It came out better than I expected, but I would like to know what other people think of it.
Olympus BH-2, SPlan 4x objective, NFK 2.5x photo eyepiece, Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS Utility, Zerene Stacker, 24 images
Alan Wood
Stinging nettle hairs
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Stinging nettle hairs
After showing stinging nettle hairs to children using a Veho Discovery at Warnham Local Nature Reserve, I needed a decent photo to include in my report for the Quekett Microscopical Club.
It came out better than I expected, but I would like to know what other people think of it.
Olympus BH-2, SPlan 4x objective, NFK 2.5x photo eyepiece, Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS Utility, Zerene Stacker, 24 images
Alan Wood
It came out better than I expected, but I would like to know what other people think of it.
Olympus BH-2, SPlan 4x objective, NFK 2.5x photo eyepiece, Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS Utility, Zerene Stacker, 24 images
Alan Wood
Last edited by Alan Wood on Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
very nice (:
I failed to take a good image of those (have to work more with ZS settings)
I failed to take a good image of those (have to work more with ZS settings)
my FB page
I'm looking for the the extemely rare V-IM magnification changer for the E800 scope. If you have seen a listing or have one for sale please let me know.
I'm looking for the the extemely rare V-IM magnification changer for the E800 scope. If you have seen a listing or have one for sale please let me know.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23216
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
-
RogelioMoreno
- Posts: 2975
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Panama
-
carlos.uruguay
- Posts: 5358
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: Uruguay - Montevideo - America del Sur
- Contact:
-
Greenfields
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:54 am
- Location: Nottinghamshire, England
Alan,
I think your image is very nicely done—and can speak as one who has been studying stinging nettles ever since Charlie shared his iconic nettle trichome image about three years ago.
However, since you’ve cropped about 20%, I wonder if you could give us back a little of this cropped-out portion. My eye would be more comfortable if there were a bit more open space above the sharp end of the trichome.
Echoing Rik, I think an important thing you’ve done here is illustrate that the stinging trichome is nearly colorless. When Charlie shared his lovely image, he explained very clearly that he shot with a green nettle leaf between the trichome and the light source. A knowledgeable reader understands that the green leaf acts like a green filter, imparting a green cast to the trichome, which is actually almost without color. But do all readers have this knowledge? I’ve feared that many do not. If you do a Google search for SEM images—which are inherently black and white, but often artificially colorized—of nettle trichomes, the majority of these images wrongfully portray the trichome as being green. As you’ve demonstrated, the trichomes are mostly clear. Big thumbs up to you for conveying this fact!
It is interesting to me that in your Quekett link, you’ve identified your stinging nettle as Urtica dioica. I’ve shot many images of trichomes of U. dioica plants growing in Ohio, USA, as well as trichomes of another nettle that stings, Laportea canadensis (common name “wood nettle”), in this same region. The bases of the stinging trichomes of both species in my area are so similar as to be indistinguishable. To my surprise, the bases of your nettle trichomes are very different. In my experience, the needle portion of the trichome is rigid, the sack portion at the base is quite flexible, and there is no structure between. But your trichomes seem to display a bulbous element (a reservoir for toxic fluid?) between needle and base—a feature entirely lacking in all specimens I’ve photographed. Fascinating! So, is this divergent evolution within a species, or are we studying different species, which may perhaps not yet have been properly identified? One wonders if DNA analysis will be required to answer this question.
Another characteristic you’ve showcased is that stinging nettle plants (of whatever species) grow both stinging and non-stinging trichomes. (The non-stinging trichomes in your image are much smaller than the stinging ones, and lack the syringe-like features.) Studies I’ve read suggest that nettles, if grazed on by mammals (but not slugs) adapt to produce a greater density of stinging trichomes. My conjecture is that this grazing upregulates processes that cause some non-stinging trichomes to morph into stinging trichomes. But to date, I haven’t amassed sufficient data to publish on this topic.
Cheers,
--Chris
I think your image is very nicely done—and can speak as one who has been studying stinging nettles ever since Charlie shared his iconic nettle trichome image about three years ago.
However, since you’ve cropped about 20%, I wonder if you could give us back a little of this cropped-out portion. My eye would be more comfortable if there were a bit more open space above the sharp end of the trichome.
Echoing Rik, I think an important thing you’ve done here is illustrate that the stinging trichome is nearly colorless. When Charlie shared his lovely image, he explained very clearly that he shot with a green nettle leaf between the trichome and the light source. A knowledgeable reader understands that the green leaf acts like a green filter, imparting a green cast to the trichome, which is actually almost without color. But do all readers have this knowledge? I’ve feared that many do not. If you do a Google search for SEM images—which are inherently black and white, but often artificially colorized—of nettle trichomes, the majority of these images wrongfully portray the trichome as being green. As you’ve demonstrated, the trichomes are mostly clear. Big thumbs up to you for conveying this fact!
It is interesting to me that in your Quekett link, you’ve identified your stinging nettle as Urtica dioica. I’ve shot many images of trichomes of U. dioica plants growing in Ohio, USA, as well as trichomes of another nettle that stings, Laportea canadensis (common name “wood nettle”), in this same region. The bases of the stinging trichomes of both species in my area are so similar as to be indistinguishable. To my surprise, the bases of your nettle trichomes are very different. In my experience, the needle portion of the trichome is rigid, the sack portion at the base is quite flexible, and there is no structure between. But your trichomes seem to display a bulbous element (a reservoir for toxic fluid?) between needle and base—a feature entirely lacking in all specimens I’ve photographed. Fascinating! So, is this divergent evolution within a species, or are we studying different species, which may perhaps not yet have been properly identified? One wonders if DNA analysis will be required to answer this question.
Another characteristic you’ve showcased is that stinging nettle plants (of whatever species) grow both stinging and non-stinging trichomes. (The non-stinging trichomes in your image are much smaller than the stinging ones, and lack the syringe-like features.) Studies I’ve read suggest that nettles, if grazed on by mammals (but not slugs) adapt to produce a greater density of stinging trichomes. My conjecture is that this grazing upregulates processes that cause some non-stinging trichomes to morph into stinging trichomes. But to date, I haven’t amassed sufficient data to publish on this topic.
Cheers,
--Chris
Chris
Sorry for taking so long to reply; I have been very busy preparing for the Quekett exhibition last Saturday and then writing a report on it.
Here is another version, not cropped at the top, just cropped a bit at the right:
I have had a look at my plant books, and it can only be Urtica dioica. One of the exhibits at the Quekett exhibition was on this species, and the notes said that it has 6 subspecies. This information had been taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtica_dioica#Taxonomy
Not always a reliable source, but it says that there are 6 subspecies, with different ones in Europe and North America, so that may account for the differences in the trichomes.
Alan Wood
Sorry for taking so long to reply; I have been very busy preparing for the Quekett exhibition last Saturday and then writing a report on it.
Here is another version, not cropped at the top, just cropped a bit at the right:
I have had a look at my plant books, and it can only be Urtica dioica. One of the exhibits at the Quekett exhibition was on this species, and the notes said that it has 6 subspecies. This information had been taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtica_dioica#Taxonomy
Not always a reliable source, but it says that there are 6 subspecies, with different ones in Europe and North America, so that may account for the differences in the trichomes.
Alan Wood