Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Ghost Cat




This item chronicles the interaction of cougars with the Los Angeles urban surround and the continuing success of these animals to find a living cheek and jowl with humanity.  Other animals do as well but none so discretely.

They are still a serious threat to any one however rare it may be.  They have the capability first to take any human down by stalking and surprising.  In those circumstances the human can be easily overcome.  After all it is hard to return a sucker punch from an athletic 200 pound man.

In the cases mentioned the victims generally survived because they were also athletic.

If I have a concern it is our lack of aggression will lead to less caution by the lions and more events.


Ghost Cat

The city’s most mythic predators are as elusive as they are fierce. With the inevitable turf battles over their shrinking kingdom, the question is whether mountain lions can survive one another
Posted on November 19, 2013 by Mike Kessler


It’s impossible to say when he got there. Surveillance cameras were set up, but he evaded them all, and late-night drivers didn’t make any reports. His precise route is also unknown. Residents didn’t phone authorities, though surely he’d been skulking around—or through—their properties. Here’s what is known about the mountain lion: He was born in the Santa Monica Mountains, somewhere west of the 405 and east of Camarillo, in between the 101 and Pacific Coast Highway. One of a half dozen or so cougars living in the range, he’d left the comfort of his mother and struck out on his own, only to discover the paw tracks, the whiffs of urine, the piles of scat strategically deposited by other males, each as definitive as a sign that read Not Welcome. Male mountain lions are devout polygamists. They’re also predisposed to kill any lion that stands between them and the nearest female. At 250 square miles, the Santa Monicas provide barely enough space for two males to peacefully coexist, and the four that were already there had the battle wounds to prove it. If the cougar wanted to survive, let alone find a mate, he had only two choices: vanquish the competition, or find new turf. But fleeing wouldn’t be that simple.

Mountain lions don’t beeline between destinations. During the day, they hunker down and rest. At night, with their round ears sticking up like tiny satellite dishes, the males embark on recon missions—checking perimeters, looking for traces of other lions, committing the landscape to memory. They push boundaries bit by bit, returning to safety before sunrise. Occasionally, though, a scouting expedition runs long, and a big cat finds himself exposed at daybreak, spotted in a backyard or a shopping district too far from the foothills.

The aforementioned lion’s first challenge was crossing the 405, from west to east, probably on one of two bridges at Mulholland Drive or a few miles down Sepulveda, where the road squiggles under the freeway just north of the Getty. From there he would have found ample cover in the chaparral and scrub oaks of Bel-Air and the canyons that drop off either side of Mulholland. It must have felt like feline purgatory, a trip through his own habitat made nightmarish by faux-Tuscan architecture and screeching Ducatis and the bass thump of Kanye whoomping from leased Infinitis.

Once he reached the 101, somewhere between the east end of Mulholland and the Hollywood Bowl, he made another dash. It’s unlikely the lion traversed the freeway’s nine lanes; even in the middle of the night he would have been noticed or run down. More likely he used the overpass connecting Cahuenga Boulevard and Lakeridge Place, where a group of Griffith Park biologists had rigged a motion-sensor camera to assess how wildlife travels from one patch of habitat to the next. If the cat followed this route, he must have crossed the bridge right after a passing car triggered the shutter, sending the camera into its minute-long reset mode. On the other side of the overpass was a small, steep slope of 20 feet or so and, behind it, direct access to Griffith Park. Undeveloped, rich with prey, and absent of competition, the area had everything he could need. With one exception: potential mates.

No other major U.S. city has the volume of wildlife that L.A. does. There are flocks of wild parrots in our trees, rattlers on our hiking trails, red-tailed hawks above our freeways, skunks and raccoons and possums in our yards. Bobcats lurk in the brush. In Malibu and the Palisades, mule deer graze on designer lawns. Coyotes are ubiquitous, competing with great horned owls to snag sunbathing house cats and yapping min-pins. Black bears make so many trash can raids in heavily populated areas like Monrovia that U.S. Fish and Wildlife agents refer to them as “pigs in fur coats.”

Maybe if the bears weren’t such indiscreet scavengers, they’d be regarded with the same awe that we reserve for big cats, which are all the more remarkable for merely existing in this jumbled metropolis. Weighing as much as 200 pounds, mountain lions are powerful enough to take down a man. They can hit speeds of 40 miles per hour and leap ten vertical feet from a near standstill. Not even a bear has the quickness or stealth or ferocity to rival a mountain lion, which roams vast tracts of L.A. wilderness without being seen. Whether you call it a mountain lion, puma, or cougar, the Puma concolor—also known as panther and catamount, depending on which part of the country you’re from or what books you’ve read—has the distinction of being the apex predator in the region, feeding on anything it chooses, which, for the most part, are deer.

Since Jeff Sikich began studying the big cats of L.A. in 2002, he and his colleagues have captured 31 cougars—many of them on multiple occasions—in the Santa Monica and Santa Susana mountains, the Simi Hills, and the southern Los Padres National Forest, which begins above Ojai. A Chicago transplant living in Topanga, he spends 70 percent of his time tracking and trapping wildlife. In February 2012, after the puma triggered one of 18 wildlife cameras in or near Griffith Park, biologists called the National Park Service’s Thousand Oaks office, where Sikich types up reports in a small cubicle. “They were pretty surprised by the image,” he said as we hiked into the park from a neighborhood near Lake Hollywood, the city’s arteries congealing with morning traffic down below. Even local scientists, it seemed, didn’t expect a lion in the city’s major municipal park. “They knew about our study and called us to handle it.”

Sikich, a wildlife biologist, is one of a handful of NPS staffers who track the lives of mountain lions, as well as  bobcats, reptiles, and amphibians, in the region. A slim, egoless 38-year-old with a shock of shaggy gray hair, he has a gappy smile and a face so boyish, it looks like he could never grow a beard. His tone is uniformly matter-of-fact, whether he’s providing the gory details of how the lion feeds on its prey or explaining the purpose of the study. Because relocating cougars could place them in direct competition with other males, he and his colleagues don’t move the animals. Their job is to capture, collar, observe, and assess in order to make recommendations that will ultimately contribute to the animals’ survival in the region.

“Most of this area is closed to the public, and there aren’t any real trails, so it’s a great spot for a capture,” he told me, his hard Midwestern a’s poking through a patient drawl. Clad in green cargo pants, a matching zip-up fleece, and a pair of work gloves to protect him from sharp brush and poison oak, he hiked briskly while describing the first time he captured the Griffith Park puma, back in March 2012. We stopped at a large boulder beside the rusted remains of an abandoned car, the nearest home no more than 500 yards away. Sikich motioned toward a faint game trail, where the canyon bottom narrowed like a leg on a pair of skinny jeans. “These pinch points serve as funnels,” he said. “As a trapper, that’s what I’m looking for.”

Sikich sometimes sets up cages with deer carcasses inside to catch cougars or uses trained dogs to run them up trees, where they are tranquilized. But in this instance he relied on a version of the foothold snare traps that hunters employ. It’s not one of those spring-loaded traps you hear horror stories about. Rather, the device is a simple loop of cable, about the size of a dinner plate, that contracts to the diameter of a cougar’s wrist; a transmitter sends Sikich a photo when the trap is triggered. He had anchored the snare with a massive rock, covering the cable with leaves and twigs and posting warning signs to keep humans away.

To coax the lion from wherever he was lurking in the park’s 4,200 acres, Sikich concocted a potion of scents such as beaver castor oil, catnip oil, and skunk essence. “You pour a pea-size amount of liquid on old bones or rocks,” he told me. “Hopefully the puma’s nearby when the wind picks up and the scent makes him curious enough to pop onto the trail.” For extra drawing power he rigged a timer-activated digital audio player in a nearby tree to pipe in the sounds of deer in distress or female mountain lions in heat once the sun dropped. At 3 a.m., nine days after Sikich set his trap, he got the photo.

By 4:45 that morning, Sikich had arrived with a few colleagues. Creeping quietly in order to keep the animal calm, he clutched a yard-long aluminum blow pipe loaded with a dart containing a cocktail of ketamine and medetomidine. Once Sikich was within 20 feet of the cougar, he drew the tube to his lips and aimed for the lion’s haunches. It would be ten minutes before the cat—the 22nd captured for this study, and now called P22—was out cold, enabling Sikich and his crew to take measurements and hair samples, draw blood, tag both ears, and place a thick leather radio collar around his neck. Next came a shot of atipamezole to reverse the anesthetic. A short while later the animal rose clumsily to its feet and staggered into the chaparral as Sikich and his team looked on from their hiding place.

This past August local blogs were aflutter with images of a mountain lion that had been spotted in Malibu by an early-morning motorcyclist. The cat, a female named P23, was photographed on Mulholland sitting atop a deer she had killed; had the rider come around the bend a minute earlier, he’d likely have witnessed the attack. As cougar sightings go, it was a rarity. In 15 years of fieldwork on three continents, Sikich has had only three chance encounters. Others spend their entire careers without a run-in, and most reported sightings turn out to be of bobcats, coyotes, or more often, dogs. On one occasion Sikich responded to a sighting by a landscaper in Malibu; the cat had been standing meditatively until Sikich arrived and realized it was a plastic statue.

Rarer still are attacks on humans, but not rare enough for people like Scott Fike. He was mountain biking Mount Lowe, a popular hiking area in the San Gabriel Mountains above Pasadena, when a female cougar began stalking him. Rangers instruct cyclists who encounter cougars to make themselves as large and loud as possible, even to raise the bike above their heads to intimidate the animal. Yelling did Fike no good; the cat charged the 27-year-old freelance illustrator, who scrambled off his bike, using the frame to block the cougar as she attempted to claw and bite him. Fike ran for the nearest tree, and the cat pounced. As the two went tumbling down the steep slope, Fike was bitten on the head. “I could see that I wasn’t going to win this, so I went into survival mode,” he recently told me. “I picked up a rock and grabbed her neck and slammed the rock into her head.” The blow was enough to wound the cat and cause it to run off. Fike sustained only minor injuries. The female was killed by Fish and Wildlife agents within the week.

That was in 1995. The next and most recent attacks in Southern California didn’t occur until 2004. As with Fike, Anne Hjelle was riding her mountain bike. The 30-year-old was pedaling through Orange County’s Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park when a 115-pound male lunged from the brush. It knocked her off her bike, then sank its incisors into her head and neck, ripping part of her face off. Hjelle’s riding partner threw her bike at the animal and pulled her friend’s leg, trying to liberate her; in a tug-of-war the cat dragged both women 30 feet before another pair of riders came along and scared it away. Hundreds of stitches and several reconstructive surgeries later, Hjelle told the press, “As the lion clamped down, I was trying to say good-bye [to my friend] because I knew I couldn’t get any air any longer and I was watching the fear in her eyes.”

The day Hjelle was mauled, authorities found the body of another mountain biker, 35-year-old Mark Jeffrey Reynolds, partially obscured in the foliage at Whiting Ranch. Authorities discovered the lion hiding nearby and killed it. Reynolds was missing 11 pounds of innards—nutrient-rich vital organs such as the heart, liver, and lungs that carnivores eat first.

Winston Vickers, a veterinarian with the Wildlife Health Center at UC Davis who studies lions in Orange County, suspects the reason for such attacks could simply be a case of mistaken identity: Cougars see motion better than they see detail, and they’re likely confusing a passing human for a fleeing deer. “These people are moving quickly and erratically or appear small in stature,” Vickers told me. Still, he and every other wildlife expert I spoke with maintain that lion-on-human attacks will follow historical precedent and remain low. “A lion’s natural behaviors are going to dominate because that’s what they’re taught,” he said. “Mothers aren’t teaching their kittens to attack humans. It’s a onetime event—the first and last time they’re going to do it.”

Between 1890 and 2012, only 16 confirmed puma attacks have occurred in California, with six fatalities. The first three deaths happened more than 100 years ago, and two were caused by rabies, not the attacks themselves. More than seven decades passed without a killing. Some believe this is because our penchant for outdoor recreation lagged through much of the 20th century; even though wildlands were gaining official protection, the boom in outdoor sports such as mountain biking and trail running didn’t take hold until well into the 1970s. It’s also possible that with so much mountain lion hunting taking place at the time, there were just fewer of the predators. The other three California killings happened after 1985. Only two verified attacks have been reported in the state since that day in Whiting Ranch, and Fike is the sole person on record to have scuffled with a lion in L.A. County. By comparison, between 2005 and 2012, 251 Americans died from attacks by domesticated dogs.

Despite the statistics, I couldn’t help wondering whether we were going to be stalked as Sikich parked his truck on a winding road on the northwest side of Griffith Park, not far from the trains of Travel Town. A few weeks earlier he’d retrapped P22 and outfitted him with a GPS collar. In the cab of the truck he showed me a map that was speckled with colored dots, each signifying a GPS point for P22. Most of the marks were spread throughout the park. “But here,” Sikich said, noting a few clusters, “we have multiple GPS points in concentrated areas, taken over the course of several consecutive days. That’s a pretty good indicator that he made a kill and was sitting on it.”
###
On the Cat Walk: Jeff Sikich and his team of National Park Service wildlife biologists and ecologists have been tracking cougars in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area since 2002, using collars equipped with radio transmitters and GPS devices. P1, the first cat to receive a collar in the study, was a dominant male who was caught five times before his transmitter eventually stopped working. The lower portion of the map shows his movements throughout the Santa Monica Mountains during a single month in 2007, with the 101 freeway as a barrier. Given that cougars live eight years on average, researchers assume P1 has died since then (the team doesn’t release maps tracking live cats). The top of the map shows the movements of P3 in late 2003. The first of four lions in the study to be captured north of the 101, P3 spent much of his time in Simi Valley and portions of the Santa Susana Mountains, where he crossed the 118 freeway 14 times—one of which is depicted here. What killed him was rat poison. Because cougars are unlikely to eat a large enough quantity of small animals to receive a toxic dose, researchers suspect P3 died from eating a coyote that had done so, or a deer that ate the poison directly. A single male mountain lion's range can be as many as 250 miles. This map illustrates the territory covered by cats P1 through P12. For more information on the mountain lion study go to urbancarnivores.com.

We descended a steep slope dense with chaparral. A few hundred yards on Sikich stopped where deer blood spattered some low branches and the dirt had been stirred up. P22 would have attacked from the side or behind and killed the animal by repeatedly bearing down on its neck to cut off air. We followed about 20 feet of drag marks to where the lion ate his prey. Deer hair was scattered about, along with stomach lining, which pumas forgo. After its first course, a lion stashes its meal in the brush and feeds for the next week. (Sometimes a coyote will smell the carrion and move in for a meal, only to become one itself.) As Sikich walked farther down the hill, we caught the distinct odor of rotting flesh and soon came upon the remains. With a gloved hand he picked up the deer’s sun-bleached skull and inspected the jaw and teeth to determine its size. The stench was overpowering. “Yeah,” he said, unfazed. “It’s always kinda smelly.”

In rock paintings the Chumash Indians portrayed mountain lions as sok-so-uh, a malevolent spirit. Settlers referred to them as the “ghost cat,” a predator so disinterested in or scared of humans that seeing one by accident was almost unheard of. By Theodore Roosevelt’s reckoning, cougars were “the least dangerous to man of all the big cats.” Legendary trapper James “Grizzly” Adams put it more bluntly: The puma, he said, is a “cowardly brute, which dare not stand face-to-face and fight with a man.” Harmlessness, however, didn’t persuade settlers to leave the animals alone. The evasiveness and scarcity of mountain lions have only made them loom larger in our consciousness. As wildlife researcher R. Bruce Gill writes in the book Cougar: Ecology and Conservation: “With that first encounter, a philosophical relationship was inaugurated that would vacillate between reverence and warfare.”

Much of the bloodletting has involved livestock. Jesuit missionaries living in California during the 16th century awarded Native Americans a bull for each cougar they killed. By 1869, the year the transcontinental railroad was completed, the western United States had seen an uptick in ranch animals, and with it a surge of livestock killings by pumas and wolves. The latter were hunted almost to extinction, but cougars, solitary and covert as they are, fared better—relatively speaking. By the end of World War I, roughly half of the West’s lion population had been slaughtered. “The campaign of killing invoked the imagery of the Wild West, replete with stories of valiant lawmen bringing outlaws to justice,” David Baron writes in his 2004 book, The Beast in the Garden. “The men, and at least one woman, who hunted down the criminals were hailed as heroes, and the most proficient among them became legendary.” Mountain lions disappeared altogether throughout the East and Midwest during the 19th century. California, like several other states, offered bounties for them, paying out for the killings of 12,452 cats between 1907 and 1963, when the state legislature finally ended the program and made hunting them illegal.

In 1969, to the dismay of wildlife advocates, pumas were reclassified as game animals in the state; they could again be hunted with a permit. But in 1972, then-governor Ronald Reagan signed legislation that called for a five-year moratorium on cougar hunting, which was extended through 1986. Four years later California voters approved Proposition 117, which called for an all-out ban. The measure was challenged in 1996 when the NRA and other pro-hunting groups put Prop. 197 on the ballot, which sought a “mountain lion management plan,” without specifically mentioning sport hunting. Voters didn’t approve.

While the trophy hunting of pumas is illegal in California, it’s still relatively easy to get a permit to kill one. If a mountain lion so much as eats one of your chickens—or for that matter, a deer on your property—it can be deemed a nuisance so that Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game) can issue a permit to dispatch the predator. Laws governing the permits have remained largely unchanged for a century. In 2005—the last year for which the agency has reliable statistics—222 such permits were distributed in the state. Lion advocates put the actual kills at close to 100, a sizable figure given that there are no more than 6,000 mountain lions in the state. And even that number is contested; some put it closer to 3,000.

Not to say that cats are killed only by permit holders, of course. Rat poison—passed up the food chain from prey—has been linked to several deaths. There’s occasional poaching as well. In 2011, a hiker near Point Mugu discovered the butchered remains of P15, an older male. He’d been shot and killed before his head and front paws were hacked off. His GPS collar was never found. Offering an $18,000 reward, Fish and Wildlife agents spent a year on the case, to no avail. But local poachers have nothing on L.A. drivers. Six lions have been fatally struck by cars in Sikich’s study area in the past decade—two on Las Virgenes Road near PCH, another on the 118 near the Simi Hills, one on I-5 near the Santa Susanas, and two on the 405 near the Getty.

That’s where Seth Riley found a dead uncollared puma one weekday morning in 2009. Like P22, the cat was a young male who’d probably been scouting for new turf. Riley, a 47-year-old wildlife ecologist with a scraggly beard and a work-worn look about him, happened to be passing through the area when he saw the body on the side of the road. Fearing the worst, he pulled over and surveyed the wreckage. “It was a bummer,” Riley told me. What made the death that much more dispiriting was the coincidence of it: Riley isn’t just any wildlife ecologist. As Jeff Sikich’s boss, he leads the NPS mountain lion study; that morning he was on his way to UCLA, where a colleague was taking her oral exams on the subject of urban carnivores.

The closest most Angelenos will come to seeing a live mountain lion is if they visit the Wildlife WayStation. Rambling over 160 arid acres off of Little Tujunga Canyon Road in the foothills above Lake View Terrace, the nonprofit is run by Martine Colette, a 71-year-old native of France who’s been in L.A. since the ’60s. Stroll the grounds (you need permission) and you’ll pass chain-link pens filled with hundreds of exotic rescues and castoffs—alligators and bears, hyenas and chimps. Compared with the African lion and tigers in the big-cats section, the WayStation’s four cougars appear almost cuddly. Cougars are how Colette got here: About 50 years ago she adopted a young mountain lion that had been kept as a caged pet by someone she met in Pan Pacific Park. She was living in Benedict Canyon, where she enclosed her yard and gave the animal an all-access pass to the house. Colette speaks with an of-course-I’m-right certainty made all the more charming by her fading French accent. “I began collecting animals because there were people with no solutions,” she told me, sitting in her home office at the WayStation compound, which she shares with a vocal house cat, two dogs, and occasionally a bobcat and chimp. Within a few years she needed more space and found her way to the foothills. “At that time there were no tract homes. It was a very horsey community, very rural. We had no banks, no grocery stores.”

Driving downhill from the WayStation, it’s hard to imagine that the flat, sprawling valley below was once an undeveloped swath of land that served as a wildlife corridor between mountain ranges. But today,  despite the homes and people, it’s an area that still has enough deer roaming local gardens to entice lions away from the cover of the hills. Even though lions prefer deer, the abundance of pets in these neighborhoods can prove too much to resist. One summer night in 2008, Bob Brown, a resident of La CaƱada Flintridge, watched as a mountain lion dragged his 65-pound terrier mix down the mountainside below his home. “It’s helpless,” he told the local news. “You see a situation, and you know there’s nothing you can do.” In 2011, a puma scaled several fences in Glendale and snatched a Chihuahua belonging to Marco Iezza. “He didn’t even get a chance to bark,” Iezza had said. “All we heard was a whimper.” Last spring two men working in the backyard of a home near the Glendale-La Crescenta border were peering over a fence when, as one of the men told me, “a mountain lion jumped right between us.” The home owner, who asked not to be identified, recalled leaping out of the way as the puma dashed across the yard and hid behind a tangle of ivy along a chain-link fence.

The Fish and Wildlife agent who responded to the scene was Martin Wall, a barrel-bellied 56-year-old with a broomy mustache and a warm smile. Wall sneaked up on the animal, a 125-pound male, from behind the ivy and shot him with a blow dart. The lion jumped at least two more fences before hiding under a home. Wall poked his head into the crawl space and darted the cat once more. “He appeared to only have one way out,” Wall told me one afternoon in Glendale this past spring. “So I pulled my head out of the hole real quick.” For good measure Wall waited for the lion to relax and gave him a “little hand injection.” Before a phalanx of news trucks and helicopters, agents lifted the animal onto a canvas stretcher and lugged him into the back of a truck. From there the cat was to be ear tagged—being outside of Sikich and Riley’s study area, he wasn’t going to get a radio collar—and released deep in the Angeles National Forest.

Wall has captured several dozen cougars during his 21 years with the department. (He’s also handled close to a hundred bears,  including one nicknamed Meatball, who after a year of overturning trash cans in the area was hauled to a sanctuary.) No matter how many calls he gets, Wall remains somewhat baffled by residents who live near cougar habitat and lure deer into their yards or leave pets and livestock on display, as if at a buffet table. “People will say, ‘We love the deer. I planted those plants so deer would come. But you’re going to have to take that lion back where it belongs.’ If a person would put their pygmy goats out of sight and out of mind at night,” he said, “they’d be less likely to be preyed upon by a mountain lion.”

Wall has never killed a puma, but plenty of wildlife agents have. In spring 2012, workers in a building beside Santa Monica’s 3rd Street Promenade discovered a young male puma trapped in the courtyard. Fish and Wildlife agents and police cornered the animal, hitting it with a tranquilizer dart. But before the sedative could kick in, the cat made a move toward a wall that led to a sidewalk. It was shot dead. In Sunland last year Fish and Wildlife responded to a call about a lion in someone’s garage; lacking a tranquilizer kit, they killed the animal. Earlier this year in Half Moon Bay, near San Francisco, Fish and Wildlife workers shot two 14-pound puma kittens, even though the mother was nowhere to be seen and the animals posed no threat. The fiasco led to the recent passage of Senate Bill 132, which mandates that Fish and Wildlife agents use nonlethal capture methods in all but the most threatening scenarios. It also fueled dismay over the agency, whose commission president, Dan Richards, had recently created a scandal by posting a photo on the Internet of himself with a mountain lion he had killed legally in Idaho. “Do you really think a California Commissioner is actually obligated to follow California laws across these United States? Really?” Richards asked in a letter to state assemblyman Ben Hueso, who’d led the charge for his ouster. “There is ZERO chance I would consider resigning my position.” Richards remained on the commission until his term ended a year later but was stripped of his presidency.

With its voter-approved ban on cougar hunting, California stands apart from every other state in the nation. But the story of cougars here is in many ways the story of wildlife everywhere, a tale of encroaching civilization and diminishing options. If P22 decides to go in search of a mate, his only choice is to head east, to the Verdugos, where at least three lions already live, or the San Gabriels, where the count could be as high as several dozen. The most imminent challenge, however, would be finding safe passage through Burbank and Glendale.

“The region has a web of freeways and patches of development that create these little habitat islands,” says Tim Dunbar, executive director of the Sacramento-based Mountain Lion Foundation. “Cougars are basically stuck in these small areas where the chances of their survival are lessened by a number of factors.”

It’s a phenomenon called fragmentation, and it’s the most significant long-term threat to big cats in the area. Despite the ban on hunting, “California’s lion numbers have decreased since 1990, possibly by as much as a third,” says Dunbar, who notes that lions in overfragmented Southern California have especially slim odds of living out their average life span of eight years.

One major consequence of fragmentation is lion-on-lion killings. While it’s normal for pumas to do away with their own, the chances for violence increase as habitat shrinks. There’s so much intraspecies murder among the pumas in the Santa Monica Mountains that tracing the different birth lines is like trying to follow the Tudors. Consider P1, the first lion collared for the study. The region’s dominant male, he mated with P2 to make P5, P6, P7, and P8, then killed P2 and one of the sons she’d had with him, P5. Then P1 mated with his daughter, P6, before killing her sister, P7, in a fight by an old Planet of the Apes filming location in Malibu Creek State Park, an encounter that was witnessed by two rock climbers. P14, a male that had nothing to do with P1’s messy family tree, was killed by an uncollared cat. The same cougar may have killed P1’s only other son, P8. And forget about counting the nonfatal fights. Often after capturing a puma, Sikich and Riley find battle wounds, especially on the males, which they can swab for DNA to determine who was involved.

When P1 mated with his daughter, he was compounding another consequence of fragmentation: inbreeding. To illustrate the point, Sikich drove me to the Liberty Canyon exit of the 101, not far from Agoura Hills. At the bottom of the off-ramp he steered toward the north side of the freeway, pointing to a hill that leads into the Cheseboro Canyon recreation area. Beyond the park lie the Simi Hills and the 118 freeway, on the other side of which sit the Santa Susanas. Driving an underpass to the south side of the freeway, we parked and hiked partway up a hill overlooking the 101. It was about 3 p.m., and cars were whooshing along by the hundreds; an hour from now westbound lanes would be jammed as far back as Reseda Boulevard. “This freeway is a major barrier,” he said. “The lions we capture on this side of the 101 look genetically different from the animals we capture just north of it. You could stand on the edge of the freeway and throw a rock over it, and you’re talking about an entirely different genetic makeup.”

As with any species, a healthy cougar population requires genetic diversity; without it the animals can eventually suffer from heart damage and, worse, low sperm counts. That was the case with Florida’s cougars—or panthers, as they’re known there. By the 1990s, inbreeding had brought them to the brink of extinction. Then scientists introduced eight female cougars from Texas, and the cats began producing healthy, genetically diverse offspring; about 150 of them live today under protection of the federal Endangered Species Act.

Sikich, Riley, and their NPS colleagues hope that Caltrans will build a wildlife tunnel next to the Liberty Canyon underpass, a project that would be paid for with $10 million in federal money and contributions from other agencies, such as California’s Wildlife Conservation Board. With a designated safe crossing, cougars in the Santa Monica Mountains would be more likely to head north to the Simi Hills, where they could use the equestrian tunnel at the 118 and Rocky Peak for access to the Santa Susanas and, farther north, the Los Padres National Forest, which stretches to the Bay Area. At the same time lions from points north could venture south and crossbreed, maintaining a healthy population right here in L.A.

For people like Sikich and Riley, who are merely studying the cats and not able to intervene on their behalf, a wildlife corridor represents the one proactive step they could take. But a corridor, if approved, could be years in the making, what with the inevitable environmental impact reports, opposition, and litigation. (Discussions about the concept have already been going on for almost two decades.)

In a way, the NPS researchers are as hemmed in by the freeways as the cats they’re studying. One day Riley had taken me about ten miles west of where the corridor would go. We had hiked a fire road above Hidden Valley, near Thousand Oaks but just out of sight of the freeway. Riley was holding an H-shaped antenna overhead, fiddling with the knobs on a leather-encased VHF receiver that looked like a prop from a Wes Anderson film. He was trying to hear the blips being emitted from the radio collars on the adult female P19 and her kittens, P23 (female) and P24 (male). A faint sound came from Riley’s mint green headphones as he pointed to the cats’ approximate whereabouts a few hundred yards away in the brush, but completely invisible. Checking the coordinates on his GPS, he scribbled them in a flimsy notebook, pocketed it, and led me back down the rutted old road in silence. It seemed like such a frustrating task, recording the gradual demise of a species to which you’ve devoted a good chunk of your career but have rarely gotten to observe without trapping. Hiking back to the truck, I asked Riley how he could invest so much time and energy in studying lions, only to give them clinical names, using nothing but letters and numbers. “It’d be too much to name them after your firstborn or something,” he said. “We get attached to these animals, or just the idea of them. Then they get killed by a car on the 405.”       
                                   
Mike Kessler’s article “Grass Roots” appeared in the August 2013 issue.


This feature originally appeared in the November 2013issue of Los Angeles magazine


How Networks Become Conscious




Likewise, I argue that we live in a universe of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness arising out of complex systems.”

I can throw away mass and energy easily enough but the first movement demands the conscious will to exist.  After that the rest is conscious will to improve our perception of the physical around us.  Evolution itself is driven by choices.

It is also possible to imagine the conscious will existing in time and space making its own creation possible and the operative idea becomes “I am the beginning and the end”  if you are satisfied with that we are home free and I can describe the initial act of creation as per my paper published here on 7 Mar this year.

I also am comfortable that consciousness does exist external to the physical even if it happens that its sole expression is through the physical.  This allows a wide range of observed phenomena to be clearly understood.


A Neuroscientist’s Radical Theory of How Networks Become Conscious

11.14.13


It’s a question that’s perplexed philosophers for centuries and scientists for decades: Where does consciousness come from? We know it exists, at least in ourselves. But how it arises from chemistry and electricity in our brains is an unsolved mystery.

Neuroscientist Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, thinks he might know the answer. According to Koch, consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. All animals, from humans on down to earthworms, are conscious; even the internet could be. That’s just the way the universe works.

“The electric charge of an electron doesn’t arise out of more elemental properties. It simply has a charge,” says Koch. “Likewise, I argue that we live in a universe of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness arising out of complex systems.”

What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science. But Koch has devoted the last three decades to studying the neurological basis of consciousness. His work at the Allen Institute now puts him at the forefront of the BRAIN Initiative, the massive new effort to understand how brains work, which will begin next year.

Koch’s insights have been detailed in dozens of scientific articles and a series of books, including last year’s Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. WIRED talked to Koch about his understanding of this age-old question.

WIRED: How did you come to believe in panpsychism?

Christof Koch: I grew up Roman Catholic, and also grew up with a dog. And what bothered me was the idea that, while humans had souls and could go to heaven, dogs were not suppose to have souls. Intuitively I felt that either humans and animals alike had souls, or none did. Then I encountered Buddhism, with its emphasis on the universal nature of the conscious mind. You find this idea in philosophy, too, espoused by Plato and Spinoza and Schopenhauer, that psyche — consciousness — is everywhere. I find that to be the most satisfying explanation for the universe, for three reasons: biological, metaphysical and computational.

'What is the simplest explanation? That consciousness extends to all these creatures....'

WIRED: What do you mean?

Koch: My consciousness is an undeniable fact. One can only infer facts about the universe, such as physics, indirectly, but the one thing I’m utterly certain of is that I’m conscious. I might be confused about the state of my consciousness, but I’m not confused about having it. Then, looking at the biology, all animals have complex physiology, not just humans. And at the level of a grain of brain matter, there’s nothing exceptional about human brains.

Only experts can tell, under a microscope, whether a chunk of brain matter is mouse or monkey or human — and animals have very complicated behaviors. Even honeybees recognize individual faces, communicate the quality and location of food sources via waggle dances, and navigate complex mazes with the aid of cues stored in their short-term memory. If you blow a scent into their hive, they return to where they’ve previously encountered the odor. That’s associative memory. What is the simplest explanation for it? That consciousness extends to all these creatures, that it’s an imminent property of highly organized pieces of matter, such as brains.

WIRED: That’s pretty fuzzy. How does consciousness arise? How can you quantify it?

Koch: There’s a theory, called Integrated Information Theory, developed by Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin, that assigns to any one brain, or any complex system, a number — denoted by the Greek symbol of Ī¦ — that tells you how integrated a system is, how much more the system is than the union of its parts. Ī¦ gives you an information-theoretical measure of consciousness. Any system with integrated information different from zero has consciousness. Any integration feels like something

It's not that any physical system has consciousness. A black hole, a heap of sand, a bunch of isolated neurons in a dish, they're not integrated. They have no consciousness. But complex systems do. And how much consciousness they have depends on how many connections they have and how they’re wired up.

WIRED: Ecosystems are interconnected. Can a forest be conscious?

Koch: In the case of the brain, it’s the whole system that’s conscious, not the individual nerve cells. For any one ecosystem, it’s a question of how richly the individual components, such as the trees in a forest, are integrated within themselves as compared to causal interactions between trees.

The philosopher John Searle, in his review of Consciousness, asked, “Why isn’t America conscious?” After all, there are 300 million Americans, interacting in very complicated ways. Why doesn’t consciousness extend to all of America? It’s because integrated information theory postulates that consciousness is a local maximum. You and me, for example: We’re interacting right now, but vastly less than the cells in my brain interact with each other. While you and I are conscious as individuals, there’s no conscious Ɯbermind that unites us in a single entity. You and I are not collectively conscious. It’s the same thing with ecosystems. In each case, it’s a question of the degree and extent of causal interactions among all components making up the system.
[ I am not so sure that this is correct at all.  I think the dominance of our local self suppresses the external that is available – arclein ]
WIRED: The internet is integrated. Could it be conscious?

Koch: It’s difficult to say right now. But consider this. The internet contains about 10 billion computers, with each computer itself having a couple of billion transistors in its CPU. So the internet has at least 10^19 transistors, compared to the roughly 1000 trillion (or quadrillion) synapses in the human brain. That’s about 10,000 times more transistors than synapses. But is the internet more complex than the human brain? It depends on the degree of integration of the internet.

For instance, our brains are connected all the time. On the internet, computers are packet-switching. They’re not connected permanently, but rapidly switch from one to another. But according to my version of panpsychism, it feels like something to be the internet — and if the internet were down, it wouldn’t feel like anything anymore. And that is, in principle, not different from the way I feel when I’m in a deep, dreamless sleep.
[ true internet connectedness is not real yet but this strongly suggests a research direction for future work ]

WIRED: Internet aside, what does a human consciousness share with animal consciousness? Are certain features going to be the same?

Koch: It depends on the sensorium [the scope of our sensory perception —ed.] and the interconnections. For a mouse, this is easy to say. They have a cortex similar to ours, but not a well-developed prefrontal cortex. So it probably doesn’t have self-consciousness, or understand symbols like we do, but it sees and hears things similarly.

In every case, you have to look at the underlying neural mechanisms that give rise to the sensory apparatus, and to how they’re implemented. There’s no universal answer.

WIRED: Does a lack of self-consciousness mean an animal has no sense of itself?

Koch: Many mammals don’t pass the mirror self-recognition test, including dogs. But I suspect dogs have an olfactory form of self-recognition. You notice that dogs smell other dog’s poop a lot, but they don’t smell their own so much. So they probably have some sense of their own smell, a primitive form of self-consciousness. Now, I have no evidence to suggest that a dog sits there and reflects upon itself; I don’t think dogs have that level of complexity. But I think dogs can see, and smell, and hear sounds, and be happy and excited, just like children and some adults.

Self-consciousness is something that humans have excessively, and that other animals have much less of, though apes have it to some extent. We have a hugely developed prefrontal cortex. We can ponder.

WIRED: How can a creature be happy without self-consciousness?

Koch:: When I’m climbing a mountain or a wall, my inner voice is totally silent. Instead, I’m hyperaware of the world around me. I don’t worry too much about a fight with my wife, or about a tax return. I can’t afford to get lost in my inner self. I’ll fall. Same thing if I’m traveling at high speed on a bike. It’s not like I have no sense of self in that situation, but it’s certainly reduced. And I can be very happy.

WIRED: I’ve read that you don’t kill insects if you can avoid it.

Koch: That’s true. They’re fellow travelers on the road, bookended by eternity on both sides.

[ except eternity is meaningless.  You are on or you are not and while soul consciousness appears to be able to choose to wait to reexpress itself, it ultimately does to progress to a higher state.  Or at least that is the idea – arclein ]

WIRED: How do you square what you believe about animal consciousness with how they’re used in experiments?

Koch: There are two things to put in perspective. First, there are vastly more animals being eaten at McDonald’s every day. The number of animals used in research pales in comparison to the number used for flesh. And we need basic brain research to understand the brain’s mechanisms. My father died from Parkinson’s. One of my daughters died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. To prevent these brain diseases, we need to understand the brain — and that, I think, can be the only true justification for animal research. That in the long run, it leads to a reduction in suffering for all of us. But in the short term, you have to do it in a way that minimizes their pain and discomfort, with an awareness that these animals are conscious creatures.
[ this is the difficult ethical issue that is resolved by accepting man’s mastery on Earth and undertaking it as a test of benevolence and compassion as first Nation spiritualism attempts to teach – arclein ]

WIRED: Getting back to the theory, is your version of panpsychism truly scientific rather than metaphysical? How can it be tested?

Koch: In principle, in all sorts of ways. One implication is that you can build two systems, each with the same input and output — but one, because of its internal structure, has integrated information. One system would be conscious, and the other not. It’s not the input-output behavior that makes a system conscious, but rather the internal wiring.

The theory also says you can have simple systems that are conscious, and complex systems that are not. The cerebellum should not give rise to consciousness because of the simplicity of its connections. Theoretically you could compute that, and see if that’s the case, though we can’t do that right now. There are millions of details we still don’t know. Human brain imaging is too crude. It doesn’t get you to the cellular level.

The more relevant question, to me as a scientist, is how can I disprove the theory today. That’s more difficult. Tononi’s group has built a device to perturb the brain and assess the extent to which severely brain-injured patients — think of Terri Schiavo — are truly unconscious, or whether they do feel pain and distress but are unable to communicate to their loved ones. And it may be possible that some other theories of consciousness would fit these facts.

WIRED: I still can’t shake the feeling that consciousness arising through integrated information is — arbitrary, somehow. Like an assertion of faith.

Koch: If you think about any explanation of anything, how far back does it go? We’re confronted with this in physics. Take quantum mechanics, which is the theory that provides the best description we have of the universe at microscopic scales. Quantum mechanics allows us to design MRI and other useful machines and instruments. But why should quantum mechanics hold in our universe? It seems arbitrary! Can we imagine a universe without it, a universe where Planck’s constant has a different value? Ultimately, there’s a point beyond which there’s no further regress. We live in a universe where, for reasons we don’t understand, quantum physics simply is the reigning explanation.

With consciousness, it’s ultimately going to be like that. We live in a universe where organized bits of matter give rise to consciousness. And with that, we can ultimately derive all sorts of interesting things: the answer to when a fetus or a baby first becomes conscious, whether a brain-injured patient is conscious, pathologies of consciousness such as schizophrenia, or consciousness in animals. And most people will say, that’s a good explanation.

If I can predict the universe, and predict things I see around me, and manipulate them with my explanation, that’s what it means to explain. Same thing with consciousness. Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now.


Monday, December 16, 2013

Bitcoin could Become the Major E-Currency





This is more commentary on the world of bitcoin.  What interests me is that a bank analyst has begun to cover it.  It remains experimental but somehow or the other it is emerging as a potential secure money transfer system that is cheap and clearly outside any national control.  It has huge potential to emerge as a global reserve currency that the presence default system of the USA dollar provides. 

This also preempts Chinese attempts to enter the same market.

I think that the conditions laid down here will be easily met.  In the meantime everyone is exploring the problem of money.

Bitcoin could become the major currency for ecommerce transactions according to Bank of America
DECEMBER 05, 2013


Bitcoin has "clear potential for growth" and could become a major means of payment for online transactions and money transfers, a Bank of America analyst told CNBC on Thursday.

The digital currency could hit a market capitalization of $15 billion on its way to becoming similar to a store-of-value commodity like silver, David Woo said in a CNBC interview. 

On Thursday, the People's Bank of China outlawed the country's banks from using it, leading some to cash in on their investments. 
Bitcoin value went down 20% as a result.

David Woo, head of global rates and currencies research, valued an individual bitcoin at $1,300 at his maximum market capitalization. According to bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox.com, prices were above $1,000 Thursday afternoon.

Woo said the estimated market capitalization was an "upper limit" on his bitcoin forecast, and would only happen if the digital currency crosses three thresholds: 

1) It becomes 10 percent of business-to-consumer online transactions
2) one of the top three means of money transfers
3) a commodity similar to silver.



"There's no question that bitcoin has some inherent risk," Woo said. "But I think we also need to recognize the fact that bitcoin does have a role to play in countries where its citizens face high taxes, capital controls or even high confiscation risk. This is why China has seen massive growing demand for bitcoins."

Woo played down fears that bitcoin could fuel an underground economy of illicit drugs and untraceable transactions. Bitcoins, which are complex lines of code, contains a built-in code that produces a digital—and public—footprint, he said.

"From that point of view, I don't think bitcoin could become a big story in the criminal underworld," Woo said. 


BofA: Bitcoin can become 'major means of payment' for e-commerce
 Published: Thursday, 5 Dec 2013 | 1:12 PM ET
By: Jeff Morganteen | Producer, CNBC.com




Is Bitcoin already in http://www.cnbc.com/id/101250070  a bubble?
Thursday, 5 Dec 2013 | 11:01 AM ET

David Woo, Bank of America, discusses his Bitcoin cost-benefit analysis and the advantages of the virtual currency. Woo also comments on the China ban.

Bitcoin has "clear potential for growth" and could become a major means of payment for online transactions and money transfers, a Bank of America analyst told CNBC on Thursday.

The digital currency could hit a market capitalization of $15 billion on its way to becoming similar to a store-of-value commodity like silver, David Woo said in a CNBC interview.

Woo, head of global rates and currencies research, spoke on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" after writing BofA's first assessment of bitcoin. His note is a reflection of the attention the fledgling currency has received from investors—and government regulators. On Thursday, the People's Bank of China outlawed the country's banks from using it, leading some to cash in on their investments.

"At the end of the day, we've never seen anything like this before," Woo said of the growth of bitcoin. "You have to look at this from outside the box to get some kind of fair value notion. We think the market is very much in need of value assessment because otherwise you don't know how far this thing could go."

Woo valued an individual bitcoin at $1,300 at his maximum market capitalization. According to bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox.com, prices were above $1,000 Thursday afternoon.
Woo said the estimated market capitalization was an "upper limit" on his bitcoin forecast, and would only happen if the digital currency crosses three thresholds: It becomes 10 percent of business-to-consumer online transactions, one of the top three means of money transfers and a commodity similar to silver.

Despite Beijing's move, Woo said bitcoin has immense growth potential in countries with strict regulations such as China.

"There's no question that bitcoin has some inherent risk," Woo said. "But I think we also need to recognize the fact that bitcoin does have a role to play in countries where its citizens face high taxes, capital controls or even high confiscation risk. This is why China has seen massive growing demand for bitcoins."

Woo played down fears that bitcoin could fuel an underground economy of illicit drugs and untraceable transactions. Bitcoins, which are complex lines of code, contains a built-in code that produces a digital—and public—footprint, he said.

"From that point of view, I don't think bitcoin could become a big story in the criminal underworld," Woo said.


Sudden Progress on Prime Number Problem Has Mathematicians Buzzing




This is very much an article for those who care.  However actual progress on open questions on prime numbers is always unexpected because like all deeply researched problems in mathematics, you do not expect success going in.

Yet once Zhang broke the ice, we have had a rush to advance his line of inquiry and progress has been huge collapsing his original limit set arbitrarily high down to a number that is actually quite small.

This is all good for mathematics.

Sudden Progress on Prime Number Problem Has Mathematicians Buzzing

BY ERICA KLARREICH, QUANTA MAGAZINE
11.22.13


On May 13, an obscure mathematician — one whose talents had gone so unrecognized that he had worked at a Subway restaurant to make ends meet — garnered worldwide attention and accolades from the mathematics community for settling a long-standing open question about prime numbers, those numbers divisible by only one and themselves. Yitang Zhang, a lecturer at the University of New Hampshire, showed that even though primes get increasingly rare as you go further out along the number line, you will never stop finding pairs of primes separated by at most 70 million. His finding was the first time anyone had managed to put a finite bound on the gaps between prime numbers, representing a major leap toward proving the centuries-old twin primes conjecture, which posits that there are infinitely many pairs of primes separated by only two (such as 11 and 13).

In the months that followed, Zhang found himself caught up in a whirlwind of activity and excitement: He has lectured on his work at many of the nation’s preeminent universities, has received offers of jobs from top institutions in China and Taiwan and a visiting position at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and has been told that he will be promoted to full professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Zhang’s work raised a question: Why 70 million? There is nothing magical about that number — it served Zhang’s purposes and simplified his proof. Other mathematicians quickly realized that it should be possible to push this separation bound quite a bit lower, although not all the way down to two.

By the end of May, mathematicians had uncovered simple tweaks to Zhang’s argument that brought the bound below 60 million. A May 30 blog post by Scott Morrison of the Australian National University in Canberra ignited a firestorm of activity, as mathematicians vied to improve on this number, setting one record after another. By June 4, Terence Tao of the University of California, Los Angeles, a winner of the Fields Medal, mathematics’ highest honor, had created a “Polymath project,” an open, online collaboration to improve the bound that attracted dozens of participants.

For weeks, the project moved forward at a breathless pace. “At times, the bound was going down every thirty minutes,” Tao recalled. By July 27, the team had succeeded in reducing the proven bound on prime gaps from 70 million to 4,680.

Now, a preprint posted to arXiv.org on November 19 by James Maynard, a postdoctoral researcher working on his own at the University of Montreal, has upped the ante. Just months after Zhang announced his result, Maynard has presented an independent proof that pushes the gap down to 600. A new Polymath project is in the planning stages, to try to combine the collaboration’s techniques with Maynard’s approach to push this bound even lower.

“The community is very excited by this new progress,” Tao said.

Maynard’s approach applies not just to pairs of primes, but to triples, quadruples and larger collections of primes. He has shown that you can find bounded clusters of any chosen number of primes infinitely often as you go out along the number line. (Tao said he independently arrived at this result at about the same time as Maynard.)

Zhang’s work and, to a lesser degree, Maynard’s fits the archetype of the solitary mathematical genius, working for years in the proverbial garret until he is ready to dazzle the world with a great discovery. The Polymath project couldn’t be more different — fast and furious, massively collaborative, fueled by the instant gratification of setting a new world record.

For Zhang, working alone and nearly obsessively on a single hard problem brought a huge payoff. Would he recommend that approach to other mathematicians? “It’s hard to say,” he said. “I choose my own way, but it’s only my way.”

Tao actively discourages young mathematicians from heading down such a path, which he has called“a particularly dangerous occupational hazard” that has seldom worked well, except for established mathematicians with a secure career and a proven track record. However, he said in an interview, the solitary and collaborative approaches each have something to offer mathematics.

“It’s important to have people who are willing to work in isolation and buck the conventional wisdom,” Tao said. Polymath, by contrast, is “entirely groupthink.” Not every math problem would lend itself to such collaboration, but this one did.

Combing the Number Line
Zhang proved his result by going fishing for prime numbers using a mathematical tool called a k-tuple, which you can visualize as a comb with some of its teeth snapped off. If you position such a comb along the number line starting at any chosen spot, the remaining teeth will point to some collection of numbers.

Admissible Combs
Roughly speaking, a comb is admissible if there is no obvious reason why its teeth couldn’t point entirely to primes infinitely often as you move it along the number line. If, for example, you take a five-tooth comb and snap off the second and fourth teeth, the resulting comb will not be admissible: it points to triples such as (2, 4, 6), or (5, 7, 9), or (11, 13, 15), and no matter where you place the comb, one of the three numbers in the collection will be divisible by 3. So once you get past the collection (3, 5, 7), you’ll never see another collection consisting entirely of primes.

But a three-tooth comb whose middle tooth gets snapped off has no such obstruction, so it is admissible. It points to pairs such as (2, 4), or (3, 5), or (11, 13), and there is no divisibility reason why it shouldn’t often point exclusively to primes. In fact, the twin primes conjecture is exactly the statement that this particular comb will point to prime pairs infinitely often.

A much more audacious conjecture called the prime k-tuple conjecture — a sort of twin primes conjecture on steroids — posits that any admissible comb will point entirely to primes infinitely often. In other words, the prime numbers display every plausible pattern, not just once but again and again. Plenty of computational evidence supports the prime k-tuple conjecture, but no one knows how to prove it.

The new work of Maynard and Tao gives very solid evidence for the conjecture, Granville said. “Will someone be able to build prime k-tuples in the near future? I doubt it,” he said. “But I’ve been wrong several times already.”

Zhang focused on snapped combs whose remaining teeth satisfy a divisibility property called “admissibility.” He showed that if you go fishing for primes using any admissible comb with at least 3,500,000 teeth, there are infinitely many positions along the number line where the comb will catch at least two prime numbers. Next, he showed how to make an admissible comb with at least 3,500,000 remaining teeth by starting with a 70-million-tooth comb and snapping off all but its prime teeth. Such a comb must catch two primes again and again, he concluded, and the primes it catches are separated by at most 70 million.

The finding is “a fantastic breakthrough,” said Andrew Granville, of the University of Montreal. “It’s a historic result.”

Zhang’s work involved three separate steps, each of which offered potential room for improvement on his 70 million bound. First, Zhang invoked some very deep mathematics to figure out where prime fish are likely to be hiding. Next, he used this result to figure out how many teeth his comb would need in order to guarantee that it would catch at least two prime fish infinitely often. Finally, he calculated how large a comb he had to start with so that enough teeth would be left after it had been snapped down to admissibility.

The fact that these three steps could be separated made improving Zhang’s bound an ideal project for a crowd-sourced collaboration, Tao said. “His proof is very modular, so we could parallelize the project, and people with different skills squeezed out what improvements they could.”

The Polymath project quickly attracted people with the right skills, perhaps more efficiently than if the project had been organized from the top down. “A Polymath project brings together people who wouldn’t have thought of coming together,” Tao said.

Prime Fishing Grounds
Of Zhang’s three steps, the first to admit improvement was the last one, in which he found an admissible comb with at least 3,500,000 teeth. Zhang had shown that a comb of length 70 million would do the trick, but he hadn’t tried particularly hard to make his comb as small as possible. There was plenty of room for improvement, and researchers who were good at computational mathematics soon started a friendly race to find small admissible combs with a given number of teeth.

Andrew Sutherland, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, quickly became a sort of de facto admissible-comb czar. Sutherland, who focuses on computational number theory, had been traveling during Zhang’s announcement and hadn’t paid particular attention to it. But when he checked in at a Chicago hotel and mentioned to the clerk that he was there for a mathematics conference, the clerk replied, “Wow, 70 million, huh?”

“I was floored that he knew about it,” Sutherland said. He soon discovered that there was plenty of scope for someone with his computational skills to help improve Zhang’s bound. “I had lots of plans for the summer, but they went by the wayside.”

For the mathematicians working on this step, the ground kept shifting underfoot. Their task changed every time the mathematicians working on the other two steps managed to reduce the number of teeth the comb would require. “The rules of the game were changing on a day-to-day basis,” Sutherland said. “While I was sleeping, people in Europe would post new bounds. Sometimes, I would run downstairs at 2 a.m. with an idea to post.”

The team eventually came up with the Polymath project’s record-holder — a 632-tooth comb whose width is 4,680 — using a genetic algorithm that “mates” admissible combs with each other to produce new, potentially better combs.

Maynard’s finding, which involves a 105-tooth comb whose width is 600, renders these giant computations obsolete. But the team’s effort was not a wasted one: Finding small admissible combs plays a part in many number theory problems, Sutherland said. In particular, the team’s computational tools will likely prove useful when it comes to refining Maynard’s results about triples, quadruples and larger collections of primes, Maynard said.

The Polymath researchers focusing on step two of Zhang’s proof looked for places to position the comb along the number line that had the greatest likelihood of catching pairs of primes, to figure out the number of teeth required. Prime numbers become very sparse as you go out along the number line, so if you just plunk your comb down somewhere randomly, you probably won’t catch any primes, let alone two. Finding the richest fishing grounds for prime numbers ended up being a problem in “calculus of variations,” a generalization of calculus.

Wrong in Public
The entire Polymath project is available online for anyone who wants to see “how the sausage is made,” Tao said. The blog discussion threads offer a unique glimpse into mathematics research, which usually happens behind closed doors.

In particular, Tao said, the online posts and comments make clear how much trial and error goes into developing mathematical ideas. Polished research papers often give the impression that their authors have never made a misstep. But in truth, Tao said, “great mathematicians make stupid mistakes, and this is a process that people often hide, because it is embarrassing.”

One of the bedrock principles of the Polymath approach is that participants should throw any idea out to the crowd immediately, without stopping to ponder whether it is any good. “There’s an explicit license to be wrong in public,” Morrison said. “It goes against a lot of people’s instincts, but it makes the project much more efficient when we’re more relaxed about saying stupid things.”

This step involved perhaps some of the least novel developments in the project, and the ones that were most directly superseded by Maynard’s work. At the time, though, this advance was one of the most fruitful ones. When the team filled in this piece of the puzzle on June 5, the bound on prime gaps dropped from about 4.6 million to 389,922.

The researchers focusing on step one of Zhang’s proof, which deals with how prime numbers are distributed, had perhaps the hardest job. Mathematicians have been familiar with a collection of distribution laws for primes for more than a century. One such law says that if you divide all prime numbers by the number three, half of the primes will produce a remainder of one and half will produce a remainder of two. This kind of law is exactly what’s needed to figure out whether an admissible comb is likely to find pairs of primes or miss them, since it suggests that “[prime] fish can’t all hide behind the same rock, but are spread out everywhere,” Sutherland said. But to use such distribution laws in his proof, Zhang — and, later, the Polymath project — had to grapple with some of the deepest mathematics around: a collection of theorems from the 1970s by Pierre Deligne, now an emeritus professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, concerning when certain error terms are likely to cancel each other out in gigantic sums. Morrison described Deligne’s work as “a big and terrifying piece of 20th-century mathematics.”

“We were very fortunate that several of the participants were well-versed in the difficult machinery that Deligne developed,” Tao said. “I myself did not know much about this area until this project.”

The project didn’t just figure out how to refine this part of the proof to improve the bound. It also came up with an alternative approach that eliminates the need for Deligne’s theorems entirely, although at some cost to the bound: Without Deligne’s theorems, the best bound the project has come up with is 14,950.

This simplification of the proof is, if anything, more exciting to mathematicians than the final number the project came up with, since mathematicians care not only about whether a proof is correct but also about how much new insight it gives them.

“What we’re in the market for are ideas,” said Granville.

As the Polymath project progressed, Zhang himself was conspicuously, though perhaps not surprisingly, absent. He has not followed the project closely, he said. “I didn’t contact them at all. I prefer to keep quiet and alone. It gives me the opportunity to concentrate.”

Also absent, though less conspicuously, was Maynard. As the Polymath participants worked feverishly to improve the bound between prime pairs, Maynard was working on his own to develop a different approach — one foreshadowed by a forgotten paper that was written, and then retracted, ten years ago.

A Secret Weapon
Zhang’s work was grounded in a 2005 paper known as GPY, after its authors, Daniel Goldston of San Jose State University, JĆ”nos Pintz of the AlfrĆ©d RĆ©nyi Institute of Mathematics in Budapest, and Cem Yıldırım of BoğaziƧi University in Istanbul. The GPY paper developed a scoring system to gauge how close a given number is to being prime. Even numbers get a very low score, odd numbers divisible by 3 are only slightly higher, and so on. Such scoring formulas, called sieves, can also be used to score the collection of numbers an admissible comb points to, and they are a crucial tool when it comes to figuring out where to place the comb on the number line so that it has a good chance of catching prime fish. Constructing an effective sieve is something of an art: The formula must provide good estimates of different numbers’ prime potential, but it must also be simple enough to analyze.

Two years before GPY was published, two of its authors, Goldston and Yıldırım, had circulated a paper describing what they asserted was a powerful scoring method. Within months, however, mathematicians discovered a flaw in that paper. Once Goldston, Yıldırım and Pintz adjusted the formula to repair this flaw, most mathematicians turned their focus to this adjusted scoring system, the GPY version, and didn’t consider whether there might be even better ways to tweak the original, flawed formula.

“Those of us looking at GPY thought we had the bases covered, and it didn’t cross our mind to go back and redo the earlier analysis,” said Granville, who is Maynard’s postdoctoral adviser.

About a year ago, however, Maynard decided to go back and take a second look at the earlier paper. A newly minted Ph.D. who had studied sieving theory, he spotted a new way to adjust the paper’s scoring system. GPY’s approach to scoring an admissible comb had been to multiply together all the numbers the comb pointed to and then score the product in one fell swoop. Maynard figured out a way to score each number separately, thereby deriving much more nuanced information from the scoring system.

Maynard’s sieving method “turns out to be surprisingly easy,” Granville said. “It’s the sort of thing where people like me slap their foreheads and say, ‘We could have done this seven years ago if we hadn’t been so sure we couldn’t do it!’”

With this refined scoring system, Maynard was able to bring the prime gap down to 600 and also prove a corresponding result about bounded gaps between larger collections of primes.

The fact that Zhang and Maynard managed, within months of each other, to prove that prime gaps are bounded is “a complete coincidence,” Maynard said. “I found Zhang’s result very exciting when I heard about it.”

Tao has been similarly philosophical about Maynard’s scoop of the Polymath project’s headline number.  “You expect the record to be beaten — that’s progress,” he said.

It is likely, Tao and Maynard said, that Maynard’s sieve can be combined with the deep technical work by Zhang and the Polymath project about the distribution of primes to bring the prime gap even lower.

The Polymath project has focused lately on writing up its findings in a paper, already over 150 pages, which it has been invited to submit to the journal Algebra & Number Theory. However, Tao predicted that the project’s participants will not be able to resist immediately sinking their teeth into Maynard’s new preprint. “It’s like red meat,” he said.

This time, Maynard plans to join in. “I’m looking forward to trying to get the bound as small as possible,” he said.

It remains to be seen how much more can be wrung out of Zhang’s and Maynard’s methods. Prior to Maynard’s work, the best-case scenario seemed to be that the bound on prime gaps could be pushed down to 16, the theoretical limit of the GPY approach. Maynard’s refinements push this theoretical limit down to 12. Conceivably, Maynard said, someone with a clever sieve idea could push this limit as low as 6. But it’s unlikely, he said, that anyone could use these ideas to get all the way down to a prime gap of 2 to prove the twin primes conjecture.

“I feel that we still need some very large conceptual breakthrough to handle the twin primes case,” Maynard said.

Tao, Maynard and the Polymath participants may eventually get an influx of new ideas from Zhang himself. It has taken the jet-setting mathematician a while to master the art of thinking about mathematics on airplanes, but he has now started working on a new problem, about which he declined to say more than that it is “important.” While he isn’t currently working on the twin primes problem, he said, he has a “secret weapon” in reserve — a technique to reduce the bound that he developed before his result went public. He omitted this technique from his paper because it is so technical and difficult, he said, adding that he may publish it next year.

“It’s my own original idea,” he said. “It should be a completely new thing.”

Original story reprinted with permission from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent division ofSimonsFoundation.org whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.