Christian already told you there's no data to support your theory (so did others of course). Your arguement never ceases to die in the face of facts or information.Orthopteroids are not the same thing as Orthopterans, different levels. Maybe one in a hundred entomologists would know offhand the specifics of Bombyx diapause, maybe not even that many since it's related to a race that probably can't be acquired. Comparing species race specific diapause to the name of a general body part is beyond misleading. There are ten different comments I could respond to but you're way off topic and there's only so much time in the day.
Orin,
What Christian wrote substantially agrees with my posit that diapause in
Stagmomantis limbata is photoperiod induced and is terminated by a chilling period. But there are no experiment data to support that claim specific to
S. limbata. Starting with my very first post in this thread, I have been consistent on this. Based on available information, photoperiod induced diapause makes the most sense, at least to me. But experiments would need to be done to verify that, one way or the other.
What facts or information have been presented that contradicts my theory that diapause in
Stagmomantis limbata is photoperiod induced and is terminated by a chilling period?
When you wrote "Orthopteroid", in my mind I read "Orthopteran". My mistake. The point I was making still applies. An Entomologist would not have to be all that familiar with mantids to have insights into their physiology.
Bombyx mori was mentioned to you in direct response to your question "Which insects are those and which ones have embryonic photoreceptors?". I said I suspect most entomologist have at least a basic understanding of the environmental cues that induce diapause. I never suggested that most entomologist would have detailed knowledge of any particular species diapause.
The details of
B. mori diapause are only relevant because they are an example of an insect with embryonic photoreceptors. However, you seem to think the
Bombyx races that supports the facultative diapause are probably unobtainable. Yet, one source I cited doesn't mention the obligate diapause directly and the other uses the phrases "Some races of
Bombyx have an obligatory embryonic diapause" and "other races of
Bombyx, however, undergo a facultative diapause". To me, "some" doesn't mean "most" and "other" doesn't mean "few". A third published source that I didn't quote (
The Insects by Gullan and Cranston) mentions how optimal silk production comes from silkworms that go through an embryonic diapause but how, for production reasons, they would prefer to use eggs that didn't go through a diapause. A quick search on that horrible Internet will find scores more references to this facultative diapause. Either a lot of scientists have access to this
Bombyx "race that probably can't be acquired" or this facultative diapause is actually common. You even said that "Bombyx diapause is related to day length experienced by the adult moth" [incorrect]. Which diapause would that be? An obligatory egg diapause would take no environmental cues from the adult moth. So is this "adult moth" one of those races that probably cannot be obtained?
I am not sure what you mean by "Comparing species race specific diapause to the name of a general body part is beyond misleading". The only comparing I did was to show that several species of insects support an embryonic diapause induced by photoperiod. This means those embryos have some mechanism that allows them to evaluate the photoperiod. The data I found suggests specialized extraretinal photoreceptors. Is that the mechanism used by mantid embryos that evaluate photoperiod? Not known. But, the fact that other insects use this method makes it a reasonable possibility.
The discussion of the various positions in this thread have had many twists and turns and most all the "way off topic" information I have presented has been done to address specific "on topic" challenges to my theories. I am more than willing to abandon my theories if verifiable information is presented that shows they are not plausible. No where have I said that my theories are the only theories that could be correct. I have defended my theories with information available on the Internet and in books to which I have access. I have used the same sources to argue against theories that make less sense to me. My goal is not to be right. My goal is to get to the right conclusion, whatever it might be. Part of that process is having opposing points of view debate the merits of their respective theories and ideas. This is what fosters discovery and learning for all who participate. I certainly have learned quite a lot because of this thread. To argue for a theory, you have to learn all you can about the underlying details. The same is true if you want to argue against a theory.
It would certainly be more productive if you used actual arguments to contradict my theories and ideas instead of just saying I was wrong or I didn't understand. If you aren't willing to do that, so what you say can be discussed and learned from, why post at all?
At the end of the day, we still don't have a conclusive answer. Maybe we will get some better data from some of the experiments being undertaken.
Scott
