origamilevi 的最愛

image showing variation in size; presence and absence of white scales in the reniform spot - only female is lower right. IDs can be easily confirmed with specimen in hand by brushing the scales off the tail - images included.

Possible undescribed species originally found by Deb Manley blooming in March of this year. Fairly widespread in this area but very tiny most plants less than the size of a penny. Can still see the prominent and long ligules for which this species, whatever it is, is so distinct.

Posting this despite the immense amount of gatekeeping, pruinose stiffs in the upper echelons of Texas Botany that it will piss off due to how exciting it is, how much it has been selected for by an extremely dry environment (da wool) and the amount of people it will inspire to know that new species are still being described in this state in the 21st century. Amen

common in cedar swamp

intermediate between C. trisperma and C. tenuiflora:
bract length shorter than trisperma;
-perigynia with short beak, longer than tenuiflora, shorter than trisperma
-no achenes developing (opened several perigynia while nearby trisperma had mature achenes
-spikes more congested than trisperma, less congested than tenuiflora

This observation is of the Fish, rather than the Snake that ingested it (listed separately).

My colleagues and I took this photograph of an actual original and unique X-Ray (physical "hard copy") film made in the Emergency Room of the University hospital in which I worked night shifts back in 2002. It was the regional center for medical treatment of snake bites in north central Florida. This Florida Cottonmouth's (Agkistrodon conanti) coiled body, head to tail, can be measured on the original film by laying a piece of string on the image, tracing the course of the backbone. At 58 inches, or 4 feet 10 inches (147 centimeters) then, this a pretty large snake as Water Moccasins go.

What's more, one of the main reasons we X-rayed it at all was that it had clearly recently eaten something. It had a large bulge in it's stomach, down about a third of it's body length, just past its air-filled lungs that are visible on the film as well defined darker shapes. We found the bulge was a big fish with a large blunt bony skull and easily discernable swim bladder, which we thought to be a catfish (though we lacked an Ichthyologist amongst the E.R. staff of course).

I can follow the fish's spine for much of its length in the image, but lose it somewhere along the snake's lung in the extreme right of the picture. There is an interesting and distinct structure visible at the top that looks to me like a bony spine at the front of the dorsal fin. The skull is about 7 centimeters long, and the fin spine about 3 centimeters long, measured directly from the actual film. I don't know whether the loose dense material below the swim bladder represents the fish's stomach contents, or something else in the snake's stomach. The X-Ray film was 11 by 14 inches in size, so the fish must have been roughly around a foot (30 centimeters) long in total. We did not, in any case dissect the snake in the E.R.

My impression at the time was that this was most likely something like a Brown Bullhead, just judging from what I could make out of its size and shape. It would be fascinating to hear from someone more familiar with fish skeletons and anatomy. I am sure identification from an X-Ray is possible, considering what can be done with even fossil remains among experts. I will defer to anyone with more experience reading fish X-rays.

The Radiological Technician that made the actual exposure for us on film, at my request, wrote the details of the exposure for future reference on the film itself, which, though the film suffered damage when it was later stolen from my vehicle inside a locked briefcase and dumped out in a back alley and further mistreated both by the thieves and the weather, I can still read most of what he wrote with a "magic marker":
"40(or 46) MA
1 MAS
56 KV"
Are there any X-Ray Tech's out there who can confirm that that is in fact a good exposure for a big dead snake with enclosed fish?

Флюорисцентный гаммарус найден дайверами Алтайского заповедника впервые за 10 лет погружений на глубине 3 м в прибрежной полосе. Снимок сделан без использования ультрафиолетовой подсветки, освещение естественное + вспышки, данный эффект ранее не наблюдали.

Bank of roadside ditch, former savanna. This is exactly the same patch as https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/183161675 which was identified microscopically, but here I show it glowing red under UV light (365nm).

Perhaps P. lamprosana or P. limitata. Or perhaps an Archips species. It was still alive after "the extraction" at my local emergency room at 2AM.

This specimen entered during nighttime observations at my lights. I could not for the life of me get it to fly out. (Hey, it happens.) So my gratitude goes to Dr. Kelvey Wilson and the staff at Central Vermont Medical Center in Berlin, Vermont.

(While this moth was in my ear, my speculation on its identity was Microcrambus elegans.)

Observed and photographed by Fabian Gonzalez. This appears to be an un-described species. Hairs on petals do not match those of Viola atropurpurea, which very rarely has yellow flowers. The plant seems more similar in the shape of the rosettes and hairs on petals to Viola skottsbergiana, a plant with white petals and similar markings on the lower petals.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/144898411
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/182534758

Seems to match this observation found a short distance to the south on Nevado de Longaví.

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77911856

In 10th photo, Nevado de Longaví, can be seen in the distance.

Growing at an altitude of 2980 m.
The population consists of thousands of plants that are all consistently yellow or yellow-orange colored.

Other yellow flowered species in the Section Sempervivum include V. auricolor, which has smaller, more loosely arranged rosettes, and larger flowers compared to the size of the rosettes. It grows far to the south of this location.

Viola coronifera has yellow flowers that are arranged at a different angle on the rosettes.

Observación y fotos por Fabian Gonzalez.

Parece que es una especie desconocida. Los pelos de los pétalos son diferentes de los de Viola atropurpurea. Es mas parecido en la forma de las rosetas y en los pelos de los pétalos a Viola skottsbergiana, que tiene pétalos blancos con manchas parecidas.

Vea:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/144898411
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/182534758

Parece bastante parecido a esa observación del Nevado de Longaví, que está unos 30 kilometros al sur:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/77911856

Crece a una altura de 2980 msnm.

Otras violas de la sección Sempervivum con flores amarillas incluye Viola auricolor, que tiene rosetas mas pequeñas, con hojas no tan apretadas, y flores mas grandes en comparación al tamaño de las rosetas. Esa especie ocurre muy al sur.

Viola coronifera, que ocurre mas cerca al sur, tiene flores amarillas que salen en angulo diferente en las rosetas en comparación a esa especie.