Giant Praying Mantis

crotermund · Post by **crotermund** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:12 pm

This Mantid was probably about 10" if my memory serves me correctly and certainly one of the bigger ones I have encountered.

With the skyline:

Mostly Green Background:

Face:

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:21 pm

These green guys do get big...really big

That last image is a "killer!"

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:00 am

Great captures of very nice mantis.

Its shape is similar to European mantis - Mantis religiosa which was introduced to North America in 1899 on a shipment of nursery plants. However they usually reach about 6 - 8 cm in length.

You can distinguished the European mantis easily by a black-ringed spot beneath the fore coxae.

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:45 am

Really beautiful pictures Craig. I like the background in the second picture better than the first...details the critter better. The headshot..what can I say simply amazing IMO. A very different angle for sure

1&2 look like the same angle...did you post process the background in the second pic?

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:17 am

beetleman wrote:1&2 look like the same angle

Doug, look again -- especially at the gap between center and top right portions of the plant. The camera position moved a lot between these two pics.

Craig, I'm curious about the black spot on each eye, pic 3. Do you know if that spot stays in one place, or does it move around to track the camera position?

--Rik

crotermund · Post by **crotermund** » Mon May 21, 2007 11:33 am

Thanks a lot for the comments everyone.

Doug - Rik is correct regarding the camera position's movement changing. I was shooting with a monopod at a neck killing angle upward as this was a very tall plant. I did have to reorient myself several times which resulted in the different backgrounds. Thanks for the input on the green background. I have had a hard time selecting between the two myself.

Rik - I am uncertain about the black spots in the eye, but I think they do actually move around. Getting the head tilted at the right plane so that the eyes and head were in focus required a lot of patience.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue May 22, 2007 10:37 pm

crotermund wrote:I am uncertain about the black spots in the eye, but I think they do actually move around.

I've reviewed all the mantis shots in our forum. Most of them have a small black spot facing the camera. I speculate that what we're seeing as a "small black spot" is the collection of ommatidia that are pointed close enough to the direction of the lens that the camera is seeing down to the light-absorbing photoreceptors. Essentially, we're seeing the ommatidia that are seeing us. If that's right, then the fact that the spot is so small is a good indication that the mantis has good spatial resolution -- no surprise for such an active hunter.

This mechanism does provide an interesting illusion, though. Clearly, the mantis is "following the camera with its eyes". Some other insects will do the same thing, and oddly enough, they will continue to do it even after they're stone cold dead! Of course it's not consciousness, or even mindless attentiveness -- it's just optics. As long as the tissues are intact, the black spot will follow you.

It's probably not a good idea, by the way, to discuss this mechanism with poets who wax lyrical about the insect who "followed my every movement until the last bit of life fled from its tiny body".

--Rik

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:54 pm

Well Rik, this will make me review all the mantis shots in my archives!

Optics is enough strange thing by itself. The strange thing about a virtual image is that we can see it!

Speaking about poets and arts... I've seen some painted portraits with eyes "following" you.

Besides, optics will be involved in retrocausality experiment :

"t might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works."

- What's done is done… or is it? - NewScientist