It was almost the worst birthday of Abraham Lincoln's life.

    On February 11, 1861 (the day before he turned fifty-two), Lincoln left for Washington to become the nation's sixteenth President. As he left home in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln handed his son Robert a black oilskin(油布) bag, and told him to keep it carefully. He did not tell Robert what was inside.

    Unknown to his seventeen-year-old son, Lincoln had placed his newly written inaugural speech in the bag. It was to be the most important speech he ever made. And it was his only copy.

When the train arrived in Indianapolis—the first stop on the long journey—Lincoln rode off in a special carriage without his family. Robert walked from the station to the local hotel.

    When Robert arrived at the hotel, he learned that his family's rooms were not ready. So he asked that the bag should be held at the front desk. Then he went off to be with friends.

    On his return, Robert found his father waiting anxiously. Where was the bag? Robert explained that he had checked it at the desk.

An angry Lincoln sped to the hall and leaped over the front desk. He began searching through a huge pile of luggage.

    As puzzled guests looked on, Lincoln dragged from the pile a familiar-looking black bag and opened it, only to find someone else's dirty clothes. It was the wrong bag. Back he went to the pile.

    At last he found the valuable bag and the speech inside. Lincoln handed it to his son and said strictly, “Now you keep it!”

    It was the one and only time, Robert said, that his father had ever lost his temper at him. But with his speech fond and his birthday yet to be celebrated, Abraham Lincoln grew cheerful. As Robert proudly recalled, “Father did not scold(责骂).”

    One of the most striking findings of a newly research in the UK is that of the people interviewed, one in two believes that it is becoming more difficult to meet someone to start a family with.

    Why are many finding it increasingly difficult to start close relationships? Does modem life really make it harder to fall in love? Or are we making it harder for ourselves? It is certainly the case today that contemporary couples benefit in different ways from relationships. Women no longer rely upon partners for money or status. A man doesn't expect his wife to be in (唯一的) charge of running his household and raising his children.

    But perhaps the knowledge that we can live perfectly well without a partnership means that it takes much more to persuade people to abandon their independence.

    In theory, finding a partner should be much simpler these days. Only a few generations ago, your choice of soul mate was limited by geography, social convention and family tradition. Although it was never clear，many marriages were essentially arranged. Now those barriers have been broken down. You can approach a builder or a brain surgeon in any bar in any city on any given evening. When the world is your oyster ( 牡蛎), you surely have a better chance of finding a pearl.

    But it seems that the old conventions have been replaced by the limitations of choice. The expectations of partners are raised to an unmanageable degree: good looks, impressive salary, kind to grandmother, and right socks. There is no room for error in the first impression.

    We think that a relationship can be perfect. If it isn't, it should be ended. We work to protect ourselves against future heartache and don't put in the hard emotional labor needed to build a strong relationship. Twelve-hour work at the office makes relaxed after-hours dating difficult. The cost of housing and child-raising creates pressure to have a stable income and Career before a life partnership.

    Mandara seemed to know something big was about to happen. So she let out a yell, caught hold of her 2-year-old daughter Kibibi and climbed up into a tree. She lives at the National Zoo in Washington D. C.

    And on Tuesday, August 23rd, witnesses said she seemed to sense the big earthquake that shook much of the East Coast before any humans knew what was going on. And she's not the only one. In the moments before the quake, an orangutan（猩猩）let out a loud call and then climbed to the top of her shelter.

    “It's very different from their normal call,” said Brandie Smith, the zookeeper. “The lemurs（monkeylike animals of Madagascar）will sound an alarm if they see or hear something highly unusual.”

    But you can't see or hear an earthquake 15 minutes before it happens, can you? Maybe you can—if you're an animal. “Animals can hear above and below our range of hearing,” said Brandie Smith. “That's part of their special abilities. They're more sensitive to the environment, which is how they survive.”

    Primates weren't the only animals that seemed to sense the quake before it happened. One of the elephants made a warning sound. And a huge lizard（蜥蜴）ran quickly for cover. The flamingoes（a kind of birds）gathered before the quake and stayed together until the shaking stopped.

    So what kind of vibrations（震动）were the animals picking up in the moments before the quake? Scientist Susan Hough said earthquakes produce two types of waves—a weak “P” wave and then a much stronger “S” wave. The “P” stands for “primary”. And the “S” stands for “secondary”. She thinks the “P” wave might be what sets the animals off.

    Not all the animals behaved unusually before the quake. For example, Smith said the zoo's giant pandas didn't jump up until the shaking actually began. But many of the other animals seemed to know something was coming before it happened. “I'm not surprised at all,” Smith said.

    Environmentalists said our planet was bound to die. Now one man says they are wrong. “Everyone knows the planet is in bad shape,” thundered a magazine article last year. “Species are being driven to die out at record rates, and the rivers are so poisonous that fish are floating on the surface, dead.”

    But there's growing belief that what everyone takes for granted is wrong: Things are actually getting better. A new book is about to overturn our most basic assumptions about the world's environment. Rivers, seas, rain and the atmosphere are all getting better.

    The total amount of forests in the world is not declining. The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, is an attack on the misleading claims of environmental groups, and the “bad news” culture that makes people believe everything is getting worse.

    Now the attacks are increasingly coming from left-wing environmentalists such as Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace. The accusation is that, although the environment is improving, green groups — with profits of hundreds of millions of pounds a year — are using scare tactics (战术) to gain donations. Lomborg's book doesn't deny global warming — probably the biggest environmental threat — but destroys almost every other environmental claim with many official statistics.

    The Worldwatch Institute claims that deforestation(采伐森林) has been speeding over the last 30 years. Buy Lomborg says that is simply rubbish. Since the dawn of agriculture the world has lost about 20% of its forest cover, but in recent decades the forest area's depleting has come to a stop. According to UN figures, the area of forests has remained almost steady, at about 30% of total land area, since 1940s. Forests in countries such as the US, UK and Canada have actually been expanding over the past 40 years. Despite all the warnings the Amazon rainforest has only shrunk by about 15%.

    Nor are all our species dying out. Some campaigners claim that 50% of all species will have died out within 50 years. But other studies show only 0.08% of species are dying out each year. Conservation efforts have been successful. Whales are no longer threatened and the bald eagle is off the endangered list.

    Environmental groups claim that many of the improvements are the results of their campaigns. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace UK, said, “There are important examples, such as acid rain and ozone, where things weren't as bad as predicted, and that's because our behavior changed.”

The Best Maldives Island for Your Travel Style

Every resort（度假地） in Maldives is its own private island but choosing the right one for you can be difficult. Want to kick off your Indian Ocean holiday in style? Our guide will help you know what to look for in the hunt for your ideal island.

Waldorf Astoria Maldives Ithaafushi

You'll never go hungry at the Waldorf Astoria Maldives Ithaafushi, which has 1 1 restaurants, including ones specializing in garden-to-table cuisine. There are regular food-themed events, too—our favorites include Arabian Night and the Twilight Seafood Barbecue.

Four Seasons Resort Maldives

Considered one of the best spots in the Maldives for honeymoons, the Four Seasons Resort Maldives has a huge range of room categories and offers a brilliant selection of packages, including Island Romance packages that feature fantastic extras designed with couples in mind.

Fairmon t Maldives

There are numerous reasons to visit the Fairmont Maldives, including the fact that it's a great place to learn about sustainability, whether it's at the Sustainability Lab, where guests can turn discarded plastic bottles into jewelry or during excursions with marine biologists from a charity created to protect sea turtles.

Heritance Aarah

Heritance Aarah recently opened its Live Maldivian Village Museum, which focuses on 4,000 years of Maldivian history. Guests can learn about the art of coral stone carving and find out why locals are known as some of the world's best boat builders.

To ensure you experience the Maldives' best bits, schedule a holiday every month without fail. We're joking, but you get the point: think what you want to see and do, and brush up on the different areas' seasonal selling points.

A recent study by UK researchers has shed light on a phenomenon termed "plant blindness," which contributes to the widespread but mistaken belief that plants are perceived as less vibrant or alive compared to animals.

It was not established that plant blindness is an innate trait; instead, the root cause appears to be the significantly diminished interaction with the natural world in societies that have become highly urbanized. The research indicates that a decrease in prior exposure to plants leads to a cycle of inattention.

Urban cultures exhibit a well-documented incidence of plant blindness. Children are often observed to regard plants as less significant than animals, especially during their early years, and they have difficulty recognizing a diverse range of plant species. Both educators and students have reported varying levels of knowledge about plants, with primary school teachers lacking a background in science being particularly affected. In contrast, older individuals tend to possess greater plant knowledge, likely due to their increased participation in outdoor activities.

Thirty-five studies have concluded that the process of urbanization or modernization has had a negative impact on people's understanding of plants. The value of plant gathering has diminished due to an increased reliance on urban services and a cash-based economy. Additionally, the time available for outdoor activities has been curtailed by work and school commitments. These factors have also reduced family time, which in turn has adversely affected the oral transmission of plant knowledge to younger and older family members.

Stagg has suggested that rather than a cognitive impediment to the visual recognition of plants, individuals residing in highly industrialized nations suffer from a lack of attention to plants due to a reduction in relevant exposure.

To disrupt the cycle of plant inattention, Stagg emphasizes the importance of exposing people to diverse ecosystems and demonstrating the direct benefits of plants to humans, as opposed to the indirect benefits derived from their industrial use or advantages to distant, traditional communities. Engaging with edible and practical plants in local settings can be instrumental in this regard. The level of botanical knowledge among younger generations is directly linked to their perception of the usefulness of such knowledge in their lives.