- Joined
- Aug 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
First off, I don't know how practical stripping the chemicals is, as they are an intrinsic part of the exoskeleton. You can remove the fluorescent properties through continuous exposure to UV light, but I don't imagine that this actually removes the molecules -- likely just damages them and removes their fluorescent capability. The real key the experiment, beyond the use of more specimens (given a properly designed study and good statistical practices you might get away with less than 30, or might need more -- I'd like to know where you got this number without an experimental design) would be to set up your controls under a similarily powered light that emmitted in a different portion of the spectrum (but do you compensate for the power difference due to wavelength or not ... hmmm). Alternately, you could expose some to UV light until they lost their fluorescence and then test them in conditions identical to the controls.
Regardless of the practicality, let us assume that the study is done in full, with adequate statistical power, and a significant (statistical and practial) result is found. The question then becomes whether the damage to the molecules results in a more porous cuticle, whether the UV has damaged something other than the fluorescing molecules, whether the trait is adaptively significant to primarily nocturnal animals etc. etc. etc. My point was not that this study provides any answers -- merely that someone else had clearly been thinking about a connection between fluorescence and water retention but had only done a preliminary test and not a proper study.
As for the "no UV light" thing, this is not actually true. Moonlight is actually just reflected sunlight and has a remarkably similar spectrum. Furthermore, according to Kloock's study on avoidance by aerial scorpions (Euscorpius #21), there is at least enough UV light out at night to have a detrimental effect on the scorpions due to their fluorescence -- at least on or around a night with a full moon. While scorpions do tend to prefer moonless nights, they DO come out on lit nights and will occasionally wander around during the day.
It is actually interesting that you mention the aquatic lifestyle, since there are some theories that revolve around that as well.
Overall, a very interesting subject.
Cheers,
Dave
Regardless of the practicality, let us assume that the study is done in full, with adequate statistical power, and a significant (statistical and practial) result is found. The question then becomes whether the damage to the molecules results in a more porous cuticle, whether the UV has damaged something other than the fluorescing molecules, whether the trait is adaptively significant to primarily nocturnal animals etc. etc. etc. My point was not that this study provides any answers -- merely that someone else had clearly been thinking about a connection between fluorescence and water retention but had only done a preliminary test and not a proper study.
As for the "no UV light" thing, this is not actually true. Moonlight is actually just reflected sunlight and has a remarkably similar spectrum. Furthermore, according to Kloock's study on avoidance by aerial scorpions (Euscorpius #21), there is at least enough UV light out at night to have a detrimental effect on the scorpions due to their fluorescence -- at least on or around a night with a full moon. While scorpions do tend to prefer moonless nights, they DO come out on lit nights and will occasionally wander around during the day.
It is actually interesting that you mention the aquatic lifestyle, since there are some theories that revolve around that as well.
Overall, a very interesting subject.
Cheers,
Dave