h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>The female will choose her mate by the quality of his call<<

Now where have I noticed that before?


Nice article, Willem.

Hello Rod! Thanks for reading my little frog article and for your comment! Did you know native New Zealand frogs don't have ear drums and don't sing to each other at all? They only squeak when handled.

I didn't know NZ had frogs of any sort of its own! I suppose they managed to survive the crossing on logs?

Other than marine species, the only mammals we have are bats, presumably storm-borne.
Dunno why I'm telling you, of all people - you checked the frogs so I'll bet you know rather more than I about the rest of it...



Some of the introduced creatures, though, ought to be sent home.

Hi again Rod! There are four known species of indigenous New Zealand frogs (there are a few introduced ones too). They belong to a group that diverged from the other frogs probably very long ago, in the Jurassic or the Cretaceous; I would think they've been in New Zealand since then and all the time, they were there when it split off along with the rest of Zealandia from Australia.

Like Tuataras - you should know of those? They're also a branch of reptiles that had separated from the others very long ago, perhaps in the Triassic; they died out everywhere else but persisted in New Zealand. They must also have been there all along.

There are even mammals that might have been fully native to New Zealand, that were there prior to the split but became extinct later. Zealandia apparently became submerged about 25 million years ago and only rose up again recently, but I'm sure that there were always *parts* above sea level on which frogs, tuataras, plants, and other things with ancient pedigrees could survive until this day.

Wow, how interesting. It's not just the people who are down there!

Ah, thanks Willem - I knew some of that, in a rough-and-ready way.

Zealandia, the continent (yes), "may have been completely submerged about 23 million years ago" and about 93% of it still is.
Enough time, methinks, for quite a lot of life to find its way here (only 1,000 miles of sea from Australia).
[One day I'll look closer at, say, the Kauri tree (which has a bit of history). I've recently been given another lump of swamp kauri which looks promising - an earlier lump, I made 3 nested bowls from and the grain figure is, well, beautiful.]

'The continent' broke away from Australia /say 70m years ago\ after breaking off Antarctica /say 100m ago\ (very approximate figures - even I wasn't around then).

Isn't it fascinating that even those rough dates ago can be estimated using technology and yet we seem to be persistent in our need to destroy ourselves (again?).

Anyway...enough blather. You can carry on, now.

Hi again Rod! The info I could get very strongly suggests that not all of Zealandia completely submerged. An article about Moas (flightless birds) suggests they arrived in New Zealand 60 million years ago, and were very probably flightless already and have never since been able to fly; they would have all drowned if the entire island/microcontinent was sumberged. In fact the article says that at the peak of the submersion still 18% of the current surface area of the land did remain above sea level offering refuge for moas and Kiwi's (another bird with an ancestry that must go back very very far) and other flightless birds, as well as frogs, tuataras, trees and other plants. So really, those things do have pedigrees going back VERY far, like I say in the Moas' case 60 million years or so and in the case of the frogs and many of the other things probably much further. They've been there for a very long time! You should be proud!

Anyways about the technology and us destroying ourselves. The big failure is not in science and technology, the big failures are in politics, ethics, philosophy and the deep psychology of the human being. We are not yet even close to a position to solve the problems that we have in those areas.

Oh and of course - I almost forgot: economics! I really hope humanity will survive and future generations will shake their heads in disbelief when they're told about the economic practices of their ancient ancestors.

Interesting, Willem. I spend a little time (just a little!) now & then, looking-up things like that ... and y'know, there's you done more in a couple of days than I have in twice as many years.
I'm somewhat ashamed (just a little!).

[Zealandia is about half the size of Australia, how about that? But you already knew, eh?]



Aren't people funny creatures?
There's a self-employed economist here who puts out a weekly newsletter.
A few weeks ago a survey, this week the results - some quotes:
>>Out of the 100 responses a high 72% had worked outside New Zealand and of these 59% were expats and 41% migrants.<<

>>There is only one piece of advice which all three groups agree on – if you are coming to New Zealand then you need to view yourselves as doing it for family and/or lifestyle reasons>>
>> After that commonality there are five suggestions offered by employers with no offshore experience and [by] repats.<<

1. >>learn the English language and speak it. Willingness to tolerate poor English on the part of natural Kiwis appears low. <<
2. >>They also suggest not just opting for the cities but to go to the regions.<<
3. >>But migrant employers do not give such advice and in fact warn about the small size of New Zealand and low cosmopolitanism outside of the main centres.<<
4. >>Expat employers and the stayers warn that migrants and fresh expats will need to work hard and explain to their bosses why they should be hired<< ...
5. ... >>They then go on to advise newcomers that maybe their best option is to set up their own business.<<

...and this in a country comparable in size but with a population about 1/12th that of the UK (and how many taxpayers does that make?).
I sometimes boggle at kiwi insularity - however, not surprisingly, we find ourselves mixing with people rather more outward looking.

Oh and oh yes - part of one of the above quotes. No further comment.

"Willingness to tolerate poor English on the part of natural Kiwis appears low"

Hi Rod, interesting points there. The word 'insular' of course comes from the same word as 'island' which is what New Zealand is after all! Did I tell you yet, I have family over there? Uncle, aunt, two cousins and a little baby whatever-the-child-of-your-cousin-is-called.

Yes, of course - here is almost certainly where the word came from, and there's a certain (small?) irony in that quote re poor English & Kiwis!

Your family... whereabouts are they? One of 'em not perchance in Rangiora, having a name beginning with M ?

Hi Rod! No, none in Rangiora ... my uncle, aunt and one cousin are in Auckland, and my other cousin is in Wellington.

Ah well, it's big country! (albeit a small population)

Wellington... is your cousin artistic too (or appreciative)? I'll bet they've visited the Weta Workshop:
http://www.wetanz.com/