Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ~ THE BEAUTY OF EVIL ~  (Read 17891 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2008, 07:26:40 AM »
ReplyReply

And as far as my "getting closer," I don't see how I could get much closer than this:






Maybe I should have just made the image bigger to begin with.

Jack
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2008, 06:08:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And as far as my "getting closer," I don't see how I could get much closer than this:

Maybe I should have just made the image bigger to begin with.

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
It still seems a bit too confusing, in my opinion. All arms and legs. I can sort of see where the prosboscis is piercing the dragon fly, if I try hard. However, I wonder if the Sony DSC T30 has a better macro facility than the G9. I think I got closer than an inch with some of the following shots. The macro facility of the T30 allows one to get as close as 1cm.

These shots are of an unidentified, tiny spider on the laundry fly-creen door. The holes in the mesh are about 1mm wide, maybe 1.5mm including the thickness of the wire. I was struck by the design of this spider's web which included a large X-shaped cross which I presume is a technique to make itself appear larger than it actually is, in order to fool potential predators.

As soon as I brought the camera close, it got a bit agitated and moved to the centre of the cross, as in the 2nd and 3rd shots from the left. The close-up of the spider's head looks quite fearsome.

[attachment=6984:attachment]  [attachment=6985:attachment]  [attachment=6986:attachment]  [attachment=6987:attachment]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2008, 07:19:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Isn't it just terrible how the world now thinks.. what is important ?

The importance we now place on 'animals' is more important than live breathing human beings .

I tried a google search on 'cruel behaviour in animals', 'animal cruelty towards other animals'; tried various combinations of words and all that Google produced were pages of titles about cruelty by humans towards animals. So you are right that this is a very fashionable and current concern.

Nevertheless, cruelty is cruelty whether to animals or humans and you should bear in mind that some of us consider humans as a species of animal.

I imagine that polar bears have some degree of protection from the harshness of their environment. But what about the mountain gorillas in Africa who would be poached to extinction in a very short time by people who are probably stuggling to earn a living to support their families, were it not for the policing of such areas. Should we take the attitude that preserving the species called Gorilla gorilla is less important than providing temporary work for a few destitute Africans?

Quote
The animals are in no danger at all.. the one species that is in critical danger of becoming extinct are the Inupiaq Eskimo's

Eskimos are not a separate species from the rest of us. All races are part of the one species, Homo Sapiens.  
Logged
bernie west
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2008, 08:02:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The animals are in no danger at all.. the one species that is in critical danger of becoming extinct are the Inupiaq Eskimo's

Deprive them of all their food !!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In addition to Ray's good response to this bizarre post, I would add that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.  With proper planning and management we can have our cake and eat it too.  Human planning and management are the responibility of governments, not Polar Bears.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2008, 12:03:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,
It still seems a bit too confusing, in my opinion. All arms and legs. I can sort of see where the prosboscis is piercing the dragon fly, if I try hard. However, I wonder if the Sony DSC T30 has a better macro facility than the G9. I think I got closer than an inch with some of the following shots. The macro facility of the T30 allows one to get as close as 1cm.


Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't "see" the proboscis simply because it is buried to the hilt inside the dragonfly?  




Quote
These shots are of an unidentified, tiny spider on the laundry fly-creen door. The holes in the mesh are about 1mm wide, maybe 1.5mm including the thickness of the wire. I was struck by the design of this spider's web which included a large X-shaped cross which I presume is a technique to make itself appear larger than it actually is, in order to fool potential predators.

Thanks for sharing the photo Ray, but it actually wasn't of the spider's face at all, but of his back. You can't see all 8 of that spider's eyes nor his fangs in the least. I believe the confusion isn't stemming from the photographs at all, but of your own basic lack of understanding of arthropod anatomy.





Quote
As soon as I brought the camera close, it got a bit agitated and moved to the centre of the cross, as in the 2nd and 3rd shots from the left. The close-up of the spider's head

Well, you just hit the nail on the head as far as that spider you photo'd getting agitated when you got close (and that particular species is short-sighted too). In fact, all web-building spiders like that one have poor eyesight compared to ground-dwelling spiders who do not use webs. Yet still, when you approached close enough that that comparatively-blind spider he ran away. By contrast, the robber fly I photographed has absolutely outstanding eyesight so there is no way I could put my Canon to 1 cm from this creature and have him just sit there and stay put.

Ray, that you keep making erroneous conclusions and assumptions on just about everything having to do with insects and spiders, as well as why I didn't "get closer" to the robber fly, is what I believe is the problem here. I believe it's your lack of understanding of arthropod anatomy and the realities of wildlife. My not getting within 1 cm of this predatory insect with outstanding eyesight had nothing to do with my Canon's capabilities; it had to do with the realities of placing something right up to a wild animal and having the animal react unfavorably. In fact, that is precisely why high-end macro lenses cost so much more is so that a person can take super-close shots from further distances away.

Here's an idea Ray: try placing your Sony right up to the nostril of a Bengal tiger, to photograph the complex texture of his skin out in the wild sometime, and you'll better understand why some shots need to be taken from a distance  

Jack

PS: Here are a couple of (much better) shots of spiders' actual faces:














.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 02:43:48 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2008, 10:02:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't "see" the proboscis simply because it is buried to the hilt inside the dragonfly?

You see the problem here, Jack, why it's so dangerous to to make any honest comment about someone's photo?  Your reaction here has been to deride the critic's credibility, first by implying he is so stupid that he expects to see the part of the proboscis that is buried in the insect; next by implying that this poor little blighter (that I photographed) ran away as soon as the camera was close, despite having poor eyesight, when the reality is, as shown in the photos, the spider simply moved a couple of centimetres to the centre of its web where it felt more secure.

Next, you continue the derision by suggesting I try photographing the nostrils of a Bengal tiger from the same distance as the spider. We're talking about a couple of flies here, Jack.

However, you are right that I'm no entomologist. As far as I recall, these shots of this tiny spider are the only shots I've ever taken of a spider in my entire life. I was in part just testing the macro capability of the Sony T30.

If I've confused the spider's rear end with its front end, then I thank you for pointing that out. It makes the spider even more remarkable. It not only spins a web that mimics long legs but has a bum that looks like a face.

Can you do me a favour and confirm that this is indeed the situation as described in the following shot?

[attachment=7028:attachment]
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2008, 12:29:47 AM »
ReplyReply

LOLOL, thanks for a knee-slapping funny post Ray, you made my night  




Quote
You see the problem here, Jack, why it's so dangerous to to make any honest comment about someone's photo?  Your reaction here has been to deride the critic's credibility, first by implying he is so stupid that he expects to see the part of the proboscis that is buried in the insect; next by implying that this poor little blighter (that I photographed) ran away as soon as the camera was close, despite having poor eyesight, when the reality is, as shown in the photos, the spider simply moved a couple of centimetres to the centre of its web where it felt more secure.

I truly haven't tried to deride you in a mean-spirited kind of way, but I did have to "criticize the critic," because much of what you said was false. If I took a photograph of a man impaling another man up to the hilt with a sword, the assumption is that you "understand" that the sword "you can't see" is stuck inside the man. This is what creates the "Oh my God!" effect on the viewer ... but not with you. You would complain that you cant see the sword, and would digress into postulating about how some tribesmen may overreact to the usage of blood-drawing techniques at the Red Cross ...

And if you take a look at that spider you photographed, you will see that its eyes are tiny compared to those of the robber fly, the wolf spider, and the jumping spider ... orb-spinning spiders as you photographed are comparatively blind ... that is why the movement away from you was minimal.




Quote
Next, you continue the derision by suggesting I try photographing the nostrils of a Bengal tiger from the same distance as the spider. We're talking about a couple of flies here, Jack.

That wasn't derision, Ray, it was a playful "punch in the arm" to stress a point about how wildlife can act unfavorably to the close proximity of a photographer

Yes they're a couple of flies, Ray, with HUGE eyes that see clearly for over 20' and with the propensity to take-off and fly away, if a silly photographer approaches too closely




Quote
However, you are right that I'm no entomologist. As far as I recall, these shots of this tiny spider are the only shots I've ever taken of a spider in my entire life. I was in part just testing the macro capability of the Sony T30.

I like that last photo, especially the labeling

But seriously, take a look at the eyes on the spider you photographed, and notice how miniscule they are compared to those of the robber fly and the wolf & jumping spiders I photographed, and then think about it logically. Spiders who use webs (as the specimen you photo'd) rely on entrapment, and a sense of feel, to catch their prey ... whereas wolf & jumping spiders (who have no web) must therefore rely on sight to see their prey first, and then pounce on it.

And, as they say in evolution, form follows function: those organisms that rely primarily on sight develop huge and keen eyes ... whereas those who do not rely on sight tend to have small, useless eyes. As a matter of fact, did you know that the web-building black widow spider is entirely blind?




Quote
If I've confused the spider's rear end with its front end, then I thank you for pointing that out. It makes the spider even more remarkable. It not only spins a web that mimics long legs but has a bum that looks like a face.
Can you do me a favour and confirm that this is indeed the situation as described in the following shot?

That was cute, and I laughed mightily at your photo and post

However, in all seriousness, take a look at this photo of the wolf spider I dug up (before I did) poised and ready to strike in her burrow ... can you see the difference in the eye development?





The wolf spider has HUGE, functional eyes in comparison to the orb web weaver you photographed. And the reason is, again, the orb weaver relies on her web to catch her prey ... and she merely follows the vibration ... whereas the burrowing wolf spider above relies on her sight to see her prey first, and then pounces on it as it walks by.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2008, 12:36:45 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2008, 03:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack,
You are still not being clear about my spider's rear and front end. I see two eyes and a sort of face. Is this the spider's arse or face? Which? Never mind how well developed it's eyes are. Are what appear to be eyes actually eyes or is this just another device to trick predators?

If you couldn't get closer to the robber fly and dragon fly without their flying away, then just say so. No need for the song and dance. However, I would have thought that a dragon fly that had lost half its vital fluids would be incapable of flying away, and the robber fly would be reluctant to lose its prey. Did you try getting closer after you'd taken the first few shots?
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2008, 11:37:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,
You are still not being clear about my spider's rear and front end. I see two eyes and a sort of face. Is this the spider's arse or face? Which?

Hi Ray; if you are truly having trouble distinguishing the spider's head from his ass, I am left wondering if you often have this trouble at home too ...





Quote
Never mind how well developed it's eyes are. Are what appear to be eyes actually eyes or is this just another device to trick predators?

You have your labeling of that spider exactly backwards. At first I thought you were joking.




Quote
If you couldn't get closer to the robber fly and dragon fly without their flying away, then just say so. No need for the song and dance.

I originally did "just say so," Ray, but then you went on and on with many other ideas and philosophies about the interpretations of fantasy tribesmen watching blood being drawn, to posting photos of this nearly-blind spider, not knowing his head from his ass, etc., etc., all of which are contributing factors as to why we both have continued to "sing and dance" over something rather simple, really.




Quote
However, I would have thought that a dragon fly that had lost half its vital fluids would be incapable of flying away, and the robber fly would be reluctant to lose its prey.

Well, on my butterfly thread you thought that the two robber flies mating were "wasps" (when they weren't); you thought that this photo here looked like "two dead flies" (when they weren't); and now you have labeled a spider exactly backwards as to the location of his head and ass; which again begs the question I pondered about on Line 1 of my response here.

Yes Ray, you are correct to decipher that the mortally-wounded dragonfly might have trouble flying away upon my approach, but the robber fly would have no such trouble. As for whether he would have flown away had I gotten closer, I believe he would, as I have seen plenty of them fly away upon close approach in the past. Most creatures tend to flee when something a hundred-million-times larger than they approaches.




Quote
Did you try getting closer after you'd taken the first few shots?

No I didn't. For three reasons: (1) I didn't want the robber fly to fly away; (2) I felt I was close enough to capture everything I wanted to capture; and (3) it was getting dark out and I had to use my camera-mounted flash. It would not have worked had I been 1 cm away from the action, in addition to the above reasons.

Jack




.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2008, 07:18:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Ray; if you are truly having trouble distinguishing the spider's head from his ass, I am left wondering if you often have this trouble at home too ...
You have your labeling of that spider exactly backwards. At first I thought you were joking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, I never had any trouble distinguishing the spider's head from its ass. I showed a close-up of what I assumed was the spider's head & face and you wrote the following in response.

Quote
Thanks for sharing the photo Ray, but it actually wasn't of the spider's face at all, but of his back. You can't see all 8 of that spider's eyes nor his fangs in the least. I believe the confusion isn't stemming from the photographs at all, but of your own basic lack of understanding of arthropod anatomy.

Since I happen to know that some creatures have evolved in ways to confuse their predators, that might make it difficult to distinguish between their front end and rear, I assumed you were trying to say that this St Andrew's Cross spider was one such creature, but I now realise that what you were trying to say is that the close-up that I described as a face was only part of its face since you could see only 2 of its eyes clearly and just a hint of another 2.

The rest of its front part, with a pattern that might be interpreted as a face, is in fact head or upper body. I believe the technical word is 'cephalothorax'. You described it as the spider's back, whereas I would describe the colored, striped part of the spider as its back.

But never mind. The confusion is sorted. Enough of spiders!
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2008, 05:23:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Insects.

Actually, why would anyone wish to photograph them with anything other than scientific intent? They are so damn ugly that I fail to see rhyme or reason for having anything at all to do with them.

On the other hand, anthropomorphism is not to be sniffed at: by prettying critters up and putting cute faces and huge eyes (or asses, Ray) on them, Hollywood has made billions from the concept. Who didn´t fall in love with Bambi - or Audrey Hepburn, for that matter? Or Jayne Mansfield, if you take a different perspective.

Deciding on a better means of meeting one´s maker, as suggested in this thread, strikes me as decidedly unhealthy and should be put to one side as quickly as possible. There are enough personal deaths to be died in photography alone that further search seems somewhat superfluous.

Rob C
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2008, 08:34:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack, I never had any trouble distinguishing the spider's head from its ass. I showed a close-up of what I assumed was the spider's head & face and you wrote the following in response.

I beg to differ Ray. I know what I wrote in response and why I wrote it; I am not sure you understand yet.




Quote
Since I happen to know that some creatures have evolved in ways to confuse their predators, that might make it difficult to distinguish between their front end and rear,

There you go again with theoretical songs and dances

My statement had nothing to do with the above, only the angle of your shot. The angle of your shot would be tantamount to hovering directly over a woman lying on the beach, on her stomach, and taking a shot of her back. Simply because you could "see her head" doesn't mean you got a "face shot"--it means you took a photo of her back and could barely make out the top of her face.




Quote
I assumed you were trying to say that this St Andrew's Cross spider was one such creature, but I now realise that what you were trying to say is that the close-up that I described as a face was only part of its face since you could see only 2 of its eyes clearly and just a hint of another 2.

It's not a matter of what I was "trying to say"; it's a matter of what you were "trying to understand."




Quote
The rest of its front part, with a pattern that might be interpreted as a face, is in fact head or upper body. I believe the technical word is 'cephalothorax'. You described it as the spider's back, whereas I would describe the colored, striped part of the spider as its back.

I am glad to see you have taken enough interest in this subject not only to look-up the kind of spider you photographed, but also to attemtp to gain knowledge as to the anatomy of spiders.

Do you know what the term "cephalothorax" signifies? Cephalo means "head" and thorax means "chest"--and with spiders their head and upper body are fused into one (unlike insects). Where insects have a definitive head, a definitve thorax (chest), and a definitive abdomen ... spiders have only a cephalothorax (head/chest) and abdomen.

Therefore, the "colored, striped" part of the spider that you call his "back" is in fact its abdomen. The part which you called its "face" is in fact the back of its cephalothorax, where you can barely see the start of its face (the entirety of which is still hidden). Here is an example of what I am talking about:




Jack




.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 08:50:33 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2008, 08:46:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Insects.
Actually, why would anyone wish to photograph them with anything other than scientific intent? They are so damn ugly that I fail to see rhyme or reason for having anything at all to do with them.

The real question is, why would anyone who feels this way bother to click onto this thread then? IMO, one of the ugliest things in life are people with negative attitudes--who for whatever reason feel the need to spread them around




Quote
On the other hand, anthropomorphism is not to be sniffed at: by prettying critters up and putting cute faces and huge eyes (or asses, Ray) on them, Hollywood has made billions from the concept. Who didn´t fall in love with Bambi - or Audrey Hepburn, for that matter? Or Jayne Mansfield, if you take a different perspective.

Well, Hollywood has made billions off of the horror & fascinations billions of people have of insects and spiders, which seems to suggest that apparently many, many people share this horror/fascination too ... which is what I thought I would share in this thread




Quote
Deciding on a better means of meeting one´s maker, as suggested in this thread, strikes me as decidedly unhealthy and should be put to one side as quickly as possible.

Well, as soon as I want to see things as you see them, then I will contact a psychiatrist about my mental state, as I believe your overall perspective on insects and nature is what is truly unhealthy




Quote
There are enough personal deaths to be died in photography alone that further search seems somewhat superfluous.
Rob C

Actually, what is superfluous is your contribution to this thread. Speaking of mental health, I have never experienced a "personal death" in photography, actually, only the joy of capturing digitally what I find fascinating in nature. If you do not share this love of nature, I would suggest you are in the wrong section of this forum--or at the very least, if you don't enjoy insects and spiders, then I would suggest you are on the wrong thread.

If that is the case, please feel free to move on then.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 08:54:00 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2008, 09:32:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack

What a delightful invitation! Sadly, as you are no more the boss of this site than am I, both of us just mere guests, I feel compelled to accept the spirit of the invitation whilst having to find the grace to refuse it.

I´m truly thrilled for you to have never suffered a death in photography. That marks you as unique a photographer as I have never met, read of or even heard about. My own photographgic failures, in a successful career, are too numerous for comfort; it is so humbling to actually exchange words with the first Mr Perfect!

Negative attitudes: ah, they are a pain, aren´t they; funny how they are only to be found within the psyches of those with whom one finds disagreement!

Hollywood´s billions from the horror genre. I´m glad you accept my contention about anthropomorphism, though I wasn´t aware I was writing about horror: more about the cuddly aspects of Bambi. But I could be wrong there - you´ll know best. However, I don´t recall saying anywhere that that made any justification for the genre - horror included, since you bring it up - but I guess it´s all in the interpretation, not the original score.

Fun doing business with you, call again, won´t you? Or, you might consider the development of a carapace much as that of one of your little friends; you´d find life ever so much more comfortable then!

Must be the Florida humidity.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 09:33:58 AM by Rob C » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2008, 09:59:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's not a matter of what I was "trying to say"; it's a matter of what you were "trying to understand."

For me it was clearly about what you were trying to say. If you had expressed yourself more clearly, I would have understood you better.

For example, if you had said something like, "the appearance of a gruesome face is actually the back of the spider's head. Although you can see two eyes and a hint of two others at the bottom of the image, most of the spider's face is actually obscured as a result of the angle of the shot", then I would have understood you clearly.

Who was it who wrote, "there are no bad students, only bad teachers"?

Having identified me as someone who is not as familiar with the anatomy of a spider as you are, you should have realised that the common understanding (and likely my understanding) of what constitutes a spiders back is the top side of its abdomen. When people talk about the colorful stripes on the back of the St Andrew's Cross spider, they are not referring to its head and throat.

Probably the most well known spider in Australia is the Red Back. It's called the Red Back because it has clear red markings on its back, not on its head or throat.

Quote
Do you know what the term "cephalothorax" signifies?

Yes. I never, ever use words I don't understand.  
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2008, 02:01:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack
What a delightful invitation! Sadly, as you are no more the boss of this site than am I, both of us just mere guests, I feel compelled to accept the spirit of the invitation whilst having to find the grace to refuse it.

It wasn't an invitation, actually, just a suggestion. You offered a recurring theme on the “mental health” behind insect photography, and I merely suggested that it would be a surer sign of mental health to avoid what one finds repugnant than to wallow in it. Apparently you feel differently.




Quote
I´m truly thrilled for you to have never suffered a death in photography. That marks you as unique a photographer as I have never met, read of or even heard about. My own photographgic failures, in a successful career, are too numerous for comfort; it is so humbling to actually exchange words with the first Mr Perfect!

I never claimed to be perfect Rob. What I claimed was that I have never experienced the feeling of “many deaths” from merely taking photos. Shakespeare once observed, “A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero only one.” Perhaps there is something about your nature, or deep insecurity, that causes you repeatedly to find so much “pain” in your work that you “die” ...

Me, I think that kind of melodramatic horseshit is for women. I just like taking photographs. If they don't turn out well then I just delete them shrug my shoulders and try again ... but if they do turn out well then I keep them and also try again. No feelings of pain, agony, or death involved. LOL




Quote
Negative attitudes: ah, they are a pain, aren´t they; funny how they are only to be found within the psyches of those with whom one finds disagreement!

No, Rob, negative is just negative. It's when one criticizes just to criticize, with nothing constructive or interesting to add. I've noticed there are two types of people in the world: those who contribute and those who consume. Those who encourage and those who undermine. Those who try to build and those who try to tear down. Heck, another saying comes to mind: “No one ever built a statue of a critic.”




Quote
Hollywood´s billions from the horror genre. I´m glad you accept my contention about anthropomorphism, though I wasn´t aware I was writing about horror: more about the cuddly aspects of Bambi. But I could be wrong there - you´ll know best. However, I don´t recall saying anywhere that that made any justification for the genre - horror included, since you bring it up - but I guess it´s all in the interpretation, not the original score.

You like to use a lot of words to say nothing, don't you?




Quote
Fun doing business with you, call again, won´t you? Or, you might consider the development of a carapace much as that of one of your little friends; you´d find life ever so much more comfortable then!
Must be the Florida humidity.
Rob C



Even covering your posts with the heavy syrup of pedantry can't hide the infantile theme contained within.

I posted a photo of two species of insect Rob, one killing the other being killed. If this is not a subject to your liking, then surf on. Your posts criticizing the subject of insect photography, when posted on a forum under the heading “Landscape & Nature Photography” seem rather out of place. Like farting in an elevator: inappropriate for the situation.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 02:33:27 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2008, 03:35:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey Ray, good point.

Since this subject switched to spiders a bit, check out a close-up of a relative to the spider you photographed, and notice how small the eyes are.




.
Logged
peteh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2008, 04:03:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I beg to differ Ray. I know what I wrote in response and why I wrote it; I am not sure you understand yet.
There you go again with theoretical songs and dances

My statement had nothing to do with the above, only the angle of your shot. The angle of your shot would be tantamount to hovering directly over a woman lying on the beach, on her stomach, and taking a shot of her back. Simply because you could "see her head" doesn't mean you got a "face shot"--it means you took a photo of her back and could barely make out the top of her face.
It's not a matter of what I was "trying to say"; it's a matter of what you were "trying to understand."
I am glad to see you have taken enough interest in this subject not only to look-up the kind of spider you photographed, but also to attemtp to gain knowledge as to the anatomy of spiders.

Do you know what the term "cephalothorax" signifies? Cephalo means "head" and thorax means "chest"--and with spiders their head and upper body are fused into one (unlike insects). Where insects have a definitive head, a definitve thorax (chest), and a definitive abdomen ... spiders have only a cephalothorax (head/chest) and abdomen.

Therefore, the "colored, striped" part of the spider that you call his "back" is in fact its abdomen. The part which you called its "face" is in fact the back of its cephalothorax, where you can barely see the start of its face (the entirety of which is still hidden). Here is an example of what I am talking about:


Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What is the Bright green glowing stuff? It is a way cool test for my G9 and Z3100ps GP and new speed mat cutter.It it the eyes? Or FANGS? You said it LOOKED UP at you.In Northern CA. most of the spiders here are mostly brown or dark other than the Common Garden spider with is Yellow and black. We have another Buddy spider here called the Brown Recluse.NOT something I want to meet up with.I think they are Brown and have a RED fiddle in their back, and big,about the size of a dime,big for here at least.I think it would be a candidate for the 180 Canon Macro!
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2008, 06:06:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What is the Bright green glowing stuff? It is a way cool test for my G9 and Z3100ps GP and new speed mat cutter.It it the eyes? Or FANGS? You said it LOOKED UP at you.In Northern CA. most of the spiders here are mostly brown or dark other than the Common Garden spider with is Yellow and black. We have another Buddy spider here called the Brown Recluse.NOT something I want to meet up with.I think they are Brown and have a RED fiddle in their back, and big,about the size of a dime,big for here at least.I think it would be a candidate for the 180 Canon Macro!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I actually got bit on the shoulder by a brown recluse about 2 months ago ... hed to go to the MD and still have a scar

They are actually kind of yellow up front, with a brown abdomen, and a faint "fiddle" on their back.

If you see a black spider with an all-red rump, it is probably a Johnson Jumper, a harmless spider related to my green-faced friend. As for him, below is a label of his facial anatomy. Those "green things" are his chelicerae  








.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2008, 06:08:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a Johnson Jumper that you might find in your area (note how large his eyes are!):

http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/spiders/Phidi...%20johnsoni.htm


The spider I photographed is called a Bold Jumper ...

http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/spiders/Paudax.htm




.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2008, 06:14:14 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad