text:
Why were dinosaurs not as smart as humans are?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur, Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years.
They had a lot of time to evolve. My question is: why were dinosaurs not smarter than us, and why was their society not complex like ours is?

Because inteligence is not necessarily selected for.
A population evolves to get smarter if being smart is beneficial over being stupid. Big brain are costly in terms of energy. For example the human's brain consume 20 percent of all the enery we have. This is a pretty big cost!

@Remi.b So why are we so much smarter than animals or any dinosaurs?

"Smart" is an extremely subjective thing...

"Smart" here is probably just talking about brain volume in cubic centimeters, complexity of tools and complexity of social systems.

@nico I don't want to debate about words, you and your friends can write comments on this human created page, but your dog can't do this work. So I think, your are smart

@Пуя Proving that you can select two examples and chose whether they should belong to the group "smart" or "not-smart" does not prove that the word "smart" is well defined. To take an example: some birds have a way better spatial memory than humans does. Are they smarter? What about people that are not able to tie their shoes but can solve incredible square roots in 5 seconds

@Pooya the best guess as to why we are as smart as we are is a perfect storm of the few pressures that can favor intelligence combined with runaway sexual selection. It also may have a lot to do with the evolution of art.  Your question to Remi would make for a great question by itself.

We are all equally evolved
All life that exist on earth today had the exact same amount of time to evolve (3.5 billion years). Therefore, one cannot say that one species is more evolved than another one. It just makes no sense (at least if "more evolved" means "have evolved for more time").
Being a dominant species/clade for some time (whatever dominant may mean to you) doesn't make this species/clade more evolved than any other one.
Your question need not be specific to intelligence
You can think of any other phenotypic trait (wings, toxins in the skin, good eyes, good smell, strong leaves, etc...) and ask this same question. You seem to assume that being smart should be some kind of goal or necessary direction toward which species should evolve. Following your reasoning I would rather ask why the hagfishes, the oyster, the lampreys or the turtles are so dumb although they exist for so long (once again remember that this notion that some lineages have existed longer than others is flawed).
You might also want to have a look at: Why evolution should not be equated with progress?
Being clever is not a goal of evolution
Most of these trait have associated cost to the benefice they might bring. For example having a big brain asks for much energy (20% of ATP in humans) and it also has a cost due to its weight. The sperm whale for example has a brain that weights 7.8 kg. Obviously it is not a big cost for such a big animal to carry heavy organs while it would be impossible for a migratory bird to carry such a brain.
taking different evolutionary path This part is not complete!
Now the question of why Homo sapiens are smart while Tyranosaurus rex are not or why wings evolved in bat and not in mice is rather interesting and hard to answer. I can think of 2 main causes:
1) The newly arising trait (which is usually not the trait you can observe today. Big brain did not appear suddenly, first there were individuals they had slightly bigger brains than the other individuals in the population) is not beneficial over the wildtype trait. There are so many parameters that will affect if a trait is beneficial or not. You can think of the predators, the humidity in the environnement, the social structure, the population size, the type of reproduction, the genetic background etc...
For example, think of a species that is fixed, has no social contact, has nothing it can really predict in the environnement. What would an individual from this species do with a brain? Think of a bird that needs to make food stock for the winter. This bird needs to remember where it hide something. It has been found by the way that some birds have an awesome spatial memory, way better than humans.
2) The trait never happen to occur (or never in a strong enough individual, or never in a population big enough to not suffer from to much drift while the trait is at low frequency) just because the necessary mutation never happen. Mutation is just a random process.
For example. It seems rather hard for a tree to have the necessary mutations to have develop a brain! But we don't need to go to such a extreme example. If you split a population of clone mice in two, the two subpopulation will evolve differently (even in absence of genetic drift (infinite population size)) just because  some mutations occur on one side while some others occur on the other side. Or maybe the same mutation might occur but once in an individual that has low fitness and once in a very fit individual.
Evolution of human cognition abilities
So what are the factors that drive humans to evolve big brains? This question is not solved yet. We have many models to explain this but I don't we have much solutions to test these models. The 2 most common models explain big brains

for social purposes (understanding relationship between other individuals, being able to coordinate the movement for a hunt, etc...)
due to sexual selection. Being intelligent would be a proxy for having good genes.

For more information concerning the evolution of human cognition, this wikipedia article might be a good start.
UPDATE

Why do you think mutation is a random process?

Our genetic data are encoded into a succession of 4 types of nucleotide bases (A,T,C and G). A mutation results from a modification of this sequence such as a replacement of a T by a C. These mutations are due to mistakes usually while duplicating the DNA. Most of these mistakes do not affect the fitness (survival + reproduction ability) of the individual, very often these mutation are deleterious and rarely these mutations are beneficial. Some mutations are more probable than others but nevertheless some individuals have a higher mutation rate than others. In order to make things slightly more complicated, some sequences have a higher mutation rate than others. For example, the sequence AAAAAAAAAAAA is more likely to mutate than the sequence ATGTGCATCTA. But even if some mutations are more likely to occur it is still a random process (we couldn't talk about likelihood otherwise!). Two clones living in the exact same environment that both have a baby at the exact same time wil not create babies with the exact same genome given the randomness of mutations. One baby might have a very bad mutation that will make him die, while the other baby might synthesize (=construct) a new enzyme that increases its digestive capacity.

We created very complex languages, we write and read, we created computers, we have philosophy, we have maths, we have religions, we can send spaceships to the other plants. Why there were no species in dinosaurs in 135 million years,that evolved to read and write and think about philosophical thoughts?

@Пуя I think your comment has already been answered above. Can you try to pinpoint what seems unclear to you? Or try to pinpoint why I did not answer your question.

Why do you think that the mutation is a random process?

@Пуя Do you think that mutation isn't a random process?

@Пуя See update in my answer. Please let us know if anything else is still unclear.

@Пуя You will find many introduction to evolutionary biology with a simple google search. Here is a video from Khan Academy that might give you introductory knowledge in the science of evolutionary biology (I haven't watched these videos!).

So what are the factors that drive humans to evolve big brains? This question is not solved yet., Why? Why is human smartest among billions of other species?

Around 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens first appears in East Africa. It is unclear to what extent these early modern humans had developed language, music, religion etc. They spread throughout Africa over the following 50,000 years or so.

@Пуя The last paragraph of my answer gives you two different models to explain the evolution of human intelligence. It is a very broad subject for which we have several hyopthesis but we can't really test them. have a look on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence (it is the same link I gave you in the answer) and then if you have specific question I suggest that you ask it in another post.

While mutations happen randomly, its important to understand that evolution isn't random


text:
Identify a hanging plant with spherical leaves

This plant was found in the "drylands" section of a public conservatory (you can see a potted cactus in the background).  It did not have a label, and there was nobody around to ask about it.  The plant has hanging stems about a meter long, with spherical leaves about five millimeters in diameter -- the leaves appear to be genuinely spherical, not curled-up flat leaves.
Any idea what it is?

you could have googeled "hanging plant with spherical leaves"

Top result was a Wikipedia article for a plant with spherical fruit, and the next several were plants with curled-up leaves.  Google doesn't have all the answers.

It seems that this might be Curio rowleyanus, sometimes called "string-of-pearls".  The Wikipedia article indicates it has spherical leaves about 6mm in diameter on trailing stems up to about a meter.  It is a succulent and the spherical leaves reduce evaporation for volume contained.  It grows in the dry parts of southwest Africa.

BTW, my Google query was simply plant with spherical leaves.

Looks correct to me. Incidentally, there are a bunch of similar "String of..." plants in the same or very closely related genus Senecio, and they are all very easy to propagate from the leaves and stem, so are incredibly popular houseplants at the moment.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What are the roles of guanidine-HCl and ethanol in binding of DNA to silica?
I'm trying to understand how exactly the binding to silica gel (in kits) step works and I cannot find any papers which provide an explanation of the physics or chemistry; especially on the way that Guanidine-HCl works.
So lets get them from the beginning.
First of all, we adjust DNA binding conditions by adding a buffer which includes
Guanidine-HCl and ethanol and then we centrifuge our sample. I knew that Guanidine-HCl destroys the tertiary structure of proteins but somewhere I read that also it helps the DNA to bind to a silica column. I searched to find the way that it works but I couldn't find a paper. Also what is the role of ethanol in this step? Is it just to remove proteins and polysaccharides from the sample?

There is an excellent discussion of this in:
Melzak et al. (1996) Driving forces for DNA adsorption to silica in perchlorate solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 181: 635 - 644
I've skimmed the paper, and I'm beginning to understand it, but I don't feel up to actually answering the question yet.

So the whole story as i understood is not clear at all.Here is a abstract on what i got but i am not sure if this is the final answer. In earlier years there was the opinion that the SiO4 molecules had negative charge as the DNA too. So to achieve the binding of them you had use high conc. salt (chaotropic salt) and alkaline pH. In that way some cations from the salt will create a bridge between DNA and SiO4 molecules. In recent studies (Water interactions with silica surfaces: A big role for surface structure) seems that the things doesn't work that way. They predict that SiO4 molecules has

(continue from above) positive charges and the way that chaotropic agent works is by creating hydrophobic environment so to remove the water molecules from DNA and let it bind into silica membrane. As for ethanol...nothing yet. Some companies nevertheless they explain the binding mechanism as i described first.

As far as I know, the ethanol is just a wash in which DNA is insoluble to remove contaminants

Guanidine HCL is a chaotropic salt.  Chaotropic salts are critical for cell lysis and binding to the silica resin. Specifically, Chaotropes have two important roles in nucleic acid extraction

Destabilize hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces and hydrophobic interactions.

Leading to destabilization of proteins (including nucleases).

Macromolecular structure and function is dependent on the net effect of these forces (see protein folding), therefore it follows that an increase in chaotropic solutes in a biological system will denature macromolecules, reduce enzymatic activity and induce stress on a cell (i.e., a cell will have to synthesize stress protectants). Tertiary protein folding is dependent on hydrophobic forces from amino acids throughout the sequence of the protein. Chaotropic solutes decrease the net hydrophobic effect of hydrophobic regions because of a disordering of water molecules adjacent to the protein. This solubilises the hydrophobic region in the solution, thereby denaturing the protein. This is also directly applicable to the hydrophobic region in lipid bilayers; if a critical concentration of a chaotropic solute is reached (in the hydrophobic region of the bilayer) then membrane integrity will be compromised, and the cell will lyse. [Source]

Disrupt the association of nucleic acids with water.

Thereby providing optimal conditions for their transfer to silica.

Salts can have chaotropic properties by shielding charges and preventing the stabilization of salt bridges. Hydrogen bonding is stronger in non-polar media, so salts, which increase the chemical polarity of the solvent, can also destabilize hydrogen bonding. Mechanistically this is because there are insufficient water molecules to effectively solvate the ions. This can result in ion-dipole interactions between the salts and hydrogen bonding species which are more favorable than normal hydrogen bonds. [Source]

Ethanol, like Guanidine HCL, is a  chaotopic agent.  Ethanol is added for 2 reasons:

Enhance and influence the binding of nucleic acids to the silica.

Interfere with non-covalent intramolecular forces as outlined above.
Reduce association of nucleic acids with water. From Melzak et al. (1996):

Decreaing the water activity in solution through addition of either a chaotropic salt or an alcohol changes the helical structureof B-DNA either continuously to C-DNA or through a sharp  cooperative transition to A-DNA (28). Either transition is  accompanied by a decrease in solvent-accessible surface  area.

The correct concentration allows for washing of the salts from the membrane. [Source].

Citations

Melzak et al. (1996) Driving forces for DNA adsorption to silica in perchlorate solutions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 181: 635 - 644.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What is 'noise'?
In both my psychology, biology and neuroscience classes, professors are constantly talking about 'noise'. For instance, our perception is limited due to 'sensory noise' in our neurons.
I am utterly confused about this concept. What is 'noise'? Can someone please conceptually describe what is is in laymen's terms?

Maybe they meant noise as a type of interference, like when you have everyone in the same room with the same type of wireless mouse, there is interference with the signal. Thats just a Wild A$$ Guess though...

The term noise can mean a number of different (more or les related) things is used in a number of different fields such as signal processing, psychology and statistics.
Outside of its context, it is impossible to say for certitude what you professors were referring to.
The quotations below come from wikipedia > Communication noise, wikipedia > Statistical noise, wikipedia > white noise and wikipedia > noise
Psychological noise

Psychological noise results from preconceived notions we bring to conversations, such as racial stereotypes, reputations, biases, and assumptions. When we come into a conversation with ideas about what the other person is going to say and why, we can easily become blinded to their original message. Most of the time psychological noise is impossible to free ourselves from, and we must simply strive to recognize that it exists and take those distractions into account when we converse with others.

Psychological noise

Physiological noise has to do with distractions from the natural effects of the body, such as being tired or hungry.

Physical noise

Physical noise is any external or environmental stimulus that distracts us from receiving the intended message sent by a communicator (Rothwell 11). Examples of physical noise include: others talking in the background, background music, a startling noise and acknowledging someone outside of the conversation.

Semantic noise

This is noise caused by the sender. i.e., the encoder. This type of noise occurs when grammar or technical language is used that the receiver (the decoder) cannot understand, or cannot understand it clearly. It occurs when the sender of the message uses a word or a phrase that we don't know the meaning of, or which we use in a different way from the speakers. This is usually due to the result that the encoder had failed to practice audience analysis at first. The type of audience is the one that determine the jargon one will use.

Statistical noise

Statistical noise is the colloquialism for recognized amounts of unexplained variation in a sample.

White noise

In signal processing, white noise is a random signal with a constant power spectral density.1 The term is used, with this or similar meanings, in many scientific and technical disciplines, including physics, acoustic engineering, telecommunications, statistical forecasting, and many more. White noise refers to a statistical model for signals and signal sources, rather than to any specific signal.

Noise in its everyday use

Noise is a variety of sound. It means any unwanted sound. Sounds, particularly loud ones, that disturb people or make it difficult to hear wanted sounds, are noise. For example, conversations of other people may be called noise by people not involved in any of them; any unwanted sound such as domesticated dogs barking, neighbours playing loud music, portable mechanical saws, road traffic sounds, or a distant aircraft in quiet countryside, is called noise.

In electronics, there are concepts of signal and noise; what is not signal is noise. Signal is an "intended" or expected impulse or waveform; noise is any other impulse or waveform - unwanted or unintended.
Taking this into a biological context, sensory noise would then be sensory impulses, whatever the cause, which don't convey useful or meaningful information.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why does fever above 102 herald a cancer patient's death?
I was recently intrigued by a longtime hospice nurse's observation that her cancer patients die a different death than her Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, heart failure and COPD patients.
She stated that the cancer patients will typically develop a fever over 102 degrees during the last 48-72 hours of their life, something that is not normally seen in her non-cancer patients.
Any ideas on the underlying biologic reasons for this extinction burst phenomenon and how might this be related to the high fevers induced with Coley's Toxins?

Welcome to BiologySE - do you have some reference to that temperature and death? adding that would strengthen this question considerably

Only reference would be the data regarding Coley's Toxin used to induce cancer remission by causing high fever.

@TomBeautrous any citation is better than no citation at all (for the most part) - I would add this to your answer through editing

Maybe this low fever is the body's last attempt to kill the cancer cells, as previous attempts have been thwarted by the obsessive compulsion of doctors and patients to give antipyretics when there is a fever. Which, predictably, only hampers this protective method present in all vertebrates for millions of years that is a major defense against cancer cells.

@Gustavomolina - Too bad comments can't be downvoted. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to back up your statement.

@anongoodnurse why do you talk of scientific evidence, I couldn't even find sense in that comment :P

I'm not sure I agree with that, but if I had to support that assertion, I would say that while patients with COPD, CHF and neurodegenerative diseases may die of hypoxia (no fever there), patients with cancer more often die of opportunistic infections.
In patients being treated with chemotherapy (and for some time afterwards as well), myelosuppression - that is suppression of white blood cells vital to fighting infection - is a major risk factor, and is the major dose-limiting factor of systemic chemotherapy.
However, as I stated, I don't agree that fever is a predictor of end of life in cancer patients.
In one large study of terminally ill cancer inpatients, infection was the cause of death in only 15% of patients. More common causes included congestive heart failure (24%), renal failure (30%), liver disease (30%), cerebrovascular disease (30%), pulmonary embolism (25%) - very common in cancer patients - and lung disease. (Overlap exists because of comorbidity.)
Another study of hospice patients found the major problems in terminal cancer patients were the presence of cognitive failure, weight loss, dysphagia, anorexia and dyspnea to be independent survival predictors in this population (which somewhat supports the above study.)
The National Cancer Institute's Last Days of Life–Health Professional Version does not even list fever as a predictor of end of life (EOL).
Among a few others, the late signs found highly specific for impending death in 3 days involved instead signs of cardiac, cerebrovascular, respiratory, and renal failure.
Similarly, a study in the journal Supportive Care in Cancer found that according to palliative care experts (78 professionals, including physicians, nurses, and others):

changes in the following categories (each consisting of up to three phenomena) were considered highly relevant to clinicians in identifying and predicting a patient's last hours/days of life: "breathing", "general deterioration", "consciousness/cognition", "skin", "intake of fluid, food, others", "emotional state" and "non-observations/expressed opinions/other".

Coley's toxins have to do with treatment of cancer. I'm not sure that they have anything whatsoever to do with death from cancer.
Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients
Invasive fungal infections in patients with hematologic malignancies in a tertiary care cancer center: an autopsy study over a 15-year period (1989-2003)
Last Days of Life–Health Professional Version
International palliative care experts' view on phenomena indicating the last hours and days of life.


text:
Bird identification- Crane
What species of crane is this?

Today afternoon, I found this crane among a group of white cranes that were moving around a herd of buffaloes. I live in West Bengal, India if it matters.
Is it an eastern cattle egret,Bubulcus ibis coromandus in breeding plumage?

Some of the photos appearing in the avibase page for Cattle egret look really similar, for instance https://www.flickr.com/photos/33816646@N06/5834155140.

It does. I found a page of Avibase about Bubulcus ibis coromandus with similar photographs.

Yes, It is for sure a cattle egret.

Yes, this is a cattle egret displaying its breeding plumage.
The cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) is a cosmopolitan species of heron (family Ardeidae) found in the tropics, subtropics and warm temperate zones.
Specifically, this is the eastern subspecies, B. ibis coromandus.

 B. ibis coromandus [source: Wikimedia Commons]

 B. ibis ibis © Larry Thompson, 2007-2015
The cattle egret is the only member of the monotypic genus Bubulcus, although some authorities regard two of its subspecies as full species, the western cattle egret and the eastern cattle egret.

The eastern subspecies B. ibis coromandus, described by Pieter Boddaert in 1783, breeds in Asia and Australasia, and the western subspecies (B. ibis ibis) occupies the rest of the species range, including the Americas.
The eastern subspecies (B. ibis coromandus) differs from the nominate subspecies in breeding plumage in that the buff color on its head extends to the cheeks and throat, and the plumes are more golden in color.

B. ibis usually feeds in seasonally inundated grasslands, pastures, farmlands, wetlands and rice paddies. Their name comes from their tendency to often accompany cattle or other large mammals in these areas, where they catch insects attracted to and small vertebrates disturbed by these animals.
Originally native to parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, B. ibis has undergone a rapid expansion in its distribution and successfully colonized much of the rest of the world in the last century.

 [Source: Discover Life]
Major Source: Wikipedia


text:
Is this a firefly?

It glows without interruption. This photo was taken near Barcelona, Spain.

It looks like a firefly to me. The fact that it glows is a dead give away, the light producing organ on the abdomen looks right, and the pronotum ( the shield covering the head ) also matches. Many species of firefly have flightless members ( usually female ) that sit on the ground and signal the flying ones.

My doubt comes from the fact that it glows without stop. In some identification charts that I've looked, they all glow in intervals of at most 9 seconds.

Glowing non-stop does seem weird. That would use up a lot of luciferase, and require a significant input of energy. But I'm pretty sure it's still a type of firefly, I'm not aware of any other bioluminescent beetles.

Looks like a glowworm to me.

@Federico I know it's been 9 months since this question was answered, but please see my new answer (Feb 2017)  addressing the geographic unlikelihood that your specimen is L noctiluca.

Thanks a lot! I appreciate your effort. I am definitely not an expert, but the map that you attach seems conclusive (the photographs are harder to distinguish).

I think @user137's answer is close, but I believe that Lampyris noctiluca is the wrong species.
This looks like Lampyris iberica (the Iberian Glow Worm). The Lampyris are a genus of european firefly beetles whose larvae and larviform females are among those organisms commonly called "glowworms".

© Prem Rose, 2016. http://www.inaturalist.org/photos/4351809

© Prem Rose, 2016. http://www.inaturalist.org/photos/4351808
These two species are very similar. According to De Cock et al. (2014),

Identification of Lampyris larvae stays difficult [due to a] lack of clear discriminating characteristics.

See here for more pictures of L. iberica (and here for more pictures of L. noctiluca for comparison).

However, according to work presented by De Cock et al. (2014), L. noctiluca is not found in Barcelona, but L. iberica IS found in Barcelona.

L. noctiluca shows an extreme Northern distribution, only
  present scattered over provinces in the North Atlantic region and Provinces in the Pyrenees, whereas L. iberica also occurs in
  central Northern provinces and the Southern extreme of Spain in Cádiz and the province of Málaga.

Both species present a conspicuous sexual dimorphism, with males being smaller and winged and females being larviforme, without wings and noticeably larger than the males.

I'm going to guess this is a Lampyris noctiluca, a species of firefly commonly found in Europe. The females are flightless, glow continuously for up to 2 hours, and are commonly referred to as glowworms, per anongoodnurse's comment.


text:
Isolating the vasculature of an organ?
Is there a chemical or process that would dissolve or remove all other tissues in an organ and leave all the vasculature intact? I am planning to make a shelf display of the blood vessels in the heart of a pig for use as a shelf display.

Plastination, corrosion casting, and paraffin embedding can be used for this process, though each with different methods and results.  Body Worlds uses primarily plastination, and they create awesome "models" such as this

@theforestecologist Although Body Worlds is famous for their use of plastination, the picture you linked is a corrosion cast.

The typical name for this technique is "corrosion casting" - if you search for literature on corrosion casting you will find many many papers detailing the technique. Another answer mentions "plastination" but I don't think this is really what you are looking for; plastination is a technique for preserving the tissues themselves (though the "Body Worlds" exhibit that post references also uses corrosion casts extensively).
Briefly, in corrosion casting, you gravity or pressure-fill the vasculature with a plastic, typically acrylic. It is best if the vessels are flushed free of blood before injecting the plastic, with saline/PBS, for example. (Organs from a butcher will work fine but you will get better results if you can administer heparin premortem to prevent clotting, which of course is not possible for a meat animal.) The acrylic cures, and then the tissues that remain are digested with a basic solution, ranging from 0.5 M NaOH to 6M KOH depending on the protocol (lower concentrations or NaOH will digest more slowly, higher concentrations or KOH will digest more quickly), often at elevated temperature (~37C). Note that this solution technically digests all of the vasculature as well, but you have already filled the vascular lumens with plastic, so that is what you are left with.

I think that you are looking for plastination. Its developer, Gunther von Hagens, uses it to preserve whole bodies as well as selected tissues, such as muscles, nerves and vessels, for teaching uses and the exhibition BODY WORLDS.
I think this is the best method, but I'm not sure about its feasibility without a dedicated laboratory. Other methods, such as paraffin embedding, would leave you with the problem of removing the rest of the tissues without using high temperatures.


text:
Can birds raise younglings that are not their own?
For example, if a scientist were to move a chickadee or pigeon egg from one nest to another, would the new bird (second mother) in the new nest incubate or raise the youngling? Or would the new mother reject the egg since it lacks its imprints (like scent for example)?
In other words, can birds differentiate between their offspring and foreign offspring?


text:
How selective are wolves about the size of their prey?
For an animal that lives and hunts socially like a wolf, is there a lower threshold to the size of prey items they will hunt? A pack wouldn't have much trouble with catching say a rabbit, but would the food provided be enough to actually make the hunt worthwhile? What is the limit in which a prey item becomes too small to be worth catching?

Hi and Welcome! You may not know that this site requires evidence of prior research (quote and link to source/s) in an attempt to answer your own question (this is a Q&A site, but one with slightly higher expectations.)  Did you google this? What did you find?

I will say that hares make up a large part of a wolf's diet in a certain season. What's too small for a wolf to bother with? That depends.

You should not post here until you've demonstrated your own research effort. Given this stipulation -- and the rich literature about this very topic -- I will keep my answer cursory so as to act as starting points for your search. A simple Google or google Scholar search on your part will reveal many more details/studies.
You should review the following ecological concepts: prey switching, optimal foraging theory, principle of allocation, and others.
Some accessible articles on Prey-to-predator-size ratio include: Henriques et al. 2021, Tsai et al 2016, Cohen et al 1993, and Vézina 1985.
Regarding wolves:
According to Becker et al 2018:

[Wolf] Prey selection is influenced by the absolute and relative abundances of prey types, the life history characteristics of predators and prey, and the attributes of the environment in which these interactions occur.

Smith et al. 2010 demonstrate that diets vary with season -- their focus being on winter diets.

Huggard 1993 shows the impact of environmental variables such as snow.

Herd density plays a significant role:

Sand et al. 2016.

Davis et al 2012 showed that lower density of secondary prey mattered more than heightened density of primary prey.

Huggard 1993 (Canadian Journal of Zoology) showed that density of herds (vs herd density) mattered more in Banff National Park in Canada. Herd size and habitat also mattered -- with wolves avoiding some habitats and seemingly choosing places that optimized preferred habitats and large herd size.

Wolf scat/diet studies showing smallest species in their diet:

Sin et al 2019: smallest for Sandanavian wolves = domestic dogs

Nowak et al 2011 showed the following small prey made up the stated percentages of wolve's diets in Poland:

brown hare Lepus europeus (2.5%) and Eurasian beaver Castor fiber (1.4%). Domestic animals, exclusively dogs and cats, made up 1.0% of food biomass.

Works cited:

Becker, M.S., Garrott, R.A., White, P.J., Gower, C.N., Bergman, E.J. and Jaffe, R., 2008. Wolf prey selection in an elk-bison system: choice or circumstance?. Terrestrial Ecology, 3, pp.305-337.
Cohen, J.E., Pimm, S.L., Yodzis, P. and Saldaña, J., 1993. Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. Journal of animal ecology, pp.67-78.
Davis, M.L., Stephens, P.A., Willis, S.G., Bassi, E., Marcon, A., Donaggio, E., Capitani, C. and Apollonio, M., 2012. Prey selection by an apex predator: the importance of sampling uncertainty. PloS one, 7(10), p.e47894.
Henriques, J.F., Lacava, M., Guzmán, C., Gavín-Centol, M.P., Ruiz-Lupión, D., De Mas, E., Magalhães, S. and Moya-Laraño, J., 2021. The sources of variation for individual prey-to-predator size ratios. Heredity, 126(4), pp.684-694.
Huggard, D.J., 1993. Effect of snow depth on predation and scavenging by gray wolves. The Journal of wildlife management, pp.382-388.
Huggard, D.J., 1993. Prey selectivity of wolves in Banff National Park. I. Prey species. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71(1), pp.130-139.
Nowak, S., Mysłajek, R.W., Kłosińska, A. and Gabryś, G., 2011. Diet and prey selection of wolves (Canis lupus) recolonising Western and Central Poland. Mammalian Biology, 76(6), pp.709-715.
Sand, H., Eklund, A., Zimmermann, B., Wikenros, C. and Wabakken, P., 2016. Prey selection of Scandinavian wolves: single large or several small?. PloS one, 11(12), p.e0168062.
Sin, T., Gazzola, A., Chiriac, S. and Rîșnoveanu, G., 2019. Wolf diet and prey selection in the South-Eastern Carpathian Mountains, Romania. PloS one, 14(11), p.e0225424.
Smith, D.W., Drummer, T.D., Murphy, K.M., Guernsey, D.S. and Evans, S.B., 2004. Winter prey selection and estimation of wolf kill rates in Yellowstone National Park, 1995–2000. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(1), pp.153-166.
Tsai, C.H., Hsieh, C.H. and Nakazawa, T., 2016. Predator–prey mass ratio revisited: does preference of relative prey body size depend on individual predator size?. Functional Ecology, 30(12), pp.1979-1987.
Vézina, A.F., 1985. Empirical relationships between predator and prey size among terrestrial vertebrate predators. Oecologia, 67(4), pp.555-565.

Also of interest: "Wolf Pack Hunts A Hare | The Hunt | BBC Earth" 4:05 min YouTube video by BBC Earth.


text:
Are these microscopic star-like structures on a dead leaf some sort of organism? If so, which one?
I’m wondering what these star-shaped organisms are on a dead leaf I found in my backyard (Texas, USA). This was taken under my microscope at 40x magnification. They seem to be clear organisms with multiple outgoing “rays” that somehow benefit with being on the leaf. What’s the identification? Are they even organisms? They appeared stationary. Response to comment asker: The leaf did not feel hairy.

These are stellate ("star-shaped") [and possibly peltate ("borne on a stalk")] hairs ("trichomes") of the leaf itself.

From Harris & Harris's (2001) ""Plant Identification Terminology: An Illustrated Glossary":

Peltate. a flat structure borne on a stalk attached to the lower surface

Stellate. Star-shaped, as in hairs with several to many branches radiating from the base. Figure 1686.

Trichome. A hair or hair-like outgrowth of the epidermis.

You can see a magnified image of stellate peltate trichomes on a leaf of a Texan native, Croton monanthogynus below:

 Leaf surface (abaxial) showing stellate, peltate trichomes. SOURCE: Nickrent, D.L., Costea, M., Barcelona, J.F., Pelser, P.B. & Nixon, K. (2006 onwards) PhytoImages. Available from: http://www.phytoimages.siu.edu

this looks like a cactus

@Féileacán I don't believe common species of cacti have stellate hairs. See https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2253 for an example. (Also, note: that cactus "hairs" you're used to observing are actually spines not trichomes -- specifically, spines that tend to be more delicate are called glochids. Trichomes on cacti typically associate with clusters of glochids for water capture, but such clusters of trichomes would appear clumped and apeltate unlike the imaged stellate trichomes.


text:
What is this spider with blue striped head?

I found this spider on the balcony of a Brisbane, Australia quarantine hotel. About 1.5cm. Anyone know what it is?

Colourful find, it's not among the common listed types, or the common poisonous ones. Best to be careful and not handle until identified. Please take our [tour] and refer to the [help] for guidance.  Also, take a read of our species ID guidelines and see what you can add that might help.

+1 for excellent photo

Related: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/79038/what-is-the-name-of-this-red-and-blue-striped-spider-brazil-rio-de-janeir

I knew Australia was taking COVID seriously, but to quarantine the spiders too is quite impressive.

@BruceWayne Perhaps the spider isn't quarantined; perhaps it's a guard to prevent the "guests" from escaping ;)

I was simply writing this as a comment, but it became too long/detailed. I wanted to supplement @timeskull's answer with a bit more nuance.
I agree that this looks like a female Cosmophasis micarioides
A more similar looking specimen to the OP's photo:

 Credit: Tony Bailey , Source: findaspider.org
You can read more about the species here, including that its "extremely variable." Importantly, the mature male is much darker with blue and black lines, while the female is much brighter with reds/yellows. Sub-adult males actually look like a cross between the two:

The female can feature combinations of orange, black, red or blue-green, usually with metallic bands across the cephalothorax. The males look like females until they become sub adult, when they look like a cross between the female and the adult male...You can recognise C. micarioides males by their black face lines

@timeskull's answer looks different from the OP's specimen because the specimens in that photo are likely sub-adult males or juveniles vs. females. -- they're actually identified as juveniles here
According to Whyte & Anderson (2017)1, the species is widespread and common in tropical Australia south to Brisbane.

1. Whyte, Robert; Anderson, Greg (2017). A Field Guide to Spiders of Australia. Clayton South Vic. 3169: CSIRO publishing. p. 236. ISBN 9780643107076

"Toxicity: May cause local inflammation". - "The jumping spiders are not toxic except for the Mopsus mormon."

Looks like we have another "What color is the dress?" meme candidate - the blue in the original image is likely due to the reflected light appearing that color from certain angles...

@DarrelHoffman right you are. The name micarioides actually refers to the "micaceus" (mica-like) body scales that reflect different colors when viewed from different angles.

It's a female Cosmophasis micarioides.
It's obviously a salticid, so I looked through the thumbnails of jumping spiders at arachne.org.au until I saw the green and orange head bands. Fortunately they used the female spider for the thumbnail as the male looks quite different and I wouldn't have checked if it was pictured.

Description and more images on the species page:
http://www.arachne.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=2583

Good find. Colorful like a jumping spider, but the eyes weren't clear in the OP's photo.


text:
What does genetic diversity in one species have to do with survival rate when an epidemic spreads?
I was studying about genes, and soon remembered that the more diverse the genetics of one species, the less the chance of the species to go extinct from natural disaster.
One instance was an epidemic spreads.I don't fully understand why that happens, so I searched for it in Google and books, but all of them only told me that it is true, not why or how.
So my question is : why and how genetic diversity in one species affects the chance of the species's extinction?
I mean, for example, does it relate to antibodies or something else?

you might need to change some key words when you search the net for information i found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity and this https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/genetic-diversity by searching for "what is genetic diversity"

If everyone has the same weakness, then one thing targeting that weakness can wipe everyone out. If everyone has different weaknesses, then that is no longer the case.

Welcome to Biology.SE. If you are wondering about the downvotes it is probably because the Biology.SE community has agreed that questions that show little or no prior research effort are off-topic on this site as are "homework" questions unless you have shown your attempt at an answer. Please [edit] your question and tell us where you've looked for answers (Google is a tool), what you do know about the topic, and where exactly you still have questions. Please take the [tour] and consult the [help] starting with [ask] for details.

I would recommend looking at the "Evolutionary diversity" section of this page. (for vertebrates, at least)

Genetic diversity could be understood as a variation in alleles (gene variants) and their frequencies in a population. Due to these allelic variations, we would expect an inherent variability in individual genotypes (or genetic codes). Phenotypes (or traits) can and do vary with changes in underlying genotype. (In simple terms: if you change the underlying genetic code, it could result in changes to an individual's traits).
Changes in traits (e.g., color, size, speed, temperature regulation, mobility, etc.) could lead to a variation in energy conservation, survival, reproductive success, and ultimately fitness.
If any member of a population is more fit given a set of environmental circumstances, it is morel likely that they will survive and pass on their genes to subsequent generations.

You would benefit from reviewing evolution and natural selection. (Sexual selection and genetic drift are relevant, too, of course).

However, the environment and resulting ecologies are always changing, and so there is never an "endpoint" of this process. I.e., there's never a perfectly fit individual that will survive all future environmental changes better than all other variants. In fact, all organisms can only tolerate stressful environmental conditions to a point. (See, e.g., principle of allocation).

As a result, any given individual is limited in its ability to survive various environmental conditions, and no individual organism can survive all possible environmental conditions.

With genetic diversity (and therefore the resulting variability in traits), a given population has members that may be better suited to survive a broad[er] range of environmental situations/changes/outcomes.
Therefore, it's less of an issue of survival rate and instead sustainability of the genetics of that population and life in general.

If a population lacks genetic diversity, then there is a greater chance that the population as a whole goes extinct.

Example:
Population of rabbits that have variability in their alleles dictating fur length. If there was no variability in their genes (the extreme case being that they're all clones), then any massive shift in climatic conditions (e.g., temperature) may decrease their entire population to 0. If, however, we have some rabbits with alleles that could now or in later combinations result in longer fur, that would enable some members to survive very cold years. This population would be in trouble if it suddenly turned very warm. But if our population's initial gene pool also contained alleles that could now or later result in a short fur phenotype, then the population is even better protected from extinction in these various scenarios.
I think you could figure out how this applies to pathogens in the context of an epidemic...

Hint: traits could also include metabolic rates, biochemical processes, cell-surface proteins, etc.)

 This could get much more complicated, but this gives you the introductory understanding I think you're looking for.


text:
Identification of a strange skull
My father is a fisherman in the Baltic sea, and he has found this very strange skull. I would like to know to which animal it belonged. Can someone help identify it?

Unfortunately I don't have more photos or anything to measure the scale. This picture is all I've got.

You've got a coarse black cloth with a weave in the back-ground. If you can find the cloth type, you can probably make an estimate of rough dimensions. I'd hazard a guess of about 30-40 cm across the widest part and similar top-to-bottom.

Thank you for your suggestion! I've manage to get rough estimate of the dimensions - around 30x25 cm.

@BassAstral if you edit that information into your question, more people will see the dimensions and you are more likely to get an answer.

I thought it might be a vertebral scute from a sea turtle, but apparently there are none in the baltic sea

@timeskull in Baltic you can't exclude anything because just recently there was walrus here who unfortunately died. Here has been several findings common monkfish, dolphins, whales and other usually not Baltic species who usually get lost their way or are brought by ships (smaller). Same way many years there was grey seal living in Black sea who was probably taken from Baltic sea as pup by some sailor and released there when it wasn't so cute anymore and started biting.

Looks like this is a neurocranium of a tuna or a similar species (dorsal view on this site).
I've also found a very similar picture of Atlantic blue tuna from USA, which seems to support that this is indeed a neurocranium.(source of the picture).

Thank you all for your help!

Can you add an inline image and supporting information of your ID? As of now it's more of a comment than an answer. Additional supportive evidence can consist of checking whether size measures and habitat correspond to your specimen, and whether the area of distribution of your ID matches where the specimen was found etc.

Thanks @AliceD! I've added an image and some more information, although I don't know how to specify all of the required information. My skills and knowledge in that regard are rather limited.

Great answer! You cannot know how happy I am that you posted an answer. I thought I was crazy for thinking it was a skull (based on the atlas bone and the sutures). Wish I could upvote this 10 times.

Just upvoted this 15 more times. :) Rarely is such a definitive answer provided so quickly to a mysterious object, much less from the OP themself. Very well done.


text:
What snake is this? Is it venomous?
Location: Ozark Mountains in Northern Arkansas.
Size: Perhaps 4-6 feet in length.
Behavior: Mower uncovered a couple of these in tall grass/brush next to a log. They did not coil up. This one lay still for a few minutes before slithering into the cover of grass.
Same snake from a few different angles is shown below:

Yes snake is venomous, but it's a fairly docile venomous snake species. I'd be more concerned about what [possibly?] looks like a ton of poison hemlock you mowed down all around it! see here: "Acutely toxic to people...causes death by respiratory paralysis after ingestion.....Caution: toxins can be inhaled when mowing poison hemlock. Mowing is not recommended due to risk of breathing in toxins."

@theforestecologist you are correct that is poison hemlock, which has been infesting the area and which I'm trying to control mechanically by cutting before it flowers as described here: (https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/get-rid-of-poison-hemlock-now/488925.html). I've seen the warning you linked but the quantity is too much for manual control. I haven't noticed any symptoms after mowing but do appreciate the concern and may start using my respiratory mask again thanks to your reminder.

Looks like an eastern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). It is one of 6 venomous snakes in Arkansas (of a total ~39 AR species; see University of Arkansas).

See Herps of Arkansas for a nice range map showing sightings throughout the Ozarks.

 Source: Herps of Arkansas
From University of Arkansas Extension

CHARACTERISTICS: Tan with darker brown hourglass-shaped bands. Bands sometimes thinly bordered with white. Belly mostly patternless but some times with lower spots between bands extending onto belly. Heat-sensing pits. Pupils elliptical.

HABITAT: Occurs statewide in mixed pine-hardwood forests, bottomland hardwood forests, rocky or brushy fields and hillsides

According to Wikipedia, copperheads are usually < 3 ft long, so your length estimate is likely exaggerated. (However, according to UGA Extension, a 4+ft individual was the largest ever found -- still shy of your size estimate).

For sake of argument, see Virginia Herpetological Society for a nice visual demonstration of comparison to other "look-alike" species, and see this AR Snake Guide for a visual of the ~40 species found in Arkansas.

From both, you'll see that few if any species have the "hour-glass" pattern characteristic of the copperhead. (the closest in appearance, in my opinion, are non-venomous water snakes that still appear different AND would be found instead in/around water).

Dangerous?
Pit vipers (which include copperheads, rattlesnakes, and cottonmouths) result in more venomous snakebites than any other snake groups in the U.S. [Source], but this is primarily due to their widespread ranges and moderate abundances.

In terms of bites per encounter, copperheads rarely bite humans when provoked (again, the number of incidences being more a result of how common and widespread they are). In my experience, copperheads are one of the most docile snakes I come across. I have been within centimeters of stepping on one's head multiple times without being bit, and a friend of mine knelt on one once without being struck. The trick: just leave them alone, and if you get too close, just walk away.

Even if bit, a copperhead's bite is not as dire as some other venomous species.  From Blue Cross:

A copperhead snake bite can range from mild to severe. While most copperhead bites are not life-threatening, they can be very painful, and they require immediate medical attention. Some copperhead bites require antivenom treatment, and others (dry bites, or non-venomous bites) require only evaluation and observation by a doctor.

Note: According to UF Wuildife, 20-25% of pit viper bites are "dry bites", meaning no venom is injected.

See University of Arkansas Extension for a "What should I do if I've been bitten by a snake?"

you'll note from their site that there is now one common antivenom for all pit vipers.

PS, please don't kill them. Theyre cutting down pest population and mostly minding their own business. If you fear for the safety of a pet or child, please consider calling a humane removal surface. Reach out to the local university extension office for suggestions.

They eat deer mice (90% of their diet), which helps to decrease the tick population and, subsequently, Lyme disease and other nasties that ticks carry. Imo, anything that decreases ticks in this day and age of tick-borne diseases is a keeper.

Trust me, I've had plenty -- You definitely want to avoid the tick diseases. Keep the snake!


text:
Strange yellow flower in shrub Species ID
This is a perennial plant photo taken in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, but I have seen the same plant in Andhra Pradesh as well. It's not exactly woody like a tree, but pretty large shrub [taller than me].

What species is it?

Anything else you can tell us about the plant - the shape/form/habit? is the plant woody or soft? If you are searching include the terms pinnate leaves, flower raceme/racemic

Looks like a type of legume called a senna, though I do not know for certain which species -- see below for a pretty good guess!
Things that stand out about your specimen: most prominent are the erect/many-flowered yellow inflorescences, which are called racemes. You can see narrow green seed pods below your inflorescences as well -- these appear to be winged. Also noteworthy are the pinnately compound leaves with opposite leaflets having emarginate tips and entire margins -- I count 18-22 leaflets on leaves in your second image.
One such species that matches your specimen pretty well is Senna alata, the candelabra bush.

 Credit: Marie Lacouture ; Source: TRAMIL Library

This is a shrub-like plant growing 3-4 m tall, has bright yellow racemes that open bottom to top in the fall, leaves with 18-28 entire leaflets that can sometimes have emarginate tips, and is in-fact named for its winged seedpods (ala = winged).

Although native to the Neotropics, iNaturalist shows many observations of this plant in India.
Other Sources:

Missouri Botanical Garden

N Parks (Singapore)

Weeds of Australia


text:
WC small organisms ID?
I have reached the end of my Winogradsky Column experiment, but out of interest I have kept them for a little longer. I have noticed small bug- and worm-like organisms appearing in some of my columns. All mud and water was sourced from a nearby pond in Florida. The bug-like organisms are simply swimming/crawling around inside the column, while the worms are sticking up from the mud and wriggling. This pictured column was part of a group kept under a heat lamp.

Could anyone please provide an ID for these organisms? I think the worms are bloodworms, but I am not sure and I do not know what the small bug-like organisms could be, either.

Please always include specimen sizes for [tag:species-identification] questions. Also, each question post should only focus on 1 species. It seems your interest is in the non-worm organisms, so please edit your post to exclude questions about the worms (you may ask about them in a separate post; though, better pictures will likely be needed for ID). In fact, better pictures for this post would also be beneficial for future readers and to ensure the most accurate ID. Finally, you mention "swimming/crawling", which are very different behaviors. Could you specify which you're observing. Thanks.

Appears single-celled, but they look too big to be any kind of euglena or paramecia that I know. (again, knowing size would be helpful). Body shape doesn't immediately conform to other single-celled organisms I can think of off the top of my head, and they don't look like they're insect larva or crustaceans (e.g. daphnia). Nothing definitive stands out, but I think this is a case of poor quality photo + lacking details. Your post would really benefit from including 1) a zoomed/microscope image and 2) a gif of a video capturing their movement

the other thing that comes to mind are certain snail larvae, but again I'm not seeing detail to convince me that's what you have. More generally, do you see any appendages of any kind? (I don't in your images). Again, more detail would be great. Thanks

Alright, thank you for the advice! I unfortunately do not have a microscope but I will try to get clearer pictures with size.


text:
How much light can pass through the human eyelid?
My sister tells me that at night when the lights in the room are off that she can see the ambient outdoor light from neighboring buildigns and streetlights through her eyelids (i.e., when her eyes are closed). I, on the other hand, can't see anything. I can easily fall asleep even when the lights in the room are on; my sister can too, but when I tell her to sleep with the lights on because I have work to do, she just stares at the light and says that she can't sleep.
So, quantitatively, how much light would be able to pass through a normal human being's eyelids. And would ambient outside light be enough to pass through?

Define what you mean by "a normal human being".  You seem to assume that you are, and your sister is not.  But try an experiment: sit in a normally lighted room, close your eyes, and notice what you see.  Now place your cupped hands over your eyes.  Notice a difference?  Then you're probably normal :-)  (Though this might vary depending on the melanin content of your skin...)

Adding to @jamesqf 's personal experiment idea, note that visual sensitivity in humans spans many orders of magnitude an the dark-adapted eyes will notice smaller changes in light. Turn off the lights at night and sit by the switch for 5-10 minutes, then, keeping your eyes closed, flick the switch back on. I'd be surprised if you don't notice a difference, though what level of light is bothersome is surely going to vary from person to person.

Yep, this is a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string question. You could make some assumptions based on data on thickness of eyelids in the population and melanin content in general for specific populations- though that's a huge variable in itself.

@jamesqf by normal person, I mean just any average joe. Like most experiment would have an average reading right?

@Brien Lim: Yes, but without doing experiments (or being much better at using search engines than I am) on a bunch of average Joes (or Jills, since your sister seems to have markedly different sensitivity), how can this be answered?  And if we find that in fact there's a lot of difference between individuals, who's to say what's "normal"?

Short answer
About 0.79% of the light gets through on average, but there is variability across wavelengths and individuals. (variability between individuals seems to be correlated with density of macromolecules in the eyelid).
Long answer:
This is called "eyelid spectral transmittance".
Lucky for you, Bierman et al (2011) sought to determine the answer to this question.
Using a custom LED wand that actually emitted light under the eyelid for a sensor on the outside to read, they found quite a bit of variability both across wavelengths as well as across 27 test subjects.
They report their findings in terms of optical density, which is explained as follows:

A measure of the transmittance through an optical medium. Optical density equals the log to the base 10 of the reciprocal of the transmittance.... In spectroscopy, optical density is the measure of absorbance, and is defined as the ratio of the intensity of light falling upon a material and the intensity transmitted. Abbreviation OD.

We can use the equation  A = -log10(1/T) to convert their findings of OD to transmittance and then multiply by 100 to get a percentage of light that can pass through.

Their result of an OD of 2.1 ± 0.3 SD = a transmittance of 0.79%

They do note that  eyelid thickness, and/or the density of macromolecules in the eyelid account for most of the variation in transmittance between subjects.

 Bierman, A., Figueiro, M.G. and Rea, M.S., 2011. Measuring and predicting eyelid spectral transmittance. Journal of biomedical optics, 16(6), p.067011.


text:
What is this insect wing, based on its vein pattern?
I've heard that it's possible to identify insect species uniquely based only on the vein patterns of their wings.  Is this true?  If so, what is this?

The image is taken from an unsolved Internet puzzle game from a few years ago.  (The creators of the puzzle are no longer to be found, so I can't ask them).  I believe the wing is probably from some species of cicada, but I couldn't be sure, and if possible I'd like to know what particular species of cicada.
Also, is there any kind of formal classification/notation for insects' wing venation?  Might shed some light on what the puzzle makers actually meant by the dratted thing!  (You can remove this bit, or I can, if it's considered to be asking two questions at once.)

In case the answers here are not enough to solve the puzzle, you could post it at our sister site puzzling.SE.

There is a way to classify insect wings: the Comstock-Needham system.
From Wikipedia:

The Comstock–Needham system is a naming system for insect wing veins, devised by John Comstock and George Needham in 1898. It was an important step in showing the homology of all insect wings. This system was based on Needham's pretracheation theory that was later discredited by Frederic Charles Fraser in 1938.

The system assigns names to the enlarged longitudinal veins of the wings and provides subnumbering for different branches of those veins. The system also names cross-veins and cells (transparent areas between veins) relative to the major longitudinal veins.
Again, according to Wikipedia:

the major longitudinal veins are named:
> - costa C, meaning rib
> - subcosta Sc, meaning below the rib
> - radius R, in analogy with a bone in the forearm, the radius
> - media M, meaning middle
> - cubitus Cu, meaning elbow
> - anal veins A, in reference to its posterior location

The cells are named after the vein on the anterior side

Since the questions asks about identifying the wing based on the given image - do you have any idea what it is?

As I said in the question, I think it's a cicada.  The whole puzzle has a recurring cicada theme, and also from looking at some photos elsewhere in an online article about different types of insect wings that seems to be the best match ( http://www.metafysica.nl/wings/wings_14.html , scroll down to type 6, "Megadipterygia", although I think the author made that classification up).


text:
Need help identifying spider
I have been trying to identity this spider and have found nothing similar. This is the second I have found, this being the smaller at about 2cm. I want to know what kind of spider this is and if it is potentially dangerous to myself or my pets. June 2021, NW Turkey, fourth floor balcony. Thank you

A picture of the eye pattern might help with ID.

Looks to me like one of the Laceweavers: Amaurobius or something along those lines.  They rend to be fairly plain, powerful-looking ground-hunting spiders, and often have a dark reddish-brown carapace, with a dark, weakly patterned abdomen.  From what I can see of the eyes, they're consistent with that..  Unfortunately, the spider has been dead long enough to leave me uncertain, especially because my knowledge of European spiders is a bit limited.  It's definitely not a Mygalomorph tarantula, though.  No matter what, it's not one of the problem biters.

I agree with @JohnRobinson that Amauribidae is a good possibility, that it is Entelegyne (not Mygalomorph), and that its current (dried-up) state makes it hard to be sure of Family.

The spider looks very similar to Tarantulas. They are not harmful to humans but can show allergic reactions in pets when bitten by a spider.
Check out this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula.

"They are not harmful to humans but can show allergic reactions in pets when bitten by a spider." Actually not only to pets and when bitten - their hairs, especially on the legs, can cause respiratory and dermatologic irritations to humans and pets..

This is not a tarantula or even in the Mygalomorph infraorder.

You are more likely to get a positive response to your answer if you explain why your identification is correct. Specifically, please [edit] your answer to add discussion of key features that led you to this conclusion and supporting references or at least validated images. Without this your answer is indistinguishable from opinion, which is not appropriate for this site. Please consult the [help] starting with [answer] for details of what is expected.


text:
Can anyone identify whether or not these are bird or rodent mites?
I found these on my patio furniture directly under a bird's nest that has hatchlings. Surrounding landscape is ivy so we do have raccoons and mice in the area.

Related: Bug Identification: Tiny Bugs, Tiny white very hard cell bug! Please help to identify!

As you'll notice from the answers to my linked posts, "a clear detailed shot is needed to ID this specimen confidently... In most cases identification of Mesostigmata to family or lower can be accomplished only if the specimen is an adult female."


text:
Do you know what kind of bug this is?
I have tried to find a similar picture online, but can’t seem to find any.  Does anyone know what kind of bug this is?
It has been on a penstemon plant for about 3 days.
I am located just outside of Portland, Oregon.  It’s been on the same stem, only moved from one side to the other.  There have been about a few dozen honeybees around it, feeding on the flowers, and the bug hasn’t moved.  Also haven’t seen them feed on the plant.
Any ideas?
Body is similar to a ladybug, but I haven’t seen markings like this.

Welcome to Biology.SE. Please [edit] your post to include as much of the following essential information as you can — this will improve your chances of getting a good answer: 1) clear closeup photos of the organism (photos from multiple angles if possible); 2) the location (e.g. country and region — the more specific the better) where you observed this organism; 3) habitat information — e.g. what other plants are near; and 4) an estimate of the organism's size. ——— Please take the [tour] and then go through the [help] pages starting with [Ask] questions effectively on this site for details.

You're welcome — since you don't seem to be getting much response here, you might want to try other sites that specialize in identification — (e.g.s: iNaturalist and BugGuide.

Short Answer
Looks like the 4th instar of Thyanta custator, the Red-shouldered stink bug, a type of stink bug found in Oregon.

 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture
Long Answer
Definitely a nymph of some species of true bug (order Hemiptera), most likely in the suborder Heteroptera (i.e., the shield bugs, stink bugs, assassin bugs, etc.) and family Pentatomidae.
For example, see these photos of nymphs of similar species:

 From L->R: Podisus maculiventris, Troilus luridus, Glaucias amyoti, Cosmopepla lintneriana, Carpocoris purpureipennis, Murgantia histrionica
Using yet another species, Piezodorus lituratus, as an example, you can see how a Pentatomidae nymph typically develops to maturity:

 Source
As to your species...
Your specimen's physical appearance (i.e., black/white body with yellow band and centered red spot) appears to match that of the 4th instar of Thyanta custator, the Red-shouldered stink bug.

 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture
From Oregon Dept. of Agriculture:

Nymphs are dark brown to black. Early nymphs have two distinctive pale spots on
opposite sides of their abdomens and appear hairy compared to other stink bug nymphs. Thyanta custator is very closely related to T. pallidovirens and they are morphologically indistinguishable, but there is chromosomal evidence that they are separate species

Your 2nd image does appear to have some "fuzziness" around the body's edge -- possibly this hairiness?

This species is listed as living in Oregon:

Oregon's Dept. of Agriculture provides this resource showing common stink bugs found in your state. Species include: Perillus bioculatus, Banasa dimidiata, Chinavia hilaris, Chinavia hilaris, Chlorochroa rossiana, Thyanta custator, Cosmopepla conspicillaris, Cosmopepla uhleri, Cosmopepla intergressa, Cosmopepla lintneriana, Holcostethus abbreviatus, Holcostethus limbolarius, Holcostethus tristis, Trichopepla aurora, Antheminia remota, Brochymena affinis, Brochymena quadripustulata, Euschistus conspersus, Euschistus variolarius, Halyomorpha halys, and others as possible specimens.


text:
Found this spider in my garden
I found this guy in my backyard. I have no clue what he is, though I'm assuming it's a jumping spider after doing a little bit of searching.
For context, I live in Southern California, close to being right in between LA and San Diego. It's suburban, though there are a few reserves that are close by. It is incredibly small, probably no bigger than a dime. It's mostly orange and black with some rings of white on the legs. It's pretty hairy as well.
The only thing I'd like to know is if it's poisonous or dangerous, as I don't need my dogs getting sick or injured. If possible, I would also like some links for some background reading on it!

All spiders are venomous. This is a jumping spider, family Salticidae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_spider. I am not sure of the species, but they are not "poisonous" (if you mean dangerous to people). They are diurnal hunters, and they may bite if harassed. But the bite is not harmful, unless you are a bug.

As Karl mentioned in his comment, this is a jumping spider in the family Salticidae.
Based on your location and the coloration, I would suppose this might be Phidippus adumbratus.

 Source: Wikimedia
You can see more pictures here and here.
I don't think the angle nor zoom quality of your photo can be used to definitively ID your specimen to species. However, as you can see in the photo above, P. adumbratus is not a bad candidate.
According to Edwards (2004) this genus is sometimes difficult to tell apart, but P. adumbratus can be distinguished from other Phidippus species as follows:

Males can be distinguished from the closely related P. boei (and all other species of Phidippus in California except P. aureus) by the orange scales dorsally on both carapace and abdomen (P. boei is black with a red abdomen dorsally), although island populations have the OQ scales darker and reduced in number. P. adumbratus has a much longer, narrower embolus apical portion than P. aureus. Females can be distinguished from P. kastoni by the shape of the internal ducts of the epigynum; the duct heads are narrow in P. adumbratus (broad in P. kastoni) and the gland is visible as a rounded projection on the anterodorsal surface of the duct head (not visible in P. kastoni). Females are covered dorsally with orange or gray scales (usually with white abdominal spots), unlike the females of P. boei, which have a similar epigynum but are black in color without markings, or with red dorsal scales only on the abdomen (without spots).

If you'd like a much more detailed of description of P. adumbratus (or others in this genus), you can find whole-page detailed descriptions in Edwards's publication quoted and linked above.

A map of geo-referenced records from GBIF shows the occurrence of this species in southern California:

Edwards, G.B., 2004. Revision of the jumping spiders of the genus Phidippus. Occasional Papers of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, 11.

@Clouds please kindly mark this as an accepted answer if it is satisfactory or describe any concerns you have with my answer. Thanks!


text:
Can any other animal choke on food?
I read somewhere (I think it was Bill Bryson's book on the origins of the English language) that of all animals, we are the only ones that can choke on food (having something to do with how our larynx is positioned).  I'm unable to find reference to this fact online, however, and am curious if this is just my having misunderstood something (or Bill having led me astray!).

In response to the answer, I add only that lizards and birds DO suffocate upon regurgitated food. Talk to herpetologists and bird keepers for ample, and sad experience with this.

Bill Bryson mentions this in 'The Body', chapter 6 "[...] uniquely among mammals we send our air and food down the same tunnel, only a small structure called the epiglottis [...]" That's what brought me here, but I listen to the audiobook so I can't tell if he gave a reference.

From the Smithsonian website:
Humans are the only mammal that cannot breathe and swallow at the same time, and we are the only species that can choke on its own food. The reason? The lowering of the voice box in our throats (during infancy) enables us to create the enormous range of sounds used in producing language; but this lowering of the voice box comes at a big cost in adulthood.
http://newsdesk.si.edu/factsheets/did-you-know-human-origins-facts

This is incorrect, any vertebrate that can breath through its mouth can choke on food. Not all animals can breathe through their mouths but many can. The shared portion of the esophagus and trachea called a pharynx and the pharynx varies quite a bit across vertebrates. a continuous pharynx is not exclusive to humans, humans just have a very large complex pharynx making much much easier for us to choke on our food.

The veterinarian in our group offers this: For humans, who choke much more frequently than other mammals, it is likely to be a cognitive problem. We talk and eat at the same time and so give ample opportunity to allow food passed the epiglottis and choking. Animals do choke - dogs can, cats can. Not all animals can vomit and this is particularly a problem for horses, whose stomachs will rupture instead of releasing contents through the mouth.

YIKES, didn't know that about the horses. Interesting

This is rather late, but would it be possible to add some citations?

Horses also cannot breathe through their mouths.

I don't agree with the accepted answer which seem to assume that food is chewed. I don't think that can be assumed if generally talking about animals and choking.
So in addition to Larry's statement of dogs and cats:
Fish regularly chokes on prey.

Birds can choke.

Even dolphins choke:

Can it be called choking if it isn't in the wind pipe, and if the animal doesnt breathe air? Perhaps the human is the only animal that can get food in their breathing apparatus.

There are different kinds of choking on food. All non-gilled animals also choke when they fall in the water. Drowning is choking. insects asphyxiate and fish asphyxiate in air but technically insects don't have any obstructed passages. Perhaps you can say fish choke when their mouth is obstructed with air, choking also means gulping because of asphyxiation of any kind.

An animal gets food in their wind-pipe, which is death from choking.
An animal gets food stuck in their eusophagus, which is perhaps indigestion, not directly choking.

Yes! Humans are the only known animals whos recent evolution has dgiven them one of the worst throat control of all throated animals, and who can easily get food inside their breathing apparatus and die from it, who can choke on vomit and who can't regurgitate as efficiently, and who can't breathe and drink. The valve used for dividing the air and food channels has changed and is used by the humans for speaking.

In other mammals the eusophagus is different: The larynx is fixed at the top of the throat and can make a valve at the back of the nose to form a breathing tube parallel to the esophagus.
Humans are speaking through the valve that is normally used to drink and breathe at the same time. When they drink, the Adams apple raises to form a valve at the top but it doesn't form a continuous airway to breathe while drinking.
For other animals such as birds and fish, it is especially important to breathe and eat simultaneously because
A/ they can drink large volumes at waterholes in competitions with other animals and as potential quarry
B/ Herbivores can spend much larger amounts of time than humans eating, ruminating, and if they have less breath for running then it's a disadvantage
C/ Carnivores can eat much larger chunks than humans, they regurgitate it to their children, they get larger things stuck in their throat, so they have much more performant and controlled throat functions
D/ Birds and Lizards regurgitate foods and get them stuck in their throat and it would be a problem for them if the suffocated or got regurgitated food stuck in their windpipe because they didn't have an adequate valve there.
E/Fish dont have as constricted a junction between their breathing and eating functions.
Here is an excerpt from a book:
In most Animals the larynx sits high in the throat and serves as a valve. As the animal drinks, the larynx forms a continuous tube with the space at the back of the nose, thus the airway -trachea to nose- forms a continuous hose that runs up through through the space of the mouth and throat into the esophagus. in other words the animal can drink and breathe at the same time. The larynx of the human being has been repositioned half way down the throat as the Adam's apple of the male makes clear. So the human being cant drink and breathe at the same time without choking. That seems like a disadvantage- except that the descent of the larynx leaves a large space above it which acts as an echo chamber.
If a human makes a siren sound while touching the adams apple he will see what the space is used for, it sounds same as a monkey when the adams apple is high at the top of a note. If a human also swallows and monitors his larynx he can imagine that other animals are the same except that their larynx performs better as a valve and doesn't have many octaves of controllable voice range.

How does this answer the question?

It explains the mechanical difference in the throat which means that humans are the only documented animals who can get food in their windpipe due to the recent evolution of speech which has displaced the valve they use to block their lungs while eating. i will write more of a yes no approach to it if you want.


text:
What is the context in which a species gets the name "elegans"
Quite a lot of Latin binomials from different genera contain the same species name. For example, there are a number that reflect the physical properties of the species (Tables have the latin name, a translation, and the number of European species according to the European Nature Information System).
nigr[a|o|um]    black        545
minim[us|a]     small        325
alb[us|um|a]    white        264
maxim[us|a]     big          166

and some which reflect the way in which they become apparent to us humans
vulgar[is|e]    common       691
sativa          cultivated   70
domesticus      domesticated 19

as well as reduplication for particularly salient/familiar species (e.g. Gallus gallus, Mephitis mephitis)
So, I'm wondering why there are so many elegans (471 European species on the database). It's particularly widespread, but meaning "elegant" or "refined", it's a rather nondescript name to give. Maybe someone might describe a species like this if they were really running thin on defining characteristics, but if this is the reason, why would the name occur so often?
So I'm fairly sure I'm missing something important about how species get named. What is/was the reason for naming so many species "elegans"? Does it have perhaps have something to do with type species?

elegans -> handsome, fastidious (Latin).  maybe neatness or clean as well.

Since "meaningfulness" is not listed among the requirements for new names, any author is free in his choice of name derivation. [There are nevertheless some natural restrictions, such that new names are to be treated as Latin irrespective of the etymology and should follow Latin grammar (with botanical nomenclature being much more meticulous in this respect).]
There are indeed some cases when the name of the species may be meaningful for the purpose of the choice of type species (the "typicus/a/um" names and tautonomous names like "Glis glis"), but "elegans" doesn't belong here.

So, the high frequency of "elegans" has nothing to do with typification and reflects nothing else than the will of authors to reflect their emotions. One recurrent cause of "elegans"-names among paleontologists, for example, is good preservation of the respective fossil material. [By the way, there are even more emotionally loaded (but less frequent) names like "mirabilis/e" or "enigmatica/us/um".]
Since providing etymologies for names alongside formal descriptions of new species at a certain moment became an official recommendation, you can make your own collection of causes people provide to justify their choice of "elegans" as species names.
EDIT: I've just found this revelation: (Oxytomoides elegans, fossil bivalve) "Etymology. Elegans, Latin for choice or select, referring to what we regard as esthetically pleasing appearance of the species".

I've put your numbers into the table above. I was quite lazy and haphazard about searching for all genders, though I realise now that the database a handy regex option. Do you know an accessible source  where the etymologies might be listed?

There is a very nice collection by Mark Isaac available here, but he is mainly interested in specially curious names - you will not find "elegans" there. In general, as said, it is now strongly recommended to provide etymologies in the original publications, so the some kind of semi-manual search is required. The relevant section is called "Etymology" or "Derivation of name", e.g. here.

I'd guess that elegans is mainly used as the common choice for "beautiful."


text:
Acknowledging differentiation of species, in historical times
This is at least partly an historical question, and I am not even remotely a biologist of any sort, so apologies beforehand if it's a little obscure.
I often wonder how many distinctions were made in pre-Renaissance times, between species of animals.
For example, though I'm sure there have always been those with enough of an interest in nature to tell subtle differences, how were lemmings or voles, for example, told apart from rats or mice? Or did this recognition of speciation only come later, once more detailed (intrusive) forms of analysis became common?
I've looked up the etymologies for vole, lemming and hamster and all are dated post-Renaissance, so at least in these instances it may be safe to assume that people might simply not have noticed the differences before closer study took place. But I guess there are other animals where the same question applies (particularly smaller, harder-to-scrutinise animals where there are a large number of species similar at a glance).
EDIT: Vole means field (same root as wold), giving rise to the 19th c. term volemouse, meaning that originally, mouse and vole were indeed seen as one and the same -- proof of point.
P.S. Of course, this question need not apply solely to animal species.

The branch of science you are looking for is taxonomy, that is the science of identifying and naming species, and arranging them into a classification.
Modern taxonomy was born from the studies of the Swedish zoologist Carl Linnæus (1707-1778), who first introduced, in his books Systema Naturae (Systems of Nature) and Species Plantarum (Plants Species) the now common binomial nomenclature where each different species is given a Latin name composed by two parts: one identifying the genus and one identifying the species.
For instance, various species of mice are in the genus Mus: the common house mouse is Mus musculus, but in the West Mediterranean you have another type of mouse, called Mus spretus.
Although this rigorous type of classification is quite recent, taxonomy existed much earlier.
Shennong, Emperor of China somewhere around 4000BC apparently tasted hundred of plants to test their curative properties. He wrote his observations in a book called the Shennong Ben Cao Jing.
On a similar note the Ebers Papyrus, dating ~1550 BC contains description of the properties of many plants.
To more "recent" times, around 300BC Aristotle was the first who actually classified animals (e.g. vertebrates and invertebrates) and his student Theophrastus wrote a classification of plants in his Historia Plantarum (Hystory of the Plants).
Some 400 years later Plinius in the Naturalis Historia (Natural History) enumerated many plants and animals and gave some of the first binomial names to certain species.
As to the point of how did they distinguish species: well, with their eyes and ears, of course!
You can distinguish a mouse from a vole because it is skinnier and has a longer tail.
Even more similar species can be easily distinguished without needing special equipment.
A good birdwatcher can distinguish a chiffchaff from a willow warbler by listening to their songs, looking at how they behave how they fly, the subtly different tones of their feathers etc.
We can do that now, without any special equipment, so they could before the Renaissance!

@Nick Wiggill: I am not aware of any ancient book that makes such comparison (this does not mean it does not exist, just that I don't know it!). Modern field guides usually do this type of comparisons. I don't think you will get a throughly comprehensive one though, you will need to get specific books for specific genera.

@Nick Wiggill: also, for sure certain species were just considered the same one until recently. Some species have been defined as different just recently since DNA analysis has become commonly available and cheap.

What you are looking for happens all the time when taxonomic groups are "revised." For example, a researcher in that area will review all of the species in a particular genus, and merge or split based on morphological, genetic, or other criteria. E.g., see the comments section of http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=961 where the elevation of Loxodonta cyclotis is mentioned. You can find recent revisions pretty easily using google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vole+phylogeny

I had completely forgotten about this question till I was reminded today by a badge received for it. Thank you for your attention to detail, accepted at last.

If I understand John S. Wilkins' magnificent book on the history of the "species" concept correctly, the basis of biological taxonomy can be traced back to the Aristotelian idea of per genus et differentiam: you can define something as consisting of a general type ("a plant") with a difference ("made of wood") to define an entity ("a tree"), which could then itself become the general type for a more specific category ("an oak tree"). So the idea of an infimae species (an entity that cannot be split any further) has been around since antiquity.
Whether or not a specific group of people would have split similar-looking species is a bigger unknown. I can't find a good online reference for Aristotle's classification of living things; you can read a summary on Wikipedia. Sorry I can't be more helpful!


text:
What bug could this be?
I found a bunch of bugs, approximately 2-3mm in my kitchen, most of them dead and with a throughout search i found a bunch of them living in my gluten-free flour and on some other products like fried batter peels (idk if this is correct, excuse my english) I live in Germany and found them during winter time.
I dont know what those are and google doesnt really help me.
Does anyone know?

Please include better pictures. Also pictures of the "top" side of the insect would be beneficial. thanks.

It's difficult to be certain, but this could be a drugstore beetle, Stegobium paniceum. They commonly infest kitchens where they feed on dry plant matter. In addition to eating various grains and spices, they are capable of feeding on material from plants like tobacco that are toxic to most other insects.


text:
Identify blue/translucent jelly-like animal on beach
A few weeks back a beach in California had lots of this animal (if it is an animal?). Can anyone identify what it is?
They had a distinct blue bottom and a see-through top.

Hey, funny seeing this question here. My wife and I just visited a beach in San Diego yesterday and also noticed these creatures. At the time I just Googled "flat animal on beach with fin" and found out it was by-the-wind sailors as someone already answered. They are very alien looking. Wonder what caused them to come to shore in such large numbers.

With billions of years to work with, evolution comes up with some truly amazing and beautiful creatures.

 By-the-wind sailors
This appears to be Velella (a monospecific genus), commonly referred to as by-the-wind sailor.

More specifically, this is Velella velella, and is also less commonly referred to as sea raft, purple sail, or little sail in addition to usually being called by-the-wind sailor or even sometimes simply Velella.

 Source: Wikipedia
As can be seen from the above image, this 40-80 mm long [source] organism has a translucent sail with a lower bluish body that includes (not visible in your image or mine) small tentacles -- see below (as well as here):

 Source: Wikipedia
For more detailed description, see Scripps Institution of Oceanography:

A clear, chitinous semicircular to triangular sail sticks up above the water with a blue float beneath made of concentric circles of gas-filled chambers. Small tentacles extend below the circular chambers. The sail is angled left or right.

Like the better-known man o' war (see below), this carnivorous hydrazoan (think hydra or other related cnidarians like jellyfish), floats on the water's surface, using wind to direct its small, rigid sail while dangling tentacles below armed with nematocysts catch and stun prey. From Wikipedia (my emphasis):

Having no means of locomotion other than its sail, V. velella is at the mercy of prevailing winds for moving around the seas, and are thereby also subject to mass-strandings on beaches throughout the world. For example, most years in the spring, there is a mass stranding that occurs along the West Coast of North America

You can also see a report about these guys washing up on California beaches in mid-April from the Orange County Register.

Educational video of these sailors available here: YouTube

 Man o' war' is incorrect
Note: my initial gut reaction was that it was a small, beat-up Portuguese man o' war (Physalia physalis), often referred to as the Pacific man o' war (or even a "blue bottle") in the Pacific Ocean. A colonial marine siphonophore  (within class Hydrazoa) made of many smaller "zooids". Like Velella, it also floats on the water surface with its "pneumatophore" (a gas-filled bladder that forms a dorsal "sail" that can be pushed around by wind above the ocean) while tentacles armed with nematocysts dangle below to capture/stun prey.

Like your specimen, the man o' war's sail (or "pneumatophore") appears to be somewhat translucent with the lower portion often taking on a blue coloration (or sometimes purple, pink, or mauve) [source] like your organism. It's also not irregular to have many of these wash ashore all at once, as seen here.

However, the size and morphology (especially small size of the "sail", lack of obviously large bladder, and the clear concentric-circle morphology) of your specimen all pointed to another organism (and clearly toward Velella as stated above).

For what it's worth, NPR had a brief story on By-The-Wind-Sailors this week.


text:
ID Large brown/grey spider with light stripe along back

Giant spider on my door. Walked up to the door this morning and saw this beautiful lady waiting for me. I moved her to a tree so she can rest.

Can you please add the location?

Looks like a wolf spider.

(though I can't see the eyes to definitively rule out a fishing spider; though, fishing spiders don't as often have a bright streak long their backs -- a characteristic your specimen shares more with wolf spiders).

Wolf spiders tend to be relatively large/robust, with strong bodies and legs. They are often brown or grey and can display striping on their legs.
Your image is not great and you lack sufficient detail (size, location,etc.) for a more certain ID. However, two examples of wolf spiders in the genus Tigrosa have similar characteristics to your image:
Tigrosa grandis:

 Source: bugguide.net; Credit: Andrew Williams (2009)
Tigrosa helluo:

 Source: bugguide.net; Credit: Ashley Bradford (2007)
If you provide more detail, I could try to update my post accordingly.


text:
Species Identification - Blue multi-segment arthropod
This bug has a blue body, more than 8 legs, an orange head, and on its behind it has two stripes that are sometimes found on centipedes. Sorta hard to remember size, but I estimate about half the size of my finger which is about 2.5 in
I found it in a dried out creek on a rock, and I am located around Possum Kingdom in SouthEast Texas, USA

This appears to be a larva of some species of notched-mouth ground beetle (Dicaelus spp.).

 Source: bugguide.net;  copyright 2008 Cotinis
Notable characteristics:

blue coloration + orange head
large cerci
relatively large size + >10 body segments
location (TX fits in Canada-to-Mexico range)

See the following buggguide.net posts (1, 2, 3) for images.

#2 looks especially like the OP's specimen (and is from TX).


text:
If a bacterium had a protein on its surface that humans also have, would it cause an autoimmune disease?
Suppose that a bacterium happened to have a protein on its surface. This protein can also be found in the human body. If this bacterium were to then infect a human with an otherwise normal immune system, would his/her immune system attack the person's body, in addition to the bacterium?
The reason I'm asking this is because I have read a book about how, supposedly, the Soviet Union created a bacterium that did just that: they modified Yersinia Pestis to produce myelin which, supposedly, caused multiple sclerosis. The book's author claims that this really happened, but I am skeptical of that claim.

It's believed that many autoimmune cases are triggered by what you describe - pathogens or opportunist bacteria and viruses that contain proteins similar to human proteins.For example:

Autoimmunity to hypocretin and molecular mimicry to flu in type 1 narcolepsy
Translocation of a gut pathobiont drives autoimmunity in mice and humans
Autoantigen cross-reactive environmental antigen can trigger multiple sclerosis-like disease

However, it's important to understand that although these cross-reacting proteins may be required in the process of autoimmunity, they aren't sufficient to cause autoimmunity alone (or else everyone would have autoimmunity all the time). Autoimmunity needs to have a whole bunch of steps, including several pieces of genetic susceptibility and environmental conditions, before the specific trigger will cause a problem (and it's likely that once the many other conditions are satisfied, there are multiple potential triggers that can set up the final cascade).


text:
What type of insect or bee is this?
First time with Mason Bees here in Tacoma WA. We had three come out of their cocoons today. One female is working in a tube. But we had one insect who flew up to near the bee house, shook off their wings and is now wandering all over the bee house.
Is this a mason bee or something else? Should I be concerned?

What is the approximate size of your specimen? Please update your post using the [edit] button to include at least an approximate size. Thanks. See here for how to write a well-received [tag:species-identification] question that has a better chance of getting a good (and correct) answer.

Black garden ant and associated image from its Wikipedia page.

Ants and bees don't get along so if you want the bees you should get rid of the ants.

I've downvoted b/c many ants look similar, & your post hasn't done anything to convince readers this is an accurate ID. It appears as a guess w/ a picture. You should indicate explicitly what characteristics of L. niger you find to match the OP's specimen. You could also address why it's not other related or similar looking species. Finally, please examine & mention the likelihood of your answer based on known range info...For example, the range map for L. niger from antsmap.org suggests it's an exotic with few records in WA...

@theforestecologist Thank you for the guidance, I should wait until it is "well asked".

Rob, I agree -- getting more info from a better asked question is ideal. In the absence of an update to the question, I recommend 1 of two things: 1. just move on. or 2. Write a darn good, detailed answer being very clear about why you think it is what it is. Even if you're not correct, your reasoning will be valuable and might encourage discussion, question edits, or additional answers. You could also present various species options and "teach" us why it's unclear which is correct and which characteristic to look out for and how specific traits would be indicative of specific species.

For example, see my answer to  this post. I wasn't sure of the answer, but I present the likely group and try to narrow based on characteristics and ranges.

@theforestecologist The cephalothorax of blackjack75's spider looks different than your two examples, but I may have found you a better photo, a 'my guess is better than your guess' discussion isn't productive unless one of us is a myrmecologist. What is really helpful, is this Meta post of yours, a comment from the Moderator might assist Susan and be better received than a random person's comment (mine). Thanks again. Moving on.

@theforestecologist - Perhaps "I found a bug" questions should go to our The Great Outdoors site. More upvotes per effort expended.

I'd rather they stay here where both the question and the answer will be held to higher standards and therefore likely result in a more accurate (vs seemingly close-enough) learning moment for the OP and future visitors. You can see a previous issue I had concerning the robustness/accuracy of effort taken by previous TGO ID posts here

I'm all for correctness and accuracy, but the last couple of askers haven't been interested in providing a better question they don't want TMI, only JEI (just enough info). I agree, this being the biology site, that a high standard ought to be adhered to; the question is, what kind of answer do they need/want (much as on Physics, Stats, Math, etc.SE). A simple "I found a bug" question might only want a "it looks like this" answer. While the other asker has earned a few points they filled out their profile: "In 9th grade".