Visitors find large reptiles on Greek island in first-of-their-kind sightings
A group disembarked from a boat and surveyed the uninhabited Greek island in front of them. Most visitors come for the ancient ruins or the goat grazing, but they had another goal in mind: find some reptiles.
The team of scientists visited Despotiko island, a tiny island in the Aegean Sea, several times in June 2024 to search for reptiles and amphibians. The 'Aegean Islands are a known hotspot' for these animals so most islands 'have been extensively studied' — but not Despotiko, according to a study published April 3 in the peer-reviewed journal Herpetozoa.
'Records of fauna on Despotiko are relatively limited,' researchers said. Scientists had surveyed the island in the 1970s as part of a regional project but only identified five reptile species.
In hopes of finding some more animals, researchers spent several days systematically walking sections of the island and 'flipping rocks,' the study said. They also spoke to archaeologists, the island's most routine visitors, about 'past ad-hoc' animal sightings.
Their efforts paid off. The team recorded two first-of-their-kind reptile sightings for Despotiko.
The first new record involved Eryx jaculus, or the javelin sand boa, from 2019, the study said. A group of archaeologists reported finding the snake 'curled under a white rock.' A photo shows the patterned snake coiled up on a shovelful of dirt.
'Reptiles in Greece often use archaeological sites (for hibernation) and, when excavations resume in the spring, it is quite common for archaeologists to encounter snakes,' researchers said. Still, 'the javelin sand boa follows a cryptic behavioural pattern and, thus, is rarely observed.'
The second new record involved Lacerta citrovittata, a large lizard species referred to as both the Cycladic green lizard and the Tinos green lizard. Researchers found two of these lizards during their surveys and heard of two more sightings from 'within the archaeological site.' A photo shows one of these lizards.
Researchers also found geckos, skinks and several other species of snake and lizard, the study said. They also noticed the island's 'enclosed archaeological site had greater reptile diversity and richness than outside the site.'
No amphibians were found.
'Our study on Despotiko (reptiles and amphibians), with two new records, comes to improve our knowledge and understanding of the reptilian diversity of the archipelago,' researchers said.
Despotiko is off the southeastern coast of mainland Greece and roughly midway between Greece and Turkey.
The research team included Jennifer Rose Poole, Joshua Smith, Thomas Hesselberg and Panayiotis Pafilis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
25 minutes ago
- UPI
Tech revolutionizes centuries-old search for prime numbers
A laptop represents today's tools fueling the global search for massive prime numbers, essential for both mathematics and cybersecurity. Photo by Tony Avelar/EPA May 30 (UPI) -- A shard of smooth bone etched with irregular marks dating back 20,000 years puzzled archaeologists until they noticed something unique - the etchings, lines like tally marks, may have represented prime numbers. Similarly, a clay tablet from 1800 B.C.E. inscribed with Babylonian numbers describes a number system built on prime numbers. As the Ishango bone, the Plimpton 322 tablet and other artifacts throughout history display, prime numbers have fascinated and captivated people throughout history. Today, prime numbers and their properties are studied in number theory, a branch of mathematics and active area of research today. A history of prime numbers Informally, a positive counting number larger than one is prime if that number of dots can be arranged only into a rectangular array with one column or one row. For example, 11 is a prime number since 11 dots form only rectangular arrays of sizes 1 by 11 and 11 by 1. Conversely, 12 is not prime since you can use 12 dots to make an array of 3 by 4 dots, with multiple rows and multiple columns. Math textbooks define a prime number as a whole number greater than one whose only positive divisors are only 1 and itself. Math historian Peter S. Rudman suggests that Greek mathematicians were likely the first to understand the concept of prime numbers, around 500 B.C.E. Around 300 B.C.E., the Greek mathematician and logician Euler proved that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Euler began by assuming that there is a finite number of primes. Then he came up with a prime that was not on the original list to create a contradiction. Since a fundamental principle of mathematics is being logically consistent with no contradictions, Euler then concluded that his original assumption must be false. So, there are infinitely many primes. The argument established the existence of infinitely many primes, however it was not particularly constructive. Euler had no efficient method to list all the primes in an ascending list. In the middle ages, Arab mathematicians advanced the Greeks' theory of prime numbers, referred to as hasam numbers during this time. The Persian mathematician Kamal al-Din al-Farisi formulated the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which states that any positive integer larger than one can be expressed uniquely as a product of primes. From this view, prime numbers are the basic building blocks for constructing any positive whole number using multiplication - akin to atoms combining to make molecules in chemistry. Prime numbers can be sorted into different types. In 1202, Leonardo Fibonacci introduced in his book "Liber Abaci: Book of Calculation" prime numbers of the form (2p - 1) where p is also prime. Today, primes in this form are called Mersenne primes after the French monk Marin Mersenne. Many of the largest known primes follow this format. Several early mathematicians believed that a number of the form (2p - 1) is prime whenever p is prime. But in 1536, mathematician Hudalricus Regius noticed that 11 is prime but not (211 - 1), which equals 2047. The number 2047 can be expressed as 11 times 89, disproving the conjecture. While not always true, number theorists realized that the (2p - 1) shortcut often produces primes and gives a systematic way to search for large primes. The search for large primes The number (2p - 1) is much larger relative to the value of p and provides opportunities to identify large primes. When the number (2p - 1) becomes sufficiently large, it is much harder to check whether (2p - 1) is prime - that is, if (2p - 1) dots can be arranged only into a rectangular array with one column or one row. Fortunately, Édouard Lucas developed a prime number test in 1878, later proved by Derrick Henry Lehmer in 1930. Their work resulted in an efficient algorithm for evaluating potential Mersenne primes. Using this algorithm with hand computations on paper, Lucas showed in 1876 that the 39-digit number (2127 - 1) equals 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727, and that value is prime. Also known as M127, this number remains the largest prime verified by hand computations. It held the record for largest known prime for 75 years. Researchers began using computers in the 1950s, and the pace of discovering new large primes increased. In 1952, Raphael M. Robinson identified five new Mersenne primes using a Standard Western Automatic Computer to carry out the Lucas-Lehmer prime number tests. As computers improved, the list of Mersenne primes grew, especially with the Cray supercomputer's arrival in 1964. Although there are infinitely many primes, researchers are unsure how many fit the type (2p - 1) and are Mersenne primes. By the early 1980s, researchers had accumulated enough data to confidently believe that infinitely many Mersenne primes exist. They could even guess how often these prime numbers appear, on average. Mathematicians have not found proof so far, but new data continues to support these guesses. George Woltman, a computer scientist, founded the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search, or GIMPS, in 1996. Through this collaborative program, anyone can download freely available software from the GIMPS website to search for Mersenne prime numbers on their personal computers. The website contains specific instructions on how to participate. GIMPS has now identified 18 Mersenne primes, primarily on personal computers using Intel chips. The program averages a new discovery about every one to two years. The largest known prime Luke Durant, a retired programmer, discovered the current record for the largest known prime, (2136,279,841 - 1), in October 2024. Referred to as M136279841, this 41,024,320-digit number was the 52nd Mersenne prime identified and was found by running GIMPS on a publicly available cloud-based computing network. This network used Nvidia chips and ran across 17 countries and 24 data centers. These advanced chips provide faster computing by handling thousands of calculations simultaneously. The result is shorter run times for algorithms such as prime number testing. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a civil liberty group that offers cash prizes for identifying large primes. It awarded prizes in 2000 and 2009 for the first verified 1 million-digit and 10 million-digit prime numbers. Large prime number enthusiasts' next two challenges are to identify the first 100 million-digit and 1 billion-digit primes. EFF prizes of US$150,000 and $250,000, respectively, await the first successful individual or group. Eight of the 10 largest known prime numbers are Mersenne primes, so GIMPS and cloud computing are poised to play a prominent role in the search for record-breaking large prime numbers. Large prime numbers have a vital role in many encryption methods in cybersecurity, so every internet user stands to benefit from the search for large prime numbers. These searches help keep digital communications and sensitive information safe. Jeremiah Bartz is an associate professor of mathematics at University of North Dakota. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
Is Using a Stair Machine the Same as Climbing Stairs?
May 30, 2025 9:00 AM According to physics, one burns more calories than the other—and the winner might surprise you. Photogrpah:You can get a great workout by walking up the stairs in a tall building. The only problem is that you can't watch TV while doing it—hence the popularity of stationary stair-climbing machines. But is it the same? If your goal is to burn calories, does it make any difference which you choose? That's actually a great physics question, and we can get a pretty good mental workout with it. Shall we? The Work-Energy Principle OK, what is a calorie, anyway? It's a unit of energy, defined as the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water by 1 degree Celsius. (This is your common 'food calorie': chemists confusingly use a calorie measure that's 1,000 times smaller.) Of course, in physics we prefer to measure energy in joules. Just to give you a feel for this unit, if you lift a textbook from the floor to a table, that would take about 10 joules. Now, the work-energy principle says that in order to change the energy of a system, you need to add energy to (or remove energy from) the system. That seems obvious, but it's actually useful. We call the energy input (or output) 'work.' Work is done on a system by applying a force over some distance. Let's go back to the case of lifting a book off the floor. The first thing we need to do is define our 'system.' That tells us what kinds of changes in energy we're going to deal with. So I'm going to use the system consisting of the book and the Earth. Since the book can move, it can have kinetic energy (K), which depends on its mass (m) and velocity (v). And with Earth in the system, we can also have gravitational potential energy (U). This depends on the mass of the book, the gravitational field (g), and the height of the book above the floor (y). With this, we can write the work-energy principle as the following: Notice that we're dealing with changes in energy—the Greek delta symbol means the change in something. If the book starts and ends at rest, then the change in kinetic energy is zero. That leaves us with just the change in gravitational potential energy. The gravitational field on the surface of the Earth is about 9.8 newtons per kilogram. So, using the formula for U above, with a book mass of 1 kilogram and a change in height of 1 meter, we need a work of 1 x 1 x 9.8 = 9.8 joules (or about 10). Now suppose you are the book, and you go from standing on the floor to standing on the table? In that case, you are part of the system, so there's no external force doing work on the system. How can you have a change in gravitational potential energy without any added work? Well, the simple solution is to add another type of energy—let's just call it 'internal energy.' It's the energy stored in your body by eating your Wheaties for breakfast. It's how humans work. With that, our work-energy equation looks a little different: Since the change in kinetic energy is still zero, this means that the positive change in gravitational potential energy is equal to the negative of the change in internal energy. Let's say you have a mass of 75 kilograms (165 pounds). That means moving up 1 meter would reduce your internal energy by 735 joules. That's called working out. Climbing Stairs vs. a Stair Climber Now we can go back to the original question: What does the work-energy principle say about stairs versus a stair-climbing machine? Well, we already did the physics of stair climbing. It's the same calculation if you get on top of a 1 meter table or climb 100 stories—it's just a different value for the height. But suppose you stay in the same place while the stairs move under you. If someone is measuring your forward motion, they'd say your speed is zero. Your height also doesn't change, so now the work-energy equation looks like this: This says the change in internal energy is also zero, which means you don't burn any calories. I mean, that can't be right … right? Then how do we fix this? I'm going to use a nice example based on this video from Steve Mould. It goes like this: Imagine you are climbing up a downward-moving escalator. Again, an observer on the ground would see you as stationary. However, we could also measure your speed from the reference frame of the escalator, and you would be moving up. In fact, if the escalator had walls and a ceiling, you wouldn't be able tell that you were staying in place. You wouldn't even know the stairs are moving. Since the stairs are moving at a constant velocity (zero acceleration), this would be an inertial reference frame. In physics, any inertial reference frame is as valid as any other reference frame—the basic laws of physics remain the same. So, from the perspective of the escalator frame you are moving up and doing work. It's the same as if you were walking up a stationary frame. But Actually, the Stair Climber Is Harder I said that the stair climber and climbing stairs were the same—but they are not. In fact, climbing up 100 stories is easier than the equivalent distance on a stair climber. Does that seem crazy? It is a little crazy. The reason they're different is because the gravitational field (g) is never really constant. Remember, we defined the gravitational potential energy as U = m x g x y? That's not really wrong, but it is a little misleading. Actually, the gravitational potential energy for the Earth-person system would be defined as the following: Let's go over this new equation. First, we have the universal gravitational constant (G = 6.67 x 10–11 Nm2/kg 2). Next, we have the masses of the two objects involved (M E for the Earth and m for the person). Finally, there is the distance from the center of the Earth to the person (r). Since we are dividing by the distance (r), the gravitational potential decreases as we get farther from the Earth. There's a negative sign there, so that if you move farther from the Earth (we usually call that 'up'), the gravitational potential energy increases from some negative value to a smaller negative value. If this is the gravitational potential energy, then why do we use U = m x g x y? Well, that's just a handy approximation. Since the Earth is very big, with a radius of 6.4 million meters, moving up even 1,000 meters doesn't change the value of r that much. So it's OK to approximate the gravitational field as a constant value of 9.8 newtons per kilogram, even though it actually gets smaller. But just for fun, let's do a more precise calculation. Suppose I climb 100 flights of stairs. Let's say each flight of stairs has a change in height of 3 meters, so that the full climb would be 300 meters. If I start at the surface of the Earth (radius R) and climb up to a certain height (h ), the work-energy equation would look like this: For a person-mass of 75 kilograms, I get a change in internal energy of 2.20312 x 105 joules. Now, if I use the stair climber, the change in energy would just be m x g x h. This gives an energy of 2.20323 x 105 joules. That's a difference of 10.4 joules or 0.0025 calories. If a typical candy bar has 200 calories, this would be 0.001 percent of the bar—not even a tiny bite. What I'm saying is, you can get at least as good a workout on the stair machine— and you can watch TV. I call that a win-win.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
'One of the most geometrically perfect': What is this mysterious sphere deep in the Milky Way galaxy?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. There's no shortage of round celestial objects in our universe. Planets, moons and stars all exhibit lovely spherical shapes. But astronomers recently spotted a mysteriously circular orb deep in the Milky Way galaxy — and it's certainly none of these things. This celestial bubble, discovered by astrophysicist Miroslav Filipović of Western Sydney University, is likely a supernova remnant (SNR), an expanding shell of gas and dust formed by shockwaves from a massive stellar explosion. SNRs aren't uncommon, but this particular example showcases numerous anomalies, including its astonishingly round shape. For that shape, Filipović and his team named SNR Teleios, the Greek word for "perfect." Filipović discovered Teleios — officially designated G305.4–2.2 — by accident, scanning through new images taken by the radio telescope Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP). ASKAP is currently surveying the entire southern hemisphere sky. "I was looking at these images as they became available, searching for anything interesting, or not seen before, and came across Teleios," Filipović told "Its perfectly circular shape was unusual, and so I investigated further." Using data from ASKAP and the Murchison Widefield Array, Filipović and his team estimate that Teleios spans either about 46 light-years across at a distance of about 7,175 light-years from Earth, or about 157 light-years across at a distance of about 25,114 light-years from Earth. (Judging such vast distances in space is difficult.) Regardless of the size and distance of Teleios, though, the SNR's near-perfect symmetry is extraordinary. Its shape was quantified with a circularity score of 95.4%, placing it among the most symmetric known SNRs. While idealized models suggest SNRs remnants should be circular, reality often paints a more chaotic picture. "'Typical' SNR shapes vary dramatically, either from asymmetries in the initial explosion, or disruption from expanding into a non-perfect environment, or a number of other interfering factors," says Filipović. "What makes Teleios' shape so remarkable is that it displays none of these asymmetries; it effectively looks like an explosion that has happened with almost perfect initial parameters and with almost no disruption while expanding." So, what could explain such an undisturbed evolution? According to Filipović, it likely comes down to location. Teleios lies 2.2 degrees below the Galactic Plane, where interstellar gas and dust are significantly more sparse. This environment may have allowed the remnant to expand while remaining largely undisturbed for thousands of years. Teleios' shape is only one of the unusual characteristics of this SNR. Adding to the mystery, Teleios emits only in radio wavelengths, with a hint of hydrogen-alpha emissions. "Most SNRs are visible at another frequency. They either emit at optical, infrared, or X-ray frequencies as well," says Filipović. "The fact that we don't see that here is quite confusing. It could be that the temperatures are not high enough to produce this emission, or that Teleios is old enough that the optical emission has faded, but the radio emission is still present." Related Stories: — Hundreds of supernova remnants remain hidden in our galaxy. These astronomers want to find them— Mysterious cosmic lights turn out to be 2 undiscovered supernova remnants— Watch 2 gorgeous supernova remnants evolve over 20 years (timelapse video) This lack of emissions poses challenges to determining the type of supernova that produced Teleios. The most likely scenario is a Type Ia supernova, which occurs in binary star systems in which a white dwarf consumes enough mass of its companion star to explode violently. Alternatively, Teleios' origin might be Type Iax supernova, which is similar to a Type Ia supernova but one that leaves behind a "zombie" star. But Teleios's observable data doesn't fit either model perfectly. As it goes with newfound objects in the universe, researchers have a lot more to study to unravel all of Teleios's mysteries. Fortunately, there's no better time to study SNRs. "These are the 'golden days' for radio astronomy as the new instruments, such as ASKAP and MeerKAT, are opening windows for new discoveries," says Filipović. A paper on the findings has been submitted to the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, and is presently available on preprint server arXiv.
