CLOSE
Original image
nlm.nih.gov

17 Excellent Animal Illustrations from a 16th Century Book

Original image
nlm.nih.gov

Between 1551 and 1558, Swiss doctor and naturalist Conrad Gessner published his magnum opus, the five-volume, 4500-page Historiae animalium, which became the period's most widely read natural history collection. Combining the work of those who came before him, like Aristotle, Pliny, and the unknown author of Physiologus, and making use of both verbal descriptions and illustrations of animals from explorers and other naturalists, Gessner attempted to catalogue all known beasts—even ones we know today to be mythological. "He often assured his readers ... that his friends' testimony was reliable, as they had personally eyeballed even the most ferocious beasts, including lions and crocodiles," writes Michon Scott at Strange Science. "When [Gessner] doubted the accuracy of the opinions he relayed in his own writings, or the validity of the illustrations he included, he prudently said so. Of the multi-headed hydra, for instance, he observed, 'ears, tongues, noses, and faces are inconsistent with the nature of serpents.'"

Historiae animalium was a standout because of the sheer number of its illustrations, which were created using woodcuts; Gessner and the artists he worked with got some animals very close to right, while others are entirely off the mark. “A visual game of telephone is, to some degree, what the artists were dealing with in the 16th century,” Tom Baione, Director of the Department of Library Services at the American Museum of Natural History, told us when we first looked at some illustrations from Historiae animalium last year. Here are a few more illustrations for you to admire.

1. Beaver

Beavers do have pretty gnarly incisors—they're harder on the front than on the back, which is what creates the sharp edge that allows these semi-aquatic animals to chisel away at wood—but somehow, they don't look as terrifying on the actual animal.

2. Porcupine

Every species in the porcupine family—approximately two dozen of them—has a coat of quills to use as a defense mechanism. In real life, though, they don't look quite so sinister.

3. Unicorn

The first written description of a unicorn—which, unfortunately, is not real—appeared in the writings of Greek physician Ctesius, and it doesn't resemble the animal we've come to think of at all:

There are in India certain wild asses which are as large as horses, and larger. Their bodies are white, their heads dark red, and their eyes dark blue. They have a horn on the forehead which is about a foot and a half in length. The base of this horn, for some two hands'-breadth above the brow, is pure white; the upper part is sharp and of a vivid crimson; and the remainder, or middle portion, is black. Those who drink out of these horns, made into drinking vessels, are not subject, they say, to convulsions or to the holy disease [epilepsy]. Indeed, they are immune even to poisons…

This is the only way to capture them: when they take their young to pasture, you must surround them with many men and horses. They will not desert their offspring and fights with horns, teeth and heels; and they kill many horses and men. They are themselves brought down by arrows and spears. They cannot be caught alive.

In the fascinating book A Natural History of Unicorns, Chris Lavers examines all the animals that could have possibly been unicorns, and how the creature went from that first description to the beautiful, one-horned horse we think of now.

4. Fox

The drawing is a little more wolf- or coyote-like than an actual red fox, but cute in its own way.

5. Camel

This illustration seems to show a Bactrian camel. These two-humped ungulates are much rarer than their single-humped dromedary cousin—in fact, they're critically endangered. This illustration would be more accurate if the beast had more fur and higher humps.

6. Tiger

Wikimedia Commons

Sure, tigers are cute, but they're not this cute. While the stripes are kind of close, the happy smile, high and slender build, and fur at the end of the tail are anything but.

7. Hedgehog

Fact: No illustration could ever be as adorable as the real thing, and this drawing definitely isn't. It makes hedgehogs look shocked and a little curmudgeonly.

8. Elephant

We should all be thankful that elephants aren't this terrifying in real life. Look at that trunk!

9. Armadillo

There are 20 species of armadillo; according to National Geographic, and all of them but one live in Latin America. It's unclear which kind of armadillo this is, but it looks like it just played a wicked joke on one of its brethren.

10. Rooster

One word sums this illustration up, and that word is "Ahh!"

11. Sea Turtle

I wouldn't want to swim next to one of these guys—look at those teeth! In real life, sea turtles don't have teeth; instead, they use their beaks to eat, and stiff, gnarly-looking papillae help direct the food to the stomach.

12. Giraffe

If you'd never seen a giraffe before, and someone described it to you, you might draw its ossicones—which are actually cartilage covered in skin—as more typical horns, too. Fun fact: People once called giraffes "camel-leopards" because, thanks to the small hump on the back and the spotted coat, people thought they were a combination of camels and leopards!

13. Crocodile

This croc looks more like a red-eyed crocodile skink—at least around the eyes.

14. Ostrich

The color's not right—those feathers should be darker!—and the beak is a little too thick, but otherwise, this is a pretty good portrait of the world's largest (and heaviest!) bird.

15. Hippopotamus

Hippos are much stouter than this illustration shows, and they prefer to spend most of their time in the water, not walk on it. Hippos and crocs do sometimes face off in the wild, though it probably doesn't go quite like this illustration shows.

16. Whales

Adventures on the high seas must have been terrifying if you thought this was what awaited you.

17. Lion

Lion manes are definitely beautiful, but they're not this well groomed.

All images courtesy of NLM.gov unless otherwise noted.

Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva
technology
arrow
Man Buys Two Metric Tons of LEGO Bricks; Sorts Them Via Machine Learning
May 21, 2017
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
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief
entertainment
arrow
What Happened to Jamie and Aurelia From Love Actually?
May 26, 2017
Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief

Fans of the romantic-comedy Love Actually recently got a bonus reunion in the form of Red Nose Day Actually, a short charity special that gave audiences a peek at where their favorite characters ended up almost 15 years later.

One of the most improbable pairings from the original film was between Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lúcia Moniz), who fell in love despite almost no shared vocabulary. Jamie is English, and Aurelia is Portuguese, and they know just enough of each other’s native tongues for Jamie to propose and Aurelia to accept.

A decade and a half on, they have both improved their knowledge of each other’s languages—if not perfectly, in Jamie’s case. But apparently, their love is much stronger than his grasp on Portuguese grammar, because they’ve got three bilingual kids and another on the way. (And still enjoy having important romantic moments in the car.)

In 2015, Love Actually script editor Emma Freud revealed via Twitter what happened between Karen and Harry (Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, who passed away last year). Most of the other couples get happy endings in the short—even if Hugh Grant's character hasn't gotten any better at dancing.

[h/t TV Guide]

SECTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
WEATHER WATCH
BE THE CHANGE
JOB SECRETS
QUIZZES
WORLD WAR 1
SMART SHOPPING
STONES, BONES, & WRECKS
#TBT
THE PRESIDENTS
WORDS
RETROBITUARIES