Familjen Nepticulidae har några av de minsta malarna som är kända, allt från 3-8 mm vingspets till vingspets. För en jämförelse har jag avbildat två nattfjärilar ovan: den största kända – Coscinocera herculesthat tips the scales at nearly 9 tum, och en av de minsta (yes that tiny little speck below the Hercules moth) – Ectoedemia rubifoliella, also imaged below. The Nepticulidae are surprisingly diverse, med över 800 species described that likely represent only 10% of the actual diversity (Powell, 2009). In the United States we have only 80 arter, of which 25 are known from the west. When you compare that diversity to the 100 or so species known from Great Britain, it’s clear that the US knowledge is vastly lacking. Faktiskt, over 80% of all nepticulid diversity is known from Europe alone. A strange inversion when you consider that the neotropics are the world’s most diverse ecosystems yet have only 74 known Nepticulidae species! (Puplesis, 2000). Why is this so?
Ectoedemia rubifoliella3.3mm
Stigmella ostryaefoliella3.1mm
The European diversity can easily be explained away due to a high concentration of bored Lepidopterists. The Holarctic fauna is not the most diverse and it therefore has become the best understood on the planet, not to mention they have had a long history of gentleman entomologists dating back hundreds of years. But the rest of the Nepticulidae diversity remains a mystery because they are really, verkligen liten, hard to spread, and difficult to identify as adults! I have actually had little practice or success with mounting Nepticulidae, and the above specimens should be credited to Dr. Dave Wagner. The very few that I do have in my collection are simply pinned and un-spread; and even the pinning proves hard enough when a slip of the hand can obliterate the entire specimen. Apparently the best method for mounting is to knock them down in the freezer and pin them while they are still alive. Not the most humane, but the only way to keep the moth from drying before your eyes and becoming impossible to manipulate. As hard as the adults are to manage, the larvae are rather characteristic in that most are leaf miners – they feed on the materialmellanthe leaf epidermises. This lends to the common name of “leaf blotch miners” because you can see the translucent patches the moths have ‘mined’ out from inside the leaf. Not only is each species rather host-specific, but they tend to form very characteristic mine patterns within the leaf. So if you find a leaf mine and you know the species of plant, chances are you can find out the species of Nepticulid within it (however not all leaf mines are nepticulids, there are lots of other insects that do this as well). Rearing these moths are also rather simple, all you have to do is pop the leaf in a bag and wait for the moth to finish feeding. One caterpillar only needs one leaf (or tiny section of leaf) – but care has to be taken to keep the leaf green while the caterpillar feeds. If the leaf dies, so will the caterpillar. Because of this paradoxical ability to identify the mines and not the adults there is a surprising amount of ecological research done on them, especially since a few pose threats to commercial crops. The first image below clearly illustrates the caterpillar feeding within the leaf – and the trail of frass it has left behind.
If you look at the above images of mines it’s not all that difficult to imagine structures like this fossilizing. And amazingly, they have! The first image below (Labandeira et al., 1994) shows a variety of leaf mining Nepticulidae mines (and a Gracillariidae) from the mid-Cretaceous (97 million years ago). The spectacular thing about leaf mines is that you can get down to genus level and sometimes even species. The authors were able to differentiate between the nepticulid generaStigmella och Ectoedemiabased on the patterns preserved in the fossils; patterns we still use to help separate genera today. The bottom illustration is from a mine discovered in Japan that is only around 8 million years old (Kuroko, 1987).
(Labanderia, 1994)
(Kuroko, 1987)
References
Kuroko, H. (1987). A Fossil Leaf Mine of Nepticulidae (Lepidoptera) from Japan. Bulletin Sugadaira Montane Res. Cen., No.8, 119-121.
Labandeira, C. (1994). Ninety-Seven Million Years of Angiosperm-Insect Association: Paleobiological Insights into the Meaning of CoevolutionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91 (25), 12278-12282 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.91.25.12278
PUPLESIS, R., DIŠKUS, A., ROBINSON, G., & ONORE, G. (2002). A review and checklist of the Neotropical Nepticulidae (Lepidoptera) Bulletin of The Natural History Museum. Entomology Series, 71 (01) DOI: 10.1017/S0968045402000032
Powell, J.A., Opler, P.A. (2010). Malar i västra Nordamerika – by J. Ett. Powell and P. Ett. OplerSystematic Entomology, 35 (2), 347-347 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2010.00525.x
The early Cambrian seas (542-488 million years ago) had a plethora ofstrange and bizarre creaturesalmost unimaginable to even the best sci-fi dreamer. As possibly one of the precursors to the Arthropoda (också Onychophora och Tardigrada), the lobopodian lineages represent a strange group of “worms with legs” that once roamed the ancient sea beds. Exactly how close they are to the true arthropods is up for debate (tree below), but this newly discovered genus and species, Diania cactiformis(walking cactus), represents the most well sclerotized and arthropod-like of any known to date.
This whopping two and a half inch monster helps us understand the transition from a soft bodied worm like creature into a hard-shelled arthropod; it also gives a better impression of how diverse these lobopodian appendages may have been. It’s a fascinating question because the advantage of jointed, sclerotized, limbs was one that exploded and diversified amongst the creatures we know today. Exactly how this happened is not any closer to being resolved, but it appears as if the legs of this animal were sclerotized before the body (arthropodization vs. arthrodization). One small fossil discovered and yet another small insight into evolutionary history.
References
Liu, J., Steiner, M., Dunlop, J., Keupp, H., Shu, D., Ou, Q., Han, J., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, X. (2011). An armoured Cambrian lobopodian from China with arthropod-like appendagesNature, 470 (7335), 526-530 DOI: 10.1038/nature09704
Hoppsan, ser ut som att jag missade min första "bloggoversary"! Måndagen den 21:a var ett års vändpunkt för min blogg; och jag är otroligt glad över att ha ägnat det senaste året åt att dela några av mina pratstunder med er alla. Jag har lite tappat koll på hur många träffar jag har haft sedan jag flyttade över allt till The Southern Fried Science Network, men det är mer än jag någonsin kunnat föreställa mig som nybörjarbloggare för tolv månader sedan. När jag tittar på det senaste året kommer ett par inlägg att tänka på som min favorit:
Shockingly, stunningly, amazingly; de monarchs are back (but not co-staring Julianne Moore). OK, it’s not that amazing; I pretty much predictedthis would be the case last March when everyone was running around terrified because the butterflies hit an all time low (since counting startedi 1993). Actually I believe I said “I will bet anything on the population making a recovery in the years to come…”. Så, how about anything = beer, and who’s buying?
Perhaps I am celebrating a bit early. Maybe the news isn’t so good that I can run a victory lap quite yet, but preliminary surveys look like the overwintering populations have doubled this year. That’s a pretty good start, but we still haven’t hit the 18 year average (not an impressive statistic). But don’t misread my intentions – I’m not claiming this one year somehow has proven the decline insignificant. It may or may not be, all we can really say is that it’s just another data point. The fact is that our dataset is very weak and there are factors such as local weather that create massive margins of error. It’s also nearly impossible to extrapolate from what little data we do have. So is the monarch a very good “canary in the coal mine”?
I would say poor at best. How is one insect species that roosts in massive singular colonies a good indicator of our ecosystem? Ja, they migrate from all reaches of North America, but their recent high mortality rates have nothing to do with the lives they lived outside of Mexico. Perhaps if millions of butterflies died of some strange toxin we could heed the warning, but such was not the case. Those poor monarchs are at the mercy of winter storms that are likely to become more frequent with a warming climate. So can we say that climate change is negatively impacting these animals? Turns out we can’t, at least not yet. If this were to be so then our data is telling us that the1996-1997 seasonwas a really healthy one where clouds of pollution parted and nature rejoiced. Did the 2010 season then become a post apocalyptic blade-runner-esque world where acid rain melted the orange off of butterfly wings? Clearly not. Neither climate nor pollution were drastically different in those years. The monarchs just had a really good year followed by some really bad ones. Maybe we should just find a better canary if we’re trying to blow the whistle on global warming or deforestation.
As a last thought here is a video from the above story. Just as you’d expect, it’s over dramatized and a bit hilarious.
En softball för GOP utmaning. Detta avbildar kommer hand om Victoria Advocate (TX papper) – med en dåligt skriven artikel om fjärilar. Denna bild floppen är ganska lätt, men för extra poäng som kan berätta för mig vad är fel i texten?
Jag har laddat upp en ny header som du kan se – hur ser det ut? Jag leker med inställningarna, men snälla låt mig veta om nattfjärilen till höger beskärs obekvämt, och vad din skärmupplösning är om så är fallet.
If you happen to be living out in Yolo, Solano or Sacramento counties you should head out with a net. Dr. Art Shaprio has offered for the 40th year hiscabbage white butterfly competition. If you are the very first person to catch a cabbage white (Pieris rapae – invasive) before Dr. Shapiro he will buy you a pitcher of beer! You have to deliver the specimenaliveto the receptionist in the Department of Evolution and Ecology to confirm the identification (I assume to prove you didn’t just save last year’s dead butterfly and cheat).
Over the last 30 years the butterflies have been emerging earlier – two weeks on average now. You better hurry, the first cabbage white of 2010 was collected on January 27th.
jag gjorde, och det låter som att det är skrivet av Sarah Palin. Faktiskt, Jag stötte på den här metaanalysen av över 22,000 horoskop över på Information är vacker. Det är spektakulärt – men jag ska ta upp några punkter här:
Från dessa 22,000 horoskop kom ett diagram över de vanligaste orden (botten), 90% av vilka råkar vara exakt samma oavsett ditt tecken. David McCandless genererade också en metaförutsägelse med dessa vanligaste ord. Det går ungefär så här.
“Redo? Visst? Oavsett situation eller hemligt ögonblick, njut av allting mycket. Känner att man absolut bryr sig. Förvänta dig inget annat. Fortsätt älska. Familj och vänner betyder något. Världen är livet, kul och energi. Kanske svårt. Eller lätt. Att ta exakt tillräckligt är bäst. Hjälp och prata med andra. Ändra dig och ett bättre humör kommer…“
Alla, förhoppningsvis, borde veta att horoskop och astrologi alltid har varit ångande högar. Att se uppgifterna så här gör det bara så mycket lättare att skratta inför galenskapen. Jag älskar också McCandless tolkning av stjärnegenskaper. jag är en “gemini” (eller åtminstone var), och de vanligaste orden för mig är “fest, stanna kvar, frågor och lyssna verkligen”. Tolkas som “känslomässigt stört festdjur som aldrig säger nej”. Älskar det.
Du kanske också har hört talas om det nyligen skandalös historia av felaktiga stjärntilldelningar. Det visar sig att vår jord vinglar något i omloppsbana; vilket betyder att stjärnorna inte är exakt där de är på natthimlen ikväll som de var för några årtusenden sedan när zodiaken först härleddes. Så om stjärnorna formar vem du är vid födseln så gör de det baserat på var de är nu och inte 2,000 för flera år sedan. Överraskning – många människor bör nu tilldelas en ny skylt! Ooooh skandal! Astrologivetenskapen var inte ens i närheten av att förutsäga detta (det gjorde mig mycket ont att ens hånfullt kalla astrologi för vetenskap). Men det är okej, det kommer inte att störa dem, de är väl anpassade till att undvika hård vetenskap och snurra BS, och har gjort det i hundratals år. Tillbaka i 1781 astronomer kastade en skiftnyckel i huvudet på astrologer med upptäckten av Uranus – och en generation senare dök Neptunus upp på scenen. Åh, oroa dig inte! Astrologer fuskade sina egna siffror, gnällde om olika “diagram och system” och smög in två extra stjärntecken för att hålla med världen som vetenskapen förstod den. Åh, och strunt i resten av miljarden, miljarder stjärnor och planeter…
Än, Jag kan fortfarande höra ett svagt rop nere på gatan här i Berkeley – någon slår hand i huvudet och utbrister “åh nu är det vettigt, Jag var en Oxe alla längs!”
Du borde gå och utforska hans blogg och ta en närmare titt på analysen. Ännu bättre, om du har en vän som älskar sin astrologi, du bör vidarebefordra detta i deras riktning.
I have always known that in many places of the world, especially off the beaten track, caterpillars of moths and butterflies are on the menu. FromAfrica till Australienthere are dozens of species that might taste good enough to be reasonably edible or even delicious. But here in the US insects rarely if ever make it onto our tables (at least not to our knowledge) – but occasionally into our bottles. I’m sure that many of you have seen the worm at the bottom of the tequila bottle: which is actually the caterpillar of the Cossid mothHypotpa agavis. I have even heard reports that migrant Mexican workers dig up native plants on their lunch break to snack on the large pink larvae of a related moth; probably in the genusComadia. Despite my previous knowledge, I was a bit surprised by a recent article discussing the massive diversity of Lepidoptera used as staple food sources throughout Mexico.
För detta nummer av geniet av pressen, who can tell me what’s wrong withthis article? Det är ganska subtila, men en tydlig misstag, särskilt för Livescience.