36 thoughts on “Near-perfect camouflage

    1. Clever Gravatar you’ve got there.

      If only they’d gotten hypocrisy spelled correctly, it would have been perfect.

      1. The gravatar has one ‘p’ too few to denote the rule of the Houyhnhnm which might follow on from excessive use of the “Religion” product.
        (“hippocracy,” for level-3 and lower punsters)

  1. Reminds me of those hairy-legged freaks we saw growing up in New Hampshire. I can tell you they had a bit of brown coloration, they were nearly invisible too and they delivered a horrible bite.

    Will try to look up the name.

        1. Nice thought, there’s a slim chance it’s a caterpillar but these bugs are flat like the ones in the photo and quite tiny (or maybe I had only seen younguns)

      1. Ha! No, I am unfortunately very familiar with centipedes. This bug was smaller than the one in the photo but very similar and only seen in the woods. That photo looks nothing like a centipede.

  2. As a photographer and naturalist, I am a little suspicious of this one I am afraid. I downloaded the photo, opened it in Photoshop and saw that the pixels on the caterpillar are way smaller on the rest of the leaf. I cannot say for sure that this picture has been doctored but none of my photos have this strange pattern of different pixel size. Nonetheless, I wager a bottle of single malt whiskey that there has been a little digital tinkering with this photo. Ain’t natural, as some might say.

    1. It does look a bit peculiar, but it looks the sort of peculiarity that is “right” for some Moire-type effect. Or someone has (unwisely) applied a soft-focus effect to some parts of the image but not others.
      Difficult to tell without access to the original image, as posted “for publication”. Otherwise, sites do have a distressing habit of doing things to photos, even if only to try to reduce their storage requirements, fit images to pre-defined aspect ratios, etc.

  3. PS Comment should read “are smaller on the caterpillar than on the rest of the leaf”. Try the download and see for yourself.

    1. I see what you mean. But it doesn’t look like it’s been pasted in there. Maybe some specks that would make it easier to see it have been Photoshopped out? I don’t recall what it’s called, but I’ve watched a friend take dust specks and negative defects out of vintage photos for me with that function.

  4. Absolutely wonderful bit of camouflage. The way the leaf midrib and veins are reproduced is fabulous. (Although to this old hand entomologist it was pretty obvious, it will be well protected from its actual natural enemies!)

  5. Correction and apology to the photographer—with closer inspection I now realize I was wrong to suspect digital manipulation. The pixels match–what threw me is the very unusual background color of the body that is so uniform in color that it looked like the pixels on the body were tiny. Perhaps this funkiness is part of the camouflage? Fortunately I owe myself a bottle of whiskey, not a reader.

    1. Can’t have you consuming a reader, can we? I recommend whisky rather than whiskey. Must be single malt and at least ten years old – the rest is a matter of taste.

  6. While searching for a larger version of the image, I discovered that the Wimp.com link in the OP is broken.

    It points to a nonexistent place here on the WEIT Site.

Leave a Reply