The Big Feast or The Feast of the Big Ones (I)
When diving into the micro world we are encountering very different scenarios: e.g.
there are complex mixtures of interesting species, like the ones found on the bordering concrete walls of the Munich city
river Isar - in fact most of those tardigrades are immigrants coming afloat from a southern mountain area.
But there are also much more simple scenarios, like those found within the moss of old roof tiles
where we come across red Echiniscus tardigrades and nothing else.
Both scenarios have their advantages and disadvantages. Complex mixtures of many species are
providing insight into the complexity of tardigrade populations and we can make use of them in order
to present a tardigrade universe to a visitor or a friend. Nevertheless there are problems as well:
E.g. we cannot be sure which tardigrade egg has been deposited by which adult tardigrade.
As a consequence simple populations can be easier to understand.
This and two upcoming issues of our magazine are focusing on feeding behaviour,
in particular on the feeding behaviour of big tardograde species, namely
Macrobiotus richtersi. Macrobiotus richtersi is quite abundant and
well known to science since more than a decade. So we conclude that the following
depiction of "Macrobiotus schultzei"
might as well represent an individuum of what we call Macrobiotus richtersi today.
Species names have a tendency to appear and to vanish - so we cannot really count on them.
Fig. 1: Macrobiotus schultzei alias Macrobiotus richtersi.
This wonderful drawing is a copy from a publication by [Shipley 1909] published more than 100 years ago.
But we think that it is actually going back even further, to works by GREEF (in 1865 or 1866).
Recently, we found an impressive monoculture of Macrobiotus richtersi
under an old maple tree, in moss cushions, apparently harvested by blackbirds and woodpeckers.
Fig. 2: Stem and roots
of an old maple tree with lots (though invisible lots) of Macrobiotus richtersi inhabitants.
Fig. 3: This is by no
means the result of our sampling but instead the avid work of blackbirds and woodpeckers
searching for food on the maple tree.
Fig. 4: At first glance,
the loose moss cushions don't look like living organisms ...
Fig. 5: ... but just by adding water
the moss color is quickly turning into a vivid green!
Now we can proceed as usual: the tardigrades are transferred to
a slide by means of a Pasteur pipette and studied under the microscope. A short glance
at fig. 6 might help to understand why Macrobiotus richtersi is commonly
considered as one of the less attractive tardigrades - possibly even being partially responsible
for the fact that the whole family of tardigrades is sometimes described as "worm-like"!
Macrobiotus richtersi has a massive, lengthy body
and rather small legs, barely visible below its body. So it cannot
be abused for a photomicrography contest. And it goes without saying that
the historic drawing in fig. 1 is much superior to our photomicrograph.
Fig. 6: Macrobiotus richtersi
from the thoroughly bruised maple tree. Image width ca. 0.3 mm. Please note that
the drawing in fig. 1 is much superior with respect to anatomic detail!
And there are no visible eye pigment spots. How on earth are those animals able to spot their food?
In the next two issues of the magazine we will explain
why these tardigrades have to be classified as Macrobiotus richtersi
and we will discuss their terrible table manners!
A.E. Shipley: Tardigrada. In: Smith, Geoffrey et al., Crustacea and Arachnids. p. 480. London 1909.
© Text, images and video clips by
Martin Mach (firstname.lastname@example.org).
The Water Bear web base is a licensed and revised version of
the German language monthly magazine
Style and grammar amendments by native speakers are warmly welcomed.