained by them. I am sure there are people who take them all seriously, but there are people who take all conspiracy theories seriously, too. Bielle (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, like with professional wrestling and with newspaper horoscopes, which are both humbugs also. Or weather forecasters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen ads for their "services" and never a disclaimer that it is just for entertainment. Mo ainm~Talk 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even true believer Hans Holzer once displayed a well-done sense of humor by admitting that, "Good mediums are rare." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK all TV and theatre shows purporting to show 'real' mediums or psychics doing their thing will have a disclaimer to avoid prosecution. This stems from the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 (which incidentally repealed the Witchcraft Act). Nanonic (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and was (as the link tells) itself repealed in 2008. Under the applicable EU consumer protection legislation, a purported witch is exonerated if she demonstrates that she really can fly a broomstick. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{Oh please. Why use the Ref Desk to display your ignorance?} --TammyMoet (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dated a witch once. She turned me into a newt! :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly a trap. EU has no provisions for unlicensed ultra-light aircraft like USA does. The witch would obviously be nabbed for flying without proper license and registration. APL (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a sweeping statement about a brush with the law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I bristled when I read that pun. BTW, if a dwarf psychic is given a large gift from a client, would that be a "small medium with a largess" ? StuRat (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Of course, any midget fortune tellers who have been prosecuted and escaped would become "Small mediums at large" Worm^TT · (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the boy gets a cigar! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Cassadaga, Florida Collect (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your date Bugs, I hope the spell wears off real soon. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually got better. And I got revenge. She failed the duck test. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, and I'm no believer in these things, that a lot of people go to mediums and psychics to feel better (that their dead parent doesn't hate them, for example, or that nothing bad is going to happen in the future). In this regard, they are quite successful, and not at all frauds. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens when something bad does inevitably happen to them down the track? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's where this rather unsettling Chinese fortune cookie item comes in: "A psychic will lead detectives to your grave." :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They find excuses for it, and probably don't feel any worse, in fact, they probably turn to their trusty medium or ~~physic~~ psychic in this time of need. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that physic is a medicine or drug, especially a cathartic or purgative; or the art or profession of healing disease; medicine. Somewhat different from psychic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, yeah. I meant Psychics, obviously. Too much physics.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]