Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 December 25

= December 25 =

Species identification
Could anyone help me identify these species? They were all photographed at Satriamandala Museum in South Jakarta, Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Try using search by image at google. Click on the camera, and add the URL of an image. The fourth (orange and black body with wings with windows) is a clearwing moth. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not going to help much for images which have not previously been published, as the reverse image search will pick up a variety of similar-looking species. Hence why human identification is preferable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To work on the third (the fly with grey body and red eyes), I went to Google and searched for "identify fly species" and found http://phorid.net/zadbi/education/how-to-identify-flies/ (titled "Zurqui All-Diptera Biodiversity Inventory") . I think it is a Flesh fly. The black and gray longitudinal stripes on the thorax are the strongest identifying characteristic. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 is a Catochrysops strabo, a lycaenid in the tribe Polyommatini
 * 2 is Zizina otis, also a lycaenid from Polyommatini
 * 3 is a flesh fly like Richard said. But they're difficult to identify.
 * 4 is Amata huebneri. It is not, however, a sesiid (clearwing moths), but an arctiid.
 * I have gone ahead and renamed the three identifiable to species level in Commons.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  15:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops no, sorry. #1 is the Plains Cupid, Chilades pandava, also Polyommatini.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Number four looks like Ceryx sphenodes to me. This is described as a clearwing moth on line, not that I can vouch for the common name.  See these pictures. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you meant the family Sesiidae, members of Ctenuchinae are more commonly known as "tiger moths" or "wasp moths" (at least here anyway), though yeah, they seem to be called "clearwings" too. But Ceryx sphenodes, though closely related to Amata, has a different pattern of the hyaline spots ("windows"), see this page. It seems closest to A. huebneri to me.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments should not be taken as anything other than extremely questionable layman OR based on google images. I have never taken a class in entomology, or been any closer to Indonesia than Texas or Austria. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

biology of food temperature
Generally,mankind( I believe across all cultures) prefers to eat foods that are served hot or sometimes chilled.I have the impression that it should be more natural,beneficial and tastier to eat food as it is i.e. at room temperature, as what other animals do. Our body mechanism also would work optimally, I presume at either room or body temperatures. What is your comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.102.6 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum or a blog. Check Cooking and see how far back it goes. Cooking can change the nature of what was cooked, for sure. Consider this, though: Humans can cook. Animals cannot. They don't have a choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You might also google the essay [dissertation upon roast pig]. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Food very rapidly reaches body temperature in the stomach. Hot and chilled foods are less likely than warm foods to have rapidly reproducing bacteria. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * At least some carnivores (the big cats come to mind) have adapted through evolution to be able to resist those bacteria that could kill you and me. We have no such adaptation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP is not really talking about bacteria, which I brought up, but about the fact that most metabolic activity in humans proceeds best at or around body temperature. The higher the temperature the faster the reaction, but too high a temperature and the structural proteins and protein enzymes start to denature.  The notion that consuming food close to body temperature would be more efficient makes sense.  But humans rarely even eat 1/100th of their body mass in one sitting.  Hence the food reaches body temperature in the stomach within a few minutes, if not within seconds.  There is really no reason not to eat hot or near-freezing foods. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than avoiding the dreaded brain freeze. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The word "natural" is one of those code-words that identify a question/thought/advertisement as being either ill-thought out or with a large side order of conflict of interest. We're part of nature; everything we do or make is natural, even pizza pockets. If you mean to say that humans might be adapted to obtain more nourishment from room temperature food, you might be interested in raw foodism, though our article is a bit of a mess. I would point out, however, that humans have been using fire to cook and/or heat food for many thousands of years and with few problems (though there are some). On the question of cooking food and then letting it cool down completely, I would direct you to our article on the so-called "danger zone". Matt Deres (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Living in caves would be more "natural" as well. We've been altering nature from day one... because we can. A lion might like its gazelle piping hot or refrigerator cold, but it doesn't have that option. We do. Whatever mother nature gives us, we try to improve upon. You might say it's just in our... nature. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)