LOLOL, thanks for a knee-slapping funny post Ray, you made my night
You see the problem here, Jack, why it's so dangerous to to make any honest comment about someone's photo? Your reaction here has been to deride the critic's credibility, first by implying he is so stupid that he expects to see the part of the proboscis that is buried in the insect; next by implying that this poor little blighter (that I photographed) ran away as soon as the camera was close, despite having poor eyesight, when the reality is, as shown in the photos, the spider simply moved a couple of centimetres to the centre of its web where it felt more secure.
I truly haven't tried to deride you in a mean-spirited kind of way, but I did have to "criticize the critic," because much of what you said was false. If I took a photograph of a man impaling another man up to the hilt with a sword, the assumption is that you "understand" that the sword "you can't see" is stuck inside the man. This is what creates the "Oh my God!" effect on the viewer ... but not with you. You would complain that you cant see the sword, and would digress into postulating about how some tribesmen may overreact to the usage of blood-drawing techniques at the Red Cross ...
And if you take a look at that spider you photographed, you will see that its eyes are tiny
compared to those of the robber fly, the wolf spider, and the jumping spider ... orb-spinning spiders as you photographed are comparatively blind ... that is why the movement away from you was minimal.
Next, you continue the derision by suggesting I try photographing the nostrils of a Bengal tiger from the same distance as the spider. We're talking about a couple of flies here, Jack.
That wasn't derision, Ray, it was a playful "punch in the arm" to stress a point about how wildlife can act unfavorably to the close proximity of a photographer
Yes they're a couple of flies, Ray, with HUGE eyes that see clearly for over 20' and with the propensity to take-off and fly away
, if a silly photographer approaches too closely
However, you are right that I'm no entomologist. As far as I recall, these shots of this tiny spider are the only shots I've ever taken of a spider in my entire life. I was in part just testing the macro capability of the Sony T30.
I like that last photo, especially the labeling
But seriously, take a look at the eyes on the spider you photographed, and notice how miniscule they are compared to those of the robber fly and the wolf & jumping spiders I photographed, and then think about it logically. Spiders who use webs (as the specimen you photo'd) rely on entrapment, and a sense of feel
, to catch their prey ... whereas wolf & jumping spiders (who have no web) must therefore rely on sight
to see their prey first, and then pounce on it.
And, as they say in evolution, form follows function
: those organisms that rely primarily on sight develop huge and keen eyes ... whereas those who do not rely on sight tend to have small, useless eyes. As a matter of fact, did you know that the web-building black widow spider is entirely blind?
If I've confused the spider's rear end with its front end, then I thank you for pointing that out. It makes the spider even more remarkable. It not only spins a web that mimics long legs but has a bum that looks like a face.
Can you do me a favour and confirm that this is indeed the situation as described in the following shot?
That was cute, and I laughed mightily at your photo and post
However, in all seriousness, take a look at this photo of the wolf spider I dug up (before I did) poised and ready to strike in her burrow ... can you see the difference in the eye development?
The wolf spider has HUGE, functional eyes in comparison to the orb web weaver you photographed. And the reason is, again, the orb weaver relies on her web
to catch her prey ... and she merely follows the vibration ... whereas the burrowing wolf spider above relies on her sight
to see her prey first, and then pounces on it as it walks by.