CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE: Leaf mimics
Nature is fascinating, and some of Nature’s best work—or evolution rather—is illustrated by a group of animals that have evolved adapted to mimic leaves. Leaf mimics employ a heightened form of camouflage to evade detection from predators or prey. These animals make use of extraordinary color patterns, in addition to modified exoskeletons, skin, scales, and behavior to take camouflage to another level. See more animal camouflage here.
INVERTEBRATES AS LEAVES
The “dying” leaf-mimic katydid below is a fascinating creature, and evolution natural selection has endowed it with the ability to mimic a dying leaf.
“Dying” leaf-mimic katydid image was found here and here.
. . .
Dead leaf butterflies are extraordinary creatures to observe up close. The specimen below illustrates the intricate details chiseled out by adaptation through natural selection, which is a driving force of evolution. The remarkable details help the butterfly evade predation by mimicking a dead leaf.
The dead-leaf butterfly image above was found here, but the actual image is by ToddinNantou on Flickr.
Image found here
. . .
The images and videos below show various species of leaf- and stick-mimicking praying mantises, including a dead leaf mantis (Deroplatys desiccata) and a violin mantis subadult (Gongylus gongylodes). The detail and similarity to vegetation in some species, like the specimen in the first image, is extraordinary.
Photo source for attribution here
The image above showing a dead leaf mantis (Deroplatys desiccata) camouflaged amongst some leaf litter was taken by Adrian Pingstone, and found here.
Violin mantis subadult was taken by Laurentiu on Picasa, and found here.
VIDEO: Leaf Mantis at 04:45:
VIDEO: A violin mantis catching a fly:
. . .
Another leaf mimic katydid positions itself below. This specimen mimics a decomposing leaf instead of a dying leaf.
“Decaying” leaf-mimic katydid image (©Martin Shields) was found here and here.
. . .
Leaf insects or walkingleaves from the family Phylliidae are some of the best examples of leaf mimics.
Phyllium sp. image above by Sandilya Theuerkauf
Photo source for attribution here
Phyllium giganteum
Phyllium giganteum image by Drägüs was found here.
VIDEOS of walkingleaves:
From LiveScience: Ancient insects used advanced camouflage:
A fossil of a leaf-imitating insect from 47 million years ago bears a striking resemblance to the mimickers of today.
The discovery represents the first fossil of a leaf insect (Eophyllium messelensis), and also shows that leaf imitation is an ancient and successful evolutionary strategy that has been conserved over a relatively long period of time.
Hat tip to Dear Kitty. Some blog, and the fossil leaf insect image was found here.
d
d
d
. . .
An unidentified species of dead leaf insect
The unidentified dead leaf insect image by Amaury Olivier Laporte was found here.
. . .
Here are more examples of leaf-mimicking katydids. The species directly below from Costa Rica is mimicking a dead or brown leaf. Note the mottling or splotching of darker browns, which certainly allows this species to camouflage itself amongst decaying leaves very well.
Photo source for attribution here
Undergrowth dead-leaf katydid (Orophus sp.), Barro Colorado Island, Panama
This series of images shows several small-leaf katydids (Pseudophyllinae) from Peru and the Peruvian Amazon. The last image in the series shows a dead-leaf katydid nymph or an immature form of a small-leaf katydid.
The image showing the undergrowth dead-leaf katydid (Orophus sp.), and the series of images showing the small-leaf katydids were taken by artour_a on Flickr. Art has other images of animals from around the world and interesting examples of camouflage on Flickr.
You may or may not see the katydid in the image below right away, since it kind of jumped out at me when I first saw the image. This specimen looks more like the katydids that use to get into my parent’s home in the United States if the door was left open too long at night during the summer months.
The green katydid image is by Mjlaff on Flickr.
This peacock katydid’s (Pterochroza ocellata) exceptional resemblance to a dead leaf is remarkable, but if its camouflage fails and a predator realizes it’s a potential meal, the peacock katydid has a behavioral trick—it can quickly flash a pair of false eyes by opening its wings to startle a predator.
The peacock katydid images are by Piotr Naskrecki on Flickr.
. . .
VERTEBRATES AS LEAVES
Can you find the leaf mimic frog? Leaf mimicry isn’t exclusive to insects, since some vertebrates make use of this extreme form of camouflage.
The first two leaf-mimic frog images are by ©Wolf Holzmann and were found here and here. The third leaf-mimic frog image is by Hank & Priscilla Brodkin and was found here.
. . .
The South American or Amazon leaf fish (Monocirrhus polyacanthus) uses camouflage, mimicry, and stealth to hunt its prey. It will often sit in the water column at varying angles or sideways mimicking a dead leaf (note the individuals in the background). Its prey is quickly gulped into its hard to see large mouth.
Regarding the leaf fishes in the aquarium: South American leaf fish photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license. The image showing South American leaf fishes in someone’s hand was found here, and in a fish aquarium here.
. . .
The Uroplatus, a genus of gecko endemic to Madagascar, are sometimes referred to as leaf-tailed geckos. The first image shows an individual hibernating during cooler Malagasy weather, and the leaf-tailed gecko uses its tail to mimic a leaf or camouflage itself as it hibernates.
Photo source for attribution here and here
Satanic Leaf Tailed Gecko (Uroplatus phantasticus) image found here
. . .
This robust ghost pipefish (Solenostomus cyanopterus) mimics a blade of sea grass, and rests at an angle similar to the South American leaf fishes above. Ghost pipefishes are relatives of pipefishes and seahorses and display some of the best camouflage found in nature. They are very ornate and showy like the weedy and leafy sea dragons. See more images of ghost pipefishes here.
Photo source for attribution here
. . .
See more animal camouflage
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
wow.. thats awesome
brian
8 Nov 08 at 2:07 pm
I’m a bit confused on your choice of wording.
There is no such thing as “the driving forces of evolution.” Evolution, by definition, is a completely random process, aided only by the survival (or lack thereof) of the evolved creature.
The statement “chiseled out by the driving forces of evolution” presupposes that evolution is an ordered process, as opposed to random genetic mutations.
The theory that involves a directed pattern is not called evolution, it is called “intelligent design.”
It always irritates me when people confuse these two diametrically opposed theories.
Bud
8 Nov 08 at 5:26 pm
…. But aside from all that, great pictures.
Bud
8 Nov 08 at 5:28 pm
Hi Bud. I used the phrase, because I simply liked the description, and I was not trying to legitimize intelligent design, which I believe is a sham. I thought the phrase might be confusing, so before using it, I searched for a similar usage to reference it and found it in this article from LiveScience:
“Greatest Mysteries: What Drives Evolution?” (and linked to it): http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070816_gm_evolution.html
And also here in “Forces of Evolution”: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070816_gm_evolution_forces.html
I certainly was not trying to refer to intelligent design, and I don’t think it is unreasonable to use the phrase “driving forces of evolution,” because it is thought that there are other ways to drive evolution besides natural selection, such as through “mutation[s], random genetic drift and gene flow” (in fact, several journal articles and book titles employ the phrase “driving forces of evolution”). Furthermore, in a way these “driving forces of evolution” are chiseling out the organism, so they may survive in the landscape.
Buck Denton
8 Nov 08 at 5:57 pm
Just amazing images. I disagree with Bud’s comment. There are driving factors in evolution and this does not indicate that evolution is an ordered process. The fact is that the driving factors are random, but drive modification of a species nonetheless. In the case of camouflage, the driving factor is to be able to avoid detection by predators. The individual that is lucky enough to have an advantagous mutation is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass those genes on to its decendants.
This need to survive detection by predators, therefore, is the driving force. In a broad sense then, the driving force behind all evolution is a species’ enviromental influences.
I do agree that the phrase ‘driving force’ may be misconstrued by the enemies of evolution to mean the hand of god however, and for this reason all beleivers in reason must be alert to this.
Scott
8 Nov 08 at 6:13 pm
Buck,
Thanks for you response. Unfortunately, the actual theory of evolution is so poorly understood, that using statement as you did, although you may understand the intended context, further adds to the confusion.
Surprisingly, Scott’s comment actually supports my point. He says “This need to survive detection by predators, therefore, is the driving force. In a broad sense then, the driving force behind all evolution is a species’ enviromental (sic) influences.”
On an individual level, an organism my be driven to improve its chances for survival. As a result, it may learn to hide more effectively. However, as a species, there is no drive for improvement. Only the reality that an organism with a more effective camouflage will be more likely to survive long enough to pass on its particular genetic traits.
Anyway. Thanks again for the pictures.
Bud
8 Nov 08 at 6:46 pm
Seriously I cant see them. This is driving me crazy.
I find convergent evolution pretty interesting, this not being it.. Things like shark tails and dolphin tails taking different evolutionary paths in development (of shape) but ultimately tending to the same design. What i enjoy is that the convergence of the two tail designs indicates that there is in fact an optimal design for a tail (tested against a specific parameter - speed in this case). As an engineer its good to know that there is such evolutionary perfection out there that we can hope to emulate ourselves.
Seriously though, where are the damn frog and butterfly
Rob
8 Nov 08 at 10:21 pm
I can’t find the frog either Rob, but according to the photographer, it’s in the leaf litter.
Buck Denton
8 Nov 08 at 10:43 pm
That SnapShots/WordPress thing is very annoying and intrusive. It kept popping up and distracted me from how amazing some of the photos are.
Anon
8 Nov 08 at 11:19 pm
Thanks for the recommendation, I disabled snapshots.
Buck Denton
8 Nov 08 at 11:39 pm
WOW., what a creature…
abhishekdaaga
9 Nov 08 at 1:16 am
Dear Bud,
No one gives a shit.
Thanks, Joe
Joe
9 Nov 08 at 3:04 am
Wow!
That really is some great camoflauge - I’m jealous!
LeMelon
9 Nov 08 at 5:58 am
I’m impressed with natures design XP.
Still spotted them all in the first few seconds though, frog included.
Great post Scott, I look forward to more. *thumbs up*
ScarletSen
9 Nov 08 at 7:55 am
To consider evolution random would not be entirely accurate. Though mutations, the result of crossing over and assortment of chromosomes during meiosis may be random, the driving processes are not.
Evolution can be driven by a number of influences - the nature of the environment, competition and sex, for example. Could sexual selection account for the ornate display of the peacock? To have such adornment is likely to be a hindrance if being chased by a tiger, but if you are more likely to breed because females look for the most impressive display, then the genetic makeup that impresses the most is more likely to win out. Of course, all the pressures that play on various phenotypes would be complex, but evolution is, nevertheless, being driven by those pressures, which will, over time, influence the genotypes that confer advantage.
David
9 Nov 08 at 10:27 am
Should have added: brilliant pics, thanks. d
David
9 Nov 08 at 10:28 am
The word “evolve” implies progress. Is it progress to change - in order to survive - from what you are?
Reminds me of prisoners of war, and how they become “animal-like” in order to survive. Is that progress? Aka “evolution”?
In that point of view, I wouldn’t call camouflage evolution or intelligent design. I would call it the exact opposite.
Teresa Silverthorn
9 Nov 08 at 10:42 am
Props to Teresa, you’ve hit the tip of truth. It isn’t evolution, nor intelligent design. It is adaptation. Evolution truly means changing from one inferior creatures into a completely different creature. All of these are not completely different. They simply adapted to thier environment. People who live in the north are more tolerant of cold than a southern person. Did they evolve? No. They adapted.
meiliken
9 Nov 08 at 11:29 am
Point taken on adaptation Teresa, which is a better descriptor of the actual process than evolution; although, the driving force of adaptation is natural selection, and natural selection can be a factor for evolution.
Many thanks for all the comments and discussion!
Buck Denton
9 Nov 08 at 12:18 pm
C’mon, this is photoshopped, I can’t believe how gullible you people are!
FAKE!!
Michael
9 Nov 08 at 1:51 pm
Wow, I can’t believe how pedantic you all are. Adaptation, ‘progress’, evolution, etc.
Look at the pictures, say wow, move on. And michael, you’re an idiot.
Zeroth
9 Nov 08 at 2:06 pm
i didn’t find the frog
alexandre
9 Nov 08 at 8:40 pm
Just below middle way of the image showing leaf litter and above the stick crossing the image, towards the left, you will see a dark image that looks like a frog.
Buck Denton
9 Nov 08 at 8:54 pm
Great pictures. In the first one all I could see was the legs. (I think?) Thanks for posting.
tommy
9 Nov 08 at 9:19 pm
Thanks Tommy. There is more to those legs. If you look left of the dying “leaf,” you will see a head, and the animal will jump out at you.
Buck Denton
9 Nov 08 at 9:24 pm
Do you honestly believe a cyclone (evolution)could go through a junk yard and create a 747? Yeah and intelligent design is a scam. Right. How simple minded can you be? Do you really think you have the brain power to make that assumption? Such vanity you have .
Alex
9 Nov 08 at 9:46 pm
Intelligent design is a scam. In fact, it’s a simple-minded scam developed in recent times. The proponents of intelligent design point the finger at evolution and science, but intelligent designers need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and they need to take a good dose of objectivity. In my opinion, interpreting creation through intelligent design is a mistake, because it delegitimizes religion for some folks making an effort to rationalize their existence. Whether you like it or not, species do change over time and its observable. Furthermore, Creator or not, you need certain things in this universe and on planet Earth to keep everything ticking (adaptation, natural selection, and evolution; laws of thermodynamics, gravity and many other things we try to understand in science). The only side of the argument demonstrating vanity regarding the issue are the developers and proponents of intelligent design.
Buck Denton
9 Nov 08 at 10:13 pm
I want to make one thing clear. “Evolution” in a scientific context does not mean improvement. If you’d taken any 101 level course it would have been hammered in that it’s any “change over time.” Any change over time due to pressure. IT DOES NOT MEAN BETTER!
A crocodile or shark hasn’t changed in forever, because they’re still very effective with primitive designs. Humans are changing a lot (see very northern dwelling tribes with very short limbs to minimize heat loss, various running speed records held by western and eastern African groups, and power lifting records by western Europeans…not to mention things like levels of alcohol dehydrogenase by culture). Or see the fact that we’ve made dogs that weigh less than a pound (teacup poodles) and nealry 200 pounds (Irish Wolfhounds and others).
If we can make dogs differentiate that much in just a couple hundred years, you’d have to be blind to belive that “macro” evolution is just a myth.
Me
10 Nov 08 at 1:39 am
Fantastic images! Have never seen some of these before especially the frog. Keep ‘em coming please.
Annoymously
10 Nov 08 at 4:02 am
This is prove God made all creatures. Nature alone could not create such maverick tricky animals.
President Sarah Palin
10 Nov 08 at 9:24 am
[...] Camouflage - Animals and insects that have evolved adapted to survive. [...]
Monday Link Roundup for 11/10 | Dallas McLaughlin
10 Nov 08 at 9:31 am
Haha, President Sarah Palin I hope your comment was meant as a joke. If it was then its hilarious! If it wasn’t then you’re retarded and its STILL hilarious.
Bill
10 Nov 08 at 4:28 pm
Wow, I am really glad you shared these pictures. It is amazing how they do that!
annaelizabethcraig
10 Nov 08 at 4:55 pm
[...] fossil of a leaf-imitating insect from 47 million years ago bears a striking resemblance to the mimickers of [...]
Dear Kitty. Some blog :: Ancient leaf insect fossil found in Messel, Germany :: December :: 2006
10 Nov 08 at 7:40 pm
Great work! Nature is a genius.
Just one point- Bud, there is nothing wrong in using the phrase ‘driving forces of evolution’. As a fact, mutations are considered the driving forces of evolution.
Here, I believe that buck has used the phrase in a more generic sense calling natural selection as that force.
Hope you don’t mind!
mansishankar
10 Nov 08 at 7:50 pm
Wow! I knew about the frogs… I knew about some bugs, but not the ones you showed us. I hadn’t seen those fish before either. Truly amazing. Also, for the life of me, I cannot see the frog in that big picture. I have tried and tried.
wakingupkk
10 Nov 08 at 8:32 pm
[...] (Image via conservationreport) [...]
Strange Animal Defense: Camouflage, Shape Shifting and Other Bizarre Mechanisms | WebEcoist
11 Nov 08 at 7:29 pm
hey bud who cares just look at the pictures
norm
11 Nov 08 at 11:06 pm
[...] Conservation Report has a great post of camoflauging animals and insects. Go look, go look. Close Bookmark and [...]
Rue The Day! » Nature is Weird, Camoflauge is Cool
12 Nov 08 at 1:09 am
Hey, what a great project! Thanks for using my picture in it!
Cheers, Steffi
salynaz
12 Nov 08 at 11:19 am
this is really cool! i saw one that’s a moth looking like an owl.
chumpman
13 Nov 08 at 9:24 am
Maby in 10000 years.. It´s too early for that, nothing Photoshop can´t fix dough..
dew
13 Nov 08 at 2:12 pm
My God, these are really amazing. I find no problem in believing this is the work of a Creator. I mean, c’mon man what does it take for you to realize that these exquisite designs are no accident?! It was there 47 million years ago! And you still conveniently explain this away?
And to those who say that these adaptations were necessary for them to survive: How come the regular insects are still around? (*insert long-winded nonsense in defense of evolution here*)
Ibrahim Almoosa
13 Nov 08 at 2:48 pm
I believe in evolution, but some animals are so amazing that I can only wonder if they aren’t the product of some sort of intelligent design.
Pensador
13 Nov 08 at 3:58 pm
[...] CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE: Leaf mimics « The … [...]
The Old English Sheepdog | Dog Information
13 Nov 08 at 5:39 pm
Wow buck you must be trolling. A force of evolution is a natural force such as competition, environment change, predation, etc.
Anonymous
13 Nov 08 at 7:53 pm
Ever seen fotoes of caterpillar’s head painted as if manacing big eyes? One example of intelegence design.
Not a fan of Sarah Palin but what she said of foot prints of man and dinos is documented by Eric von Daniken.
Some of you has read me, I’m giving no further statemnt of affiliation.
oprahress
13 Nov 08 at 9:22 pm
why must intelligent design and evolution be opposed?
do I believe that an invisible man made two people out of dirt and we all come from them? NO. that’s just stupid.
it IS possible for an anomaly like a cyclone going through a junkyard, and making a 747 by accident… but only once. EVER. and I’d shit bricks.
that being said, Bud’s Theory of Evolution presupposes that cyclones have been turning out 747s every thursday afternoon, for trillions of years. also stupid.
the real question is: why does life cling to survival?
why does it care? if we come from a bunch of minerals that got hit by weird electricity or just happened to decide one day that they’d become an animal, then what caused that, because this theory depends on an inherent mind that is independent of matter, you know, like GOD or something.
just because Bible Freaks say and think dumb stuff, doesn’t mean that Atheism is the only answer.
Agnosticism. it’s called intelligence. I have seen stuff happen randomly, and sometimes it happens in such a way that the Neuroses of Religion makes me think that when I have an experience of synchronicity, it’s like God is winking at me.
TL;DR
Cool Aminals, Holmes.
Rasputin J Svengali
13 Nov 08 at 10:02 pm
That is just amazing
female model
13 Nov 08 at 10:23 pm
Calling Intelligent Design a “sham” is only because you do not know God. I’m sure he would forgive you for your ignorance. You can only speak on something you are aware of, and since you’ve never talked with God or felt his presence my advise would be to stick with learning about all the creatures he created for your education and Joy. I’m sure you believe in a devil even if you don’t believe in God. If I did not know for absolute sure that I had a soul, I’d sure be finding out before it was to late. I love this site as I haven’t seen these and I thank you for that!!!!
snowbird
13 Nov 08 at 10:53 pm
If I was designed by God and all He gave me for defense was the fact that my back looked like a decomposing leaf, I’d be fucking pissed. What, you ran out of poison stingers?!
Lisa Clarkson
14 Nov 08 at 12:26 am
PS - I’ll find my frog
who took my frog
who found my frog
Anonymous
14 Nov 08 at 1:53 am
[...] hiding under a dead leaf? THERE IS NO LEAF! You may want to reconsider ever going near a tree. Click here for [...]
DARKCOLD » Something to Terrify…
14 Nov 08 at 1:56 am
There are four processes that affect the frequencies of alleles, selection (sexual and natural), mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. I think only Bud has a “poor understanding” of evolution. The rest of us have a very good understanding of it. When Bud can not only describe genetic drift and its effect on the frequency of alleles (in both small and large group dynamics) to me, but tell me why its wrong, then I’ll listen.
Sam
14 Nov 08 at 3:07 am
I’m not sure why these things always fall into the creation vs. evolution debate, or why there’s a debate in the first place. Pervasively though the creationist argument there runs a misunderstanding about the evolutionary model. Darwin posited a theory about the development of species, not a theory about the biogenesis on the Earth. Since then we’ve learned the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and have witnessed examples of it in action. What seems to me central to the creationist argument is a further misunderstanding of linguistics whereby the word species is taken to mean something real in nature, which is simply not true. Species indicates a group of individuals who share enough genetic information to be able to exchange genes and produce viable offspring. Through time, genetic drift alters genetic information to a point where this gene exchange becomes impossible. All this means is that every organism is genetically distinct and that through generations of reproduction, the distinctions between two organisms which shared a common ancestor increase, eventually to a point where cross breeding of these two organisms is no longer viable.
Anyway, very good photos! I think I finally found the frog, which would have been an altogether easier endeavor if it had been bloody well bigger!
Penn
14 Nov 08 at 3:26 am
Thank heavens for some sense Penn. These are wonderful pictures. I wish that people who know little about life sciences would stop trying to push their own viewpoint about evolution/creation and just enjoy what is to be seen and marvel at the natural world.
Peter
14 Nov 08 at 11:20 am
Many thanks again for the discussion, in addition to the sharing of experience, knowledge, and viewpoints that have resulted from this blog post. Although the discussion may seem frustrating or pointless to some, certainly there is something to learn from it and the images—like the remarkableness and significance of living things, “natural” landscapes, and the need to preserve them.
Buck Denton
14 Nov 08 at 11:42 am
Evolution is the Result of Adaptation.
When something adapts, it survives longer
it’s random genes that helped it survive get passed on
if there was a group of brown insects
and all the landscape was bright green
the predator would pick out and eat all the brown ones
but the randomly green ones stayed safe, purely by chance
they were able to have babies
over time, there were only green ones left
so a brown insect EVOLVED into a green one
the *adaptation* part comes from the fact that the very-green were *favoured* by the opposite sex and got laid more…a bio-chemical choice, aka sex appeal
there was another lot of these brown insects
with their few random green ones (like our albinos)
they were in an area that was mostly rock and mud
all the green ones stood out
they got eaten
they never got married or had babies
the brown group survived as it was hard for the predators to see them against the brown backdrop
the rocks were sharp and painful
so the ones with more footpadding survived better
as they didn’t die of bleeding feet
10,000 years later
we have the brown-insect group
and a few miles down
their green-insect cousin
they’re 99% similar but for the colour
and they both adapted to their environments
one evolved into the greenbacked booga
the other evolved into the puffy-footed-booga
well children! i hope you enjoyed that lesson. Adaptation leads to Evolution
Adaptation can be mostly mindless and chance-based
my coffy is cold gotta go…!
The Great Chica
14 Nov 08 at 1:20 pm
Where’s the leaf frog…? such great camouflage XD
Firespell
14 Nov 08 at 4:11 pm
Totally photoshopped, I would know; I’ve seen quite a few photoshooped images in my day; look at the shadows, they’re all pixelated. Yup, totally photoshooped.
Phil E. Drifter
14 Nov 08 at 5:22 pm
Science is about doing stuff, ask any scientist with a job. What we should do is use evolution, make something with it. That’d shut up the creationists.
sumdumgi
14 Nov 08 at 5:40 pm
We have. They’re called antibiotics.
chillybew
14 Nov 08 at 7:45 pm
And seedless watermelons.
chillybew
14 Nov 08 at 7:46 pm
[...] | ConservationReport Más noticias sobre: Biología, Curiosidades Cientificas Tags: Animales, Biología, [...]
Fascinantes camuflajes animales [Fotos] - Ojo Cientifico
15 Nov 08 at 2:19 am
Even more interesting is how mankind has applied lessons learned from nature to human enterprises.
The art of camo
http://madsilence.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/the-art-of-camo/
~MadSilence
madsilence
15 Nov 08 at 7:26 am
You should also check out the sea horses referred to as “sea dragons”. Those things are crazy.
Russ
15 Nov 08 at 4:51 pm
Sea dragons have been highlighted here:
http://conservationreport.com/2008/10/12/can-you-see-me-animal-camouflage-37/
Ghost pipefishes are remarkable too:
http://conservationreport.com/2008/10/12/can-you-see-me-animal-camouflage-36/
All animal camouflage on this blog can be seen here:
http://conservationreport.com/tag/can-you-see-me-animal-camouflage/
The mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) is another fascinating creature too: It can change color, shape, and even change or mimic behavior of other sea creatures such as flounders, sea snakes, lionfish as a defense mechanism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8oQBYw6xxc
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8oQBYw6xxc&hl=en&fs=1]
Buck Denton
15 Nov 08 at 5:58 pm
WOW!!!!
Habeeb
16 Nov 08 at 3:32 am
blah blah blah
evolution requires faith… there just isn’t enough evidence (as the theory would require).
I wear a coat in the winter..so what
Kyle
16 Nov 08 at 4:05 am
Steve Verdon provides a helpful footnote regarding evolution (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/politics_and_evolution/):
Buck Denton
16 Nov 08 at 9:42 am
this is totally awesome. Now I learned something today!
deuts
17 Nov 08 at 1:17 pm
Steve Verdon’s quote there is correct, but does nothing to assuage the distaste that agnostics or religious people feel for Atheistic Evolution Theory.
I understand the quote is directed towards Palin-types who seem to think that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by god to test our faith, but I just want to remind everyone that because you belive in direction, in a kind of limited predestination, in that there is the high possibility that there may be a larger consciousness (not just one of those Gaea thingers, like Higher Order animals, Quantum Angels?) informing the molecular or cellular changes to some degree, and that it would appear according to accumulated data that all these changes being devoid of conscious intent on the part of the Evolvee or a Quantum Angel would seem preposterous.
Random Chance always plays a role, however, it seems important to point out that the Atheistic/Unconscious Evolutionary Model is as imbalanced and ridiculous on it’s face as the Xtian Version.
Rasputin J Svengali
17 Nov 08 at 4:08 pm
The ‘Junk pile-tornado-747′ anology is hpelesly off target. The elements of reproduction, transmissin of hereditary factors and selectin are missing
Lyle G
18 Nov 08 at 2:53 pm
Amazing pics, thanks!
hostel zakopane
19 Nov 08 at 2:15 am
These are truly amazing creatures, whether by creation, intelligent design or evolution!
All theories can be called scams until proven. Believe or not evolution is a theory, as is intelligent design. In order to prove a theory according to the scientific method certain steps must be accomplished. One of those steps is to test the hypothesis by doing experiments. Since these theories have occurred over millions or billions of years, it would be impossible to do replicate it in a time span we could observe. Sure, we are able to look at changes in dogs or other species or short time spans but we have yet been able to observe one species evolving into another. Evolution has many holes in it that have yet to be explained. Where are the intermediary species? We cannot find examples of those in fossil form. They should be scattered all over the earth. Moreover, it does not explain the very beginning of life. In physics, when a theory does not explain everything fully and is full of unknowns, it is time to find a theory that does. We seem to be stuck on evolution. It is time to move on.
lwg660
19 Nov 08 at 9:06 am
Arguably, intelligent design isn’t even a theory, since it’s largely a lie made up (1) to counter evolution and (2) to give Christianists confidence in their strict literal interpretation of the bible. As a result, intelligent design is completely made up!
If you can believe in intelligent design and not even consider evolution, then something is wrong upstairs. Evolution is science and it’s been tested and vetted (unlike Sarah Palin). If evolution were a weak theory, then scientists would have moved on a long time ago. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise, and it suggests a lack of intellectual curiosity in trying to read or research the issues surrounding evolution.
Furthermore, I’m appalled that some people believe we should teach intelligent design or some form of creationism along side evolution in schools. While some folks concede and believe it should be taught in philosophy class, I don’t think it’s even credible enough to be taught there.
Fossilization is a rare event. Consequently, fossils are rare, because even bone breaks down over time, so the conditions must be right in order to preserve a specimen through mineralization, as an impression (like a fern), through tree resin that results in amber, or a specimen might be preserved in a low oxygen or very cold environment. So, it’s not surprising that the fossil record is lacking, but there are fossils and a fossil record, and they can’t be ignored—just like evolution can’t be ignored.
Buck Denton
19 Nov 08 at 9:39 am
Buck, you sound like people who criticized evolution 100 years ago. People like you have closed their minds to anything other different to what you believe.
Intelligent design is one possible explanation some people use to fill some of the holes in the THEORY of evolution. You criticize these people but at least they are opening their minds enough to bridge their beliefs with those of people like you.
Of course evolution explains changes and adaptations within species. This has been proven and is observable. What you are doing is making excuses and apologizing for the things we do not know. Science does not do this. It simply seeks the knowledge of those things we do not know.
I never said evolution was a “weak” theory. It has too many holes, too many unknowns to say it is the total truth. It is still a theory! Open your mind. There may be other explanations to what you believe is fact.
lwg660
19 Nov 08 at 10:32 am
I wouldn’t consider myself closed minded just because I weigh evidence and facts, then discriminate against intelligent design. Comparing how I currently feel about intelligent design to how some folks viewed evolution 100 years ago is ridiculous. Intelligent design is not science. Furthermore, the criticisms of evolution that occurred ~100 years ago that you accuse me of is still here, since it has evolved into intelligent design.
Buck Denton
19 Nov 08 at 11:01 am
The truth of the matter here is, although fun to speculate, no one here will ever know exactly what is going on…U can only speculate…I speculate GOD is at work here…Could anything so limitlessly complex be ordered by anything else? Evolution? Evolution has no mind of it’s own….nor do any of the other concepts being given credit for what our world is. Only something with intelligence far above any of our measely minds, could create such wonderful things. Some of your comments is proof that we could never come close to explaining any of the intricacies pictured.
Leo
19 Nov 08 at 11:38 am
and Steve, don’t forget I love you…LOL
Leo
19 Nov 08 at 11:39 am
and another thing…could anyone explain how Steve got so cute?? Let’s speculate on that
Leo
19 Nov 08 at 11:44 am
Your “faith” in evolution is no different from my faith in God. We both believe in something we cannot touch. I also believe in a form of evolution different from you. Unfortunately, evolution as a whole has become a religion. You believe in it because you have faith it is true. You must have faith because it raises too many questions to be a single answer. Our scientific beliefs should not be based on faith.
Intelligent design is not necessarily a criticism of evolution. It is a starting point, which is something evolution does not answer. Intelligent design does not exclude evolution. Evolution can be part of it. Nevertheless, I must concede intelligent design, just like evolution, cannot be proven.
Charles Darwin said this:
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory (of evolution), innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if (evolution) be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against (evolution).
lwg660
19 Nov 08 at 11:45 am
The problems with or objections against the Darwinian model for speciation only come into play when it is extrapolated out to say everything has a common ancestor. Worse yet, the “common ancestor” was dead physical matter.
If Darwinism is strictly held to considering only species; then it bears no objectionable points. Any faith can easily embrace the idea that a loving GOD would endow His creation with the ability to adapt to surroundings for the best chance to survive. So, we can gladly hold to speciation, but not “the tree of life”.
As for the fossil record, why are we able to claim crocodiles (from the Wikipedia entry) “They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events.” The only way we could claim this is if there is sufficient record to confirm it. The fact that the same record does not confirm changes from one phylum to another in over at least 65 million years tells you something, if you are willing to listen. Do we have proof of one phylum leading to another phylum? I argue we only have conjecture.
Further, in a post linked in the right hand column, the fear of axolotl becoming extinct is of concern. Why? Isn’t this just evolution saying it’s time for them to go away? Why should we be bothered with trying to save them? Is it an innate response to GOD’s command for us to tend the garden? We don’t need any other animal on this planet. Vegans have shown we can survive just fine on vegetation alone.
Justin Weeces
19 Nov 08 at 11:48 am
Wow! [in a WTF astonishment sort of way]
Buck Denton
19 Nov 08 at 12:00 pm
Welp, time for my 2 cents I guess … Nature is Awsome .. that’s a universal fact, whether by ‘design’ or accident … but then, why do we appreciate a beautiful sunset, or gasp at the grandeur of the Grand Canyon … is it because it’s ‘intrinsically’ beautiful.. the question is ‘why’ do we find things beautiful and other things ugly .. do animals, for instance, find beauty in nature ? no firm answers here, just a question ..
As far as evolution, survival of the fittest, and ‘natural selection’ are concerned, Evolution, to me at least, allows the most rational explanation .. it doesn’t ‘preclude’ or omit the existence of a higher intelligence, it just may be the mechanics by which Nature or God works ….
It is true that “evolution’ is quite a random process.. it’s when a particular random mutation, such as an insect that resembles a ‘dying’ leaf, is now ‘left alone’ to propagate further, while the ‘more obvious’ ones get eaten …. suddenly, you have offspring that are “all’ now more likely to survive to the next generation … that’s all survival of the fittest is really all about .. not a quest to deny a God, just an obvious action/reaction of nature … the ‘mutated’ animals of the African plain that were ‘mistakenly’ born with Longer necks, were also able to reach the higher branches of the trees, their food source .. and so they were ‘more fit’ to propagate, and … well, can anyone say Giraffe …
The Galapagoes Islands have been a great ongoing experiment that Man has been able to observe for over a century now … and low and behold, we have seen species of birds change beak sizes and ‘adapt’ to island changes as natural selection and ’survival of the fittest’ has taken place .. right before our eyes.. this isn’t a theory.. we now have hard evidence of documented changes in the species on that island … like I said , this isn’t to discount a Higher intelligence, it’s just natures way maintaining a survival instinct … if you went around a particular corner every morning and one day someone was around that corner that punched you in the face three mornings in a row … you adapt .. you don’t just go whistling aroung the same corner on day four not expecting another punch in the face .. you start proceeding with caution … you change ..
Mankind itself will change and adapt in ’small’ and maybe big ways as well .. If we decided to ’settle’ on Mars, but also decided that it would be easier and more practical that only people under 5 feet tall would be more efficiently resourced for setting up a habitat on Mars, we would find that ‘by and large’, MOST of the offspring to couples under 5 ft tall would themselves be under 5 ft tall … I wish I could tell you this was theoretical Rocket science ..but it’s simply genetics over generations that’s at play here … that doesn’t mean that a ’stray’ or ‘mutant’ person born on mars would “never’ be over feet tall … and if a taller person survived better or adapted better, than his genes would carry to the next generation and you would start to see …. you got it , evolution in progress …
but the only real question to be anwered here is , why is Leo so cute … I suspect a handsome father and sexy momma are at play here ….
Steve, the cute one
19 Nov 08 at 3:16 pm
[...] that mimic [...]
“Got Bat?”
21 Nov 08 at 8:16 am
I agree with the ‘adaptation’ concept here: It’s not evolution until the resulting species no longer can mate with the others of the earlier species. But, evolution is going on all around us, and as someone else said, it’s not all positive. The gene mistakes that result in retardation are failed attempts at evolution, and nature takes care of failed attempts quite nicely as a safety check for rewarding evolution. As we remove these safety checks, we start altering the survival-rewarded genes, such that natural de-selection of such things like diabetes, blood disease, and even bad eyesight are assured to be passed on to our decendents, causing negative ‘adaptation’ and potentially evolution.
All those god-claimers better explain the concept of dinosaurs prior to addressing anything else here (the bible calls them ‘trickery’!).
Have fun
jim
21 Nov 08 at 2:28 pm
It’s amazing how animals can camouflage like that. Not that I haven’t heard of it, but I didn’t know there are so many animals that could do that.
Peter
21 Nov 08 at 5:55 pm
[...] CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE: Leaf mimics Nature is fascinating, and some of Nature’s best work—or evolution rather—is illustrated by a group of [...] [...]
Top Posts « WordPress.com
21 Nov 08 at 8:14 pm
[...] Foto e video [...]
Webparade - Il meglio del Web » Blog Archive » Animali che si nascondono
22 Nov 08 at 2:35 am
[...] or email him at buckdenton [at] gmail [dot] com. Two good examples of posts from his blog are CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE: Leaf mimics and Shark Week. Here are Buck’s thoughts and reflections about [...]
Nature Blog Network » Meet Buck and The Conservation Report
24 Nov 08 at 7:58 am
> and since you’ve never talked with God or felt his presence my advise would be to stick with learning about all the creatures he created for your education and Joy.
I’ve been searching for an ID proponent who could explain God’s apparent fixation with bugs - there are millions upon millions of species of insect - if we take the moment of initial creation as 4004BC as many ID folks do He must have been knocking out dozens of new bug designs every day. Why?
kwikbreaks
3 Dec 08 at 12:31 pm
[...] lebenden Blätter an!”, dachte ich grad so als ich die wunderbaren Bilder und Videos bei conservationreport.com entdeckt habe. Dann dachte ich mir aber, dass das natürlich totaler Quatsch ist, weil Blätter ja [...]
Mimikry | WiRRESWiRKEN
5 Dec 08 at 6:07 pm
[...] CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE: Leaf mimics « The Conservation Report (tags: evolution kids education) [...]
BarelyBlogging » Blog Archive » links for 2008-12-05
5 Dec 08 at 8:04 pm
these pictures blow my mind!
david
5 Dec 08 at 10:07 pm
if I looking for frog
him name is hopkin green frog
I lost my frog
29-3228
Love,
Terry
P.S. I’ll find my frog
Who took my frog
Who found my frog
2012 15th AVE. S
Terry
6 Dec 08 at 12:57 am
Bud: you suck, even though I agree with you, you suck. Work it out, somewhere else please.
Anonymous
6 Dec 08 at 1:12 am
Whilst looking at these divine organisms I felt a strong desire to eat them. The challenge of finding one is so great; upon discovery I would admire the evolutionary feat, adapt my palate, and then intelligently design a stunning menu. If GOD and/or SATAN really made these awesome creatures, they’d want us to eat them.
gordon ramsey
6 Dec 08 at 2:06 am
[...] Of Creation… bugs that look like dead leaves! How glorious are thy works, O Lord, in wisdom hast thou made them [...]
Sarx » Blog Archive » In wisdom
6 Dec 08 at 10:52 am
[...] at 11:50 am (amazing things, movies/video/clips) (non-human animals) Via Boing Boing, check out this incredibly collection of images of various bugs (and a very other animlas) deftly camouflaged as dead or dying leaves. They are [...]
Bugs Camouflaged As Dead Leaves « Our Descent Into Madness
6 Dec 08 at 1:51 pm
O M G !!!
This is fantastic! I didn’t knew nothing about this untill know :-O
incredible!!
massive big up for the post!
marverde
6 Dec 08 at 3:18 pm
[...] Published December 6, 2008 Animals , Images , Videos Tags: animal camoflauge Check out this article on animal camouflage, including pictures and videos like this [...]
Animal Camouflage « RandomKids
6 Dec 08 at 4:37 pm
[...] Reportaje completo aquí [...]
¿Insectoplantas?¿Plantinsectos?¿Aniplantas?¿Plantimales? « Ksawa
6 Dec 08 at 6:38 pm
This is awesome, truly. The manifold gifts of God’s creation and its carefully nursed development is readily apparent. I especially note the protection of valued traits from the vagaries of selection:
“A fossil of a leaf-imitating insect from 47 million years ago… shows that leaf imitation is an ancient and successful evolutionary strategy that has been conserved over a relatively long period of time.”
If anything anywhere can impress that the concept of mediated evolution is properly basic, it is this page. Kudos and God bless.
Angelo
6 Dec 08 at 10:06 pm
Thank you for your fascinating dissection of these phenomena. These little creatures embody a Gestalt that rises above any blueprint or Platonic form of a leaf. The verisimilitude of the illusion is a veritable miracle.
Roland
6 Dec 08 at 10:22 pm
Just… WOW. These pics are incredible! (I still haven’t found the frog!) God kicks everybody’s butts all over the place when he pulls out all the stops. This is awe inspiring.
LimePlaster
6 Dec 08 at 10:29 pm
Hi,
Nice series.
Please note that picture 2 and video show Philium sp. which are not Mantids. They are Phasmids.
Cheers
Andy
Andy
6 Dec 08 at 11:04 pm
Thanks Andy, and you are correct. I should have had them with the other Philium spp. and not with the mantids.