Aquatic Worm

[Dennis]

I had this as "Super Larvae" which was incorrect. It is a worm.
No legs should have been a major clue.

Right before I viewed this slide I killed what looked sort of like a fly without wings swimming in my water sample jar. (nymph)
I figured it was eating the Cyclops and other things I wanted to look at.

Strawbridge Lake, mini pond water

Video title has now been updated-
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21A ... 02&o=OneUp

[Dennis]

I went and scrolled the video (near end) on the decent from tail to head.
And I screen captured the lengths and then pasted them together, matching it up carefully, in Microsoft Paint program.

Now we can see that "long tall drink of water."

This is why I should get a 1X or 2X objective someday.

[Dennis]

It is not a larvae. It is an aquatic worm.

This is it-
Aquatic Worm, tail
Dero furcatus
Detritivore
Pollution indicator species
http://dept.harpercollege.edu/biology/g ... rcatus.jpg

From this website-
http://dept.harpercollege.edu/biology/g ... thumb.html

Here is something similar-
https://www.plingfactory.de/Science/Atl ... stris.html

A good webpage with top photo similar or the same-
https://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/wimsmall/worm.html

[Dennis]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/naidi ... y=relevant

Well so far I think I got-
They are in the oligochaeta family which includes earth worms.

oligochaet bristle worm from the genus Stylaria (family Naididae)

Google search- Stylaria lacustris

Pretty sure that is the name of it.
Here is a foreign website topic with good photos-
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... ic=28737.0

[WWWW]

Dennis,

you've got it !
Nice info and good search !

[Dennis]

Oliver's video-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTC_mmUdePY

Stylaria lacustris

Oliver got one and explains much about it.

[charlie g]

Thanks Dennis for a thoughtful post with ID.

I want to caution you about: 1x, 2X, 4X objectives solving that trade off of image capture of an entire meiofauna's body. I find the resolution of the composite image you post in this thread..simply will not be so apparent with a :1X, 2X,4X objective cobbled to a low-magnification ocular. See if you can find: 6X ocular..instead of standard 10X ocular. You can play with 'trade offs' this route, perhaps.

I'm saying that the resolution of your composite image ( your stitched image) is better than what you might image-capture in the entire organism with a 1X, or 2X objective.

But a composite image in my minds eye....suffers from doubt of anatomical accuracy.

With huge ciliates ( Spirostomium species), I wondered aloud in forum...how to get the crisp ciliature patterns..yet image capture the entire ciliate?

To me it seems only by drawing the entire organism ( and keeping the resolved details in your sketch) can a light-microscope display the details of your composite-image of this aquatic worm...a 1X, or 2X objective will not give the crisp resolution.

Low magnification SEM of course offers crisp resolution...but of a dead/ altered organism. Thanks for a great post, with great thought/ research, Dennis. charlie g/ finger lakes,NY

[Dennis]

Charlie,

That was all with a 4x objective. My video.

I recently, after this, have found on my AmScope software how to "Stitch."

I ordered a AmScope 2x finite on sale off Ebay new and also want to get some of the
slides with a depression so when you get "big game" they can move around a little.

Thank you on your feedback for getting a complete image- you are saying the quality will suffer with the 1x or 2x.

BTW that worm was towards an 1/8 inch long maybe or even longer and even a 2x will only see maybe half of it I suppose.

I am also thinking of various larvae.

Oh- I think we can also be on two different wave lengths. I am not a image stacker/ stitcher image man. I mainly want to see the whole or more of the whole of larger specimens on my PC monitor and videos. The reason I pasted that worm picture together was to see it all together.

[Dennis]

Charlie,
You are correct at least in my finding-
I bought a AmScope 2X objective for half price sale which I think was still about 20 bucks.
I couldn't seem to center the Nikon scope's condenser to not get a corner darker.
And as you said less sharp quality.

Now also I have a Stereoscope microscope now and tried the same specimen ( a red nymph larvae)
under 2x and 4x objectives and glad I can use that scope in a pinch but the red was redish brown and it seemed to focus as good but always a question
if the fine focus would probably hit it a tad more "on."

I also got some of the depression slides for "big game." Seemed to work to let it move more freely but the larvae still would have its head or tail stuck in a piece of plant material and be trying to free itself.