tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post7598175054543067167..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: The Secret of Y-LarvaeChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-48298585764490708002008-05-22T10:11:00.000+08:002008-05-22T10:11:00.000+08:00For more than a century, crustaceans called faceto...For more than a century, crustaceans called facetotectans appeared to live in a biological Neverland: nobody had ever seen an adult member of the species, until now.<BR/><BR/>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/05/21/i-dont-want-to-grow-up-im-a-parasitic-crustacean/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-35850573152359633302008-02-26T00:06:00.000+08:002008-02-26T00:06:00.000+08:00I used to not be disturbed by white text on black ...I used to not be disturbed by white text on black either, but that was when I had a 20-inch CRT monitor. Now I have a 15-inch LCD, and suddenly white-on-black has become impossible! Maybe this is a factor in the disagreements over whether the color scheme is legible or not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-60083318509228088562008-02-25T14:31:00.000+08:002008-02-25T14:31:00.000+08:00Awesome post christopher!I get the full feed in my...Awesome post christopher!<BR/><BR/>I get the full feed in my Google Reader too. I have had comments on my blog too from a couple readers who described themselves as older that the white on dark blue was hard to see, one these I'll give my blog a make over.<BR/><BR/>Jim, there is a brand spanking new phylogeny of thoracican barnacles, <A HREF="http://other95.blogspot.com/2008/01/barnacle-evolution-tribute-to-alan-j.html" REL="nofollow">blogged over at yours truly last month</A>! Of course this excludes the Acrothoracica, can't have it all!Kevin Zelniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14192385384151149566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-27800700322925892412008-02-25T10:49:00.000+08:002008-02-25T10:49:00.000+08:00The phylogeny in Høeg & Kolbasov (2002) seems to b...The phylogeny in Høeg & Kolbasov (2002) seems to be fairly typical. The Rhizocephala and Thoracica (barnacles proper) are sister groups, followed by the Acrothoracica (burrowing barnacles). Those three groups together form the Cirripedia, by the way. It is unclear whether <I>Hansenocaris</I> or Ascothoracida is the basalmost branch in the Thecostraca.<BR/><BR/>Considering the relatively nested position of Thoracica among parasites, plus the fact that the Thecostraca's closest relatives in the Tantulocarida are also parasites, I find it intriguingly suggestive that barnacles may have once had a parasitic ancestry, or at least an epizoic ancestry like Acrothoracica. While Acrothoracica burrow into other animals such as corals, I haven't found any indication that they actually feed directly on their hosts.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-71433265243918379742008-02-25T09:49:00.000+08:002008-02-25T09:49:00.000+08:00what do we know about the evolutionary history of ...what do we know about the evolutionary history of Thecostraca? It seems too coincidental to me that adult members of this group are all non-free-living - they're either found attached to some other critter as a parasite or attached to some abiotic substrate. I wonder if parasitism could pave the way for barnacle attachment. Or vice versa? There seems to be a lot of head-to-substrate specialization going on in this group.Jim Lemirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000051293978203511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-83621687642503743332008-02-24T10:52:00.000+08:002008-02-24T10:52:00.000+08:00Unfortunately, your RSS feed is also truncated.Tha...<I>Unfortunately, your RSS feed is also truncated.</I><BR/><BR/>That's odd - I subscribe to the feed myself through <A HREF="http://www.google.com/reader" REL="nofollow">Google Reader</A> so I can see what it looks like to other readers, and I always get the full post. I've got my settings on full feed. Is there anything amiss with your personal reader settings (what reader do you use, for that matter)? Does anyone else have this problem?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't notice any difficulty with reading white on black - indeed, I prefer the look of white on black, that's why I use it. I also don't notice the after-image you complain about. Would anyone else like to comment?Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-80832589280614584422008-02-24T09:32:00.000+08:002008-02-24T09:32:00.000+08:00It is really, really unpleasant reading long stret...It is really, really unpleasant reading long stretches of white text on a black background. Especially the after image that happens when tabbing back to the rest of the Net, which is mostly black text on white. Unfortunately, your RSS feed is also truncated. If it were a full feed, I could just read your otherwise excellent posts with my own style sheet. As it is, I have to give up on this blog for now. It is really just too uncomfortable to read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-49371031014306638892008-02-23T13:25:00.000+08:002008-02-23T13:25:00.000+08:00an almost fungal-looking structure that spreads th...<I>an almost fungal-looking structure that spreads through their crustacean host</I><BR/><BR/>Nature has been reading too much Lovecraft. (I swear, that's almost verbatim from <I>The Whisperer In the Dark</I>.)Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.com