Rotifer Asplanchna

[TonyB]

Film of Rotifer Asplanchna (unless there is anyone that would like to correct my identification as I am not an expert).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ydV_etz4k


I''ve not come across a rotifer before that is quite as transparant - the organs are quite visible. Can anyone help with identifying them/describing their function.
In one part of the film a sack like organ quickly contracts and then starts to fill again -could this be a bladder expelling water to maintain the osmotic balance? If water is being expelled where does it go as there does not appear to be cloaca in this species.
In another part of the film she ingests a small particle- but it cannot be to her taste as she quickly regurgitates it.

Pictures and information on the web indicates that these rotifer have quite an appetite and are quite partial to feeding on other rotifers.

Sorry for the muck that in he light path somewhere -my microscope has been sitting in its box for some time and needs a bit of a spring clean. My film really does not do her justice but I thought that she was quite an interesting subject.

[Cactusdave]

Very nice video. I especially liked the darkfield sections. The low power darkfield with the rotifer swimming freely is very impressive. What microscope and camera combination are you using?
_________________
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

[arturoag75]

_________________
www.microscopeitaly.it

[Mitch640]

Wow.

[RogelioMoreno]

Amazing video and specimen!

Rogelio

[TonyB]

Thanks for the positive comments - I think that it more to do with the subject rather than anything that I have done.

Regarding my setup -it is nothing special I am afraid. The microscope is a cheap trinocular that I bought on e-bay - it does not have any branding and I assume that it is probably Chinese. After buying I read on some of the forums that this was the worst thing to do. To confirm the comments made on the forums that the quality is a bit variable, the first one sent had a loose component in the head piece and I had to move it into the right position by tilting the headpiece left and right till I got an image - luckily the e-bay shop was very good and replaced it no problem - the issue has not re-occurred with the replacement. Camera used is a Cannon 500D (Ti1) bought on e-bay. Saw that some of the real experts positng to this site were using the Ti3 so thought that the predecessor would be good enough for me - I have been very happy with it. Camera link to the microscope is a standard adapter through the trinocular head - do not get full field of vision as I am using a standard x 10 lens but for most subjects this is not a problem. I used to use a compact camera with an adapter to hold above a special lens but found it difficult to align and had problems with circular rings in the image - a known issue with some makes of camera. I am very happy with the improvements with the DSLR. Ojective lenses are what was supplied with microscope which I guess are very cheap and nasty.
Anyone with any ideas how I can improve things (getting the best bang for my buck) then I would be very happy to hear from you. I have been thinking about setting up a LED light source and/or buying a fibre optic to direct the flash on the camera so that I can try some of still shots. Other ideas would be to invest in a couple of decent objectives.
I think that DIC is a bit out of the price range at the moment (my wife won't let me - some of the components I see on e-bay are worth more than my whole microscope set-up put together) but if anyone has suggestiions for small incremental improvements!!!
Please don't suggest scrapping what I already have and starting again - budget won't take it.

[Mitch640]

To me, it looks like you have the hardest part already worked out, the lighting. I use the same camera you have, which is known for dead pixels on the sensor, looks like dust that won't clean off. Yours looks nice and clear though.

I am very skeptical about buying better lenses. The Chinese knockoffs are actually pretty good. The next step up is phase contrast, which is expensive.