坐定如一隻寒蟬
遙望山的攤展
草木裡氤氳微語
如束刺入我的腹中
啞啞吐出短短的炎夏

蜷曲著的時間，如蛹
掛垂並且沉默

而厚重的陰鬱即便是枝了
袒露滿樹青疤並且向群鳥大聲么喝

依然是一隻寒蟬，落了單
以腹棲枝，陣痛偶爾劇烈
臨盆時，下了場紅雨
有鵲竊喜低鳴著

晚夏時只見
滿巢的卵朝我擲來
有鵲低鳴


















2004/06
*exaptation:
( http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/geneticsandsociety/hg13f024.html)
The second of Gould’s noteworthy hypotheses was put forward in a paper written jointly with his Harvard colleague Richard Lewontin. The ornate title contained the message: “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program”. Gould and Lewontin claimed that many features of living forms existed, not because they aided survival or reproduction, but because of the sheer profligacy of nature. Unlike what a strict Darwinian interpretation would demand, the reason for their being was not in any way related to the use to which they were put.
The analogy was to the decorations found in spandrels, empty spaces between the perimeter of a dome and a pair of adjacent arches. The spandrels were by-products of erecting a dome that was supported by arches, not elements of design in their own right. The point, said Gould and Lewontin, is that the spandrels are made use of because they happen to be there; they are not designed with an architectural requirement in mind.
This attack on so-called pan-adaptationism or ‘Darwinian fundamentalism’ was in line with Gould’s constant flailing at what he thought was narrow-minded evolutionary orthodoxy. The spandrel argument was later used in a modified form by Gould and Vrba. The special word this time was ‘exaptation’, meaning a structure whose evolution served a function quite unrelated to what it was subsequently used for. (To take Dr Pangloss’s own outrageous example, the human
nose was ideally suited to hold up spectacles, but obviously it could not have evolved for that purpose.)
Pic/ Fernando de Szyszlo