Original image

11 Incredible Facts About Venus Flytraps

Original image

They eat bugs. They’ve got awesome reflexes. And now they come in robot form (keep reading). Some of the most influential people who ever lived have had a fascination with Dionaea muscipula. Here are 11 facts guaranteed to inspire your own.

1. They May Have Been Named After Lady-Parts

Venus was the goddess of love and beauty in Roman mythology and the mother, Dione, of her Greek equivalent is responsible for the plant’s genus name, Dionaea. According to British naturalist John Ellis, the “beautiful appearance of its milk-white flowers, and the elegance of its leaves” inspired the moniker. However, the Venus reference may have also been made for a much baser reason: the plants’ pods reminded early explorers of gaping vaginas.

2. Thomas Jefferson Tried His Hand At Cultivating A Few

Ever the renaissance man, our third president’s scientific career is sadly underappreciated. Although the plants are native to the Carolina swamplands, Jefferson had great difficulty getting his hands on some seeds, failing to do so until 1804.

3. Charles Darwin Was Another Admirer

“The Venus Flytrap,” he wrote in 1875, “is the most wonderful plant in the world.” Darwin was such a fanboy that he dedicated an entire book to insect-eating plants, which he partially illustrated himself.

4. The Venus Flytrap Evolved From An Early Sundew Relative

Smitten though he was, Darwin never uncovered the hunter’s evolutionary origins. That didn’t happen until 2009, when genetic data linked Dionaea muscipula to sundews, which are comparatively primitive bug-gobblers.

5. Prey Is Lured In With Nectar

The flytrap’s leaves, about which Ellis waxed poetic, secrete sweet-smelling nectar which beguiles hungry invertebrates. Many other carnivorous plants use the same tactic. For a basic summary of how the victim is then ensnared, head here.

6. Venus Flytraps Also Glow Blue

Nectar is nice, but flytraps stack the odds of grabbing a bite still further by actually emitting a fluorescent blue glow to attract bugs, particularly during the bleaker parts of the day.

7. Traps Even Catch The Occasional Frog

Generally, the pods clamp down on ants, beetles, and other small insects. In their nutrient-deprived marshy environment, the many-legged critters’ exoskeletons provide a critical source of nitrogen. Once in a blue moon, however, an unlucky vertebrate gets nabbed, such as this ill-fated amphibian.

But fear not, animal lovers! The frog you just saw probably didn’t croak; such big prey items generally manage to escape the flytrap's grasp.

8. Venus Flytraps Can Digest Human Flesh

“Feed me, Seymour!” No known plant munches on people (the foul-mouthed villain in Little Shop of Horrors notwithstanding), but Dionaea muscipula can actually digest strips of human skin if they’re placed in its pods.

9. Science Has Created Robotic Venus Flytraps

When the robots inevitably take over, keep an eye on the mechanical flytrap. Technicians in Maine and South Korea have built tiny automated replicas which can actually trap their own (live) insects. Ladies and gentlemen, let the nightmares commence!

10. Red Flytraps Have Been Developed In Captivity

Today, thanks to captive breeding efforts, far more specimens reside in clay pots and greenhouses than out in the wild. A few maroon, burgundy, and crimson subspecies have been created, most notably the variety dubbed Akai Ryu (Japanese for “Red Dragon”).

11. The Venus Flytrap Is The Official “State Carnivorous Plant” Of North Carolina

Oklahoma has a state cartoon character, New Mexico has a state question, and North Carolina has a state carnivorous plant: The honor deservingly went to the Venus Flytrap in 2005.

Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva
Man Buys Two Metric Tons of LEGO Bricks; Sorts Them Via Machine Learning
Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva

Jacques Mattheij made a small, but awesome, mistake. He went on eBay one evening and bid on a bunch of bulk LEGO brick auctions, then went to sleep. Upon waking, he discovered that he was the high bidder on many, and was now the proud owner of two tons of LEGO bricks. (This is about 4400 pounds.) He wrote, "[L]esson 1: if you win almost all bids you are bidding too high."

Mattheij had noticed that bulk, unsorted bricks sell for something like €10/kilogram, whereas sets are roughly €40/kg and rare parts go for up to €100/kg. Much of the value of the bricks is in their sorting. If he could reduce the entropy of these bins of unsorted bricks, he could make a tidy profit. While many people do this work by hand, the problem is enormous—just the kind of challenge for a computer. Mattheij writes:

There are 38000+ shapes and there are 100+ possible shades of color (you can roughly tell how old someone is by asking them what lego colors they remember from their youth).

In the following months, Mattheij built a proof-of-concept sorting system using, of course, LEGO. He broke the problem down into a series of sub-problems (including "feeding LEGO reliably from a hopper is surprisingly hard," one of those facts of nature that will stymie even the best system design). After tinkering with the prototype at length, he expanded the system to a surprisingly complex system of conveyer belts (powered by a home treadmill), various pieces of cabinetry, and "copious quantities of crazy glue."

Here's a video showing the current system running at low speed:

The key part of the system was running the bricks past a camera paired with a computer running a neural net-based image classifier. That allows the computer (when sufficiently trained on brick images) to recognize bricks and thus categorize them by color, shape, or other parameters. Remember that as bricks pass by, they can be in any orientation, can be dirty, can even be stuck to other pieces. So having a flexible software system is key to recognizing—in a fraction of a second—what a given brick is, in order to sort it out. When a match is found, a jet of compressed air pops the piece off the conveyer belt and into a waiting bin.

After much experimentation, Mattheij rewrote the software (several times in fact) to accomplish a variety of basic tasks. At its core, the system takes images from a webcam and feeds them to a neural network to do the classification. Of course, the neural net needs to be "trained" by showing it lots of images, and telling it what those images represent. Mattheij's breakthrough was allowing the machine to effectively train itself, with guidance: Running pieces through allows the system to take its own photos, make a guess, and build on that guess. As long as Mattheij corrects the incorrect guesses, he ends up with a decent (and self-reinforcing) corpus of training data. As the machine continues running, it can rack up more training, allowing it to recognize a broad variety of pieces on the fly.

Here's another video, focusing on how the pieces move on conveyer belts (running at slow speed so puny humans can follow). You can also see the air jets in action:

In an email interview, Mattheij told Mental Floss that the system currently sorts LEGO bricks into more than 50 categories. It can also be run in a color-sorting mode to bin the parts across 12 color groups. (Thus at present you'd likely do a two-pass sort on the bricks: once for shape, then a separate pass for color.) He continues to refine the system, with a focus on making its recognition abilities faster. At some point down the line, he plans to make the software portion open source. You're on your own as far as building conveyer belts, bins, and so forth.

Check out Mattheij's writeup in two parts for more information. It starts with an overview of the story, followed up with a deep dive on the software. He's also tweeting about the project (among other things). And if you look around a bit, you'll find bulk LEGO brick auctions online—it's definitely a thing!

Original image
200 Health Experts Call for Ban on Two Antibacterial Chemicals
Original image

In September 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a ban on antibacterial soap and body wash. But a large collective of scientists and medical professionals says the agency should have done more to stop the spread of harmful chemicals into our bodies and environment, most notably the antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban. They published their recommendations in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The 2016 report from the FDA concluded that 19 of the most commonly used antimicrobial ingredients are no more effective than ordinary soap and water, and forbade their use in soap and body wash.

"Customers may think added antimicrobials are a way to reduce infections, but in most products there is no evidence that they do," Ted Schettler, science director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, said in a statement.

Studies have shown that these chemicals may actually do more harm than good. They don't keep us from getting sick, but they can contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, also known as superbugs. Triclosan and triclocarban can also damage our hormones and immune systems.

And while they may no longer be appearing on our bathroom sinks or shower shelves, they're still all around us. They've leached into the environment from years of use. They're also still being added to a staggering array of consumer products, as companies create "antibacterial" clothing, toys, yoga mats, paint, food storage containers, electronics, doorknobs, and countertops.

The authors of the new consensus statement say it's time for that to stop.

"We must develop better alternatives and prevent unneeded exposures to antimicrobial chemicals," Rolf Haden of the University of Arizona said in the statement. Haden researches where mass-produced chemicals wind up in the environment.

The statement notes that many manufacturers have simply replaced the banned chemicals with others. "I was happy that the FDA finally acted to remove these chemicals from soaps," said Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute. "But I was dismayed to discover at my local drugstore that most products now contain substitutes that may be worse."

Blum, Haden, Schettler, and their colleagues "urge scientists, governments, chemical and product manufacturers, purchasing organizations, retailers, and consumers" to avoid antimicrobial chemicals outside of medical settings. "Where antimicrobials are necessary," they write, we should "use safer alternatives that are not persistent and pose no risk to humans or ecosystems."

They recommend that manufacturers label any products containing antimicrobial chemicals so that consumers can avoid them, and they call for further research into the impacts of these compounds on us and our planet.