Thank you, Walter, for providing this essay on your tools and techniques for studying the nests of ants in the sandy soil where you worked. I like how you share the historical and structural details of your shovel, the way you did your excavations, and what it felt like to do this work. When I look at the photo that shows you standing in a deep (ca. 15 feet?) hole, though, I think this looks mighty risky... what happens if a wall collapses and you are buried to your waist, chest, neck, or more?
Please know that after reading this essay, I admire even more than before your pioneering studies of the soil nests of ants. Thank you, too, for writing you books, which make your findings easy to find!
Tom, glad you liked the essay, and thanks for the compliments. You are not the first to point out that digging such deep holes might be risky. I think I may be a bit dim, because I never gave it serious thought. Who knew? For the first ten or more years of digging, I never had cave-ins, but more recently, I have. The difference may have been that rainfall has decreased and dry spells have increased, so the binding force of soil water may have been less. Even in a six-foot hole, the caved-in sand never got higher than my knees, but was still surprisingly immobilizing. I once had to leave a shoe behind. Mostly, I found it annoying because I had to toss out another couple of tons of sand. And having done that, it was even more annoying to find that the nest was only 5 to 10 inches deeper, represented by only one or two chambers. However, even as dim as I am, I would think twice nowadays about digging 15-foot holes (not that I could do it anymore).
A few years ago I found myself chatting with our environmental health and safety office and somehow stupidly dropped my guard down and mentioned that we dig holes on campus (and actually had been doing so for a few years, Trachymyrmex and Atta are common). Whoops. Immediately I was told we were noncompliant and had to take a training module on digging holes and trenches and use the proper braces, before we did it again. I was simultaneously annoyed (just who did these people think they were?) yet enthusiastic because I wanted that 'Certificate of Completion' to hang on my office wall. It seemed to be a more valuable compliance training than say, on how to use a state credit card. Unfortunately, after that person sent me a PDF of the training, they left the university before setting up the online training module for excavation safety. So, I'm still noncompliant and don't have certificate on digging holes.
One of our MS students apparently was just offered a PhD position because she knew how to handle a shovel. The lab studies ground-nesting bees and apparently few students nowadays know how to handle a shovel. Of all the skills she learned (stats, experimental design, DNA extraction, bioinformatics), skill with the shovel was the most important of all.
Makes sense to me! A shovel is pretty basic to studying ground-nesting bees. All that other stuff is just arm-waving and pretty make-up (smile, wink...). Excalibur was essential to my project on miner bees (https://waltertschinkel.substack.com/p/deep-in-the-mines-of-bees). If we came up with a fancy name for a shovel, it might get more respect. I once heard a definition of ecology: the only science that calls a spade a geotome. That would work.
Okay, I thought being trampled by king crabs in freezing water was difficult, but shoveling tons of sand to count ants is another level of dedication. I yield.
The angle of the blade to the handle seems unusually flexed, suggesting it was a specialized tool. If you agree, what do you suppose the original purpose of the shovel was?
A good question, but I don't have an answer. I always assumed it was a "shovel". I know it's not a coal shovel or a snow shovel, nor is it a spade, because these have tines, nor is it a trenching tool (army talk). Just a "shovel" I guess, a tool for digging in soil. The very "flexed" structure may just be because it wasn't mass produced from sheet steel, as this would impose limits on the angles (I guess). Excalibur was clearly made from two pieces, unlike 20th century mass-produced shovels.
It looks like if you held up a shovel-full at hip level, the contents would fall off the back. I looked at antique farm shovels on the web and didn't see any like it.
Your second photo - a side view - makes it look like the blade and the lower end of the collar are almost at a right angle. Well, nuff said - you certainly have had a perfect tool for your needs!
Wow! another of your amazing accomplishments, described in elegant detail with the aid of your trusty Excaliber, truly worthy of the name. When I think of the nest casts I saw at your FSU lab, they add to you tales of digging them out. The tons of soil you moved is astounding, and so well described. I agree that your very special shovel should be displayed, with explanatory details, along side your nest casts. Thanks for another delightful, informative essay!
You should include a photo of one of your ant nest casts, to give readers a sense of the scale and wonder of what you were excavating. Personally, the whole thing makes me nervous. My great-great-grandfather, an Irish immigrant, died at age 38 in a marl pit collapse.
Thank you, Walter, for providing this essay on your tools and techniques for studying the nests of ants in the sandy soil where you worked. I like how you share the historical and structural details of your shovel, the way you did your excavations, and what it felt like to do this work. When I look at the photo that shows you standing in a deep (ca. 15 feet?) hole, though, I think this looks mighty risky... what happens if a wall collapses and you are buried to your waist, chest, neck, or more?
Please know that after reading this essay, I admire even more than before your pioneering studies of the soil nests of ants. Thank you, too, for writing you books, which make your findings easy to find!
Tom, glad you liked the essay, and thanks for the compliments. You are not the first to point out that digging such deep holes might be risky. I think I may be a bit dim, because I never gave it serious thought. Who knew? For the first ten or more years of digging, I never had cave-ins, but more recently, I have. The difference may have been that rainfall has decreased and dry spells have increased, so the binding force of soil water may have been less. Even in a six-foot hole, the caved-in sand never got higher than my knees, but was still surprisingly immobilizing. I once had to leave a shoe behind. Mostly, I found it annoying because I had to toss out another couple of tons of sand. And having done that, it was even more annoying to find that the nest was only 5 to 10 inches deeper, represented by only one or two chambers. However, even as dim as I am, I would think twice nowadays about digging 15-foot holes (not that I could do it anymore).
A few years ago I found myself chatting with our environmental health and safety office and somehow stupidly dropped my guard down and mentioned that we dig holes on campus (and actually had been doing so for a few years, Trachymyrmex and Atta are common). Whoops. Immediately I was told we were noncompliant and had to take a training module on digging holes and trenches and use the proper braces, before we did it again. I was simultaneously annoyed (just who did these people think they were?) yet enthusiastic because I wanted that 'Certificate of Completion' to hang on my office wall. It seemed to be a more valuable compliance training than say, on how to use a state credit card. Unfortunately, after that person sent me a PDF of the training, they left the university before setting up the online training module for excavation safety. So, I'm still noncompliant and don't have certificate on digging holes.
Still an outlaw...
We just have to ask the shovel where it would like to end up. The answer might be surprising.
Good suggestion. I will ask Excalibur and report back.
"The Worlds Greatest Shoveler." You and Excalibur are a finely honed pair.
I though a shoveler was a duck. So we are a pair of ducks??
Maybe a paradox?
Uncle
It belongs in a museum, in a well-lit glass display so that its features that you described so well, can be observed and appreciated.
I could be displayed next to Excalibur, right?
That might be an important context, so yes.
One of our MS students apparently was just offered a PhD position because she knew how to handle a shovel. The lab studies ground-nesting bees and apparently few students nowadays know how to handle a shovel. Of all the skills she learned (stats, experimental design, DNA extraction, bioinformatics), skill with the shovel was the most important of all.
Makes sense to me! A shovel is pretty basic to studying ground-nesting bees. All that other stuff is just arm-waving and pretty make-up (smile, wink...). Excalibur was essential to my project on miner bees (https://waltertschinkel.substack.com/p/deep-in-the-mines-of-bees). If we came up with a fancy name for a shovel, it might get more respect. I once heard a definition of ecology: the only science that calls a spade a geotome. That would work.
Okay, I thought being trampled by king crabs in freezing water was difficult, but shoveling tons of sand to count ants is another level of dedication. I yield.
I think you've got it backwards. You win.
The angle of the blade to the handle seems unusually flexed, suggesting it was a specialized tool. If you agree, what do you suppose the original purpose of the shovel was?
A good question, but I don't have an answer. I always assumed it was a "shovel". I know it's not a coal shovel or a snow shovel, nor is it a spade, because these have tines, nor is it a trenching tool (army talk). Just a "shovel" I guess, a tool for digging in soil. The very "flexed" structure may just be because it wasn't mass produced from sheet steel, as this would impose limits on the angles (I guess). Excalibur was clearly made from two pieces, unlike 20th century mass-produced shovels.
It looks like if you held up a shovel-full at hip level, the contents would fall off the back. I looked at antique farm shovels on the web and didn't see any like it.
What do you think of the left one in this image: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antique+shovels+round+nose&t=newext&atb=v305-1&iar=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F2e%2F16%2Fbc%2F2e16bc7cbd4eebc807272156079c1ceb.jpg ? Sort of similar. I don't think I would normally hold a shovelful at hip level with the shaft horizontal, so sliding off was never something I experienced.
Your second photo - a side view - makes it look like the blade and the lower end of the collar are almost at a right angle. Well, nuff said - you certainly have had a perfect tool for your needs!
Wow! another of your amazing accomplishments, described in elegant detail with the aid of your trusty Excaliber, truly worthy of the name. When I think of the nest casts I saw at your FSU lab, they add to you tales of digging them out. The tons of soil you moved is astounding, and so well described. I agree that your very special shovel should be displayed, with explanatory details, along side your nest casts. Thanks for another delightful, informative essay!
You should include a photo of one of your ant nest casts, to give readers a sense of the scale and wonder of what you were excavating. Personally, the whole thing makes me nervous. My great-great-grandfather, an Irish immigrant, died at age 38 in a marl pit collapse.
Dick, good suggestion. I have published some pictures on Substack, for example, https://waltertschinkel.substack.com/p/my-colored-sand-box. And a vast number of photos are available in my publications on my webpage: https://www.bio.fsu.edu/faculty.php?faculty-id=tschinkel#nests.
Sorry about your great-great-great grandfather. I bet that marl pit was way deeper than my sand pits. However, see my response to Tom Seeley above.
Oh, and I should add, there are lots of "purty pitchers" in my book, Ant Architecture (Princeton Univ. Press, 2021): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_Architecture:_The_Wonder,_Beauty,_and_Science_of_Underground_Nests