What is Digg?128 Comments
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+55Bugs are not huge because large bugs freak me out.
Logic. - MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39In Soviet Russia...
- g0thm0g, on 10/10/2007, -4/+38"1) Large bugs don't rely on osmosis. They actively vent their tracheal system by pumping with musculature. You can see it yourself by looking at, say, a bumblebee. The pumping action really is bumblebee breathing."
You should really consider getting your facts straight before acting like a know-it-all. Of course they don't rely on osmosis for respiration considering osmosis is the diffusion of LIQUID across a membrane, not gas. Insects exchange respiratory GASES in their system of tracheal tubes by using either diffusion OR changes in internal pressure that are produced through body motion or hemolymph circulation.
PS - I actually AM an entomologist - blitzer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31In Australia, the bugs are huge and everything bites.
- sixthplanet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29Apparently the author has not been to New York City.
/JOKING... sort of. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -19/+45This is my favorite flawed reasoning in science.
Bugs in the carboniferous were bigger than today.
Bugs breathe by diffusion.
Bugs today are limited by diffusion rate.
Hence, oxygen levels in the Carboniferous had to be higher.
Higher oxygen levels allowed faster diffusion and bigger bugs.
This is mistaken because of two things:
1) Large bugs don't rely on osmosis. They actively vent their tracheal system by pumping with musculature. You can see it yourself by looking at, say, a bumblebee. The pumping action really is bumblebee breathing.
2) There is nothing which says that bugs are limited by osmosis. They naturally have the tracheal system they need. It's like suggesting that humans are size-limited by our lungs because they are just right for our body size, if we were twice as large (and the lungs unchanged) they'd be insufficient.
In all probability bugs are limited by competition with vertebrates. That's what heralded the disappearance of the "mega bugs": the vertebrates moved from water onto land. The vertebrates outcompeted the large bugs, but the small bugs could defend their niche from vertebrates. So today vertebrates are large, and bugs small, due to mutual competitive exclusion.
If the vertebrates had never arisen, there'd in all probability still be mega-bugs around, oxygen level be damned. - Drewboy64, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17In my view
Big bug= freaky bug= dead bug
small bug= i don't care= live bug
therefor there are more small bugs than big bugs!
/dork - feoren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Also insects tend to be very bad at surviving winters, so they can't spend years to reach maturity if they're going to die when winter rolls around. That's why you have much larger insects in rainforests than in places with a winter season.
- thebenchase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17in ender's game, the bugs ARE huge.
- Lane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14What the article is saying is that unlike lungs in which the surface area increase by growth increases air capacity proportionately the beetles can not develop enough receptacles for oxygen to allow the air in time to provide sufficient oxygen to grow. As stated this is not necessarily true for all species and more research is being planned.
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14...the bugs catch YOU.
- otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Every time I mow my lawn, a swarm of dragonflys appear and hover around the machine.
I always imagine how horrific it'd be if they were big... - TeatimeGrommit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Large bugs creeped out the dinosaurs, so the dinosaurs stomped on them. Small bugs survived because dinosaurs couldn't see them.
- Starfoxy7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I made the mistake of picturing in my mind what a millipede as long as a human leg would actually look like, and now I have the jibblies.
I hope you're happy. - wonko33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9NEW?
I was taught that in biology class 25 years ago. Isn't that common knowledge? - Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9*cough* WW2 *cough* *cough* A-Bomb *cough*
- psygnisfive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If this is the case, then can we breed super huge bugs by raising them in an oxygen rich atmosphere?
- zzz@tkz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8My pet theory is my dog is awesome, and yours sucks.
- simplynix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Boy am I glad I read your comment before I ordered an oxygen dome to build my army of giant insects.
- gammamike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7That's a nasty case of typing out your coughs you got there!
- SillyRabbits, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I'm not sure that osmosis means what you seem to think it means....
- blahtastic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Entomologist, are we?
- g0thm0g, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Note to self: Be nicer in the future when criticizing the erroneous comments of someone who claims to be pointing out flaws, but in reality has no clue what he/she is talking about.
- rcomegys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I was going to say the same thing, but about Japan.
Bugs in Japan seem to grow to horror-movie sizes. - Metellus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5In areas with little food, being smaller is an evolutionary advantage. For example dinosaurs on smaller islands were smaller
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/images/SS0501_bigBugs2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/SS0501_bigBugs.asp&h=230&w=340&sz=17&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=unFgajZEmIN0XM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbiggest%2Bbugs%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bworld%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff
http://www.sciencebob.com/graphics/titanus.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40865000/jpg/_40865029_giant_beetle203.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4297000/4297025.stm&h=152&w=203&sz=13&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=iD-UCzYrcndY6M:&tbnh=79&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbiggest%2Binsects%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bworld%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sureshotpc.com/Graphics/camelspiders.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sureshotpc.com/index8.html&h=288&w=384&sz=29&hl=en&start=31&tbnid=_iZmdyUaCju38M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlargest%2Bspiders%26start%3D18%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
enjoy - Herostratus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Im not going to bury this because its interresting and educational, and god knows a lot of people on here need some education, however, this is not news. This isn't even a recent discovery. I am not even an expert and I have known this for at least 10 years. Insects don't have any pulmonary system whatsoever. They absorb oxyget directly. Gills and then lungs developed in order to allow for oxygenation of larger bodies. Biology 101 for anyone who didnt go to a creationist school or was awake in public schools...
Strats - wiremonkeymommy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Do you want to know more?!"
- TeddyTheTraceur, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8well, when you put it THAT way...
- SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Scientists have long wondered why sci-fi bugs don't exist today"
NO they haven't. Atmospheric Oxygen content was much higher then. Dugg down for either a)inaccuracy or b)stupid scientists - Vincent21212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Bottlenecked air passageways? Evolution couldn't overcome that simple of a problem?
I like the thought of bugs remaining small because they would be soooo delicious to us if they were big. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, they shed their external skeleton, and kept the shape.
- bob12321, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, it would still suck.
- g0thm0g, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"He was pointing out the circular reasoning involved and presenting an alternate explanation, which you did little to address."
The basis of his circular reasoning argument is flawed. An increased rate of carbon sequestration in the form of coal, oil, methane, etc. is clearly observed in the Carboniferous period. Lock away the carbon and you end up with a relatively higher concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. Check out Schlesinger's Biogeochemistry. - fiveprime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I remember learning about this in freshman biology in college.
- remccain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So to prove this "high oxygen" theory, all we'd need is a rich oxygen environment and a few generations of bugs, right?
- ricree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know what you're talking about, but they sure do remind me of the Buggers.
- denytenamun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I remember the Buggers had an internal skeleton as well as their external one. I don't think there was any mention of how they breathed though. I saw a documentary a while ago where they looked at how as insects get bigger their exoskeleton could become a problem as it would have to get much thicker and stronger to accommodate for the increased mass. At a certain size the ratio of a normal chitinous exoskeleton to the bug's internals would have to be too great to support life.
- trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually with the parenthesis it looks a lot like strong sad.
- existent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gills existed before insects...
- DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I lived in Naples, FL for over a decade and I can tell you that the only bugs that are small down there are the fire ants and gnats; everything else is ***** mongo.
- existent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ding we have a winner!
- vesa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nowadays the software bugs are huge.
- remccain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and many people believed in the geocentric model - even made cool mechanical contraptions that were accurate.
- remccain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean 'terrific', right? Huge dragonflies would rock!
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just you wait until I get my Dr. Device concealed-carry permit.
- remccain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and perhaps I should have said "can collapse into ... or..." and then listed all the possible types of stellar phenomenon :/
- covertbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why don't you take your own advice? Under certain circumstances some stars, typically extremely dense ones, can collapse into black holes at around 3 solar masses. However, there are many known stars, including the two I mentioned, which have masses way, way above 3.5 solar masses, thus putting the lie to your statement "anything larger than 3.5 solar masses collapses into a black hole". Perhaps if you weren't so insufferably smug you'd learn to avoid making a public fool of yourself.
- remccain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why don't you Google "stellar evolution" and learn a few things?
- fuckingusername, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1cause China ate them all
-
Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
