I wanted to avoid doing some work (grading papers), so this is a nice distraction.
Recently hatched nymphs. Possibly young leaf-footed bugs,
Acanthocephala sp.
Hatched nymphs by
Mark Sturtevant, on Flickr
Robber flies. I can't even narrow down the genus of them, though.
Robber flies by
Mark Sturtevant, on Flickr
Two-spotted tree cricket nymph,
Neoxabea bipunctata.
Two-spotted tree cricket by
Mark Sturtevant, on Flickr
Goldenrod leafminer,
Microrhopala vittata. I thought getting an ID would be iffy, but once again just a vague search in BugGuide and in seconds ...
Goldenrod leafminer by
Mark Sturtevant, on Flickr
Oh well, back to it. **Sigh**.
Stunning pictures Mark. Very nice work!
Yep! They look like critters to me! Really nice job here!
Image 1. Nymphs, were impressive because they are rarely seen and are so spiky and colorful.
Image 2. Was blank... perhaps it was sexual and censored by the State of Florida.
Image 3. Obviously the head of a snake or young alligator... [Sorry, my brain fried by heat of Florida]
Image 4. Very clear prompting me to wonder why in survival of the fittest the two light colored stripes are on
the Goldenrod leafminer back??
dpullum wrote:
Image 1. Nymphs, were impressive because they are rarely seen and are so spiky and colorful.
Image 2. Was blank... perhaps it was sexual and censored by the State of Florida.
Image 3. Obviously the head of a snake or young alligator... [Sorry, my brain fried by heat of Florida]
Image 4. Very clear prompting me to wonder why in survival of the fittest the two light colored stripes are on
the Goldenrod leafminer back??
Image 1. Nymphs, were impressive because they are ... (
show quote)
Image 2 seems fine. Maybe it's taking long to load? Anyone else?
Image 4: One has to wonder why some animals have markings that they can't see or seem to even need. My hand- waving answer is that in the halls of academic discussion about evolution, we find the view that not all characteristics need to be the direct result of natural selection. A classical example are the species-specific shapes of leaves of trees. We find that the broad shapes of leaves are clearly useful for capturing sunlight. The narrowed tips of leaves directs water drops to efficiently shed away, and this provides great relief for the leaves and branches after a rain. Even the various lobes and gaps in leaves are useful to allow sunlight to filter deeper into the canopy.
But why should different species of maple leaves have distinctly different shapes? They are all clearly good enough. Equal. So why be different? The idea is that not every trait is directly the result of natural selection.
Mark Sturtevant wrote:
....... So why be different? The idea is that not every trait is directly the result of natural selection.
Maybe a little too over generalized (or incomplete) statement. Perhaps a better response would be: in natural selection, traits can be selected FOR, or not selected AGAINST (neutral at a particular point in time)
Just a thought.....
Outstanding series deserving of a tip-of-the-hat.
good pics,any taken with the Venus Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra-Macro Lens
tinusbum wrote:
good pics,any taken with the Venus Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra-Macro Lens
The tree cricket, definitely. A manual stack of a few pictures.
An interesting and well shot group Mark as are all your posts.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.