The Undesigned Chapter, pt X / Beans, "Off the record"

”We're just cookin'...”
J.L. Hooker ; The Endless Boogie
(1970)

This sequel (no X) is from the beans. Inspirations and reasons for topic selected are just due because I think the beans for a good part of healthy diet (/ foods.) Although beans originate from the S.Americas, them are nowadays cultivated worldwide. Most produced is the Common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. There are several varieties grown (dry beans/green beans). Seems also that most amounts appear cultivated on countries also with some from the largest populations in the World (China and India; Acc. same list from European countries Italy solely lists for the top ten list from largest production ...of the Common bean).

The beans are rather usual main staples at various diets and foods - lot similarly like some tubers, or the most cultivated cereals (incl. rice, maize, etc.). Beans also contain quite much protein, making them ideal as the accomypanying side-dish w. many foods. Perhaps less generally known, but nevertheless quite important is that beans – similarly like other Fabaceous plants (incl. fx the peas) – have the effect from returning nitrogen to the cultivated soil. As the most plants use nitrogen in their process of growth, makes beans sometimes favored plants in the cycle from crop rotation at agricultures. (At least on some areas and methods of farming, or at the many environments, benefit being that nitrogen-rich fertilizers are needed less.)

Seems to me (also) that the beans also have secured almost as permanent place on the cultural imagination than (fx) the potatoes. There's fx lot phrases on English making uses of the word bean. Here only some picks, that I've come by on various instances, or some funny sayings (...So perhaps it makes this even more funnier if we at first mention that most hilarious Mr Bean, what a great name selection for character...) Also, I first learned the subsequent phrase from that 1990s romantic dingle-dangle (meaning the film Green Card), where there's saying ”We didn't have a bean”. Further then (by glancing Webster's), I also find the saying (to) ”Spill the beans”, which is said mean (generally) quite same as disclosing smtgh (and, resultatively from such action, to ruin somebodys surprise)

It's also mentioned sometimes earlier the beans been supposed among (some, possible) foods/dietary causes for the Gout. That not anymore believed...Or, so the medical science now seems say; I don't nowadays take too granted from whatever the newest claims acc. medical science about such things as healthy diets, foods, etc. (– Yet, I do fx think there's reasons believe many chemicals being potentially harmful for organic life and that them likely can accumulate at the body-system; Also, fx, I believe that using too much of the butter, sugars, salts, or the fast foods, obviously isn't very healthy.) What comes for the gout, and it's causes, my (slight) scepticism is then further encouraged from noticing that herbalists in the past actually are said from have recommended beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) for some of treatments of the diabetes, and gout. (...Albeit not probably due because of any precise knowledge about dietary causes for gout. Modern medical research seems as well have recognized it maybe having some genetic causes also. Main dietary choices said perhaps exposuring for the appearance of gout seem include using much of the seafoods, alcohol and also lack of the C-vitamin. - Gash! Seafood generally are very tasty. But probably also, the importance of that latter mentioned on the diets wasn't too well understood yet on 1700^th centurys. From the alcohol use I don't bother to guess anything...Anyway, apparently seems it shown the beans not from any relation for the emergence of gout.) 
 

...The gout was more usual a disease among the upper classes around 1700^th century (- what the pic above somewhat humoristically represents.) It even was typically called for the 'rich man's disease'. So a comparison, which almost spontaneusly comes to mind, is from Adventures of three musketeers. (Books by Alexandre Dumas [the older 1802-70]. Dumas also wrote several additional sequels about the latter years of the musketeers than that world renown novel by the same.) On some from those latter parts there's description about the life and leisure hobbies of one of the musketeers, Porthos (or, Porthoy if that's better spelling?), living on his castle/manor. Remembering how legendarily enormous is described the appetite of that Porthos, also the usual lifestyles of the rich classes on that era, it's perhaps surprising for any species from the French wild or domestic fowls to have survided until the later centuries. Equally not very surprising that the class society of that era, at least on it's 1700^th century characteristics, didn't last any further centuries.

(...Perhaps more relating to the actual topics on this) ; Many "New world"-crops (also beans along w. fx potato and maize), imported for the European continent, did influence efficiently to the directions of European agricultures ever since from about late 1500s. Often is noted the Europes colonial expansion of the past centuries been nearly as much motivated by the interest for the exotic (tropical) plants, than it was by purposes from acquiring rare minerals (gold, most renownly), or labour cheap (/free of charge, means the slave-market, of course)...even if that interest to the plants by earliest mainly targeted for many valued 'products' that could be manufactured from those (the opium, spices, ao, etc.).

Yet, we nowadays also have many regular food plants like the tomatoes, peppers, squashes, mango, watermelon...(To mention probably only some of the most usual and commonly known.) Pretty easily from this one then also begins get the impression/notices the aspect that many from the imported plants indeed were found superior compared for what was cultivated at the "Old world" prior that (ie before the so called Columbian exchange.) Although wider use and larger cultivation from most of those plants may have advanced only slowly. Often gradually during longer period/some centuries. Acquiring the food plants also sometimes did motivate direct colonial effort, although more rarely than the greed for those some exotic or valued materials/plants. And, to the contrary, amongts the most interesting aspects from this is that it's also shown that the various weeds - usually, if not always accidentally imported - generally might have lot helped the early European colonizers/immigrants at the various parts of the World to 'render' landscape resembling to that of the nature on their places of origin. (To the harms of an original ecology. But actually that's lot more lenghtier a story and it's pretty complicated for capture by a few sentences on this. See fx from the popular books or articles by Charles Mann, or from other sources.)

Even that the beans obviously have always had great importance as the human foods, and were imported for the Europes from quite early of (post that 1492), they probably never were quite similarly valued on the Europe than several other plants (By origin also are plants from somewhat warmer climatic regions). Social historians usually tend stress the importance of potato as a crop that permitted rise of populations to their current levels on Europe (and elsewhere on Northern hemisphere around since from the turn of the 1700s). It is even mentioned as a main plant having brought for the end periodical famines that prior it's wider cultivation cut back population the growth. Conversely, there's famous example about the Irish famine(s) in between 1845-52 (...When at least million peasants died when potato harvests turned out greatly affected by newly emerged pest species, mainly Phytophora infestans. The potatoes, not long before that been established as the peasants main staple, practically sole plant to grow. – So it's often also presented for an example about how one-sided concentration to some singular food crop at the agricultures isn't ever too recommendable practice.)

Pic below ; blooms of Scarler runner bean (P. Coccineus sbp)
...It's also mentioned originate from Mesoamerica. (On Europes) mostly grown due because of the nice flowerings, but some varieties pods are edible too.
 

...These few side-remarks passed, we should perhaps then devote rest from this for the beans. About the earliest cultivation of beans I find at least said the earlier radiocarbon-dating (of the archeological finds) having assumed the beans domestication, along w. the potato and ullucu ao, estimated for as old as smght like 8000 y B.C. (from Andes). However, more recent (and, apparently means at this case corrected) timings show that for somewhat later timing; The earliest cultivation of the Common beans (P.vulgaris sp.) possibly now is timed began around 3000 BC. Further yet - and without looking anything more, or too precisely any other sources from this - I also find it said on Wikip. (Sept 2012) that the Tepary beans (Phaseolus acutifolius) cultivation from earliest may date for as far as since about 5000 BC (from Tehuacan valley). And, fx the (domesticated) Lima beans (P.lunatus) early domestication seem assumed perhaps having taken place separately both at the Andes and on Mesoamerica. ...However, considering how much earlier (and possibly also newer) timings differ, I wouldn't be very surprised if some newer evidence would yet have established the earliest cultivation dates (from the various places) again for (somewhat) earlier by timings.

Feels also that it's probably quite difficult separate, by any certainty, the cultivated varieties of the bean from wild plants, or some 'preceding' varieties. Usually, in case of the domesticated plants, the cultivated species produce larger seeds, but then there's also question about how constant that earliest cultivation might have been. Were the earliest cultivators actual farmers, or were they the merely gatherers growing (also) beans near some from their most usual places of stay? Even if the nowadays molecular researches might claim it possible to quite possible from to (clearly) separate between the wild plants and the earliest (human) cultivated varieties on many cases, the anthropologist and cultural biologists tend argue lot about these matters still.

Some of the moderrn cultivated varieties of beans (fx the Lima bean and the Kidney beans, latter a variety from the Common beans), seem said at least somewhat toxic if them aren't being prepared correctly; - So, like is the case from any beans, usual method to make them edible for the human diets is cooking the beans for a necessary amount of time. Feels like that also would favor the supposition from the beans not (perhaps) for first plants that humans would have taken on to cultivate. Yet, the beans grow in pods that protect their seeds and are quite easy to gather (Likewise from the many other of so called leguminous plants, that contain at least the soya, peas, lentil – and alsomany from clovers, alfalfa possibly...) Makes me think, on the other hand, the beans therefore would appear quite likely choice to domestication for early opportunistic gatherers. ...I might well be mistaken on these contemplations from that, as this only is some guess-work. Many native tribes/modern hunter-gatherers are often described from to possess very detailed knowledge about the characteristics and qualities of any of the plants on their natural environments, so there's of course no reason to suppose humans of the past/the early domesticators from having had any less 'specific' knowledge about their surrounding plants (or anything else by that part).

From the toxicity of (wild/original varieties from the) beans I've not any clear idea, but fx the Nightshades - ie Solanum, the plant(s)-family containing also fx the potatoes and tomatos do contain also rather poisonic species, and yet from them also originate some of the main domesticated food plants at the present times. The regular potatoes are very toxic if grown unproperly/cultivation exposuring the tubers at the sunlight. ...Also, fx as some comparisons from the wild European/Fennoscandian fabaceous plants I recall having read (from someplace) that fx the Spring Pea (Lathyrnus vernus) appear at least somewhat toxic, but the pods of those seem said, at least occasionally, in the past also been used as foods. (Sounds not quite unprobable, they have quite large pods to an European natural growing fabaceous-plant. However, wouldn't consider the plant edible.) 
 

...But, let that represent only some occasional thoughts or speculations about the beans domestication. I've not even aimed for to make any very scrutinized theories to represent on this. Likewise, not any experience about the farming of beans. (In other words; I've not any theories based on any extraordinary or almost supernatural feel about the good qualities of the beans or the likely manner of their becoming parts of human diet/early cultivation history. Yet, I do think clearly the beans of the 'New World', or what we nowadays consider as typical beans for food, appear important food plants. Besides, I think them as tastier for foods than soya.)

The beans are best eaten along some 'main food', fx w. other vegetables (like certain stalks, or potato, ao), meat, rice, whatever. Also seems it shown the beans good from their cholesterol lowering effect, and also, many varieties are said from to regulating blood sugar levels. From the other healthysome qualities beans have (...incl. the fiber them contain). Yet, ,of course it's also quite true that not any singular plant/crop can provide all the necessary parts on the human diets (and, also remembering that example from the potato cultivation history and famines on the 19^th century). 
If compared for the potato (albeit, that's not necessary, of course) beans probably have the benefit from originating of a few separate wild varieties.  Likely makes them somewhat less vulnerable to a various pests/diseases than the regular potatoes. (The potatoes, by origin, contain hundreds separate varieties, but the usually cultivated breeds originate of singular species.) Yet, the beans ain't completely  'pest free' crops either, fx on late summer the leaves often seem lot bitten by pests (whatever nowadays most favored methhods of that prevention). ..For now seems it suitable closing our quite scattered speculations about the beans at this paragraph. (The subsequent sequel on this serie is not yet decided, but the following post shall be from the diets and foods too.) (; W-G.)

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Muleskinner Bookrecommendations # 34 ½ /"The time before time")

 

”In fact recent use of radiocarbon dating in the cave Cougnac

has shown that there may be as much as 10,000 years

between the earliest and the latest prehistoric paintings.

Among the earliest images is one of a megaloceuros (giant deer),

a creature that was apparently extinct in the region

by the time of the later painters. It is quite reassuring

in a way to think that these later peoples

would have been as perplexed by these images as we are today.”

From Secrets of the Stone Age, p137. (Rudgley, 2000)

The Land of the Painted Caves

(p. on 2000s; 661 p.) ; The Earth's Children-series

by Jean Untinen-Auel

...and some suggestions of (possible, accompanying) co-reading(s):

Aczel, Amir D., The Cave and The Cathedral (p 2000s; 242 pages)

Scarre, Chris (ed.), The Human Past. World prehistory and the development of human societies. (Thames & Hudson 2009 ; 784 pages).

[Recommendation(s) / 2012]

I guess, greater part of our selections from recently published fiction literatures/novels, etc., has represented popular fiction. Has it's reason, of course; I'm not very much reading past half the century's ”serious” fiction, and recently I've actually found most enjoyment from this field of fiction (say it then...”easy” fiction. Anyway, I don't also much care to draw any line between those, as you might have noticed).

I also formerly considered that these reviews wouldn't contain other books from prehistoric topics. As I meant w. that only science books et similar, leaves me some means of escape from that definitive sounding statement...and select this book for the additional recommendation of that stuff. Of course, the novel belongs for frustratingly well-known serie, but with my limited familiarity from the 'prehistoric fiction', I've not much alternatives. Most of the 'popular prehistoric' is crap, anyway (acc. my finding,). To the merit of the book, it's also so that prior Untinen-Auel's series, written from since 1980s, there wasn't (much) anything noteworthy of it's kind. Finally, favors the selection also my liking from historical fiction/novels, this ranks well as a 'prehistoric historical novel'.

About the book/serie itself I'm to say not very much. Possibly, if one wishes point out some weakness, book would've been better some 200-300 pages shorter. (I feel) the strongest elements in book/series are the depiction/description of prehistoric people for the emotional, living beings (wasn't so common prior it). On the other hand, selection of a femine character for it's main 'heroines' probably was equally important choice at the time of series early begin. Also, some of the main themes or elements in the books/series is the possible/likely  interactions of the anatomically modern humans - that's probably nowadays the usual term preferred from our Homo sapiens ancestors, believed have developed ca 200000 to 150000 y.a. in the Africa - and the Neanderthals. (Latter, of course, means Homo neanderthalensis-peoples).

The human hands - from The Human Past (book cover)

...Although I've even in the past sometimes seen an additional .sapiens 'stamped' for the first mentioned 'species', ie: H. sapiens ”sapiens” - notice my apostrophes. ...I actually think that occasionally used addit. definition in question only to serve for some ridiculence. In particular, because it so obviuosly seems meant for to separate us, the humans of the present days from any preceding periods peoples or (human-) 'species'...and to emphasize our (imagined) great differences if compared for those distant ancestors. If you ask me – and in lack of any precise knowledge from how to relate the species mentioned, not just biologically, but also culturally (the latter knowledge we are perhaps unlike ever reach) – I think the only valid 'categories' are .sapiens and .neanderthalis. (Further still, one could also question the usability of those terms too, but them are the most generally used. ...whether we'd think the Neanderthals for a separate human lineage; as the co- or subspecies genetically or morphologically defined, doesn't really matter on this). 

 

Anyhow, both 'species' are known have co-existed in parallel close-by through a minimum of some 100000 years. In the prehistoric pasts, the .Neanderthal- and .Sapiens-humans are also known from have lived subsequently, or in turns at parts of the N.Africa (Levant), and for a briefer period on the post-glacial Mid-/S. Europes (at the southward range from the edge of the retreating ice-sheets during that period). Probably both also lived at scattered mobile groups (more or less) adjacent to each other. So, seems at least possible, if not likely assuming, them (more or less) having had cultural contacts and effect for each other. Famously, relative soon after the end of the latest glaciation, the Neanderthal disappeared and during roughly same time the Sapiens seem have dispersed for their former areas at the European continent. (Neanderthals latest known regions of stay from different parts of Europe seem generally timed for - smtgh like – 45000 to 26000 y.a., BC, so noticeably, that covers a huge time-gap. Some newer genetic studies seem also say that the Neanderthals are believed been generally relative few by numbers; The estimated figures based on DNA-researches, I've noticed ranging for between 10000 to 70000 at the most...but I don't take that for too granted, it's an estimate still.) 
 

...Like one should except from a good (pre-)historical fiction, this recommended book (Untinen-Auel) don't offer any simple answers for that embarrassing mystery, or a question about Neanderthal the disappearance...debated ever since the wider acceptance (late 1800s) about existence of the human species having preceded our own ”race” (...here too, pay some attention for apostrophes). I'm neither claiming to have, or favoring, any theory for to explain that...but lots of theories exist. Anyway, also was (at least earlier) a lot discussed about the aspect if Neanderthals might have possessed any symbolic culture (and if they did, whether they mostly just might have adopted it from the 'modern humans'). As I personally believe them to most certainly having developed their own forms of symbolic culture, I leave it for anyone make one's own opinions about that (and read from topic by yourself). The Neanderthal burials containing pollen of various plants are most famous (indicating placing the flowering plants along w. deceased, although explanation is said bit controversial); But, also there's other 'clues' one often sees referred for; the sophisticated tools, burial objects, decorative shells, coloring the body w. ochre, etc... (Also, an informative box on The Human Past – on listed books above - seems state: ”...the emergence and spread of 'modern human behaviour' was more complex than a replacement of Neanderthals by Aurignacians.”)

The prehistoric research also seems divide that late ice-age era for various periods (Based most apparently, on various different stone-age 'technologies' used; lithics, projectiles, etc., but also established on finds of cultural objects, as well as what known about the behavioral traits) - Ie the most important cultural periods are separated for (All these just roughly timelined for this): Aurignac - ca 40000 to 20000 y. in the past; Gravettian, ca 29000-14000, and Magdalenian - generally from so called glacial maximum at 22000 to 19000 BC until the early Holocene. 
 

The early (anatomically modern) human ancestors at the European area/close regions are most widely known by term the Cro-magnons (named on basis of the places of first finds at 1800s, likewise were named the Neanderthalensis too). As the archeological history also sometimes might have focused too much on that – so called ”Cro-magnon myth”, acc. my own terms and opinion - I leave that also for anyone to think by oneself in particular, too (...With the preceding, I mostly refer for that sometimes claimed 'remarkably different symbolic culture of the Cro-magnons, if compared for the Neanderthals, fx. And, from their exceptional capability for the speech – that Neanderthal's didn't possess similar means for spoken language, it was also formerly debated lot about, but now studies (from the anatomy of their vocal tract) seem said indicate that there was no reason why Neanderthals could not have produced complex range of sounds needed for speech. It seems even now confirmed that they possessed similar gene that permits speech on us.) ...But in combined, of course, very little about such distant times is known too well. Seems it also that surprisingly much new information they've been able acquire during the few recent decades (with the aid of newer molecular techs, ao other methods). Most what I can gather from that seems (to me) to favor a view that, very possibly, our direct human ancestors were equally influenced on that interaction and not just 'played' the influensive role.

...After our lenghtysome pre-thoughts, for the prehistoric cave-art (main theme on our book-recommendation), we can only devote a few lines here. Aczel seems in passing notice that in fact there's not any direct evidence from that all (or most) of those renown paintings would've been created by Cro-magnons and not Neanderthals (However, also says the location of most caves, and their closeby camp-sites known, fx, seem link it for the cultures of 'our species' - or more correct term maybe is 'our direct human ancestors'). Seems it also that there's now datings from some of the oldest paintings, suggesting them older than formerly believed/and therefore (possibly) been made by Neanderthal peoples...But probably all that's still quite controversial.

 

More interestingly, is fx that it's believed with some certainty (there's fx found remains of some musical instruments from caves) that those places likely served also for ritual/ religious gatherings during when the paintings were accompanied with other art-forms; music and dance, spoken words fx, likely. ...In that sense Cathedral seems indeed quite suitable term for name of the book about cave-art. The book itself appears most readable introduction to that, although not too comprehensive guide, if very 'enthusiastically' interested for and about. Along w. it I cursorily read some chapters concerning these topics from The Human past - mostly it's, say, some 'middle-of-the-road' knowledge about many topics it covers...And along our other recommended reading(s), the Rudgley-book, referred on begins, is also interesting. It makes some effort for questioning the 'general consensus' from human evolutionary history and to exhibit quite a lot contradicting evidence. (So also occasionally does that The human past-book, but naturally it aims cover/discuss lots other stuff, too.)

The cave-art, been created during a very lenghty period of time, finally came to end at early Holocene (ending along with the hunter-gatherer cultures that produced it.) Similar to many later regionally outlined phenomenoms/cultures there wasn't any clear cultural followings for it (/recognizable successive resembling art-styles). All of that, and the vast distance of time the cave-art covered, adds some part for it's great mystery; Precisely, the question (any viewer) could need ask is perhaps not just what kind worldview those painters had, but how did they know their environment. Did they thought it coherent or complex? Were them merely communicating or transmitting? Etc...)

...Finally to mention; I find this selection nicely fitting as some 'continuation' of our prehistoric recommendations: First was that book from the mammalian early days. Then a book about the primates/species ancestral for the later emerged 'human lineage'. And now this novel from the ”recent” prehistoric pasts, an era when all those major cultural transitions described were taking place (the story is situated at about 30000 y. BC.) If we shall then have any additional recommendation on this 'serie', following our (accidentally emerged) timeline, it should likely be smtgh about emergence of the civilizations. ...No scarcity from possible alternatives, some contenders I could think for are fx the Mesoamerican/pre-Inca Andean cultures, ancient Egypt(/the Nile valley), Indus civilizations...

...And additionally (to mention), any of these 'XXX & half''-recoms could quite well represent actual parts on this serie (I guess I could 'elevate' them all for those as well). I've mostly ranked them this way, just because I'm having time to write only a fewsome paragraphs from each of these... (;W-G.) 

 

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Undesigned Chapter, pt. IX / "The flies on the windscreen"

...Sequel IX is– kind of - logical following to our previous post (;the sequel VIII from beetles). I've not too much rearranged these posts, or, seeked to find any especial proper species presented on these. So, similarly than was the manner on previous sequel, I just picked a few suitable examples as decoration of this.

This also not contains any particular views from the insect evolutionary pasts, for it was (but briefly) discussed in the previous sequel. Perhaps we can only on this notice that the so called 'modern' insect orders evolved (smtgh like, approx.) about +/- 200 M. years ago to the past. Mostly that took place along the evolution of Angiosperms (ie the flowering plants, whose appearance closely was interactive and co-dependent within the insects evolution). 

 

This (to the right) is some from the nicest Hover-/Flowerflies (Syrphidae). There's about 250 species at Fennoscandia ranges, of various sizes and looks; Some are quite 'robust', some lot smaller and thinner. Most, at least from the easily noticeable species, seem mimic the looks of wasp/bees.

 

Basically, suffices (at this) if we only refer for the other main three orders usually described for the 'modern insect families'. (Seems that) them all did evolve along the appearance of flowering plants. Of other large groups, there's Beetles (...presented already on the previous sequel, but them are said also represent the largest insect group in the world by singular species). Then is Lepidoptera (Moths /Butterflies which also have been quite much represented on our previous posts.) Then, Hymenoptera (Bees, Wasps, Sawflies, Ants, etc...) which I actually considered possibly the insect group on this post ...but then I realized there are very numerous species and they're much resembling each other. So, fx many Bumble-bees that have Fennoscandian presence look quite similar and I therefore decided drop them aside. Leaves us the Diptera – ie the Flies (although that contains some other related genera too).

 

"Fly on the wall" (To the left) - Similarly than from the most larger insect groups, there's both flower-going and predative species on flies. This is predative (from Rhaginiodae). Often found closer swamps and some shallow wetland(s).

Among the most renown of (actual) flies in the world, probably, is Tset-Tse (Glossina sp.), a blood-sucking species at the mid-Africa that spreads the Sleeping sickness disease. (More precise, it carries the small Tryponasoma-parasitoids, that spread the sleeping sickness. Often fatal disease for the domesticated animals and can influence the humans badly too. The disease doesn't influence the wild animals, so the Tset-Tse fly is sometimes on  ecologist literatures been described as the 'best conservation agent' on Africas, due it long time prevented human agricultures and cultures from reaching large regions at continent. Although, some other tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue also are often mentioned having appeared so commonly that some places remained inhospitable to the Europeans and outside their colonial interventions well until the 20^th century. Anyway, actually there exists a so called Tset-tse-belt accross middle parts from Africa.)
 Then, there's at least the Common House-fly (Musca domestica), sometimes described for the most widespread insect species in the world – to most places where's humans it also has spread. Like was noticed typical for the flies, it is also been said from having a considerable role at the spreading of some diseases, stomach-related mainly.

...This by somewhat resembles what most people would describe as typical outer looks of a fly (ie the House-fly). (But this belongs at the Sarcophagidae, most common species on forests. There's about, 35 Fennosc. species from those, solely.)

Usually most flies are felt with some remarkable disgust by humans, generally. In addition, many species show quite 'horrifying' from their appearance (w. their large compound eyes and hairy outer looks). Some also (often) tend increase and swarm on the rotten smelling carcasses and dung. Not all flies show such detestive manners, but a typical place to find amount of flies, is fx a heap of manure on some swineyard backyard. Them are also often mentioned from spreading various diseases, like was mentioned. (...Remembering the above said aspects it's also perhaps not too surprising that some from (a few) successfull remakes from old horror-movies on the recent decades features fly as it's main 'character'; I mean that David Cronenberg film - sometime at 1990s by the same name, Fly, if I recall that correctly. As you might remember, it has a Frankensterian plot from the scientist who invents some transmutative machine and – by accident – happens to unite his genes with those of a House-fly.)

However, or from the positive side, flies also have other qualities than the repulsive manners that usually are given most concern. Some are fx very competent fliers; Watching the various Syrphid-flies (see exemplary species above) when their visiting some flower bush, one can easily recognize that. They can fx remain practically motionless on air, except from the wings goin' on. (Not very surprisingly the Syrphids (Hover-/Flower-flies) are probably the most easily tolerated flies of the human perspective.)  Then there's other species that on fast flight can make about 90'angle turns, not the least difficult of tasks at flight for sure. (Also not very surprisingly, if one thinks the common names for many insect groups – most, although not all – seem carry naming that refers for the flies /or, for flight. There's fx Butterflies, Caddisflies, Mayflies, Dragonflies, Snakeflies, Scorpionflies, Craneflies, etc., ….So, for an observer it soon becomes clear how these flying creatures were named in the first place, or which probably were the first recognized insects by humans. Although, not on all languages they're so uniformly or similarly.)



(To the right) Laphria flava (..likely). ; It's from the Robber flies (Asilidae), that are among the most 'hideous' of the pretative species. Completely harmless to humans, but on the insect world it's respectable player; The robber flies are said capable to force down large beetle off the flight, and biting through it's protective cover-wings. Also, them can deliver poisonic bite (dealy to other insects), so even a wasp is for 'no match' (...albeit, I see no reason why they'd hunt those). (...Robber flies are species adapted for the sun and warmth, so their less numerous on Fennoscandias. At the past decades were somewhat declined...and some species, at least, seem still listed for threatened.)

In the the Diptera (all in all, including also fx the Crane flies and Mosquitos) there appears about well over 5000 species on Fennoscandia range - or, probably somewhat more by now which are been recognized as the separate species. Of course, far more could have been presented at this sequel. With the far more particular characteristics presented, far more detailed descriptions, etc., etc., ...but let's (for now) call it quits from this sequel. (;W-G.)

 (To the right) ...Some species with a quite exciting elongated looks too. On leaf of a Birch (Betula pendula). Apparently - but far less usually than some other insects - there's flies that lay their eggs on plant leafs. (Or, likely so I'd guess). However, many favor the decayed wood, also.

 ------------

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.

The Undesigned Chapter, pt VIII / "The class of 250+ million years"

”Just as the Paleozoic is often called the age of the trilobite, modern time is often called the age of the insect.” 

- From the Wikiped. article Phylogeny of the insect 

    (from Paleozoic, See)

...Of the (multitudes from) insect genera and species having existed during their ”early evolutionary path, past the millions and millions years”, not very comprehensive view seems possible acquire. Quite understandable, because the insects appear small, often tiny animals, that lack any skeletal parts which would fossilize (Instead, they have so-called exoskeleton). Also, the insects do 'regenerate' quite rapidly - for they are short-lived, and a short period of time can often produce many successive generations. As result (from that and other related aspects) – any view from their evolutionary past seems always been (very) fragmented and incomplete some.

 

However, of that past evolution a brief general 'walk-through' can be presented (at least I try, on basis of what I've been able to gather from some general books dating almost couple decades old now. Naturally, you can easily seek much newer information about it, too. I only picked a few interesting topics for the purposes of this...) 

 

Seems – or, at least was formerly believed – that of the still extant insect genera most archaic forms contain (at least) the Ephemeroptera (ie Mayflies), Blattodea (ie Cockroaches ; how surprising...) and Orthoptera (Grasshoppers, crickets and katytids). All these are believed have existed (in their earliest origins) already closely some 300 M. year ago (on the Carboniferous-age, or perhaps even since from Devonian period). Most archaic forms were of course lot different compared to their modern ”descendants”...but sometimes them are also believed (relative) little changed of their early origin. (So, fx also the Odonata (Dragonflies) are believed very ancient by origin and did exist already during the Carboniferous. Already then they did fly and the group contained some from largest and earliest flying insects known from; Yet, their modern forms - similar or resembling to current species - seem believed having evolved 'only' during the Late Triassic, about 200 M. y. ago) Of the other rather old groups seems it believed that the Plecoptera ('earliest' Antlions, Lacewings, etc....However, seems that the correct class or 'group' from these would be Neuroptera...but the Plecoptera are also believed rather ancient...), Hemiptera (the 'true' Bugs, whatever that exactly means...), and - the Coleoptera (Beetles) – did evolve approx. some 250 Million y. in the past. Also, Mecoptera (Scorpion flies, etc.) may have existed at least around +200 M. y. ago ; And, interestingly, I saw someplace said that the more modern insect genera – fx the Flies and earliest Butterflies/Moths - might have evolved from some (unknown) separate/co-existent lineage of that group, by origin. 

 

...However, some of these dates maybe are 're-evaluated' by now since there's probably lot more recent studies that what I've viewed. Also, there's of course lots insect groups that one would suppose having existed long ago in the past, but which are 'lot less exiting' from features (fx, the Bristletails - so called Arghaeognatha - are some wingless insects that seem believed represent some from the very oldest species/order). And one could easily suppose that there's possibly not any clues been preserved (fossilized) of many genera because they appear so small tiny creatures (fx some species comparable in sizes to the 'modern' termites and fleas).

So, the insect evolution obviously is some particularly fragmentary and scattered puzzle. Yet, there's also one aspect which seems serve as functional way for to dividing between their old and more ”modern" genera. That is, if the insect species have only partial metamorphosis- or, more correctly it's the gradual metamorphosis (so called Hemimetabolism). Alternatively, them might have the complete metamorphosis (ie Holometabolism). The first category (partial/gradual) contains (fx) Mayflies, Cochroaches, Grasshoppers (...etc.), Dragonflies, the Bugs (Hemiptera) and Lacewings(...apparently?). However, the Beetles and Mecoptera (+ anything later evolved) usually seems represent the complete Metamorphosis. ...And likewise most other from 'modern insects', but this dividing is not considered too universal anymore; For example, there's the Thrips (Thysanoptera) some tiny small insects that are said to represent quite different manner from metamorphose which comptetely doesn't resemble either of the above described. (Seems said them (Thrips) are yet believed rather old group, and also appear pollination agents of some plants (on tropics and the Nothern latitudes, although that's apparently about the same procentual amount from all than the birds, ie smtg less than 0,5 per cent...by supposed, estimated figure).

(...This is (possibly) some common species of the Ground beetles (Carabacidae). (Dead, but...) of the pic a typical Coleopteran structure is quite observable. Shows fx the Elytron (hard, scelerotized cover-wings), which all/most Beetles have as their protection.)

 (...To the right,  Bee beetle (Triachus fasc.), on flower at garden fence. Like one can see it nicely mimics the bumble-bee, at first I considered it a bee...)

The Beetles (it is interesting to notice) we find also believed for some good candidates as the original pollinators for some earliest flowering plants.  ...But, it is believed) the Hymenoptera (Bees) maybe instead finally emerged as the more 'common-place' representatives on the pollination process. That so (seems it said) possibly due because the Beetles contain a lot of ferocious plant pests (ie leaf-eating species). Whichever the reasons/how evolution might actually have selected at that on the distant past, is at least noticeable there being about 200, 000 plants pollinated by the Coleopterans (means: 80 per cent of all...!). And, in comparison only about 1/6 - from all plants - is pollinated by the Hymenoptera (although many of those appear major crops). But these are probably rather general figures (from that Nabhan - Buchmann book, 1990s) – ie their estimates…At the moment I don't recall/have not any precise idea from how this is been counted (...more to the point; it's of course very difficult to estimate from any 'exact numbers', for many plants are pollinated by more than some singular species, some are (also) pollinated via the wind, and there's some pollinated by insects only on 'unfavorable/favorable' circumstances ie the insects sometimes serve only as the secondary method to pollination at some particular plants...etc.). Seems (to me) it fx likely that many of the Coleopteran pollinators may be species that specialize on certain plants, while there's more general pollinators on hymenopteran. Also, the coleopteran are most numerous on tropics, so feels likely that most of those pollinated plants (in question) also appear tropical by range...or, so I just guess on this basis...

 

(...This, on the right, is some from commonest Cerambycidae-species (ie the Long horn beetles). Looks rather fond of  Meadowsweet - like the beetles often are, I've noticed...)

(..This below also belongs for the Cerambycidae, I guess it's the Musk beetle (Arom. Muschata). Quite common, but seems it only appears sparsely on Fennoscandian Nature; More usual at the warmer latitudes. On fennoscandia it mainly increases on Willow.)

Among insects the Fennoscandian Coleoptera are quite much studied, in comparison for the most insects in the World. Yet, also there's lot that are not so well known. Fx, there's only a few species of Blister beetles (Meloidae) that do appear on N. Europes. Of those, at least half (two species) were found disappeared around early/mid of the last century, but seems that no actual reasons for that were to be found. ...I didn't bother check if they nowadays have any better idea about it (or if some species from those have been rediscovered), but that's actually quite typical for the insect-human relations. Often when we happen notice them, the species might be gone already (like usually is remarked from the lot more numerous species appearing on the tropical regions).

From some insect species the populations may also vary lot between years by natural reasons. For that reason, it is also often not too well known from how many of the species tolerate human-made change. (Yet, fx renownly much of the Cerambycidae don't well adapt to economic forest uses on Northern boreal forests. From the Finlands species, fx majority of the currently extant species are some adapted for the younger forests - ie some that age under 100 years.) 

 Finally to mention, this (brief introduction) only represented to provide some text along the pics from these few Fennoscandian Beetles. They're all of course usual and common species - In fact, due the relative recent time has passed since the latest ice-ages, not any insect species appear endemic solely to the Fennoscandian range. Most also appear at more southern ranges (But there's some very distinct, especial sub-species/genera.) 

...So, on the light of these views, I provided at begins of this also pic from that magician – it's Merlin. What Merlin really says is my actual view-point; What's mutual to the insect and humans at these ”manmade dead-ends”. For the dead-ends those are, solely if thinking about the distant, magnifient past evolution of the insects (Which I shortly tried to outline on paragraphs above.) ; (G.U.J.)

(...likely the Green Rose Chafer (Cetaria auralia), also found from the Meadowsweet at mid-summer. ...For some speciality, it's said that they have a small openings on sides, permitting them fly cover wings closed - unlike most other Coleopteran...)

Fairfun.

...Still not believing in Fairies ?

(I might have presented this earlier sometime, but...Inspired from this recent post of ours I thought it fits well here). In case you're still suspicious...

Of course we haven't seeked any photos, or similar misleading stuffs for some evidence. Indeed, most are fakeries. At least those famous photographs from the early part of that art (ie about from 1900's or 1910s.) Them were proven fakes (many many years ago in the past). But, interestingly, lot of people choose not to believe it...and so the story did go on. And, in overall, for the majority of peoples, it likely had the positive influence.

But, I have a living proof here. It's from the Carl Barks story Scrooge's Private Island (1953).  Probably the story is "loaned" from the Hawain/Polynesian legengs and myths - and as such probably also is little worked up for the "middle-class imagination" of it's publication time (1950s). ...Anyway, says it there that the 'little-folk' (or their counter-parts on that Pacific island the story situates)  can only be seen when they're not knowing of been watched. So, the nephew (Huey?) there looks via looking-glass and sees...

...Fairies.

No question about it, there's always more than meets the eye. More than we 'choose to see', so to say. ...And 'even angels will fall', like the words on that horrible advert. (In case you'd ask for my personal opinion, I'd probably say... ;) ; [W-G.]