Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikonites
Weekly Photo Challenges
Weekly Challenge March 1-7 Animal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 803565" data-attributes="member: 16749"><p>On some previous occasion when <em>“Animals”</em> was the weekly theme, <a href="https://nikonites.com/forum/posts/617594" target="_blank">I posted a picture of a mite</a>, the smallest critter I could find and photograph at the time with my D3200. Since then, I've acquired an adapter that lets me use my D3200 with my microscope, and I was determined to find an even smaller animal for this week's challenge. I was hoping for some critter that meets the modern definition of an anima, such as a rotifer or a tardigrade or a gastrotrich or something similar.</p><p></p><p> No such luck, today. I did find one critter that is some form of a protist, which would have been considered an animal by more primitive definitions. I couldn't get a very good look at it, as it insisted on mostly hiding in a wad of algae, just barely peeking out. Based on what I could see of it, and how I observed it moving, I think it might be a <em>Vorticella</em>, but I really am not very confident of that.</p><p></p><p> By modern definitions, protists are considered a kingdom of themselves, separate from plants, or animals, or fungi, though many protists are closely enough related to animals or plants that it is not unreasonable to associate them with those kingdoms. I'm pretty sure that whatever this protist is, it is one that is most closely relate to animals.</p><p></p><p> By happy accident, I also seem to have caught, in this shot, two objects that I am fairly confident are <em>Euglena</em>. Those are the small, green, teardrop-shaped objects to either side of the larger main subject in the middle. Back in the ancient days, when all living things were classified as either plants or animals, <em>Euglena</em> were the subject of dispute between zoologists and botanists, who wanted to claim them as animals and as plants, respectively. Today, I don't think anyone credibly considers them to be either plants or animals, nor particularly related to either..</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]389298[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>[Edited a bit later to include an attachment containing the EXIF data.]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bob Blaylock, post: 803565, member: 16749"] On some previous occasion when [I]“Animals”[/I] was the weekly theme, [URL='https://nikonites.com/forum/posts/617594']I posted a picture of a mite[/URL], the smallest critter I could find and photograph at the time with my D3200. Since then, I've acquired an adapter that lets me use my D3200 with my microscope, and I was determined to find an even smaller animal for this week's challenge. I was hoping for some critter that meets the modern definition of an anima, such as a rotifer or a tardigrade or a gastrotrich or something similar. No such luck, today. I did find one critter that is some form of a protist, which would have been considered an animal by more primitive definitions. I couldn't get a very good look at it, as it insisted on mostly hiding in a wad of algae, just barely peeking out. Based on what I could see of it, and how I observed it moving, I think it might be a [I]Vorticella[/I], but I really am not very confident of that. By modern definitions, protists are considered a kingdom of themselves, separate from plants, or animals, or fungi, though many protists are closely enough related to animals or plants that it is not unreasonable to associate them with those kingdoms. I'm pretty sure that whatever this protist is, it is one that is most closely relate to animals. By happy accident, I also seem to have caught, in this shot, two objects that I am fairly confident are [I]Euglena[/I]. Those are the small, green, teardrop-shaped objects to either side of the larger main subject in the middle. Back in the ancient days, when all living things were classified as either plants or animals, [I]Euglena[/I] were the subject of dispute between zoologists and botanists, who wanted to claim them as animals and as plants, respectively. Today, I don't think anyone credibly considers them to be either plants or animals, nor particularly related to either.. [ATTACH type="full" alt="ZSC_6053-topaz-denoise-enhance-sharpen.jpg"]389298[/ATTACH] [Edited a bit later to include an attachment containing the EXIF data.] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikonites
Weekly Photo Challenges
Weekly Challenge March 1-7 Animal
Top
