Archive for the ‘ History ’ Category

Does the human genome look “domesticated” because of bottlenecking?

I think the answer is yes. I heard somewhere once (on a documentary I think) that the human genome looks domesticated, which throws up amusing and interesting images of humans having accidentally domesticated ourselves. However, I think it was probably just that we seem to have gone through a bottleneck process some time in the past (which is basically where the population drops down to a small number of individuals, and then grows again from that small pool). This results in a large group of people having fairly little genetic diversity, which is one of the main features of domesticated species (presumably because they went through a kind of artificial bottleneck, in that we bred all the individuals we wanted from a small pool of desirable individuals).

We know that non-African humans went through a bottleneck because there is more genetic diversity within Africa than there is outside of it, indicating that a fairly small group of individuals (perhaps more than once) migrated out of Africa and then populated the rest of the planet. Interestingly, bottlenecking may be why we have 2 fewer chromosomes than other apes (46 vs 48) – basically two chromosomes fused together in our ancestors, and the chances of that spreading throughout the population is pretty tiny unless the population is small. (This would have happened before the migration bottlenecking, because African humans have the same number of chromosomes as non-African humans.)

2012
08/21
CATEGORY
Biology
History
TAGS


Leave a comment

Which French monarch name has the longest gap between reuses?

Remember when I calculated the longest gap between reuses for the name for the monarchs of the United Kingdom? Well now I’ve done it for France. The list of French monarchs (on Wikipedia) skips numbers a few times – I think the others with those people aren’t included in the list because they weren’t actually in charge of France, despite stealing a number – and so some gaps are widened by ignoring those people.

Carloman
I d. 771, II s. 879 = 108 years.

Charles
I d. 814, II s. 840 = 26 years.
II d. 877, the Fat s. 885 = 8 years.
the Fat d. 888, III s. 893 = 5 years.
III d. 922, IV s. 1322 = 400 years.
IV d. 1328, V s. 1364 = 36 years.
V d. 1380, VI s. 1380 = 0 years.
VI d. 1422, VII s. 1422 = 0 years.
VII d. 1461, VIII s. 1483 = 21 years.
VIII d. 1498, IX s. 1560 = 62 years.
IX d. 1574, X s. 1824 = 250 years.

Childebert
I d. 558, III s. 695 = 137 years.

Childeric
I d. 481, II s. 673 = 192 years.
II d. 675, III s. 743 = 68 years.

Chilperic
I d. 584, II s. 715 = 131 years.

Chlothar
I d. 561, II s. 584 = 23 years.
II d. 629, III s. 657 = 28 years.

Clovis
I d. 511, II s. 639 = 128 years.
II d. 657, IV s. 691 = 34 years.

Dagobert
I d. 639, III s. 711 = 72 years.

Francis
I d. 1547, II s. 1559 = 12 years.

Henry
I d. 1060, II s. 1547 = 487 years.
II d. 1559, III s. 1574 = 15 years.
III d. 1589, IV s. 1589 = 0 years.

John
I d. 1316, II s. 1350 = 34 years.

Louis
I d. 840, II s. 877 = 33 years.
II d. 879, III s. 879 = 0 years.
III d. 882, IV s. 936 = 54 years.
IV d. 954, V s. 986 = 32 years.
V d. 987, VI s. 1108 = 21 years.
VI d. 1137, VII s. 1137 = 0 years.
VII d. 1180, VIII s. 1223 = 43 years.
VIII d. 1226, IX s. 1226 = 0 years.
IX d. 1270, X s. 1314 = 44 years.
X d. 1316, XI s. 1461 = 145 years.
XI d. 1483, XII s. 1498 = 15 years.
XII d. 1515, XIII s. 1610 = 95 years.
XIII d. 1643, XIV s. 1643 = 0 years.
XIV d. 1715, XV s. 1715 = 0 years.
XV d. 1774, XVI s. 1774 = 0 years.
XVI d. 1792, XVIII s. 1814 = 22 years.

Napoleon
I d. 1815, III s. 1852 = 37 years.

Philip
I d. 1108, II s. 1180 = 72 years.
II d. 1223, III s. 1270 = 47 years.
III d. 1285, IV s. 1285 = 0 years.
IV d. 1314, V s. 1316 = 2 years.
V d. 1322, VI s. 1328 = 6 years.

Robert
I d. 923, II s. 996 = 73 years.

Theuderic
III d. 691, IV s. 721 = 30 years.

The biggest gap is between Henrys, with 487 years between the first and second. The oldest name to be reused is Charles, with 1062 years between the beginning of the reign of Charles I (aka Charlemagne) and the end of the reign of Charles X. Louis is a close second – the first Louis was Charles I’s successor and the last Louis was Charles X’s predecessor – with 1010 years.

As before, I have made a graph showing the average gap size between each name.

2011
08/04
CATEGORY
History
TAGS



Leave a comment

Which Scottish/British monarch name has the longest gap between reuses?

You may remember when I investigated the gaps between reuse of names for English/British monarchs. At the time I left out Scottish monarchs because it complicated things, but I felt bad so I have done them now as well.

As with last time, to represent the end of one reign I’ve used the letter d (for “death”, though it wasn’t always), and s for the start of the next reign with that name. After the crowns of England and Scotland merged, the numbers skip ahead a bit because England had Edwards that Scotland didn’t, as well as an extra William.

Alexander
I d. 1124, II s. 1214 = 90 years.
II d. 1249, III s. 1249 = 0 years.

Charles
I d. 1649, II s. 1649 = 0 years.

Constantine
I d. 877, II s. 900 = 23 years.
II d. 943, III s. 995 = 52 years.

David
I d. 1153, II s. 1329 = 176 years.

Donald
I d. 862, II s. 889 = 27 years.
II d. 900, III s. 1093 = 193 years.

Duncan
I d. 1040, II s. 1094 = 54 years.

Edward
VII d. 1910, VIII s. 1936 = 26 years.

George
I d. 1727, II s. 1727 = 0 years.
II d. 1760, III s. 1760 = 0 years.
III d. 1820, IV s. 1820 = 0 years.
IV d. 1830, V s. 1910 = 80 years.
V d. 1936, VI s. 1936 (though not immediately succeeding) = 326 days = 0 years.

James
I d. 1437, II s. 1437 = 0 years.
II d. 1460, III s. 1460 = 0 years.
III d. 1488, IV s. 1488 = 0 years.
IV d. 1513, V s. 1513 = 0 years.
V d. 1542, VI s. 1567 = 25 years.
VI d. 1625, VII s. 1685 = 60 years.

Kenneth
I d. 858, II s. 971 = 113 years.
II d. 995, III s. 997 = 2 years.

Malcolm
I d. 954, II s. 1005 = 51 years.
II d. 1034, III s. 1058 = 24 years.
III d. 1093, IV s. 1153 = 60 years.

Mary
I d. 1467, II s. 1689 = 222 years.

Robert
I d. 1329, II s. 1371 = 42 years.
II d. 1390, III s. 1390 = 0 years.

William
I d. 1214, II s. 1689 = 475 years.
II d. 1702, IV s. 1830 = 128 years.

Interestingly, the answer is again William (the later William being in fact the same William who won for the English/British monarchs, though with 114 years removed because Scotland’s William I came after England’s William II). William is also the name that had the largest time pass between it’s first use and second use, with 672 years passing between the start of William I’s reign and the end of William IV’s.

Here is a graph of the averages for each name.

2011
07/03
CATEGORY
History
TAGS





Leave a comment

Which English/British monarch name has the longest gap between reuses?

I was wondering what the largest gap is between reuses of the name of an English monarch (including British monarchs after the merger). The situation becomes more complex if you also look at Scottish monarchs (because sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don’t), so I have not looked at them. It’s not that I think Scottish monarchs are any less worthy, it’s just that the English ones were the ones I was thinking about, being the ones I am familiar with.

Here are the reused names listed alphabetically (I’ve decided semi-arbitrarily that Æ comes before C). To represent the end of one reign I’ve used the letter d (for “death”, though it wasn’t always), and s for the start of the next reign with that name.

Æthelred
d. 871, the Unready s. 978 = 107 years.

Charles
I d. 1649, II s. 1660 = 11 years.
II d. 1685, III s. >2010 > 325 years. [This is the current Prince of Wales – I was just curious, haha.]

Edgar
the Peaceful d. 975, the Ætheling s. 1066 = 91 years.

Edmund
the Magnificent d.  946, Ironside s. 1016 = 60 years.

Edward
the Elder d. 924, the Martyr s. 975 = 51 years.
the Martyr d. 978, the Confessor s. 1042 = 64 years.
the Confessor d. 1066, I s. 1272 = 206 years.
I d. 1307, II s. 1307 = 0 years.
II d. 1327, III s. 1327 = 0 years.
III d. 1377, IV s. 1461 = 84 years.
IV d. 1470, V s. 1483 = 13 years.
V d. 1483, VI s. 1547 = 64 years.
VI d.  1553, VII s. 1901 = 348 years.
VII d. 1910, VIII s. 1936 =  26 years.

Elizabeth
I d. 1603, II s. 1952 = 349 years.

George
I d. 1727,  II s. 1727 = 0 years.
II d. 1760, III s. 1760 = 0 years.
III d. 1820, IV s. 1820 = 0 years.
IV d. 1830, V s. 1910 = 80 years.
V d. 1936, VI s. 1936 (though not immediately succeeding) = 326 days = 0 years.

Harold
Harefoot d. 1040, Godwinson s. 1066 =  26 years.

Henry
I d. 1135, II s. 1154 = 19 years.
II d. 1189, III s. 1216 = 27 years.
III d. 1272, IV s. 1399 = 127 years.
IV d. 1413, V s. 1413 = 0 years.
V d. 1422, VI s. 1422 = 0 years.
VI d. 1471, VII s. 1485 = 14 years.
VII d. 1509, VIII s. 1509 = 0 years.

James
I d. 1625, II s. 1685 = 60 years.

Mary
I d. 1558, II s. 1689 = 131 years.

Richard
I d. 1199, II s. 1377 = 78 years.
II d.  1399, III s. 1483 = 84 years.
III d. 1485, Cromwell s. 1658 = 173 years.

William
I d. 1087, II s. 1087 = 0 years.
II d. 1100, III s. 1689 = 589 years.
III d. 1702, IV s. 1830 = 128 years.

From this list we can see that the biggest gap between reuses is with William, with 589 years between the end of William II and the start of William III. Second is Elizabeth, with 349 years, then Edward with 348 years between VI and VII.

Here is a graph of the average gap between reuse for each name. It should be noted the data here is only so informative, and is a bit misleading – even though Edward is third in terms of maxima, it is seventh by average. Similarly, there is an 80 year gap between Georges IV and V, but the other four gaps of 0 years drag the average down to 16.

Average time between reuses of the name for an English/British monarch

Also interesting is that the name with the biggest time-span between first and last uses is Edward: Edward the Elder started his reign in 899, and Edward VIII ended his in 1936, spanning 1037 years. Granted, this has something to do with the number of times the name was used, but Henry and George are the next most common, while William is in fact second in terms of the amount of time between first and last uses (with 771 years, compared to 447 for Henry and 238 for George).

2011
06/25
CATEGORY
History
TAGS





Leave a comment

How many US presidents have attempted to serve non-consecutive terms?

The only president of the United States to serve two non-consecutive terms is Grover Cleveland. Thinking about this, I wondered how many others had left the presidency and then tried to come back again later. To answer this question, I have tried to compile a list of all the presidents of the United States who did not serve their maximum allowable time in one go* (or die before being able to try again) and categorised them according to their reasons for leaving the first time and whether they tried to come back.

The following sixteen presidents did not try to be re-elected after leaving the office.

Did not try to re-elect or seek presidency again later:
James K. Polk (1845 – 1849)
Rutherford B. Hayes (1877 – 1881)
Calvin Coolidge (1923 – 1929)
Harry S. Truman (1945 – 1953)
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963 – 1969)

Not nominated for re-election, did not seek presidency again later:
Franklin Pierce (1853 – 1857) (though some wanted him to in the 1864 election)
James Buchanan (1857 – 1861)
Andrew Johnson (1865 – 1869)
Chester A. Arthur (1881 – 1885)

Defeated trying to re-elect, did not seek presidency again later:
John Adams (1797 –  1801)
John Quincy Adams (1825 – 1829)
Benjamin Harrison (1889 – 1893) (though some wanted him to in the 1896 election)
William Howard Taft (1909 – 1913)
Gerald Ford (1974 – 1977) (considered running in 1980 election but did not)
Jimmy Carter (1977 – 1981)
George H. W. Bush (1989 –  1993)

The following six did try for re-election after having left the office.

Did not run for re-election, sought presidency again later:
Theodore Roosevelt (1901 – 1909) (created a new party to be nominated in 1912 but defeated by Wilson)

Not nominated for re-election, sought presidency again later:
John Tyler (1841 – 1845) (created new party to stop his nemesis winning but then supported Polk and retired instead)
Millard Fillmore (1850 – 1853) (tried again in 1856 but came third)
Herbert Hoover (1929 – 1933) (but was never renominated)

Defeated trying to re-elect, sought presidency again later:
Martin Van Buren  (1837 – 1841) (not nominated in 1844; nominated in 1848 but didn’t get any electoral votes)
Grover Cleveland (1885 – 1889) (retired but then renominated and re-elected, March 4, 1893 – March 4, 1897)

So the answer is that six presidents have tried to attain non-consecutive presidential terms in office (so far), two even creating their own parties to do so, but only one succeeded. Currently, Barack Obama is the only president who could plausibly do this, the other two who could legally do it (Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) being 86 years old.

*I suspect I may have the wrong idea about what sort of maximum there was before the 1950s, but I am fairly confident this does not affect the overall outcome.

2011
06/05
CATEGORY
History
TAGS

Leave a comment

What is so important about the Strait of Magellan?

Recently I’ve been reading Through the First Antarctic Night, in which Dr Frederick Cook mentions, on his journey down South America to Antarctica on a Belgian scientific voyage in the late nineteenth century, that the Strait of Magellan was very important. The Strait of Magellan is shown on this map of the southern tip of America:

The Strait of MagellanGiven how close it is to Cape Horn (which is just to the right and slightly below the area shown on the map), I couldn’t understand why it was so uniquely important – if you wanted to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific, surely it wouldn’t be all that different to go around the Cape.

Well, apparently the answer is that going around the Cape was just that little bit further south and that little bit more incredibly dangerous. The Strait of Magellan was a safer route from the Atlantic to the Pacific (although the route around the Cape was still used, apparently – I assume it just has more ice and is less sheltered from rough seas). The strong westerlies in southern latitudes meant that British ships sailing to Australia and New Zealand were better off going via South America and across the Pacific then home around South Africa – that is, always headed west – than going around Africa in both directions (which would mean going against the wind on the way there). Once the Panama canal was completed in 1914 it provided a safer route again, not to mention a much shorter one, and now the Strait of Magellan is only really used for recreational trips or ships that are too wide to take the canal.

2011
06/05
CATEGORY
Geography
History
TAGS



1 comment

Does the Molotov cocktail have anything to do with Vyacheslav Molotov?

The question here is based simply on the similarity of their names: Does the Molotov cocktail, a breakable bottle containing a flammable liquid and a burning wick, something like an improvised grenade, have anything to do with Vyacheslav Molotov, third Premier of the Soviet Union, whose existence I discovered by accident on a list of names on wikipedia? And the answer is, “Yes.” Or, to elaborate, “Yes. It was named after him.”

Apparently it was named by Finns during the Winter War (1939-1940), a conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union, to make fun of Molotov, who was at that time the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs. My friend Kira wondered if, as they threw them at the enemy, they called out to the Russians, “Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!” (Or, as Google translate assures me is Finnish for this, “Älä lyö itseäsi, älä lyö itseäsi!”)

2011
06/04
CATEGORY
History
TAGS



Leave a comment

Mary I and Philip II: How related were they?

When I was about 11 I read Even More Terrible Tudors, from the Horrible Histories series by Terry Deary. In fact, I read it repeatedly, until it was borrowed and lost by my cousin. I learnt a whole lot of things from this, most relevantly that Queen Mary I of England was married to King Philip II of Spain. I knew that her father, Henry VIII, had a string of wives, but not until more recently when I saw The Other Boleyn Girl did I properly realise which one was Mary’s mother – his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. This is interesting because Aragon is in Spain. So I could only assume that Mary’s mother and husband were somehow related to each other.

As it turns out, they were. I’ve made a family tree to illustrate:

Mary I and Philip II, granddaughter and great grandson of Isabella I and Ferdinand II

The deal here is basically that Philip II was Catherine’s sister’s son’s son – that is, her grand-nephew. The rules for labeling relatives can be confusing but this makes Mary and Philip II first cousins, once removed. (Mary and Philip’s father Charles were first cousins, and Philip being one generation further down from this adds the “once removed” part.) So that is the answer to the question posed in the title – how related were Mary I and Philip II? First cousins, once removed. If you were worrying about inbreeding, you may be pleased to know that they didn’t have children (though not for lack of trying, apparently).

This was not an unusual degree of relatedness for noble marriages at the time. For a while when she was a child, it had actually been arranged for Mary to marry Philip’s father Charles, her first cousin. Twelve years after Mary died, Philip went on to marry his niece, Anna of Austria.

Next question: why was Mary’s mother Catherine of Aragon and not Catherine of Spain? The reason is that Spain didn’t exist until Catherine was 30. Her parents jointly ruled over most of what is now Spain, but it wasn’t actually a single crown until Ferdinand died and Joanna, having already inherited the throne of Castile from her mother, was able to sidle across to half-sit on the throne of Aragon as well, becoming Queen of Spain in 1515. (Although her son Charles, taking over the job of Regent from his grandfather, who had taken over from Philip I, did most of the actual ruling.  A Regent was seen as necessary because Joanna was apparently insane, though whether it was really just that her relatives wanted to be in charge is up for debate. It also brings up another interesting point, which is how irritating it must have been for her controlling male relatives that she lived so much longer than everyone else in the family seemed to.)

For the sake of curiosity, and while on the subject of noble relatedness, let us turn to a couple of fictional examples from The Lord of the Rings. Elrond and his wife Celebrían, Galadriel’s daughter (I often wonder if Cate Blanchett knew she was playing Liv Tyler’s grandmother), were second cousins, twice removed. More uniquely, perhaps the only example of its kind, Aragorn and Arwen were first cousins, 62 times removed. Oh, the wonders of biracial marriage!

As a final side note, Anne Boleyn’s signature appears to have been “Anne the quene.” Very concise, I like it.

2011
06/03
CATEGORY
History
TAGS


1 comment

Recent entry

Archive

Category