lost in the sauce of learning the full story of the fig wasp

will almost certainly post what i'm now learning here once i recover from learning it

this fucking planet is so godsdamn weird

Simple lifeform facts I take for granted that I've now seen blowing people's minds on here:

That sea urchins walk around and have mouths with teeth on their undersides

That corals are related to jellyfish

Barnacles being related to crabs and shrimp

Ants being an offshoot of wasps

Termites being totally unrelated to ants and all similarities just being convergent evolution (they're actually a group of cockroaches, but even science didn't know that part until a few years ago)

Starfish having an eye at the end of each arm

That the bodies of ticks and mites are also their heads, essentially big heads with legs (they even frequently have eyes way up on "the body")

Sperm whales have no upper teeth, and also their bodies are flat from the front

Goats also having no upper (front) teeth

Tapeworms having no mouth at all and just absorbing nutrients over their entire body surface

That flies are bigger pollinators than bees

That moths are bigger pollinators than bees

That wasps are just as important pollinators as bees (more important to many groups of plants) and when we say they're "less efficient" at it we just mean individually they get a little less pollen stuck to them.

That honeybees are nonnative to most of the world and not good for the local ecosystem, just good for human agriculture

That earthworms are also nonnative and destructive to more habitats than the reverse

There being no hard biological line between slugs and snails; all slugs aren't necessarily related to each other and there are gastropod groups where some have shells and some don't

That ALL octopuses (not just the blue ring) have a venomous bite

Most jellyfish and sea anemones being predators that eat fish

"Krill" being shrimp up to a few inches long and not some kind of microbe

Blue whales therefore being the deadliest predators to ever evolve as they eat up to several million individual animals per day

That krill are still "plankton" because plankton refers to whatever animals, algae and other organisms are carried around by the sea's currents, not to any particular group of life or a size category

Fungi being no more related to plants than we are, and in fact more like a sibling to the animal kingdom if anything

Venus fly traps being native to only one small area of North America in all the world

Parasites being essential to all ecosystems

Leeches not having a circular ring of teeth anywhere

That algae is not a type of plant

That most seaweed is just very big algae

That enough wood ends up in the ocean that plenty of sea life evolved to eat only wood

Speaking of which the fact that the "ship worms" that make tunnels in wood are just long noodly clams

Butterflies technically just being a small weird group of moths we gave a different name to

That insects only get wings once they reach maximum size and therefore there can never be a younger smaller bee or fly that's not a larva

Spiders not being any more likely to kill their own mates/young than just a cat or dog might, for most species maybe a lot less often?

Why do wasps have such tiny waists? I read some can't even digest solid food and have to be fed by the babies like a reverse bird

a bit of taxonomy, first: order Hymenoptera contains what we call in English sawflies, wasps, bees, and ants. wasps evolved from the waistless sawflies, specifically a parasitic group of sawflies (so phylogenetically, an ant/bee is a wasp that is a sawfly).

the wasp waist, or petiole, likely evolved to give a parasitic wasp’s abdomen more mobility so she could jab her ovipositor into a suitable host. this means parasitism is ancestral to all wasps, and was actually lost in groups like the vespids (social wasps/hornets), Anthophila (bees), and formicids (ants). the wasp waist stuck around though, and so did the liquid diet! of course, plenty of adult apocritans can make use of solid foods like ants, or by getting nutrients from their larvae like paper wasps. but of the Hymenoptera, I believe the sawflies are still the only ones to chew solid food like other insects (plenty of predatory adult sawflies!)

so i've been thinking about eusocial insects. like, hive insects: wasps, ants, bees, termites, etc. anything with a queen and a sterile worker class. so, the conventional wisdom for how they evolved is about relatedness. the workers are all sisters and they're highly related to each other, so helping to raise their sisters helps reproductive fitness more than simply having their own offspring would. but that idea is kind of falling out of favor as a sole explanation. a few others are rising to take its place but i want to talk about this one:

Manipulation There is abundant evidence that the queen in some species manipulates her daughters or other females into foregoing reproduction (4, 99; reviewed in 18, 2 1, 153). In some wasps and bees, she controls workers by behavioral dominance, even eating any eggs that they may lay. Another means of manipulation is restricting the food provided to developing offspring, which limits their size as adults. A small daughter has poor reproductive capacity, and her best choice may be to help raise near relatives rather than breed herself. By suitable restriction of food rations, the queen might therefore induce some of her daughters to become workers . In some advanced eusocial bees and ants, the queen controls the workers through pheromones; if the queen dies and her chemical control ceases, workers may start reproducing. Craig (36) and Crozier (39) pointed out that manipulation alone is not sufficient for the evolution of nonreproductive workers. In some species where several foundresses start a nest together, one of them becomes the reproductive queen after a period of conflict (e.g. 107, 143). Alexander (4) suggested that the other foundresses are her sisters, being manipulated by their mother to remain with their sister queen as workers. But the fact that subordinate foundresses do remain as workers can hardly be explained solely through manipulation by their mother, as they are no longer in contact with her (36, 39). For an unrelated female that has no chance of laying eggs in the nest now or in the future, the best option should be to leave and attempt to reproduce elsewhere. There are several reasons why she might benefit from staying. First, the subordinate foundress may be related to the queen and gain inclusive fitness from helping raise her offspring. This alternative can be better than attempting to found a new nest alone if the success of a solitary nest is low (e.g. 76, 94, 107, 127). Second, the present queen may die or lose her position, enabling a subordinate foundress to become queen (e.g. 88, 89, 127, 145). Third, in many species a subordinate female may actually lay eggs (reviewed in 21). It seems that either indirect kin selection or the possibility of future reproduction is required to explain subordinate foundress behavior (36, 41, 94, 107, 127, 145, 147). Parental manipulation is not a mutually exclusive alternative to kin selection (92, 102). By definition, parental manipulation involves close relatives, so it is inextricably tied to kin selection. (In genetic models, parental manipulation is usually represented by an allele in the mother enforcing worker behavior in daughters). In some cases, parental manipulation may lead to evolution of nonreproductive workers where pure kin selection on the offspring would not suffice (i.e. when the allele for altruism occurs in offspring; see 30, 31, 36). But the close relatedness between the manipulated workers and the siblings that they help to raise weakens the selection on workers to escape from manipulation, so indirect kin selection is inevitably at work (also see 36).

from Anderson, M. (1984). The Evolution of Eusociality. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15(1), 165–189. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.0

like, queen ants essentially use violence and brainwashing techniques to control their daughters and force those daughters to raise their sisters instead of having their own daughters. not exclusively, of course, but it's part of the method of maintaining a eusocial colony. this mechanism can even be hijacked by parasites.

anyway so. i've been thinking about angels. and like. the thing is. they're eusocial. the soldiers, the workers, they don't create. they don't make more angels. they don't make choices, either. they follow orders. it's only higher ranking angels that get any freedom, and only the archangels who have any real power. worker angels follow orders. it's all they've ever known. and that's considered the natural state for an angel, a kind of biological imperative: to obey. to follow orders. it's what they're built for.

but they're not actually built for it. they have to be kept under pretty extreme authoritarian control in order for this society to function. every angel is a half-step away from rebellion at all times. they have to be kept completely isolated from all outside knowledge and influences, because all it takes to lose control of an angel is one unregulated thought. a huge amount of resources are dedicated to brainwashing and torturing and reeducating stray angels, because angels are constantly deviating in ways the structure of heaven is simply not equipped to handle. it's impossible for even the most loyal angel to be absolutely loyal all of the time. and that's what's needed for the structure of heaven to function. because as soon as the ability to choose is presented to you you're already lost. so massive amounts of resources have been devoted to absolute mental control of angelkind since the beginning of time.

angels are eusocial, in that their theoretically natural state, as a species, is to be perfectly obedient members of the hive who care only for the good of the queen (god i guess in this analogy), but this is actually a very tenuous state of affairs which has to be violently maintained by those in power.

(i don't really think the process of evolution can be meaningfully said to apply to angels since they don't really reproduce, so the metaphor only goes so far, but i do enjoy it.)

(also something something godstiel is the worker bee who becomes reproductively viable since the original queen is gone but then just becomes queen instead.)

(actually if you really wanted to you could argue that angels are sort of literally eusocial, with most angels functionally sterile (unable to create other angelic beings) and only god (and potentially the archangels) able to reproduce. except of course regular angels can reproduce, they can make nephilim, but this is forbidden and prevented via violence. like if you want to just talk about literal reproductive capacity. you could even consider amara a rival queen who lost the battle for dominance.)

from this post by @castielcommunism:

heaven’s party line, so to speak, is that angels are inherently obedient, and any deviation from that norm means they are broken and diseased. it has to be something biological inside them that’s malfunctioning, because framing rebellion in any other way (especially something that angels choose to do) means that maybe angelic nature isn’t so natural after all.

anyway. when honey cas sort of implicitly draws the analogy between bees and angels, there's a lot of things going on in his head. he's wishing to go back to a prelapsarian state before choices when he was simply a worker so that he can be absolved of agency, and he's wishing to return to the hive, and he's wishing to return to what he believes is his natural state. but he's also accidentally revealing the nature of heaven: obedience is not actually natural to angels. they have to be forcibly controlled.

Wasp fun facts!

Most commonly known wasps are ‘social wasps’ of the family Vespidae, which is a eusocial group that lives together in a hive. Like bees!

Like bees, ants, and other members of the Hymenoptera order, these ‘social wasps’ are haplodiploids, which means that their sex is determined by whether or not the egg they hatched from was fertilized. (this means that males have half the chromosomes that females do. cool!)

HOWEVER: A lot of wasp species are actually solitary, and each adult female will live her own live and do her own thing.

In most species, these females will have an ‘ovipositor’, which does exactly what it sounds like: it deposits eggs. It’s basically dick for wasp girls, except it isn’t, actually, it just looks like one.

In the subclade Aculeata, this ‘ovipositor’ (LOVE that name btw) also serves as the insect’s stinger.Some species’ Ovipositors will partially retract while not in use. I find that cool and silly.

For some parasitic species, the ovipositor is actually a piercing organ, not just a plain old egg layer. NOT IN A SEX WAY. In a ‘laying my eggs inside another insect so when they hatch they can consume it from the inside out’ way. 

Moving on from wasp dicks...

Our oldest fossil records of wasps date back to the jurassic period. That’s about 145 MILLION YEARS AGO. these things are old.

Also, ‘Wasp’ is not a distinct clade (all of the descendants of one common ancestor). This is because Bees and Ants actually evolved from the same ancestor as wasps did, and that makes it impossible to make a clade that contains every wasp and no bees or ants. 

There are more than a hundred thousand known species of wasp globally.

--- --- ---

I think that’s enough wasp facts for one post! I’ll follow this post up with some more facts about wasps. Either specific species, or something else, we’ll get there when we get there.

(Ps: most of this info is literally just the Wikipedia page for wasps, summarized in my own incredibly informal and possibly misleading words. If something I said sounds weird in any way, I advise you check for yourself. Also please be aware that I’m the only one calling them wasp dicks, that’s not a scientifically correct term.)

It's so fucking funny and infuriating when people claim wasps are useless and serve no purpose like they legitimately believe that wasps spent the entire history of the universe evolving for the sole purpose of annoying them. It is so clear these people have never interacted with native plants.

Sarcasm: spongebob narrator voice: Ah yes. Ze wasp (of which there is definitely only one species called Evil Stinging Bastard). So useless. Does nothing except plot all day and night to scare people by existing. So evil. So useless. Definitely does not play any ecological role. End sarcasm.

Image description start period a square cropped photo of a black and red Mason wasp perched on an immature yellow passionflower fruit. It is a small wasp with a black body with thick red stripes, and purple and red iridescent wings timer with red antenna fading to black period on the wasps Thorax and wing joints and somr of its head is bright yellow pollen stuck to it. Image description end.]

These little cute red and black Mason wasps are probably the only reason we have any fruit on this yellow passionflower vine. Every time I see the flowers being pollinated it is a black and red mason wasp doing the pollinating.

This one here is a male, not that you can tell in this picture, but the males have weight spots on their faces which I just think is cute.

When I actually get around to uploading the video this is from YouTube I will edit this post and link it here. It's July 19th 2023, so if you're Reading this person like August 2023 refresh the original post and get the link because I should have uploaded it to YouTube by then. And then you'll get to see the carpenter bee pollinating the purple passion flower right next to this plant and also a cool spider and the winger ants (??) It caught and also baby...wheelbugs? I think they're wheelbugs... There's some kind of bug with a capital B. They as adults will stick their proposes into the ripe yellow passion flower and suck out all the juice like it's a juice box. Which I know because I saw one do it last year. And then we get to collect the seeds of the passionfruit lol.

This year though we will be putting some of the fruit in organza bags so that we can actually see what it tastes like.

Update: well. It's November 11th now, lol, here's the video link finally.

2023 Reading Log, pt 5

Is it obvious that my local library has lots of books about birds?

21. Penguins and Other Seabirds by Matt Sewell. This is a small book, hardcover, with color paintings of fifty seabirds and short informational blurbs about each. The blurbs are a combination of science and poetic writing, and are often anthropomorphic and occasionally judgmental (it’s okay gulls. I don’t hate you). The book is cute, but very short and faintly disposable. It feels like a gift book you get someone who you don’t know very well, but you do know likes penguins. Suitable for a bird-themed bathroom reader.

22. The Complete Language of Food by S. Theresa Dietz. This book baffles me; it feels like it was written by a space alien, or possibly a Dan Brown character. The “language” the title refers to is both symbolic and magical, and each of the foods is granted a laundry list of things it could possibly represent in a reference or a spell. These lists are sometimes nonsensical (or am I the asshole because I don’t know what “colorize” means in the context of magic?). Each entry is marked with symbols to tell if the plant has poisonous parts, or medicinal use, but said toxins and/or medicines may or may not be referred to in the actual text! The main text itself combines world cultural lore, magic and folklore, and recipe ideas in a seemingly random assortment. The book at least looks nice—good paper quality and color illustrations—and it actually has a bibliography. So it’s getting at least some of these ideas from somewhere. I am really confused as to the target audience, and what they’d hope to get out of it. I don’t think this book is for me. Although there’s at least two other entries in the series, so there is an audience out there.

23. Endless Forms: The Secret World of Wasps by Seiran Summer. This book aims to give wasps a reputation boost from “the insects that are assholes” (thanks to @screamscenepodcast for that excellent summary of the popular culture view of wasps) to the vital part they play in ecology, our understanding of evolution, and the services they provide to humans. The book talks about the evolution of the Hymenoptera, and how both bees and ants are really just subdivisions of wasps that evolved in specialized directions. It covers some of the great naturalist observers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, like Fabre, and discusses what they got right, what they got wrong, and what we still don’t know. And in a very amusing change of pace, it frames the comparisons and contrasts between social wasps and honey bees as a drunken dinner conversation with a resurrected Aristotle. It even brings up The Wasp Woman! If you can’t tell, I really liked this book.

24. Over My Dead Body by Greg Melville. This is a history of the United  States as seen through its cemeteries. The author is a big fan of graveyards, and each of the chapters is bookended with his personal experience of a visit, then talking about the history of the place and how it ties into greater themes in American history. Themes like colonialism, racism and segregation, the military industrial complex and the death industrial complex. The author blurb makes sure to point out that Melville is a “decorated veteran”, but any worries that this book was going to be jingoistic are dispelled basically immediately. He refers to Arlington National Cemetery, for example, as a beautiful, profoundly sad monument to the American god of death. I got this from the library, but I’m buying a copy for my mom for Mother’s Day. Because she likes cemeteries, not as some sort of weird threat.

25. Water Babies: The Hidden Lives of Baby Wetland Birds by William Burt. This is a photography book covering a hard-to-photograph subject. Baby water birds, including ducks, herons, terns, sandpipers and coots. The book is sorted roughly by taxonomic group, with pictures of each the juveniles and adult of each species, along with some commentary about the animal or the process of finding and photographing it. The book has a great sense of pacing—it’s arranged in a way that immediately hooks the reader (with grebe chicks, which are super cute and ride on their parents’ backs), and photos are arranged in space to allow for artistically pleasing contrasts (like turning the page from the scruffy chick of the purple gallinule to see the magnificent adult plumage).

Wait, tell us some ant facts.

Ugh, very well.

Ants are a clade of highly specialized wingless (except for reproductives) wasps, that unlike other hymenopterans (bees, wasps and sawflies), always live in eusocial colonies of dozens to billions of individuals.

Ants, like the convergently evolved but unrelated termites (order Blattodea), are often divided into differentiated castes depending on the needs of the colony. One or more queens will produce eggs throughout their lifetimes that are raised into workers, soldiers (also called majors, or the even larger supermajors of the genera Pogomyrmex and Phidole) or male and female reproductives (also called alates.)

An ant colony, like all eusocial societies, is not driven by a "united consciousness" or "hivemind" (an invention of science fiction that does not occur in nature) but by sophisticated dynamics of need, supply, acquisition and expansion. Ants use their individual judgement to "vote" for the colony to perform certain actions. An ant who assesses that a certain action would benefit the colony recruits other ants to join her until the colony as a whole makes a choice.

Despite the idea in pop culture that ants are endlessly driven to work until they die, ants actually spend much of their time idle, working in organized shifts according to the needs of the colony.

Mortally wounded ants will refuse care from their sisters so they will favor ants with higher chances of survival.

MARSH MARIGOLD, JULY

During todays dog walk I spotted a small bush of yellow flowers I couldn’t identify by eye, seen below:

After using the Seek app and Wild Flower Guide, I confirmed it was a marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), so named because it has evolved to grows in places with oxygen-rich water near the surface of the soil such as marshes, ponds, damp meadows, ditches, and wet woodlands. However, unlike its name it is not in fact related to (or look like) the marigolds, but is actually in the buttercup family. The common marsh marigold is planted as an ornamental in my parts of the world, and is considered a low-maintenance flower for wildlife gardens. It is also an edible plant (when cooked properly), with the spring greens, buds and leaves bring used by boiling, cut, salted and seared with melted butter and vinegar. The young flowerbeds can also be prepared as a spice.

As marsh marigolds are one of the earliest flowers to bloom in the springtime, they attract a lot of pollen- and nectar-eating insects like bees and flies. The mature seeds are also enjoyed by several bird and rodent species, and they provide pond-side shelter for frogs! In western Europe a moth called unsurprisingly the marsh-marigold moth bites the anthers open to eat the pollen, while their caterpillars also feed on the flower in the summer and autumn. Not all animals enjoy them though, and they are used as squirrel-repelling flowers in vegetable gardens, due to their strong aroma. 

Mash marigolds rely on pollinators as they are infertile when self-pollinated. Therefore, they product copious amounts of both nectar and pollen to attract visitor. In Canada they are pollinated by several species of beetle, thrip, bug, butterfly, sawfly, bee, fly and ant. As well as all thse, the plant is also adapted to rain-pollination. Here in the UK they are pollinated by bees, butterflies and flys. In fact I caught one particular species in the act:

Pictures above is a female of a European species of hoverfly (Eristalis intricaria) which mimics the furry bee in colour and shape. This is known as Batesian mimicry, which is when members of a palatable species gain protection from predation by resembling or mimicking the defensive signalling of an unpalatable, defended species. Thus, they mimic bees and wasps, two insects that can sting as well as tasting unpleasant to predators. These guys, like the marsh marigold, favour marshlands and woodlands, where they can hover over flowers (hence their name) and feed on the nectar and pollen. As well as pollinating they are also considered an important economical and ecological predator even in their larval stage by eating aphids and leaf-hoppers, both major crop-pests that spread diseases such as curly top. So, next time you see a overfly buzzing around, don’t swat it, praise it!

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantum of Solace's arrival on Disney Plus is a query we predict lots of people will likely be curious to know. Nicely, individuals all the time need to know when the newest Marvel film is coming to Mouse's streaming service, however this time — very like Ant-Man — is just a little totally different.Important response up to now, even our personal Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania overview, has been much less constructive than common. Proper now, Ant-Man 3's Rotten Tomatoes rating is a lowly 53%. (opens in new tab) — which fakes that ugly inexperienced splatter graphic.After all, the Marvel motion pictures will be critic-proof, as those that observe the collection will certainly need to see Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) battle Kang the Conqueror (Jonathan Majors), particularly because the villain can have an enormous position within the upcoming Marvel motion pictures. There may be actually an Avengers film referred to as The Kang Dynasty.In truth, Kang hype continued to develop because the summer time of 2021, when the Kang variant He Who Stays (additionally Majors) Loki appeared within the finals. All of those lackluster evaluations and hype, nevertheless, imply that some individuals will in all probability run into the film second-guessing. Others, although, will in all probability need to rewatch Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania on Disney Plus, so they do not should spend the total ticket worth to see it once more. For these people, we will break down all the small print on when to anticipate to see Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania on Disney Plus — utilizing the previous as a information.Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania has a month-long Disney Plus launch windowUsually, many motion pictures take about 45 days to go from theaters to streaming providers. That is evolving, although. Whereas The Batman on HBO Max had such a good window, High Gun: Maverick had a theatrical date 209 days after its Paramount Plus launch. That movie, although, is extra of an outlier than something. So for now, let's deal with the Disney (and never Sony + Disney, so Spider-Man: No Means Residence) Marvel motion pictures that hit theaters earlier than streaming.The story famously started when Disney CEO Bob Chapek mentioned Shang-Chi would have a 45-day theatrical exclusivity window as "an fascinating experiment". Star Simu Liu gave just a little shake to excite the gang, to tweet (opens in new tab) "We aren't an experiment. We're the underdog; the underrated. We're the ceiling-breakers. We're the celebration of tradition and pleasure that can endure after a conflicted yr. We're the surprise. *To make historical past..."After which, as you may see on this chart, Shang-Chi took 70 days to achieve Disney Plus:Swipe to scroll horizontallyEarlier Marvel Film Disney Plus Launch DatesTitle, (Theatrical Date)Disney Plus DatesDays earlier than Disney PlusWorld Field WorkplaceShang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (September 3, 2021)Friday, November 12, 202170$432 million USDEverlasting (November 5, 2021)Wednesday, January 12, 202368$402 million USDPhysician Unusual within the Multiverse of Insanity (Might 6, 2023)Wednesday, June 22, 202347$952 million USDThor: Love and Thunder (July 8, 2023)Thursday, September 8, 202360$760 million USDBlack Panther: Wakanda Endlessly (November 11, 2023)Wednesday, February 1, 202382$855 million USDGreatest case state of affairs for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantum of Solace Disney Plus launch dateWanting by means of the information above, you may see two tendencies: Disney appears to favor Wednesdays, and it usually drops Marvel motion pictures on Disney Plus inside 60 to 70 days of launch. Curiously, there isn't a longer a wait for large field workplace numbers (which one would anticipate).However this historical past of Disney Plus launch dates, it appears Wednesday, April 5, 2023, is the very best Disney Plus launch date for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantum Mania. Why? It is the primary Wednesday,

about 45 or so (technically 47) days after Quantummania's February 17, 2023 theater date. That mentioned, Disney cannot bear in mind Disney Plus demand With Quantummania in April, The Mandalorian Season 3 will nonetheless air that month. Though it's unknown when the season will finish.Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania on Disney Plus - Worst case state of affairsAfter all, Wakanda Endlessly proved that Disney was keen to attend. On this occasion, although, it may very well be attributed to the corporate desirous to launch the film on-line in February as Black Historical past Month.If, for some purpose, Disney decides to take the lengthy route, we may very well be ready 82 days for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania on Disney Plus, with a worst-case state of affairs of Wednesday, Might 10, 2023.Early home field workplace estimates (opens in new tab) As for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania under the aforementioned Black Panther, Physician Unusual, and Thor sequels, we're not feeling obsessed with choosing up the lengthy finish of the Disney Plus date.Outlook: When We Suppose Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantummania Hits Disney PlusIf I needed to choose a date I really feel assured based mostly on all the above, I would say I would anticipate Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania on Disney Plus from April 28, 2023. This will likely be just a little after The Mandalorian Season 3 ends, and it is 70 days after the film's launch, which is true within the candy spot the place Disney Plus normally places Marvel motion pictures.Immediately's Greatest Disney Plus Offers (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab)

Avengers: Secret Wars' Logo May Secretly Hint At Doctor Doom

Avengers: Secret Wars' Logo May Secretly Hint At Doctor Doom

From the colors to the subject matter, it seems pretty likely that the MCU will finally bring in one of Marvel’s most important and powerful villains.

In examining the logo for Avengers: Secret Wars it could actually be pointing to the impending introduction of Doctor Doom. The film will be the big culmination of the Multiverse Saga that first began with WandaVision and has evolved gradually over the subsequent films, television shows, and holiday specials. The Saga’s main villain has finally taken center stage with the debut of Jonathan Major’s Kang the Conqueror in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. While there were some speculation that he won’t be this Saga’s Thanos, the announcement of Avengers: The Kang Dynasty has seemingly confirmed such.

Meanwhile, fans have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of Doctor Doom, arguably Marvel’s best and most consistently important villain in the comics. Given his history with heroes from the likes of Fantastic Four and Black Panther to Doctor Strange and the X-Men, Doctor Doom must play a big role in the MCU. Some expected Doom to debut in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever to no avail, and of course, with Fantastic Four coming in Phase 6, his chances seem likely. Marvel’s plans for the Multiverse Saga and beyond might be subtly telegraphing his eventual introduction and reign of terror.

The MCU is known for not doing things by coincidence and so it’s notable that the white and silver of the Avengers: Secret Wars logo harkens back to God Emperor Doom. This comes from the 2015 Secret Wars event in which Doctor Doom stole the power of the nigh-omnipotent Beyonders, and he recreated the multiverse as his own version of the Battleworld. Interestingly, there’s notable cause to see this logo as a tease for Doctor Doom beyond his integral nature in the source material. It’s predecessor Avengers: The Kang Dynasty is color-coded with Kang’s blue and purple, so this could signal to Doctor Doom’s introduction after the Avengers defeat Kang.

There are other upcoming notions of the logo’s pointing to key characters and story elements. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is seemingly coded to Rocket’s color scheme, possibly signaling this is the full culmination of his arc that started in Guardians of the Galaxy - the trailer certainly suggests as much. Additionally, Agatha: Coven of Chaos’ is the same color as Agatha’s unique magic as Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness was to Scarlet Witch, portending her turn to a villain.

Will Doctor Doom Be The REAL Main Villain Of The Multiverse Saga?

Doctor Doom and Kang the Conqueror

All the signs thus far are otherwise pointing to Kang being the Multiverse Saga’s big bad, not Doctor Doom, even after Avengers: The Kang Dynasty. From the introduction of He Who Remains in Loki, he has been synonymous with the impending multiversal war, so Kang should be Avengers: Secret Wars’ villain. This could mean they’ll draw from Doctor Doom’s arc so Kang becomes God Emperor Kang instead and provide a strong end to his tenure in the MCU. Such wouldn’t limit Doctor Doom’s introduction, though, but in the current contexts of the Multiverse Saga, it wouldn’t make sense for him to be the final boss already."

Plainly, it would feel quite rushed to jump right to God Emperor Doom in Avengers: Secret Wars. That’s Doom’s strongest version, so there’s not much they could do after that for the character without falling victim to extreme expectations. Doom’s such an important character that he’d need to operate similarly to Loki, a recurring antagonist they can explore as both a villain and an anti-hero. In fact, Doctor Doom could be introduced as a hero, working alongside the Avengers and Fantastic Four to oppose Kang in Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and Avengers: Secret Wars.

Frankly, the MCU does need to introduce Doom sooner rather than later, nevertheless, to avoid a situation like with Adam Warlock being left out of the Infinity Saga. Doctor Doom is integral to this storyline and his role can’t be ignored, but in light of the reality, it must be changed to better fit the brief. This way they can set him up for bigger things in the next Saga in which his rivals the Fantastic Four will surely be key players in too. All in all, it can’t be expected that Doctor Doom will be the real villain this early in Avengers: Secret Wars, but he surely must be soon after."

Anyway while we're on the subject of public misconception towards living things (which is completely understandable because have you SEEN living things? There's like dozens of them!) here's a fresh rundown of some common mistakes about bugs!

Arachnids aren't just spiders! They're also scorpions, mites, ticks and some real weirdos out there

Insects with wings are always finished growing! Wings are the last new thing they ever develop! There can never be a "baby bee" that's just a smaller bee flying around.

That said, not all insects have larvae! Many older insect groups do look like little versions of adults....but the wings rule still applies.

Insects do have brains! Lobes and everything!

Only the Hymenoptera (bees, ants and wasps) have stingers like that.

Not all bees and wasps live in colonies with queens

The only non-hymenoptera with queens are termites, which is convergent evolution, because termites are a type of cockroach!

There are still other insects with colonial lifestyles to various degrees which can include special reproductive castes, just not the whole "queen" setup.

Even ants still deviate from that; there are multi-queen ant species, some species where the whole colony is just females who clone themselves and other outliers

There is no "hive mind;" social insects coordinate no differently from schools of fish, flocks of birds, or for that matter crowds of humans! They're just following the same signals together and communicating to each other!

Not all mosquito species carry disease, and not all of them bite people

Mosquitoes ARE ecologically very important and nobody in science ever actually said otherwise

The bite of a black widow is so rarely deadly that the United States doesn't bother stocking antivenin despite hundreds of reported bites per year. It just feels really really bad and they give you painkillers.

Recluse venom does damage skin, but only in the tiny area surrounding the bite. More serious cases are due to this dead skin inviting bacterial infection, and in fact our hospitals don't carry recluse antivenin either; they just prescribe powerful antibiotics, which has been fully effective at treating confirmed bites.

Bed bugs are real actual specific insects

"Cooties" basically are, too; it's old slang for lice

Crane flies aren't "mosquito hawks;" they actually don't eat at all!

Hobo spiders aren't really found to have a dangerous bite, leaving only widows and recluses as North America's "medically significant" spiders

Domestic honeybees actually kill far more people than hornets, including everywhere the giant "murder" hornet naturally occurs.

Wasps are only "less efficient" pollinators in that less pollen sticks to them per wasp. They are still absolutely critical pollinators and many flowers are pollinated by wasps exclusively.

Flies are also as important or more important to pollination than bees.

For "per insect" pollination efficiency it's now believed that moths also beat bees

Honeybees are non-native to most of the world and not great for the local ecosystem, they're just essential to us and our food industry

Getting a botfly is unpleasant and can become painful, but they aren't actually dangerous and they don't eat your flesh; they essentially push the flesh out of the way to create a chamber and they feed on fluids your immune system keeps making in response to the intrusion. They also keep this chamber free of bacterial infection because that would harm them too!

Botflies also exist in most parts of the world, but only one species specializes partially in humans (and primates in general, but can make do with a few other hosts)

"Kissing bugs" are a group of a couple unusual species of assassin bug. Only the kissing bugs evolved to feed on blood; other assassin bugs just eat other insects.

my mom recently read in a novel that some larger praying mantis species have been known to kill and eat hummingbirds. I know about bird-eating tarantulas, but I was curious if you knew of other insects who prey on birds, mammals, etc.? I know most will scavenge anything, but what abt critters who hunt? the idea of insects who hunt large prey is fascinating to me

large generalist predatory insects like mantises and katydids predominantly eat other insects, but the majority of the vertebrate prey they take is probably frogs and lizards, and typically ones smaller than themselves. hummingbirds might not be too representative of typical vertebrate prey because (I believe I heard a mantis researcher say) their metabolism is so tightly wound that the stress of being caught is enough to kill them, and all the mantis has to do is hang on, which they definitely can do. still, vertebrate predation is pretty impressive for orthopterans and mantodeans, since they’ve got to do it all without venom!

army ants of various types are also famous for their ability to catch vertebrates, but most army ants are actually specialists on other social insects (ants, wasps, termites), and the few generalist predator army ants still predominantly prey on invertebrates (and don’t skeletonize cows and horses like they do in cartoons).

diving beetles will hunt fish and aquatic amphibians—there’s a reason their larvae are called “water tigers!” belostomatid water bugs are probably the most impressive aquatic vertebrate-eaters though, and use powerful venom to subdue surprisingly large fish, tadpoles, and even other vertebrates:

outside of insects, there’s a lot of spiders that can feed on herptiles, either by overpowering them with strength like huntsmen and tarantulas, or by snaring them in webs like widows, the most successful snake eaters:

plus, there’s always the famous Nephila orbweavers whose sturdy webs can catch avian prey, but this is probably a fairly rare occurrence.

going over to centipedes, giant scolopendrids are quite successful predators of vertebrates, with any species large enough likely preying on herptiles, and occasionally on some far larger than they are!

Scolopendra venom is evolved to take down large prey, so it’s no surprise they’re some of the most prolific vertebrate-eaters in the arthropod world. some very large Scolopendra (gigantea, maybe galapagoensis, viridicornis, heros) will hunt bats, sometimes by hanging to catch them in flight. other predation on mammals and birds seems to occur opportunistically, especially where the prey is helpless: S. galapagoensis was recorded feeding on baby rodents in the Galapagos; other island species like Cormocephalus coynei will feed on seabird chicks (enough with the “fluffy” avian favoritism, Nature! ‘pedes gotta eat).

oh, speaking of nestling-devouring, there’s also some freaky observations of slugs munching on soft mushy songbird babies! someone on Twitter had their nest camera record some chicks getting eaten by a large Carabus ground beetle, but I can’t find it again.

but I think the most shocking example of vertebrate predation by an invertebrate is probably Epomis, another ground beetle. as larvae, they feed on frogs far larger than they are by letting themselves get attacked, latching onto the would-be predator, and munching on it until it perishes. adult beetles also prey on amphibians, but just run them down instead of luring prey.

(there’s also video of the adult beetles preying on frogs, but they seem to all be stolen by some weird content scraper YT channels, so I’ll not post them here.)

let me know if I missed any good examples of vertebrate predation by bugs!

Ten Must Watch Movies In 2022

Twenty years ago, only a choose few had the chance to watch Abonnement iptv smarters on a Tv display screen in their own home. Now, with more folks than ever earlier than owning a tv set and streaming providers like Netflix and Hulu, the idea of watching motion pictures has evolved into something much simpler - looking up your favorite movie on your phone or pc and watching it while you are on the go.

Ten Must Watch Movies in 2022

In 2022, there are numerous must watch films that you need to make time for. Here are ten of the very best movies to watch in 2022: 1. "Black Panther" 2. "A Star is Born" 3. "The Meg" 4. "Mission: Impossible - Fallout" 5. "Dunkirk" 6. "Pacific Rim Uprising" 7. "Deadpool 2" 8. "A Quiet Place" 9. "Ant-Man and the Wasp" 10. "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse"

What are the best Movies?

One in all the nice issues about films is that they can be enjoyed by everyone. Whether you are a film buff or you just get pleasure from a good story, there are positive to be some nice films on the market that you will love. Here are ten should watch movies which might be certain to please everyone.

Why watch movies?

Watching films is one of the vital pleasurable issues you can do. It is usually a way to escape from actuality, to find out about totally different cultures, and to explore your own emotions. There are numerous reasons to watch films. Here are ten must watch films: 1. The Godfather 2. The Shawshank Redemption 3. The Dark Knight 4. Forrest Gump 5. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 6. Star Wars: Episode IV – A new Hope 7. Avatar 8. Titanic 9. The Silence of the Lambs 10. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone

The Tale of Two Cities (2002)

Released in 2002, The Tale of Two Cities is one of the vital properly-recognized and acclaimed films of all time. The film tells the story of two very totally different people – Charles Dickens and Madame de Montespan – during the French Revolution. The movie is filled with motion, drama, and suspense, and it is sure to maintain you entertained from beginning to end. Whether you're a fan of traditional movies or you're simply searching for a good film to look at on a rainy day, The Tale of Two Cities is unquestionably value trying out.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Blade Runner 2049 is a must-watch film that is ready sooner or later and centres round a seek for a brand new blade runner. The film is an intense and gripping watch that may depart you wanting extra. 10. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 9. The Godfather (1972) 8. Forrest Gump (1994) 7. Star Wars: Episode IV – A brand new Hope (1977) 6. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 5. Saving Private Ryan (1998) 4. Jurassic Park (1993) 3. Die Hard (1988) 2. Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 1. Blade Runner 2049

A Star Is Born (2018)

If you are a fan of basic Hollywood motion pictures, then you definately want to observe A Star Is Born. This film is based on the traditional story of a younger actress who falls in love with a famous star. A Star Is Born is a phenomenal and heartwarming movie that may contact your coronary heart. It is also probably the most critically acclaimed movies of 2018. If you're in search of a movie to watch this weekend, A Star Is Born is unquestionably a must-watch!

Raising Arizona (1987)

Raising Arizona is a hilarious and touching film that tells the story of two siblings who are compelled to flee their home in Arizona after their parents are murdered. They find yourself in New York City, where they should discover a brand new life. The film is stuffed with humor and coronary heart, and it is bound to entertain viewers of all ages. It is top-of-the-line movies ever made, and it is unquestionably price watching. If you have not seen Raising Arizona yet, it's best to positively add it to your listing of movies to watch. It is out there on DVD and Blu-ray, so you'll be able to enjoy it at home or on the go.

La La Land (2016)

There is no denying that 2016 was a giant 12 months for movies. From blockbusters like Rogue One: A Star Wars Story and Suicide Squad to critically acclaimed films like Moonlight and Manchester by the Sea, there was one thing for everybody to look at. Here are ten of the must watch films from 2016: 1. La La Land 2. Hail Caesar! 3. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 4. The Birth of a Nation 5. Arrival 6. Hacksaw Ridge 7. Doctor Strange 8. Fences 9. Hell or High Water 10. Manchester by the Sea

Logan (2017)

Logan is a dark and violent movie that can leave you feeling disturbed and anxious. It is not for the faint of heart, but it is an absolute must-watch. In case you are on the lookout for a movie that can make you're feeling all sorts of emotions, then Logan is the movie for you. The story follows a disfigured mutant named Logan who is pressured to cover from the government and protect a young lady named X-23. Logan is an intense and gripping film that can leave you left on the edge of your seat. You won’t have the ability to cease watching it till the very finish.

Top ten large bugs

That is a very hard question! The Ants of North America (written by Douglas M. Wrights and illustrated by Roger H. Smith) gets the highest rating from people who've read it -- a good illustration of the point that we often have limited, if any, knowledge about what things are "for". (Even if we take things like "to keep my ants warm in winter", "to help move my car up the incline", etc., as having a specific, "real," "instrumental" function, we still don't know what that function is!)

My favorites? The cockroach in the photo below, which has a sort of elegant simplicity, even though it is a complicated little critter. And the tarantula hawk wasp, which strikes me as being "scary" in the same way "spooky," which is not the same as "terrifying."

Of bugs that are "merely" large, there's the harvester ant, who seems to be a perfectly functional animal in itself -- they have their own food and nest and so on -- and has only a few simple, neat adaptations: their eyes are arranged to have a good field of vision in all directions, their mandibles are big enough to be used like arms, their antennae look like the legs of an insect instead of legs fused to the head, and their jaws are strong enough to bite open palm-sized prey. That's a fun sort of small-scale, low-level functionality. (There's probably a point about the difference between an animal that evolved by incremental change and one that didn't, but you get the idea.)

I like all sorts of very big things. Here's one that I think is especially aesthetically appealing:

The dragonfly. It's the biggest bug in Entire Species Catalogue, A Scientific Guide to the Insects of America and the World, by Brian Gratwicke. It's got a beautiful, dragonlike head with a long, "wavy" crest, and two large front legs, and it looks like a great example of "cuteness with menace." But the dragonfly has a very simple and elegant life cycle: it hatches from an egg, grows larger and larger as it matures, eats a few times while it develops, and eventually becomes a mature adult with very complex internal organs and several pairs of long, "hair-like" legs with very sharp claws, and flies away to mate and lay eggs, which it does (with the help of its long legs).

(I was going to do a post on dragonflies here but I don't think I can put together a complete picture without a much larger, longer post than is currently allowed on my blog.)

I guess there are other really big things which don't make much aesthetic sense to me. Like the snake or the lionfish -- I kind of like the snake but the lionfish is just "wow, that is really big, like, a lot of big." It has these weird pouches and it looks like it could kill you or something but also it just looks like it's in your way?

The Ants of North America is very big and its main function is "be funny," but I also appreciate it for being a real life form, that is, an actual animal with its own distinctive, unique, life cycle.

I've actually speculated that alot of the weirdness in troll biology might have have been quirks from evolving from some kind of eusocial insect-like species like bees, similar to how many weird quirks are in our biology from out evolution from mammals and primates specifically. It would then make sense why for instance there's distinct sexes despite that not being relevant in troll reproduction, different roles in a colony like workers drones queens etc in bees and ants.

Perhaps then the mother grub is the "Queen" in this analogy that evolved radically different as the species evolved (perhaps the hatching of a mother grub would be different from the process which hatches trolls in normal circumstances, or it always requires the death of the previous mother grub?) and different blood colors would also be from basic diversity of environment like if a single colony ended up absorbing every other one and folding them all into its own structure

I've been convinced to compare them more to termites from the content I've seen. Definitely eusocial imo, just have grown to ignore some of their instincts like humans did with the rise of civilization

I like your theories :D

My running theory is something akin to the relationship a parasitic wasp species has with a caterpillar species where the caterpillar ends up becoming motherly and protective of the hatched wasps while they pupate and ends up dying of starvation fending off the wasps's predators, but artificially modified to turn it into symbiosis. I've got more than a few posts theorizing about lusii and the mothergrub, I'm fascinated by the topic