Dear all:
Hereby I want to apologize for the complete misinterpretation of my microscopical observations resulting in the posting of „Copulating Rotifera“ from January 22nd, 2007. On the photos of this posting there is depicted neither a male Colurella rotifer nor a couple of copulating rotifers. The animal designated male is in fact also a female rotifer. This is clearly documented by the following pictures. The new pictures show a female carrying an egg (A) and femals with their vitellaria in different stages of development (B - E).
(e: egg, mx: mastax, vi: vitellarium, s: stomach).
Currently I have no idea why both animals shown on picture A of the previous posting swam around tightly attached to each other for about an hour. Also, I can not explain why the foot of one of the animals was inserted into the body of the other one.
I beg your pardon for posting quite a lot of rubbish.
Bernd
Copulating rotifera – Retraction & Correction
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:56 am
- Contact:
- Bruce Williams
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Hi Bernd,
Setting aside any misinterpretation, the photos in both postings are excellent, considerably enhanced with your clear and helpful annotation. Your first set still pose an interesting question as to purpose behind their puzzling action
...and my apology for getting your name wrong on your first posting
Bruce
Setting aside any misinterpretation, the photos in both postings are excellent, considerably enhanced with your clear and helpful annotation. Your first set still pose an interesting question as to purpose behind their puzzling action
...and my apology for getting your name wrong on your first posting
Bruce
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23938
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Bernd,
As others have written, the original pics were well done and informative. Misinterpretations happen. Often they are interesting and educational in their own right, especially when they're discussed afterward. Thanks for that!
It might be a nice touch to go back and lightly edit the original posting to add a brief comment and a link to this retraction topic. That way some kid who happens to Google search on "copulating rotifers" won't get stuck with information that looks solid but is now recognized to be wrong. (Yeah, I know, who ever would search for that phrase? But according to the logs for my personal website, a lot of people get to it via "mating slugs". Go figure.)
By the way, I see that your post count is low and you're fairly new to the forums. I'm glad to see you're sticking with us. I look forward to seeing a lot more of your very well done photos.
All the best!
--Rik
A wise man once wrote that "It's better to make mistakes in front of your friends than your enemies". Well, I guess you already know that this forum is nothing if not friendly!Hereby I want to apologize for the complete misinterpretation of my microscopical observations resulting in the posting of „Copulating Rotifera“ from January 22nd, 2007.
As others have written, the original pics were well done and informative. Misinterpretations happen. Often they are interesting and educational in their own right, especially when they're discussed afterward. Thanks for that!
It might be a nice touch to go back and lightly edit the original posting to add a brief comment and a link to this retraction topic. That way some kid who happens to Google search on "copulating rotifers" won't get stuck with information that looks solid but is now recognized to be wrong. (Yeah, I know, who ever would search for that phrase? But according to the logs for my personal website, a lot of people get to it via "mating slugs". Go figure.)
By the way, I see that your post count is low and you're fairly new to the forums. I'm glad to see you're sticking with us. I look forward to seeing a lot more of your very well done photos.
All the best!
--Rik