Baltic Amber insects

[Morten Øen]

This is my first post here. I'm a writer and photographer. Because of circumstances I have been forced this winter to photograph mostly at home, so I started doing some macro photography. Then I found interesting leftovers from the spiders in the basement, and long story short; I started taking pictures of insect inclusions in Baltic Amber. The difficulty of the subject matter intrigued me greatly. I have started to read "History of Insects" by A. Rasnitsyn, D. Quicke (Kluwer, 2002), to understand amber and inclusion process, and "Insects of Britain and Western Europe" by M. Chinery (A and C Black, 2007). I'm trying to be able to identify species and families. I have learned that one of my fossils is a Diptera Nematocera, which means two-winged midge, and thats good enough for my project. Because I plan to get a wider collection, and maybe an exhibition of some sort. So I'm asking for some help with this, and if it's ok to post regularly when in doubt. If someone here could not only tell species and family, but also what the identifying markers are. I'm a fast learner, and will not bother you if I have nothing to show, or can figure it out myself. I try to study, but need som assistance to get started. Fossile insects are not as easy as spotting a bee or wasp or fly. So here are my first images. I have tried to name one or two, but like I said, I no next to nothing of my subject matter. (I have education in anatomy, and a rudimentary understanding of insect parts, but need pointers to put the puzzle together). The size of the inclusions are 2-4mm in body length. All are probably from the Eocene period. Thanks!

 

I am puzzeled by the head of this one. I just call it a Diptera for now.

Someone on a forum told me this was a Chironomidae, but why? The bug on the bottom looks like a Weevil.

I think this is a Midge hunting an ant. If it is a Nematocera. But it looks like it has hair on the body.

 

Is this a wasp or a fly? I have no idea. A fellow photographer called her a "Ikea bug" Some assembly required:)

The seller of this one called her a Diptera Nematocera, or a mosquito of some sort.

 

 

   

[ynot]

Welcome to TFF!

Sorry I can not help with ID's.

Just wanted to say Nice pictures!

 

Tony

[Morten Øen]

Thanks ynot! 

I think the two first ones are the same species, female Diptera Nematocera Chiranomidae, but I could be wrong. I have no idea on the next three. I don't think the last one is a Chiranomidae, but if it is, it's a male.

[bcfossilcollector]

Great photos!!!

[Morten Øen]

Thanks! I struggled for a while, but then I started to understand how to put up lights, filters and understanding the refraction index of this medium. Once that is cracked it's actually easy to do with a macro lens (or reversed enlarger lenses, microscope objectives) and bellows. I'll get better

[Carl]

Welcome to the Forum and BLESS you for the stunning photos!

[Morten Øen]

Thanks Carl!

I'm now not just reading about insects, but writing my own insect order map. Starting to understand more and more, but I still need help. I took pictures of this one last night. It was very dificult because of impurities, but I think it's a nymph or unfinished insect of some sort of the Odonata order. There are hairs on the antennae, but difficult to see in this image.

She has short feet with very short tarsi, but long tibia, so she is not a Nematocera. 2mm long. Thera might be wings along the body, but if so, she is not a Palaeoptera after all.

 

[Morten Øen]

Yet another one. This is only 1,5mm long, and a bit distorted as it's just on the edge of the stone. Very difficult to photograph. It confuses me as it has no antennae. It might be a Hymenoptera, but the body is not right, and what looks like two wings together, is actually one from the oposite side folded over. But it has no antennae, so I'm not falling for the standard Nematocera. My guess is Diptera Brachycera of some kind. I have not yet understood the milky clouding that I often see in Baltic amber.

 

[Carl]

The milky clouding is probably fungus. It's pretty common on Baltic amber insects.

[Morten Øen]

Hi Carl!

Never thought of that! In "History of Insects" by A. Rasnitsyn, D. Quicke (Kluwer, 2002), I have now come to the chemical properties of amber. The book says its more likely to be "an emulgation between water (or other fluids) and fresh resin", i.e. the insects watery body has blended in with the resin, and caused "innumerable tiny bubbles". Further more, the reason it's most common on only one side of the inclusion, is because of the sun. The book says that sun rays burn the amber clean, and only the shadow side stays milky or cloudy. Butt the same would also be true of fungi, yes? And there are clody amber without any inclusions, indicating a blending of fresh water and fresh resin causing these bubbles. But it's an old book. But the whiteness is anyway due to microbubbles, wheather its the fungi who made them with metabolism and gasses, or emulgation, or both. Are there any source for the fungi theory? Or do you know about a better book than the one I'm currently reading? It's very sciency and technical. Would love something more on my level regarding amber inclusions.

Thanks!

[doushantuo]

I've got good hexapod literature AND good amber literature,just drop me a line or two

thanks for the namedropping,BTW

[holdinghistory]

Fantastic photographs! That is something I have been struggling with. Could you post a photo of your setup?

[Morten Øen]

Thanks Holdinghistory!

The difficult part is not the setup. It's a camera (Pentax Q7 compact camera), used macro bellows from 1975 and a Pentax 50mm macro lens (or 50mm enlarger lens reversed) from about 1965. A banged up microscope objective (5x) for the really small stuff. (My inclusions are only 1-4mm total). Equipment is for the most part overrated. I used my absolutely cheapest stuff for this, because it's old, heavy, and right for the job. The Pentax Q system (discontinued) has the perfect sensor for macro less than 5mm.

 

If you wonder what more to buy, you have to research the subject matter of macro photography, and photography in general. You can find a used bellows for $30, an M42 macro lens for $50 like I did, and you need some adapters and stuff from China (2 dollars each. One for the camera to the bellows, one to reverse the lens when you go beyond 1x). That is the easy part. Many tutorials on the net.

 

The actual photographing process is very difficult. You have to master light from several directions on a micro level, use the right filters on the lights, the camera, and even from under the amber. Then you have to take several hundreds of images to get the 40-80 relatively sharp ones, and stack them in software like the Zerene Stacker. And then it's over to Photoshop for tweeking of color, sharpness and contrast. This is also done in layers. Now, the inclusion is often only 1-3mm deep, depending on the angle, and you need a system to move the camera less than 0.1mm at a time. A motor stacker can do 2 microns at a time, but it's very expensive ($800). I do without, but it takes more time, I just push the camera down a rail with my thumbs. Very sciency, I know  

I usually spend from 3-5 hours to do 1 finished image, and I've been a photographer for 30 years, and used Photoshop for 20. And still my images are not as good as I want them to be. I'm still experimenting with immersion fluids with the right refractive index. Yes, you need a system to submerge the amber for the shoot, and since the amber floats it's not easy, because I need the best angle, and my photographed area is often only 5x5mm or less.

My main problem turned out to be my floor  The camera moved because I stood near by and had to breathe! A concrete floor is essential, as is a very heavy tripod and table. I know some photographers use flash, but that raises more problems than it solves. Now, continuous light has also problems. I use focused beams of 5000 Lumen and diffusors to avoid the amber getting hot, and...

 

Well you get the complexity of this operation. Equipment and setup is of no importance what so ever. If you have a digital DSLR your cost is going to be under $100 for lens, bellows, extension tubes, adapters and so on. Even a 5 dollar Russian 50mm Helios will do the job if you reverse it on a cheap bellows. I have one, and I have done it, just to test out the basics of my new found project. What your floor is made of, is of much greater importance. And of course the understanding of the process as a whole.

I knew absolutely nothing about macro photography a month ago, and I knew nothing about amber or insects 2 weeks ago. But I have read for 10 hours straight every day and done experiments. The learning curve is very steep indeed, but the reward is just so great. I am now proud to say I have the Class, Order and Suborder off all my insects but one, the one who looks like a camel in the dessert. Hard work will get you there every time, and it's part of the journey. To get you started, here are two of the best sites I know of, and that helped me get this project going.

http://extreme-macro.co.uk

http://www.photomacrography.net

Everything you need to know are in these sites, and if you have questions, the experts will answer. Compared to the men and women at Photomacrography I'm just a novise at this. You'll see.

 

Now, guess what setup I use the most out of these two  Yes, the small one. Its a Pentax Q7 with a Kern Paillard cine lens from 1956 reversed on an adapter I made. It does the same job as the big one. If I need more magnification, I just put the small one on the bellows. The setup is for 1:1. But if I put the little guy on the bellows, I get 5x relative to the sensor. This is not the proper way of talking about magnification, 1:1 is 1:1 allways. But if the DSLR had the same pixel density, it would have had a 250MP sensor! That was the thought that got me started with macro in the first place. I just had to test out this photographic theory  Turned out it worked.

 

[Carl]

23 hours ago, Morten Øen said:

Hi Carl!

Never thought of that! In "History of Insects" by A. Rasnitsyn, D. Quicke (Kluwer, 2002), I have now come to the chemical properties of amber. The book says its more likely to be "an emulgation between water (or other fluids) and fresh resin", i.e. the insects watery body has blended in with the resin, and caused "innumerable tiny bubbles". Further more, the reason it's most common on only one side of the inclusion, is because of the sun. The book says that sun rays burn the amber clean, and only the shadow side stays milky or cloudy. Butt the same would also be true of fungi, yes? And there are clody amber without any inclusions, indicating a blending of fresh water and fresh resin causing these bubbles. But it's an old book. But the whiteness is anyway due to microbubbles, wheather its the fungi who made them with metabolism and gasses, or emulgation, or both. Are there any source for the fungi theory? Or do you know about a better book than the one I'm currently reading? It's very sciency and technical. Would love something more on my level regarding amber inclusions.

Thanks!

Hmmm... Hadn't heard that bubble thing but it certainly sounds plausible, too. I feel like I read the fungus thing in several sources. I'll will try to look for some reference at home.

[Carl]

On 3/3/2017 at 9:41 AM, Carl said:

Hmmm... Hadn't heard that bubble thing but it certainly sounds plausible, too. I feel like I read the fungus thing in several sources. I'll will try to look for some reference at home.

Well, I looked into this over the weekend and only found one ref. It said nothing about fungus at all. I'm guessing that since it mentioned decay I recalled it as fungus. Thanks for pointing back to the right path!

 

[Morten Øen]

Thanks Carl! Very good job! I did not know this clouding was only to be seen in Baltic Amber, but it supports the other book I have, that liquid is somehow involved. I have now ordered two books on amber, written by Andrew Ross I think. I have also had some success in furter ID'ing a bug over at bugguide.net. It took a while, but it was worth it, helped me put a label and sex on several others of mine. The scientific community here in Norway has so far just ignored my letters of inquiry. As was to be expected

The very first image in this post is a female Orthocladiinae. She is standing on top of a male. I was right in the fact that it was a Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae, but now I also have the sub-family! Great! Females rule

 

[Carl]

23 hours ago, Morten Øen said:

Thanks Carl! Very good job! I did not know this clouding was only to be seen in Baltic Amber, but it supports the other book I have, that liquid is somehow involved. I have now ordered two books on amber, written by Andrew Ross I think. I have also had some success in furter ID'ing a bug over at bugguide.net. It took a while, but it was worth it, helped me put a label and sex on several others of mine. The scientific community here in Norway has so far just ignored my letters of inquiry. As was to be expected

The very first image in this post is a female Orthocladiinae. She is standing on top of a male. I was right in the fact that it was a Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae, but now I also have the sub-family! Great! Females rule

 

Can post any additional info you might find regarding this clouding? Thanks!

[holdinghistory]

The clouding is caused by liquids escaping from a decaying insect's body and mixing with the surrounding resin. The result is a cloudy, milk-like coating around the insect. Not quite sure why it only happens in Baltic amber, my guess is it has something to do with the properties of the resin.

[Morten Øen]

This is what I have from the book "Insect History" by A. Rasnitsyn, D. Quicke (Kluwer, 2002):

[Morten Øen]

One of the most interesting finds is the MIERZEJEWSKI 1978 report, that states that there is no correlation between clouding and body size. This might indicate that content of liquid and decay is not the decicive factor, only the presence of some liquid. And that the state of the resin at time of death might be more important.

[Yvie]

Great pictures and thread Morten,love the Ikea bug.

 Yvie