I'm leaning against the wall of a seedy tavern in Williams Lake, British Columbia—a buckaroo town if ever there was one—waiting for two brothers to take me fishing, when a young cowboy ambles up. We're dressed alike: cowboy hat, boots, Western shirt, Wrangler jeans, and a big, shiny belt buckle. "You're from National Geographic, ain't ya?" he says.

"Why are you asking?" I respond with surprise.

"Because you're wearing an out-of-town hat."

Slightly embarrassed, I survey the bar's clientele and realize he's right. I'm wearing a beat-up, black Stetson I'd bought years ago in Pendleton, Oregon. It's the only one of its kind in the room.

The young man told me that when new ranch hands show up at work, locals check out their hat, boots, chaps, rope, saddle, bridle and bit, and can tell where they're from. Their gear is a giveaway; it's made to function in the terrain where they work.

"If it's not functionable, it's not worth wearing," says Colter Schlosser, a cowboy from British Columbia. But function and fashion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Look at the photo of Schlosser, and you'll see what I mean. This month, Robert Draper and Robb Kendrick decode the elegant appearance of a Canadian buckaroo and the no-frills look of his Texas counterpart. Cowboys and their gear are hardly stuck in the past. Everything evolves in response to the demands of economics and the push of technology. Computer-based ear-tagging aside, some things never change—like the telltale shape of a hat.

Just ask a buckaroo from Williams Lake.

Photograph by Robb Kendrick

Above: The image sent by a reader who was curious to know what this strange-looking lizard was. Photo by Rebecca Reeder-Hunt

One of the reasons I started this blog was  to share some of the experiences I have dealing with National Geographic-funded scientists in my daily work, but also to let you have some access to them as well. I'm glad that some of you are taking advantage of that.

Today we have a photo taken by Rebecca Reeder-Hunt in the Hawaiian Islands. Here is her query: 

"In June 2006 I was wandering around the island of Lanai early one morning.  A rustling in the bushes caught my attention in the total silence of early a.m., and I shot a couple of pictures of two what-I-called geckos fighting.  However, when I cropped and enlarged the photos on my computer, I realized that the dark creature looked different than any lizard or gecko I'd seen before: the light eyes, the extremely long middle toes, the ridge on its back, and even the visible rib cage...  I have searched the web for hours trying to fins anything that looked like this guy, but to no avail...."

Well, Rebecca, it did not take long to get an answer. First of all, I asked Dr. Tim Watkins, a program officer and herpetologist at National Geographic's Committee for Research and Exploration what your creature was. He replied that there are no native lizards on the Hawaiian Islands, so we know that it is an introduced lizard. To find out what kind, he referred me to Dr. Jonathan Losos at Harvard Univerisity, who is an expert in island lizards. His reply:

It's Anolis carolinensis, an introduced species to Hawaii native to the southeastern United States.

Turns out this is the kind of "chameleon," properly called an anole, is available in many pet stores and is  hard not to step on in Florida and other southeastern states. I remember having these as pets when I was a kid. I thought it looked familiar! Thanks for the question and thanks to Dr. Watkins and Dr. Losos for the identification.

Canon has posted a firmware update for its 10 Megapixel CMOS 40D digital SLR. A link with complete install instructions and a list of what's fixed in version 1.0.5 after the jump. 

I am often asked “how do you pick the photos that get published?” My answer is: “never easily.”

A photographer on a typical assignment for the Geographic may shoot around 20,000 images. From these, we may publish around a dozen. Skilled Photo Editors work closely with each photographer to sift through this eye-numbing variety of images shot for each story.

When selecting photographs, the image’s technical quality and the composition are major factors, but equally important is how well each image works together to tell a coherent story. The most successful photgraphs find a balance between art and journalism, with each image uniquely weighted one way or another, but never entirely devoid of either.

Above: Masiakasaurus was voted one of the most bizarre dinos by National Geographic editors for its weird forward-projecting teeth. This is an image of the computer model as it was taking shape. Art by Pixeldust Studios.

Which is your favorite bizarre dinosaur? For me, it's National Geographic magazine's December issue covergirl, Dracorex hogwartsia. What a great name! And what a mug!

Believe me. It was no simple task selecting which dinosaurs would make the cut as the most bizarre of the bizarre. Here's the group we ended up using in the article:

Deinocheirus, Amargasaurus, Carnotaurus, Dracorex, Spinosaurus, Masiakasaurus, Styracosaurus, Nigersaurus, Epidendrosaurus, Tuojiangosaurus, Parasaurolophus

One of these bizarre stars was also the subject of a press conference at National Geographic Society headquarters today. Explorer-in-Residence Paul Sereno announced new information about Nigersaurus, a dinosaur discovered in Niger that he has been studying for some years.

Are the creatures we picked really the most bizarre? I’m sure some of you may have a different opinion. Let's hear it. If you want to send in a picture, send it to stonesbonesnthings@gmail.com and I'll post it.

Today the World Net Daily reported that Dr. Eilat Mazar claims to have discovered Nehemiah's tower. This blog has addressed the question of how a non-expert might evaluate such claims of biblical discoveries. If one reads the news report carefully, it is not clear whether Dr. Mazar is making the inferential leap between finding Persian era pottery at the site and the site being Nehemiah's tower or if it is the media that is presenting it this way. Whatever the case (and I will try to find out) this is a good example of a sensational find that it is hard for a non-expert to evaluate. So, let's put it to the test.

In an earlier blog, Eric Cline provided some guidance. One of his comments was:

"...as a general rule of thumb, I would also say that it would be prudent to be wary of anyone with a web site or multiple publications who claims to have been able to “solve” more than one biblical mystery or locate more than one of the missing biblical objects or places."

Well, this makes number two for Dr. Mazar. Her first was King David's Palace.

And Phillip Davies, who recently commented on the same blog, made the following useful observation:

"I would like to add to Eric Cline's comment the observation that a number of 'sensational' biblical discoveries are claimed by professional archaeologists who are funded by groups interested not in objective discovery but vindication of the Bible—such as recent claims about 'David's palace' in Jerusalem. However, in such cases proper academic discussion usually follows and the initial claims are challenged and even modified."

Dr. Mazar's announcement may fall into this category since she is a professional archaeologist funded by the Shalem Center .

So, what are we to think? Is Dr. Mazar just an incredibly lucky archaeologist? How much of what we are hearing is the media and how much is Dr. Mazar? Is she motivated to make what appear to be sensational announcements because of her funding affiliation?

If we take the advice of Dr. Cline and Dr. Davies, a nonexpert would have to be cautious regarding the idea that Nehemiah's Tower has been found. What do you think?

When I'm getting ready to walk out the door on a photo shoot, I make sure all the batteries in my cameras and flashes are new and the best quality. The choice is easy, I load lithium batteries, they are lighter in weight, last a lot longer and have an amazing shelf life. Unfortunately they come at a very high price, which is also why I tend to shy away from lithium batteries when it comes to purchasing for my household electronics.

When you walk into the store and are confronted with a plethora of blister packed brands, where do you start? Which battery will suit your needs and give the best value for your money?

Above: In 1978, National Geographic magazine covered a major study of the Shroud of Turin involving, among many others, Air Force scientists John Jackson (kneeling) and Eric Jumper (tying), who contended that the Shroud image was produced by a projection of some sort, rather than paint or physical contact with a body. Photo by Victor Boswell.

I’m glad I’m not an archaeologist. If I were, I’d probably have gone insane by now from all of the craziness that pervades the field. Searches for Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Convenant, Lost Tribes of Israel, Jesus’s Tomb…you name it. It must drive them nuts. So you can imagine my despair when the first person to actually send me an image on this blog, along with a question, sent me a picture of the Shroud of Turin. My heart stopped. But I braced myself and read the message from LeShawn Pulowski. I was relieved to find that the message contained a coherent and logical question. Here’s what it said:

“I am not a scientist but I have eyes. I wish they could explain the lack of distance between the front of the image and the back. I placed a blanket on my head there was an 8-inch gap of where my face would have touched the front and where my head would have touched the back. Looking at the PHOTOs there is less than 2 inches…. I would just like someone to explain the lack of distance between the face and the back.”

You can see in the photo above what LeShawn is talking about. A negative image of the Shroud is being held by the unidentified fellow at left. The bright blob (said to be blood) at the top of Jesus’s head in the image, and the semicircle that ascends above it, is the beginning of the reverse side of the shroud—and the back of Jesus’s head. I agree with LeShawn. There’s no space there for the top of Jesus’s head. And I can’t figure out how an emanation, as proposed by some scientists who studied the Shroud in 1978, could make that problem go away.

[Note from Editor, Nov. 25. See blog entry below from CWendt, Nov. 25 for comment on the above.]

But the reason I’m writing today isn’t to get the answer to that question. I've figured out that’s a no-win game. Eric Cline, a biblical archaeologist and author of From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible (published by National Geographic), points out why in an article in the Sept. 30 Boston Globe. In that article, Cline says that many religious mysteries, such as the location of the Garden of Eden or the final resting place of Noah’s Ark, will never be solved. Yet the environment created by “faux” archaeologists, largely with the help of media, makes the public think answers may yet be found. This situation exists, Cline asserts, because real scientists in his field are not doing enough to take on the pseudo-scientists (self-proclaimed experts who have no credentials and do not use the scientific method). So things that are a matter of faith become confused with things that are matters of science.

Accompanying Cline’s article is a sidebar which points to some recent—and real—discoveries about the biblical world that are clear and informative. There are other examples in his book, mentioned above, which is well worth the read for anyone interested in sorting out the science from the hype.

I'd like to put a question to Eric Cline and invite him to respond. Last year (2006) three of the top news stories on our web site had a biblical connection. Two concerned the Judas Gospel and one concerned the discovery of Noah's Ark. Clearly biblical topics are popular with NG readers. How can our readers  distinguish between the merits of these discoveries, or any other biblical finds they might hear about?

Canon Europe has a post updating the auto focus tracking issue on the Canon EOS-1D Mark III digital SLR that explains how they plan to fix the problem. Canon Europe offers an apology and a range of serial numbers for cameras affected by the AF tracking challenge.