PDA

View Full Version : Begging Eurycea tynerensis


nate
28th August 2004, 18:06
Here's some photos of a very tame Eurycea tynerensis begging at the glass.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/burgundyeft/DSCN0912.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/burgundyeft/DSCN0927.jpg

russ
28th August 2004, 22:00
I kept a few back in the eighties while I was in college at OSU. They got so habituated to my feeding routine that anytime you lifted the lid to their enclosure they'd immediately come out and set looking up waiting for the dried tubifex worms to come drifting down. They were great.

But is that the old "multiplicata" form?

RUSS

RUSS

nate
29th August 2004, 03:46
Hi Russ, that salamander would be identified as E. m. griseogaster in current field guides, but there is a major revision of Ozark/Ouachita Eurycea coming, so I'm going ahead and calling it what it will be, Eurycea tynerensis.

russ
29th August 2004, 13:26
That's what I had heard. What's going to be the end results of the revision?

And I was referring to the Cowboys!

RUSS

nate
29th August 2004, 16:01
Well...it's all a bit complicated, like the TX Eurycea. The end results will be this:

Eurycea multiplicata multiplicata will be split into 2 species occupying the Ouachita Mtns. of AR and OK.

Eurycea tynerensis will be expanded to include metamorphosing forms of what is now considered E. m. griseogaster in northeast OK, all of MO, and extreme northwest AR.

Two additional species will be described from the Ozarks; one with a very limited range in east-central OK and another with a large range across northern AR. I'm sure the name griseogaster will be ressurected for one of them.

Finally, Typhlotriton is now officially Eurycea because it turns out that tynerensis and the other two new forms are more closely related to grotto sals than they are to the Ouachita Eurycea multiplicata forms. Amazing, isn't it? Also, what is currently considered one species, E. spelaeus, is actually at least three, so you can expect the names braggi and nereus to be ressurected for them in the future.

(Message edited by nate on August 29, 2004)

nate
29th August 2004, 21:41
And a few more pics for good measure http://www.caudata.org/forum/clipart/hat.gif

http://www.caudata.org/forum/messages/13/21462.jpg

http://www.caudata.org/forum/messages/13/21463.jpg

http://www.caudata.org/forum/messages/13/21464.jpg

henk
2nd September 2004, 18:03
Nate if you have a white balance in your camera, I think you should experiment with that a bit. I'm sure this will make your shots better, currently they contain too much blue /UV. Just trying to help here...

I actually never saw any of these before and I'm surprised by their (tiny) size. Hope you well with them. I just got to see a giant cave salamander : Gyrinophilus gulolineatus (impressive)

nate
2nd September 2004, 19:40
Hi Henk, yeah, my color/light levels are really off, I realize. I have not been able to find a white balance.

henk
2nd September 2004, 22:05
Another trick is to edit the shot a little in a programm where you can bring down the blue balance. I hope you don't mind me doing so (it'sv your shot) but I have edited
What did I do :
- shift back the blue balance
- sharpen
- then denoise it

Tell me what you think about it (I have no idea if I come close to the norma colors though, but you lost the blue balance).

http://www.caudata.org/forum/messages/13/21707.jpg

henk
2nd September 2004, 22:06
PS. Total work time for this is about 3 minutes work (for low res images, high res takes much more)

nate
2nd September 2004, 22:17
that's right about perfect Henk, and thanks for the tip. I think this particular model of camera has a very difficult time taking normal photos under fluorescent aquarium lights for whatever reason

henk
3rd September 2004, 04:51
This is because the lightspectrum of such lamps is different from normal light and your camera can not handle this. I had the same with my former camera. Now mine has different settings and the possiblity to self-calibrating it by pointing at a white page and tell him 'this si white' so he adapts. TL lights are treaturus for shooting images, unless you use the flash (which might alsoi give a bit more blue).

joseph
7th September 2004, 23:18
Henk: Elaborate please?

henk
8th September 2004, 18:56
Joseph, what would you want me to elaborate on ? My camera or the light balance in TL lights ? For the latter you can see which spectrum they have when buying them some are more white, others yellow, some more UV. The systems that calibrate when taking a shot can be tricked if the total image gets a not normal balance of lightspectrum whereas it expects this to be 'normal'...
I for instance never (intentionally ... since I sometimes do forget to switch it off) use the automatic calibrating of the white balance in my camera. Instead I choose either shadow, sunlight or some other (I have about 5). Then I can also take a white sheet of paper and point my camera at it and tell it 'this is normal white', so he puts the balance where it should be.

With certain TL lights you get too much blue, with other too much yellow and sometimes you do not need to use TL's : go out in at noon and take a shot in sunlight in your garden. Then go back out in the evening and take the same shot when the sun is still up but it's getting later : the last shot will hold more colors, the shot at noon will be quite hard and blue too. reason : when the sun is up high or going down , the angle of the light/diffraction is different giving you another spectrum too. Anyway I hope this makes it a bit clearer, since I'm not a physician or specialistin the field.. I just try to adapt myself to a given situation