Nature Gazing

I'm all atwitter...

2009-06-28T23:08:00.006+01:00

So sorry, I haven't updated for somewhere near 2.6 squiftillion (thanks Lloyd) years.
However, I do promise to do better. I am now updating you (whether you knew it or not!) by Twitter. Check me out and Follow me here: https://twitter.com/naturegazing

Pictures, up-to-the-timeperiod updates on les animaux, and facty stuff.

Check me out.

Spiders in the Movies - Part 2

2008-11-04T11:56:00.008Z

And so to the second in the series about 'Spiders In The Movies'. This time I will focus on a film that caused me to sigh in disbelief upon a recent re-watching due to its use of 'Hollywood' spider knowledge.

The movie in question is the inaugural cinematic outing for a certain James Bond. Please watch Exhibit A - 'Doctor No'. The key scene to which I am referring is a scene where the baddie commands Professor Dent to kill Bond by slipping a DEADLY CREATURE into his bedroom! Dent is then presented with a tarantula in a cage. To which, if he knew anything about spiders, Dent should have then responded, "Thank you Doctor for this docile pet. Now, where is a deadly animal that I can use to kill Bond??!"

Of course, Dent does not, he instead fearfully takes the cage at arm's length and whimpers as he retreats from the room. The spider is then slipped into Bond's room and wanders inexorably towards Bond's sleeping form. It then climbs the bed, creeps under the sheet and up Bond's body, until it emerges on his arm, finally waking him (heavy sleeper?). Bond is obviously no scaredy-cat - he doesn't scream, cry or start to babble incoherently: he just stares at the dark spider, planning his moves before the vicious and bloodthirsty monster in all probability devours him! Twisting with cat-like reflexes, he suddenly flicks the beast heroically to the floor, whereupon the music crescendos as he manfully squashes it half a dozen times with his standard-issue spy-shoe. What a chap.

"So, smarty-pants," you ask me. "What is likely to have happened in this situation?" Well, in all likelihood the tarantula's first thought upon being chucked into Bond's room would be to find a quiet, dark area to hide - safety first, eh? After a while it might have explored the room, looking for possible food sources - large insects, or maybe small rodents. The tarantula has poor eyesight, so it certainly couldn't have seen Bond from the other side of the room. If the spider were to have stumbled upon Bond, sleeping like a tired pixie, it would have probably ignored him. If, however, the womanising spy had rolled on top of the spider, or cuddled it too tightly (he is an amorous gentleman!), then the spider may have used its venomous bite for self-defence. Bond would certainly have woken up due to the ouch-inducing bite; and had to stay awake for a short while until the wound, similar to a hornet-sting, had eased its tortuous soreness. His arm would have been tender for a few days later, after which it would have been all healed up nicely.

So, do I think Fleming is a fool? Well, not exactly... the original novel calls for Dent to send a venomous centipede into Bond's room instead of the mostly-harmless tarantula - it was the movie producers that changed this, due to more 'awareness' of tarantulas as a scary beast. But Fleming is not entirely off the hook, because large, venomous centipedes, too, are rather demonised as deadly beasts, in a similar way to the tarantula (see the American Tarantula Society's article at: http://atshq.org/articles/centipedes.html). There are no known cases of death-by-centipede, although they can cause a very painful, nasty bite.

So, film-makers have a lesson to learn - tarantulas aren't deadly. However, until the general public embrace spiders as their friends I expect there will be many more instances of vicious spider attacks onscreen.

If you have been affected by the issue raised in this blog - the tragic criminalisation of the beautiful tarantula - then don't watch the following:
The Hound of The Baskervilles (Hammer version)
Arachnophobia
Eight Legged Freaks

Enjoy watching, Nature Gazers

Spiders in the Movies - Part 1

2008-09-04T17:41:00.004+01:00

Well, as a fan of spiders (I know many people aren't, but all I can do is gently persuade them!) and a film buff I thought it would be a good opportunity to combine my great passions and do a (sporadic) series of blogs on... (drum-roll please) Spiders in the Movies! I hope you find this interesting. (I guess this might be a long one!)

In this first blog of the series I will be looking at the portrayal of spiders in Spider-man (2002). So your homework this week is to watch the film and see if you agree with my comments!

Firstly, a synopsis. The film is based around a young lad who on a school science trip is bitten by a genetically-modified spider and then develops spider-related superpowers! He then spends the rest of the film (and, for that matter, the two sequels) exploring those powers and how he should use them to his and others' benefit.

Ok, I guess choosing Spider-man was an easy choice wasn't it? Well, lets look at the level of truth about spiders used in the film. Our first encounters with spiders in the film are when Peter (AKA Spider-man) and his class go to visit a lab where they are experimenting on spiders. It is interesting to note that none of the class seem to suggest any level of fear of spiders, apart from when Mary-Jane expresses a simultaneous disgust of/love for spiders.

The scientist shows them around and we hear her explain some features of various spiders in their lab. She describes one spider as the Delena spider which has the ability to jump to catch its prey. In real life the Delena spider can jump, but nowhere near as impressively as the (well titled) 'Jumping Spiders' - family Salticidae. Its better known ability would be that it can flatten its body to hide under bark as it hunts its prey - it is in the Sparassidae family (better known as 'Huntsmen' spiders, or 'large crab spiders'). As an aside, the Delena spider was used extensively in the B-Movie 'Arachnophobia' - it was portrayed as an extremely deadly species, but it in fact poses no threat at all to humans.

The other species shown are a funnel web spider (Filistatidae kukulcania) and a spider in the family Agelenidae (relative of the European house spider). They are then shown the genetically-modified spiders made by splicing together the DNA from these three spiders. (The screen behind Peter shows the names of the spiders used, but accidentally misnames the "Delana" spider.) As I'm not a scientist I won't argue the likelihood of this crossbreed, but suffice it to say the spider they used in filming this GM super-spider was real enough - Steatoda grossa. This spider was used, but was painted with red and blue stripes. The close-up shot of Peter being bitten was digitally created and suitably tweaked, as the Steatoda family don't have an eye-arrangement like that!

This Steatoda is a cosmopolitan species that is found around the world (only recently in the UK) and is a relative of the Latrodectus family which includes the Black Widow, Redback and several other of the most highly-venomous species in the world. Due to this relationship and their similar size and shape, they are sometimes called 'False Widows'. Steatodas can have a painful bite, but are not considered to be dangerous.

Peter is bitten by this malevolent little spider (quite unlike the vast majority of spiders, which are usually cautious of humans and rarely bite if they can run away instead) and then undergoes several remarkable changes in his body and abilities to make him more spider-like (aparently).

Let's look at how factual and relevant these abilities are:

The first is that his eyesight is suddenly improved and he no longer needs to wear his glasses. This is somewhat ironic as most spiders have very poor vision and detect predators and prey by touch.

Secondly he finds that he is suddenly rather muscley and strong. Indeed, spiders are strong, able to haul creatures of similar or greater body-weight up draglines and often wrestle with them while biting them. However, spiders (as with all invertebrates) have very different bodies to us comprising of exoskeletons, rather than skeletons covered in muscle. Spiders' legs work by moving fluids into the legs and out again at high speeds, in a process similar to a hydraulic ram. This is very efficient and is how jumping spiders can jump so far (up to 50 times their own body length!). So the changes to Peter's body aren't really like a spider at all.

Another feature Peter finds is the ability to climb walls. He appears to have minute barbed hairs on his fingers that help him to stick to most surfaces. (Don't ask about his feet, he appears to just be wearing extremely sticky trainers!) Well, spiders can indeed climb many steep surfaces. Some can even climb glass. The equipment they use depends on the species, some have tarsal claws (horny hooks on the end of their legs - usually found on orb-web spiders), others have scopulae, which are a pad of super-fine hairs, that divide down to become microscopically fine towards the tips (found on hunting spiders, like tarantulas) and adhere strongly to any surface. In fact some tarantulas are said to cling so strongly to glass that they can support up to 170 times their own weight! Peter's grippy-hairs are different to spider-equipment, but following a similar theme.

The Spider-Sense is the next ability - a warning system, "bordering on precognition". True, some spiders do have incredibly fast reflexes (maybe because they aren't thinking about their utility bills while they should be working), and many also have fine hairs and sense organs to detect air movements that could warn them of nearby predators, others still have additional backward-facing eyes that help them detect movement from behind. These features are remarkable, but are rather dissimilar to the 'psychic' sense that Peter seems to gain.

Peter notably also gains the ability to shoot webs from his wrists. He can create single strands to swing from, fire web-pellets at enemies, as well as spinning whole webs to form barriers. This is an extremely fanciful reworking of nature. Spiders can create amazingly complex structures from silk and use many different types of silk, depending on the purpose - orb web, drag-line, ballooning strands, egg or sperm-web. They pull it out of the silk organs and in doing so change the molecular structure of the silk from liquid to stretchy solid. There is one spider, however that can fire silk: Scytotes thoracica or the 'Spitting Spider'. It had silk glands in its head and can squirt a mixture of venom and silk at its prey to stick it to the ground before it goes in to kill it. This secretion is more like glue than silk, however, so it cannot really be considered the same. Peter also has no discernable spigots or spinnerets to create the silk. Weird.

And so to a final question: Could a spider bite ever cause someone to develop any of these attributes? Well, in the original comic book the spider that bites Peter is a radioactive one, rather than genetically-modified, and we are aware that some radioactive material can cause mutations in the body. This could potentially affect the DNA, but the structural changes in Peter's body wouldn't fully develop in this way - in fact he would most likely just become very sick, become infertile, or die. Any changes to his DNA would affect his offspring, who would be more likely to develop different body-structures, but almost certainly not benefically! If bitten by a normal spider, or even a genetically-modified hybrid spider, you are not going to have any mutagenic effects at all.

Enjoy watching, Naturey-Film Gazers!

A Petition... and a torch!

2008-08-13T17:40:00.011+01:00

What's this? A petition?
Well, yes it is.

And is it to do with animals and the Natural World?
Um... no, it's not. Well, sort of.

Please allow me to explain. Recently I decided I should get a new torch to help me observe the beautiful creatures of my garden at night - moths, spiders, slugs (that last one is my Dad's hobby - saving the veggies!). So I saw an advert describing a fantastic looking torch, with is a low-energy, but extremely bright LED torch. It said it was 60 Lumens! I know, exciting huh?!

Hold on, what do you mean you don't know what a lumen is? Well don't worry, most people don't know either. A lumen is a measure of light as perceived by the human eye. This is a much more effective measurement than candle-power, visible distance that the light travels, or equivalent to a 60-watt bulb!

I liked the look of this particular torch, but really wanted to know how it compared to a non-LED torch. So I tried to find out how many lumens my old Mini Maglite was. It took AGES! But I finally found out from an online shop (who'd run their own tests on torches) that the Maglite put out less than 15 lumens. Well, that was good to know and I have since bought that LED torch ('LED Lenser Police Tech Focus' approx £30) and have been so impressed with it. The first night I had it I took it out in the garden and identified a beautiful moth - The Herald.

Being a high quality LED, the power consumption is only about 1.25 watts, so the battery life is about 50 hours (on 3 AAA batteries), and the light itself is a pure white, making it much easier to identify delicate moths at night compared to squinting at them in a yellowy glow from my old torch!

And so to the petition...
I decided that if people were aware of how energy-saving equivalents (like LEDs) compared to normal (incandescent) bulbs, they may be able to make good choices about saving the planet (there's the nature link!!). So I have begun an ePetition on the Downing Street website. The petition is to make it a requirement for bulb and lighting product manufacturers to put a lumen rating on all their products, so that the public can easily compare them. Knowing what a lumen is scientifically (check out Wikipedia's Lumen article if you want to know more) doesn't matter, as long as you can see that one product is 15 lumens and the other is 60 lumens, that will be enough to make a more informed decision.

Click on this ePetition Link to go there (if you want to... no pressure!)

I'm off to look in dark corners with my wonderful new torch!
Enjoy saving the planet, Nature Gazers!

Which Season is your Favourite?

2008-07-24T16:24:00.005+01:00

Well, let's see. I love Winter, it's not hot (which is good 'cause I don't like overheating), but it's often a little bleak and lifeless. Spring is great when things start growing again. New flowers, little new animaux - fab. Autumn is often my fave because of the pretty leaves, the animals preparing for Christmas, the nice temperature - a well stocked season!

But I'm surprising myself at how much I'm enjoying Summer at the moment. After Spring's slow beginning, everything seems to be ramping up and getting abundant. The butterflies were a bit late, but they're here now, as are my friends the dragonflies. The spiders are loving it too, and the surrounding countryside is full of squeaks, squawks, and cheery creatures.

The other day I was relaxing on the grass in the sunshine. Suddenly I saw, about 6 inches above my face, a lovely little Common Darter (dragonfly) hovering. It flitted away a few inches when my fiancee, who was lying face-down next to me, moved her head upon spotting it. Then it came back, hovering over my body, before gently settling on my finger!!

We gazed at it in excitement. It was a pretty wee thing. About 2 inches long and with its greeny-yellow body angled to gather warmth from the sun; I kept my hand still as we watched it as it sunbathed for a few minutes, a couple of times lifting off and settling again to change its position. It was a really joyful and special experience. We hadn't gone out looking for it, it had just happened because we were there and willing to let it happen.

It was one of those being-in-touch-with-nature sort of moments, where you get a priveleged and up-close connection with something completely wild and knowing that you're not intruding, you're just sharing time with them.

The other dragonflies and damselflies were out on the pond too and we took some pictures. The Nursery Web spiders (Pisaura mirabilis) were sitting by their nurseries as the young spiderlings relaxed inside, having recently hatched out. It was a charming, lively, naturey day - the sort that 'almost' convinces me the Summer is the best season!

Enjoy the weather, Nature Gazers.

Moths and such...

2008-07-04T17:47:00.007+01:00

The Moth Survey period is ending, and as I am ashamed to say I haven't had the chance to do a proper moth trap myself, I thought I'd slightly redeem myself by sharing some interesting facts about moths and butterflies with you. Enjoy...

Butterflies and moths are in the same family - Lepidoptera (meaning 'scale wing' - because of the powdery coating of coloured particles that cover their wings). You can usually tell the two groups apart by using a number of 'rules', but there are exceptions to the rules in every case. This means that the distinction between butterflies and moths is not based on any clear physical differences between the two groups, so perhaps the most correct classification is to refer to them all as the same group and not as 'butterflies' or 'moths'!
But I'm not that pedantic, so here's the best way of telling the difference.

Moths:
mostly fly at night,
usually rest with wings apart or folded flat over back,
usually have slender or feathery antennae,
often pupate in a silken coccoon,
frequently are plain coloured and drab (greys and browns),
commonly have stout, furry bodies.

Butterflies:
mostly fly in daytime,
usually rest with wings closed,
mostly have slender antennae with a blob (or 'club') on the end,
pupate in a hardened crysalis,
mostly are brightly coloured and patterned,
commonly have smooth, thinner bodies.

Some exceptions:
Day-flying moths like the burnet moths (which also have rather clubbed antennae).
Elephant Hawk-moth and Hummingbird Hawk-moth are brightly coloured and patterned.

Hedylid butterflies fly at night.
Families like Whites and Browns are often quite drab.
Skipper family rest with wings apart (as do some other species at times to maintain a good body temperature).

I hope this has been interesting and informative for you.
Stay tuned for more 'interesting stuff', Nature Gazers!

Photos, pics, pix...

2008-07-01T18:34:00.003+01:00

Hooray! The first batch of photographs are up on the website. Click the 'Gallery' link in the bar above to see them.

Currently you can click on any image to go to a bigger version, which will open in a new window (or tab, depending on your browser). In time I will develop a new page for each large image, so this doesn't happen.

I hope you like the pictures - I took them all myself using a Canon Ixus 60 digital camera on macro mode (and a lot of patience!).

Enjoy, Nature Gazers.

(PS I promise to do another write-up or review soon - I've just been quite busy working on the website these last couple of weeks.)

Welcome To The Website!!!

2008-06-25T16:40:00.003+01:00

You may have noticed the shiny new, pretty buttons above this post. Yeah, that's the one, just below the main piccy.

That, Nature Gazers, is the new menu bar for the Nature Gazing website - which is NOW up and running!!! Yippee!

Currently, only the 'Home' and 'Blog' buttons work, but that will all change soon. The pictures are being sorted for the Gallery, and I'll soon be adding the enthralling (possibly) 'About Me' page.
The main other benefit of this addition is that the pictures within the blog posts now link to BIGGER versions, so you will be able to work out what actually was in those images!

Enjoy clicking on the buttons, and making them change colour, Nature Gazers.

A rolling stone gathers no moths...

2008-06-18T20:25:00.005+01:00

...but a light and a sheet just might!

Here's a date for your diaries - Garden Moths Count runs from 21st June to 6th July this year. The idea is that anyone can take part, and report on the moths that they find in their gardens. It's been running for several years and is an important study to learn more about these numerous and often stunning little critters.

Moths are frequently overlooked in favour of their siblings the butterflies, but you would be gravely mistaken to think that moths are dull and drab in comparison. Try looking at a picture of the Elephant Hawkmoth and tell me that it looks dreary!

I decided that I should get involved this year, so I swatted up on what to do on the Moths Count website and then, finding that last night was supposed to be dry and still, I decided to do a trial run, so that I can be aware of how best to go about it when the Moths Count comes around. I scampered about the house to cobble together a makeshift moth-sheet. I found an old desk-lamp with no stand, a clothes airer and a cream-coloured fitted sheet. I dragged them into the garden when it got dark and plugged the lamp in, shining onto the vertical sheet, then went in to get some snacks for the long wait. I decided to do the lazy option, so I stayed inside the house and waited for a while, popping out to check on the procedings over the course of the night. I did my first check at 10.45, then again at midnight, then a final one (after a little snooze!) at 3.30am. Phew and yawn.

I like to think of myself as relatively optimistic, but I shouldn't really have ben expecting for moths to be covering the sheet when I first tiptoed out to check on the moth-attracting-device's progress. I must admit to feeling slightly disappointed. One solitary winged-beastie was clinging to the sheet. But as I approached closer I was able to see what this creature was. A lovely, medium-sized yellow moth with amber stripes and speckles on its wings. Quite a darling really.

I have looked at a few books before to identify moths I've found in my room, or around a light in the evening, but I'd never seen this one before. And that is precisely why 'mothing' is such an exciting thing to do - it's all about the diversity of moths in the UK: you're likely to see something new almost every time you go and seek them out. (Moth species outnumber butterfly species by 30 to 1!)

Well, all in all I saw about 10 species of moths in the night - most on my sheet, but a few around the outdoor light on the patio at dusk. I photographed what I found (partly for identification later, and partly for proof that I'd really done it!) and having consulted some books and a fab website I found last year - UK Moths - I've worked out what most of them were.

I recognised the Large Emerald Moth and the Magpie Moth. The large yellow moth I mentioned earlier turned out to be the female Ghost Moth. I also saw several lovely White Ermine moths - definitely one of my favourites there. And also a lovely little green moth called the Green Silver-lines.

Well, although it was a late night, I certainly spotted some beautiful moths and I'm really looking forward to finding some more next time. I think I'll try a brighter light, my 60watt bulb was a little dim, I think; and maybe setting up before dusk would help too.

I encourage you to visit the Moths Count website and get some kit prepared. See what you can find.

Cheerio, Nature Gazers!

New website coming soon...

2008-06-12T15:46:00.003+01:00

I am pleased to announce that I have successfully registered www.naturegazing.co.uk and will be working to bring (incrementally) an entire Nature Gazing experience your way. This blog was always going to be Phase 1 of my Nature-based web entertainment thingy and you should soon start to see the beginnings of Phase 2 - the switch over from Blogspot to my own website. This will make it easier to control the style and design of the site, and also allow me far more scope for pictures and menu-based funnery.

My intention is to bring together a sleek and functional website with multimedia content (photographs to begin with, then some instructional videos soon I hope), informative guides and 'Things to look out for', and of course the blog.

Keep watching this space (and subscribe to my post - click the Subscribe button near the bottom of the page if you have Internet Explorer 7, Firefox, Opera or Safari browsers) and I will keep you up to date with all the developments.

Laters, Nature Gazers!

REVIEW: Private Life of Spiders (Paul Hillyard)

2008-06-10T19:06:00.008+01:00

I arrived home after a weekend away to discover that my saintly postman had delivered the shiny new hardback book I had ordered.

I dried my clammy hands on the sides of my jeans, steadied myself and then tore open the packaging. There looking out at me was a striking picture of a fishing spider (Dolomedes minor) on a flower; the text over the top of the picture read 'The Private Life of Spiders'.

The size and layout, and the photographic emphasis of this publication are best described as 'coffee table' (i.e a book which is often an oversized illustrated book, easy on the eyes, usually displayed and read on a coffee table).
One wonders how large an audience there is for spidery coffee table books? Recent estimates suggest that close to half of Britons are rather unenamoured by spiders, and quite how many of the rest of them are keen enough on them to own a copy of such a book, I don't know. But, anyway, I for one was thrilled when I stumbled upon it while e-window shopping. I read some reviews and saw some sample pictures from the book. I even watched a video of the author holding a spider seminar (bad video quality, but not Paul's fault!), then I shopped around before stumping up £12 for my own copy.

The Book:

My first impressions as I sprawled out on my bedroom floor and leafed through it were that here was a lavishly created, stunning book. The photographs are, for the most part, pin-sharp close-up shots, taking you closer into the world of spiders than you've ever ventured before. Many of the photographs fill much of the large-format page and are truly a joy - clearly the pictures are the star of the show here.

For a nature book the text is very accessible and enjoyable to read, and the typography and layout are modern and punchy. The textual content is informative and goes into plenty of detail to be satisfying to the amateur arachnologist. I had read in some reviews complaints that the content was lacking and the text large to compensate, but my feeling is that the text size is merely a stylistic decision and, as this is an ornamental book first and foremost, that they made the right decision - and I don't feel the content has been compromised or limited to acheive this.

The book starts with a chapter on the 'Background to Spiders': what a spider is, its identifying features, and an overview of their lifestyle and life-cycle.
The next 3 chapters break down the spiders into categories (hunters, web-builders and Tarantulas etc.) and look at each group in fascinating detail, giving information and insight into the families and also some individual species they typify a family, or show an interesting variation to other family members.
Then follows a chapter on silk: and its creation and many uses; a chapter on mating habits, mating displays and looking after eggs and newly-emerged spiderlings; and a chapter on spider venom - a key aspect of spider life, for defence and for capturing prey.
Next is a chapter on the fascinating subject of social (and sub-social) spiders. This is quite an intriguing topic, as most spiders will prey upon smaller spiders and many are cannibalistic in some situations, but these groups of spiders live together and even help each other by capturing prey together or communal web-building.
The final chapter addresses the topic of spider-human interaction, starting with a look at arachnophobia (the condition, not the movie!) and its treatment. It also looks at what we can (and have) learnt from spiders, and how we can help with spider conservation.

I am enthusiastic spider-lover now, but not so long ago I was rather afraid of them and the idea of reading this type of book would have left me sweaty and nauseous. If you are not keen on large pictures of spiders in all their hairy, fang-y, leggy beauty, then this is definately not the book for you. Also, it is not an identification guide for working out what that spider was that just walked over your doormat! What this book is, however, is a very good-looking, informative and charming look at spiders. Paul Hillyard knows his stuff and his obvious love for spiders comes through in his writing.

Conclusion:

I have read a number of other books on spiders, from the basic to the technical and this is perhaps my favourite in terms of the aesthetic value of the book, and the lively, yet informative text. It could not be considered an exhaustive encyclopedia of spider features and behaviour (well, with 40,000 plus species of spiders globally, what did you expect?), but provides a great insight into the lives of the common and more exotic spiders the world has to offer.

I would happily recommend this book to anyone with an interest in spiders and as a good present for young boys (they like spiders and snakes and stuff, don't they?). At the price I paid it was a steal, but is not too expensive from any of the online bookshops. Go buy it.

(My rating: 8 legs and one palp!)