Attribution (as always) to follow.
I'm currently out in the field, so I'm not sure how quickly I'll be able to reveal this one. Until then, good luck!
Update: Identity available here. Figure from here.
Field of Science
-
-
From Valley Forge to the Lab: Parallels between Washington's Maneuvers and Drug Development4 weeks ago in The Curious Wavefunction
-
Political pollsters are pretending they know what's happening. They don't.4 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
-
-
Course Corrections5 months ago in Angry by Choice
Name the Bug # 51
Only a part of the organism, I'm afraid. Is it enough for you to identify it?
Attribution (as always) to follow.
I'm currently out in the field, so I'm not sure how quickly I'll be able to reveal this one. Until then, good luck!
Update: Identity available here. Figure from here.
Attribution (as always) to follow.
I'm currently out in the field, so I'm not sure how quickly I'll be able to reveal this one. Until then, good luck!
Update: Identity available here. Figure from here.
4 comments:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Looks like the head (antennae removed) and prothorax of a thrips (Thysanoptera). That exhausts my claim to knowledge of thrips. I think I'll ask Bruce Heming for help.
ReplyDeleteEr... it's a bit of an arthropod?
ReplyDeleteFurther to my previous thripish insight, I propose that the line drawing depicts the type species (and only known specimen, at least at the time of description, a male) of Lasiothrips Moulton, 1968: L. perplexus Moulton, 1968:
ReplyDeletehttp://anic.ento.csiro.au/thrips/identifying_thrips/Lasiothrips.htm
If this is incorrect, then all thrips look alike.
I'm not sure all thrips don't look alike. Nevertheless, Dave, you're exactly right, and get yourself three points.
ReplyDelete