# Exaggeration?



## Kruszakus (Dec 7, 2008)

Okay, I'm really sick of it. Each time I read something about some species, and then compare it with the reality, something is not right - it happened with allegedly 1 inch Oxypilus (which barely reach 15 mm), and with Gongylus (supposedly 11 cm, in reality about 8 cm). But now I'm really startled...

Here is the pictue...

http://flickr.com/photos/cledry/2790044403/

And here is the comment on its content...

"This Mantis is a female because this variety has no males! This one was a little over 7 inches long. Notice how well it blends in with the stems of the American Holly bush."

So... in USA one inch is defined as approx 25 mm, which would make this specimen of Brunneria borealis over 17 cm long... Am I missing something here?


----------



## Christian (Dec 7, 2008)

Do you know that gag about how long 20 cm are? :lol: 

Most species are overestimated. This is how the stories about 30 cm mantids arise... _Brunneria borealis_ is just about 9 cm long.


----------



## Rick (Dec 7, 2008)

I find those around here and they are pretty long. Seven inches? No.


----------



## ABbuggin (Dec 7, 2008)

Rick said:


> I find those around here and they are pretty long. Seven inches? No.


Same with me. The definitely don't reach 7"! :lol: the longest I've seen is around 4".


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 7, 2008)

Christian said:


> Do you know that gag about how long 20 cm are? :lol: Most species are overestimated. This is how the stories about 30 cm mantids arise... _Brunneria borealis_ is just about 9 cm long.


I did not hear the one about 20 cm... wanna tell me?  

I really wonder why people do that...

A guy shows me, by using his fingers, just how long Idolomantis are - according to his hands they are about 16-18 cm, with 4-5 wide thorax... Geez...


----------



## Christian (Dec 7, 2008)

It's exactly the same when you ask guys to show you how much 20 cm are... :lol: :lol:


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 7, 2008)

We have the same joke in the U.S., but with 6 or 7 inches... hehe  :lol:


----------



## hibiscusmile (Dec 7, 2008)

:lol: I am not gonna touch that with a 10 foot pole :lol:


----------



## sk8erkho (Dec 7, 2008)

the 6 to 7inches,me either!!!!


----------



## yen_saw (Dec 7, 2008)

Katnapper said:


> We have the same joke in the U.S., but with 6 or 7 inches... hehe  :lol:





sk8erkho said:


> the 6 to 7inches,me either!!!!


Very naughty  



Kruszakus said:


> So... in USA one inch is defined as approx 25 mm, which would make this specimen of Brunneria borealis over 17 cm long... Am I missing something here?


Personally i prefer to mention size with a pic showing ruler next to a mantis. (pic is an adult male _Hierodula membranacea_)







WHich is what measurement apparatus are for  . Regardless of where the mantis is from or what unit is used. I have seen people using coins of their own country as size comparison but that means nothing to people who has no idea what it is. Guess ruler is more difficult to find than a coin :lol: 

_Brunneria borealis _can easily reach 4 inches. Here is a pic of this adult female with a ruler (and that is not the largest specimen i have seen). But 7 inches is defintely the fisherman eyes theory.


----------



## Orin (Dec 7, 2008)

Christian said:


> Most species are overestimated. This is how the stories about 30 cm mantids arise... _Brunneria borealis_ is just about 9 cm long.


Wild ones are usually 11, not 9 but certainly 17 would have to include the legs, antennae and some imagination.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 8, 2008)

Orin said:


> Wild ones are usually 11, not 9 but certainly 17 would have to include the legs, antennae and some imagination.


Cummon, guys, surely this is exactly what he did! He's a professional photographer living in Orlando who likes pix of the Cornish (England, he's an ex pat) countryside and architectural bits and pieces. The pic on the link was an exercise in photographic design, with the diagonal of the mantis's axis reflected by the holly stems, not an illustration of Brunner's stick insect. He said that it was "slightly over" 7", which suggests to me that he actually measured it, and since he had probably never heard of "total body length", measured from the tip of the antennae to either the tip of the abdomen or an extended hind leg.


----------



## kamakiri (Dec 8, 2008)

Katnapper said:


> We have the same joke in the U.S., but with 6 or 7 inches... hehe  :lol:


 :lol: Depends where you measure from...


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 9, 2008)

Thank lord! I was afraid that I would have a mantis as long as my own... you know what, the naughty appendage...

Well - but the thing is, people who measure mantids in the proper way exaggerate the ###### out of the reality - the guy who sold me Gongylus told me that they can reach 12 cm... what a load of rot! I guess people will lionize everything just to get some extra quid.


----------



## The_Asa (Dec 9, 2008)

There's always misinformation floating around that can get spread. And some people just have bad eyes :lol:


----------



## yen_saw (Dec 10, 2008)

Kruszakus said:


> ......the guy who sold me Gongylus told me that they can reach 12 cm....


While I have never seen Gongylus get to 12 cm, 8cm is rather small for an adult female.


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 10, 2008)

yen_saw said:


> While I have never seen Gongylus get to 12 cm, 8cm is rather small for an adult female.


But that is actually correct - I measured a couple of females, and most of them were 8.5 cm.


----------



## Christian (Dec 10, 2008)

Museum specimens are indeed larger.


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 10, 2008)

Christian said:


> Museum specimens are indeed larger.


I know, I like totally had one 9.5 cm long female, but like 80% of what I've seen was really just about 8 cm long. I measured some females with a ruler and most were just a bit above 8 cm.


----------



## ABbuggin (Dec 10, 2008)

I've got 9cm and a 9.5 cm females, and a female (subadult now) that should be 8.5.  

(and yes, I did use a ruler, and I dont have bad eyes! :lol: )


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 10, 2008)

ABbuggin said:


> I've got 9cm and a 9.5 cm females, and a female (subadult now) that should be 8.5.  (and yes, I did use a ruler, and I dont have bad eyes! :lol: )


The point is, when a guy who has mostly 8-9 cm Gongylus tells you that they reach 12 cm, he is still BSing you.


----------



## ABbuggin (Dec 10, 2008)

your right there.  

I do hate when people exaggerate about an insects size. &lt;_&lt;


----------



## Orin (Dec 10, 2008)

Kruszakus said:


> But that is actually correct - I measured a couple of females, and most of them were 8.5 cm.


Many species don't grow as large in captivity depending on the conditions but even wild Gongylus don't exceed 10cm.

On the Brunneria, unless the legs are ripped off and measured end to end 7" is still a big stretch


----------



## shorty (Dec 10, 2008)

Orin said:


> Many species don't grow as large in captivity depending on the conditions...


Why don't they grow larger in captivity? You'd think being constantly fed a healthy diet and being in a safe environment would allow them to grow to even bigger sizes than they would outdoors. Is it because of the small sizes of the enclosures? What exactly is inhibiting their ability to reach large sizes indoors?


----------



## Orin (Dec 10, 2008)

shorty said:


> Why don't they grow larger in captivity? You'd think being constantly fed a healthy diet and being in a safe environment would allow them to grow to even bigger sizes than they would outdoors. Is it because of the small sizes of the enclosures? What exactly is inhibiting their ability to reach large sizes indoors?


I've seen some species grow larger if fed roaches versus crickets and grow larger with vitamin/calcium dusting but cage size is likely a factor as well.


----------



## Christian (Dec 10, 2008)

Cage size is not an issue. This is an urban legend, as in fish.

Some species grow larger in captivity, _Deroplatys _and other food limited ones, for instance. My self-bred _D. trigonodera_ were often larger than the ones I caught in Borneo. Others were of similar size. Usually, the first mantids to become adult also grow larger than subsequent ones.

On the other hand, stock established for a long time and fed not as diverse as WC representatives tend to get smaller after a while. Examples are _Gongylus, Phyllocrania_ and _Creobroter_. A genetic factor may play a role, but this is not inbreeding but a particular form of selection.


----------



## The_Asa (Dec 10, 2008)

Christian said:


> Cage size is not an issue. This is an urban legend, as in fish.Some species grow larger in captivity, _Deroplatys _and other food limited ones, for instance. My self-bred _D. trigonodera_ were often larger than the ones I caught in Borneo. Others were of similar size. Usually, the first mantids to become adult also grow larger than subsequent ones.
> 
> On the other hand, stock established for a long time and fed not as diverse as WC representatives tend to get smaller after a while. Examples are _Gongylus, Phyllocrania_ and _Creobroter_. A genetic factor may play a role, but this is not inbreeding but a particular form of selection.


So this slow "shrinking" in size is limited to particular species?


----------



## Christian (Dec 10, 2008)

That's not quite sure. At least it is more often seen in some species.


----------



## Orin (Dec 11, 2008)

Christian said:


> Cage size is not an issue. This is an urban legend, as in fish.


It is most certainly not an urban legend and is very different for insects because the issue with fish is water quality. You'd be more accurate comparing apples and oranges than fish and mantids. In addition, you don't seem to understand that with fish, small cages most certainly result in stunting but it's an indirect result that can only be mitigated by constant fresh water flow and so cage size remains very significant to the hobbyist (just not the fishery that pumps in new water constantly).


----------



## Christian (Dec 11, 2008)

Aquarium size isn't affecting fish size. This is the urban legend I am referring to. If water or food or artificial habitat quality affects fish size it simply underlines that enclosure size is not responsible. So there is any contradiction to my statement.

In mantids, or generally in animals, cage size doesn't effect size. Food quality or climate parameters may influence size, apart from genetic factors, but it is not cage size per se. So I see no reason for contracicting me just for the sake of it.


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 11, 2008)

Christian said:


> Cage size is not an issue. This is an urban legend, as in fish.


I was very interested in this as I'd always heard and assumed the "urban legend" to be true. Did a Google out of curiosity, and the first result linked to this:



> Title as you Wish: Fish and Tank Sizeby Heather Candelaria
> 
> A myth that I am sure everyone has heard, is that a fish will only grow to the size of its container. This is something I believe---If you disagree with me just stop and think about it for a minute. A fish obviously does not grow larger than the container it lives in...right? The ugly fact is that it generally dies when it reaches the maximum size that the container can handle, thus no longer `growing' and making this a catchy yet convenient myth, more conducive to buying fish indiscriminately.


http://www.gsas.org/Articles/1998/size-myths.html

Hmmm.... I believe I learned something new today! Thanks Christian.


----------



## Orin (Dec 11, 2008)

Water quality is a direct result of tank size unless water is being removed from an external source. However, this has nothing to do with mantids not growing as large in smaller cages.



Christian said:


> So I see no reason for contracicting me just for the sake of it.


You may not see the reason for contradicting yourself but your information is bad.


----------



## Christian (Dec 11, 2008)

Never mind. May you have the longest... if measured or not. I'm too tired for this today.


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 11, 2008)

Orin said:


> It is most certainly not an urban legend and is very different for insects because the issue with fish is water quality. You'd be more accurate comparing apples and oranges than fish and mantids. In addition, you don't seem to understand that with fish, small cages most certainly result in stunting but it's an indirect result that can only be mitigated by constant fresh water flow and so cage size remains very significant to the hobbyist (just not the fishery that pumps in new water constantly).


I don't know whether to think cage size affects mantids or not. But from both Orin and Christians points, and from Googling for more info about it, I've come away with a more enlightened view on the effects of "tank size determining FISH size."

Thanks, Orin!

This link was interesting reading about it: http://www.badmanstropicalfish.com/forum/i...hp?topic=9743.0

Sorry if I got off topic, as it's not about mantids... but I did learn something from the discussion.


----------



## Orin (Dec 11, 2008)

Another thing to keep in mind, average humans can reach 7ft and odd ones 9ft so just because a mantis species can grow to 4" doesn't mean your specimens won't be much smaller.



Christian said:


> Never mind. May you have the longest... if measured or not. I'm too tired for this today.


 The worste part is I can easily prove your misunderstanding of the relationship to fish but then you'll just say, "well they're not mantids anyway," when you're the one who created the tangent. My original post explained that nutrition is very important, cage size just a minor aside.


----------



## Christian (Dec 11, 2008)

And what did I say? That cage size doesn't influence size in any animal. I don't see the problem.

Anyway, I'm out for good. Discussions with you have the strange characteristic of leading to my posts getting deleted after a while.


----------



## Orin (Dec 11, 2008)

Christian said:


> And what did I say? That cage size doesn't influence size in any animal. I don't see the problem.Anyway, I'm out for good. Discussions with you have the strange characteristic of leading to my posts getting deleted after a while.


What you said was false. Cage size does influence growth, in the case of some fish it's chemical rather than physical but stunting is a well documented phenomenon.



Christian said:


> Anyway, I'm out for good. Discussions with you have the strange characteristic of leading to my posts getting deleted after a while.


As long as you don't resort to name calling or go so far off on tangents that the topic was lost long ago you're safe.


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 11, 2008)

_Expletive removed_. What is going on here?

I guess that when it comes to discussing the size, there is always going to be some friction between the guys... I think there is a lesson in that for all of us...


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 11, 2008)

Kruszakus said:


> I guess that when it comes to discussing the size, there is always going to be some friction between the guys... I think there is a lesson in that for all of us...


On a lighter note... I have learned that friction increases size.


----------



## shorty (Dec 12, 2008)

I also think that enclosure size _does_ factor into the growth potential of a mantis. I watched a documentary on TV about dinosaurs and there were a group of dinosaurs that lived on an island. These dinosaurs, which were the same species as their counterparts on land, didn't reach nearly the size as the ones did on the mainland. Fossil evidence supports this, however another observation I've made, which could be wrong, is that humans on smaller pieces of land grow shorter. For example, the average Japanese person doesn't get very tall, where as Chinese in their larger land-mass, can get tall. I really don't know for certain, but it seems logical to assume they do grow smaller in small enclosures. Perhaps there is someway to devise an experiment to prove this one way or another. This has peaked my interest and I'd really like to know what the truth on the matter is.


----------



## sidewinder (Dec 12, 2008)

Christian,

Tank size is NOT the issue with fish growing to their maximum potential size (unless ridiculously small tanks are used). The issue is indeed water quality. Poor water quality causes stunting, not small tanks.

Just because poor water quality is more commonly seen in smaller tanks does not mean that smaller tanks affects fish size. The logic is faulty.

Scott


----------



## Peter Clausen (Dec 12, 2008)

[SIZE=10pt]Let's all take a break from this delightful discussion for a message from Mantidforum Management...[/SIZE]

Members LIKE opinions.

Members LOVE opinions based on facts, particularly referenced or quoted facts.

Members LIKE differing opinions because they are interesting and provide perspective.

Members LOVE opinions that are expressed respectfully and without those little "extra", unconstructive comments.

Members can decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong, based on the quality of the points coming from the various sides of the discussion (to the extent they care to pay attention, of course).

I'm seeing a concerning pattern of "extras" in this conversation. I'm personally interested in what the answer to this fish business is, but not at the expense of a familiar group of combatants arguing people instead of issues that the community cares about. Be nice or be gone!

If you have responses to this, DON'T write them here. PM me.


----------



## Peter Clausen (Dec 12, 2008)

As for mantises? Just make sure they have enough vertical room to shed their skin. Genetics, temperature and nutrition will do the rest. Now, I wonder if a bit of exercise might help them grow? I'm imagining a mantis sitting on a rowing machine...now with a treadmill attached.


----------



## Orin (Dec 12, 2008)

Twice now I've explained that nutrition is very important for mantids to reach optimum length, cage size an aside.

I have observed notable, repeatable cage size affects on adult _Gyna bisannulata _and _Megaphasma denticrus _but cage size is not likely to affect all orthopteroids. Small cage size may be the reason Tenodera don't reach wild size in captivity independent of nutrition. _Deroplatys lobata _(not _D. desiccata_) can grow much larger in captivity than wild specimens from Malaysia but that may be the stock, nutrition or something else entirely.

If you guys want to argue water quality versus aquarium size for fish or wether a gun kills people (or people kill people or if it's really the bullet, or the impact or damage to specific organs since people get shot and don't die all the time), please start a new topic in the Other forum.


----------



## revmdn (Dec 12, 2008)

I have a mantid size set of dumbbells and a mini boxing ring for mine. They seem to like a work out. Even a steam afterward.


----------

