Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
It is something else to look into the eyes of a Chimpanzee staring out of a giant movie screen, the rainforest canopy reflected in those intent pellucid mirrors so like our own.
I don’t know if I…
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
via phdcomics.com
… but I have this meeting to prepare for first… Posted via email from a leaf warbler’s gleanings
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
Well, sort of. An artist down under has created an exhibit of insect penises. (Or, to use the proper name for insect intromittent organs, aedeagi.)
“Dr Freud could not have conjured a more disturbing fantasy. Yet all these male members are real. These are insect penises – magnified, modelled, photographed or rendered in glass and resin.
Creepy, beautiful and seemingly wildly impractical for the job, their diversity suggests that sometimes, Dr Freud, a cigar is most definitely not just a cigar.
All have been created by Sydney artist Maria Fernanda Cardoso….Cardoso is also creating what she calls her Museum of Copulatory Organs – or MoCO – for the Sydney Biennale this year.
I love it when art and science meet up! You can see a gallery of Cardoso’s sculpures on her website.
If you aren’t an entomologist, you may not understand our obsession with genitalia. It’s not because we are all pervs. Well, it’s not just because we are all pervs. Insects made us interested in gonads.
There are lots of very similar looking insects. There are millions of little brown moths and little black beetles. Sometimes the only way to tell similar looking insects apart is to look at the naughty bits. Because species are defined by reproductive isolation, similar looking outsides may hide radically different-looking innards.
For at least 100 years, entomologists have been hunched over insect nether parts, trying to figure out what species they were looking at. To make things more complex, male insect parts are stored inside the body. Since there is …..shrinkage….after death, the squidgy bits are commonly removed from specimens and stored in in tiny vials full of preservative.
The study of insect genitalia is so important, all sorts of devices have been invented and devised for just that purpose. For example, the phalloblaster. Some clever Aussies invented a device to…Err. Apply pressure in the proper spot? This allows expansion of the male genitalia to see important details.
“The Phalloblaster inflates the genitalia with a stream of pressurised alcohol to create the same shape as when the insect was alive.”
The alcohol dehydrates and hardens the structure, so that once the process is over the genetalia remain inflated rather like miniature balloons. It makes them easier to study.”
Of course, this device is properly called the vesica everter. But who the hell would call it that when you can say PHALLOBLASTER? (You can visit this page and see a post-mortem insect “erection” in action.)
If you would like to look at more photos of bug dongs studied using the Phalloblaster, you can check out this article on bumpy beetle penises.
Also, for Earth Day, you can get a Bug Girl t-shirt or mug 22% off! Use code ZAZZLESALE22.
Citation to prove that the Phalloblaster is serious science:
Matthews, M. (1998). The CSIRO vesica everter: a new apparatus to inflate and harden eversible and other weakly sclerotised structures in insect genitalia Journal of Natural History, 32 (3), 317-327 DOI: 10.1080/00222939800770161
Filed under: Entomology, Insects, Science Tagged: art, penis, phalloblaster, taxonomy 
(więcej…)
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
You might not have noticed, but an entomologist won a Shorty Award for “Answer of the Year.” Shorties are sort of like an Emmy Award…except for social media. The question asked was:
If you injure a bug, should you kill it or let it live?
This happens to me all the time. I accidentally step on a bug and injure it. It sits there struggling and I’m always confused over if I should kill it to relieve it of pain or let it live in hopes that it may survive.
Shelomi’s answer?
“Looks like the philosophers and theists have made their cases. As far as entomologists are concerned, insects do not have pain receptors the way vertebrates do. They don’t feel ‘pain,’ but may feel irritation and probably can sense if they are damaged. Even so, they certainly cannot suffer because they don’t have emotions. If you heavily injure an insect, it will most likely die soon: either immediately because it will be unable to escape a predator, or slowly from infection or starvation. Ultimately this crippling will be more of an inconvenience to the insect than a tortuous existence, so it has no ‘misery’ to be put out of but also no real purpose anymore. If it can’t breed anymore, it has no reason to live.
“In other words, I have not answered your question because, as far as the science is concerned, neither the insect nor the world will really care either way. Personally, though, I’d avoid doing more damage than you’ve already done. 1) Maybe the insect will recover, depending on how damaged it is. 2) Some faiths do forbid taking animal lives, so why go out of your way to kill? 3) You’ll stain your shoe.”
Interesting!
The other answers on that page are fascinating in terms of the ways people approach their duties to an injured insect. They are far, far more compassionate than this story about the question in Gawker, which describes insects as “the bubble-wrap of nature.” Schmucks.
You can find links to Shelomi’s other answers on Quora about insects in this news story, as well as some comments from the dude himself. I liked the question “what is it like when your answer unexpectedly goes viral?“
This also suggests that there is yet another platform I should be looking at for social media! Who out there uses Quora?
Filed under: Entomology, Insects, Science 
(więcej…)
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
I am a huge fan of BioBlitz days. For those who aren’t familiar with the concept, a BioBlitz is basically a plan to document and count as many species as possible in a 24-hour time period. The details of when, where, and how are unique to the local habitat.
The Discovery Channel tends to reinforce the idea that all the rare and interesting species are far away from the US and in a rainforest. Not so! We have a wide range of species diversity right here at home, and BioBlitz helps to document them. This produces a snapshot of species composition in time that can be used to compare to records from the past, and to see how things change in the future.
It is also a good excuse to go outside and run around collecting things, of course.
The Great Basin Bioblitz is scheduled for June 19-21, 2012.
2012 Diptera BioBlitz (Flies)
The park would like to announce the 2012 BioBlitz to be held June 19-21, 2012, which will concentrate on the Order Diptera (flies). Dr. Riley Nelson from Brigham Young University will be leading the effort, with assistance from the Nevada Department of Agriculture and other entomologists.The event will begin with a workshop about Diptera life history, collecting methods, and more. Following that, a 48-hour collection period will commence, and participants will have the chance to visit many areas of Great Basin National Park. At the same time, numerous educational programs will be held to share the importance of Diptera with park visitors and staff.
At noon on June 21, everyone will reconvene for a closing lunch and to hear the preliminary results of this biodiversity discovery event. The park is providing free camping for participants. For more BioBlitz information or a registration form, please email Gretchen Baker, or call 775-234-7331 x251.
Filed under: Entomology, Insects, Science Tagged: biodiversity, taxonomy 
(więcej…)
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
As of yesterday, I no longer work for California State University, Fresno. I got my tenure at that institution almost two years ago and have been an Associate Professor in the Biology Department ever…
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
Politics delivered a bizzare insect soundbite this week. A GOP leader was being questioned about policies mandating medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds, limiting access to birth control, and other recent policy initiatives considered anti-woman. His response?
Priebus rejected the idea that Republicans are waging a war on women.
“If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we’d have problems with caterpillars,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “It’s a fiction.”
How the HELL do you explain that thought path??
Women –> Sluts –> Uterus control –> CATERPILLARS.
Also? Denying there is a war on women only works if, in fact, there isn’t a war on women. Hundreds of bills are being introduced all over the US that limit women’s rights. Just last week Wisconsin quietly revoked an equal pay bill.
The analogy with insects doesn’t work either if, in fact, there actually is a GOP war on caterpillars. Let’s continue to use Wisconsin as an example. Wisconsin sponsors a major project to kill the Gypsy Moth. Go look. It’s WAR, people. There are areas clearly marked for “suppression.”
Texas recently cut health services to many women. They also are persecuting cactus moth caterpillars. In fact, there is a tri-state consortium devoted to killing these caterpillars; here’s some representative language: “In the wake of the Cactoblastis, only death and destruction are found, presenting a threat to human welfare…” Sounds pretty warlike to me!
Michigan, a state that recently banned same-sex partner benefits, has quarantines in many areas, and routinely stops people with firewood for warrantless searches. What are they looking for? GRUBS. The Emerald Ash Borer is marked for elimination. You are even encouraged to turn in suspicious characters by calling a hotline.
The GOP-controlled House introduced a “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act” in 2011 that would reduce pesticide regulation, including removing some pieces of the Clean Water Act that currently restrict pesticides in watersheds.
There is evidence of flip-flopping by Mitt Romney on the caterpillar issue. He labeled a project to control the invasive species of winter moths as “porkbarrel spending” in 2006, and didn’t fund it. His current position on funding the War on Caterpillars is unclear.
Clearly, the War on Caterpillars is REAL. Of course, there is a reason why caterpillars are targeted by both the GOP and farmers.* It’s simple math that goes all the way back to Malthus. Populations have the potential to grow faster than their food supply. So, if you want to control an insect pest, you attack its reproductive cycle.
But why in the world would you want to prevent women from having access to birth control, or the ability to control their own bodies? This seems counter-productive for a bunch of fiscal conservatives. How will we provide water and food for a expanding population? How will those babies be employed in the future when they grow up? How will all those kids be educated? We are building more prisons than schools, which doesn’t bode well for anyone’s future prospects.
Obviously, I think women should have control over their bodies because it’s a basic human right (recognized since 1968 by the UN, in fact). It just seems like the current focus on womb control is very short-sighted from a fiscal/living-in-the-real-world point of view, as well.
Legislation was introduced to require women to provide a written explanation about why they wanted birth control to their employers. Legislation has been introduced to define you as pregnant 2 weeks before conception. Women who have miscarriages are charged with murder. This is some serious heinous fuckery, people. It’s 2012. The state should not be getting all up in my lady business.
There is an upside to all this. The best thing to come out of the GOP war on caterpillars was the explosion of #GOPWarOnCaterpillars on Twitter. This charge was led by the wonderful John Scalzi, who decided see if he could get the tag to become a “trending topic”. Here are some of my favorites–feel free to suggest more slogans in the comments!
—
*Actually, these are all invasive species and it’s ok with me if they kill them. But that kind of detracts from my point, so it’s a parenthetical down here.
Filed under: Entomology, Insects, Ranting (feminist), Science, WTF Tagged: asshattery, birth control, fuckery, heinous, politics, won’t someone think of the larvae 
(więcej…)
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
This was a big week for bee news! New research on bees and pesticides was published, and a major white paper from the Xerces Society on the same topic was released.
The pesticides in question are called Neonicotinoids, since they are derived from nicotine (used as a pesticide since the 1700′s). “Neonics” are systemic insecticides, or insecticides that are taken up by a plant’s tissues and circulate within the plant. This makes these pesticides a highly effective and relatively safe insect control method, since only insects that eat the plant will be affected. It also is sometimes the only way to kill insects inside a plant; an insect boring into a tree, for example, can’t be sprayed directly.
Neonicotinoid pesticides can also be applied as a root drench or a seed treatment, so there is no pesticide sprayed into the air, or landing where it should not go. Farmers love neonicotinoids, since they not only reduce “off-target” effects, they last a really long time–usually one application can last for months, and sometimes over a year. That saves a lot of money.
Carl Zimmer’s excellent New York Times summary of the research on bees and pesticides is a must read: Bees’ decline linked to pesticides.
“In Thursday’s issue of the journal Science, two teams of researchers published studies suggesting that low levels of a common pesticide can have significant effects on bee colonies. One experiment, conducted by French researchers, indicates that the chemicals fog honeybee brains, making it harder for them to find their way home. The other study, by scientists in Britain, suggests that they keep bumblebees from supplying their hives with enough food to produce new queens….The authors of both studies contend that their results raise serious questions about the use of the pesticides, known as neonicotinoids.”
Carl (I shook his hand once, so I can call him Carl, right?) does a great job of showing how the scientific community is still resolving how all this research adds up. In a post on his blog providing supplimental information to the NYTimes story above, Carl discusses the difficulty of making sense of all this information:
I found this story to be especially challenging to sum up in a single nut graph. To begin with, these experiments came after many years of previous experiments and surveys, which often provide conflicting pictures of what’s going on with insecticides and bees. The experiments themselves were not–could not–be perfect replicas of reality, and so I needed to talk to other scientists about how narrow that margin was. As they should, the scientists probed deep, pointing out flaws and ambiguity–in many cases even as they praised the research.
At the same time, these two papers did not appear in a vacuum. Other scientists have recently published studies (or have papers in review at other journals) that offer clues of their own to other factors that may be at work. And, biology being the godawful mess that it is, it seems that these factors work together, rather than in isolation.
If Carl Zimmer–an exceptional science journalist with access to the actual scientists that are doing the research–is having trouble trying to create a coherent picture of the information about these pesticides, I KNOW that the rest of us regular schmoes are struggling too.
Here is the important thing to remember as you process this new bee research: CCD, or colony collapse disorder in honeybees, does not have a single cause. It’s likely that many different factors work together to create CCD. It is a complex set of specific symptoms, and it’s been known since around 1900 by many other names. Additionally, not all observed bee declines (and deaths) are CCD. It’s hard out there for a bee.
There is clearly a pesticide problem with bees–even if we can’t fully quantify it right now. The Xerces Society white paper, A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action, had this to say about CCD:
“There is no direct link demonstrated between neonicotinoids and the honeybee bee syndrome known as Colony Collapse Disorder. However, recent research suggests that nenonicotinoids may make honey bees more susceptible to parasites and pathogens….which has been implicated as one causitive factor for CCD.”
The Xerces paper is probably the best review of the recent research that you are going to find. Not only is it written by Xerces scientists, who are folks what really know their bees, it also was reviewed by several other bee researchers I have a great deal of respect for.
Data table from the Xerces report showing…lots of gaps
Xerces thoroughly documents what we know about these pesticides and bees–and, unfortunately, we don’t know nearly enough. Most of the published research focuses on honey bees, rather than the native bee species in the US. (Honey bees are an introduced species in North America). That means we don’t have much data to work with to figure out how different bee species will be affected.
Personally, I found the most disturbing piece of the Xerces report to be their discovery of how many of these neonicotinoid insecticides are available over the counter to homeowners. Calculating pesticide application rates is one of the toughest parts of farming (or pesticide applicator exams), and Xerces does the math to uncover some startling facts:
- “Products approved for homeowners to use in gardens, lawns, and on ornamental trees have manufacturer-recommended application rates up to 120 times higher than rates approved for agricultural crops.
- Many neonicotinoid pesticides that are sold to homeowners for use on lawns and gardens do not have any mention of the risks of these products to bees, and the label guidance for products used in agriculture is not always clear or consistent.
- Neonicotinoids can persist in soil for months or years after a single application. Measurable amounts of residues were found in woody plants up to six years after application.”
That is really scary.
Xerces raises some very important questions about what this means for our native bees that are already struggling with habitat loss and a spill-over of parasites and pathogens from introduced bee species. Butterflies, beetles, and flies also drink nectar and feed on pollen–pretty much any of our pollinators, including hummingbirds, could be affected if they feed on trees and plants treated with these insecticides.
I hope that new labeling is introduced so consumers know that these products have the potential to kill bees and other pollinators. Unfortunately, because these pesticides are so very useful in agriculture, there are no easy answers. The things that make these compounds so very well suited for so many purposes–their ability to remain stable for a long time and spread through plant tissues–are also why they pose dangers for pollinating insects.
Additional Reading:
Filed under: Ask an Entomologist, Bees, Entomology, Food, Gardening, Insects, Science Tagged: agriculture, bumblebees, conservation, insecticide, Neonicotinoid, pesticide, solitary bees, xerces 
(więcej…)
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
via vimeo.com
Nice short video overview of the aaaaScienceOnline2012 unconference I attended last january, just days before my life went into a turbulent period from which I am still recovering. I…
Posted by admin under POLLINATION | Permalink | | Leave A Comment | No Comments
This headline…may be a bit of an overstatement: “Soy Strawberry Frappuccinos are the latest threat to the vegan community.” Vegans are revolting over the revelation that Starbucks Soy Frappuccinos contain insect juice. Specifically, cochineal insect extract used as a reddish food coloring.
Is there really “bug juice” in your Strawberry Frappuccino? Yes!
The Seattle Times has some good reporting on the story:
“The strawberry base for our Strawberries & Crème Frappuccino does contain cochineal extract, a common natural dye that is used in the food industry, and it helps us move away from artificial ingredients,” said [Starbucks] spokesman Jim Olson. The base also is used in Starbucks’ strawberry smoothies, he said, and the insect-derived extract is in some other foods and drinks the chain sells, including its red velvet whoopie pies.
Cochineal extract and a similar ingredient called carmine, also made from the insects, are bright red and can be found in fruit juices, gelatins and other foods, as well as many makeup products. ….Tropicana’s website lists carmine as a colorant in its non-refrigerated ruby red grapefruit juice, and Dole lists cochineal extract as an ingredient in some of its fruit-in-gel products.”
For entomologists, this isn’t news. I explained the biology of cochineal insects in 2009, the last time the public “discovered” that there were insect extracts in their food and lipstick. For non-entomologists, it may be slightly less obvious why Starbucks chose to use a dye made from squashed insects in their food.
Cochineal, or carmine, is a red dye produced from a scale insect (Dactylopius coccus) about the size of a lentil that spends her life sucking the juice of prickly pear cacti. When squished, her guts release a bright, intense red. This color has the ability to remain incredibly stable over time, is stable at high and low pH, and is non-toxic. In other words, it’s perfect for processed food or makeup that needs to be colored pink or red.
The alternative to using cochineal is mostly Red 40, which is made from coal tar.
No, seriously. It’s made from coal tar.
Or it used to be; looks like it’s mostly made from petroleum these days. So, you can see why Starbucks might be looking for an alternative to an artificial dye.
Cochineal has been used by humans for hundreds of years, and provides an important source of cash for a lot of rural Central and South American people. There is some evidence the culture and sale of cochineal leads to more independence and higher female literacy in Mexico. It’s entirely consistent with Starbucks’ policy to sustainably source their products to use a natural product like cochineal.
Example of freaking out. A tarantula???
There is a change.org petition condemming Starbucks for using insect dyes; I’m tempted to start one to praise them for it! The market for cochineal has been declining steadily, as more Western people discover what it is and freak the fuck out about insects in their food. That means less income traveling to our southern neighbors in the Americas.
I am a bit puzzled that people who willingly eat something called a Soy Strawberry Frappuccino, or [*shudder*] a Starbucks “Red Velvet Whoopie Moon Pie“, are concerned about a tiny amount of insect extract. The reality is that anytime you eat processed food–including coffee and chocolate–you ARE eating insects. They may not be on the label, but parts of them are in there.
Americans like processed foods, and foods that are fast and convenient. There is a price for having someone else process stuff in bulk–some things will fall in that you might not want to know about. (You SOOO do not ever want to go to a pickle factory. Trust me.)
We also like our food PERFECT–which means that producers have to use chemicals to make fruit perfectly shaped and unblemished, as well as using lots of preservatives to make things last in their packages, and artificial colors to make them match our expectations. This is the cost of convenience.
Sadly, as Americans become more and more disconnected from nature and the production of our food, we seem to become more convinced that the world should be made sterile and safe. (Don’t even get me started on “Chemical-free.” URGH).
Insects happen. Why not embrace them as value-added, rather than being grossed out? Insects are eaten regularly in all parts of the world outside the US, and some folks are trying to re-introduce this staple of indigenous Americans back into our diet.
The only thing that I would criticize Starbucks about in this episode is they need to be more open about the ingredients in their foods in general. Allergies to cochineal are very rare, but they do happen. Many people also want to limit their consumption of certain foods for religious or ethical reasons. (Some insects are considered kosher, but cochineals are not.)
I applaud Starbucks for choosing a sustainable, low-impact food-coloring source!
Now, how about selling bird-friendly coffee, too?
Additional Reading:
Filed under: Entomology, Food, Insects, Science 
(więcej…)
Bees Worlds
