# world's largest praying mantis



## Malnra (Nov 21, 2007)

The world's largest praying mantis was recorded at 45cm (18") long, in Southern China, in 1929.

Now THAT would be a mantis to own, though what would you feed it ? small children ?


----------



## obregon562 (Nov 21, 2007)

im not sure i belive that...like, it was alive and breathing in the 1900's? nu-uh.

maybe a fossil, but not alive...


----------



## Andrew (Nov 21, 2007)

It was probably one of those stick-mimic mantids, in which case, I don't have a hard time believing that.


----------



## Malnra (Nov 21, 2007)

I have started an IV drip of steriods on my giant female asian in hopes her ooth produces large babies ....


----------



## AFK (Nov 21, 2007)

Geoff_K said:


> The world's largest praying mantis was recorded at 45cm (18") long, in Southern China, in 1929.Now THAT would be a mantis to own, though what would you feed it ? small children ?


source?


----------



## Malnra (Nov 21, 2007)

AFK said:


> source?


http://www.answers.com/topic/praying-mantis

there were more, but you can google them


----------



## obregon562 (Nov 21, 2007)

still...18 inches!

i need pics...


----------



## Christian (Nov 22, 2007)

Hi.

This information is completely wrong. Nevertheless, it is frequently found in the forums. Please consider that the internet also contains complete ######. Do not believe anything you read there. The largest species reach 17 cm, which is still a lot.

Regards,

Christian


----------



## Malnra (Nov 22, 2007)

Christian said:


> Hi.This information is completely wrong. Nevertheless, it is frequently found in the forums. Please consider that the internet also contains complete ######. Do not believe anything you read there. The largest species reach 17 cm, which is still a lot.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christian


Unless you were there you cannot say with 100% certanty it is incorrect. They just recently descovered a claw to a sea scorpion



> " Sea scorpions are thought to be the extinct aquatic ancestors of scorpions and possibly all arachnids."The 18-inch (46-centimeter) claw *likely belonged to an 8-foot *(2.46-meter) sea scorpion.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200711...footseascorpion

for all we know WAY back in time Mantis were 3 feet long ... /shrugs


----------



## Christian (Nov 22, 2007)

No they weren't. Did you watch too many Godzilla movies?  

Sea scorpions were aquatic arthropods, using gills. There is no size restriction for gill-breathing aquatic animals, except maybe statical constraints.

Insects are primarily land insects breathing with tracheal tubes, and are size restricted due to this point. They may reach sizes a little larger than seen today, but the only time when insects and other arthropods were considerably larger was the Carboniferous (due to a higher oxygen content of the atmosphere). Mantids are not as old. Other info is outdated.

So, I do not have to be there to know there *IS* no mantid as large as 29 cm. There is enough serious literature on this issue. The internet contains a lot of wrong information on mantids. Once I wanted to contribute to the Wikipedia article, but ceased it after more and more bull**** accumulated. I did not find one site on mantids without wrong info yet.

So, sometimes the good old (or even new!) paper literature is by far better than any site on the net. Journals edit and review the information they get. On the net, everyone can post everything, regardless whether he knows about it or not.

To make a long story short: I *know* that there *is no* mantid known to science (*science*, not the www!) which reaches that size. Maybe that Chinese thing was a stick insect or something.

regards,

Christian


----------



## Mantida (Nov 22, 2007)

I remember reading a topic about this a long time ago here on the forums. Someone else confirmed that it was incorrect also. It used to be on wikipedia, but as you can see it was removed, probably because it wasn't true.

However, it would be really awesome if a mantis like that DID exist.


----------



## idolomantis (Nov 22, 2007)

hehe then i feed him my liitle nevue


----------



## Rob Byatt (Nov 22, 2007)

Christian said:


> The internet contains a lot of wrong information on mantids. Once I wanted to contribute to the Wikipedia article, but ceased it after more and more bull**** accumulated. I did not find one site on mantids without wrong info yet.


I'm going to say no more about what Christian has already stated about 29cm mantids (he's right).

I will say that I completely agree with the other comments also. The internet IS full of rubbish. And yes, most mantis websites are full of mis-information and errors.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 22, 2007)

I was once on Gaia Online or whatever its called, and I was in a shop, and there was some sort of factoid or blurb that said "A male praying mantis can't do his "deed" until the female has eaten his head!" or something along those lines.

And this website probably has more than a million members worldwide.

Ridiculous...but still, thats why we've got people like Christian to come in and clear it all up. :lol:


----------



## Malnra (Nov 22, 2007)

dragonflys at one time had wingspans of 2 feet .. i think i can guarantee there are non that big now .... but hey .. it really doesnt matter since neither of us were there to see the "mantis" and are not likely to see one that big today /shrugs


----------



## AFK (Nov 24, 2007)

Geoff_K said:


> Unless you were there you cannot say with 100% certanty it is incorrect. They just recently descovered a claw to a sea scorpion


this is such a lazy and reckless rebuttal.

1. the same goes to you - you can not say with 100% certainty as well that that is correct.

2. given the great amount we know about mantises, it is UNREASONABLE to even believe it's quite probable. OCCAM'S RAZOR.


----------



## Morpheus uk (Nov 24, 2007)

Christian said:


> Maybe that Chinese thing was a stick insect or something.


I still dont get why these get confused lol


----------



## Orin (Nov 24, 2007)

Geoff_K said:


> for all we know WAY back in time Mantis were 3 feet long ... /shrugs


I saw that mantis movie where the mantids were 50feet tall. Man, I can't imagine how crazy that was for the people who had to catch those things for the movie. I wonder where they caught them...


----------



## ThorEH (Nov 24, 2007)

> . I wonder where they caught them...


In China offcourse


----------



## trojon (Nov 24, 2007)

To be honest, a mantis at 18" is probably not as hard to believe as you'd imagine.

There is a whole host of arthropods and other inverts that reach a far greater mass than a mantis at 18" (as stated probably a stick-mimic type or grass) would reach. Beetles are the heaviest supposedly, but I think there are giant crickets/wetas that I've seen in london zoo when I worked there that were HUGE and would give a very very nasty kick/pinch which would do more damage than an anaconda bite...

People still discover a LOT of species every year, and mantids are also relatively sloth like creatues which expend little energy until it comes to flight or capture, flight which is infrequent at best and prey capture is an incredibly short space of time.

Although I wouldn't trust too many reports online regarding mantids, I wouldn't brush it off either! I remember the days when they said a coelacanth reportedly found was scientific bs... well what a joke, a large community were eating and selling them frequently at market lol!

18" mantis though... I'll have to see it to believe it, but hopefully I will! Lots of habitat loss at the moment is probably the key factor in not finding anymore, if indeed it was found.

Whether or not the 18" was a phasmid or not, I don't know. Phasmids frequently can reach around 16"+ or so (Phobaeticus serratipes), so this can be quite likely, but mistaking a phasmid for a mantid is quite different!


----------



## Malnra (Nov 24, 2007)

AFK said:


> this is such a lazy and reckless rebuttal.1. the same goes to you - you can not say with 100% certainty as well that that is correct.
> 
> 2. given the great amount we know about mantises, it is UNREASONABLE to even believe it's quite probable. OCCAM'S RAZOR.


Actually it is a nice way to end a discussion with someone who has a different view. When one says no way and the other says maybe, there is a deadlock and it cant go anywhere since neither side can prove or disprove.

Namecalling is not a good debate technique in the civilized world.


----------



## AFK (Nov 24, 2007)

Geoff_K said:


> Actually it is a nice way to end a discussion with someone who has a different view. When one says no way and the other says maybe, there is a deadlock and it cant go anywhere since neither side can prove or disprove.


going back to my earlier post, that's *unreasonable*. proof does not always come in the form of materialness. how do we know for sure that christopher colombus discovered the americas? how do we know the chinese invented gunpowder? we weren't there physically, but we can still prove things within REASON. your logic commits the fallacy of appealing to probability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability



Geoff_K said:


> Namecalling is not a good debate technique in the civilized world.


never did i ever call you a name.


----------



## ThorEH (Nov 24, 2007)

> how do we know for sure that christopher colombus discovered the americas


Well, he didn't

The norwegian/icelandic Leiv Eriksson (973 - 1020) discovered America way before Columbus, around 500 years before Columbus !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson


----------



## Mantida (Nov 24, 2007)

Well, we can leave it at that - because this thread is totally off topic now and should probably be locked.


----------



## Juergen (Nov 24, 2007)

Geoff_K said:


> The world's largest praying mantis was recorded at 45cm (18") long, in Southern China, in 1929.Now THAT would be a mantis to own, though what would you feed it ? small children ?


... believe me, if there would exist a 45 cm long mantis, I would keep it...  

...back to topic and have a nice day,

regards,

Juergen


----------



## yen_saw (Nov 25, 2007)

http://mantidforum.net/forums/index.php?sh...c=6583&amp;st=0

This topic been discussed before, the exact 18" mantis issue. Unless a valid photo is there, it is hard to believe. Here is a pic from Lars, the longest i have ever seen, with proper measurement to show.


----------



## Kruszakus (Nov 25, 2007)

And it's not even adult? Man - what species is this?


----------



## tier (Nov 25, 2007)

It is adult. It is an Ischnomantis. Or is it a Solygia?

I think the biggest mantis is Ischnomantis gigas, by the way.

regards,

tier

edit: yes, should be Solygia, a pretty close relative of Ischnomantis.


----------



## Juergen (Nov 25, 2007)

tier said:


> It is adult. It is an Ischnomantis.I think the biggest mantis is Ischnomantis gigas, by the way.
> 
> regards,
> 
> tier


Hello,

are you sure that it is a picture of Ischnomantis spec.? Or is it one of the Solygia sulcatifrons that Soeren and Tobi have found during their last tour... the scale unit shows cm...

best regards,

Juergen


----------



## tier (Nov 25, 2007)

Hi Jürgen.

Yeah, that's why I edited it already


----------



## yen_saw (Nov 26, 2007)

ops i forgot to include the species name in my post, Juergen is correct, that is _Solygia sulcatifrons _.

Honestly i would love to see mantis of mega size, but i can be amused with just a 6-inch mantis, an 8-inch mantis will definately blow me away, it doesn't have to be 18" :lol:


----------



## Precious (Nov 28, 2007)

TroJon said:


> To be honest, a mantis at 18" is probably not as hard to believe as you'd imagine.There is a whole host of arthropods and other inverts that reach a far greater mass than a mantis at 18" (as stated probably a stick-mimic type or grass) would reach. Beetles are the heaviest supposedly, but I think there are giant crickets/wetas that I've seen in london zoo when I worked there that were HUGE and would give a very very nasty kick/pinch which would do more damage than an anaconda bite...
> 
> People still discover a LOT of species every year, and mantids are also relatively sloth like creatues which expend little energy until it comes to flight or capture, flight which is infrequent at best and prey capture is an incredibly short space of time.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Everyone gets their panties in a bunch when someone talks about the largest mantids. NOBODY can say for sure that there is/was or isn't/wasn't an 18" mantid. Does anyone recall when the giant squid was the stuff of legend? And all the "lost habitat" whining. There is SO MUCH unexplored habitat on this planet with new species discovered regularly. I believe Darwin called it "survival of the fittest" which is why mantids are still here. Are we alone in the universe too? As long as so many people have all the answers, I've got the questions. Talk about a God complex.


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

Just to add a little. While it is very likely that no mantis of that size has been found, we certainly can not say that it is impossible. I can't remember who said it(I don't feel like looking it up as I'm a bit lazy right now and really should actually be typing my research paper) but it was mentioned that due to the mantid's, and in fact all insect's, system they cannot grow to be that size. But I would like to ask why a mantis can't reach that length when other insects can. At that size they would still be structurally sound and capable of breathing as long as they didn't have too much girth.


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

Hi.

I did not say a mantis cannot reach 30 cm. I said a mantis cannot reach 3 feet or something, which is more then 90 cm. That's a lot more than the largest insect ever found. Secondly, the time when this happened is some 400 million years ago, when there was more oxygen in the atmosphere than today. Insects can't reach absurd sizes today. They adapted to quick reproduction to compensate for predation by vertebrates. This requires smaller sizes than theoretically possible.

However, if a 30 cm mantis existed, it would be known to science. This is a fact, I'm sorry. It is a difference if you find a species in a collection (most species are "found" in existing collections by taxonomists, by the way, and not directly in the wild) which may be slightly larger than the known ones, say 18 cm or so, and finding one of 30 cm. There *isn't *many habitat left, by the way. Not as much as to find a 30 cm mantis. A species of that size would require a rather large area of distribution, not a small remote valley somewhere in one of the few remaining remote areas.

However, I seem to talk against walls here. If you decide to ignore scientific truth and decide to believe in Wikipedia rumours, just do it. I won't take more of my precious time to explain myself and why I know what I'm talking about. Take it or leave it, I don't have any problem with this. It seems to me that some people think they have eaten the wisdom of the world with spoons just by googling a few weeks through the www. Forget all the literature! Forget all science! Forget the skills of long-term experts and taxonomists! Believe the stoned guy who saw a 30 cm mantis in his opium halo some 70 years ago! That's real!


----------



## ThorEH (Nov 29, 2007)

I for one believe you Christian.. but you must take into consideration that not everybody in the world knows who you are, and what education/profession you've got  

They don't know that you're not just a guy that has read about this on the internet..

Perhaps you could tell people a little about yourself ?


----------



## trojon (Nov 29, 2007)

Christian said:


> However, if a 30 cm mantis existed, it would be known to science. This is a fact, I'm sorry. It is a difference if you find a species in a collection (most species are "found" in existing collections by taxonomists, by the way, and not directly in the wild) which may be slightly larger than the known ones, say 18 cm or so, and finding one of 30 cm. There *isn't *many habitat left, by the way. Not as much as to find a 30 cm mantis. A species of that size would require a rather large area of distribution, not a small remote valley somewhere in one of the few remaining remote areas. However, I seem to talk against walls here. If you decide to ignore scientific truth and decide to believe in Wikipedia rumours, just do it. I won't take more of my precious time to explain myself and why I know what I'm talking about. Take it or leave it, I don't have any problem with this. It seems to me that some people think they have eaten the wisdom of the world with spoons just by googling a few weeks through the www. Forget all the literature! Forget all science! Forget the skills of long-term experts and taxonomists! Believe the stoned guy who saw a 30 cm mantis in his opium halo some 70 years ago! That's real!


I just typed a huge reply and internet explorer conked out when I opened a new tab ¬_¬

- anyway, just to say that your first quote is not "fact" at all in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that fact against hundreds of species has led to be common knowledge in other areas, and pure wrong in others. Coelocanths are 2m long fish which were apparantly extinct due to a whole multitude of reasons, one being their inability to adapt and survive,which was bollox as we know, this is a large fish which is very much still alive and sold in south american, south east asian and south african markets. Giant squid were supposedly rumours, live specimens and dead ones have been found and kept, weirder still, is that after they said nothing (invert wise) can get bigger (or faster) than a giant squid due to oxygen and bouyancy/skeletel constraints, they find colossal squid which are bigger, more aggressive and faster!

Every year we find new species, big ones, small ones etc. birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians etc. In vietnam alone hundreds of species, large ones included, are discovered every year. Vietnam is by no means a deserted island either.

'In 11 previous expeditions to the rainforests, Murphy and co-workers have

identified three dozen new varieties of these reptiles and amphibians that no

one suspected even existed. Other scientists on the research team have also

catalogued a treasure trove of new insects.'

"It happens more often than you think — vertebrates once steadfastly believed not

to exist are suddenly discovered or rediscovered. In fact, about 40 percent of

all recognized mammal species have been discovered in this century. Most of

these are bats and rodents, but there have been larger, more varied species,

too, like the Komodo dragon monitor lizard (Indonesian Islands, 1912), the giant

forest hog (East Africa, 1902), the pygmy chimpanzee (Congo, 1929), and the Vu

Quang ox (Vietnam, 1992).

In 1976, a 15-foot shark called megamouth was identified, representing a

completely new species, genus and family." - Thomas Ropp. Arizona Reporter.

In terms of range/distribution, there are cases where a lot of isolation, allotropic or otherwise, has occured. By no means does a large mantis have to have a large distribution, it is highly possible that through any form of speciation that a novel (or no so novel) trait such as gigantism or just being large, will have much benefit in a certain area, such as one with fewer predators and more prey abundance etc.

It was only in 1999 that Shangri-La was supposedly "discovered" - this being a mythical area now known to science. Will copy and paste a bit :

"But it is verdant, it is a kind of paradise and it is hidden deep within

Tibet's Himalayan Mountains in a monstrously steep,

gorge-within-a-gorge. There is no record of any human visiting, or even

seeing, the area before.

Tucked beneath a mountain spur at a sharp bend of the Tsangpo River,

where the cliff sides are only 75 yards apart and cast perpetual

shadows, the place failed to show up even on satellite surveillance

photographs of the area.

"If there is a Shangri-la, this is it," said Rebecca Martin, director of

the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Board, which sponsored the

trek. "This is a pretty startling discovery -- especially in a time when

many people are saying, 'What's left to discover?' "

Tentatively named by the explorers the "Hidden Falls of the Tsangpo"

and located in a forbidding region called Pemako that Tibetans consider

highly sacred, the elusive site was reached by American explorers Ian

Baker, Ken Storm Jr. and Brian Harvey late last year, though the

society did not make its confirmation of their success official until

Thursday.

In addition to a spectacular 100-foot-high waterfall -- long rumored,

but until now undocumented -- they found a subtropical garden between a

23,000-foot and a 26,000-foot mountain, at the bottom of a

4,000-foot-high cliff.

It's the world's deepest mountain gorge, Martin said.

"It's a place teeming with life," Storm said in a telephone interview

from his office in the Minneapolis suburb of Burnsville. "It's a

terribly

wild river, with many small waterfalls, heavy rapids and a tremendous

current surging through. Yet there are all kinds of flora -- subtropical

pine, rhododendrons, craggy fir and hemlock and spruce on the

hillsides -- it's lush. Just a tremendous wild garden landscape."

The animals there include a rare, horned creature called the takin,

sacred to Tibetan Buddhists... article continues"

There are several species of fish and frog endemic to certain lakes, streams and pathces of forest, so one cannot limit the range by lack of evidence for it...

Anyhow, there's a lot more, and if you want, i can request in-depth analysis of gigantism bug theory from a world leading professor if desired.


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

Now what's your point? You're talking mainly about vertebrates, I refer to mantids.

None of the species you mentioned is considerably larger than expected. Of course there are still species to be discovered but all your long text does't fit the point in any way. You cannot compare neither vertebrates with arthropods, nor aquatic animals with land-living ones. I don't find any point able to disprove what I said.

However, I should leave it here, giving the job back to Don Quijote.


----------



## vertex (Nov 29, 2007)

Christian said:


> No they weren't. Did you watch too many Godzilla movies?  Sea scorpions were aquatic arthropods, using gills. There is no size restriction for gill-breathing aquatic animals, except maybe statical constraints.
> 
> Insects are primarily land insects breathing with tracheal tubes, and are size restricted due to this point. They may reach sizes a little larger than seen today, but the only time when insects and other arthropods were considerably larger was the Carboniferous (due to a higher oxygen content of the atmosphere). Mantids are not as old. Other info is outdated.
> 
> ...


arm chair thinking:

I think that it's worth pointing out that the limitations of any terrestrial exoskeleton-based animal size being primarily a factor of oxygen levels and structural limitations of exoskeletons-- though much written about and seemingly viable-- are only theories. The size of any arthropod species could be related to factors that are more complex. The relatively small size of arthropods could be more a factor of natural selection tuning size for predators/available food resources/adaptability-- not oxygen-- not limits on exo.. That's probably a discussion beyond the scope of a forum post, so I'll leave it at that. Consider...

If oxygen and structural limitations are not valid, then a mega-sized mantid (or other arthropod)...say 2-30ft is possible through selective breeding/genetic manipulation.

Galen


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

Christian, you asked what the point of his post was. I was actually going to pull up the same evidence as it's current so nothing could be claimed about not having areas anymore. I am going into the field of zoology, so I do my book work before I make my posts on such topics. Trojon's post is highly relevent as he is indicating species much larger than any praying mantis. It's not important that the species are vertabrates because they are larger and have wider ranges than a praying mantis would. It proves that an over sized mantis could still be secluded in the forests of the east, which are some of the least explored areas known to science. The people on that expedition were specialized in vertabrate studies, not entomology. I am certain that when an entomologist has the opportunity to research in the area, many new insects will be discovered. One of them may not be a mantis, and nothing may be larger than average, but the possibilities are always there. All I'm asking is that we don't shut out possibilities as "absurd" and "impossible" when they are only unlikely.

Kirk


----------



## yen_saw (Nov 29, 2007)

A friend of mine claimed to capture a live mantis of 10-inch long last year. I am waiting for him to find the specimen he collected (yep it is dead), although i have doubt as people always claim to have seen something larger than it actually is, i will wait for this one. But please don't ask me anything more, i will post a pic here if i actually get the specimen.


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

> It was only in 1999 that Shangri-La was supposedly "discovered"


Oh, damn, and I thought that this would remain a secret. Well, now that this was revealed, I think it is time to uncover the truth about this issue. I searched my sources all the day and did some important phone calls and can admit that giant mantids really existed.

Old papyri and some scarce fossil records tell us that there existed once a species scientifically known as _Atlantoharpax gigas_. It occurred on Atlantis, which we all know was a part of the split up ancient continent Gondwana, and fed primarily on dwarf elephants. The taxonomic status is not known for certain, but it is assumed by leading experts that it belonged to an own family, being the sister taxon of the much smaller but otherwise very similar _Deliriomantis neglecta_ known from Lemuria only.

_A. gigas_ was rather rare initially, but the Atlantians liked to watch them in the arena fighting against each other, so they increased their population size by feeding them exhaustively with all dwarf elephants they could find. Once the elephants were wiped out, they started to feed them anything adequate that was available, relying also on their good trade relationships with other cultures. They fed giant deer from Hyperborea, those bloody sirens that used to cause damage to their fishing nets, giant birds imported from other islands, and even some little grey big-eyed creatures they pulled out of an UFO that crushed in the roof of their main temple. They also sent an expedition to Tibet, but it yelded just a few snow-men and was not worth the effort.

Well, one day neither birds nor sirens nor yetis were available and from then on the Atlantians got a rather important problem. The next decades are known as the Dark Age, but there isn't many information available from this period. However, it is known that the population suffered great losses (the population of the Atlantians, of course) until, one day, the last Atlantian in a last effort managed to push the self-destruction button while being firmly grasped by the forelgs of an subadult _Atlantoharpax_ which was already slurping his bowels out of his body. As we all know the island exploded and sank afterwards. This is the last record of this species ever.

Since then, every ancient culture knew the self-evident wisdom: "When the giant mantids triumph, the world degenerates into utter chaos."

Now *this *is the real reason why there aren't any giant mantids today!

Don't believe anything else!


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

Thats not an extremely mature way to handle the issue is it? We present you with evidence that you could easily validate as true, not to prove the exsistence of larger mantids, but to say it is possible that they reach 18 inches and haven't been discovered yet and you respond by dismissing everything we say as some sort of fairy tale. For an expert you don't really even seem to like recieving new evidence. The objective of science isn't to prove what you already know, but to broaden the mind and explore what isn't known. You don't get that by ignoring all opposing ideas. Science is called THEORY for a reason; it's constantly changing when new evidence arrives. As a self proclaimed expert in a science field I would expect more of you than that.

Kirk


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

Now come on, it was funny, wasn't it?

The problem is that there was no evidence whatsoever. I wanted to show you what a fairy tale is. And all that was presented here *was* a fairy tale. What I understand as a evidence are published scientific data and/or collection specimens. There is no collection specimen larger than the known species. And there is also no scientific publication about such a specimen. That are facts. And not a tale about a mystic country bearing new species. The new species may be there, but why should there be an oversized mantid included? Why there, where climate conditions are rather unfavorable for mantids as such, not talking about an oversized one? It is serious and safe to consider such a mantid as nonexistent until it is found, and to discuss the chances for such a large species to exist - a chance close to zero due to ecological, physiological and physical constraints. Now think about it and then please consider again if you really want to blame *me* as having a nonscientific attitude!


----------



## Precious (Nov 29, 2007)

ThorEH said:


> I for one believe you Christian.. but you must take into consideration that not everybody in the world knows who you are, and what education/profession you've got  They don't know that you're not just a guy that has read about this on the internet..
> 
> Perhaps you could tell people a little about yourself ?


This may come as a shock to you, but *I don't care *who you are or what your education is. I would never, ever even use Wikipedia much less rely on it as a resource. You know as little about me (and the individual who started this thread) as we know about you, yet you are comfortable in your assumption that we are uneducated, unscientific and poorly informed. The only thing I know about you is how very rude you are and that's really all I care to know.

ThorEH - Your photography is stunning.


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

Again, I am not saying that it is even very likely at all that there even is such a species, especially not in that particular location. I was only using that location because it is proof that there are vast tracts of land that we have not explored. Your right that the chances of finding any mantids larger than we already have are almost zero. But my point is that they are NOT zero, and any chance at all means we can't just automatically dismiss the possibilities.

Kirk


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

> you are comfortable in your assumption that *we* are uneducated, unscientific and poorly informed


I can remember neither to have named anyone uneducated nor having lumped people together. A lack of information may be found here or there. When information is given then, however, it often ends with rejecting that information. Really confusing...



> I don't care who you are or what your education is


Obviously, as



> The only thing I know about you is how very rude you are and that's really all I care to know


 Now who is comfortable in her assumption?


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

@Kirk: we don't differ in this point. I think we just differ in weighing the consequences. You emphasize that they *are not* and still *above* zero, I prefer to see them as *almost not different* from zero.

But that story of Shangri La is far beyond scientific usance. Those guys may have found some remote habitat, but naming a mythological country in the same phrase just leads to not taking them for serious anymore.


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

Christian said:


> However, I seem to talk against walls here. If you decide to ignore scientific truth and decide to believe in Wikipedia rumours, just do it. I won't take more of my precious time to explain myself and why I know what I'm talking about. Take it or leave it, I don't have any problem with this. It seems to me that some people think they have eaten the wisdom of the world with spoons just by googling a few weeks through the www. Forget all the literature! Forget all science! Forget the skills of long-term experts and taxonomists! Believe the stoned guy who saw a 30 cm mantis in his opium halo some 70 years ago! That's real!


I do believe that this is where you said that our information was uneducated and unscientific. In the process you tagged everyone who had disagreed with your viewpoint. It isn't a really serious jab and isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I can see where the idea of an acusation comes from.


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

Well I'm glad to see we are almost on the same page here now. I just believe that the name of the location they choose to give isn't important, whats important is that what was found there still exsists under whatever name given. The name does more to draw the worlds attention than to prove any main point. It's already sad how little people care about the environment, mythilogical connections attract a larger audience, and thus help them do the job of conservation. People won't save it if they don't care about it.


----------



## Christian (Nov 29, 2007)

> QUOTE(Christian @ Nov 29 2007, 05:00 AM) *However, I seem to talk against walls here. If you decide to ignore scientific truth and decide to believe in Wikipedia rumours, just do it. I won't take more of my precious time to explain myself and why I know what I'm talking about. Take it or leave it, I don't have any problem with this. It seems to me that some people think they have eaten the wisdom of the world with spoons just by googling a few weeks through the www. Forget all the literature! Forget all science! Forget the skills of long-term experts and taxonomists! Believe the stoned guy who saw a 30 cm mantis in his opium halo some 70 years ago! That's real! wink.gif
> 
> I do believe that this is where you said that our information was uneducated and unscientific. In the process you tagged everyone who had disagreed with your viewpoint. It isn't a really serious jab and isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but I can see where the idea of an acusation comes from.


I still can find anywhere the word "uneducated". I rely on "unscientific", though. Some ideas were unscientific, in any scientific sense. I can claim that one argument is unscientific at any time, if I explain why (what I did multiple times, by the way). This is not the same as claiming people to be uneducated. This is really a big difference and I have to insist on this difference, as I have never said the latter! I think the problem arose because some people have not differentiated between the two. "Unscientific" is not equal to "uneducated".

My humor seems to be too much for sensitive persons. Well, that's life.


----------



## Mantis Keeper (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm not saying you did, I was just saying that I think that is where the comment came from as that is as close as I can find to what was claimed you said.


----------



## Mantida (Nov 29, 2007)

Christian, I'm sorry, but I don't think your "story" response was necessary. It is funny, at some areas yes, but will not be taken well by some. We are discussing about this topic, not picking out someone's quote and being wholely sarcastic on the response. I'm not trying to pick sides or anything, but personally, I do not believe that such a large mantis would ever exist in the twentieth and twenty first century. However, I'm not going to quote someone who's on the other side of the debate and write out a totally unreasonable and sarcastic response. We know you contain a lot of information in your head regarding arthropods and respect that, but only up to a certain point (seemingly, like now for some though not me).


----------



## asdsdf (Nov 29, 2007)

Christian, your response was humorous at some areas, but the true meaning was rather sarcastic, and it was not taken well by some people. They might have been offended. You do understand that right?

I feel that I see faults in both sides of the argument. Yes, it is true that many webpages have this information, but practically anybody can make their own page and bs information. This does not make wikipedia outright wrong. Yes, it does sometimes have incorrect information, but then again, not all of it is.

Although there is no physical evidence that such a mantis exists, that does not rule out the possibilty that there is one. We supposedly have hundreds of thousands of different species we haven't discovered yet, and it is possible that just one mantis speceis just happens to be large. There is no real evidence that it's not possible. Some areas around the globe, perhaps, are the perfect conditions for such a mantis to grow, with little or no natural predators, plenty of food/oxygen, etc. It is almost like the belief of life out of the earth. There are millions or billions of stars out there, lots with their own solar systems. Just because we haven't found any life near the ones around us doesn't mean there isn't any out there. But then again, it doesn't prove there is. We haven't really discovered our Earth all too well as well. In fact, the rainforest have thousands of species, some scientists assume, still waiting to be discovered. Perhaps one is a giant mantis? In other words...you can't just simply toss out the idea that such a mantis exists, however, with no evidence, it is hard to prove it exists. This could be why there are so many skeptics.  

Scientifically, yes, they aren't supposed to exist. However, several "scientific" theories that seemed plausible have simply been wiped out. For example, scientists once believed that there were no large insects now because of gravity. They believed that the gravity would cause the insect's exoskeleton implode into itself. It sounds plausible, and people actually believed it. However, this has been proven wrong by fossils of large, for example, dragonflies. However, no one really knows why the insects have gotten smaller, so they have come up with theories. However, theories could be ridiculous, even when made by respected scientists. For example, one scientist believed that the stegasaurus actually rolled up and attacked that way by rolling towards the enemy and hitting them with the spikes :blink: . To me, I don't believe that oxygen has a really large factor on growth. For example, humans have grown taller from their ancestors, even though, as time went on, populations grew so the oxygen levels should have fallen. Anyways, just my opinion.


----------



## Christian (Nov 30, 2007)

I will have to reply to this, as I can explain some points, but I have to do it later this day, as I am busy at moment.

My tale was a mirror showing the effect of unproven stories. Noone seems to have understood it properly, I fear.


----------

