Morgellons Researchers

Our Morgellons Spheres

 An Abiogenic Life Form?

When I take regular debris out of my lesion – the spheres start out looking like what I have described as a ‘biofilm’ – they are translucent in color and circular, such as this photo below, a little more translucent than this photo:

With saliva and one other time when I had a phosphate remedy on my ear that also entered the Petri Dish, they showed up as white circular growths that I described as looking like Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Petri Dish when comparing it to online stock photos.

These dishes contain all white circular growths and NONE of the others, such as the greens, browns, blacks, greys, orange, white fuzzy, etc. growths that we’re seeing in most. Eventually – as noted in certain experiments – these ‘others’ will have appeared:

[image]

Our yeast/fungus has a biofilm involved, in the petri dishes it is a light to mustard yellow in color, you will see this on the bottom side of the dish in a couple of weeks time.

We’re looking for a fungus/yeast that starts out as translucent (like a biofilm), then turns to white circular cocci-shaped growth and then produces a yellowish biofilm as a by-product in a petri dish and I believe this same process is happening under our skin.

What’s been so confusing, and this is where Frito can help us by studying the progressions, is… that even though we’re starting with one sphere – there seems to be approximately 5 or more different characteristics that they end up with. They all don’t perform the same way.  Some of them stay spheres and allow the ‘spaceship’ (polyhedron) to land on them, some of them explode into a white fungus, some of them explode into a black/white fungus, some of them have ‘fibers’ laying on them or nearby in which they are appear to be quorum sensing with, some of them morph into ‘other’ different-looking spheres, and they reproduce in many different ways.

What I have described in the past as the ‘biofilm’ IS the main sphere. Out of the biofilm all things are created. It’s as if we have a multi-faceted combination of events occurring out of our spheres – such as a possible baculoviral, protozoa-like artifacts, our mystery fibers, some sprouting into fungi, some are occluding, others not, some are budding, others not… etc.

The main sphere is like a biofilm, I want to say it is more of a yeast than fungus – the main ‘yeast’ sphere LATER creates a fungi or mold from inside of it – it appears that our sphere has properties that it can incorporate many other ‘things’ that come along into its ‘system’.

This could explain why some of us have different symptoms… we all have this ‘Master Sphere’ in common and what it does is responsible for the three things we all have in common – the specks/spheres, biofilm and fibers, the cause of Morgellons – however, not all of us have been subjected to the same things in our environments and lives.

Our sphere is like a vacuum cleaner sphere that robs, sucks in, takes in, incorporates, morphing and creating… more and more variables within it. It’s the ‘house’ for everything.

A TWO-PART SYSTEM

When you spit into a Petri Dish, and look microscopically – what do you see? Spheres? No, we see the micelles – that we are all starting to capture in our photographs… but, we don’t see them being large like our big sphere – what do they turn into? I believe that our Master Sphere has to take on so much liquid, undergo chemical processes, temperature, time, and grow to a certain size before they start budding, dividing, etc.

You initially see ‘fibers’ and ‘specks’… these specks are not spheres.  There are some very small ‘micelles’ seen though, I believe I have shown that these eventually turn into our Master Spheres in observing them in the red wine culture experiment on my blog site.

Here’s a photo of Jeany’s saliva one day after, 100x:

[image]

And then on the 3rd day… as Frito said, look at the size these things can get to be in a hurry!…

[image]

Most of the fibers are gone, there was just one odd looking fiber left on day 3…

We’re looking for an invention that starts with a ‘fiber’ (worm micelle) that can ‘sprout’/create an adaptable, morphing ‘Master Sphere’. I believe it creates these spheres on a very small scale and start out as what is known as a sphere micelle. I don’t believe that the fungus/mold that we’re looking for is entirely a known fungus, it’s a hybrid that’s been manipulated to be created from out of the sphere and the ‘fiber’ was its origin.  Our Master Sphere is most likely something else… a yeast, a housing system, a larger micelle, that can hold fungi, mold, yeast, viruses, bacteria, and ‘others’.

I do believe from what we’re seeing, a ‘fiber’ that creates this Master Sphere is in certain red wine-making, cotton production and paper-making processes, it is in some areas of the country’s water remediation processing… that it is quite well-known and considered safe – if it is, then – why can’t we easily identify it?

A flowchart of what’s happening might look like:

Fiber –> Micelle –> Biofilm –> Yeast Cell ? –> Fungus/Mold/Others

So What Are Our Spheres?

I have called our spheres many different names – Lysosomes, micelles, vesicles, Hulle cells, fungal spores, Carnicom is finding hemoglobin…

This has been very puzzling to me – Why? Because what I proposed above defies the laws of nature. The laws of nature are…

Biogenesis

(1) The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.
(2) It asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing.

Spontaneous generation

The previously popular notion that living organisms arise or develop from nonliving matter.

Abiogenesis

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time." [1]

What I am theorizing, based on what I am witnessing in a Petri Dish with a microscope, is that Morgellons is utilizing Abiogenesis or a form of it, or some similar new, unheard-of science in our disease process.

Common sense tells us that if we have a chicken egg, and we hatch it – we’re going to get a chick – every time! We’re not going to get 5 different possibilities that might come out…!  (I am still not certain that some of us might not have more than one sphere involved.)

What our main sphere is – is of utmost importance in understanding our disease, only then will we be able to get a better handle on what has happened to us, what’s going on and how to manage it.

 

References:

[1].  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Advertisements

November 29, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 5 Comments

The Morgellons "Spaceships"

 Triclinic Crystal Clusters?…

Here is a stock photo of a triclinic crystal cluster:

I’ve written quite a few posts about the Morgellons "spaceships", not knowing what I am seeing – I had to call them something… they look like something out of a "Star Wars" movie, they look like they’re flying in the Petri Dish, and they seem to appear and disappear as if, they have movement.

All photos are from human lesion samples, 100x:

04_03_0

They appear metallic in nature, as if this is a charcoal pencil drawing with the added green color.  I have stated that I believe they are carbon-like from their appearance.

I have not studied them continuously, day to day… I photograph every few days, so – I have missed a lot of how they are formed and what they are doing in the scheme of things.  They don’t appear in the Petri Dish until approximately Day 20 or so… they are formed by the sphere coming into direct or quorum sensing contact with the hyphae of the fungus or from a ‘fiber’.

03_29_185

copyright Kammy 5 3 09

04_03_24

They first appear as ‘bumps’ on the main ‘big sphere’ believed to be a fungal spore?  But, not all of the spheres/spores do this.  Which might indicate that they are a part of the inside chemistry of the fungus?

04_03_68 

They next appear to be resting on the sphere:

copyright Kammy 5 3 09 

03_29_61

I am not sure, but I believe this is a ‘spaceship’ being born from inside the sphere when it buds:

04_03_4

I have seen evidence of where they possibly could be being ‘born’ from the fibers themselves:

copyright Kammy  5 4 09

We see them intermixed with the hyphae of the fungus or scattered about randomly.  If they are conceived inside the spheres to me, this indicates movement.:

03_27_62 L Ear 100x Exp 2 - 2 28

Then they could be in this photo of where a sphere has exploded them out?:

04_10_34

They are never the same in appearance, but have some features in common.

The ‘Mother Spaceships’  can reproduce ‘Baby Spaceships’…

10_30_64 10_30_62 10_30_63

We will soon look at how these Morgellons "Spaceships" might be related to triclinic crystal clusters.

November 24, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 8 Comments

A Lot of Fiber in our Diet?

Are Any of These In the Morgellons Mix?

Cornell entomologist uses ‘cotton candy’ to protect crops as maggots and worms develop resistance to pesticides

"One day farmers might exchange pesticides for an industrial grade polymer that looks and acts like cotton candy as a major weapon against onion maggots, cabbage maggots, corn earworms and other agricultural pests. Michael P. Hoffmann, Cornell University professor of entomology and director of the university’s New York State Integrated Pest Management program, and his colleagues have been testing nonwoven fiber barriers made of ethylene vinyl acetate, or EVA, as a bug-prevention device. The polymer, identical to the material used in hot-melt glue guns, can be extruded under pressure to form webs that cover plants and appear to ward off agricultural pests." [1]

Fiber barriers for control of agricultural pests

"The invention presents the use of non-woven fiber barriers applied to agricultural products or the plants to protect agriculturally or aesthetically valuable plants from damage inflicted by pests of agricultural or ornamental plants. Experiments with these fiber barriers have shown a significant deterrent to both the oviposition and feeding of a varied group of agricultural pests. This pest management strategy will be of significant economic value in the more pest sensitive phases of plant growth. Another positive benefit of the use of this system of pest control is that it may allow the elimination or moderation in the use of pesticides in commercial agricultural operations, home gardens, or the urban environment. In this way alleviating public concerns about the large number of pesticide treatments that agricultural products typically receive." [2]

Agrotextiles: A Growing Field

"T extile fabrics have a long history of use in agriculture. The term "agrotextiles" now is used to categorize the woven, nonwoven and knitted fabrics used for agricultural and horticultural applications including livestock protection, shading, weed and insect control, and extension of the growing season.

Shade Cloth Uses
One of the first major uses for agricultural shade cloth was as cover for large fields of tobacco. Lightweight cotton cloth was used to shade plants destined for use as cigar wrappers.

 

Woven Shade Cloth Fabrics
Polypropylene (PP) is the most-used polymer for woven shade cloth fabrics. The resin is formulated with additives and pigments to provide resistance to sunlight and weathering. Black pigmentation helps provide a high degree of sunlight resistance. Much of the shade cloth is made from monofilament yarn, although some film fiber yarns also are used. Wide-width fabrics minimize the amount of seaming needed for installation.

Conwed also supplies a range of extruded netting fabrics that protect fruit crops from bird damage. Birdnet is used to protect grapes, blueberries, strawberries and cherries. [3]

GARDEN BLANKET

 

"Extend your gardening season while controlling insects. Reemay is a spun bonded, reusable polyester material that can be placed directly over row crops without use of support hoops." [4]

Reemay:

 

It does not rot after burial in soil for 5 years, REEMAY® retained all of its original properties.   REEMAY® has excellent resistance to a variety of chemicals.

Biobarrier II  Weed Control and Biobarrier II  Tree Skirt are both guaranteed for 10 years.

Characteristics:
"For more than 30 years, trifluralin has been used between rows of food crops to prevent weed growth; because of this extensive use and numerous research projects, much is known about it. It has an EPA toxicity rating of class IV, the “practically nontoxic” class (acute oral: LD50, (rats) > 10,000 mg/kg), making it slightly more toxic than sugar but less than salt. Trifluralin has an extremely low water solubility of 0.3 ppm, making it unlikely to leach. It tightly attaches to soil, so it doesn’t tend to migrate, and it decomposes in six months or less, so it doesn’t persist in the ground." [5]

PESTICIDE REDUCTION
A Cornell University team headed by textile scientist Margaret Frey developed a cloth farmers can use to reduce the amount of crop agrichemicals.

Planted along with seeds, the cloth’s saturated nano fibers slowly release pesticides and herbicides so that additional spraying of crops becomes unnecessary.

The targeted release also eliminates chemical leaching into the water supply to benefit both consumers and the environment. [6]

Unbelievable!

Has anyone tested the Morgellons pathogens against the materials these ‘agrotextiles’ used today? 

Can we guess that insects, baculoviral systems, other pesticides, fungi, etc. might be getting caught up in this material?  That this material is being harvested in with the food crop and turned into the soil, do we know the effects of what happens when humans accidently ingest ‘agrotextiles’?

References:

[1].  http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb02/Hoffmann-IPM.bpf.html

[2].  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6052943.html

[3].  http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2005/September/Nonwovens_Technical/Agrotextiles_A_Growing_Field.html

[4].  http://www.tianjin.us/nw/supplier/

[5].  https://www.profoundit.com/product::6900::Root-and-Weed-Control

[6].

http://www.foodhaccp.com/1news/022009j.html

November 21, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cigarette Filter Fiber Study

 

Do Cigarette Filters Grow the Morgellons Artifacts?

After reading the article below, and with other tests I’ve conducted, I wondered if culturing the cotton, filter part of the cigarette would cause the Morgellons and other artifacts to be seen?

From a brand new pack of unopened cigarettes, I took one out and cut the end filter with sterile scissors over a Petri Dish with potato dextrose agar. 

These photos below represent my findings:

The Filter Photos, at 100x, Day 1:

Day 2:

11_13_2 11_13_0 11_13_1

Day 5:

11_17_4

11_17_9

11_17_1

So far, we have seen where certain red wines, bathroom tissues and q-tips grow the same artifacts and according to the article below; all cigarette filters are made the same and all should culture the Morgellons artifacts:

Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers

"Background: More than 90% of the cigarettes sold worldwide have a filter. Nearly all filters consist of a rod of numerous ( > 12 000) plastic-like cellulose acetate fibers. During high speed cigarette manufacturing procedures, fragments of cellulose acetate that form the mouthpiece of a filter rod become separated from the filter at the end face. The cut surface of the filter of nearly all cigarettes has these fragments. In smoking a cigarette in the usual manner, some of these fragments are released during puffing. In addition to the cellulose acetate fragments, carbon particles are released also from some cigarette brands that have a charcoal filter. Cigarettes with filters that release cellulose acetate or carbon particles during normal smoking conditions are defective.

The term "fall-out" was defined in 1985 laboratory protocols of Philip Morris, Inc. as "loose fibers (or particles) that are drawn out of the filter during puffing of the cigarette".

Our analysis of the "fall-out" tests results presented in the 61 "fall-out" documents showed that filter fibers and carbon particles were discharged from the filters of  ALL types of cigarettes tested.

Conclusions: We have shown that: (a) the filter of today’s cigarette is defective; (b) Philip Morris, Inc has known of this filter defect for more than 40 years; (c) the existence of this filter defect has been confirmed by others in independent studies; (d) many methods exist to prevent and correct the filter defect, but have not been implemented; and (e) results of investigations substantiating defective filters have been concealed from the smoker and the health community. The tobacco industry has been negligent in not performing toxicological examinations and other studies to assess the human health risks associated with regularly ingesting and inhaling non-degradable, toxin coated cellulose acetate fragments and carbon microparticles and possibly other components that are released from conventional cigarette filters during normal smoking. The rationale for harm assessment is supported by the results of consumer surveys that have shown that the ingestion or inhalation of cigarette filter fibers are a health concern to nearly all smokers.

"All cigarette filters can be shown to transmit particles to the smoker.  The human lung free passageways are a thousand times, yea ten thousand times, larger than particles which may pass through them. This goes for carbon, tobacco, sand, clay, lint [fibers, threads, cotton, cellulose] and all similar impurities."

In 1993 Cigarette filter fibers identified in the lungs of patients with cancer is reported.    In 1998 Inhaled cellulosic and plastic fibers found in human lungs.  1998 US patent No. 5,738,115 awarded to Hauni AG for "decontaminating" cigarette filters.  

1998 Borowicz and colleagues report results of tests in which cellulose acetate filter fibers and particles are recovered from mouth washes of all smokers and for all cigarettes tested.  

Viewing the white face of the cigarette filter with the naked eye and compression of the filter column with the fingers would suggest that the filter is made of a sponge-like material. However, opening the cigarette filter, by cutting it lengthwise with a razor, reveals that it consists of a fibrous mass. Spreading apart the matrix reveals some of the more than 12 000 white fibers. Microscopically, these fibers are Y shaped and contain the delustrant titanium dioxide. The fibers are made of cellulose acetate, a synthetic plastic-like substance used commonly for photographic films. A plasticiser, triacetin (glycerol triacetate), is applied to bond the fibers.

During the high speed multi-step cigarette manufacturing procedures, cellulose acetate filter fragments break from the filter. Moreover, charcoal granules are released from cigarettes with certain types of charcoal filters. With a hand held magnifying glass, some of these black specks of charcoal are visible on the white filter face.

Likewise, we know that: "fragments of plastic fibers, such as cellulose acetate fibers, forming part of mouthpieces of filter cigarettes or like rod-shaped smokers’ products tend to become separated from the respective filter mouthpieces at the end faces which develop in response to the making of cuts across filter rod sections of double unit length between pairs of plain cigarettes to obtain filter cigarettes of unit length." It is emphasised that: "The fiber contamination of the mouthpiece occurs in spite of the partial bonding of the neighboring fibers to each other by resorting to suitable plasticizers." These quotations are from 1997 and 1998 US patents awarded to Hauni Maschinenbau AG.13, 14 Hauni AG, with its eight divisions of companies, has an established reputation as the world’s top manufacturer of high speed machinery for making, packaging, and analysing cigarettes.

Cigarettes have defective filters if cellulose acetate filter fragments are released from the filter by puffing. In 1995, an executive directive declared that tobacco companies: "are well advised to strongly urge filter manufacturers to explore ways of producing fiber-free filters. Cellulose acetate fibers, in the smallest concentrations, must not be found in lungs. This is true even if there is little likelihood for their contributing to the formation of lung cancer and to disease type inflammatory changes."

Repetitive tests showed that carbon particles were released. In a 1970 test of: "Fallout of cigarette filter material" (10 cigarettes, 5 puffs) carbon particles were sized and enumerated.30 The results were as follows: size range 5 µm (n = 20 particles), 6–10 µm (n = 38), 11–20 µm (n = 22), and 21–30 µm (n = 14), etc. A total of 124 carbon particles was recorded.

We reviewed the test results in all of carbon "fall-out" papers. This review showed that carbon particles were released from all cigarettes tested. Noteworthy is that, in some studies, the particles released from cigarette filters were described as: "… too numerous to count".

Dr Farone has acknowledged that Philip Morris, Inc was concerned as to the possible health risks associated with inhaling filter fibers and carbon particles. Dr Farone reported to us that a claim made by Philip Morris, Inc that the filter fibers were too big to get into the lung was based upon an aerodynamic diameter concept only, and emphasised that the concept was an unproven hypothesis. Some of the fibers that "fall-out" of the filter are likely to be deposited in the mouth and upper airways. However, given the known frequency with which most people smoke cigarettes, Dr Farone asserted that it is inevitable that some of the cellulose acetate fibers would be inhaled.

One of the primary objectives in applying a plasticiser is to bind the fibers. The plasticiser, however, is applied before the cigarette filter is cut and other cigarette manufacturing processes. Thus, the bonding agent may curtail but would not eliminate the formation nor the release of filter fiber fragments.

Filter contamination not disclosed by Philip Morris, Inc

Having established that Philip Morris, Inc. knew for approximately 40 years that cigarette filters released cellulose acetate fibers and carbon particles.

Also, there were no reports from Phillip Morris, Inc that addressed the release of fibers, carbon or other filter elements of the cigarette filters in any of the papers presented during the last 37 years at the CORESTA meetings or special symposia.

The absence of papers from Phillip Morris, Inc examining these issues is remarkable in light of the fact that nearly all cigarettes manufactured during the past two decades have a cellulose acetate filter.

Our search of multiple databases failed to locate documents presenting the results of toxicology studies of fibers and particles that are known to be discharged from cigarette filers during normal smoking conditions. At a minimum, we expected to find laboratory notebooks or at least photocopies of selected notebook pages.  Not a single page was found.

Also noted in these two patents is that in the manufacturing of cigarettes, considerable quantities of "fragmentised" tobacco particles are collected and reintroduced into cigarette making machines. Both patents declare that: "This is not advisable as the cellulose acetate fibers would be placed in the tobacco column." The cellulose acetate fibers in the tobacco column are burned and would emit additional toxins into mainstream smoke.

Collectively, our investigations have identified diverse types defective filters. These include filters that discharge various filter elements, including fibers (for example, cellulose acetate, glass and asbestos) and particles (for example, charcoal).

A recent study has assessed consumers’ knowledge and beliefs about the safety of cigarette filters. In this survey, participants were asked: "If cigarette fibers become loose, and the cigarette companies are aware of this, do you think that they have an obligation to warn the public about this?" All smokers and former smokers in this survey responded "yes".

Philip Morris, Inc has known and concealed for approximately 40 years that fibers and particles "fall-out" of the filter of cigarettes during smoking. Other companies have assessed also the discharge of filter fibers. In addressing this filter defect, the tobacco industry’s response has been variable, ranging from denial of the discharge of filter fibers to the development of innovative technologies for correcting and preventing the problem. Consumers have not been informed of the filter defect. Further, there is no indication that existing corrective technologies and invention have been uniformly implemented. Summarily, the tobacco industry has been: (a) derelict in concealing information of filter defects; (b) negligent in implementing technologies available to prevent or reduce the emission of filter elements; and (c) wrongful in not investigating the toxicology and harm associated with defective filters of today’s cigarettes that are being marketed worldwide.

Tobacco companies bare the burden of performing the toxicology studies necessary to assess the human health risks of the defective filters and, specifically, the dangers associated with the daily inhalation and ingestion of the substances discharged from the filter during normal smoking. All consumers, including smokers, have the right to be fully informed of product defects and the potential risks that they impose so that they can make an educated decision in selecting their cigarette purchases.

The inhalation and/or ingestion of toxin coated plastic fibers and carbon granules released from contaminated and defective filters is not intended to be part of the smoking experience. The filter is intended to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke toxins—any elements from the cigarette filter that are likely to be puffed into the lung must be recognized as pollutants. For a company to knowingly and willfully withhold this information from consumers about the known contamination of cigarette filters, as Philip Morris, Inc had done in the past and continues to do even today, is wrong." [1]

 

References:

[1]. 

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/11/suppl_1/i51

November 18, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Red Wine Cultured by Itself

 

As requested by a reader, I cultured a red wine by itself  in a Petri Dishes with nutrient  agar in which, they are separate from each other in their individual dishes to see what their variables look like standing alone, the results are below:

Day 1 – Red Wine

The wine was poured from a new bottle, freshly opened, directly into the new Petri Dish with nutrient agar.  This is a Burgundy,  from California with sulfites.  These photos were taken right after the wine was poured on Nov. 6, 09, @ 100x – I see fibers, specks, and some sort of  ‘larvae-shaped entity’. 

Day 2

Nov 8 – 100x:  Not much is happening at this point:

Day 3

On day 3, Nov. 9, one of the fungal spheres has burst open and the white, fuzzy fungus identified by a group of Morgellons sufferers who all cultured their lesion debris in Petri Dishes, per visual identification, all have concluded that the Morgellons fungus is Rhizopus is apparent, there is other specks and fibers present also:

11_09_5 11_09_3 11_09_4

Day 4

Nov 10, the fungal sphere is starting to explode:

11_10_38

Day 6

Nov 12., We now see the ‘typical’ Morgellons pieces.  The fungus has a green top to it in the dish.

11_12_4

11_12_11

To me this experiment indicates that Carnicom had too many variables in his Petri dishes in the beginning of his ‘red wine swish test’ experiments.

I also have cultured another red wine, a more expensive one without sulfites going behind this one in potato agar.   I also cultured saliva by itself which showed interesting information.  I will be reporting on these soon.

November 13, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pineapple / Baculoviral Progression Study

 

I was eating a can of diced pineapples last month and saw a little, black ‘splinter-like’ object in the juice and decided to culture it in nutrient agar, it was initially 2-3 mm, it has been quite interesting to watch its progression in the dish.  I took quite a few photographs of it, so decided to dedicate a blog page to it.

I didn’t think too much of it being in the juice part of the pineapple, I’m sure I’ve seen something similar before? It appeared to be like the outside prickly part of the pineapple that had accidently gotten into the juice in the packing process somehow. 

Day 2

Cultured on 10/10, I photographed it at Day 2 on 10/12  in the dish, this is the top and bottom of the ‘splinter-like’ object.

 10_12_14      

 10_12_151

What’s interesting is that next to this splinter is a c-shaped ‘entity’ that has appeared at Day 2, the initial piece put in the dish was just the ‘splinter’ or actually, it’s more like a quiver that holds arrows. 

This is the head of the larvae that has appeared at Day 2:

10_12_161

Its midbody:

10_12_17

10_12_181

And, its tail:

10_12_191

10_12_20

I am almost positive this c-shaped object  is a baculovirus with a larvae inside of it.  The splinter is a capsid that houses this larvae.  We will in later photos how this transpires.

Here are all the photos from Day 2 in their original sizes:

Day 4

 Day 6

Day 9

Day 13

In-between Day 9 and Day 13 we can now see the fungal growth starting to creep in.

10_23_321

10_23_331

Here’s all the photos from Day 13:

Day 20

10_30_371

10_30_381

10_30_421

Here’s all the photos from Day 20:

Day 26

Upon viewing this specimen last night, I see that the larvae has decided to separate itself totally from the ‘splinter’.  When we examine the ‘splinter/quiver’, it doesn’t show any signs that something came out of the side of it nor that anything was ever attached.

11_06_241

11_06_25

11_06_26

Here’s all the photos from Day 26:

Since this dish is starting to dry out and I am wanting this larvae to move into more stages, I put some bottled water into the dish to give it life.  I will continue to show its progress.

 

To be continued.

November 7, 2009 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments