www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Fresh green moss, much closer view
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Fresh green moss, much closer view

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Technical and Studio Photography -- Macro and Close-up
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17516
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:53 pm    Post subject: Fresh green moss, much closer view Reply with quote

Here are a couple of closer views of the fresh green moss that I posted yesterday.

As lauriek wrote, "this makes me want to get one 'leaf' ... in front of a microscope objective!" Me too -- so I did!





First frame is 1.9 mm across the field, second is about 0.9 mm (a crop of the first).

The attached crystals are lumps of dust. I made one attempt to get them off, but discovered that they're quite thoroughly attached!

--Rik

Technical: Canon 300D, Nikon CF N Plan Achro 10X NA 0.30 objective at nominal 150 mm extension, 77 frames stacked at 0.00033". Electronic flash through Kleenex tissue diffuser, oblique backlighting with just a bit of direct front light for highlights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh that's nice! I really hadn't imagined Moss could be so pretty! Smile

You beat me to it but I will have a go at some of this, come the weekend (at the moment it's dark when I get home from work and I don't think I want to go out in the dark hunting for moss, the Mrs will think I've gone mad!)

Is Moss an actual plant (as in plantae) or is it categorised in some other way? Lichens aren't plants are they?
_________________
Flickr | www.laurieknight.net | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Aynia



Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 724
Location: Europe somewhere

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lauriek wrote:
s, the Mrs will think I've gone mad!)



She doesn't already!!???? Very Happy

The leaves are very pretty up close Rik!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17516
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lauriek wrote:
Is Moss an actual plant (as in plantae) or is it categorised in some other way? Lichens aren't plants are they?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen.

Yes, mosses are plants, division Bryophyta in kingdom Plantae. Unlike most plants, they have no veins.

No, lichens are not plants. Quoting Wikipedia: "They are composite organisms consisting of a symbiotic association of a fungus (the mycobiont) with a photosynthetic partner (the photobiont or phycobiont), usually either a green alga or cyanobacterium."

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17516
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aynia wrote:
The leaves are very pretty up close Rik!

lauriek wrote:
Oh that's nice! I really hadn't imagined Moss could be so pretty!

Many thanks! The stuff always surprises me too.

Just imagine being the size of a springtail, and going for a walk in a "forest" of this stuff! Very Happy

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Rik, I suspected that was the case, I was pretty sure Lichen wasn't a plant but in my mind I group moss and lichen together which I thought may be wrong, thanks for the clarification!

I /love/ the idea of being springtail sized and going for a walk in this stuff! Very Happy

If a lichen is a sybiote, do we classify it as a single species of lichen or is it classed as it's component parts? If the former which I assume, it would be categorised as a fungi? (Sorry but I find taxonomy hugely interesting!)

Ahh after a quick google it seems "Lichens are classified by their fungal components." although "The taxonomy of lichens is a shifting and uncertain system." (From http://www.mbari.org/staff/conn/botany/lichens/taxonomy.htm).
_________________
Flickr | www.laurieknight.net | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17516
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lauriek wrote:
"Lichens are classified by their fungal components."

A good rationale for this approach is provided by http://nhc.asu.edu/lichens/lichen_info/lichen_info.jsp
Arizona Stats University wrote:
HOW TO NAME A LICHEN

Taxonomy is the science of naming organisms. In a biological classification system organisms should be named according to their evolutionary history. Very closely related organisms belong to the same species. Several species belong to the same genus, genera make up a family and families belong to orders, classes and finally kingdoms.

How can we classify a lichen? There are at least two very different organisms involved in the lichen symbiosis. Obviously fungi, green algae and cyanobacteria do not share the same evolution. Within the symbiosis all partners may have been suscepted to the same evolutionary forces. Partners within a symbiosis may thus have co-evolved as soon as they entered the symbiotic relationship. Nevertheless the different partners do not share most of their evolution. Which evolutionary history should therefore be referred to by the scientific name of the lichen?

Taxonomy of lichens simply interprets lichens as a special form of a fungus which has found a way to exploit algal cells or cyanobacteria. Lichen names therefore apply to the fungus alone as well as to the lichen symbiosis, the way this fungus is associated with algae or cyanobacteria. This concept may be difficult to understand but there are several reasons why the taxonomy of lichens is largely the taxonomy of lichenized fungi. The mycobiont is an obligate symbiont. Under natural conditions lichen fungi have not been found free-living. The photobiont cells are facultative symbionts which can frequently be found independent of the lichen symbiosis. A huge diversity of lichen fungi can be distinguished whereas only very few species of photobionts have been found in a lichen symbiosis.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ken Ramos



Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 6909
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here I was thinking to myself that I was the only one who prowled around in mosses. Well... Beautiful and most detailed image there Rik, a lot better than what I would get through my dissecting microscope! Lichens are pretty neat too. Very Happy
_________________
However, while there is grace where in all that I might live, while there is still breath in my being, while I may or may not accomplish anything more in life than to be living, I shall reflect upon the past, applying it to the present, for to possibly perceive to a near certainty, the outcome of the future.

Ken 2014
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17516
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Ken. Very Happy

But on the other hand, I bet you could have gotten 50 decent shots in the time it took me to do this one. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs... Wink

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Harold Gough



Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 5787
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="rjlittlefield]
Just imagine being the size of a springtail, and going for a walk in a "forest" of this stuff! Very Happy [/quote]

Like this?:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/734435/0?keyword=Springtail#6661542

Harold
_________________
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Technical and Studio Photography -- Macro and Close-up All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group