←back to thread

Size of Life

(neal.fun)
2530 points eatonphil | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.194s | source | bottom
1. SubiculumCode ◴[] No.46220702[source]
Why haven't I seen a Tardigrade with my eyeball? It seems like they are the size of a spot on a ladybug from the pics.
replies(2): >>46221379 #>>46231268 #
2. LeifCarrotson ◴[] No.46221379[source]
Because you clearly haven't spent enough time closely looking at pond and river water!

Our local parks department has several annual events where they ask for volunteers to help perform benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. It basically amounts to meeting up at a local park with a couple people in waders dragging special nets along the bottom, dumping scoops of material into buckets and large, shallow, white trays, and others sitting at picnic tables with spoons, magnifying glasses, and muffin tins sorting out the critters that get caught in the nets.

The cool part is that at the end, you can score the creek based on the quantity and types of larvae that you find: Caddisfly, mayfly, and stonefly larvae are very sensitive to factors like runoff from agriculture and road salt, sediment, water oxygenation, and other factors, beetles, crayfish, dragonflies, and scuds are moderately tolerant, while leeches, worms, midges, and flies will grow in anything. Thousands of these surveys happen every year, so you can compare the relative frequency and quantity of various species and determine the relative health of the stream.

I don't know how many tardigrades you'll find just scooping 4-8mm nymphs and larvae by eye, but I've brought my microscope to a couple and put random droplets of water under a cover and slide: there are an astonishing number of tiny critters swimming around at any zoom level.

replies(2): >>46222255 #>>46226471 #
3. HelloUsername ◴[] No.46222255[source]
You have seen a tardigrade with the naked eye (without microscope), that's as large as a spot on a ladybug?
replies(1): >>46226026 #
4. LeifCarrotson ◴[] No.46226026{3}[source]
No, sorry if that wasn't clear, I've not identified one by eye without a scope. Maybe your fine vision is better than mine, but all the tiniest things in a drop of water are just about indistinguishable without magnification. The kinds of water that have sufficient density to contain a tardigrade just look like they're full of grit, I don't think you could identify which speck was a tardigrade and which was just dirt.

Nymphs are larger (that's why they call them "macro" invertebrates), but it's always good to have at least a magnifying glass if not a loupe or microscope on site.

replies(1): >>46229910 #
5. myself248 ◴[] No.46226471[source]
Do you set aside the tasty-looking ones and wrap it up with a seafood boil?
6. isametry ◴[] No.46229910{4}[source]
As a non-native speaker, TIL that "magnifying glass" and "loupe" are not synonyms. According to Wikipedia:

> [Loupes] generally have higher magnification than a magnifying glass, and are designed to be held or worn close to the eye.

7. rsynnott ◴[] No.46231268[source]
The spot on the ladybug is black against red, usually (there are many varieties); it's very conveniently highlighted. We're better at seeing "bold colour on bold colour" than "semi-translucent thing in water".