Schoolyard tree cover predicts math performance in high-poverty urban schools
The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology and led by Ming Kuo from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at U of I, investigated the link between greenness and academic achievement in 318 of Chicago’s public elementary schools.
Schoolyard tree cover predicted academic performance, both for reading and math: the more trees, the better the performance. The same pattern showed up for trees in the adjacent neighborhood, but to a lesser extent. Grass, it turns out, does nothing for learning.
>>>>> Thank you for steering this back in the direction of paleontology, Daud.
>>>>> The evolution of bat wings, with their inter-digital webbing,
>>>>> is a major mystery in paleontology. It isn’t just that we have
>>>>> no intermediates between them and their conjectured ancestors
>>>>> in the fossil record; we cannot even imagine a “Darwinian” transition
>>>>> with natural selection favoring each step over the preceding one.
>>>> Who is “we”? Have you checked the literature? (I haven’t either.) Here’s
>>>> one I can make up: perhaps bat wings began as something more like the
>>>> membranes of colugos or flying squirrels,
>>> Why, John, since bat ancestors have absolutely NO gliding ancestry (per fossil evidence and logic)?
>> What bat ancestors?
> All of them. No indication of gliding, only flapping. A bat-like
> mammal hanging head down from a horizontal limb can’t glide, it must
> flap. A perched head-up bird can do both.
So, by “bat ancestors” you refer to fossil bats. But at that point bat
fight appears to have been fully evolved and thus known fossils can shed
no light on the evolution of flight.
>> What fossil evidence?
But there is no fossil evidence of the evolution of flight in bats.
>> What logic?
>>>> finger elongation) came about gradually as a response to a need for more
>>>> surface area. I doubt any hypothesis can be tested, though.
>>> Ever tried to catch a butterfly?
>> Many times. Why?
> A net that surrounds a butterfly must be flipped closed to hold it,
> similarly in bats that required 2 hands/wings, leaving only the feet
> to tensionally fasten the bat to the tree.
This is wholly speculative, right? You have no evidence for any such
>>>>> hypothesis I know of is that sexual selection may have favored a lot
>>>>> of the steps which otherwise had decreased survival value.
>>>>> I formulated that hypothesis ca. 1998, and nobody but myself seems
>>>>> to put any stock in it.
>>>> The problem is that it’s an easy way out. You can try to explain any
>>>> weird structure as sexual selection, but is there a positive reason to
>>>> suppose it?
>>> Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection operating under the
>>> same principles. Bat wings do not exemplify sexual selection.
>> How do you know?
> Male & female wings are identical.
You are apparently unfamiliar with mutual sexual selection. It’s a thing.
>>>>> are a no-brainer as far as scenarios go,
>>> I’m a bit wary of Peter’s hypothesis, but what is it?
>> It would seem simple enough. Begin with a membrane connecting hand and
>> foot. Elongate the 4th finger gradually, extending the membrane as you go.
> Ok, thanks.
Keep in mind that I made this up without actual input from Peter.
Thanks for joining me!
Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton