Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem.

New planet definition sparks furore

The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position.

On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead.

But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful".

"The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed."

Four planets

He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not.

That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says.

And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says.

He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold).

"It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist.

Minority report

Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of

hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted.

"You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support."

In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says.

David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition.

Grammar issue

"As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet."

Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets.

But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says.

'This is crazy'

"Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no."

"Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community."

But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them."

He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune.

(Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006)

Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem.

New planet definition sparks furore

The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position.

On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead.

But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful".

"The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed."

Four planets

He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not.

That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says.

And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says.

He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold).

"It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist.

Minority report

Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of

hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted.

"You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support."

In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says.

David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition.

Grammar issue

"As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet."

Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets.

But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says.

'This is crazy'

"Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no."

"Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community."

But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them."

He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune.

(Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006)

Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem.

New planet definition sparks furore

The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position.

On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead.

But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful".

"The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed."

Four planets

He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not.

That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says.

And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says.

He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold).

"It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist.

Minority report

Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of

hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted.

"You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support."

In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says.

David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition.

Grammar issue

"As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet."

Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets.

But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says.

'This is crazy'

"Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no."

"Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community."

But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them."

He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune.

(Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006)

Leia o texto “New planet definition sparks furore” e responda, EM PORTUGUÊS, as perguntas que se seguem.

New planet definition sparks furore

The new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position.

On Thursday, astronomers at the IAU meeting in Prague approved a resolution that says the solar system has only eight planets, with Pluto excluded. Pluto is considered a "dwarf planet" instead.

But the new definition has provoked a backlash. Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful".

"The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed."

Four planets

He says only four of the eight objects mentioned in the IAU definition actually meet the definition's criteria – and Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune do not.

That is because the definition stipulates that to be a planet, an object must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. But Earth's orbital neighbourhood is filled with thousands of near-Earth asteroids, Stern says.

And Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have so-called "Trojan" asteroids sharing their orbits. "This is a half-baked criterion for planethood," he says.

He says the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets (an earlier proposal, which was abandoned after heavy criticism at the meeting, would have potentially allowed hundreds of new planets into the fold).

"It's just people that say things like, 'School kids will have to memorise too many names.' Do we limit the number of stars because children have to think of too many names? Or rivers on the Earth? It's just crazy," Stern told New Scientist.

Minority report

Stern is also critical of the fact that only astronomers present for the vote, which occurred at the end of the two-week meeting, were allowed to have their say on the matter. No email voting was allowed for the decision – it was made by a show of

hands – and that meant that less than 5% of the nearly 9000 IAU members actually voted.

"You're going to see a real backlash in the coming weeks," he says. "I know there is a petition among planetary scientists that's getting a lot of support."

In any case, he says, astronomers are not obligated to use the new definition, since the IAU does not have the power to enforce it. "I don't think it's going to be very widely followed," he says.

David Weintraub, author of the upcoming book Is Pluto a Planet? and a researcher at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, US, says he thinks Pluto is still a planet – even under the new definition.

Grammar issue

"As best I can tell, 'dwarf' is an adjective and 'planet' is a noun," he told New Scientist. "I think the IAU thinks they defined Pluto to not be a planet. But they in fact have defined Pluto to be a planet – a particular kind of planet."

Astronomers who proposed the new definition respond that the term "dwarf planet" is meant to be thought of as a single concept. And others point out that "minor planets" – asteroids and other small bodies – are not considered planets.

But he agrees with Stern that the stipulation that a planet clears out its neighbourhood is flawed. A better definition would say a planet is an object that orbits a star and is large enough to be spherical, but is not large enough to be a brown dwarf – a "failed" star with between about 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter – or a star, he says.

'This is crazy'

"Everyone agrees on those criteria," he says. "The question is, can we agree on additional criteria to refine the definition further? I think the answer is no."

"Everybody who has communicated with me is saying, 'This is crazy and we don't agree with it,'" he adds. "I'm not convinced that the folks who were at the meeting represented well the larger community."

But not everyone is unhappy with the decision. Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US, says he is pleased with the outcome. "As far as I'm concerned, the right decision was made," he told New Scientist. "I know a planet when I see it and there are eight of them."

He says it makes no sense to call Pluto a planet because it is just one of huge numbers of objects in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune.

(Adaptado de New Scientist Space, August 2006)

Texto I

A origem de nosso entendimento

Um macaco jamais poderia tocar piano. Falta-lhe, para isso, a capacidade de mover os dedos com velocidade e precisão para pressionar as teclas em rápida sucessão. Nós, humanos, porém, mesmo quando não sabemos nada de música, não precisamos de muito tempo para aprender a tocar pelo menos uma melodia curta. Isso sem falar da vertiginosa execução de pianistas profissionais.

Nossa habilidade manual ultrapassa em muito a dos outros primatas, e isso é um fato que os pesquisadores que buscam as qualidades que caracterizam o ser humano até agora levaram menos em conta que uma outra diferença: nossa posse da linguagem ou nossa capacidade de articulação vocal. No entanto, como já se sabe há alguns séculos, ambas as habilidades estão estreitamente ligadas do ponto de vista neurobiológico, pois os mesmos centros cerebrais contêm as rotinas e instruções para a fala e para o uso de nossas mãos.

Nos últimos séculos, a pesquisa comportamental derrubou quase todas as supostas barreiras que separavam os homens dos animais, como o uso de ferramentas, a comunicação simbólica e a categorização abstrata. O mesmo vale para as atividades cognitivas, faculdades de pensamento e compreensão que os animais também possuem, embora em forma rudimentar. Só a linguagem parece ser exclusivamente nossa: apesar de todos os esforços, até hoje nenhum macaco aprendeu a falar.

Uma característica da fala é o perfeito controle da musculatura do aparelho fonador. É notável que nossa destreza manual também se apóie em uma motricidade refinada. Somos capazes de controlar a musculatura das mãos e braços com mais precisão do que qualquer animal. Mas é importante observar que esse controle motor começa a se manifestar nos primatas. Seus dedos se tornaram mais rápidos, e sua mímica mais pronunciada, mas essas capacidades ainda não bastam para a articulação vocal. Só o homem tem o dom da fala, assim como só ele é capaz de realizar atividades manuais complexas.

Muitos animais correm e saltam melhor do que nós. Eles dispõem, para isso, de um complexo aparato neuronal que emite as instruções de movimento e ajusta seus comandos às circunstâncias. Na evolução da inteligência motora humana, esse é o fundamento sobre o qual se baseiam nossa capacidade lingüística e nosso controle manual.

(NEUWEILER, Gerhard. A origem de nosso entendimento. (fragmento adaptado) In: Scientific American – Brasil. Junho de 2005.)

Texto II

Quintanares

Meu Quintana, os teus cantares

Não são, Quintana, cantares:

São, Quintana, quintanares.

Quinta-essência de cantares...

Insólitos, singulares...

Cantares? Não! Quintanares!

Quer livres, quer regulares,

Abrem sempre os teus cantares

Como flor de quintanares.

São cantigas sem esgares.

Onde as lágrimas são mares

De amor, os teus quintanares.

São feitos esses cantares

De um tudo-nada: ao falares,

Luzem estrelas luares.

São para dizer em bares

Como em mansões seculares

Quintana, os teus quintanares.

Sim, em bares, onde os pares

Se beijam sem que repares

Que são casais exemplares.

E quer no pudor dos lares.

Quer no horror dos lupanares.

Cheiram sempre os teus cantares

Ao ar dos melhores ares,

Pois são simples, invulgares.

Quintana, os teus quintanares.

Por isso peço não pares,

Quintana, nos teus cantares...

Perdão! digo quintanares

(BANDEIRA, Manuel. In: Coletânea 80 anos de Poesia. Organizada por Tânia Carvalhal. Editora Globo, 1986.)

Texto III

Os Poemas

Os poemas são pássaros que chegam

não se sabe de onde e pousam

no livro que lês.

Quando fechas o livro, eles alçam vôo

como de um alçapão.

Eles não têm pouso

nem porto

alimentam-se um instante em cada par de mãos

e partem.

E olhas, então, essas tuas mãos vazias,

no maravilhado espanto de saberes

que o alimento deles já estava em ti...

(QUINTANA, Mário. In: Esconderijos do Tempo. Porto Alegre: L&M, 1980.)

Texto I

A origem de nosso entendimento

Um macaco jamais poderia tocar piano. Falta-lhe, para isso, a capacidade de mover os dedos com velocidade e precisão para pressionar as teclas em rápida sucessão. Nós, humanos, porém, mesmo quando não sabemos nada de música, não precisamos de muito tempo para aprender a tocar pelo menos uma melodia curta. Isso sem falar da vertiginosa execução de pianistas profissionais.

Nossa habilidade manual ultrapassa em muito a dos outros primatas, e isso é um fato que os pesquisadores que buscam as qualidades que caracterizam o ser humano até agora levaram menos em conta que uma outra diferença: nossa posse da linguagem ou nossa capacidade de articulação vocal. No entanto, como já se sabe há alguns séculos, ambas as habilidades estão estreitamente ligadas do ponto de vista neurobiológico, pois os mesmos centros cerebrais contêm as rotinas e instruções para a fala e para o uso de nossas mãos.

Nos últimos séculos, a pesquisa comportamental derrubou quase todas as supostas barreiras que separavam os homens dos animais, como o uso de ferramentas, a comunicação simbólica e a categorização abstrata. O mesmo vale para as atividades cognitivas, faculdades de pensamento e compreensão que os animais também possuem, embora em forma rudimentar. Só a linguagem parece ser exclusivamente nossa: apesar de todos os esforços, até hoje nenhum macaco aprendeu a falar.

Uma característica da fala é o perfeito controle da musculatura do aparelho fonador. É notável que nossa destreza manual também se apóie em uma motricidade refinada. Somos capazes de controlar a musculatura das mãos e braços com mais precisão do que qualquer animal. Mas é importante observar que esse controle motor começa a se manifestar nos primatas. Seus dedos se tornaram mais rápidos, e sua mímica mais pronunciada, mas essas capacidades ainda não bastam para a articulação vocal. Só o homem tem o dom da fala, assim como só ele é capaz de realizar atividades manuais complexas.

Muitos animais correm e saltam melhor do que nós. Eles dispõem, para isso, de um complexo aparato neuronal que emite as instruções de movimento e ajusta seus comandos às circunstâncias. Na evolução da inteligência motora humana, esse é o fundamento sobre o qual se baseiam nossa capacidade lingüística e nosso controle manual.

(NEUWEILER, Gerhard. A origem de nosso entendimento. (fragmento adaptado) In: Scientific American – Brasil. Junho de 2005.)

Texto II

Quintanares

Meu Quintana, os teus cantares

Não são, Quintana, cantares:

São, Quintana, quintanares.

Quinta-essência de cantares...

Insólitos, singulares...

Cantares? Não! Quintanares!

Quer livres, quer regulares,

Abrem sempre os teus cantares

Como flor de quintanares.

São cantigas sem esgares.

Onde as lágrimas são mares

De amor, os teus quintanares.

São feitos esses cantares

De um tudo-nada: ao falares,

Luzem estrelas luares.

São para dizer em bares

Como em mansões seculares

Quintana, os teus quintanares.

Sim, em bares, onde os pares

Se beijam sem que repares

Que são casais exemplares.

E quer no pudor dos lares.

Quer no horror dos lupanares.

Cheiram sempre os teus cantares

Ao ar dos melhores ares,

Pois são simples, invulgares.

Quintana, os teus quintanares.

Por isso peço não pares,

Quintana, nos teus cantares...

Perdão! digo quintanares

(BANDEIRA, Manuel. In: Coletânea 80 anos de Poesia. Organizada por Tânia Carvalhal. Editora Globo, 1986.)

Texto III

Os Poemas

Os poemas são pássaros que chegam

não se sabe de onde e pousam

no livro que lês.

Quando fechas o livro, eles alçam vôo

como de um alçapão.

Eles não têm pouso

nem porto

alimentam-se um instante em cada par de mãos

e partem.

E olhas, então, essas tuas mãos vazias,

no maravilhado espanto de saberes

que o alimento deles já estava em ti...

(QUINTANA, Mário. In: Esconderijos do Tempo. Porto Alegre: L&M, 1980.)

Texto I

A origem de nosso entendimento

Um macaco jamais poderia tocar piano. Falta-lhe, para isso, a capacidade de mover os dedos com velocidade e precisão para pressionar as teclas em rápida sucessão. Nós, humanos, porém, mesmo quando não sabemos nada de música, não precisamos de muito tempo para aprender a tocar pelo menos uma melodia curta. Isso sem falar da vertiginosa execução de pianistas profissionais.

Nossa habilidade manual ultrapassa em muito a dos outros primatas, e isso é um fato que os pesquisadores que buscam as qualidades que caracterizam o ser humano até agora levaram menos em conta que uma outra diferença: nossa posse da linguagem ou nossa capacidade de articulação vocal. No entanto, como já se sabe há alguns séculos, ambas as habilidades estão estreitamente ligadas do ponto de vista neurobiológico, pois os mesmos centros cerebrais contêm as rotinas e instruções para a fala e para o uso de nossas mãos.

Nos últimos séculos, a pesquisa comportamental derrubou quase todas as supostas barreiras que separavam os homens dos animais, como o uso de ferramentas, a comunicação simbólica e a categorização abstrata. O mesmo vale para as atividades cognitivas, faculdades de pensamento e compreensão que os animais também possuem, embora em forma rudimentar. Só a linguagem parece ser exclusivamente nossa: apesar de todos os esforços, até hoje nenhum macaco aprendeu a falar.

Uma característica da fala é o perfeito controle da musculatura do aparelho fonador. É notável que nossa destreza manual também se apóie em uma motricidade refinada. Somos capazes de controlar a musculatura das mãos e braços com mais precisão do que qualquer animal. Mas é importante observar que esse controle motor começa a se manifestar nos primatas. Seus dedos se tornaram mais rápidos, e sua mímica mais pronunciada, mas essas capacidades ainda não bastam para a articulação vocal. Só o homem tem o dom da fala, assim como só ele é capaz de realizar atividades manuais complexas.

Muitos animais correm e saltam melhor do que nós. Eles dispõem, para isso, de um complexo aparato neuronal que emite as instruções de movimento e ajusta seus comandos às circunstâncias. Na evolução da inteligência motora humana, esse é o fundamento sobre o qual se baseiam nossa capacidade lingüística e nosso controle manual.

(NEUWEILER, Gerhard. A origem de nosso entendimento. (fragmento adaptado) In: Scientific American – Brasil. Junho de 2005.)

Texto II

Quintanares

Meu Quintana, os teus cantares

Não são, Quintana, cantares:

São, Quintana, quintanares.

Quinta-essência de cantares...

Insólitos, singulares...

Cantares? Não! Quintanares!

Quer livres, quer regulares,

Abrem sempre os teus cantares

Como flor de quintanares.

São cantigas sem esgares.

Onde as lágrimas são mares

De amor, os teus quintanares.

São feitos esses cantares

De um tudo-nada: ao falares,

Luzem estrelas luares.

São para dizer em bares

Como em mansões seculares

Quintana, os teus quintanares.

Sim, em bares, onde os pares

Se beijam sem que repares

Que são casais exemplares.

E quer no pudor dos lares.

Quer no horror dos lupanares.

Cheiram sempre os teus cantares

Ao ar dos melhores ares,

Pois são simples, invulgares.

Quintana, os teus quintanares.

Por isso peço não pares,

Quintana, nos teus cantares...

Perdão! digo quintanares

(BANDEIRA, Manuel. In: Coletânea 80 anos de Poesia. Organizada por Tânia Carvalhal. Editora Globo, 1986.)

Texto III

Os Poemas

Os poemas são pássaros que chegam

não se sabe de onde e pousam

no livro que lês.

Quando fechas o livro, eles alçam vôo

como de um alçapão.

Eles não têm pouso

nem porto

alimentam-se um instante em cada par de mãos

e partem.

E olhas, então, essas tuas mãos vazias,

no maravilhado espanto de saberes

que o alimento deles já estava em ti...

(QUINTANA, Mário. In: Esconderijos do Tempo. Porto Alegre: L&M, 1980.)