Regular Mark Sturtevant (as opposed to Irregular Mark Sturtevant) has sent in some lovely insect photos to fill the nearly-empty reserve of pictures. Please send any good wildlife photos you have. Thanks!
Mark’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them. Be sure to check out the female Tussock Moth caterpillar with vestigial wings (it’s the eighth photo).
Here is another dispatch of local insects and spiders, all photographed either in area parks near where I live in eastern Michigan, or as staged shots at home. Let’s start with a couple of dragonflies. First up is a Green Darner (Anax junius), which ranks pretty large among the dragonflies found here. As is almost always the case, this individual is a female, since they perch frequently and are much easier to approach than males, which I only rarely manage to photograph. Do you see the tiny yellow critter on the dragonfly? That is a Globular Springtail, and it must have walked or jumped onto the dragonfly from nearby foliage. There may be a few more of them in the picture as well, though I’m not certain. Springtails are tiny soil arthropods, and they are extremely abundant. When seen up close, Globular Springtails are arguably adorable, as you can see in the linked image. I’ve searched for them for some time but have only rarely encountered them, despite claims that they are exceedingly common. Perhaps our local species spends more time up on foliage rather than in the soil, meaning I’ve been looking in the wrong places!:
The next dragonfly is a male Skillet Clubtail (Gomphurus ventricosus), named for the large, pan-like club on the end of its abdomen. I have to drive a few hours south to a particular park to see them, and of course this one is perching on poison ivy which covers much of the area there. That park hosts 8 or 9 species of clubtails according to a dragonfly documentation site called Odonata Central. I’ve photographed most of those species with only two left to find:
A field near my workplace has a ridiculously high population of Chinese Praying Mantids (Tenodera sinensis). I suspect this is the lingering result of someone having released a large number of egg cases several years ago, combined with a robust population of grasshopper prey. Shown here is a young June nymph. I can return later in the summer to find several large adults in no time at all:
Next up are some lepidopterans. First is a Hackberry Emperor butterfly (Asterocampa celtis). They are often common along forest margins where their host Hackberry trees [Celtis occidentalis] are concentrated. Their caterpillars, however, seem to be quite secretive, as I’ve seen only a few of them:
Next is an inchworm caterpillar, though I don’t have an identification for it. Do you see the tiny mites?:
The insect shown next is a moth, although it makes a very convincing wasp mimic. This is the Eupatorium Borer Moth (Carmenta bassiformis). The larvae feed on the roots of Ironweed and Joe Pye Weed, both of which are highly valued native wildflowers because they are very much favored by butterflies:
The flamboyant caterpillar in the next image is a White-marked Tussock Caterpillar (Orgyia leucostigma). I’ve tried several times to get an acceptable focus-stacked image of one of these. What makes them difficult is the combination of all those oddly angled sticky-out bits, which challenge the shallow depth of field inherent in this kind of photography, along with the fact that these caterpillars absolutely will Not Hold Still. As a result, the stacking is done on the fly, followed later by long hours of manual reassembly of the jumbled focus stack. This image is by far my most successful attempt:
I kept this caterpillar in hopes that the moth emerging from the cocoon would be a female. Why? Well—check out what came out! It was a female! Females have barely visible vestigial wings, and I had never seen one before. She will sit here, unmoving, until a male finds her. This strategy saves a great deal of energy that can instead be used for laying eggs. The winged males are unremarkable, and while I’ve probably seen them, I don’t think I’ve ever photographed one:
Finally, here are three images of jumping spiders I’ve been wanting to share together for quite some time. The Dimorphic Jumping Spider (Maevia inclemens) is a species I regularly see around the outside of our house. The name refers to the males having two distinct color morphs. The images below are manual focus stacks, photographed in staged settings on the ‘ol dining room table. First is a female with long-legged fly prey, which conveniently provides a sense of scale since the fly is about the size of a mosquito:
Next are the two male color morphs. The first somewhat resembles the females, while the other is very different and comes with distinctive hair decorations. This is an older image, but I’m bringing it back so all three forms can finally be shown together. It’s surprising that they are all the same species!
I recently learned that the two male forms use different courtship displays for females, yet are considered equally successful in the mating game. I’m sure Jerry can steer things in the right direction if I am in error here, but having different male forms with different mating strategies does not seem unusual in the animal kingdom. Examples I’m familiar with include lizards, crustaceans, and fish, although in those cases the different males include those that are aggressive and territorial, and others that win by being sneaky. But here, I don’t see how either male is territorial, and apparently both have courtship displays for females.
One of my goals for next season will be to try to document their different courtship behaviors. That seems do-able, since I can expect to find several of them again next summer.
Traditional intuit whale acupuncture.
The post Pet Acupuncture and Life first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.Astronomers at the University of Warwick have discovered that black holes don’t just consume matter—they manage it, choosing whether to blast it into space as high-speed jets or sweep it away in vast winds.
Hydrogen Cyanide, which is toxic, may have played an important role in the emergence of life. Its unique properties, especially in frigid environments in space, may have helped generate the complex molecules necessary for life to appear.
Humans have always been fascinated with space. We frequently question whether we are alone in the universe. If not, what does intelligent life look like? And how would aliens communicate?
Deep beneath the surface of distant exoplanets known as super-Earths, oceans of molten rock may be doing something extraordinary: powering magnetic fields strong enough to shield entire planets from dangerous cosmic radiation and other harmful high-energy particles.
I’ve often pointed out that the mainstream media seems curiously soft on religion, taking the stance that religion is good for America and can heal it in these troubled times. But they never ask—and don’t seem to care—whether religion is true. Instead, they insist that filling the “God-shaped hole”—a spiritual lacuna that supposedly exists in all of us—is what we need to be complete and happy human beings.
The New York Times is particularly guilty of pushing superstition as a nostrum. For two years, until 2023, they had a regular column and newsletter called “On Faith,” by Tish Harrison Warren, an Anglican priest who relentlessly pushed religion. (You can see my many posts criticizing her here.) There were, of course, no atheists writing to point out that the God that Warren extolled weekly didn’t seem to exist.
Now Lauren Jackson, who professes nonbelief but is a spiritual “seeker”, has replaced Warren with a weekly newsletter and column called “Believing”. You can see the list of her columns here, and my post about the column here. Here’s one example below (click to read, or find it (archived here)
Jackson mourns her inability to fully believe:
I recognize, though, that my spiritual longing persists — and it hasn’t been sated by secularism. I want a god. I live an ocean away from that small Arkansas chapel, but I still remember the bliss of finding the sublime in the mundane. I still want it all to be true: miracles, souls, some sort of cosmic alchemy that makes sense of the chaos.
For years, I haven’t been able to say that publicly. But it feels like something is changing. That maybe the culture is shifting. That maybe we’re starting to recognize that it’s possible to be both believing and discerning after all.
I don’t think so—not without evidence for God. Can you be discerning and believe in the Loch Ness Monster? That would be easier than believing in God, for at least there used to be some (now discredited) evidence for Nessie.
Here’s another more recent one (click to read), a column that proves that God is made in the image of humans and not the other way around:
A quote:
Reverend Albert Cleage, a leader in the Detroit civil rights movement, wanted to counter what he saw as white dominance of Christianity. He was also trying to make the church into an important center for Black political power. So he and his team commissioned an artist, Glanton Dowdell, to replace the old church building’s iconography, which at the time depicted a white pilgrim. Dowdell scouted a young Black mother and her 3-year-old son at a laundromat and told her she had a memorable face — a crisp jawline and sharp cheekbones. Would she allow him to paint her as a Black Mary?
She said yes. The resulting mural was radical for the time, but it served to both illustrate and venerate an emerging doctrine of Black liberation theology. Cleage was developing a gospel of Black nationalism, one that claimed Jesus was a Black revolutionary whose identity as such had been obscured by white people.
“The basic problem facing Black people is their powerlessness,” he once said.
Look, I don’t care what color God is, because I’m fully convinced that God is a man-made fiction. He’s a coloring book in the mind, and you can make God whatever sex or ethnicity you want. But none of that makes God’s existence more probable.
It’s curious that Jackson, who professes nonbelief, only writes positively about it, and doesn’t allow an atheistic point of view in her column. Though she herself is an unbeliever, you won’t see her discuss the problems with religion, nor will you see her write about Islam, save for tiny mentions. That’s because her brief is to console NYT readers by allowing them to think that religion is compatible with a modern, scientific outlook. Jackson, I believe, replaced Warren because Warren’s take on faith was too strong and was alienating readers. So the paper got themselves a “none” who writes good things about faith.
This also applies to the Free Press, whose softness on religion I’ve often mentioned. This piece, for example, came out just last week:
Here’s an excerpt:
There’s something simple yet profound about mingling with people who are different. At its very best, religion can tamp down feelings of distrust, disenchantment, and disconnection. At their very best, religious institutions are places where people from every economic background and political affiliation can set aside their differences and worship together. Instead of churches being engines of social capital generation and catalysts for building trust and tolerance, the growing polarization of American religion has left us lonelier, angrier, sicker, and more divided than ever before.
. . . . I am under no illusion that American religion is the greatest panacea for all that ails the United States. But people gathering under one roof to sing together, pray together, and work in common cause to create a better community and a better society will certainly move us closer to the ideals that were set forth by the Founding Fathers of our country. There’s nothing simpler and more consequential than people getting up on a Sunday morning, getting dressed, and making their way to a local house of worship.
For religion to effect these changes, isn’t it true that worshipers must share common beliefs about what’s true, and foremost among them must be the existence of God? Well, no, because I have friends who are atheists and nevertheless go to church for the social aspects: the singing, the fellowship, the comity based on a false premise that Kurt Vonnegut called a “granfaloon.” Oh, that we could have a latter-day Mencken, who made his name in journalism even though he wrote stuff like this!:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration – courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth.
We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. Mencken regularly railed against religion, and with good reason. But the idea of a modern Mencken publishing this kind of stuff is inconceivable. Though more people than ever have given up belief or are “nones,” the curious respect for religion remains.