

1) Water: Two users, Aloysius Horn and an anonymous user, left comments on our previous blog post indicating the logo looked like water/waves to them.
2) Mountains: Via a comment left on a our blog, John told us that our new logo reminded him of mountains.
3) Butterfly Wings: Sanlin replied, via Twitter, that our logo looked like the flapping wings of a butterfly.
4) Humpback Whale Tail: Peter Desmet commented via our previous blog post that our logo is "obviously the tail of a humpback whale disappearing behind the waves."
5) Flower: An anonymous user on our blog suggested that the logo looks like the petals of a flower.
6) Our final suggestion involved our former logo, which contained a double-helix and a butterfly. Matt Person (a BHL staff member at MBL-WHOI) told us via Twitter that, in the new logo, he envisioned "a great double helix about to emerge from the center of the logo with a butterfly darting about the top of it."
1) Giant Oar-Fish, also known as the King of Herrings. This critter is the world's longest bony fish, reaching up to 17 meters and weighing upwards of 300 kg! Living 300-1000 meters below the ocean's surface, it is a rarely-seen deep sea wonder. Nevertheless, many scientists believe that this colossal beast may be responsible for many of the strange sea monster sightings reported throughout the years.
2) Blue Whale. So, everyone's familiar with the Blue Whale - the largest animal on the face of the planet, and, for that matter, the largest animal known to have ever existed. (Take that, Dinosaurs!). At 30 meters long and 180 metrics tons, this creature is truly a behemoth. However, despite its size, the Blue Whale's diet consists completely of small crustaceans called krill.
3) Narwhal. Although not a mammoth in proportions, this sea critter nevertheless has many links to mythological associations. For obvious reasons, it is known as the "sea unicorn," and Medieval Europeans believed that these "unicorn" horns possessed magical powers, such as the ability to cure poison and melancholia. The Inuit people believe the Narwhal tusk came about when "a women with a harpoon rope tied around her waist was dragged into the ocean after the harpoon had struck a large narwhal. She was transformed into a Narwhal herself, and her hair, which she was wearing in a twisted knot, became the characteristic spiral Narwhal tusk."“How long is a piece of string?” isn’t a familiar idiom to those living in the Midwest of the continental United States. Well, it wasn’t to at least one person living in the Midwest. It’s the answer you’ll get in the BHL AU office to questions like “How long does it take to build a website?” or any other question to which there isn’t a definitive answer for the general case, like “How big is a page image in BHL?”
Of course another way of answering would be “It depends”. To take two completely random examples, this page from Prodromus of the zoology of Victoria is 1828 pixels wide by 2879 pixels high. This page from Australian Lepidoptera and their transformations is 3496 pixels wide by 4785 pixels high.
Now, I’m sure you’ve gotten familiar with BHL’s API while you’ve been putting together your entry for the Life and Literature code challenge. I know you’re working hard on your entry, ‘cause it’s what all the other cool kids are doing.
You don’t need me to tell you that when you use the API to get an item’s metadata with the page flag set to true, you get a url for a thumbnail image and an url for the full size of each page. Which is fantastic, if you want an image that will fit into a 200px by 300px box, or an IOUS (image of unusual size). What if you want an images that will fit into a 600px by 800px box? Do you get the thumbnail and scale it up? Yes, but only if you’re doing it in a bad police procedural that creates image information from nowhere. In the real world, you need to get the full size image and downsize it. Until now.
Now you can get your Astacoides serratus at a range of sizes to suit your budget. Simply add the width and height of your bounding box at the end of the thumbnail image url, and Bob's your uncle. So, if you want an image to fit into a 600px by 800px box, instead of using the thumbnail url as is (http://bhl.ala.org.au/pagethumb/5221137), use http://bhl.ala.org.au/pagethumb/5221137,600,800 and you’ll get back an image that’s exactly 914px by 1440px.
Okay, I know that a 914px by 1440px image doesn’t fit into a 600px by 800px box. You’re still going to have to scale the image down to 508px by 800px to fit, but at least you only have to download a third of the information compared to the full size image (148kB vs 436kB). So why aren't we providing an image of A. serratus at 508px by 800px?
Rather than have the server scale the full size image for each request, images are available at fixed fractions of the original dimensions. The fractions available are a half, a quarter, an eighth and a 16th. Those are fractions of the width and height, so each step down has only a quarter as many pixels as the one before.
The server will give you the smallest image available that won’t need to be scaled up to fit within your bounds. So, using our old mate A. serratus as the example, if you specified a bounding box of 915px x 1441px, you'd get the full size image at 1828px x 2879px. If you don’t provide a width and height, the assumed size of the bounding box is 200px by 300px.
I’ve got to be honest, while all the links point to the Australian node, the heavy lifting for this was done by the good folks at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/. You can replace bhl.ala.org.au with www.biodiversitylibrary.org and get exactly the same results.
Have fun playing with the images, and I look forward to seeing how you put it to good use.
By this point, if you've been following our "Books of the Week" regularly, you know that 18th, 19th, and 20th century taxonomic works weren't just about the nomenclature they presented, but also the stunning illustrations accompanying these species descriptions. Those books with the most colorful, the most visually dynamic, images are those that we tend to gravitate towards for our posts. So, when we came across a book that has been described as "bridging the gap between science and art," we simply had to feature it. That book, perhaps one of the most visually-compelling that we've yet featured, is Kunstformen der Natur (1904), by Ernst Haeckel.
Over the course of his career, Haeckel, a German biologist, described and named thousands of new species, popularized the work of Charles Darwin in Germany, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and produced dozens of glorious illustrations. In his lifetime alone, over 1000 prints were made of Haeckel's sketches, 100 of which are found within Kunstformen der Natur. These 100 prints were translated from sketch to lithograph by artist Adolf Giltsch.
What was to us perhaps the most impressive aspect of the images in Kunstformen der Natur was not simply the radiant colors and depth of realism within the creatures depicted, but the way in which each plate was composed, symmetrically balancing each inch of space and arranging each organism artistically beside or around the others so as to not only catch the viewer's eye, but dynamically draw him in and keep him constantly engaged. Never before or since has plankton been portrayed with such charm and beauty.
