Who I was, covered up in leaves
My mother heard on the radio this afternoon that butterfly fossils prove that the proboscis evolved a full geologic period before flowering plants did.
Me: "So what were they eating with them?"
My mother: "Aha!"
(She's suspecting carrion.)
Me: "So what were they eating with them?"
My mother: "Aha!"
(She's suspecting carrion.)

no subject
no subject
I encountered the idea first in P.C. Hodgell's Kencyrath series, where the strictly carnivorous insects are known as jewel-jaws. They are actually a pretty good metonym for the way that world is full of casually horrifying beautiful things.
I also like the nosehair tool.
Yes! That was a magnificent parenthesis.
possibly not what you wanted to know about my reading comprehension at this hour
Re: possibly not what you wanted to know about my reading comprehension at this hour
*SNERK*
Re: possibly not what you wanted to know about my reading comprehension at this hour
Re: possibly not what you wanted to know about my reading comprehension at this hour
*looks for a link: oh, number 43 on the list* Oh Wow, I don't think I'd seen an actual picture before. Heh, it has the QoW song. (Well, in parts, none of the words need to be changed from the original.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/butterfly-cabbage-white-vagina-dentata/530889/
no subject
Nine
no subject
I love how much deep time there is just in the statement. I started thinking about cycads.
no subject
no subject
I should think so. You don't have to kill the animal yourself for it to count as meat. (I'd have failed my obligate carnivore roll years ago if that were true.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Oh, interesting. If so, it looks like it still happens!
no subject
no subject
This does not surprise, but really delights me. Thanks for the link!
no subject
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/the-science-facts-that-blew-our-minds-in-2017/549122/
(Actually, I'm still a bit confused because I didn't entirely understand the linked article, but I can still tell that it's pretty neat.)
no subject
That is incredibly cool!
"The two tubes also separate from each other, giving the tongue a forked, snakelike appearance. And they unfurl, exposing a row of flaps along their long edges. It's as if the entire tongue blooms open, like the very flowers from which it drinks."
Way more H.R. Giger than I had given hummingbirds credit for.
(Actually, I'm still a bit confused because I didn't entirely understand the linked article, but I can still tell that it's pretty neat.)
The full paper is free to read online and has photographs and diagrams.
no subject
no subject
no subject
See
Thanks for a cool link
Meanwhile, Scientific American also has people saying "maybe not" about significant ancient diversification of Lepidoptera, but it's not clear whether they mean "no, you're trying to get too much from a few fossil scales" or "yes, these three lineages go back to the end of the Triassic, but that doesn't mean there were lots of moths and butterflies flying around the early Jurassic landscape."
Thanks for the additional information!
I can see that. I just also see my mother's point that if you need liquid sources of nutrition, salts, minerals, etc., you could do a lot worse than damply decaying animal matter.
Meanwhile, Scientific American also has people saying "maybe not" about significant ancient diversification of Lepidoptera, but it's not clear whether they mean "no, you're trying to get too much from a few fossil scales" or "yes, these three lineages go back to the end of the Triassic, but that doesn't mean there were lots of moths and butterflies flying around the early Jurassic landscape."
Well, since I didn't even know butterfly fossils were a thing before yesterday, I look forward to seeing how the debate evolves.
no subject
no subject
I've run across them in print, but I would believe they had been parallel-invented by multiple writers: it's such a pretty, horrific image, how could you not?
no subject
no subject
This guide might be "helpful", specifically number 3, the Northern Pearly-eye (and relatives). The little brown woodland butterflies of subfamily Satyrinae all share those habits. Perhaps the carnality that mythological satyrs are associated with is not quite on the mark.
(I was an entomologist in a previous life and ended up not choosing the Little Wood Satyr as my field-study species mostly because it was too cryptic and its food sources too scattered.)
no subject
no subject
Maybe it's just the publications, but I feel weirdly as though the paleontology is being too high-minded about this!
no subject
If it's broken down enough, it'll dissolve!
The little brown woodland butterflies of subfamily Satyrinae all share those habits. Perhaps the carnality that mythological satyrs are associated with is not quite on the mark.
That's wonderfully said. (And the link is charming.)
(I was an entomologist in a previous life and ended up not choosing the Little Wood Satyr as my field-study species mostly because it was too cryptic and its food sources too scattered.)
What did you choose instead?
no subject
no subject
I fail to see how this could not be scientifically awesome.