Computer games are gaining more and more popularity nowadays. Some people claim that teenagers get a lot of benefits playing them. But other people argue that young people should spend their free time going in for sport. Let`s look upon this problem objectively and try to understand it.
To begin with, computer games develop memory, because when you play it you try to remember all details. Moreover, it develops logical thinking, language and basic computer skills. Apart from that, you can make virtual friends. So it is another way of communication. And if you like each other, you can meet in the future and become close friends. In addition, playing computer games is a good way of entertainment.
At the same time, computer games have a harmful effect on health. First of all, you can spoil your eye sight. Besides, you sit in the same place and don’t move so you can gain weight. Another point to be made is that a lot of games have aggressive moments and this makes teenagers cruel and causes violent behavior. Furthermore, young people spend too much time on this and it can ruin relationships with people.
To sum up, I would like to stress that the problem has as many strong points as weak points. As for me, I prefer to spend my free time with my parents and friends. Besides, I enjoy going in for sports more than playing computer games.
A Tale of Two Tortoises
In a ZooKeys article published this year, Academy curator emeritus Alan Leviton and colleagues, collaborating with Dr. Robert Murphy of the Royal Ontario Museum, solved the identity crisis of the desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii -- a saga almost as old as the Academy itself. First, by sifting through the original species description in The Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences (as the Academy used to be called), they determined that the species was first described in 1861, not 1863 as had long been thought. Next, they deduced that one of the three original specimens used to describe the species was likely lost during the most devastating event in the Academy's history -- the 1906 earthquake and fire. (A second specimen is currently housed at the Smithsonian, while the whereabouts of the third remain unknown.) Third, they reviewed the tumultuous taxonomic history of the species, which has changed its genus name five times in the past 150 years. Finally, using DNA analysis, they concluded that G. agassizii is not one, but at least two distinct species -- one that lives to the northwest of the Colorado River in California and Nevada (G. agassizii), and one that lives to the southeast of the river in Arizona and Mexico (a new species, which they named Gopherus morafkai).
This newfound clarity has important implications for conservation, because the geographic range of G. agassizii is now only 30% of its former range. Having significantly declined in numbers over the past three decades, it may warrant a higher level of protection than its current "threatened" status. And now that G. morafkai has a distinct name and its own identity, its conservation status can be evaluated as well.