who is the voice of scar on lion king

Scar is a fictional character who appears in Walt Disney Pictures' 32nd animated feature film The Lion King (1994). The character is voiced by English actor Jeremy Irons, while his singing voice is provided by both Irons and American actor Jim Cummings, the latter of whom was hired to replace Irons when the former damaged his singing voice. Subsequently, Scar makes minor appearances in the film's sequel The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998) and The Lion King 1½ (2004), in both of which he is voiced entirely by Cummings, as well as appearing in the Broadway musical adaptation of the film, in which the role of Scar was originated by American actor John Vickery.

Scar (Disney)

Scar was created in 1989 and was created by screenwriters Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts and Linda Woolverton, and animated by Andreas Deja. The Pride Lands' reclusive heir presumptive, Scar is introduced in the first film as the uncle of Simba and younger brother of Mufasa. Originally first-in-line to Mufasa's throne until he is suddenly replaced by nephew Simba, Scar decides to lead an army of hyenas in his plot to take the throne by killing Mufasa and exiling Simba, ultimately blaming his brother's death on his nephew. Loosely based on King Claudius, the villain of William Shakespeare's play Hamlet, Scar's villainy was additionally inspired by German politician Adolf Hitler. As the character's supervising animator, Deja based Scar's appearance on that of Irons himself, as well as the actor's Academy Award-winning performance as Claus von Bülow in the film Reversal of Fortune (1990). Before Irons was cast, the directors had considered offering the role to actors Tim Curry and Malcolm McDowell.

As a character, Scar has garnered widespread acclaim from film critics, who greeted Irons' performance with equal enthusiasm. However, Scar's violence, dark color palette and allegedly effeminate mannerisms were initially met with mild controversy, perceived by some as racist and homophobic. Nevertheless, Scar continues to be revered as one of Disney's greatest villains by various media publications, topping The Huffington Post's list and ranking within the top ten of similar lists published by Yahoo! Movies, the Orlando Sentinel, E! and CNN. Scar has also been ranked among the greatest villains in film history by Digital Spy and Entertainment Weekly.

The Lion King was first conceived in 1988.[1] The film was eventually pitched to Disney executives, one of whom was among the first to observe similarities between author Thomas M. Disch's treatment and William Shakespeare's play Hamlet.[2][3] Although first citing these similarities as initially unintentional,[4] director Rob Minkoff always felt that it was essential "to anchor [the film] with something familiar".[5] As directors, Minkoff and Roger Allers aspired to create "an animal picture based in a more natural setting,"[6] describing the film as "More true-life adventure than mythical epic."[7] Although not the first Disney film to have been inspired by Shakespeare's work,[8] The Lion King remains the studio's most prominent example[9] due to close parallels between its characters and Hamlet,[10] while both stories revolve around main characters who struggle to come to terms with the reality that they must confront their treacherous uncles and avenge their fathers' deaths.[11] Scar is based on King Claudius, the antagonist of Hamlet.[12] According to Slate, while Claudius is mostly "a second-rate schemerÂ ... consumed by anxiety and guilt," Scar very much "delight[s] in his monstrosity;"[13] both characters are motivated by jealousy.[14] Meanwhile, The Week observed that although both characters ultimately die, Claudius is killed by protagonist Hamlet while Scar dies "at the hand of his former hyena minions, and not Simba himself."[4] Additionally, the character shares similarities with Iago from Shakespeare's play Othello; both antagonists are skilled in exploiting their victims' fears.[15]

The original plot of The Lion King revolved around a rivalry between lions and baboons.[16] A baboon himself, Scar was their leader.[17] After this plot was abandoned, Scar was re-written into a rogue lion lacking any blood relation to both Mufasa and Simba.[18][19] The writers eventually decided that making Scar and Mufasa brothers would make the film more interesting.[20] An abandoned character, at one point Scar owned a pet python as a sidekick.[16] Because the film was originally intended to be much more adult-oriented, Scar was to have become infatuated with Simba's childhood friend and eventual love interest Nala, wanting the young lioness to rule alongside him as his queen[21] and consequentially banishing the character[16] when she refuses.[22] This concept was to have been further explored during a reprise of Scar's song "Be Prepared",[23] but both the idea and the song were ultimately completely removed from the film because they were deemed too "creepy".[21] To further emphasize the character's villainy and tyranny, the writers loosely based Scar on German politician Adolf Hitler.[24] According to The Jerusalem Post, Scar's song "Be Prepared" "features goose-stepping hyenas in a formation reminiscent of a Nuremberg rally."[25] This idea was first suggested by story artist Jorgen Klubien.[25]

According to the directors, "[a] patronizing quality" was vital to Scar's role in the film.[26] Minkoff told the Los Angeles Times, "When Scar puts the guilt trip on Simba, that's an intense idea ... probably something that is not typical of the other Disney pictures, in terms of what the villain does."[26] Additionally, Scar serves as a departure from previous Disney villains because they "came off at least as buffoonish as they were sinister".[26] Because Scar is the film's main antagonist,[27] supervising animator Andreas Deja believed that "villains work really well when they're subtle", explaining, "to see them think and scheme and plot is much more interesting than showing them beating somebody up."[26] By blaming Mufasa's death on an innocent Simba, Scar ultimately triggers "a cycle of guilt, flight, denial and redemption, as the hero goes into self-imposed exile before finally reconciling with his father's memory, returning to face his wicked uncle and generally coming of age."[28] The character's first line in The Lion King essentially summarizes the entire film, providing foreshadowing. It reads, "Life's not fair is it? You see I-well, I ... shall never be King. And you ... shall never see light of another day," subtly revealing the plot as well as "the reason why [Scar] decides to murder his own brother."[14]

English actors Tim Curry and Malcolm McDowell were originally considered for the role of Scar.[29] However, Curry left the role due to Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, and the role was ultimately won by English actor Jeremy Irons[24] because of his classical theatre training; the directors had deliberately wanted Scar "to come across as a Shakespearean character."[29] Successfully recruiting Irons for the film was considered an unprecedented achievement for the studio because, at the time, it was rare for a dramatic actor of Irons' caliber to agree to voice an animated character,[30] especially immediately after winning an Academy Award.[26] In fact, the Oscar-winning actor[31] nearly declined because, in fear of jeopardizing his successful career, he was "[h]esitant to jump from a dramatic role to an animated feature."[32] Prior to The Lion King, Irons was famous for starring as several villains and antagonists in live-action films "geared towards adults."[33] Although he had starred in a children's film before, the actor admitted that it did not mirror the success of The Lion King,[33] a film that has since gained notoriety for its cast of well known, award-winning Hollywood actors,[34] which animation historian Jerry Beck referred to in his book The Animated Movie Guide as "the most impressive list of actors ever to grace an animated film."[35]

As directors, Minkoff and Allers "work[ed] very closely with the actors to create their performance."[36] Describing Irons as "a gentleman and a brilliant actor," Allers revealed that the actor was constantly offering "extra interpretations of lines which were fantastic."[5] Producer Don Hahn recalled that Irons "really wanted to play with the words and the pacing," specifically referring to a scene in which Scar, voiced by Jeremy Irons, coaxes Simba onto a rock and tricks the young cub to stay there and await his father's arrival alone, dubbing it "a father and sonÂ ... thing." According to Hahn, "The comedy in [Irons'] inflection comes from Scar sounding so disdainful he can barely summon the will to finish the sentence."[26] Irons' physical appearance and mannerisms served as inspiration for Scar's supervising animator Andreas Deja, namely his flicking his paw in disgust.[26] Critics have cited physical similarities between Irons and Scar.[37]

In a reference to the role that earned Irons an Academy Award, Claus von B端low in the film Reversal of Fortune (1990), the writers gave Scar one of von B端low's lines, "You have no idea", which is uttered by Irons in a similar tone.[38][39] According to author Rachel Stein of New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality, and Activism, Irons relies "on his history of playing sexually perverse, socially dangerous male characters to animate his depiction of Scar."[40] On the contrary, Irons revealed to Connect Savannah that the similarities between the voices of Scar and von B端low were largely unintentional, explaining, "Whatever voice came was arrived at by looking at the initial sketches, and from the freedom the directors gave me to try anything." Irons concluded, "The fact that he may occasionally remind you of Claus, comes from the fact that they both share the same voice box."[41]

While recording Scar's song "Be Prepared," Irons encountered challenges with his voice. The actor reportedly "blew out his voice" upon belting the line "you won't get a sniff without me," rendering him incapable of completing the musical number.[42] Consequently, Disney was forced to recruit American voice actor Jim Cummings, who had also been providing the voice of The Lion King's laughing hyena Ed at the time,[43] to impersonate Jeremy Irons and record the entire of the song.[44] Jim Cummings told The Huffington Post that "[s]tunt singing" is actually something the actor continues to do regularly, having done the same for American actor Russel Means, voice of Chief Powhatan in Disney's Pocahontas (1995).[45] Critics observed that Irons "fakes his wayÂ ... through 'Be Prepared' in the grand tradition of talk-singing," drawing similarities between him and American actor James Cagney and English actor Rex Harrison.[46] Deja revealed that, during a recording session, Irons' stomach was grumbling. Deja joked, "The growling sound could be heard in his recording, so we had to record that part of his dialog all over again."[47] As a result of Irons' prominent British accent, critics have compared both the actor and Scar to Shere Khan, the villain of Disney's The Jungle Book (1967), voiced by English actor George Sanders.[26]

The studio originally dismissed The Lion King as a risk because, at the time, it was believed that the greatest films starred people.[48] Concerned about the novelty of the film, Disney CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg decided to divide the studio into two separate animated films, The Lion King and Pocahontas, the latter of which was dubbed "the home run" because it was expected to be the more successful of the two projects.[49] Naturally, Disney's more seasoned and experienced animators gravitated towards Pocahontas, while the studio's newer animators were relegated to working on The Lion King, dubbing themselves the "B-team".[50] However, Allers received Katzenberg's decision positively as an opportunity for "newer animators... to step up to leadership roles",[50] among them Andreas Deja, who became Scar's supervising animator.[50] Well known for animating several Disney villains,[51] Deja summarized the experience as "more fun than drawing heroes" because "You have so much more to work with in terms of expressions and acting and drawing-wise than you would have with a nice princess or a prince... where you have to be ever so careful with the draftsmanship".[52]

Before becoming involved with The Lion King, Deja had already developed a reputation for animating Disney villains.[47][51] Prior to animating Scar, Deja had just recently served as the supervising animator of Gaston and Jafar, the villains in Disney's Beauty and the Beast (1991) and Aladdin (1992), respectively.[26] Initially, Deja had been considering the idea of animating a hero as opposed to a villain for a change,[47] contemplating taking on the task of animating Simba instead.[53] However, Deja soon relented upon learning that Scar would be voiced by Irons, feeling that it would be "fun" to animate a character voiced by such a prestigious actor.[53] Meanwhile, Minkoff and Allers had already had Deja in mind for animating Scar long before the animator approached the directors about the position.[53] The level anthropomorphism used in The Lion King exceeded that of any Disney animated film by which it was preceded.[54] Because Scar is an animal as opposed to a human,[55] Deja and the animators experienced certain challenges and limitations when it came to instilling movement in the character,[55] and thus experimented with manipulating Scar's facial expressions, specifically the way in which he tilts his head condescendingly, raises his eyebrows and lifts his chin.[26] The animals were each drawn with certain human-like attributes and characteristics in order to help convey emotions and tell the story.[54] Meanwhile, the studio recruited live lions for the animators to study while drawing.[56] As the film's villain, Scar is the only lion drawn with claws.[16]

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly described Scar as "a figure of both pity and evil, and of treacherous comedy" with "IronsÂ ... filling this devious coward with elegantly witty self-loathing."[57] As an animator, Deja believes that "If you have a great voice to work with, your work is half done."[58] Enjoying the way in which Irons "has a way with words and phrasing,"[58] Deja deliberately based much of Scar's appearance on the actor himself, specifically the shape of his mouth and facial expressions.[47] Several of the actor's physical attributes were incorporated into Scar's design, with Irons admitting to recognizing his own baggy eyes in his character.[26] Additionally, Deja studied Irons' performances in the films Reversal of Fortune (1990) and Damage (1992) for inspiration,[26][59] while refusing to watch Disney's The Jungle Book while working on The Lion King in order to avoid being influenced by the film's villain Shere Khan, a tiger.[60]

Scar sings the musical number "Be Prepared," written by songwriters Elton John and Tim Rice, while contemplating Mufasa's death plot and bringing the hyenas along. Described as the film's "darkest" song, a "pompous,"[61] "fascistic paean to usurpers,"[62] the musical sequence depicts the lion "as a big-cat fascist."[63] According to Business Insider, in addition to loosely basing the character on Adolf Hitler to further emphasize Scar's tyranny, the filmmakers very much directly based his song "Be Prepared," which references Nazism by having Scar's army of hyenas goose step while addressing them from a high ledge – similar to the way in which Hitler would have from a balcony –[24] on the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will (1935),[64] a film that documents Nazi Germany during 1934.[65]

According to Entertainment Weekly, the concept originated from a sketch by story artist Jorgen Klubien, in which Scar was depicted as Hitler. Although hesitant that then-Disney Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg would approve, the filmmakers ultimately decided to pursue it, describing the sequence as a "Triumph of the Will-style mock-Nuremberg rally."[62] The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reviewed, "those goose-stepping hyenas seem a little much in hindsight,"[66] while Film School Rejects coined it a "hellish gathering."[67]

Scar debuted in The Lion King (1994). The jealous younger brother of Mufasa, Scar was next-in-line to take the throne until his nephew Simba, Mufasa's son, was born, replacing him. Determined to usurp the throne and become king himself, Scar devises a plan to kill both Simba and Mufasa. Cleverly trapping Simba in a vast gorge, Scar signals his hyena minions, Shenzi, Banzai and Ed, to trigger a wildebeest stampede. Although Mufasa saves Simba, the king is weakened, and unable to climb out of the gorge to safety. When Mufasa begs Scar for help, Scar instead throws his brother to his death below. Convincing Simba that he is to blame for Mufasa's death, Scar advises the prince to run away and never return, then orders the hyenas to pursue and kill him. With his brother murdered and his nephew presumed dead, Scar returns to Pride Rock and tells the pride that both father and son are dead before becoming king.

Years go by as Scar squanders the kingdom's resources and allows his army of hyenas to wreak havoc upon the Pride Lands, which turn barren. Meanwhile, an alive and adult Simba is visited by Mufasa's ghost, who encourages him to return to the Pride Lands and take his rightful place as king. Aided by his friends Nala, Timon and Pumbaa, Simba arrives at Pride Rock and witnesses Scar striking his mother Sarabi and confronts Scar, who demands that Simba admit to the pride that he killed Mufasa. As he prepares to throw Simba off Pride Rock and have him meet a similar fate to that of his father, Scar whispers that he was the one who killed Mufasa. Enraged, Simba tackles Scar and forces his uncle to admit the truth to the pride, initiating a ferocious battle between the pride, Timon, Pumbaa, Zazu, Rafiki and Scar's hyenas. Scar tries to escape, but is cornered by Simba on the top of Pride Rock; Scar begs for mercy and even attempts to blame his crimes on the hyenas, unaware that they are listening nearby. Simba ignores Scar and gives him one last chance to run away and never return. When Simba's back is turned, Scar attacks him and they fight. Simba bests Scar in combat and throws him over the cliff edge and into a pit. Scar survives the fall, but is attacked and killed by the vengeful hyenas.

The success of The Lion King spawned a Broadway musical based on the film, directed by Julie Taymor with a book written by The Lion King co-director Roger Allers and screenwriter Irene Mecchi. American actor John Vickery originated the role of Scar. In one scene in the musical, Scar, during the song "The Madness of King Scar", tries to seduce a young adult Nala and make her his queen. Nala however, rejects Scar's advances and leaves Pride Rock.

Having been killed during the end of The Lion King, Scar's appearance and presence in its sequel The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998) is, naturally, quite limited in comparison. Story-wise, however, his role remains vital. Upon Scar's demise, a rivaling pride of lions known as the Outsiders decide to remain loyal to him. The pride is led by Scar's most faithful follower, Zira. Since Scar had no children of his own, Zira's son Kovu is chosen to serve as Scar's heir. Simba banishes the Outsiders to the Outlands, and forbids his daughter Kiara from going there. She goes there anyway, however, and meets and befriends Kovu. Meanwhile, Zira trains Kovu to murder Simba, but when he becomes an adult, he has a change of heart as he begins to develop feelings for Kiara.

Scar makes a brief cameo appearance in the film in Simba's nightmare. In the nightmare, an adult Simba runs down the cliff where his father died, attempting to rescue him. Scar intervenes, however, and then turns into Kovu and throws Simba off the cliff. Scar makes another cameo appearance in a pool of water, as a reflection, after Kovu is exiled from Pride Rock.

Scar makes a brief cameo in Disney's animated feature film Hercules (1997) in the form of a limp lion skin coat worn by Hercules,[68] parodying the Nemean lion.[69] Ironically, Zazu somehow foresaw this predicament in the first film, when he sarcastically told Mufasa "He'd make a very handsome throw rug". Scar's supervising animator Andreas Deja also served as the supervising animator of Hercules.[70] The character appears in the 1994 video game The Lion King.[71] According to AllGame, Scar appears towards the end of video game as Simba finally "must defeat his Uncle Scar" and "stop Scar and reclaim what is rightfully his."[72] Scar plays a similar role in the video game The Lion King: Simba's Mighty Adventure (2000);[73] Simba's climactic "battle with Scar concludes the first six levels of the game."[74] According to IGN, the video game features the voices of the film's cast, including Jeremy Irons as Scar.[73] Voiced by James Horan, Scar appears as a non-player character in Disney's Extreme Skate Adventure (2003)[75] and Kingdom Hearts II as a villain who ultimately transforms into a Heartless as a result of the character's own "hatred and jealousy."[76]

Scar also makes a brief non-speaking cameo appearance in an episode of Timon & Pumbaa, despite that he is deceased at that time.

Scar is portrayed through paintings in The Lion Guard television film and appeared as a spirit in the one-hour long special The Rise of Scar, after the series-exclusive villains Janja (the main antagonist hyena) and Ushari (a cobra) learn how to summon him. Scar was voiced on the one-hour special by David Oyelowo.[77] The Lion Guard explains some of his backstory. When Scar was younger—as per tradition to all second born children of the current reigning "Lion King"—he led The Lion Guard who protected The Pride Lands and defended "The Circle of Life" from all enemies before Kion, and was given a power called "The Roar of the Elders" which when used, caused the lions of Pride Lands past to roar with him. However, that power went to his head and Scar vainly believed that with this power, he should be the king instead of Mufasa, but when the rest of The Lion Guard refused to aid him in his plot, Scar destroyed them with the Roar. As a result, Scar lost the Roar forever, as he had used it for evil. In the years that followed the Lion Guard's downfall, Scar continued to plot against his brother.

Scar has garnered widespread acclaim from film critics, some of whom praised him as a better character than Simba.[78] Author Peter M. Nichols wrote in his book New York Times Essential Library: Children's Movies: A Critic's Guide to the Best Films Available on Video and DVD that Scar "is the most interesting character in the film," describing Simba and Mufasa "bores in comparison."[79] Janet Maslin of The New York Times called Scar a "delectably wicked" villain. Maslin went on to praise Irons' voice acting, writing that the actor "slithers through the story in grandiose high style, with a green-eyed malevolence that is one of film's chief delights."[80] Leah Rozen of People described Scar as "a flawless realization of Irons' special talent."[81] Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune lauded Scar as the film's "best character," jokingly describing him as "Irons' Claus von Bulow with fur."[82] Similarly, ComingSoon.net's Joshua Starnes hailed Scar as "the best part of the film." Praising both Scar and Irons' acting, Starnes continued, "He switches so quickly and easily from campy to deadly its like a showcase for how to do an over-the-top villain right."[83] Concluding that "Villains are often the most memorable characters in a Disney animated film," Roger Ebert described Scar "one of the great ones."[38] James Berardinelli of ReelViews reviewed, "Gone is the buffoonery that has marked the recent trio of Ursula, Gaston, and Jafar," writing, "Scar is a sinister figure, given to acid remarks and cunning villainy." Berardinelli concluded, "The cold-hearted manner in which he causes Mufasa's death lets us know that this is not a lion to be trifled with."[84]

"Simba is also influenced by his delectably wicked uncle, Scar (Jeremy Irons). Scar arranges Mufasa's disturbing on-screen death in a manner that both banishes Simba to the wilderness and raises questions about whether this film really warranted a G rating... For the grown-ups, there is Mr. Irons, who has been as devilishly well-captured by Disney's graphic artists (Scar's supervising animator: Andreas Deja) as Robin Williams was in Aladdin. Bored, wicked and royally sarcastic, Mr. Irons's Scar slithers through the story in grandiose high style, with a green-eyed malevolence that is one of film's chief delights. 'Oh, and just between us, you might want to work on that little roar of yours, hmm?' he purrs to Simba, while purporting to be a mentor to his young nephew. Scar, who also gives a reprise of Mr. Irons's best-known line from Reversal of Fortune, may not be much of a father figure, but he's certainly great fun."

A film that features the voices of several well-known A-list actors, namely Irons as Scar, Matthew Broderick as Simba, James Earl Jones as Mufasa and Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi,[85] The Lion King has since gone on to be acclaimed as "one of the most impressive arrays of voice talents ever utilized in an animated film."[86] Critics have repeatedly singled out Irons' performance, praising it extensively: Cindy White of IGN called Irons' performance "deliciously smarmy,"[87] while Andy Patrizio of IGN wrote that Irons voices Scar "in perfect Shakespearean villain mode."[88] Rolling Stone's Peter Travers hailed Irons for "deliver[ing] a triumphantly witty vocal performance that ranks with Robin Williams' in Aladdin."[89] Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle commended Disney for "nail[ing] the voice talents," specifically Irons.[90] The Philadelphia Daily News' Bill Wedo described Irons' voice as "silken,"[91] while Graham Young of the Birmingham Mail hailed the actor's performance as "magnificent."[92] Radio Times' Tom Hutchinson wrote, "Jeremy Irons [is] a vocal standout as the evil uncle Scar."[93] Annette Basile of Filmink echoed Hutchinson's statement, writing that Scar is "voiced with relish by stand-out Jeremy Irons."[94] The Guardian's Philip French opined, "Jeremy Irons is excellent as the suavely villainous lion Scar."[95] David Sterritt of The Christian Science Monitor exalted Irons' acting, describing him as "positively brilliant."[96] Also hailing the film's cast as "incredible," Desson Howe of The Washington Post highlighted Irons as a "standout."[97] Praising the film for successfully combining "grand-opera melodrama and low-comedy hi-jinks," the Orlando Sentinel's Jay Boyar concluded that "One reason they work so well together is that even most of the serious sections contain an undercurrent of humor, providedÂ ... by the deliciously droll voice-performance of Jeremy Irons as Scar."[98] Mathew DeKinder of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch felt that Irons successfully "handle[s] all of the dramatic heavy lifting."[66]

Even film critics who generally disliked the film tended to enjoy Scar's characterization and Irons' performance. Terrence Rafferty of The New Yorker wrote, "Among the celebrity voices on the soundtrack, two performances stand out," namely, "Jeremy Irons, as the villainous lion Scar" who "does an elegant, funny George Sanders impersonation."[99] (Sanders himself had voiced Shere Khan for Disney in their 1967 version of The Jungle Book). Stephen Hunter of The Baltimore Sun described Irons' voice as "plummy-rich with rancid irony."[12] Television Without Pity's Ethan Alter admitted to enjoying Scar, praising the character as "a fantastic villain and easily the most fully realized of the film's characters, thanks both to Jeremy Irons' marvelously wicked vocal performance and some clever character flourishes on behalf of the animators."[100] David Denby of New York, who otherwise criticized the film, felt that "IronsÂ ... sounds like he's having a better time than he's ever had in movies before."[101] In a rare lukewarm review, Anthony Quinn of The Independent felt that Irons' performance was too campy: "more Liberace than George Sanders."[102]

According to IGN, Scar, Simba and Mufasa have since become "household names thanks to the [film's] enormous popularity ... but back in 1994 who could have predicted that these characters would enter the lexicon of Disney's most popular creations?"[103] Scar is considered to be among Disney's greatest villains.[27][104] Desmond Ryan of The Philadelphia Inquirer reviewed Scar as "the most vivid villain in Disney features in generations."[105] On a broader scale, Scar is often revered as one of the greatest animated villains of all-time.[106] Entertainment Weekly included the character in the article "10 Over-the-top Animated Movie Villains", explaining, "you could only expect over-the-top when you pair such a grasping, conniving character with Jeremy Irons' seductive voice."[107] Likewise, Digital Spy's Alex Fletcher wrote of Scar in his article "Who is Disney's greatest ever villain?" that "The scene in which he lets Mufasa ... fall into a stampede of wildebeests left lasting emotional trauma on an entire generation."[108]

The Huffington Post ranked Scar first in its "Definitive Ranking Of 25 Classic Disney Villains" countdown.[110] Similarly, BuzzFeed also ranked Scar first in the website's "Definitive Ranking Of The Top 20 Disney Villains" list, with author Javi Moreno accusing the character of removing "the innocence of an entire generation."[111] Scar also topped About.com's "Top 10 Disney Villains" countdown; author David Nusair concluded, "There are few figures within Disney's body of work that are as deliciously reprehensible and vile as Scar ... heightened by Jeremy Irons' gloriously smug voice work."[112] Nusair also included Irons among the "Top 5 Celebrity Voice Performances in Animated Films", acknowledging the fact that although the actor "has played a lot of villains over the course of his career ... none have had the lasting impact as Scar from The Lion King."[113] The Orlando Sentinel ranked Scar the sixth "greatest Disney villain of all time".[114] Similarly, Babble.com also placed the character at number six.[115] Included in the website's "12 most famous Disney villains from worst to best" countdown, Yahoo! Movies ranked Scar second best,[116] while Moviefone ranked the character sixth.[117] E! ranked Scar fifth, with author John Boone writing that the character "plotted one of the most painful deaths in Disney history, so you know he'll never be forgotten."[118] Animation World Network ranked Scar the sixth best animated villain.[51]

CNN considers Scar one of "Disney's scariest characters."[119] While ranking the character fifth, The Stanford Daily wrote, "From his habit of sadistically toying with his prey to his dumb hyena coven to the way he leads the kingdom of Pride Rock into a period of starvation and sorrow, he's a backstabbing dictator of an uncle."[120] Richard Crouse of Metro cited Scar's "Long live the King" as the character's "Most evil line."[121] Additionally, "Be Prepared" is often revered as one of the greatest Disney villain songs.[122][123] Official Disney Blogs wrote that the song, with its "hyena backup singers, and the best bone-rattling percussion of all the villains' songs," Scar proves himself "an expert crooner of villainous plots."[124] Aside from Disney and animation, Scar is often revered as one of the greatest movie villains of all-time.[125] Digital Spy featured the character who, according to author Simon Reynolds, "underlined the sheer blackness of his heart by ruthlessly killing Simba's father,"[126] among the "25 greatest movie villains".[127] Similarly, in 2012, Entertainment Weekly ranked the character the twenty-fifth "Most Vile Movie Villain" ever,[128] while Total Film ranked Scar sixty-seventh in 2014.[129]

To-date, Deja remains best known for animating several of Disney's most famous villains, admitting to preferring animating villains over heroes.[26] However, after The Lion King, Deja finally decided to take a break from animating villains in order to avoid repeating himself,[26][130] subsequently refusing to animate villain Judge Claude Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) in favor of working on Hercules from Hercules (1997),[53] along with Mickey Mouse in the animated short Runaway Brain (1995).[131] Comparing Scar to other villains that he has played, Irons said that he "measures very highly," having "charm," "Machiavellian qualities" and being "iconic in some of the things he says."[33]

Scar became the first Disney villain to successfully explicitly kill someone.[132] Like Disney's Bambi before it, The Lion King – dubbed the studio's "darkest" film at the time of its release –[64] was unprecedented in terms of its serious themes, namely guilt, murder, treachery, revenge and death, specifically the on-screen assassination of one of the film's heroes.[133] According to IGN, "The film's story concepts of morality and mortality ... was new for Disney,"[134] with The Washington Post predicting that "the death of the heroic Mufasa will be the most widely debated aspect of The Lion King, with people taking sides as to whether such things are good or bad for kids just as they did over the killing of Bambi's mother."[64] Similarly, Variety opined, "a generation that remembers the death of Bambi's mother as traumatizing should bear that experience in mind when deciding who goes to The Lion King."[135] Film critics and parents alike expressed concern that Scar's violent ways would frighten and disturb younger viewers.[136] Referring to Scar's murdering of Mufasa, The New York Times questioned "whether this film really warranted a G rating."[80] Critics also cautioned Scar's death; Movieline warned audiences that the film "shows a fairy tale's dark sense of justice," for example when "Scar was eaten by his hyena allies after betraying them."[137] ReelViews' James Berardinelli commented:

"Death, something not really touched on in the last three animated Disney tales, is very much at the forefront of The Lion King. In a scene that could disturb younger viewers, Mufasa's demise is shown. It is a chilling moment that is reminiscent of a certain incident in Bambi. The film also contains a fair share of violence, including a rather graphic battle between two lions. Parents should carefully consider before automatically taking a child of, say, under seven years of age, to this movie."

The Los Angeles Times warned that "The on-screen death of Mufasa and a violent battle at the finale may disturb small children,"[138] echoed by The Philadelphia Inquirer.[105] However, film critics also felt that Disney's treatment of Scar was at times too light-hearted and comedic, with the Deseret News complaining, "a climactic battle between Simba and his evil Uncle Scar ... is [a] very bad choice near the end, as Simba and Scar battle in slow-motion, a serious moment that seems unintentionally comic."[139] According to The Seattle Times, "Some critics have complained that the movie is too funny and good-natured to accommodate the rather grim story it's telling."[61] Considered "an odd mix of deadly seriousness and slapstick humor ... Simba fights Scar to the death" while "intercut with ... Poomba [sic] ... doing a parody of Travis Bickel."[140]

Although universally acclaimed, Scar has sparked considerable controversy regarding the character's appearance and personality, specifically his darker-colored fur and alleged sexuality. The general public, however, appears to have remained largely oblivious to such concerns according to David Parkinson, author of The Rough Guide to Film Musicals.[141] The Washington Post felt that "Scar clearly is meant to represent an evil African American because 'while Simba's mane is gloriously red, Scar's is, of course, black."[142] Meanwhile, Scar's mannerisms and voice which, according to Nightmare on Main Street: Angels, Sadomasochism, and the Culture of Gothic's author Mark Edmundson, resemble "a cultivated, word-weary, gay man,"[143] has been deemed homophobic by some commentators because, according to The Independent, "the arch-villain's gestures are effeminate"[144] while, in addition to the film being "full of stereotypes,"[145] the character "speaks in supposed gay cliches."[146] Susan Mackey-Kallis, author of The Hero and the Perennial Journey Home in American Film, observed that Scar is "more effeminate [and] less brawnyÂ ... than" both Mufasa and Simba.[147] Additionally, "Even though [Scar] would be expected to mate with one of the lioness, he is never seen intimated by any."[132] While Disney executives ignored these accusations, Slant Magazine defended the studio, explaining that Scar's black mane is simply an example of "the animators' elementary attempts to color-code evil for the film's target audience."[148] Similarly, author Edward Schiappa wrote in his book Beyond Representational Correctness: Rethinking Criticism of Popular Media that Scar's voice was simply meant "to convey the sort of upper-class snobbishness evinced by George Sanders's performance as Shere Khan in The Jungle Book."[149] More recently, the possibility of an incestuous relationship involving Simba, his mate Nala, Scar and Mufasa has surfaced. According to Johnson Cheu, author of Diversity in Disney Films: Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Disability, the fact that Scar, Mufasa and Simba appear to be the only male lions present in The Lion King suggests the possibility that either Scar or Mufasa is Nala's father, which would in turn make Nala either Simba's half-sister or cousin.[150] However, The Lion Guard identifies Nala's father as a red-maned unnamed lion who-in his youth-resembled his grandson (and Scar's great-nephew) Kion.


what is the area code in puerto rico

As elsewhere in the NANP region, increasing use of modems and mobile telephones strained the supply of seven-digit numbers within area 787, and an overlay plan came into effect in or about September 2001. Puerto Rico now has two area codes, 787 and 939. The new code is used mostly for wireless phones.

Telephone numbers in Puerto Rico

Telephone numbers in Puerto Rico are assigned under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).

Prior to March 1, 1996, Puerto Rico was one of many Caribbean islands served by area code 809. On that date Puerto Rico was assigned the new area code 787 (with the mnemonic PUR or PTR). Permissive dialing of 809 ended January 31, 1997.

Because of the overlay, the area code must be dialed for all calls.


what does embalming fluid do to the body

Embalming fluid acts to fix (denature) cellular proteins, meaning that they cannot act as a nutrient source for bacteria; embalming fluid also kills the bacteria themselves. Formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde fixes tissue or cells by irreversibly connecting a primary amine group in a protein molecule with a nearby nitrogen in a protein or DNA molecule through a -CH2- linkage called a Schiff base. The end result also creates the simulation, via color changes, of the appearance of blood flowing under the skin.

Embalming chemicals

Embalming chemicals are a variety of preservatives, sanitising and disinfectant agents, and additives used in modern embalming to temporarily prevent decomposition and restore a natural appearance for viewing a body after death. A mixture of these chemicals is known as embalming fluid and is used to preserve bodies of deceased persons for both funeral purposes and in medical research in anatomical laboratories. The period for which a body is embalmed is dependent on time, expertise of the embalmer and factors regarding duration of stay and purpose.

Typically, embalming fluid contains a mixture of formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, methanol, and other solvents. The formaldehyde content generally ranges from 5 to 37 percent and the methanol content may range from 9 to 56 percent.

In the United States alone, about 20 million liters (roughly 5.3 million gallons) of embalming fluid are used every year.[1]

Modern embalming is not done with a single fixative. Instead, various chemicals are used to create a mixture, called an arterial solution, which is uniquely generated for the needs of each case. For example, a body needing to be repatriated overseas needs a higher index (percentage of diluted preservative chemical) than one simply for viewing (known in the United States and Canada as a funeral visitation) at a funeral home before cremation or burial.

Embalming fluid is injected into the arterial system of the deceased. Many other bodily fluids may also be displaced and removed from the body using the arterial system and in the case of cavity treatment aspirated from the body and replaced with a specialty fluid known as cavity fluid.

It is important to distinguish between an arterial chemical (or fluid), which is generally taken to be the product in its original composition, and an arterial solution, which is a diluted mixture of chemicals and made to order for each body. Non-preservative chemicals in an arterial solution are generally called "accessory chemicals" or co/pre-injectants, depending on their time of utilization.

Potential ingredients in an arterial solution include:

Prior to the advent of the modern range of embalming chemicals a variety of alternative additives have been used by embalmers, including epsom salts for edema cases and milk in cases of jaundice,[citation needed] but these are of limited effectiveness and can be chalked up as "embalmer tricks", as the validity of their use  has never been demonstrated by professional embalmers or mortuary science programs.

During the American Civil War, the Union Army, wanting to transport slain soldiers from the battlefields back home for burial, consulted with Dr. Thomas Holmes, who developed a technique that involved draining a corpse's blood and embalming it with a fluid made with arsenic for preservation.[1]

Embalming chemicals are generally produced by specialist manufacturers, The oldest embalming fluid company is the Champion Company, being founded in 1878, followed by the Dodge Company in 1893, with other companies include Egyptian, now U.S. Chemical, as well as Kelco Supply Company (formerly L H Kellogg), Pierce Chemical Company,(Now Owned by The Wilbert Company), Bondol Chemical Company, and Hydrol Chemical Company. There are many smaller and regional producers such as Lear Barber in Sheffield, Genelyn, Frigid Fluid Co., and Trinity Fluids, LLC to name but a few. Some funeral homes produce their own embalming fluids, although this practice has declined in recent decades as commercially available products have become of better quality and more readily available.

Following the EU Biocides Legislation some pressure was brought to reduce the use of formaldehyde. IARC Classes Formaldehyde as a Class 1 Carcinogen. There are alternatives to formaldehyde and phenol-based fluids, but these are technically not preservatives but rather sanitising agents and are not widely accepted.

When an embalmed body is buried and decays, the embalming fluid can seep into the ground and affect the surrounding soil and water ecosystems. Since  embalming fluid largely consists of formaldehyde, it is the chemical that has the most dramatic effect on its surroundings.[2] The fluid that is injected into the blood vessels of the cadaver is up to 5% formaldehyde while the fluid injected into the body cavity is up to 37%.[3]

Formaldehyde works to stiffen the tissue of the cadaver, allowing the mortician to pose the body. This is the characteristic that also makes formaldehyde hazardous when encountered in the environment. The carbon atom in formaldehyde, CH2O, carries a slight positive charge due to the high electronegativity of the oxygen double bonded with the carbon. The electropositive carbon will react with a negatively charged molecule and other electron-rich species. As a result, the carbon in the formaldehyde molecule bonds with electron-rich nitrogen groups called amines found in plant and animal tissue. This leads to formaldehyde cross-linking, bonding proteins with other proteins and DNA, rendering them dysfunctional or no longer useful.[4]

Formaldehyde is featured on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of the top 10 most hazardous chemicals for damaging the environment.[2] It is carcinogenic in humans and animals[5][6] because the cross-linking can cause DNA to keep cells from halting the replication process. This unwarranted replication of cells can lead to cancer.[4] Unicellular organisms found in the soil and groundwater are also quite sensitive to cross-linking, experiencing damage at a concentration of 0.3 mg to 22 mg per liter.[5] Formaldehyde also affects aquatic invertebrates, with crustaceans being the most sensitive type. The range of concentration damaging them is 0.4 mg to 20 mg per liter.[5] Studies also show that formaldehyde has been known to injure some marine plant life and kill the root systems of some small plants.[2]

Formaldehyde released from the cremation of embalmed cadavers enters the atmosphere and remains suspended for up to 250 hours.[5] It is readily soluble[2][6] in water so it will bond with moisture in the atmosphere and rain down onto plants, animals, and water supplies below. As a result, formaldehyde content in precipitation can range from 110 μg to 1380 μg per liter.[5]

The growing awareness of the negative effects of embalming fluid on the environment has caused some people to consider green burials where there are either no harsh chemicals used in the embalming process. As a result embalming chemical manufacturers now offer less effective "Green" Chemicals, as an option.  For example the Champion Company began producing their Enigma Line in the early 2000's and these fluids are approved by the Green Burial Council[3] or there is no embalming process at all.[7]


who is speaking in who will survive in america

"Who Will Survive in America" is the final track of the standard edition of American rapper Kanye West's album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.[1] The piece, featuring no vocals from West himself, serves as the album's coda and is built on a sample of Gil Scott-Heron's "Comment No. 1",[2] a blunt, surrealist piece delivered by Scott-Heron in spoken word about the African-American experience and the faded idealism of the American dream. Scott-Heron's poem, which criticized the 1960s Revolutionary Youth Movement for failing to recognize the more basic needs of the African-American community, is edited to a reduced version on the track that, according to music writer Greg Kot, "retains its essence, that of an African-American male who feels cut off from his country and culture".[3] By contrast, Sean Fennessey interprets it as "a too-serious denouement for an album that is more about the selfâ€™s little nightmares than some aching societal rejection".[4] West had previously sampled Scott-Heron on "My Way Home", a track from his 2005 album Late Registration.

Who Will Survive in America


english ornothologist who wrote a history of british birds

William Turner's Historia Avium (History of Birds), published at Cologne in 1544, was an early ornithological work from England. He noted the commonness of kites in English cities where they snatched food out of the hands of children. He included folk beliefs such as those of anglers. Anglers believed that the osprey emptied their fishponds and would kill them, mixing the flesh of the osprey into their fish bait. Turner's work reflected the violent times in which he lived, and stands in contrast to later works such as Gilbert White's The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne that were written in a tranquil era.[27][33]

Ornithology

Ornithology is a branch of zoology that concerns the study of birds. Several aspects of ornithology differ from related disciplines, due partly to the high visibility and the aesthetic appeal of birds.[1] Most marked among these is the extent of studies undertaken by amateurs working within the parameters of strict scientific methodology.

The science of ornithology has a long history and studies on birds have helped develop several key concepts in evolution, behaviour and ecology such as the definition of species, the process of speciation, instinct, learning, ecological niches, guilds, island biogeography, phylogeography, and conservation.[2] While early ornithology was principally concerned with descriptions and distributions of species, ornithologists today seek answers to very specific questions, often using birds as models to test hypotheses or predictions based on theories. Most modern biological theories apply across taxonomic groups, and the number of professional scientists who identify themselves as "ornithologists" has therefore declined.[3] A wide range of tools and techniques is used in ornithology, both inside the laboratory and out in the field, and innovations are constantly made.[4]

The word "ornithology" comes from the late 16th-century Latin ornithologia meaning "bird science" from the Greek ὄρνις ornis ("bird") and λόγος logos ("theory, science, thought").[5]

The history of ornithology largely reflects the trends in the history of biology, as well as many other scientific disciplines, including ecology, anatomy, physiology, paleontology, and more recently, molecular biology. Trends include the move from mere descriptions to the identification of patterns, thus towards elucidating the processes that produce these patterns.

Humans have had an observational relationship with birds since prehistory, with some stone-age drawings being amongst the oldest indications of an interest in birds.[6][7] Birds were perhaps important as food sources, and bones of as many as 80 species have been found in excavations of early Stone Age settlements.[8][9][10] Waterbird and seabird remains have also been found in shell mounds on the island of Oronsay off the coast of Scotland.[6]

Cultures around the world have rich vocabularies related to birds.[11] Traditional bird names are often based on detailed knowledge of the behaviour, with many names being onomatopoeic, and still in use.[12] Traditional knowledge may also involve the use of birds in folk medicine[13] and knowledge of these practices are passed on through oral traditions (see ethno-ornithology).[14][15] Hunting of wild birds as well as their domestication would have required considerable knowledge of their habits. Poultry farming and falconry were practised from early times in many parts of the world. Artificial incubation of poultry was practised in China around 246 BC and around at least 400 BC in Egypt.[16] The Egyptians also made use of birds in their hieroglyphic scripts, many of which, though stylized, are still identifiable to species.[17]

Early written records provide valuable information on the past distributions of species. For instance, Xenophon records the abundance of the ostrich in Assyria (Anabasis, i. 5); this subspecies from Asia Minor is extinct and all extant ostrich races are today restricted to Africa. Other old writings such as the Vedas (1500â€“800 BC) demonstrate the careful observation of avian life histories and include the earliest reference to the habit of brood parasitism by the Asian koel (Eudynamys scolopacea).[18] Like writing, the early art of China, Japan, Persia, and India also demonstrate knowledge, with examples of scientifically accurate bird illustrations.[19]

Aristotle in 350 BC in his Historia Animalium[20] noted the habit of bird migration, moulting, egg laying, and lifespans, as well as compiling a list of 170 different bird species. However, he also introduced and propagated several myths, such as the idea that swallows hibernated in winter, although he noted that cranes migrated from the steppes of Scythia to the marshes at the headwaters of the Nile. The idea of swallow hibernation became so well established that even as late as in 1878, Elliott Coues could list as many as 182 contemporary publications dealing with the hibernation of swallows and little published evidence to contradict the theory.[21][22] Similar misconceptions existed regarding the breeding of barnacle geese. Their nests had not been seen, and  they were believed to grow by transformations of goose barnacles, an idea that became prevalent from around the 11th century and noted by Bishop Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) in Topographia Hiberniae (1187).[23] Around 77 AD, Pliny the Elder described birds, among other creatures, in his Historia Naturalis.[24]

The earliest record of falconry comes from the reign of Sargon II (722–705 BC) in Assyria. Falconry is thought to have made its entry to Europe only after AD 400, brought in from the east after invasions by the Huns and Alans. Starting from the eighth century, numerous Arabic works on the subject and general ornithology were written, as well as translations of the works of ancient writers from Greek and Syriac. In the 12th and 13th centuries,  crusades and conquest had subjugated Islamic territories in southern Italy, central Spain, and the Levant under European rule, and for the first time translations into Latin of the great works of Arabic and Greek scholars were made with the help of Jewish and Muslim scholars, especially in Toledo, which had fallen into Christian hands in 1085 and whose libraries had escaped destruction. Michael Scotus from Scotland made a Latin translation of Aristotle's work on animals from Arabic here around 1215, which was disseminated widely and was the first time in a millennium that this foundational text on zoology became available to Europeans. Falconry was popular in the Norman court in Sicily, and a number of works on the subject were written in Palermo. Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1194–1250) learned about an falconry during his youth in Sicily and later built up a menagerie and sponsored translations of Arabic texts, among which the popular Arabic work known as the Liber Moaminus by an unknown author which was translated into Latin by Theodore of Antioch from Syria in 1240-1241 as the De Scientia Venandi per Aves, and also Michael Scotus (who had removed to Palermo) translated Ibn Sīnā's Kitāb al-Ḥayawān of 1027 for the Emperor, a commentary and scientific update of Aristotle's work which was part of Ibn Sīnā's massive Kitāb al-Šifāʾ. Frederick II eventually wrote his own treatise on falconry, the De arte venandi cum avibus, in which he related his ornithological observations and the results of the hunts and experiments his court enjoyed performing.[25][26]

Several early German and French scholars compiled old works and conducted new research on birds. These included Guillaume Rondelet, who described his observations in the Mediterranean, and Pierre Belon, who described the fish and birds that he had seen in France and the Levant. Belon's Book of Birds (1555) is a folio volume with descriptions of some 200 species. His comparison of the skeleton of humans and birds is considered as a landmark in comparative anatomy.[27] Volcher Coiter (1534â€“1576), a Dutch anatomist, made detailed studies of the internal structures of birds and produced a classification of birds, De Differentiis Avium (around 1572), that was based on structure and habits.[28] Konrad Gesner wrote the Vogelbuch and Icones avium omnium around 1557. Like Gesner, Ulisse Aldrovandi, an encyclopedic naturalist, began a 14-volume natural history with three volumes on birds, entitled ornithologiae hoc est de avibus historiae libri XII, which was published from 1599 to 1603. Aldrovandi showed great interest in plants and animals, and his work included 3000 drawings of fruits, flowers, plants, and animals, published in 363 volumes. His Ornithology alone covers 2000 pages and included such aspects as the chicken and poultry techniques. He used a number of traits including behaviour, particularly bathing and dusting, to classify bird groups.[29][30][31]

In the 17th century, Francis Willughby (1635–1672) and John Ray (1627–1705) came up with the first major system of bird classification that was based on function and morphology rather than on form or behaviour. Willughby's Ornithologiae libri tres (1676) completed by John Ray is sometimes considered to mark the beginning of scientific ornithology. Ray also worked on Ornithologia, which was published posthumously in 1713 as Synopsis methodica avium et piscium.[34] The earliest list of British birds, Pinax Rerum Naturalium Britannicarum, was written by Christopher Merrett in 1667, but authors such as John Ray considered it of little value.[35] Ray did, however, value the expertise of the naturalist Sir Thomas Browne (1605–82), who not only answered his queries on ornithological identification and nomenclature, but also those of Willoughby and Merrett in letter correspondence. Browne himself in his lifetime kept an eagle, owl, cormorant, bittern, and ostrich, penned a tract on falconry, and introduced the words "incubation" and "oviparous" into the English language.[36][37]

Towards the late 18th century, Mathurin Jacques Brisson (1723–1806) and Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) began new works on birds. Brisson produced a six-volume work Ornithologie in 1760 and Buffon's included nine volumes (volumes 16–24) on birds Histoire naturelle des oiseaux (1770–1785) in his work on science Histoire naturelle générale et particulière (1749–1804). Jacob Temminck sponsored François Le Vaillant [1753–1824] to collect bird specimens in Southern Africa and Le Vaillant's six-volume Histoire naturelle des oiseaux d'Afrique (1796–1808) included many non-African birds. His other bird books produced in collaboration with the artist Barraband are considered among the most valuable illustrated guides ever produced. Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot (1748–1831) spent 10 years studying North American birds and wrote the Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l'Amerique septentrionale (1807–1808?). Vieillot pioneered in the use of life histories and habits in classification.[38] Alexander Wilson composed a nine-volume work, American Ornithology, published 1808-14—the first such record of North American birds, significantly antedating Audubon. In the early 19th century, Lewis and Clark studied and identified many birds in the western United States. John James Audubon, born in 1785, observed and painted birds in France and later in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. From 1827 to 1838, Audubon published The Birds of America, which was engraved by Robert Havell, Sr. and his son Robert Havell, Jr. Containing 435 engravings, it is often regarded as the greatest ornithological work in history.

The emergence of ornithology as a scientific discipline began in the 18th century, when Mark Catesby published his two-volume Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands, a landmark work which included 220 hand-painted engravings and was the basis for many of the species Carl Linnaeus described in the 1758 Systema Naturae. Linnaeus' work revolutionised bird taxonomy by assigning every species a binomial name, categorising them into different genera.
However, ornithology did not emerge as a specialised science until the Victorian eraâ€”with the concept of natural history, and the collection of natural objects such as bird eggs and skins.[39][40] This specialization led to the formation in Britain of the British Ornithologists' Union in 1858. In 1859, the members founded its journal The Ibis. The sudden spurt in ornithology was also due in part to colonialism. At 100 years later, in 1959, R. E. Moreau noted that ornithology in this period was preoccupied with the geographical distributions of various species of birds.[41]

No doubt the preoccupation with widely extended geographical ornithology, was fostered by the immensity of the areas over which British rule or influence stretched during the 19th century and for some time afterwards.

The bird collectors of the Victorian era observed the variations in bird forms and habits across geographic regions, noting local specialization and variation in widespread species. The collections of museums and private collectors grew with contributions from various parts of the world. The naming of species with binomials and the organization of birds into groups based on their similarities became the main work of museum specialists. The variations in widespread birds across geographical regions caused the introduction of trinomial names.

The search for patterns in the variations of birds was attempted by many. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854), his student Johann Baptist von Spix (1781–1826), and several others believed that a hidden and innate mathematical order existed in the forms of birds. They believed that a "natural" classification was available and superior to "artificial" ones. A particularly popular idea was the Quinarian system popularised by Nicholas Aylward Vigors (1785–1840), William Sharp Macleay (1792–1865), William Swainson, and others. The idea was that nature followed a "rule of five" with five groups nested hierarchically. Some had attempted a rule of four, but Johann Jakob Kaup (1803–1873) insisted that the number five was special, noting that other natural entities such as the senses also came in fives. He followed this idea and demonstrated his view of the order within the crow family. Where he failed to find five genera, he left a blank insisting that a new genus would found to fill these gaps. These ideas were replaced by more complex "maps" of affinities in works by Hugh Edwin Strickland and Alfred Russel Wallace.[43][44] A major advance was made by Max Fürbringer in 1888, who established a comprehensive phylogeny of birds based on anatomy, morphology, distribution, and biology. This was developed further by Hans Gadow and others.[45][46]

The Galapagos finches were especially influential in the development of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. His contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace also noted these variations and the geographical separations between different forms leading to the study of biogeography. Wallace was influenced by the work of Philip Lutley Sclater on the distribution patterns of birds.[47]

For Darwin, the problem was how species arose from a common ancestor, but he did not attempt to find rules for delineation of species. The species problem was tackled by the ornithologist Ernst Mayr, who was able to demonstrate that geographical isolation and the accumulation of genetic differences led to the splitting of species.[48][49]

Early ornithologists were preoccupied with matters of species identification. Only systematics counted as true science and field studies were considered inferior through much of the 19th century.[50] In 1901, Robert Ridgway wrote in the introduction to The Birds of North and Middle America that:

There are two essentially different kinds of ornithology: systematic or scientific, and popular. The former deals with the structure and classification of birds, their synonymies, and technical descriptions. The latter treats of their habits, songs, nesting, and other facts pertaining to their life histories.

This early idea that the study of living birds was merely recreation held sway until ecological theories became the predominant focus of ornithological studies.[2][41] The study of birds in their habitats was particularly advanced in Germany with bird ringing stations established as early as 1903. By the 1920s, the Journal fÃ¼r Ornithologie included many papers on the behaviour, ecology, anatomy, and physiology, many written by Erwin Stresemann. Stresemann changed the editorial policy of the journal, leading both to a unification of field and laboratory studies and a shift of research from museums to universities.[50] Ornithology in the United States continued to be dominated by museum studies of morphological variations, species identities, and geographic distributions, until it was influenced by Stresemann's student Ernst Mayr.[51] In Britain, some of the earliest ornithological works that used the word ecology appeared in 1915.[52] The Ibis, however, resisted the introduction of these new methods of study, and  no paper on ecology appeared until 1943.[41] The work of David Lack on population ecology was pioneering. Newer quantitative approaches were introduced for the study of ecology and behaviour, and this was not readily accepted. For instance, Claud Ticehurst wrote:

Sometimes it seems that elaborate plans and statistics are made to prove what is commonplace knowledge to the mere collector, such as that hunting parties often travel more or less in circles.

David Lack's studies on population ecology sought to find the processes involved in the regulation of population based on the evolution of optimal clutch sizes. He concluded that population was regulated primarily by density-dependent controls, and also suggested that natural selection produces life-history traits that maximize the fitness of individuals. Others, such as Wynne-Edwards, interpreted population regulation as a mechanism that aided the "species" rather than individuals. This led to widespread and sometimes bitter debate on what constituted the "unit of selection".[48] Lack also pioneered the use of many new tools for ornithological research, including the idea of using radar to study bird migration.

Birds were also widely used in studies of the niche hypothesis and Georgii Gause's competitive exclusion principle. Work on resource partitioning and the structuring of bird communities through competition were made by Robert MacArthur. Patterns of biodiversity also became a topic of interest. Work on the relationship of the number of species to area and its application in the study of island biogeography was pioneered by E. O. Wilson and Robert MacArthur.[48] These studies led to the development of the discipline of landscape ecology.

John Hurrell Crook studied the behaviour of weaverbirds and demonstrated the links between ecological conditions, behaviour, and social systems.[48][53][54] Principles from economics were introduced to the study of biology by Jerram L. Brown in his work on explaining territorial behaviour. This led to more studies of behaviour that made use of cost-benefit analyses.[55] The rising interest in sociobiology also led to a spurt of bird studies in this area.[48][56]

The study of imprinting behaviour in ducks and geese by Konrad Lorenz and the studies of instinct in herring gulls by Nicolaas Tinbergen led to the establishment of the field of ethology. The study of learning became an area of interest and the study of bird songs has been a model for studies in neuroethology. The study of hormones and physiology in the control of behaviour has also been aided by bird models. These have helped in finding the proximate causes of circadian and seasonal cycles. Studies on migration have attempted to answer questions on the evolution of migration, orientation, and navigation.[48]

The growth of genetics and the rise of molecular biology led to the application of the gene-centered view of evolution to explain avian phenomena. Studies on kinship and altruism, such as helpers, became of particular interest. The idea of inclusive fitness was used to interpret observations on behaviour and life history, and birds were widely used models for testing hypotheses based on theories postulated by W. D. Hamilton and others.[48]

The new tools of molecular biology changed the study of bird systematics, which changed from being based on phenotype to the underlying genotype. The use of techniques such as DNA-DNA hybridization to study evolutionary relationships was pioneered by Charles Sibley and Jon Edward Ahlquist, resulting in what is called the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy. These early techniques have been replaced by newer ones based on mitochondrial DNA sequences and molecular phylogenetics approaches that make use of computational procedures for sequence alignment, construction of phylogenetic trees, and calibration of molecular clocks to infer evolutionary relationships.[57][58] Molecular techniques are also widely used in studies of avian population biology and ecology.[59]

The use of field glasses or telescopes for bird observation began in the 1820s and 1830s, with pioneers such as J. Dovaston (who also pioneered in the use of bird feeders), but instruction manuals did not begin to insist on the use of optical aids such as "a first-class telescope" or "field glass" until the 1880s.[60][61]

The rise of field guides for the identification of birds was another major innovation. The early guides such as those of Thomas Bewick (two volumes) and William Yarrell (three volumes) were cumbersome, and mainly focused on identifying specimens in the hand. The earliest of the new generation of field guides was prepared by Florence Merriam, sister of Clinton Hart Merriam, the mammalogist. This was published in 1887 in a series Hints to Audubon Workers:Fifty Birds and How to Know Them in Grinnell's Audubon Magazine.[51] These were followed by new field guides including classics by Roger Tory Peterson.[62]

The interest in birdwatching grew in popularity in many parts of the world, and the possibility for amateurs to contribute to biological studies was soon realized. As early as 1916, Julian Huxley wrote a two-part article in The Auk, noting the tensions between amateurs and professionals, and suggested the possibility that the "vast army of bird lovers and bird watchers could begin providing the data scientists needed to address the fundamental problems of biology."[63][64]

Organizations were started in many countries, and these grew rapidly in membership, most notable among them being the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which started in 1885. Both these organizations were started with the primary objective of conservation. The RSPB, born in 1889, grew from a small group of women in Croydon, who met regularly and called themselves the "Fur, Fin, and Feather Folk" and who took a pledge "to refrain from wearing the feathers of any birds not killed for the purpose of food, the ostrich only exempted." The organization did not allow men as members initially, avenging a policy of the British Ornithologists' Union to keep out women.[39] Unlike the RSPB, which was primarily conservation oriented, the British Trust for Ornithology was started in 1933 with the aim of advancing ornithological research. Members were often involved in collaborative ornithological projects. These projects have resulted in atlases which detail the distribution of bird species across Britain.[3] In the United States, the Breeding Bird Surveys, conducted by the US Geological Survey, have also produced atlases with information on breeding densities and changes in the density and distribution over time. Other volunteer collaborative ornithology projects were subsequently established in other parts of the world.[65]

The tools and techniques of ornithology are varied, and new inventions and approaches are quickly incorporated. The techniques may be broadly dealt under the categories of those that are applicable to specimens and those that are used in the field, but the classification is rough and many analysis techniques are usable both in the laboratory and field or may require a combination of field and laboratory techniques.

The earliest approaches to modern bird study involved the collection of eggs, a practice known as oology. While collecting became a pastime for many amateurs, the labels associated with these early egg collections made them unreliable for the serious study of bird breeding. To preserve eggs, a tiny hole was made and the contents extracted. This technique became standard with the invention of the blow drill around 1830.[39] Egg collection is no longer popular; however, historic museum collections have been of value in determining the effects of pesticides such as DDT on physiology.[66][67] Museum bird collections continue to act as a resource for taxonomic studies.[68]

The use of bird skins to document species has been a standard part of systematic ornithology. Bird skins are prepared by retaining the key bones of the wings, legs, and skull along with the skin and feathers. In the past, they were treated with arsenic to prevent fungal and insect (mostly dermestid) attack. Arsenic, being toxic, was replaced by less-toxic borax. Amateur and professional collectors became familiar with these skinning techniques and started sending in their skins to museums, some of them from distant locations. This led to the formation of huge collections of bird skins in museums in Europe and North America. Many private collections were also formed. These became references for comparison of species, and the ornithologists at these museums were able to compare species from different locations, often places that they themselves never visited. Morphometrics of these skins, particularly the lengths of the tarsus, bill, tail, and wing became important in the descriptions of bird species. These skin collections have been used in more recent times for studies on molecular phylogenetics by the extraction of ancient DNA. The importance of type specimens in the description of species make skin collections a vital resource for systematic ornithology. However, with the rise of molecular techniques,  establishing the taxonomic status of new discoveries, such as the Bulo Burti boubou (Laniarius liberatus, no longer a valid species) and the Bugun liocichla (Liocichla bugunorum), using blood, DNA and feather samples as the holotype material, has now become possible.

Other methods of preservation include the storage of specimens in spirit. Such wet specimens have special value in physiological and anatomical study, apart from providing better quality of DNA for molecular studies.[69] Freeze drying of specimens is another technique that has the advantage of preserving stomach contents and anatomy, although it tends to shrink, making it less reliable for morphometrics.[70][71]

The study of birds in the field was helped enormously by improvements in optics. Photography made it possible to document birds in the field with great accuracy. High-power spotting scopes today allow observers to detect minute morphological differences that were earlier possible only by examination of the specimen "in the hand".[72]

The capture and marking of birds enable detailed studies of life history. Techniques for capturing birds are varied and include the use of bird liming for perching birds, mist nets for woodland birds, cannon netting for open-area flocking birds, the bal-chatri trap for raptors,[73] decoys and funnel traps for water birds.[74][75]

The bird in the hand may be examined and measurements can be made, including standard lengths and weights. Feather moult and skull ossification provide indications of age and health. Sex can be determined by examination of anatomy in some sexually nondimorphic species. Blood samples may be drawn to determine hormonal conditions in studies of physiology, identify DNA markers for studying genetics and kinship in studies of breeding biology and phylogeography. Blood may also be used to identify pathogens and arthropod-borne viruses. Ectoparasites may be collected for studies of coevolution and zoonoses.[76] In many cryptic species, measurements (such as the relative lengths of wing feathers in warblers) are vital in establishing identity.

Captured birds are often marked for future recognition. Rings or bands provide long-lasting identification, but require capture for the information on them to be read. Field-identifiable marks such as coloured bands, wing tags, or dyes enable short-term studies where individual identification is required. Mark and recapture techniques make demographic studies possible. Ringing has traditionally been used in the study of migration. In recent times, satellite transmitters provide the ability to track migrating birds in near-real time.[77]

Techniques for estimating population density include point counts[disambiguation needed], transects, and territory mapping. Observations are made in the field using carefully designed protocols and the data may be analysed to estimate bird diversity, relative abundance, or absolute population densities.[78] These methods may be used repeatedly over large timespans to monitor changes in the environment.[79] Camera traps have been found to be a useful tool for the detection and documentation of elusive species, nest predators and in the quantitative analysis of frugivory, seed dispersal and behaviour.[80][81]

Many aspects of bird biology are difficult to study in the field. These include the study of behavioural and physiological changes that require a long duration of access to the bird. Nondestructive samples of blood or feathers taken during field studies may be studied in the laboratory. For instance, the variation in the ratios of stable hydrogen isotopes across latitudes makes establishing the origins of migrant birds possible using mass spectrometric analysis of feather samples.[82] These techniques can be used in combination with other techniques such as ringing.[83]

The first attenuated vaccine developed by Louis Pasteur, for fowl cholera, was tested on poultry in 1878.[84] Anti-malarials were tested on birds which harbour avian-malarias.[85] Poultry continues to be used as a model for many studies in non-mammalian immunology.[86]

Studies in bird behaviour include the use of tamed and trained birds in captivity. Studies on bird intelligence and song learning have been largely laboratory-based. Field researchers may make use of a wide range of techniques such as the use of dummy owls to elicit mobbing behaviour, and dummy males or the use of call playback to elicit territorial behaviour and thereby to establish the boundaries of bird territories.[87]

Studies of bird migration including aspects of navigation, orientation, and physiology are often studied using captive birds in special cages that record their activities. The Emlen funnel, for instance, makes use of a cage with an inkpad at the centre and a conical floor where the ink marks can be counted to identify the direction in which the bird attempts to fly. The funnel can have a transparent top and visible cues such as the direction of sunlight may be controlled using mirrors or the positions of the stars simulated in a planetarium.[88]

The entire genome of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) was sequenced in 2004, and was followed in 2008 by the genome of the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata).[89]  Such whole-genome sequencing projects allow for studies on evolutionary processes involved in speciation.[90] Associations between the expression of genes and behaviour may be studied using candidate genes. Variations in the exploratory behaviour of great tits (Parus major) have been found to be linked with a gene orthologous to the human gene DRD4 (Dopamine receptor D4) which is known to be associated with novelty-seeking behaviour.[91] The role of gene expression in developmental differences and morphological variations have been studied in Darwin's finches. The difference in the expression of Bmp4 have been shown to be associated with changes in the growth and shape of the beak.[92][93]

The chicken has long been a model organism for studying vertebrate developmental biology. As the embryo is readily accessible, its development can be easily followed (unlike mice). This also allows the use of electroporation for studying the effect of adding or silencing a gene. Other tools for perturbing their genetic makeup are chicken embryonic stem cells and viral vectors.[94]

With the widespread interest in birds,  use of a large number of people to work on collaborative ornithological projects that cover large geographic scales has been possible.[95][96] These citizen science projects include nationwide projects such as the Christmas Bird Count,[97] Backyard Bird Count,[98] the North American Breeding Bird Survey, the Canadian EPOQ[99] or regional projects such as the Asian Waterfowl Census and Spring Alive in Europe. These projects help to identify distributions of birds, their population densities and changes over time, arrival and departure dates of migration, breeding seasonality, and even population genetics.[100] The results of many of these projects are published as bird atlases. Studies of migration using bird ringing or colour marking often involve the cooperation of people and organizations in different countries.[101]

Wild birds impact many human activities, while domesticated birds are important sources of eggs, meat, feathers, and other products. Applied and economic ornithology aim to reduce the ill effects of problem birds and enhance gains from beneficial species.

The role of some species of birds as pests has been well known, particularly in agriculture. Granivorous birds such as the queleas in Africa are among the most numerous birds in the world, and foraging flocks can cause devastation.[102][103] Many insectivorous birds are also noted as beneficial in agriculture. Many early studies on the benefits or damages caused by birds in fields were made by analysis of stomach contents and observation of feeding behaviour.[104] Modern studies aimed to manage birds in agriculture make use of a wide range of principles from ecology.[105] Intensive aquaculture has brought humans in conflict with fish-eating birds such as cormorants.[106]

Large flocks of pigeons and starlings in cities are often considered as a nuisance, and techniques to reduce their populations or their impacts are constantly innovated.[107][108] Birds are also of medical importance, and their role as carriers of human diseases such as Japanese encephalitis, West Nile virus, and influenza H5N1 have been widely recognised.[109][110] Bird strikes and the damage they cause in aviation are of particularly great importance, due to the fatal consequences and the level of economic losses caused. The airline industry incurs worldwide damages of an estimated US$1.2 billion each year.[111]

Many species of birds have been driven to extinction by human activities. Being conspicuous elements of the ecosystem, they have been considered as indicators of ecological health.[112] They have also helped in gathering support for habitat conservation.[113] Bird conservation requires specialized knowledge in aspects of biology and ecology, and may require the use of very location-specific approaches. Ornithologists contribute to conservation biology by studying the ecology of birds in the wild and identifying the key threats and ways of enhancing the survival of species.[114] Critically endangered species such as the California condor have had to be captured and bred in captivity. Such ex situ conservation measures may be followed by reintroduction of the species into the wild.[115]


who is the current vice president of liberia

The Vice President of the Republic of Liberia is the second-highest executive official in Liberia, and one of only two elected executive offices along with the President. The Vice President is elected on the same ticket with the president to a six-year term. In the event of the death, resignation or removal of the president, the Vice President ascends to the presidency, which he or she holds for the remainder of their predecessor's term. The Vice President also serves as the President of the Senate and may cast a vote in the event of a tie. The current Vice President is Jewel Taylor, serving under President George Weah.

Vice President of Liberia

Article 52 of the Constitution lays out the qualifications for candidates for vice president. To be eligible for office under the current Constitution, a vice presidential candidate must:

Additionally, the vice president may not reside in the same county as the president.

Under Article 63(b), the Vice President ascends to the presidency in the event of president's death, resignation, impeachment, or when the president is declared incapable of carrying out the duties of the office. In the event of ascension, the Vice President serves as president for the remainder of his or her predecessor's term, though this period is not considered a term for the purposes of term limits to the presidency. According to Article 63(a), should the president-elect die or become otherwise incapacitated before his or her inauguration, the Vice President-elect is sworn in as president in their place, though a term of this nature does constitute a term for the purposes of determining term limits.

To date, five Vice Presidents have ascended to the presidency, either due to the president's death, resignation, or removal from office: James Skivring Smith, Alfred Francis Russell, William D. Coleman, William R. Tolbert Jr., and Moses Blah.

There have been twelve vacancies in the office, the first of which occurred between October 26, 1871 and January 1, 1872; after the ascension of James Skivring Smith to the office of President. The most recent vacancy was between August 11, 2003 and January 16, 2006; after the ascension of Moses Blah to the office of President and prior to the election of Joseph Boakai.