Planet Four Talk

Landscape and Spider Morphology.

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    I'm convinced that a 'spider classification scheme' (SCS) would be a useful addition to the citizen-scientist toolbox. If such a scheme already exists I'd be very interested in knowing about it. If no such scheme exists, you saw it here first. As you'll see in a moment, it's very small, but it's a start.

    What I'd like to discuss with you here is in the title of the post and the question came to me as I was mulling over the theory of spider formation. It struck me that the theory explains well enough (for this discussion at least) the processes involved in spider formation, but it has little if anything to say about how and why some spiders are well-defined individuals, some are 'holding hands' forming nets, whilst others are forming chains and grids of spiders.

    If we allow, for the moment, the idea that the process of spider formation (whatever that is), is the same for all spiders, then it might not be unreasonable to expect that all spider structures would be the same - but that is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the images. Other forces are at work here, acting on the formation process and forcing it to conform to their plans. Two candidates immediately spring to mind; the underlying topography of the martian surface, and the ice formations that cover it. (Hopefully you will add more).

    To accompany these two 'forces' I offer two classes of spiders; Cat1 True Spiders and Cat2 Grid Spiders (and hence an SCS is born). I'm suggesting here that it is topography that shapes cat1 spiders and that it is ice formations that form cat2 spiders (and combinations of factors will shape others). To illustrate my point so far, here are some images.

    Cat1: True Spiders (well defined body and legs whatever the size)
    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e2e5e2ed21240001965.jpg

    which often form into networks when they meet
    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e645e2ed211dc001437.jpg

    There are many large/small, thick/thin varieties but generally speaking, which we are right now, you can see 'spiders' - urrggghhh.

    Cat2: Grid Spiders (Spiders forming distinct threads, ropes, and chains, often strongly suggestive of grid structures)
    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e741085e2ed212400030b2.jpg

    more delicate grids may be classes of Lace Spiders (its up to you really)
    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e741035e2ed2124000307b.jpg

    Now, although I know very little about ice structures, I do know that they often have a tendency to form into hexagonal 'slabs' or 'crazy-paving' and such, especially (I think) in flat area so I instinctively lump Grid Spiders (which seem to prefer flatlands) and ice together. Likewise, as more and more images of True Spiders are collected, there is much to suggest that these critters thrive in hollows or bowls, allowing them to grow independently. Here, I suspect, topography will be the dominant shaping force.

    If nothing else, I hope you'll agree that there is a case to be made for spider classification. We can do that. Of course there is much more to be done, and I'm gonna do it. It will not only be interesting and informative (to me at least) but this avenue of interest could well prove to have some real value.

    There is also much that I need to learn and so I hope that I can get you to help me out. What do think of the basic ideas presented here? Do you see the potential value of an SCS? Your input is most welcome.

    Posted

  • Portyankina by Portyankina scientist

    Hi!

    Just a fast comment: there is multiple classifications mentioned in the scientific papers here and there. People use terms like overlaping spiders, spiders network, bulgy spiders (with thick "body" and thin legs), dendritic spiders (thin legs with multiple branching), lace terrain (channels covering the surface completely), central spiders, young spiders and so on. But there is not yet a unified and agreed-on classification. I think, before we launch the spider-marking sub-project, we'll have to come up with something... and then maybe see if it fails to classify all the existing spiders. So, go on, this would be really helpful!

    Anya
    P.S. I am so sorry, but it's 2am at my place, so I won't be able to answer you soon.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Many thanks for reply. Really helpful, you say - now that's exciting. Hope you'll be able to drop in sometime as and when (I know you're busy) but a little advice and guidance to get the project started on the best footing, with best chance of usefulness, would be most welcome. If it's got potential to be genuinely helpful I'd like to get it as right as possible early on.

    Obviously, visual ID seems to be the obvious starting point and inevitably this will generate a mass of classes. This is already happening here at Planet Four. This is why I wanted a more 'restrictive' set of classes, based on a more objective set of criteria rather than a subjective set (or is it the other way round?). If we can 'prove' my idea (if it hasn't already been proved) that 'Landscapes Make Spider Shapes', then 'Topographic' and 'Ice-Induced' are my nomination for Cat1 & Cat2.

    So, tell me please, do landscapes make spider shapes, or am I trying to help prove/disprove the idea? I've got a feeling you guys already know the answer and it would be useful to know.

    If Cat1 & Cat2 are valid we're up and running. Sub-categories would initially be based on visual ID (fat, net, rope, etc) but I would hope that the community here would help make it more 'scientific' early on. Those with knowledge of ice structures can advise us on 'which types of ice do what', hopefully sorting the nets, grids, chains and such. Likewise, the earth scientists can help out in similar fashion.

    It strikes me that everybody can play an important part in this venture. Nervous, but enthusiastic newcomers will hopefully overwhelm me with images (we all know what a spider looks like, or a chain, or a net) and they get to choose what species it is (for now). The more knowledgeable can build the subcategories (and sub-subcategories) and when the time comes you lot can identify the species. I really like the feel of that. (Baggsy having one named after me - I'll let you know what a Kitharode looks like).

    But happy feelings aren't enough, I know that. So any ideas on flaws so far, problems to anticipate, planning a strategy, do's and don't, are gonna be vital. Then, hopefully, you can get some work done elsewhere and pop in on occasion to keep me on-track.

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Hi Kith, you are trying to write a standard here, and that is a subject that I actually do know something about. First point to note is that trying to write a standard from scratch in committee, or by trying to take into account lots of different viewpoints, is a serious pain, longwinded and invariably you end up with a camel (which is a horse that's been designed by a committee). What works best is if there's already something reasonably sensible to play with that every one can Aunt Sally, knock the edges smooth and come up with a final product that will tick all the important boxes and a fair selection of the 'nice to haves'. So the suggestion is get some strong coffee, take what you've got, put it in some sort of order, maybe share with a limited audience and then put it out for wider consultation. Focus on the types of spider and don't worry about where they sit - lets do the effect bit first and get to cause later.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Most welcome input wassock - thanks. So you're suggesting I build my own scheme of classification, on my own, laying out my own ideas of this is a spider, this a chain, this is a net..... and I should leave aside 'topography' and 'ice' as categories. I understand your point about committees, and I agree, but I'm not sure about building something meaningful and useful on my own.

    Even with a limited number of spiders collected I'm already awash with category titles. That's why I was looking for some mechanism other than/in addition to visual id, to try and get a start. My feeling was that Cat2 (Ice) would be primarily threads, chains, grids, etc., and Cat1 (Topo) would hold the 'pure spiders', twins, networks, etc. If the science team tells me that this is a well known fact because Topo & Ice (off x-factor?) do indeed categorise spider formations, then I'd be loathe not to use those categories. On the other hand, if all that's available is 'Kitharode thinks that ice made that one, but it might not have', then I guess the starting point needs to be a test of that statement. If that's the case, what I'd actually be doing is a 'tidy-up'/editing job on the hordes of existing titles (free example image with each one - get yours now).

    You say do effect first, cause later - fair point. But I think cause might be known - need an answer from the scientists to sort that.
    What's a limited audience? A few personal messages, this post, other?

    This has been most useful to me and I'm glad you spoke up. I haven't forgotten that writing a standard (is that really what I'm doing?) is something you know lots about. Bad move my friend. Whad'ya know, c'mon spit it out, tell me, we can do this the hard way if you want.......Cheers for now.

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    What you come up with doesn't have to be perfick, just a reasonably solid place to start, otherwise you will start from a position which has 20 descriptives for each image - If you present one then for the most part the consensus will be that others can live with your proposal - otherwise you'll have to put "isolated spider or isolate spider" to the vote for each classification. Key point make sure you are clear at the outset what you are trying to achieve and if you find vyour self wandering off check where your are against that original aim - I would'nt try to pigeon hole every image you can find, better to have an odds and sods box rather than spend a lot of time trying to categorise something which may be a one off

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Point about cause nand effect is that we can see the effect but only speculate on effect and the images themselves don't tell us much about what the ground is actually like - thongs like altitude, latitude, degree of slope and what the surface is made of will all be factors in "cause" but we don't know any of that from the images.

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    Kitharode, great thread.

    Kitharode = Spiderman.....!

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Wassock. That's probably why I hesitate. I can't yet clearly state my aims, but at least I know that's a first step and you confirm. Hadn't thought through the 'we can't see the rocks underneath' at all. Blunder well spotted (the purpose of this thread). Am I trying to develop a prototype 'key' as used for plants and insects? Gets the aims sorted.........

    Paul Hi. Kitharode = One who plays the kithara and sings (Kitharist = One who plays the kithara). Spiderman ain't no picker!!

    Jellyhead. Thanks for the link. I'll have a look at that, for sure. I really don't want to sound as if I'm pushing you away from here, but I'd like to push you away from here šŸ˜ƒ I'm keen to keep this thread as focussed as poss on classifications. Your post would be far better placed in the Killer Fans series

    Part 1 http://talk.planetfour.org/#/boards/BPF0000002/discussions/DPF00007op

    Part 2 http://talk.planetfour.org/#/boards/BPF0000002/discussions/DPF00007z5

    Part 3 http://talk.planetfour.org/#/boards/BPF0000002/discussions/DPF00008b5

    Wassock and Paul (above) are the prime movers and I'm sure they'd be happy for your input there. HOWEVER, this is your site as much as mine and you can, of course, do what the hell you like - I do. If you like the Killer Fans threads, and you choose to dive in, you can copy and paste quick enough. If that was the case, when you've reposted 'over there' could you delete your post here.

    Many thanks. Will speak later somewhere.

    Posted

  • jellyhead by jellyhead in response to Kitharode's comment.

    No worries - thanks very much for the links. I've removed the original post, but reproduced the link to the original spider ppt below in case anyone else finds it interesting. Happy classifying!

    Spring at the South Pole of Mars

    Posted

  • Portyankina by Portyankina scientist in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Hi!

    Your grid-spiders are the only 'Topographic' type that I know. So that category would be really small šŸ˜ƒ sorry! On top of that ALL spiders are ice-induced, at least that is our hypothesis until it's disproved.
    I think, wassock has a point on that we do not know how the terrain influence the spiders. It must somehow, but we do not know enoug about it. And it would be hard to put your classification on such unstable basis. I'd rather go with visual classification.

    Anya

    Posted

  • BlueMoon58 by BlueMoon58

    Hi Kith
    I don't want to knock over the milk churn, but have you downloaded a Spider image lately? If so turn it through 180 degrees and take a fresh look. We are looking at these images from the wrong perspective. All this time we have been chatting about Spiders instead of Valleys. So have the Scientists been wearing blinkers, I believe it was a Lay Observer who just happened to take a closer look and flipped the image round on his computer.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Jellyhead: Cheers. Hope your keyboard ain't too sticky. You got 2yr old child, I got 10yr old dog - Swopsies (No Way!!!) šŸ˜ƒ

    Anya: Yes indeed, 'topograhic' would be a category of about nil (perhaps one) as pointed out earlier. So, for now, I agree with a visual id only. (Well done Wassock, you got it right first time).

    BlueMoon58: Nice to see you here. Yes, I've seen the thread about turning images and it's been useful. However, my understanding is that it has always been known that the spiders were 'valleys'. I believe the preferred term is 'channels'. Bear in mind that in space there is no 'up' and 'down', so astronomers (being more aware of this) are often at an advantage when viewing astronomical images.

    Everybody/Anybody: Progress being made!! Aims are much clearer, categories narrowed, collections growing. Anyone know when this phase 2 spider classification begins?

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    Kith.......do you mind if I call you Kith?.....am I reading the post by Anya right....spiders form and travel to the centre point,

    'So if gas travels towards the central vent from the very end of the spider arm, it will erode all the arm' I was always working on the assumption the centre of a spider would be like a central chamber, pushing gas down the arms....am I misunderstanding this concept?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to Paul Johnson's comment.

    You may call me whatever you like - and I will always have been called worse šŸ˜‰

    I've always understood spiders like this: When the gas and dust vent, the stuff being sucked out scrapes the underlying surface and makes a scar underneath. When the ice cover goes we can see the scar. Cycle by cycle the scars grow and spread, hence spider shape grows. Because we know the channels/scars are depressions, I'd always assumed that in the end analysis the body of the spider would be deepest first, and the legs would get deeper later. I'd also got the impression that the legs grew at the ends of the legs. If there was to be any 'flow' towards the central body of a spider, that wouldn't surprise me, but until now I'd never thought in terms of flow.

    I'm not clear, yet, what I mean by 'surface'. Don't know how deep the deepest spider (good song title there) can be. Etc., etc. But this flow of gas idea raises all sorts of questions. Are you following a thread on this, or this the thread (very relevant, I think)?

    Above, Anya says all spiders are ice-induced - no problem. We know we need an ice layer, perhaps a 'seed' or trigger, we got a process, we get spiders. And my understanding was that when the ice went away the 'inprint' of the spider remained (on the surface). Have I got this bit wrong?

    In her opening sentance Anya is saying that 'only my grid spiders are topographic' (which might be true). But either I'm confused (not unlikely) or perhaps we're missing each others' point.

    All spiders are ice-induced, I'm happy. All spiders formed by same process, I'm happy. All spiders not the same - Not happy.

    So I thought, ok, I reckon that grid, net, chain spiders form that way because, on top of what's been said, we've got this 'property of types of ice' thing going on, where ice by its nature forms into hexagons/polygons/crazy-paving. In these cases this is the added ingredient. This 'natural' shaping of the ice implied to me a 'natural' shaping path for the spiders. Do we get 'true spiders' in the same way? Maybe. But then again (following more hunches) maybe because they are circular, rather than grids, a different ingredient is required. That's why I thought landscape. There a masses of spiders lurking in dips and hollows, many of them giving the appearance of trying to climb out. Could this be an alternative ingredient?

    So they're all made the same, but the shapes are dictated by 'ice type' for grids; landscape for true spiders. All very vague of course, but interesting to me.

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    This is the thread for me, Kith, I'm hoping to learn more. Thanks for this info, I need to mull it over-now I just finally finished my Eng Lit essay!

    Now I can concentrate! Oh no, wait-surgery on my shoulder tomorrow-might take me out for a few days.....doh!

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Think that in theory the whole of the spider will have gas in in it, when a vent opens the gas all flows towards it and out. T the vent can be anywhere over the whole spider, and maybe beyond depending on how far the sub ice gas extends. The bigger a volume of gas that passes a given point the more erosion will occur at said point. If we're looking at a point at the end of a leg on the right and the vent opens way over on the left the not much gas passes the point on the right, but pretty much all of it will flow along the leg leading to the vent. BUT most of the gas will also pass through the central hub so lots of wear there each and every time the system gets emptied. I think.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to wassock's comment.

    Can you clarify 'whole of the spider will have gas in it'?

    I've often wondered whether a new scientific term should be introduced - 'Grust'. We often talk gas, or dust, and sometimes that's good enough, but surely there's a lot of stuff we're talking about that is definately 'grust' related. And grust will act/react/erode differently, and perhaps importantly to either alone, wouldn't it? (Genuine question).

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    Grust!

    Many spiders seem to contain grust inside them, and many ice fields seem to have it lying just under the surface....

    Grust will do for me Kith! I agree it should be very erosive on the walls of a spider, what a cool idea. Hmmm.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to Paul Johnson's comment.

    Hail! And Grust to you, my Lord Paul.

    Grust is going to have all sorts of properties that are different to gas and dust alone, I think. The way it abrades other stuff, its thermal properties, binding ability, etc. I've no idea of the details, but it just seems one of those obvious things. I'm sure we'll get more on this over time.

    "Many spiders seem to contain grust inside them, and many ice fields seem to have it lying just under the surface...."

    Yes indeed, and this itself is an interesting area. I've mused about pre-eruption/post epution scenarios, about the 'life cycle' of spider building, and what I call 'shadow lines'. These two images come from my 'linear structues' collection and maybe they are related to what you're saying (?)

    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e745ae5e2ed2124000588f.jpg

    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e745ae5e2ed21240005891.jpg

    which seems to me to be related to this....(use end part of link)

    http://talk.planetfour.org/#/subjects/APF00005xq

    which in turn might produce something like this....

    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e741255e2ed212400031db.jpg

    But we don't know what area or season we're looking at so, if there is a connection, we can't say yet which came first - is the shadow a pre-venting buildup of grust, or the remnants of a cycle of linear venting?

    Alternatively, it is none of the above šŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    Grust, my liege!

    Your pics are utterly fascinating, Kith-I would love to hear what a scientist thinks of them.

    They seem to follow a natural progression-which is True Jedi Citizen Scientist Joo Joo.....in my opinion.

    Great work, Kith, signing off for a bit, hospital tomorrow. If I start posting about faces and pixels----it's the drugs!

    Catch ya later, buddy.

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    Just one question.....where in the world are you (and you wassock....)?

    Just curious....

    Grust!

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to Paul Johnson's comment.

    "GRUST" - One swipe and your channels are clean! (For deep channels, more than one swipe may be neccesary). This week only - buy one, get one free at twice the price. Looking for a grust you can trust - You can trust "Grust".

    My Lord: Natural progressions, life cycles, and such are very heavily impied aren't they? We might be able to get a clearer picture, over time, of which images do relate to each other, to see how far we can investigate this idea. That's what I like here; we can come up with stuff independantly and then bat it around to see if there's any mileage in it. Maybe these 'shadows' are well known to the science team, and maybe they already know about cycles and progressions, but it's far more fun to make discoveries independantly even if not uniquely, don't you think?

    I think grust is well established here (I'm pleased to say) and it may well catch on around the project (let's hope). But there may be objections. Quite a lot of images show reddish patches of material, most of which, I read somewhere, is most likely iron oxide - not unreasonable on the red planet. If we learn that grust is not the only thing in play in area x, because there's iron oxide present/involved also, I suggest to you that we reply; Rustgrust, yes we've been talking about that.

    Good luck at the hospital, hope all goes well.

    What convinces you that I am of this world?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Re Iron oxide - this is one example. Not seen too many like this, but currently looking elsewhere....... Again, is rustgrust confined to certain areas? Is it a seasonal thing? Is it something else? Are we dead sure it's rust? Does it partake in the scraping? Etc, etc.

    http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e7451b5e2ed212400053bb.jpg

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator in response to Kitharode's comment.

    You need to check your mission statement, you are veering from the path of classification šŸ˜ƒ To cover a couple of points the grust will have different physical properties and may even behave like a liquid when it's moving, depending on concentration and pressures. What you have moving about in the spiders is suspension of dust in a gas. Back home this is what we use to clean buildings - sand blasting. Different types of dust will have different abrasive qualities. Most abundant iron oxide on mars is ferric (III) which is basically what you know as rust but I guess has probably never been anywhere near any lumps of metal (technically rust contains hydrated ferric oxide probably not the case on mars) Think you can take it as read that any dust will contain some iron oxide

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to wassock's comment.

    Good input. I love those little snippets you can pick up here. (technically rust contains hydrated ferric oxide) - I didn't know that, technically, because I slept through most of it at uni (just doesn't go in). But sometimes that's gonna be important, so ta very much.

    Thanks for the 'nudge, but this thread can now concentrate on the title 'Landscape and Spider Morphology'. I'm on the SCS like a scorpian (well I'm on it at least) so topography and such (grust included) can retake centre stage.

    Just nicked this from your rather excellent "why aren't spiders everywhere" thread; " It could have something to do with the compactness of the soil and the topography". That's of interest to me of course and obviously you can see why. Interesting also that Anya seems only to slightly (reluctantly?) agree with this. Anya implies to me that ice is always the 'prime mover' and landscape plays a far more insignificant role. If this is the case (apologies Anya if I've misunderstood you and it isn't the case) then to me, we're in a 'real science' area. Might be important, could be significant, some believe that this ...... others think ....

    Must use loo, make brew, see to dog ... I'm still around though.

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason

    I am sorry that I dont have anything useful to add, but just wanted to say to Paul & Kitharode dont change will you! Your converations are cracking me up! (Grust) lol.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to Ian Mason's comment.

    My dear lord Ian. Grust be upon you. (Knave, get the grustpan and brush this man down!).

    Comedy aside (difficult) I'm hoping that you're also finding the 'landscape/morphology' debate stimulating and informative. You seem to be following closely, so any snippets you think relevant would always be welcome. Even if in the background, your presence here is most gratifying. As any artist knows, applause is like a banquet - so thanks for the cheese sandwich. (heavy on the grust, please)

    Speak later.......

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason in response to Kitharode's comment.

    I feel very honored indeed Kitharode! šŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Noble Lords (and gracious Ladies, if present): May your camels always be productive and grust-free.

    I suspect (donā€™t know ā€˜cause I havenā€™t written it yet) that this post is likely to be quite extended, often rambling and at times fanciful, but this is a deliberate plan. In later posts I want to offer you a couple of ā€˜slide showsā€™ with commentary which will hopefully add visual weight to what follows. Iā€™m attempting to make some serious points and it will often require me to get you ā€˜in the zoneā€™ so that youā€™ll have a better chance of seeing where Iā€™m at, and where Iā€™m going.

    This is a good time to mention wassockā€™s excellent thread, ā€˜Spidersā€™, and I would urge all who pass through here to ā€˜Followā€™ it. That thread, and this one, are intimately connected, and I expect that there may well be a good symbiosis between the two. Wassock has found a nice focus and he offers a well written account of his ā€˜new theoryā€™, certain aspects of which were well received by the Scientists. His thread investigates the ā€˜birthā€™ and ā€˜growthā€™ of spiders (which I intend to do here) but at a more scientific level than the one I propose to work at. (This does not mean wassockā€™s thread is hard to read and understand ā€“ quite the opposite in fact.)

    Iā€™d like to offer you my ideas for an ā€œEcology of Martian Spidersā€ which I hope will benefit both our threads, as well as moving forward this landscape/morphology investigation . Martian ecology is not a new idea, but from a quick scan around it appears to me that it concerns itself primarily with microbial and bacterial ā€˜possible scenariosā€™, which of course is vitally important work, but itā€™s biology and chemistry (and all else) at the ā€˜hard scienceā€™ level. My ideas (not yet a theory) take a far more broad brush approach to the subject, rather than the highly focussed and detailed ecology currently available.

    Large, ice-induced, grust-scaped structures on the face of Mars have, thankfully, become known as Spiders. We can see for ourselves why this is so. But not only does it save lots of typing (I hate typing) but it opens the door for all sorts of other analogies and also allows us to use familiar terminology from the ecology library. Iā€™m going to push the analogies as far as I can and on occasion you may well think Iā€™ve pushed too far (and maybe I will). But I will always be trying to get across an important point, or concept, with potential for some real science, and hopefully Iā€™ll be able to impress upon you the impression that this approach has made on me. So far, this has worked wonders for my learning and understanding.

    As long as we always keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that we are dealing with an alien environment, there should be no problem with developing an ā€˜alien ecologyā€™. What Iā€™m saying is that I want to ā€˜bring these spider to lifeā€™! The point Iā€™m trying to get to in this post is one which hopefully supports my original suggestion: Landscapes make spiders. I admit however that the discussions weā€™ve had so far here have made me aware that my view/angle/approach to that statement needed to be changed and I think Iā€™ve done that. Iā€™m also nearer to my comfort zone.

    (I promise that breaks will be taken, with tea and grust sandwiches available. We may even be able to partake in a little Grust-threebling, if time permits.)

    The area over and around the south pole of Mars is our Biome. Letā€™s take the extent of this to be the limits of the advance and retreat of the ice-layer. This is a seasonal event, so to our defined area we can add a defined time-cycle. This itself may have no value, but we can keep it in the ā€˜notedā€™ box. We find a number of different environments here so, for now, I want to focus on True Spiders who live in True Spiderland, rather than the Webs who, I suspect, reside in the Ice Lands. I do understand that they may well be the same thing.

    True Spiderlands are those area (in the images) where we are able to see the ā€˜footprintsā€™ of true spiders more clearly. Places where the Webs play little or no part in our opening visual survey. By doing this I can now pull my eco/enviro hat firmly onto my head and begin to investigate, visually, whether there is any evidence to suggest that spiders not only form (get born), which they obviously do but whether they also ā€˜dieā€™. Do spiders have a life-cycle? I think so.

    Do spiders interact, and if so how? I think we can safely say that they grow, often to monstrous sizes, so within a given ecosystem it seems likely that only so many spiders of such and such a size can live there. What happens if they all try to continue growing? In ecology, ā€˜spaceā€™ is an important resource for many species and when space becomes tight, things get very interesting indeed. So are there any interactions between spiders, when they exist in a crowded place, over and above the ā€˜holding of handsā€™ which is easily observed in spider families? I suggest to you that the answer is ā€“ absolutely yes.

    Iā€™ll go further than that and suggest that there may be a ā€˜predator-preyā€™ relationship between different classes of spider. Iā€™m even going to make prediction here and say that Dendritic spiders are the dominant species and, When Spiders Go to War ā€“ Dendritics will Prevail. Pushing the ecological envelope as far as possible in this post, I will introduce the ā€˜dinasaursā€™ who are closely related to the Bugs. They may be the same. These beasts may well be valuable in our discussions of spider life cycles. As I said earlier, the slide shows will add clarity to these ideas.

    The end of this preamble is in sight (I know; about time too) and my point can be made. Iā€™d like you to come back from our alien ecosystems for a moment and return to Earth, so that I can introduce one more analogy that will be most useful. Picture one of the great mineral mining sites that can be found on the face of the Earth ā€“ Better still, google an image or two. Huge grabber cranes, diggers and monstrous lorries; the volumes of material shifted are immense. We are not too far away from the truth if we say that this is landscaping on a grand scale. Some people may consider it to be an assault on the environment. Both these viewpoints are useful to me and I easily make the analogy with ā€˜spiders on marsā€™. So back we go again to our alien environment.

    I donā€™t think any envelopes are being pushed here if we consider the growth of spiders as an assault on their landscape. Whateverā€™s going on, they are digging and scraping and gauging the landscape, often on a monstrous scale. This, surely, is landscaping on the grandest of scales and I put it to you that one cannot do landscaping unless one has a landscape to work with.

    Landscapes and Spiders are inextricably linked, but my ecological thinking has given me a completely different perspective on my early considerations. I have been forced to hold my ā€˜Landscapes Make Spidersā€™ hypothesis up to the mirror where I now see ā€˜sredipS ekaM sepcsdnaLā€™ ā€“ which makes absolutely no sense at all .. !!

    What does make sense is that I should not look for answers from the landscape, I should instead turn my attention to the spidersā€™ mining and morphology enterprise. This in turn leads to a new statement of my ideas: ā€œSpiders Make Landscapesā€. My original title to this thread can stand, but I hope you see how the focus has shifted. Iā€™ll get to the slide shows asap and I hope youā€™ll pop in for a viewing. Iā€™m sure youā€™ll be glad you did. As always, your thoughts are most welcome.

    (Knave! ā€“ a noggin of Grust for all those present. Make ready the Grust-threebling poleā€¦)

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    We are back in Spiderland, as defined in my previous post. I want to take you to a number of ecosystems ā€˜where landscapes meetā€™. These boundaries (if wide) or interfaces (if abrupt) are wonderful places to visit and muse over. There is much to be inferred in these areas, plausible assumptions can be made, and ideas flow like liquid grust. There are genuine opportunities for discovery here, I reckon. (This post would have been a more complete story, but after loads of work it simply disappeared ā€“ This then is a short Part I, with Part 2 to follow).

    Please look closely and carefully at the following image, perhaps with half an eye on the SCS, and letā€™s find out if we agree on what this landscape boundary/interface might be telling us.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73ca15e2ed21240000b57.jpg

    On the right a large dendritic spider; on the left a lattice web. In the lower half of the image we see that when the two come together they merge gently one to the other. To me this is a boundary. In the top half however, I would suggest we see an interface at one edge of a boundary. Assuming light entering from the bottom right corner of the image we see that a brighter strip of land (hanging from top middle) gives a strong impression of upwards slope, allowing that strip of land to be enhanced by sunlight. This impression becomes stronger when we consider the curving leg of the dendritic which appears to meet the slope, decline the challenge, and makes a left turn towards the centre.

    All this strongly suggests that the top half of the image shows lower land sloping up to higher land, whereas the lower half of the image tells me that we are moving across a more even landscape. There is an implication here I think that ā€˜slopeā€™ may influence leg growth in spiders, indicating perhaps that leg growth follows a path of least resistance. All this is very speculative, I agree, but I believe we can get a better feel for what we are dealing with here by this sort of scrutiny. Besides which itā€™s fun!

    Oh dear, toasty rustgrust is starting to burn ... Speak later.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Roasty Toasty Rusty Grust was saved just in time. A trifle crispy, but it'll get me through part 2 of this post.

    OK, so we might get a few clues to the ā€˜up and downā€™ scenery if we look hard enough, but I promised interaction and the possibility that Dendritics might well be viewed as the dominant species of True spider. What evidence if any can be produced to support this idea? Letā€™s begin by taking a look at what happens not only where landscapes meet, but also where Spiders meet. Who do we have shaping up in this image?

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73dea5e2ed21240001732.jpg

    Classics vs Dendritics would be my reply. Next we have (perhaps) Bugs or possibly borderline classics who give me the impression that they are engaging their enemy....

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e775e2ed211dc001493.jpg

    But small forces are not enough to defeat a dentritic, certainly not one so large, and here we see the strength of those tree-like legs as they hold down and ā€˜consumeā€™ the skirmishers....

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73dc55e2ed212400015e7.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73dc25e2ed212400015cf.jpg

    Giants they may be, but these Bugs are doomed....

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e2b5e2ed211dc001325.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73d3c5e2ed2124000112f.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73d505e2ed212400011d1.jpg

    The Dendritics give me the impression that they can go wherever they choose to go in Spiderland....

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e740125e2ed21240002919.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e740775e2ed21240002bc9.jpg

    And that they always come out ā€˜on topā€™, or perhaps ā€˜pass through unhinderedā€™ would be better.

    So will my prediction that the Dendritics will always prevail be proved to be true? Thereā€™s much more to do and thereā€™s much more to see before weā€™ll know the answer to that question. But Iā€™m quietly confident ā€“ in fact Iā€™d bet my pet Dendritic on it. (Guaranteed to be Grustfree)!!

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    INTERMISSION

    At yesterdays meeting of the Grust Appreciation Society (ironically, GAS) it was voted unanimously by me that a new acronym been found for said Society. After lengthy negotiations with myself (I was the only one there) and with representatives from Rustgrust (who also weren't there) it was decided that the two organisations should merge.

    Henceforth we shall be known as GASRA: Grust Appreciation Society (Rustgrust Affiliated).

    Next up: Spiders Meet Boulders (good images).

    Posted