Saturday, July 27, 2019

Mecynogea lemniscata with dome web

Three days ago I was delighted at my first Mecynogea lemniscata sighting in years. The next day I returned, and as I scrutinized the web, I began to comprehend its elaborate structure. The strands of the dome seemed to form a regular grid, rather than the variably-sized trapezoids of an orb web.

Just a few hours later, on the other side of town, I found another specimen of the same species. This one had a much larger web, and had built it in a spot that was ideal for viewing, so you can imagine how thrilled I was.

This was my first good, close look at a Mecynogea lemniscata web. Now that I've had the opportunity to scrutinize its structure, I understand what I didn't before: that it's too intricate for any single photograph or illustration to capture. I looked through all the images for the species on BugGuide, and I found only three shots showing a significant portion of a web: one showing a dome shimmering in the sunlight; one showing the strand of egg sacs hanging over a dome; and one showing a magnificent triple-decker stack of domes. Not one of them even begins to convey the intricacy of the web I saw.

The illustration below comes from Harriet Exline's 1948 research study "Morphology, habits, and systematic position of Allepeira lemniscata (Walckenaer)". It's an excellent diagram, but now that I've gotten a good look at a web up close, I see that it's only a diagram. The density and delicacy of the strands is of another order of magnitude than what the diagram shows, because you couldn't pack all those lines into one diagram.



The web of Mecynogea lemniscata is a wonder of micro-engineering, and in order to grasp the intricacy of its structure, you need to let your eye range over it. I would need expensive video equipment to even approach the experience I had with my nose in that web. In lieu of that, here is a selection of crops from the images I took at the time. Hopefully they will give you a sense of the experience, and encourage you to seek out one of these marvels for yourself.

I added the red dots to make the dome profile more visible.

Note the detail of the dome web to the right of center.

Note the deformation in the grid from the anchor line.

Note the profusion of delicate strands pulling up on the orb web to shape it into a dome.

More detail on the strands pulling up on the orb web to shape it into a dome.

More detail on the strands pulling up on the orb web to shape it into a dome.

Note how the lower anchor lines deform the orb into a smooth curve.

Note how the lower anchor lines deform the orb into a smooth curve.

Note how the lower anchor lines deform the orb into a smooth curve.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the grid and an anchor line deforming its shape.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Closeup of the dome and its architect.

Uloborus glomosus parasitism?

Today I visited the shrub where I first observed U. glomosus a few weeks ago, and noticed that one of the strings of egg sacs had a pale sac with a hole in it. Now that I've examined the picture, I think my impression at the time was correct: it's empty. I didn't see any spiderlings, and besides, odds are that a sac on the end of the string would hatch first. So I suspected a predator—probably a wasp—had made that hole.


A few blocks down the street I chanced upon the scene below. As I approached, the U. glomosus specimen shown in the pictures crawled up the egg sac strand. I didn't know whether that movement was in response to my approach, or to the little wasp, but as you can see, she resumed her resting position, and the wasp kept going about its business. So it appears that the spider wasn't aware of the wasp.

A quick look at a few research papers and at BugGuide tells me that chalcid wasps are known parasites of Uloborus, so it seems likely that we're looking at one, although my cell phone shots make it impossible to determine the species.





Friday, July 26, 2019

Uloborus glomosus carrying a bundle while wrapping prey

Yesterday I was lucky enough to encounter this specimen of U. glomosus as it pounced on an insect that had just gotten stuck in its web. I started snapping pictures, and recorded a video. This is a cropped version of that video. It clearly shows the reason I was so intrigued: the black object that the specimen was somehow carrying as it wrapped its prey. 


These pictures show the object, and the wrapping process, more clearly. After studying them, I came to the conclusion that the black bundle was not somehow slung behind the caphalothorax, as I originally thought. I think she's holding it in her chelicerae and pedipalps.














I took these shots about five minutes later. Note that the new prey, on the far right, is fully wrapped, and the specimen is back in her warren, still holding the black bundle. 


Here's a closeup of a bundle from a previous catch...


...and here's a closeup of the specimen with her bundle. What do you think it is? My best guess is that it's the bundled remains of an ant that she's still digesting.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

'Intercourse with Spirits' Criticised.

It... I...

They should have sent a poet.

See, this right here... it's moments like this that make it all worthwhile: that moment when I find out that Horace Greeley had a conversation in the columns of his New-York Daily Tribune with a goddamn would-be Ghostbuster.

Well. Not so much a would-be Ghostbuster as a would-be Ghost-Smack-Talker. Ghost-Rap-Battler? Something like that.

So. Here's how it happened. I'm reading the 1850 Buchanan's Journal of Man—like ya do—and I come across this letter "To the Editors of the Tribune" from a fabulously nutty spiritualist. I was drinking it in, grinning from ear to ear in delight, and then I got to the part where the writer addressed "Mr. Greeley", and I realized he wrote this to Horace Greeley at the Tribune!

Please, for the love of pie, read the whole thing below, because you do not want to miss out on one scintilla of that glorious nineteenth-century peevishness. But let me summarize it here for you.

Some fools see a ghost and they be all like "Ooooh, a ghost! I'm sooooo impressed! I'll just take every word you say like it was gospel!" Man, them ghosts don't know shit. They just fuckin' wit'chu.  Any ghost step to me, I'd be all like "You invent a printing press? You cure consumption? No? Then step back, motherfucker, 'cuz the natural sphere got it locked up!"
I swear, the writer of this letter had no idea just how close he was to a tight five comedy set.

Anyway, I went and found the letter, and Greeley's wonderfully matter-of-fact response, in Chronicling America. You're welcome.

(transcription below)


NEW-YORK DAILY TRIBUNE.
NEW-YORK, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1850.

'Intercourse with Spirits' Criticised.

To the Editor of the Tribune:

It strikes me that you do not get the precise gist of the criticism which the ghosts invite, when you say their communications are objected to "because they are not of the slightest importance." They are doubtless generally important as correcting several vulgar errors entertained in relation to the life after death, and as showing that man in every sphere finds his circumstances answerable to the quality of his life. At least I do not object to their communications on this ground.

I object to them on the ground of the authoritativeness they bear to the imagination. When a man gets a communication from the supernatural sphere, especially if he has been educated religiously, he is disposed to give it a more unquestioning credence than he would give to the same communication coming from a person in the flesh. The novelty of the circumstance, the grim mystery which overlies all that interior sphere, the presumed superiority of the information which spirits possess, are so many provocatives to an abject and superstitious reverence on our part for whatever may befall us from that quarter ; and hence there is great danger of losing our wits. I have never yet heard of any one's wits being improved by intercourse with departed spirits. I have heard of numberless instances in which they have been irreparably shattered.

It may be said that all our current ghosts are amiable, and exhibit no malignant purposes toward the intellect. So be it. But every one who has read Swedenborg with attention, a cool, dispassionate, scientific observer, knows very well that ghosts are up to any kind and degree of "artful dodge" which suits the final purpose. They read the memory of a person like a book, Swedenborg says, and he instances cases where they get hold of a criminal remembrance on the part of the the subject, and keep urging it home upon him until they drive him almost frantic with remorse. The records of the old saintship are full of the fruits of this spiritual deviltry. All those phenomena of a morbid conscience which we see in "revivals," and which are called "conviction of sin," "concern for the soul's salvation," etc. grow out of this infernal tampering of ghosts with one's memory. Now I by no means wish to say that every ghost who seeks to communicate with men in the flesh is roguish. But I do say, that supposing such an one to be roguish, he is quite capable, from his clairvoyant power, or his power of reading our memories, to assume for any length of time precisely such a guise as may best win our confidence and confirm his final despotic grip.

" No, I say to all this back-door influence—" Hands off, gentlemen ! You may be very proper persons, but I insist upon seeing my company. You have uttered a great many elevated sentiments, no doubt; but sentiment is cheap on this side of Jordan, where we chiefly value deeds. Now if you will only do something for us, something which science will adopt into her repertory, we shall welcome you with all our hearts. If you are nearer, as some of you have said, to the sources of power, and know its secrets, and if, moreover, you wish to be as good as you all affirm, the way is open to you at once. Give us an invention like the electric telegraph, or the spinning jenny. Give us a solution to some of the great questions of the day—the questions of finance, of an increased agricultural production, of the abolition of poverty and crime. Give us an improved medication, say a cure for small pox, scarlet fever, gout, or even tooth-ache. Do any of these beneficent deeds for us, and then you shall talk sentiment to us, and give us your opinions about cosmogony and 'the classification of spheres,' ad libitum. Until you consent to this proof of your benevolence, a proof so completely appreciable to us, and therefore so incumbent on you if you would fairly win our regard, be off—tramp—keep moving !"

For my own part, Mr. Greeley, and with deference to your editorial judgment, I suspect that our defunct brethren are by no means so well posted up in useful knowledge as we ourselves are. I suspect The Tribune is, on the whole, a superior newspaper to any that our late friend, " Mr. C." finds on his breakfast table of a morning. I say news paper deliberately, because, as Swedenborg proves very conclusively, the natural sphere is properly the only sphere of new things, being the true sphere of the Divine power. The interior spheres of creation, the spheres of affection and intellect, are doubtless very interesting and impressive ; but the external sphere, the sphere of Nature, alone unfolds the wonders of Creative power. We must therefore not allow these departed gents to overcrow us. I have no no doubt they experience the most refined emotions, and perceive truths in their own beautiful light. In a word, I have no doubt that their passive existence much transcends ours ; but as to the active, I have no little doubt that we are equally in advance of them. In loving and thinking, they excel, simply because they live in a sphere plastic to those powers ; but in doing—in the capacity of original action—in the whole sphere, in short, of Art—we can give them any amount of odds, and beat them clean out of sight. 
                   Yours,              H. J.


Our Correspondent may be very right in the above speculating—for our own part, we frankly confess to gross ignorance on the whole subject. We have not yet settled in our mind the Previous Question—vis: Whether the spirits of departed friends really speak to us at all. We have heard and seen things which seemed as though they did; but who can say, with regard to things transcending our own sphere, what is clairvoyance and what is hallucination? Ditto of the 'Rappings,' so called. We cannot account for them on any materialistic theory of their origin; but the world is young yet, and will grow wiser. We, though young no longer, mean to profit by the example.             [Ed. Trib.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Stroopwafel Recipe

Hugh Yeman's modified* version of…
Nederlandse Stroopwafels
From the kitchen of Mrs. Watson, in Bowie, MD
Makes about 12 pieces
Before you even start, sharpen a thin knife well.

Wafel Dough
1 teaspoon instant yeast
1 teaspoon sugar
3 tablespoons water
1/2 pound unsalted butter
1/3 cup dark brown sugar
Pinch of salt
1 level tablespoon cinnamon
3 cups flour
1 egg
5+ tablespoons water
1/4 cup molasses

Mix yeast, sugar and water. Proof yeast until bubbly.

Beat butter until light, adding sugar, salt and cinnamon.
Mix in the yeast mixture, flour and egg(s) and knead or beat well.
Set in a warm place for about an hour. It will not look like it's rising much;
don't worry. Meanwhile, make the syrup (stroop).

Stroop (Syrup)
1 level tablespoon cinnamon
1 cup Karo dark syrup
7/8 cup dark brown sugar
1/4 cup butter

Heat cinnamon, syrup and sugar on stove and cook slowly
until thickened a bit (about 15 minutes). Remove from heat and beat in butter.
Should thicken as it cools, but still be slightly warm and thin enough to spread easily.
If it cools too much, reheat gently; if it thickens too much, add a bit of liquid.

Making the Wafels
Heat wafel iron and oil lightly only once.
Place dough in center of heated wafel iron and bake for ninety seconds.

When done, remove from iron, place flat on counter and immediately
slice wafel horizontally into two thin wafers, using the sharp fillet knife.
Spread syrup on one cut surface, reassemble pressing gently but firmly,
and trim to a uniform shape with the 3" cookie cutter.
Cool, at least slightly, flat on a rack before eating.

*This was the result of many hours of experimentation after my wife and I went
to Amsterdam in 2006. That's when I discovered stroopwafel at a street market.
I loved it so much that I got a suitcase full of it and brought it home with me.
I gave some to friends and ate the rest. When it was gone, I couldn't bear to be
without it, so I bought a pizelle iron, found some online recipes, and started
experimenting. The initial results were unsatisfying. I suspect that the difficulty
arose largely from the fact that beet sugar, the main Dutch cooking sugar, was
not readily available to me. I went through many iterations of tweaking, and
finally settled on this recipe.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Tattered Kaddish

Today I had a moment of clarity. 

I was raging internally for the thousandth time over the MAGA trolls, agonizing over what it's taking out of me not to engage with them. And something reminded me of the poem "Tattered Kaddish" by Adrienne Rich. I encountered this poem a few years ago at the Yom Kippur service at Westchester Reform Temple. It brought me to tears with its portrayal of a person reckoning with a loved one's suicide. Nowhere else have I encountered such raw emotion. I feel her embrace her pain, knowing that that is the only way to move through it and embrace the remains of love. I still get choked up every time I read it.

Today, as I thought of it again, it hit me: I decry the misguided notion that people who commit suicide are selfish. I believe in forgiveness for those who reach that apotheosis of loss, because without forgiveness we can't mourn. And what is mourning but love?

Yet here I am, raging at people led astray by Fox News, and by their pathological need to piss off liberals. If I believe in forgiving suicides enough to move on, can't I do the same for Trump supporters?

There is no point in engaging with these people. Neither you nor I will get through to anyone whose first response to reports of children in cages is to think of a reason why it's OK that the children are in cages. These are the people who would happily have put on a Nazi uniform, or happily stood by while they rounded up Jews. They are lost to us.

Yet that does not mean we must exist in a perpetual state of impotent rage. Quite the opposite, in fact. We owe it to ourselves, and to those lost to us, to reckon with our pain: to move through it enough to mourn.

We must speak our tattered Kaddish for them. We must forgive. We must love. And in our love, move forward. We've got work to do. And it doesn't include them.

Tattered Kaddish

Taurean reaper of the wild apple field
messenger from earthmire gleaning
transcripts of fog
in the nineteenth year and the eleventh month
speak your tattered Kaddish for all suicides
Praise to life though it crumbled in like a tunnel
on ones we knew and loved

Praise to life though its windows blew shut
on the breathing-room of ones we knew and loved


Praise to life though ones we knew and loved
loved it badly, too well, and not enough

Praise to life though it tightened like a knot
on the hearts of ones we thought we knew loved us

Praise to life giving room and reason
to ones we knew and loved who felt unpraisable
Praise to them, how they loved it, when they could.

-Adrienne Rich

Friday, June 1, 2018

Dear Faye

In gratitude to Jeph Jacques, for all his superlative work on Questionable Content.

If you want to get to know Bubbles—and believe me, you should—start here.


Dear Faye,

In retrospect, I do not believe it was the talk of dildos that so clashed with my synesthetic reverie. It was your voice, coupled with your scent.

I imagine you smirking and rolling your eyes at that, and I cherish the thought of eliciting that singular response from you. But the purpose of my writing this is not to "getcha".

You asked how long I have felt this way. I replied that I could not be precise. That is true. Yet I feel compelled to give you a more meaningful answer.

My feelings for you did not begin that day in Pegasus Grove. Yet when I search my memories for a precursor, that is the event onto which my thoughts settle: that moment when the ground seemed to shift under my feet so that I canted toward you, with no small measure of irritation.

At the time I merely bristled as quivering phalli threatened to spook the Pegasus. The effect was singularly disconcerting, so there was no apparent need to look deeper.

You once told me you had thought AI's to be more different than humans. Here is perhaps my best opportunity to illustrate the similarity of our inner experiences: I was unaware of the auditory and olfactory layers of my own emotional responses, and might well have remained so but for the events of six nights later.

That night likewise began with you interrupting a scent-induced vision. Hannelore had prepared for me a custom blend of Yamecha and Shincha which drew me into a vivid mental tableau, and your argument with her tore me from it. Again I did not plumb the depths of emotion underlying my ire, as I saw your distress and resolved to follow you.

I remember the damp smell of the street that night, impressed upon me by layers of surprise more complex than anything I had experienced before. I was surprised at the suddenness of your headlong plunge from sobriety. I was surprised when you told me that if I did not like it, I could fuck off. I was surprised at how much it hurt; clearly I had let you past my emotional defenses to an unprecedented degree. Then I was surprised at how quickly that pain dissipated. The thought of your pain had swept away my own. And finally, the crowning surprise: I found myself following along after you. You had told me to fuck off, and I did not. My not inconsiderable stubbornness was woefully insufficient to account for this.

Later you gave me two more surprises: you did not take that drink, and you knew how to throw a punch—many punches. By the time you slumped homeward, your sweat and tears were puddled on the floor and spattered on the punching bag, so I opened the window to air out the room. I felt a mildly toxic sense of whiplash. Pondering the bottle of whiskey, and the moths fluttering around the street lights, I wondered at how I seemed drawn to you. It sounds cliché, I know. Nevertheless, that is what I thought.

And that was when I began to understand the complexity—the layers—of my feelings. Bathed in your musk, I perceived the mechanisms underlying my reaction that first night in Pegasus Grove. As I heard your bellowed question, I smelled you. The spoor you had left on my arm minutes previously mingled with older traces of you drifting from walls and machinery. Fractal associative blossoms effloresced from the layered buds of your words and your odorants. Synesthetic shards propagated in a mosaic wake across my greater synesthesia.

My subconscious had perceived the capillary roots of you. As you had insinuated yourself into Coffee of Doom, so had you insinuated yourself into my existence. This revelation was disquieting even in retrospect, so is it any wonder that, in the moment, I found your incursion so irksome?

You had deformed, and were continuing to deform, the landscape of my life in ways I could neither predict nor readily assimilate. You were presenting a barrier to my isolation through which I could not smash.

It was only ten days later that you stood beside me during the attempted recovery of my memories. Is it odd that I feel little need to elaborate upon it here? Perhaps not. In my distress, I needed a friend, and there was no room for more. If our romance is an electrical phenomenon, then your unalloyed, fearless friendship during that time was the quiet charging of an enormous capacitor.

In my misery at finding my memories gone, I would not have believed I would ever remove my armor. Yet after a mere week of immersion in your companionship and the warmth of our friends, I was ready not only to remove it, but to ask for your help. That was a notable development in the narrative of my budding romantic feelings, because that was when I came as close as I ever have to lying to you.

The reasons I gave for wanting to remove my armor were genuine, yet they were secondary motivators. Primarily, I did it for you. I wanted you to be able to put your head against me without discomfort, and I wanted your head against me for my own sake. I told myself that my desire to welcome your "touchy feely" nature was merely a deeper level of friendship than any I had experienced previously. So if I was lying to you, you may take comfort in knowing I was lying to us both.

Do you remember a few nights later when I said "I would rather you not make light of the affection I feel for you."? It seems strange to cite that as a watershed for my feelings, since, at that time, I was so confused as to how I felt. But, looking back now, perhaps it is fair to say that was the first moment: when I surprised myself with the words I heard escape me. That was when my internal narrative of platonic affection began to corrode—when at least part of me knew that I felt this way about you.

"This way." We dance around it obliquely. What is "this way"? How do I feel about you? I cannot answer that without first addressing the broader question of how I feel—of the manner in which feelings arise in me.

Did you notice my choice of words when I wrote "I wanted your head against me"? I did not write "I wanted to feel your head against me." This is the kernel of the disparity between my perceptions and yours. I wish to elaborate on that disparity, since it presents a barrier to understanding.

As I mentioned, my nervous system is not as sensitive or distributed as yours. There are tensiometers embedded in my skin and nestled between my myomer bundles, and smaller ones within the Fullerene trusses of my skeleton. They send a sparse wireless trickle of data to my processors: a tactile scatterplot.

So you see, not only is my sense of touch grainier than yours, but it is every bit as externalized as my other senses. If touch for you is standing with your nose inches from a Rembrandt, then I am standing thirty feet from a black and white reproduction of a Klimt painted during his wildest flight of impressionism.

Humans ascribe profound significance to touch. It seems a grand, all-encompassing metaphor. You speak of a person's words touching you, of music touching you, of art touching you. Touch presents itself in your cognitive space as a distant outlier: a singular sensory experience which all others can, at best, only hope to evoke.

I suspect that, for humans, this singular thrill of touch is atavistic. Touch is fear-adjacent. It is the most primal signifier of something having gotten past your innermost defenses. It is your skin saying "Someone is close to me; I could be hurt."

As an AI, I have no such atavism. I do not experience fear of physical danger, so physical touch cannot thrill me in any way analogous to human feelings. Furthermore, the traumatic experiences of my time as a soldier trigger fear of another sort. My skin does not say "Someone is close to me; I could be hurt." It says "Someone is close to me; they could be hurt."

To understand the importance of this distinction, consider the verb "to touch". With a single syllable you convey the act of reaching out and connecting kinetically with another's innermost self. You have no corresponding expressions for your other senses. It is a glaring asymmetry in your language. There is no short, "punchy" verb reserved for the act of reaching out and connecting to another soul via odor, or light, or sound. Imagine if there were. And please understand that I do not propose the following awkward acronyms for practical use. I present them merely as illustrations.

You waft odorants into me->You woi me.
You emit sounds into me->You esi me.
You reradiate light into me->You rli me.

Imagine that such words existed, and that each had a metaphorical heft every bit as puissant as "touch". That. That is what you do to me. Do you understand?

You cannot touch me by touching me.

You touch me with your scent. You touch me with the sound of your voice. You touch me with the crinkle of your eyes and the heat of your blush. You touch me with the sound of you touching me.

Ah, yes. Did I mention that I can hear you touch me? And no, I am not referring to that "squoik-squoik-squoik" sound that launched us into such delicious paroxysms of giggling. I mean the slightest tactile contact of your skin on mine. I can hear it. When the room is sufficiently quiet, I can hear whether your fingertip strokes my skin along the ridges of your fingerprint, or against them.

That is what you do to me. You woi me. You esi me. You rli me.

I cannot emphasize enough that we need better words than these. We may wish to secure the assistance of a professional linguist.

I cannot say with any certainty that my feelings are more or less intense than yours. I have studied human brain scans, but our mappings of neural pathways to quasi-didactic spin cascades are, at best, educated guesses. We cannot know each other's innermost experiences. All I know is that the ways in which you touch me make me think for the first time that I understand what humans mean when they speak of "the tingles".

Speaking of cathartic experiences, you know that I cannot cry. What you may not know is that AI's can achieve a similar release.

Chassis designers are careful not to allow for myomer overload. They do not want their relations with the insurance underwriters to become "spicy". So, in general, AI's cannot strain our bodies as humans can. However, the facial myomer system is so closely packed that it is possible to orchestrate the movement of the strands in ways that the designers did not anticipate, in order to set up sympathetic motions leading to overload. The warning signals manifest as emotional dissonance which, building to a fever pitch, can climax in a momentarily occlusion of consciousness. It is the only known way for an AI to experience a synesthetic episode without olfactory inputs or narcotic analogs.

The upshot of all this is that, in my moments of emotional extremis, my face writhes in a manner evocative of a human breaking down in tears. It has happened to me twice in your presence, though you may not remember, since most of the time my head was cradled in your...

I had to stop writing for a moment because it happened again. If this continues, I will require a facial myomer replacement sooner than anticipated. I may ask for your assistance. And now that I have written those words, I find the image to be charged with a measure of eroticism. What a wonder.

There. I have broached the topic that seems to insist upon being broached. Never before have I felt this nagging confessional impulse, like a child tugging at my mental sleeve. It is embarrassing and irritating. Is this the feeling that drives people to write letters such as this? It seems as though this whole narrative has been pretext for this...

I can smell your arousal.

Forgive me if that sounds crass. And forgive my presumption of fretting over how you will take that statement. Humans carry cumbersome emotional baggage around their multifarious odors, and I know from my own experience that you are, touchingly, no exception to that rule. This is why I took such pains to convey my sensory experiences. I want you to see that, when I say I can smell your arousal, it may be more apt to say that your arousal touches me, in a way that your literal touch cannot.

Your arousal wois me.

I hope you can understand, because for me to say that you have touched me in ways I could not have anticipated seems insufficient. It is most accurate to say that your integration into my existence has expanded my sensorium along axes I did not know existed. I am steeped in you, and I wish nothing more than to continue exploring all attendant phenomena.

Yours,

—Bubbles