(Formerly Known as "I just discovered a new species today.")
ASK ME ANYTHING!!1
:golfclap:
What did you discover?
Its a caddisfly of the Genus Ceraclea in the family Leptoceridae (longhorned caddisflies) from Nigeria. I found it in one of the 35 year old Nigerian caddisfly samples I'm working through. They've been on loan from the British Museum for 25 years and they need to go back. ANYWAY.
Technically it is not completely verified yet. I was looking through a sample this morning when I kept running across this Leptocerid that didn't seem to have all the characters of a Leptocerid yet had extremely long antennae (thus the name "long horned"). I showed it to my advisor who is a worldwide expert on Leptocerids, and he said it was probably a Ceraclea. He took a closer look and said "this is an aberant Ceraclea, look at the terminalia. Its different than any I've ever seen, probably a new species." His doctorate was on the revision of the genus, so I'm pretty damn sure he knows what he is talking about. I've looked at the related african species too, and there are none that come anywhere close to resembling this one, even with the abdomen yet uncleared.
So, I have to clear the abdomen with lactic acid, take a closer look and do some comparisons. Then if it really is a species new to science, I get to describe and name it, and then publish. :D
Better yet, there are likely more unnamed species in the set, this is just the first one that was obvious.
whatcha gonna name it?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 23, 2008, 12:01:40 AM
whatcha gonna name it?
I suggest
Ceraclea spaggus. Actually, anything with "spag" in it.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 23, 2008, 12:01:40 AM
whatcha gonna name it?
Probably after the type location (still haven't figured out if the name refers to a stream, river, village, region or what), or, as my roommate just suggested, maybe after the person who collected it. I forget what the location is exactly, something like Sarudo, saradu, or suradu.
So, maybe
Ceraclea saraduensis, or
C. hilli (after the collector), or perhaps just
C. nigeriaca.
Its considered in bad taste to name randomly, after pop culture, or after yourself. Remember the
Draconis hogwartzia? This is why we can't have nice things.
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 01:36:34 AM
Its considered in bad taste to name randomly, after pop culture, or after yourself. Remember the Draconis hogwartzia? This is why we can't have nice things.
What?! considered by who? stick-in-the-mud taxonomists, that's who.... :argh!:
I'm reminded of the louse specie G.Larsoni named after the illustrator of the FarbSide comic. that's a nice thing, right there. :D
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 01:36:34 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 23, 2008, 12:01:40 AM
whatcha gonna name it?
Probably after the type location (still haven't figured out if the name refers to a stream, river, village, region or what), or, as my roommate just suggested, maybe after the person who collected it. I forget what the location is exactly, something like Sarudo, saradu, or suradu.
So, maybe Ceraclea saraduensis, or C. hilli (after the collector), or perhaps just C. nigeriaca.
Its considered in bad taste to name randomly, after pop culture, or after yourself. Remember the Draconis hogwartzia? This is why we can't have nice things.
Biochemists are just as bad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog_protein)
Quote from: Vene on October 23, 2008, 02:14:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 01:36:34 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 23, 2008, 12:01:40 AM
whatcha gonna name it?
Probably after the type location (still haven't figured out if the name refers to a stream, river, village, region or what), or, as my roommate just suggested, maybe after the person who collected it. I forget what the location is exactly, something like Sarudo, saradu, or suradu.
So, maybe Ceraclea saraduensis, or C. hilli (after the collector), or perhaps just C. nigeriaca.
Its considered in bad taste to name randomly, after pop culture, or after yourself. Remember the Draconis hogwartzia? This is why we can't have nice things.
Biochemists are just as bad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog_protein)
And don't forget Mothers against decapentaplegic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_against_decapentaplegic).
Like I said, THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS. :argh!:
Semi-random article about lunatic fringe. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16385447)
Only the lunatic fringe have strong backs.
Congratulations on finding your (possibly) new species.
Longshot question:
Are you familliar with Elise Craddock? She's a horrible old Australian woman who taught my intro to bio class, and considers herself a Big Deal in entomological circles. Apparently discovered some species of hawaiian fly.
The more I think about it, the more I realize it has to be. The Afrotropics are one of those biotic regions that has been poorly explored. In the Neartic (North and most of central America), 95% of all Trichoptera species are suspected to have been described now. In the West Paleartic (Europe and africa from the Saharra north) that percent is even closer to one hundred. Yet it suspected by trichopterists we have only described 20% of all caddisfly species, the other 80% occuring in the Neotropics (Soth America), the Afrotropics, the East Palearctic (Russia, Japan, Mongolia and Norther China), Australiasian (Australia, New Zealand, Oceana) but mostly it is believed these species will be found in the Oriental, which includes India, China, Southeast asia, and Indonesia. New species are being found from all these regions all the time, so its not that unlikely I have a new species of Ceraclea, especially since the African Ceraclea have been poorly investigated in the past (i.e. there have only been 3 new descriptions in the afrotropics since my advisor published his world revision in the early 70s, and none since the late 80s).
Plus, just thinking about the structure of the terminalia and how none of it matches up to the previous drawings. I will find out for sure today.
looked it up and her name is spelled "Elysse M. Craddock"
again, long shot
Congrats, Kai.
How excited are you?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 04:19:35 PM
Longshot question:
Are you familliar with Elise Craddock? She's a horrible old Australian woman who taught my intro to bio class, and considers herself a Big Deal in entomological circles. Apparently discovered some species of hawaiian fly.
No, I haven't heard of her. From the hits that come up on Google Scholar, it looks like she works with Hawaiian
Drosophila, something I have little interest in.
Usually, when people talk big about themselves they are not all that important, in entomology anyway. So shes discovered a species of Hawaiian
Drosophila? My adviser has described probably over 100 species of insects and has had 14 named after him by other people, and yet he doesn't boast about it. Theres a woman here in the southeast that knows more about the beetle fauna of the area than any other person, written several large books with good keys, yet she has never had a biology course in her life and has never received a degree in entomology, or been published in an academic journal. Shes very humble about it. I think she should receive an honorary doctorate for her work, but what do I know, I'm just a lowly unpublished graduate student. :)
:lulz: troof. Well I'm glad you haven't heard of her because I hated that woman.
She only taught upper level bio classes until she was forced to teach something freshman level, which she did with a marked tone of disgust. Her class was fast-paced and unforgivingone of the roughest classes I took in college - prior to the final, the average grade in the class was a 60-something. It was first sememster Freshman year - and she seriously made me consider dropping out of college.
Anyway, congrats on the discovery! That's gotta be so exciting to be squinting at something nobody's ever squinted at before.
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 04:36:17 PM
Congrats, Kai.
How excited are you?
I've been seeing the terminalia (the terminal abdominal appendages, including external genetalia (Yes, caddisfly penis)) all night, I can picture it clearly, and in a bit I am going to go in and check the cleared abdomen. I'm extremely excited, I mean, there comes a time in an entomologist's life when they describe their first species. I used to think it would never happen to me, but man...
I mean, the naming alone. Even if it isn't named after me, it will still have my name attached to it as the author, so it will be
Ceraclea sudaruensis Surname. Then I get to describe it formally, say why its different than others, draw relevant pictures, and publish, I get to be published in a journal.
When this is confirmed, I will indicate here. If I find more species in the batch (likely!) I will put them here too.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 04:45:27 PM
:lulz: troof. Well I'm glad you haven't heard of her because I hated that woman.
She only taught upper level bio classes until she was forced to teach something freshman level, which she did with a marked tone of disgust. Her class was fast-paced and unforgivingone of the roughest classes I took in college - prior to the final, the average grade in the class was a 60-something. It was first sememster Freshman year - and she seriously made me consider dropping out of college.
Anyway, congrats on the discovery! That's gotta be so exciting to be squinting at something nobody's ever squinted at before.
Yeah, its pretty exiting to walk around the lab thinking "I've got a new holotype right here in my hands, a novem nominem, oh TEH POWA!" Or something like that. Its not just squinting either, the species is of moderate size as far as caddisflies go.
Awesome!
So is it a completely new species or subspecies? I can never keep the two clearly separate in my head.
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 04:45:27 PM
:lulz: troof. Well I'm glad you haven't heard of her because I hated that woman.
She only taught upper level bio classes until she was forced to teach something freshman level, which she did with a marked tone of disgust. Her class was fast-paced and unforgivingone of the roughest classes I took in college - prior to the final, the average grade in the class was a 60-something. It was first sememster Freshman year - and she seriously made me consider dropping out of college.
Anyway, congrats on the discovery! That's gotta be so exciting to be squinting at something nobody's ever squinted at before.
Yeah, its pretty exiting to walk around the lab thinking "I've got a new holotype right here in my hands, a novem nominem, oh TEH POWA!" Or something like that. Its not just squinting either, the species is of moderate size as far as caddisflies go.
I never knew caddisflies had penises so large.
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 04:47:34 PMI've been seeing the terminalia (the terminal abdominal appendages, including external genetalia (Yes, caddisfly penis)) all night, I can picture it clearly, and in a bit I am going to go in and check the cleared abdomen. I'm extremely excited, I mean, there comes a time in an entomologist's life when they describe their first species. I used to think it would never happen to me, but man...
In all seriousness, cool discovery, here's hoping you find a lot more.
UPDATE: The organism is actually some sort of Parasetodes. Its in the same family, and its still possible its a new species, but its not a Ceraclea.
Also, I am hating with vile vile hatred this translation of the african key right now.
Edit: ALSO also, the whole fucking thing seems like a waste of time. I took this project on because I thought it would be fun, but these samples are 25 years old, the key is shit, I've got other things to do and in a couple weeks my adviser isn't even gonna be around to help me. Not that he seems like he wants to anyway. Why the FUCK can't we just send these vials back to bloody England, why is it that they have to be identified first? I don't know what any of the reasons are, what any of the RULES are, and I don't want to be working on this just because some dumb shit took them out on loan 25 years ago and never thought to finish them.
Okay, okay. Back up here a sec. I need to think about this more reasonably.
If these samples have been out for 25 years, then that means no one has found anything particularly pressing about returning them. If it was of maximum importance (really, maximum) the adviser would have done it years ago. No one is working on these samples. No one was working on them when I first started working on them. Which means, whats the deadline? If I didn't start working on them, they would have just sat there until someone else came along so....essentially....there is no deadline. If no one was willing to work on them before I picked them up as a "hobby", then if I drop them again cause I don't have time, then there is no one who's telling me how to work them. In essence, no one can tell me what to do with these, I could stop working with them at any time. I have nothing particularly pressing that is the result of them being returned. There is a PhD student in the lab who needs to take a loan out from the London Museum, and can't until these are returned. Thats why I started working with them in the first place, I thought it would be a fun thing to do and make a friend-for-life. However, as shitty as her life is going right now, if she really felt that it was pressing in the worst way, she would work on them. So....I take my time. If someone pushes me to go faster, I ask them if I'm getting payed, and if not, what would happen if I don't work on them, the answer being "they would set in the vial room for possibly years until someone else came along with the motivation to work on them. So she doesn't get the specimens she needs. Its not my place or life to solve other peoples problems, and its not my job unless I'm getting payed to do it. There also have been no groundrules set for how far in I have to identify these before they get sent back. "As far as you can take them" is NOT a good answer. Note: need to talk to adviser about setting clear lines for what constitutes a conclusion to this project that the British Museum would accept. I also don't know how the specimens need to be handled, or what type of vials they need to go in when I separate them, or if there are any vial trays I can use so I can organize and store as I go. I need to find something comfortable I can sit on to extend my height while I am sitting so I can look into the scope more easily instead of craning my neck. I need to get something to cover the desk so that every time I drop alcohol on it, it doesn't turn the paint (its an old old desk) into a tacky mess. And I need to figure out better characters for this key. As it is right now, its horrible, it uses spur numbers and half the time you are missing legs and spurs and maybe even maxillary palps, most certainly at least SOME antennal segments (note: maybe use Wiggins' key and its setal wart characters to suppliment?). At least figure out what the word corbe means for fucks sake.
tl;dr = internal reconsideration, review, listmaking, rambling, notetaking and outcome visualization.
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 04:39:58 PM
No, I haven't heard of her. From the hits that come up on Google Scholar, it looks like she works with Hawaiian Drosophila, something I have little interest in.
Usually, when people talk big about themselves they are not all that important, in entomology anyway. So shes discovered a species of Hawaiian Drosophila? My adviser has described probably over 100 species of insects and has had 14 named after him by other people, and yet he doesn't boast about it. Theres a woman here in the southeast that knows more about the beetle fauna of the area than any other person, written several large books with good keys, yet she has never had a biology course in her life and has never received a degree in entomology, or been published in an academic journal. Shes very humble about it. I think she should receive an honorary doctorate for her work, but what do I know, I'm just a lowly unpublished graduate student. :)
Kai, this is stunningly relevant to another discussion I'm having elsewhere. Would you mind if I quoted you?
Quote from: Nigel on October 24, 2008, 06:49:24 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 23, 2008, 04:39:58 PM
No, I haven't heard of her. From the hits that come up on Google Scholar, it looks like she works with Hawaiian Drosophila, something I have little interest in.
Usually, when people talk big about themselves they are not all that important, in entomology anyway. So shes discovered a species of Hawaiian Drosophila? My adviser has described probably over 100 species of insects and has had 14 named after him by other people, and yet he doesn't boast about it. Theres a woman here in the southeast that knows more about the beetle fauna of the area than any other person, written several large books with good keys, yet she has never had a biology course in her life and has never received a degree in entomology, or been published in an academic journal. Shes very humble about it. I think she should receive an honorary doctorate for her work, but what do I know, I'm just a lowly unpublished graduate student. :)
Kai, this is stunningly relevant to another discussion I'm having elsewhere. Would you mind if I quoted you?
Of course not. Everything I write here is Kopyleft, as long as there is attribution. :)
:D THANK YOU!
So, update from yesterday (hope this shit doesn't start turning out to be a research Live Journal).
I looked at the four other species of Parasetodes from Africa, and compared them to the one I had. I can make a rather strong case that this organism is a species new to science now. Question is, with all my work on my thesis and no funding to go beyond 2 years in a masters program, do I really have time for this?
I was sitting at the bar last night scribbling away on note cards, some options (pre-intoxication; by the time I had a drink and a half in me I was more or less done writing for the night):
1) Do my thesis on Cheumatopsyche. Drop the Nigerian caddisfly project completely, including n. sp. Parasetodes digitalis (probably what I'm going to call it if I do it). Reason: I should be gearing up to do my research proposal but instead I've been working on this side project. Even if it is a new species, it takes time to describe, make drawings, write the paper and publish. I don't know if I have that time. I don't have the funds to be here for 5 years right now either.
2) Same as above, except keep the new species project going. Reason: I want to get published, and I want to describe a new species. I might have the time to do that. It is possibly fesable I could publish on a new species and work on my thesis at once.
3) Drop the Cheumatopsyche thesis project. Somehow adapt this side project with Nigerian caddisflies into a thesis project. Reason: I'm having fun with this side project. Conversely, there are some days I wonder if I am a total fool for taking on this Cheumatopsyche project as a thesis, if its too much work, or if its just a darn fool idea because everyone else who has worked on it has failed to produce significant outcome. In the Nigerian caddisfly project, I have a new species ready to be described, I'm working on a current key to the African families of caddisflies, and there is no reason I couldn't do genera as well. There are also interesting possibilities just for publishing on records of caddisflies from Nigeria, a place that has little to no information on caddisfly fauna. There may be more novum nominem in the specimen vials and I just have to find them.
4) Somehow do both projects. Reason: If I could get funding, to live and pay for classes, I would LOVE to stay a masters student for 5 years and do both of these. It would be amazing to do so. However, right now I have nothing, no funding, no money. I am living on loans. If I can't get funding I am going to have to choose.
Those are my options, providing I stay in the masters program and no other interesting, significant projects come up.
Do you think that you could write a thesis on the discovery of a new species? I honestly don't know how much work that would require.
I don't know about anybody else here, but I happen like reading about your research, even if it does turn into a livejournal type thing.
No, I couldn't turn the discovery of one species into a thesis.
I could, however, turn a thesis from records of Nigerian caddisflies, with new species descriptions and an updated key to the Afrotropical families of caddisflies.
There are too many "Proffessionals" that have their parents pay for their education for them to have a name nailed to their door to give us a name as to what's wrong with us. If you asked me ( and you probably wouldn't) most people that have a mental illness have just had a really bad time in life over the last few years and they respond with the the only way that they know how ... primordial instincts. Don't push me and I won't push you. This hasn't worked for so long ... but why shouldn't it work. This planet has been evolving for over 150,000,000 years and the rest, and is still evolving... Can't we connect on a spiritual level and feel the vibe without all the shit that is happening in front of us so that we feel that we are malformed or we have something wrong with us. WE ARE THE FUTURE but we have to be very careful as to what we do to to create this new world.
Is there any particular reason you are hijacking Kai's thread to talk about your personal issues?
Quote from: Vene on October 25, 2008, 07:00:24 PM
Do you think that you could write a thesis on the discovery of a new species? I honestly don't know how much work that would require.
I don't know about anybody else here, but I happen like reading about your research, even if it does turn into a livejournal type thing.
Ditto this!
& Holy Shit Kai! This is NOT the kinda thing (discovering a new species! no less!) that 1 does everyday!
Salut!
Quote from: sungoldysue on October 26, 2008, 05:45:37 AM
There are too many "Proffessionals" that have their parents pay for their education for them to have a name nailed to their door to give us a name as to what's wrong with us. If you asked me ( and you probably wouldn't) most people that have a mental illness have just had a really bad time in life over the last few years and they respond with the the only way that they know how ... primordial instincts. Don't push me and I won't push you. This hasn't worked for so long ... but why shouldn't it work. This planet has been evolving for over 150,000,000 years and the rest, and is still evolving... Can't we connect on a spiritual level and feel the vibe without all the shit that is happening in front of us so that we feel that we are malformed or we have something wrong with us. WE ARE THE FUTURE but we have to be very careful as to what we do to to create this new world.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything....Also, planets age = 4.5 billion years, first life = 4-3.5 billion years, "cambrian explosion = 500 mya, K-T boundary = 65 million years ago, humans = 1 mya. 150 million years doesn't even take us to the cambrian, it barely takes us out of the mesozoic and the age of reptiles. Just pointing that out.....
Anyway, been trying to work on my research proposal. I have had little or no energy for the past week and I am trying to find ways to remedy that. Every time I sit down to write, or even think about writing, I get an overwhelming feeling of fatigue. I feel fatigued right now, and I haven't been thinking about it. Its not sleep, I just got up after 9 hours of it. It could be diet.
I can't think about this right now, its making me tired.
You might need to mentally switch off for a while.
Are you still regularly doing T'ai Chi? It might be worth taking a day off, if you can afford to or not, and giving over a few hours to some mindless, graceful violence.
Quote from: Cain on October 26, 2008, 03:49:07 PM
You might need to mentally switch off for a while.
Are you still regularly doing T'ai Chi? It might be worth taking a day off, if you can afford to or not, and giving over a few hours to some mindless, graceful violence.
I just started again yesterday. Its been a long time but I fall back into the patterns so easily. I need to rememorize the third section of the form, but once I do thats a whole hour of defensive dance. I also just recently started doing Chi Gung. Whether or not chi actually exist, the visualization of inner chi movements downward from "energy gates" out through the feet relaxes the muscles in that area. I don't know how the psychosomatic response really works, but it does seem to work.
I've also taken to running a ten minute timer on the computer again, to make sure I get up and do things instead of just sitting here all day.
so, after some thought tonight, I have decided that I want to change my thesis. There has not been a good key to the african trichoptera genera published since the 1960s, and its about time that one was. I don't know if I could pull it off for both adults and larvae, but if it is feasable I would try.
Just did a search on the trichoptera world checklist. In the Afrotropical region:
24 Families
87 genera
1043 species
The last number is unimportant to my potential project, as I would only be looking at families and genera.
I have to talk to my adviser tomorrow, see what he has to say. He might say no. I might then tell him I don't have a project then, because every time I think about the Cheumatopsyche project I feel exausted.
Wow, cool! Good luck!
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2008, 02:12:37 AM
Wow, cool! Good luck!
If he says no, I'm gonna need it, because I'm gonna pull the "are you paying me then?" arguement.
You know, the one where I say "I'm paying to be here, you aren't paying me, the Cheumatopsyche project was my choice, and unless you have a project you want to pay me on, I am doing something different."
Edit: Actually, what will likely happen is that he will somehow convince me to go for this cheumatopsyche project and I will once again completely loose faith in it at some point, possibly crucial.
Hold your ground! You have a project right here that you are actively engaged in, that excites you... stick to your guns and make it your thesis, rather than killing yourself trying to complete a project that doesn't excite you.
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2008, 02:56:40 AM
Hold your ground! You have a project right here that you are actively engaged in, that excites you... stick to your guns and make it your thesis, rather than killing yourself trying to complete a project that doesn't excite you.
Oh, it all excites me. Till I actually start working on it. Then it feels dull and tiring. I'm already starting to feel a lack of energy about this project and I haven't even talked to him about it yet.
Or maybe I just need to sleep.
Sleeping is definitely a GOOD idea.
Quote from: Kai on October 27, 2008, 02:28:56 AM
Edit: Actually, what will likely happen is that he will somehow convince me to go for this cheumatopsyche project and I will once again completely loose faith in it at some point, possibly crucial.
Prophesy fulfilled! Well, the first part. Lets hope that the second part doesn't occur as well.
Actually, I convinced myself with some help. Sorry, new species, you will have to wait for someone with more time than me (or me with more time!).
Full story later. Right now, I have to go to a seminar.
Okay, talked with the Dr. this morning. First thing I said "I have lost all faith in my project". We sat down and talked. I told him about my concerns. I think I don't give him enough credit. He wants to see me do something excellent. I told him about the difficulty I saw with doing all this molecular work I knew nothing about. He said that, although it was a large portion of the other grad student's project who left, it doesn't have to be for mine. I can just send material off to be sequenced and focus on morphology. Furthermore, he said there was nothing keeping me from going into the specimens already associated by other people and looking at those. I felt better about it after he told me that a high school student found morphotypes to separate larvae, a high school student, not even in college, in a six week project. I also felt better when he told me that the reason this hasn't been looked into before has nothing to do with it being impossible. HH Ross never looked into this because he had other higher level taxonomic projects to work on. The same is true for GB Wiggins. Schefter and Wiggins produced some information on setal characters in the past but they never looked into it deeply because like Ross they had other higher level work to do. Wiggins actually had a graduate student working on Cheumatopsyche for a time but he apparently disappeared, never to work in Trichoptera again. Schefter never did more because she has trouble with research due to illness.
So, curiously, the reason that no work has been done on this is not because it is impossible, it is because people have been very interested in higher level taxonomy, and now that most of those issues have been resolved (what with the molecular and morphological phylogenetic analysis by Kjer in 2002 of the whole order, and the same for the family Hydropsychidae in 2005 by Geraci), the focus has come back down to the genus and species level, and its time for someone to resolve the diagnosis of North American Cheumatopsyche. So its not that it hasn't been done because it can't be, its that it hasn't been done simply because people haven't devoted the time to do it. And you can see the interest that biomonitoring professionals have in this resolution, because every time there is any information presented on the genus in North America, many people come to see. It is very telling. Just a poster or a student presentation gets people interested, it is such an important genus.
So I'm going to do it. I need encouragement, but I am going to do it.
Annnnnd, now its time for me to talk about adult/larval associations. Due to the fact that taxonomy, original species naming and diagnosis, are done using the adult life stage, you have to find some way to associate the larval stage with the adult stage before you can start separating larvae to the species level. In the case of Trichoptera, there are 2 classical pathways:
The morphotype approach
The pharate pupa approach
The morphotype approach is the most simple. Say you have a bunch of caddisfly larvae you collected from a stream. First you separate these out by what looks similar, if two things have the same characters, then they are the same morphotype. You preserve a portion of the larvae of each morphotype, and then rear the rest of each morphotype separatly to adult. If, when the adults emerge, each morphotype turns out to be a single species, congradulations! You have successfully discovered the larval diagnostic characters. If a morphotype turns out to be several species, you go back to the larvae and look for further characters to create further morphotypes, and rear more larvae. Its trial and error, mostly.
Pros: When you get it right, you know it, because you have a single species of adults raised from a morphotype that happened to be a single species of larvae. It is very easy to tell if you are wrong for the sample you have.
Cons: This requires equiptment. And work. And time. And more time. And more work. SRsly, rearing is a process that is time consuming and heavy on the work. It also may just happen that there is a species elsewhere, away from your sample area, that shares the characters but is of a different species. The characters have to be tested across a species' distribution to be deemed reliable.
The pharate pupa approach is like sticking characters of the larva, pupa and adult all in one sack, a three for one deal. Essentially, you go out to a stream at the right time of year and look for pupae that are nearly ready to emerge. The pupa, at this point called a pharate pupa, will have the genetalia of the adult stage and characters of the pupa at the same time. In addition, most Trichoptera schluff off their larval cuticle and sclerites inside the pupal chamber, and these pieces remain there throughout the development.
Pros: Three for the price of one, what more could you ask for?! You can diagnose all three life stages with the material at hand.
Cons: Try wandering through a river in the cold parts of the year, searching underwater for a male (because the males are the ones that determine species in insects) pharate pupa. They are hard to find, and you have to find it at just the right time in the development. At the same time, you have to hope to god that the larval cuticle is in good condition, and even then all the membranous parts tend to be destroyed, so you are left trying to figure out what sclerite goes where (pin the sclerite on the larva, if you will). If you have the perserverence, this works sometimes, like when the only characters you need are on the sclerites, or when the pupa actually KEEPS the larval parts inside the pupal chamber instead of voiding them out the case. Yeah..... and then you have the same pitfalls as the morphotype method when it comes to distribution.
There is one other more current method for adult/larval association: the barcode approach.
The barcode approach uses mitochondrial COI DNA, a rapidly evolving sequence of DNA that codes for a metabolic enzyme. Since COI genes tend to be the same throughout a species, you can compare the sequence for adult insects to a sequence for a larva, and figure out what species it is.
Pros: Holy shit is this less time consuming than the other methods. My GOD. It just blows my socks off what we can do with technology these days. In fact, biologists are trying now to create a complete database for the COI gene for every species of organism on the planet. Its relatively cheap to sequence too, and once you draw up the techniques for a group of organisms, the rest comes easy. If you collect adults and larvae from the same location, the association is rather unambiguous, most of the time. You don't even have to destroy the specimens to sequence, all you need is a leg. Furthermore, you can sequence some pinned material that has been dead for more than 25 years.
Cons: its the times where it is ambiguous that it causes a problem. COI can vary across the range of species, so you have to barcode from across the range. You also have to have the sequencing equipment, and even if it is cheap, its still around 3 bucks a specimen. It also is a problem if your material is stored in alcohol. Wet specimens have to be rather fresh, within a year or so.
So, thats how associations work, in a nutshell. I'm going to take the third approach for this project, and not do the sequencing myself; I'm going to send it off to be done, and concentrate on diagnosis.
I'm the first to admit I am biased in favor of molecular techniques (especially with regards to DNA), but I think that the gene based analysis is just awesome.
Quote from: Vene on October 28, 2008, 12:23:31 AM
I'm the first to admit I am biased in favor of molecular techniques (especially with regards to DNA), but I think that the gene based analysis is just awesome.
The Tri-corder (for species identification anyway) is not that far fetched, and not that far off.
I was thinking about possible characters for morphotypes yesterday, and I just started pulling vials out of museum, vials of unidentified (obviously) Cheumatopsyche larvae.
Now, Gordon (1974) did a complete revision of the Cheumatopsyche species of the Nearctic. Since then, only 3-4 new species have been described, none of them wide spread. She also did a phylogenetic revision along with the taxonomic revision, separating the species into species groups based on taxonomic characters, and providing possible routes for descent.
It was the early 20th century before anyone had attempted to do any sort of larval work with caddisflies. The name that stands out most in my mind is HH Ross. In 1944 he published a key to the Trichoptera of Illinois, a seminal work, including keys for adults and many keys for larvae as well. While he attempted species diagnosis for the larvae of several other general of hydropsychid caddisflies, he found no easy way to separate the species of Cheumatopsyche. He did, however, find some characters that were variable, the shape of the notch on the frontoclypeus, or whether it was present or absent. Mackay (1978) and Smith (1984) supplemented these characters with head length-width ratios, and further commentary on the shape of the frontoclypeal notch.
I'm guessing that the first edition of GB Wiggins' Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera was published in 1984 or 1985, just trying to remember. Wiggins talks about one other character in this work, the size of the pro sternal sclerites. It was not, however, until Schefter and Wiggins (1987) that the phylogenetic morphotypes started to become clear.
It turns out that the Nearctic Cheumatopsyche separate out into two distinct species groups in the adults, the Sordida Complex, and the Gracillis Complex. Gordon had noted these differences in 1974 but people did not determine the character for the two groups until 1987, where S&W determined the two complexes were obviously different in the larvae by the presence or absence of a frontoclypeal notch. They then went further to discover all these secondary setal characters. Those characters alone were used to diagnose 10 of the 14 species they had associated (adult/larval association; see previous page).
Since then, there have been a scattering of work on this project, but no one has published anything.
So, on to yesterday. I was looking at some unidentified Cheumatopsyche larvae under the scope in my office, and I started to see some interesting differences.
Theres this margin in the head of Hydropsychid larvae known as the frontoclypeal margin. It lies along the anteriodorsal length of the head on the frontoclypeus, just posterior to the labrum. In most hydropsychid genera, this margin is a straight line, but in the North American species of Cheumatopsyche (and its sister genus Potamyia, I believe), the edge is microsculpted into this ridge of notches and scallops. As I said earlier, people have taken notice of the notches, but no one to my knowlege has published anything on the scalloping. Looking more closely at a bunch of specimens, I saw that most seemed to have distinct numbers of scallops along the edge. If there was a notch in the center, some had 6 on each side of the notch, some had 4, some had 9. The individuals I found that would be considered Sordida complex (without a notch) sometimes had many many scallops, other times had only two or three on each side of a central flat stretch. Sometimes there were setae in between the scallops.
Why had no one taken a look at this before, I asked my adviser. He told me, Well, its like I said, some people are just ignorant, and no one has taken the time to look at this seriously, no one has wanted to before now.
When I start making drawings, I'll take pictures if anyone is interested.
:postpics:
I don't know if I have the training to understand the significance of them, but I like pictures.
I'm wondering if I could just stick my camera up to the eyepiece and snap some pictures.
Probably not, lens is too wide.
First drawing (WIP) for the morphology final. Its a large (hand and a half by two hands) drawing of Cheumatopsyche.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0527.jpg)
Brilliant drawing!
And those little front appendages are so cute.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 02, 2008, 07:35:59 AM
Brilliant drawing!
And those little front appendages are so cute.
Cheumatopsyche are <3
That's a surprisingly good rendering of the little bugger. :thumb:
:noodledance:
Quote from: Telarus on November 03, 2008, 05:58:14 AM
That's a surprisingly good rendering of the little bugger. :thumb:
:noodledance:
I still have to finish the gills, do some touch ups here and there, and then do a full scale reinking of the drawing adding details, but its coming along.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0528.jpg)
Final inking of overview.
Damn people who can draw better than me.
Quote from: Vene on November 05, 2008, 10:55:50 PM
Damn people who can draw better than me.
Damn them, yes!
DAMN YUO FRED!!! :argh!:
In all seriousness, I'm rather pleased with the way this turned out. The rest of the drawings for this project are various parts, this one is the only full view.
What are the little branching things all down the body?
Quote from: GA on November 06, 2008, 02:26:11 AM
What are the little branching things all down the body?
Membranous gills. They're outgrowths of the cuticle, creating greater surface area for gas transfer. Remember, these guys live underwater in streams and rivers.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0531.jpg)
The attempt with this drawing is to show the functional complex between the lower gula of the head and the femur of the prothoracic leg. The ridge/knob on the femur rubs along the ridges on the underside of the head to produce stridulations. This sound production is used territorially.
Not inked yet, obviously.
Quote from: Kai on November 06, 2008, 08:51:59 PM
The attempt with this drawing is to show the functional complex between the lower gula of the head and the femur of the prothoracic leg. The ridge/knob on the femur rubs along the ridges on the underside of the head to produce stridulations.
I'm just going to pretend I understand what this means. (I don't do invertebrate physiology)
Quote from: Vene on November 06, 2008, 09:20:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 06, 2008, 08:51:59 PM
The attempt with this drawing is to show the functional complex between the lower gula of the head and the femur of the prothoracic leg. The ridge/knob on the femur rubs along the ridges on the underside of the head to produce stridulations.
I'm just going to pretend I understand what this means. (I don't do invertebrate physiology)
Okay, you got these ridges on the underside of the head, and you've got this nob on the front legs (you can see both of those in that drawing. These two structures create a complex (a group of characters on separate structures) that is functional (meaning it has a function) to produce sound, in the same way crickets produce sounds by rubbing wings together. The larva rubs its forelegs against the ridges and it creates a sound.
Sorry, does that make more sense? Its the most unusual stridulation (production of sound by rubbing) system I have ever heard of, and its the only such system known from caddisflies. All members of the family Hydropsychidae have stridulatory ridges, and it is supposed that all species in the family do use this for stridulation, though it has only been observed in
Hydropsyche species.
Thanks Kai. :)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0534.jpg)
Inking of the stridulation functional complex. Probably easier to see what I was talking about.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0537.jpg)
Rough work in progress of the anal claw and abdominal plate functional complex. The two pairs of plates have backward facing spines and hairs which act as a clasp when the anal claws contract, allowing the end of the abdomen to cling flat to surfaces.
Also, if you look at the end of the abdomen there is a a set of setal tufts like brushes. I'm unsure what the function of these are but my hypothesis is one of three things"
1) Are used to clear debris from an area by waggling the abdomen.
2) Facilitate respiration by aiding in pulling water along the abdomen when it is wriggled dorsoventrally.
3) Aid in swimming
The last one seems most likely although all of them are plausible. The first is a pretty special purpose for such a large and obvious structure. The second is unneeded as Hydropsychids have many gills and live in streams; respiration is usually not a problem. The third makes the most sense, I think I have read it somewhere that they can swim short distances by flapping their abdomens, much like how mosquito larvae move around.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/Analclawcomplex.jpg)
Illustrates how the 8th, 9th and 10th segments act together to create a clasping mechanism.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0538.jpg)
Final inking of the anal claw complex.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0539.jpg)
Inking of the right meso- and metathoracic legs in lateral aspect.
In the inked anal claw complex, you can clearly see the spine pads in relation to the anal claws. In a wholistic look (check the full drawing on previous page) the whole end of the abdomen is ovbviously recurved and flattened. This brings the entire lower surface of the 8th 9th and 10th segmets in contact with the substrate even if the rest of the body is not in contact. Essentially, Hydropsychids can hold on with nothing but their abdomen while their legs do other tasks.
In the hind legs, you can see they are longer and less stout than the forelegs (pictured previously). These are less adapted for COD (coarse organic debris) manipulation and more adapted for clinging. Also note the assesory claw that makes the tarsal claws bifid.
More thoughts about the prothoracic legs (pictured previously): in addition to being stouter, the inner surfaces are covered with thick stout setae. These help in manipulation of COD by providing friction.
Hairs on the legs are for either friction, sensation, or both.
(more early morning rambling follows)
Thinking about Hydropsychidae, anal claw complexes and trochantins, and external morphology.
Thinking about Caddisflies in general. Thinking about notes I took at the bar on friday.
Yes, I go to the bar to take notes. The first night I did this, an engineering professor started talking to me about his research to create a polymer which imitates the way some insects take moisture out of the air, except on a large scale. I was writing options for my thesis project at the time. Been going for 3 weeks now, bring a stack of notecards with me. Once I begin drinking the notes become scribblings and sometimes even more creative than when I was sober.
This is what I wrote down this Friday:
Thinking about Ex. Morph of Cheumatopsyche
-Anal clasping complex
-stridulating complex
-Frontoclypeus
-Margin
-leg lengths, shapes, proportions
-antenna
-setation on legs
gill complexes
-shape of epimeral plates
-secondary claws
- setation in relation to clinging
-trochantin as spacer? collecting aid?
(why a sensory hair on the inner part of the trochantin if used for nothing)
[crude drawing of chematopsyche, lateral view]
Internal Cheumatopsyche
-tentorium (in literature)
-Gut
-not specialized due to varied feeding habits
-heart, tracheoles, brain like lepidoptera
-In situ?
external view of head, other legs
-anat. of gills
memes are to consciousness as genes are to biology
Microsculpting on anal claws, and margins of thoracic segs
Episternum/epimeron shape/coloring SIZE?
[crude drawings of spine pads and a leg (I think?)]
Memes are the emergent genes
My uncle once told me a story about my grandfather, someone I have talked about on this forum before. They were at a bar together, just talking and drinking a beer. At some point he grabbed a napkin, and started scribbling equations down. He was always thinking about physics, even relaxing with his son in law at the bar. That was my original impulse to bring my stack of notecards to the bar with me. Now I do it because I know it works.
What exactly is the anal claw? Sorry, not to familiar with invertebrate physiology. Is it just the last segment's pair of legs?
No, its actually a derived form of the tenth (terminal) segment. Over time the more basal form of the Amphismenoptera caterpillar elongated and sclerotized into these limb like appendages, but they are not true legs in the sense of the thoracic legs. They are usually termed anal prolegs.
Less terminology: The anal claws are part of the final segment of the abdomen. The whole final (tenth segment) is called the anal prolegs, because they are "not quite legs" (pro- meaning before) that are near the anus. These structures evolved from a very simple tenth segment, gaining hardened parts over time, elongating, and becoming very much like a pair of legs. Butterfly caterpillars lack them, although they are a related group, so they probably evolved only once, and then diversified from a non specialized form. In this particular group of caddisflies the prolegs are very long, but in other groups they are very reduced, only a set of simple claws.
Quote from: GA on November 10, 2008, 09:29:20 PM
What exactly is the anal claw?
A special limb for teh surprise buttsecks.
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: GA on November 10, 2008, 09:29:20 PM
What exactly is the anal claw?
A special limb for teh surprise buttsecks.
Only if its children buttsecksing adults.
Only the larvae have anal prolegs.
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 11:36:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 10, 2008, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: GA on November 10, 2008, 09:29:20 PM
What exactly is the anal claw?
A special limb for teh surprise buttsecks.
Only if its children buttsecksing adults.
Only the larvae have anal prolegs.
Odep?
What?
I'm just laying out the facts here. If people want to make sex jokes about anal claws, fine by me, but they have to stomach my knowlege at the same time.
By the way, anal is either latin or greek for ring. Not so dirty now is it?
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 02:01:57 AM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 11:36:18 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 10, 2008, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: GA on November 10, 2008, 09:29:20 PM
What exactly is the anal claw?
A special limb for teh surprise buttsecks.
Only if its children buttsecksing adults.
Only the larvae have anal prolegs.
Odep?
What?
I'm just laying out the facts here. If people want to make sex jokes about anal claws, fine by me, but they have to stomach my knowlege at the same time.
By the way, anal is either latin or greek for ring. Not so dirty now is it?
Odep was reverse Pedo...
But, yeah, I do know what an actual anal claw is, due to my Sjaantze's love of Entomology.
I still think its funnay though.
Sjaantze is a bug freak too?
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 06:01:34 PM
Sjaantze is a bug freak too?
We had a house in the woods for two years. I would come home from work to find Sjaantze face down at the edge of the clearing that was our front yard studying some interesting bug (though maybe not a True Bug*) or creeping mold or bizarre plant. Her college education was Bio/Psych and she was planning on being an animal behaviorist, but switched to Entomology (then married some guy that convinced her to drop out of college). She's planning on going back this year and aiming to get back to the bugs.
*I didn't even know that some bugs weren't True Bugs till I met her. I also didn't know that 'buzzard' was not an appropriate thing to call a Turkey Vulture.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 06:01:34 PM
Sjaantze is a bug freak too?
We had a house in the woods for two years. I would come home from work to find Sjaantze face down at the edge of the clearing that was our front yard studying some interesting bug (though maybe not a True Bug*) or creeping mold or bizarre plant. Her college education was Bio/Psych and she was planning on being an animal behaviorist, but switched to Entomology (then married some guy that convinced her to drop out of college). She's planning on going back this year and aiming to get back to the bugs.
*I didn't even know that some bugs weren't True Bugs till I met her. I also didn't know that 'buzzard' was not an appropriate thing to call a Turkey Vulture.
Dude. Shes crazy/awesome and shes a BUG FREAK TOO?
*envyenvyenvy*
Also, whats her favorite order of insect? What sort of entomological topics is she into? Is she going to be coming on here? Can I get her phone number?
I MUST HAVE ANSWERS!!!!
:cramstipated:
Just as a note, I'm not trying to be creepy here. The idea that there is a discordian type person out there that is an entomophile and is someone I could geek out with puts me in excitement mode, thats all. :)
Hehe, she is occasionally on here as kosmik~smock. I'll poke her tonight and see if she'll wander in and say hey :)
So, need semi-fresh specimens for dissection for this project. I can't get them because this part of the country is going through the worst drought ever. All the streams aren't flowing, and the ones that are I can't get to. So I have to use specimens that are several years old and try to make them work, somehow. FUCK.
Not to mention I am hating this research proposal, and wondering whether I should have come here at all since my adviser just retired and is never around.
I'm so close to saying fuck this all and working in fast food because I am so frusterated and stressed out.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 08:45:34 PM
I'll poke her tonight
Rat, do we REALLY need to know this?
Quote from: Kai on November 16, 2008, 06:03:48 PM
So, need semi-fresh specimens for dissection for this project. I can't get them because this part of the country is going through the worst drought ever. All the streams aren't flowing, and the ones that are I can't get to. So I have to use specimens that are several years old and try to make them work, somehow. FUCK.
Not to mention I am hating this research proposal, and wondering whether I should have come here at all since my adviser just retired and is never around.
I'm so close to saying fuck this all and working in fast food because I am so frusterated and stressed out.
Believe me, working in fast food will do just the same, only adding complete lack of future prospects and utter hatred of your life into the bargain.
Still, that does entirely suck. Would it be possible to visit other areas where the species is prevalent (out of state) or would that be unfeasible due to locality of the species? If it is possible (thought naturally costly and time consuming) I would suggest doing so. Getting out of the University for the while sounds like it might be a good idea.
Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2008, 06:50:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 16, 2008, 06:03:48 PM
So, need semi-fresh specimens for dissection for this project. I can't get them because this part of the country is going through the worst drought ever. All the streams aren't flowing, and the ones that are I can't get to. So I have to use specimens that are several years old and try to make them work, somehow. FUCK.
Not to mention I am hating this research proposal, and wondering whether I should have come here at all since my adviser just retired and is never around.
I'm so close to saying fuck this all and working in fast food because I am so frusterated and stressed out.
Believe me, working in fast food will do just the same, only adding complete lack of future prospects and utter hatred of your life into the bargain.
Still, that does entirely suck. Would it be possible to visit other areas where the species is prevalent (out of state) or would that be unfeasible due to locality of the species? If it is possible (thought naturally costly and time consuming) I would suggest doing so. Getting out of the University for the while sounds like it might be a good idea.
Its for this final project this semester, for morphology. I don't have the time, money or knowledge to go collecting outside the upstate area and the whole region is in the worst drought on record. I figure I'll use old specimens and extrapolate and exaggerate in the drawings. Try to make it work. The only thing I feel I will have real trouble with is the tracheal system. The heart, brain and tentorium should be relatively easy to see, even in old specimens. The tracheoles loose their air after a while though, making it difficult to tell where they are.
I'm worried about this proposal too. My adviser is gone all the time and he wants a presentation on the 25th. The proposal is only half written and I don't have the slightest clue how I am going to do some aspects.
Well I cannot help re; the insects, though you know what you need to do, which is at least something.
As for your proposal, maybe this will help: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1bab9b797a49adadab1eab3e9fa335cac66a6b0cc8efb476
Its not much I know, but between them they may help where your advisor is failing.
Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2008, 07:20:19 PM
Well I cannot help re; the insects, though you know what you need to do, which is at least something.
As for your proposal, maybe this will help: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=1bab9b797a49adadab1eab3e9fa335cac66a6b0cc8efb476
Its not much I know, but between them they may help where your advisor is failing.
Thanks! These will be helpful when I am writing my thesis. Right now, I am writing the proposal to do research so I can write my thesis.
They may cover that as well. I'm not sure, since I have only really skimmed through them. Nonetheless, I think knowing what you would be expected to do may be a useful guide for your proposal, even if it does not explicitly touch on the topic.
I also have some other books if you want them, but they are more PhD orientated. Nonetheless, if you think they may be useful, just give me the word.
I just sent a whole bunch of emails out to various people about possibilities of collaboration, making connections, etc. The only person I haven't sent one to is my adviser, because I don't t think he will get it in time for it to be relevant. I may just try to talk with him later this week.
Went collecting today, found this outfall near a road bridge that had nets all over it. When I go back on thursday I'll get pictures.
For now, I got a whole bunch of pics of a Hydropsyche betteni. Spent the whole afternoon doing dissections of these.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0547.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0548.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0549.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0550.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0551.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0552.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0553.jpg)
Tiny little fucker, what do you use to dissect it?
My guess is something like this:
(http://www.biology-equipments.co.in/Dissection%20Microscope.jpg)
Regular stereo dissecting microscope. The one I'm using is 20-30 years old. Works just fine. :)
The difficulty I am finding is not the scope but the limitation of my fingers and the forceps and other tools I am using. I have a set of microtools but I don't have a really good pair of micro siscors (sp), so I end up tearing up several specimens before getting the view I want.
Cute little buggers though.
Quote from: Kai on November 18, 2008, 09:57:52 PM
Regular stereo dissecting microscope. The one I'm using is 20-30 years old. Works just fine. :)
Nothing wrong with old technology.
QuoteCute little buggers though.
That they are.
A bit of interest about the scope I'm using. Years ago, PhD student used it for his dissertation research. Now hes a professor at the University of Minnesota. The photographic prints of drawings he made looking through that scope that were published in a well used and respected taxonomic guidebook are hanging on my office walls.
:)
Another update: I just received word from the curator of the entomology collection at a certain museum that I am more than welcome to examine the associated specimens, whether that means going to the museum or having them shipped here. This is exciting because it means I won't be doing my morphotype associations cold, I'll have a set of data to compare them to.
~Kai
that little creature (the Hydropsyche betteni) is quite cute, also you can pretend that it likes you a lot because it clings.
Could I find some? I would like to see one.
Go out to any shallow stream in your area. Start taking rocks out of the water. You will see all kinds of critters on them. Some of the organisms will be Hydropsychid caddisflies, likely Cheumatopsyche and Hydropsyche species. Look on coarse woody debris too, and in and around leaf pack. If you have a white enamel pan, sort your debris in there with a bit of water. The white enamel will make them easier to see.
Some notes on this though: the water has to be flowing fast enough, and cool enough, and also have good water quality. Hydropsychid caddisfly larvae are in general more tolerant than other families, but not that tolerant. They also don't do well in a trickle, since they are filter feeders and need flow for their nets to work.
There are probably some in Balch Creek.
Also, extra credit if you take a picture of anything cool you find and post it. If its a good picture I may be able to identify it.
Also also, this is really the wrong time of year for collecting. Late winter, spring and summer are best, fall and early winter are worst. The obvious reason for this is that all the adults have died by fall and it takes time for the critters to grow in the water. By late winter many are at their last larval instar and large, some are getting ready to pupate. Spring emergence starts anywhere from March to May for some species, depending on the latitude.
thank you, this will be great!
do they like shady streams or sunny ones?
The sun is not the issue, so much as the water temperature. Temp gets too warm, less dissolved oxygen in the water and they have trouble with gas exchange.
Balch creek is nice and cool, and is also mostly shaded. It's a hillside creek, and hosts a lot of fauna including trout, salamanders, and crawdads... sound like a likely candidate?
Quote from: Nigel on November 20, 2008, 01:49:03 AM
Balch creek is nice and cool, and is also mostly shaded. It's a hillside creek, and hosts a lot of fauna including trout, salamanders, and crawdads... sound like a likely candidate?
In a word, YES. If its a rocky gravely substrate, double yes.
In longer words, if a stream has trout in it, its garanteed to have some sort of macroinvertebrate population, because otherwise the trout couldn't eat.
I'm excited to see pictures if you get anything.
YAY!
CADDISFLY NETS.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0590.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0585.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0578.jpg)
And the Little River.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0596.jpg)
More pictures coming but for now these four.
Oh, that's pretty!
ROUGH DRAFT OF PROPOSAL FINISHED! FUCK YEAh!
I'd post some of it here but its already too easy to trace me, the way I talk around this forum.
So, cause I just realized how spectacular the above pictures are,
MOAR PICTURES.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0561.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0562.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0563.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0564.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0565.jpg)
YAY!
SWEEET!!!
Okay, so I just saw an exit seminar yesterday (would be today but it just passed midnight) and it was excellent. This woman is from a certain central Asian country and english is her second language. She speaks fluently, and already has a masters degree, but came to the US for her second masters degree on full ride. She is a very smart woman. Her presentation was on the taxonomic and phylogenetic revision of a certain genus of Trichoptera in that region of the world. Very interesting, and her drawings make mine look childish.
I just learned right now that Amanda is resigning from the grad program. Now that someone else is gone back to Asia, Michael has graduated, Ian is graduating in the spring, and Kevin isn't really even part of the lab.....
That makes me the only grad student left with this guy as their major adviser.
Srsly.
Can't even process this right now because it changes everything. I might get an assistanceship. I might get funding. I might be able to extend my stay past two years so I have more time for my project and other things.
Its intense. I don't know how to process this info, I JUST DON'T.
....
Oooooo! i hope it leads to GOOD THiNGS!
Quote from: Primrose on January 10, 2009, 09:59:06 PM
Oooooo! i hope it leads to GOOD THiNGS!
I hope I can go hide and let someone else handle it honestly, cause its freaking me out.
Well, good news, I just finished revising my proposal. Took long enough. :lulz:
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0648.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0649.jpg)
More pictures of the research notebook. I've been working pretty intensely on setal arrangements as of recent. These pages are some days from the past several weeks. Note, most of them are just diagrams of setae with labels
Also, I don't even know if I want to talk about assistanceship opportunities at this point, because I've been told about several opportunities but nothing ever seems to come of it.
Gonna go look at some more stuff today after ex stats :x I keep finding more and more little characters, some of which make me go WTF.
Don't mind me, just thinking out loud here.
Had a talk with a labmate today, a PhD candidate who has excellent microdissection skills, and he should, heh, he had to design a whole way of slide mounting trichoptera wings perfectly flat and hairless so he could see the coupling mechanisms.
I've said it before, but this project for whatever reason pulls out the worst panicky anxious reactions in me at bad moments, where I just want to give up on it. I blame myself, lack of intelligence, lack of motivation or discipline, whatever, I blame poor self qualities for the inability to figure this stuff out.
Whatever the reason, even when I race after the more recent setal characters and the possibility of a near automatic diagnosis, it keeps coming back to this damn anterior frontoclypeal margin (AFCM). The AFCM occurs along the front edge of the part of the head capsule called the frontoclypeus, usually some sort of scalloping and notching pattern with interspaced brushlike setae. The nice thing about this character set is that its obvious, part of sclerotized (hardened) tissue, so it stands up to damage quite well unlike setal characters, and it DOES seem to show some sort of variation between species (the problem being I don't even know what species I'm looking at :x). I already have two paper sources talking about this particular set, but thats it, no other investigations have been done.
Today, I decided to take the museum's collection of my organism into my own hands, and curate it. I've been going through vial by vial, checking the notches, placing these in different species complexes, at least in mind and notebook. Later when I have more specimens cleared I've got a plan for looking at the head sclerites. You know how my labmate had to find a way to see exactly what he needed to see on the wing? I have to do that with the head capsule, which means, more or less, /dissasembly/.
So, process as far as I know /so far/.
1. Clear specimen with hot KOH 1.5-2.0 hours, or overnight in cold KOH. Get it so the head capsule is just starting to lighten back up and become translucent. KOH is weird with hard cuticle, it tends to initially clear a bit and then darken the cuticle to opaque, and slowly lighten it again. If you leave it in long enough it dissolved the tissues to nothing and your head becomes far too see through. Not good. I need it just see through enough that the specimen will be translucent but not too far gone that the specimen becomes too flexible and all the setae fall off.
2. The clearing process also causes the soft tissue to break down, in fact, thats kinda the whole point of clearing. So, at the point that I detailed above, the soft membrane areas of the cuticle should allow for easy ripping. I can then proceed to take the head capsule appart, First removing the lower lip complex, then the mandibles and labrum. These can all be mounted separately in balsam for viewing. Legs, anal prolegs, notal sclerites and the rest can be removed in this manner too. The head, once the mouthparts are removed, can be dismantled by pulling the parietal sclerites apart at the gular sulcus on the ventral side of the head.
3. If I can do the above, the whole head capsule, all three sclerites (meaning the two parietal sclerites and the frontoclypeus) should unfold like a book, and I can then lay these together flat on a slide and mount them permanently in balsam.
The idea is to take photos using a camera affixed to a microscope. I can then have an easy record of the differences I see.
I swear, the AFCA, the Frontoclypeus and that damnned notch is gonna be the solution to all of this, along with some setal characters and possibly some morphometrics on the legs and such. Its like eating an elephant. I've got to learn how to clear, to dissect, I need to make some microtools from bamboo scewers and minutien pins, a microknife, need to learn how to make balsam slides, need to curate the rest of the vials of this organism in the museum (and there are possibly hundreds), need to write a chaetotaxy for this thing, NOT for all of Trichoptera, not for solving all those problems with the groundplan, but just with this organism, making up my own terms and names and whatever if I must. The plan that Mathus wrote up is no good for me, cause the drawings are of Limnephiloids and Rhyacophila. So, my own system, own terms, own setup and skills, own tools, own methods.
I'm inventing a diagnostic method. SHIT.
SWEET.
Pictures of Cheumatopsyche near etrona using a scope. The two species its likely is either etrona or gyra.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/nearetrona-EnoR-FCN.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/nearetrona-EnoR-sternal-1.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/nearetrona-EnoR-sternal-2.jpg)
Not sure if I want to post the drawing too...
I just received the full notes from the PhD that did the last Cheumatopsyche larval taxonomy investigation.
....
Holy shit.
:fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap:
Okay, so I'm reviving this thread, due to the confirmation that I made today and yesterday. I was waiting because I didn't want to get excited and then be depressed because it was false, but I have discovered a species new to science and I am going to be published.
Seriously.
I just got done talking with my adviser about it, I've gone over the literature back and front. It is most definitely in the genus Oecetis, the wing venation makes that obvious, and the genitalia is very different from the two closest species, O. avara and O. eddlesoni. It's a small, yellow long horned caddisfly (Leptoceridae), only about 5 mm. It looks like a slightly smaller version of this:
(http://bugguide.net/images/raw/1RRQ3RRQBRHQWR703QU0L0N00040OQG0URG0BRG0URHQ9RYKVRG0FQM0BR80VRX0DQX03QM0JQ40.jpg)
Oecetis avara
I'm not sure what I'm going to name it yet, but I have some ideas.
This is really, really cool, guys. I won't be able to link the publication directly when it gets in a journal, for obvious reasons concerning my online anonymity, but I'll let you all know when it does, and anyone who wants to see the paper I'll send a link in PM.
Name it ROGER.
Also, I'm really, really happy for you!
Congratulations!
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Name it ROGER.
Also, I'm really, really happy for you!
O. rogeri? I'm not sure how I would explain that to my adviser. :lulz: Not to mention, I hate patronyms.
And thanks. I'm really really happy for me too. :D
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Name it ROGER.
WHAT THE HELL? :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Also, I'm really, really happy for you!
Me, too. Congratulations, Kai. Can you squeeze a PhD out of this?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2009, 04:54:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Name it ROGER.
WHAT THE HELL? :lulz:
Damn... You mind pointing those lazors somewhere else for a bit? They're giving me a headache.
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 04:55:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2009, 04:54:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Name it ROGER.
WHAT THE HELL? :lulz:
Damn... You mind pointing those lazors somewhere else for a bit? They're giving me a headache.
Hey, you said my name. That attracts my attention. And I'm busy trying to drown some Peruvians. On a bet.
Quote from: Kai on December 02, 2009, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Name it ROGER.
Also, I'm really, really happy for you!
O. rogeri? I'm not sure how I would explain that to my adviser.
Well, it DOES have malformed genitals.
That's awesome - congrats Kai!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 02, 2009, 04:54:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Name it ROGER.
WHAT THE HELL? :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on December 02, 2009, 02:52:40 PM
Also, I'm really, really happy for you!
Me, too. Congratulations, Kai. Can you squeeze a PhD out of this?
Nope, but I can get a publication out, which will be good for my CV, experience and knock a requirement off my current degree.
Congratulations!
Quote from: Kai on December 02, 2009, 02:51:02 PM
Okay, so I'm reviving this thread, due to the confirmation that I made today and yesterday. I was waiting because I didn't want to get excited and then be depressed because it was false, but I have discovered a species new to science and I am going to be published.
Seriously.
I just got done talking with my adviser about it, I've gone over the literature back and front. It is most definitely in the genus Oecetis, the wing venation makes that obvious, and the genitalia is very different from the two closest species, O. avara and O. eddlesoni. It's a small, yellow long horned caddisfly (Leptoceridae), only about 5 mm. It looks like a slightly smaller version of this:
(http://bugguide.net/images/raw/1RRQ3RRQBRHQWR703QU0L0N00040OQG0URG0BRG0URHQ9RYKVRG0FQM0BR80VRX0DQX03QM0JQ40.jpg)
Oecetis avara
I'm not sure what I'm going to name it yet, but I have some ideas.
This is really, really cool, guys. I won't be able to link the publication directly when it gets in a journal, for obvious reasons concerning my online anonymity, but I'll let you all know when it does, and anyone who wants to see the paper I'll send a link in PM.
Congratulations! I would very much like to see the paper once you're done working on it, and be sure to update us on what you choose for the name (my suggestion would be to name it after Mothra or Battra, since Godzilla's got a prehistoric reptile named after him)!
Congratulations Kai!
Quote from: Kai on December 02, 2009, 02:51:02 PM
Okay, so I'm reviving this thread, due to the confirmation that I made today and yesterday. I was waiting because I didn't want to get excited and then be depressed because it was false, but I have discovered a species new to science and I am going to be published.
Seriously.
I just got done talking with my adviser about it, I've gone over the literature back and front. It is most definitely in the genus Oecetis, the wing venation makes that obvious, and the genitalia is very different from the two closest species, O. avara and O. eddlesoni. It's a small, yellow long horned caddisfly (Leptoceridae), only about 5 mm. It looks like a slightly smaller version of this:
(http://bugguide.net/images/raw/1RRQ3RRQBRHQWR703QU0L0N00040OQG0URG0BRG0URHQ9RYKVRG0FQM0BR80VRX0DQX03QM0JQ40.jpg)
Oecetis avara
I'm not sure what I'm going to name it yet, but I have some ideas.
This is really, really cool, guys. I won't be able to link the publication directly when it gets in a journal, for obvious reasons concerning my online anonymity, but I'll let you all know when it does, and anyone who wants to see the paper I'll send a link in PM.
Holy shit Kai, that is fucking AWESOME!
From all this talk of naming and genital qualities, one would think you were having a baby. But you're not, you've discovered a new species!
Congratulations!
:awesome: :mittens:
Oh, I forgot to tell you congratulations, Kai. Great job! I told you science was hard.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 06, 2009, 07:50:07 AM
Oh, I forgot to tell you congratulations, Kai. Great job! I told you science was hard.
It is hard (and technically, what I was doing when I discovered this species was more of technology than science), but it was totally worth it.
I'm a little late to this party, but congrats nonetheless!
Quote from: Cain on December 06, 2009, 01:52:10 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but congrats nonetheless!
Thanks. :D
Scratch that. This is why you always do your homework as a systematist. It's Oecetis parva, and I had to dig deep to find it out. Only one good drawing has ever been published, back in 1938, and thats obviously what it is. I was systematically (heh) comparing drawings of every Nearctic species of Oecetis to the mystery specimens. I've been using a 600 page tome of an unpublished dissertation, a world revision of Oecetis from 1992. O. parva was originally described by N Banks in 1907, but his descriptions and drawings were so piss poor that I thought, no, it can't be that. Chen, the author of this dissertation, mentions HH Ross published one lateral view of the male genitalia, an obscure paper from 1938. When I finally found it, it was obvious.
Sure, its a new state record, and I have a candidate female, and the little information on the organism means it deserves a redescription really. But. No new species.
This is what disappointment feels like. :sad: :sad: :sad: :cry:
At least I'm a good systematist, if nothing else.
Oh, shit.
That sucks. Still, hopefully, if that little can be found on it, then you can still do a lot with it, right?
Aww. What Cain said, there's probably still a lot of research in it?
And, there's always more caddisflies in the ocean ;-) With your passion for systematics, I bet you're gonna stumble upon a new species some day. And if not, you're gonna discover something else serendipitiously awesome.
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 05:10:39 PM
Oh, shit.
That sucks. Still, hopefully, if that little can be found on it, then you can still do a lot with it, right?
I might be able to squeeze a publication out of it. Gonna talk with my adviser. :/
This is why good databases for taxonomic literature are absolutely necessary.
Of course, now I probably know more about Nearctic
Oecetis diagnosis than everyone but two or three people.
I've got a 700 page dissertation sitting here on my desk. Must find some way to photocopy...
Quote from: Kai on December 07, 2009, 04:09:10 PM
At least I'm a good systematist, if nothing else.
Yes, and you now have proven integrity in your field.
Not finding a new species: Fail.
Not being Fleischman & Pons: Victory.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 07, 2009, 07:17:50 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 07, 2009, 04:09:10 PM
At least I'm a good systematist, if nothing else.
Yes, and you now have proven integrity in your field.
Not finding a new species: Fail.
Not being Fleischman & Pons: Victory.
And if nothing else, new site and state records along with a candidate female is means for even minor celebration. I could still get a publication out of this, maybe.
I spent $135 dollars on books last night. about 3/8th of that was for Betten's Trichoptera of New York State. The other five books were less. I got a 1900 copy of On the Descent of Man, shipped from england, for only 5 dollars. I bet it smells like god, you know, books that old smell so damn good.
I think I am going nuts. You know, the sort of harmless giggly nuts that gets you locked up in an asylum not because you're dangerous, but because you're just weird enough and obsessive enough that theres the slight chance you might go overboard and hurt yourself someway. I've been copying books and publications, for hours every day. I have no clue how much I've spent on photocopies now. Its like, this primal urge to collect so I have the biggest book penis. I look at my adviser's library and think, the only reason that man has lasted this long was because he's such a bibliophile, and he reads constantly. He understands the ICZN better than anyone else I know, maybe better than the council that put it together. My drawer of publications is getting fuller by the day, and soon I'll need a second. I know eventually what I'm going to have to do: buy a scanner and adobe acrobat, and scan them all into a computer. Or one of those automatic paper scanners. You know what I mean. All those people who talk about going paperless have them. PDF's take up so much less physical space. I could scan them all, scan to image and then clean them up, make them into permenent pdfs. I need software then, and that costs more money.
I'm gonna spend so much money on paper, and books, and computer shit I'll go broke and end up under a bridge somewhere rolling my library along in some shopping carts, collecting change for the photocopying machine.
Quote from: Kai on December 08, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
I spent $135 dollars on books last night. about 3/8th of that was for Betten's Trichoptera of New York State. The other five books were less. I got a 1900 copy of On the Descent of Man, shipped from england, for only 5 dollars. I bet it smells like god, you know, books that old smell so damn good.
I think I am going nuts. You know, the sort of harmless giggly nuts that gets you locked up in an asylum not because you're dangerous, but because you're just weird enough and obsessive enough that theres the slight chance you might go overboard and hurt yourself someway. I've been copying books and publications, for hours every day. I have no clue how much I've spent on photocopies now. Its like, this primal urge to collect so I have the biggest book penis. I look at my adviser's library and think, the only reason that man has lasted this long was because he's such a bibliophile, and he reads constantly. He understands the ICZN better than anyone else I know, maybe better than the council that put it together. My drawer of publications is getting fuller by the day, and soon I'll need a second. I know eventually what I'm going to have to do: buy a scanner and adobe acrobat, and scan them all into a computer. Or one of those automatic paper scanners. You know what I mean. All those people who talk about going paperless have them. PDF's take up so much less physical space. I could scan them all, scan to image and then clean them up, make them into permenent pdfs. I need software then, and that costs more money.
I'm gonna spend so much money on paper, and books, and computer shit I'll go broke and end up under a bridge somewhere rolling my library along in some shopping carts, collecting change for the photocopying machine.
Welcome to academia. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2009, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 08, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
I spent $135 dollars on books last night. about 3/8th of that was for Betten's Trichoptera of New York State. The other five books were less. I got a 1900 copy of On the Descent of Man, shipped from england, for only 5 dollars. I bet it smells like god, you know, books that old smell so damn good.
I think I am going nuts. You know, the sort of harmless giggly nuts that gets you locked up in an asylum not because you're dangerous, but because you're just weird enough and obsessive enough that theres the slight chance you might go overboard and hurt yourself someway. I've been copying books and publications, for hours every day. I have no clue how much I've spent on photocopies now. Its like, this primal urge to collect so I have the biggest book penis. I look at my adviser's library and think, the only reason that man has lasted this long was because he's such a bibliophile, and he reads constantly. He understands the ICZN better than anyone else I know, maybe better than the council that put it together. My drawer of publications is getting fuller by the day, and soon I'll need a second. I know eventually what I'm going to have to do: buy a scanner and adobe acrobat, and scan them all into a computer. Or one of those automatic paper scanners. You know what I mean. All those people who talk about going paperless have them. PDF's take up so much less physical space. I could scan them all, scan to image and then clean them up, make them into permenent pdfs. I need software then, and that costs more money.
I'm gonna spend so much money on paper, and books, and computer shit I'll go broke and end up under a bridge somewhere rolling my library along in some shopping carts, collecting change for the photocopying machine.
Welcome to academia. :lulz:
Yeah. I'm okay with this sort of crazy, because even though other's may not like it much, you know, the sort of weird eccentric type that bothers you because they're different, its sorta fun.
I just found another group that wasn't found on site before, a Rhyacophilidae. Where the hell are all these critters hiding? Certainly not in the shifting sands! It seems like every other sample I pull out something that wasn't noted previously.