Halysidota tessellaris

| 49 Comments

Halysidota tessellaris — banded tussock moth

49 Comments

Ha! I’ll bet he glued it there. ;)

It’s a beautiful moth… Is it going to be the “peppered moth” or the 21st Century?

Dan Hocson said:

Ha! I’ll bet he glued it there. ;)

No, staples.

What a remarkably beautiful looking creature! Thanks for posting the pic.

-DU-

“Insect Picture of the Day” is one of my daily sites, now this: bonus bug image! Very nice.

Hey I remember this moth! Those were the days…

Isn’t it Halysidota tessellaris with a terminal “s”?

Another cool picture at http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species?l=3769

wright said: “Insect Picture of the Day” is one of my daily sites…

“Insect Picture of the Day” is at http://www.insectpod.com

Someone correct me if I’m mistaken, but aren’t tussock moths known for having chromosome diminution? That is, during early embryonic develop, most of the chromosomal DNA in cells that become the body breaks up and degenerates. Only the cells destined to become eggs or sperm keep the complete genome. One of the cool things that happens in some invertebrate groups.

Butterflies from a predecessor.

Well, let’s see. As soon as there were green plants, there was a source of food that insects could exploit - sap. Sap has sugars. Plenty of flightless insects, like aphids, are still using this energy source today.

Obviously, sap concentrates in the parts of the plant using the most energy. Hence, near the plant’s reproductive organs, because in plants that rely on wind dispersal, there has to be a lot of pollen produced, and nearly all of it is wasted. That means that the insects that feed on the sap were also concentrated there.

Winged insects had evolved from wingless ones long before the Cretaceous. The wings developed from extended plates of chitin - there is a continous and seamless series of small advantages from extending a hop to a glide to true flight. There are even intermediate forms known.

But in the Cretaceous, plants and winged insects produced a symbiosis. The plant that produced somewhat more sugar-rich sap around its sexual organs attracted winged insects to them, where they would be likely to be dusted with its pollen. The winged insects then carried that pollen to the sexual organs of other plants, as if perfectly targeted. An enormous saving in energy over wind dispersal resulted. Any greater efficiency in getting the insects to the pollen, and the pollen on the insects, was therefore selected.

The plants that practiced this strategy were thus advantaged. The more insects the plant attracted, the better. Attractiveness (to insects) was selected for. Leaves around the stamens were quite quickly adapted to show colours. The stamens gave off scents. And thus, we have flowers. The strange part is that they’re attractive to us, too. Now that, I think, is rather clever. (We shall set aside, for the nonce, those plants that are pollinated by flies, rather than butterflies, and produce flowers that stink of rotten meat or dung.)

The plant was further advantaged by the greater economy of having only one species of insect as a partner - its pollen would then be carried only to its own species. Once flowers appeared, therefore, any feature of them that favoured a more specialised pollinator would be selected for. Again, the advantages of evolving this way were continuous and seamless.

Hence, butterflies, and moreover, butterflies with extremely highly adapted mouth parts and other features evolved to feed on the nectar of flowering plants, and often only one species of flowering plant.

Now I know well that the many competant botanists and biologists reading this will probably have heart failure at the many ellisions and abridgements contained in it. Nevertheless, and speaking under correction, I think it’s a better, more satisfying explanation than goddidit. No doubt it’s full of errors, but it’s still better than that.

Hey PT staff, Prof. Sean Carroll would be a great guest poster on the subject of insect evolution…

Fortunately, I don’t respond to trolls. However, if anyone is genuinely interested in the evolution of insects, a good reference is Nature 376:420-423 (1995). This reference summarizes the types of regulatory changes that have been important in insect evolution, including Hox independent changes in forewing expression and Ubx regulated changes in hindwing expression in butterflies and moths.

Booby the Goof Poe (aka hand jobby), has had years to read this paper. Apparently hs is incapable of reading or comprehending any scientific literature. He is powerless to refute the conclusions of the paper so he resorts to childish name calling. I wonder how many inches of papers he could read in a thousand years? My hypothesis is that it would be less that the distance between the front of a whale’s head and the current posotion of the blow hole.

Not to worry, PvM has reported this troll to the library that he posts from, as well as his ISP. Hopefully he will be banned from posting entirely in the near future. Until then, it is best to ignore his idiotic questions. Believe me, they have all been answered a thousand times. He never comes up with anything original and he is emotionally incapable of having a decent discussion with anyone. He (or maybe she) is simply comical. Ignore him and, one way or another, he will go away.

Administration: Since this post is over one hundred words in length, there is a high probability the hand jobby will cut and paste the entire thing without a substantive response. Please delete any and all copy and paste hand jobbys.

Dave Luckett said:

But in the Cretaceous, plants and winged insects produced a symbiosis.

Prediction to test coevolution on (i.e. that evolution works): The longest stemmed flower will have an insect (or bird, but the safe money is on the insect AFAIU) with a tongue long enough to reach the nectar.

Test:

In 1862, while studying a Madagascan orchid, Angraecum sesquipedale, Darwin proposed that there must be a moth with an 11-inch tongue, able to dip into the flower’s foot-long nectary and pollinate it. In 1903, two entomologists discovered a sphinx moth in Madagascar with a proboscis that matched Darwin’s prophecy.

Would that make the troll’s question among the oldest tested specifics in evolution?

I guess I should actually thank Jobbie/Mr. Blobby/Mr. Hanky for the inspired and educational responses to hir insipid trolling. Learning is fun.

jobby said:

Please explain how butterflies could have gradually evolved from a predecessor.

And please no Darwinism of the gaps.

Alteration of the growth rates of the adult structures and WHEN they start to develop, AFAACT. Cells that will eventually form the adult structures (eyes, legs, proboscis, antennae, wings, external genitalia) are set aside early in the development OF THE EGG.

They remain as small clumps of cells (imaginal discs and rings) in the larvae’s body until pupation.

The imaginal discs and rings then begin to grow and differentiate as they form the adult structures, fusing to become the adult’s exoskeleton.

For insects without a complete metamorphosis, the adult structures are present, just small - as seen in grasshoppers, cicadas, mayflies, cockroaches and dragonflies.

For hexapods that don’t metamorphose, the young look like small versions of the adults.

All that is required is a shift of WHEN the adult structures form, and how fast they grow relative to the rest of the critter.

The main advantage seems to be resources - since caterpillars eat different things than the adults (or live in different regions than the adults - like mayflies and cicadas), each stage isn’t competing with the others.

Your ‘alternative explanation’ is what again ?

‘POOOOOOOFFFF !!!! Dere it iz !!!’ ?

jobby said:

Your ‘alternative explanation’ is what again ?

‘POOOOOOOFFFF !!!! Dere it iz !!!’ ?

.…… No poofing it does not work. However it seems you are saying there are only 2 choices: Darwinism or ‘poofing’.

As evolution is KNOWN to exist and work, and no valid ‘alternatives’ have been presented, I’ll go with the answer with actual DATA backing it up.

Again, twit : Your ‘alternate explanation’ is what again ?

Did butterflies evolve from creatures that did not morph?

What is the survival advantage of a creature that just goes to the pupa stage?

The pupal stage is most likely a later addition - insects like cicadas and mayflies DO NOT HAVE A PUPAL STAGE.

Homometabolous insects (complete metamorphosis) have the cycle : egg, larvae, pupa, adult

Hemimetabolous insect (incomplete metamorphosis) have the cycle : egg, nymph, adult. Notice which stage is missing ?

Remember each part of the progression must be gradual and a survival advantage over the previous stage.

Which is what we’ve got here - the pupal stage is an additional one to the fully viable egg, nymph, adult cycle.

jobby the twit postures like his opinion means something :

Again the old ‘Darwinism of the Gaps’ explanation: we have no idea how this could happens so Darwinism must have done it. …poof!

If you could read for COMPREHENSION, instead of things to be stupid about, you’d see researchers actually DO have ideas about how it could have happened. No ‘POOF !!’ required.

Again, buffoon : your ‘alternate explanation’ is what again ?

jobbyTroll said:

.…… No poofing it does not work. However it seems you are saying there are only 2 choices: Darwinism or ‘poofing’.

What is your alternative to “Darwinism” (sic)? You can not demand that we show the faults of or stop using Evolutionary Biology without simultaneously suggesting ways to remedies these alleged faults or suggest an alternative hypothesis to Evolutionary Biology.

Did butterflies evolve from creatures that did not morph?

If you actually ever bothered to read, butterflies are a group of highly modified moths. Genomic and anatomical comparisons show that moths, in turn, are descended from caddisflies. The ancestors of caddisflies and moths, diverged from a now extinct taxon of insects, named “Necrotaulidae,” during the Jurassic. The Necrotaulidae had diverged from the Scorpionflies and relatives sometime between the Permian and the Triassic.

So, in other words, no, butterflies, themselves, did not descend from insects that did not undergo complete metamorphosis: the ancient ancestors of butterflies, moths, caddisflies, and scorpionflies are descended from insects that did not undergo complete metamorphosis.

What is the survival advantage of a creature that just goes to the pupa stage? Remember each part of the progression must be gradual and a survival advantage over the previous stage.

The pupa stage is where the food stores gathered by the larva are utilized to produce adult structures. It also serves as a transition from the ecological niche occupied by the larva to the ecological niche occupied by the adult. By their very nature, pupae tend to be sessile and immobile, otherwise, they will use up their energy moving, rather than forming the adult structures. Insects that do not undergo metamorphosis tend to occupy the same ecological niche both as juveniles and as adults, with a very few notable exceptions, such as cicadas, where the adults do not feed.

Again the old ‘Darwinism of the Gaps’ explanation: we have no idea how this could happens so Darwinism must have done it. …poof!

Making up a strawman fallacy does not make up for the very obvious fact that you do not understand Evolutionary Biology, and that you have no desire to understand Evolutionary Biology.

I am reminded of the orchid (Ophrys), who’s flower looks like a queen bee, and when a drone climbs in, it gets tagged with a wad of pollen. All very beautiful examples of evilution at work.;)

Do not feed the trolls!

Frank B said:

I am reminded of the orchid (Ophrys), who’s flower looks like a queen bee, and when a drone climbs in, it gets tagged with a wad of pollen. All very beautiful examples of evilution at work.;)

The various species of Ophrys mimick the opposite genders of numerous insect species, hence many of them having common names involving “bee orchid” “wasp orchid,” or “fly orchid.” Other orchid genera also enhance/enrich their insect impersonations by secreting appropriate pheromones, like with the hammer orchids of Australia. In Brazil, the males of various carpenter bee species also crave the odors of some of the indigenous orchid species, but, only because, apparently, the females will only engage in courtship after the males have slathered on the correct floral cologne.

Frank B said:

I am reminded of the orchid (Ophrys), who’s flower looks like a queen bee, and when a drone climbs in, it gets tagged with a wad of pollen. All very beautiful examples of evilution at work.;)

I also forgot, there is one species of Ophrys from Great Britain that does not mimick an insect, though, it still does look very much like a red fly: apparently, its flowers do not need to be pollinated in order to produce viable seed. I need to find the book I saw it in, so I can remember the species.

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Do not feed the trolls!

Sometimes I just cannot help it. Their comments are just so, so stupid.

I generally find bugs repulsive (almost as repulsive as trolls) but I’m fascinated by the cyan and yellow stripes. What happened to the magenta ones? ;-)

The toner cartridge was empty.

Frank J said:

I generally find bugs repulsive (almost as repulsive as trolls) but I’m fascinated by the cyan and yellow stripes. What happened to the magenta ones? ;-)

I take it, then, that you have never seen or heard of the Urania, or Uraniine moths?

Stanton Wrote:

I take it, then, that you have never seen or heard of the Urania, or Uraniine moths?

No, but looking at the Wikipedia picture there are too many colors (BTW, H. tesselaris stripes on Wiki look more green and orange than above). What I had in mind was that certain “specified” color combos would beg for an analysis by Dembski’s filter. But of course Dembski won’t go near anything that could actually test his filter.

Frank J said:

Stanton Wrote:

I take it, then, that you have never seen or heard of the Urania, or Uraniine moths?

No, but looking at the Wikipedia picture there are too many colors (BTW, H. tesselaris stripes on Wiki look more green and orange than above). What I had in mind was that certain “specified” color combos would beg for an analysis by Dembski’s filter. But of course Dembski won’t go near anything that could actually test his filter.

Some of the Uraniine moths are, for a lack of a better description, monochromatic explosions in sepia.

But, I see what you mean: a filter that becomes nonfunctionally clogged by even the colors of a moth is utterly useless.

handjobby said:

font > yes

fnxtr said:

Give it up, boys and girls. Jobby is an obnoxious prick who will never, EVER give you a straight answer to what its alternative to evolution might be. It is a gutless COWARD. Ignore it.

I think we need to research the areas that Darwinism does not explain and maybe we will be able to come up with a hypothesis.

How, EXACTLY, did you ‘determine’ that ‘Darwinism’ DOES not explain something handjobby ?

Oh, right - YOU SAY SO ! Based on standard creationut arrogance (if YOU can’t figure something out, then no one on earth can either, so the only ‘alternative’ is invocation of magic or some other nonesuch lunacy).

Your ‘alternative explanation’ is what ? Oh, right - YOU DON’T HAVE ONE !

Those of us in contact with reality will stick with explanations based on observed phenomena, rather than stagger off into the willful lunacy of Magical Skymanism.

Until such a time that an alternative explanation that has been DEMONSTRATED to be better comes along.

Got one ?

Hypotheses are only valuable if they can be tested - how, EXACTLY, can anyone test your unstated ‘alternative explanation’ ? Oh, right - NO ONE CAN !

Thus, you blitherings are utterly irrelevant.

OK coward:

Holometabolous insects (complete metamorphosis) have the cycle : egg, larvae, pupa, adult

Hemimetabolous insect (incomplete metamorphosis) have the cycle : egg, nymph, adult. Notice which stage is missing ?

… yes the half-pupa stage

what is the intermediate to the 2 above??

Question is stupid, and formulated by a gibbering, argumentative, know-nothing buffoon more interested in posturing than actually being useful.

Nice quote mine, BTW - before, you were blithering about ‘how viable would an insect be if stuck in the pupal stage ?’.

The pupal stage is a later addition to the cycle; thus, at no time would an organism be ‘stuck in the pupal stage’.

The pupa is essentially a modified nymphal stage; what, EXACTLY, would a ‘half-pupa’ stage LOOK LIKE ?

Makes as much sense as noticing that insects develop from eggs into larvae, then asking where the ‘half-larva’ stage is !

And your ‘alternative explanation’ is what again ?

Are you deluded enough to ‘think’ that urinating all over evolution automatically makes your unstated ‘alternative’ valid ?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]26182806.htm

“Gene Needed For Butterfly Transformation Also Key For Insects Like Grasshoppers”

ScienceDaily (Apr. 27, 2006) — It is a marvel of nature that a creature such as a caterpillar changes into something quite different, a butterfly. Contrast that with a grasshopper, which looks largely the same from the time it hatches through its adult stage.

New University of Washington research shows that a regulatory gene named broad, known to be necessary for development of insects that undergo complete metamorphosis, also is key for the maturation of insects that have incomplete metamorphosis. The work appears to present the first molecular evidence that the nymphal stage in lower insects is equivalent to the pupal, or chrysalis, stage of advanced insects such as butterflies.

Metamorphosis evolved in insects about 300 million years ago from ancestors of direct-developing insects such as grasshoppers. Biologists know the broad gene regulates metamorphosis in flies and moths and is found only at the transition between their larval and pupal stages. To understand how metamorphosis evolved in insects, the UW researchers examined how the broad gene functions in direct-developing insects, which don’t have a pupal stage.

“We found that it is expressed throughout the nymphal stages, and that it is also required for change,” said Deniz Erezyilmaz, a UW biology research associate. “So it looks like metamorphosis evolved in insects by restricting the expression of the broad gene to a short but intense period of change at the transition from larva to pupa.”

Normally an insect like the grasshopper that does not undergo complete metamorphosis goes through subtle physical changes during each of its nymphal stages as it progresses to adulthood. If broad is suppressed, the nymph simply repeats the appearance from its previous phase but continues to show normal growth, Erezyilmaz said. The organism eventually becomes an adult, but adult structures such as the wings are severely undersized.

Broad is not required to transform into the adult, but it is needed to move through the series of nymphal stages,” she said. “An insect should look different from one stage to the next, but if you remove broad it doesn’t.”

Erezyilmaz is the lead author of a paper describing the findings, published online Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The work was done in the UW laboratories of biology professors James Truman and Lynn Riddiford, who are co-authors of the paper, and was underwritten by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Genes regulate how an organism grows and changes physically as it develops. The broad gene encodes a protein that attaches itself to a specific region of a DNA chain and controls which other genes will be copied. The researchers suspect that broad must be present for the physical changes contained in those areas of DNA to be expressed. Suppressing broad prevents the changes from occurring.

“Humans don’t have the broad gene, but if they did and you suppressed it you’d have a baby that might grow to 6 feet tall but would still have the body proportions of a baby,” Truman said. “It would still have the large head and the stubby legs.”

A substance called juvenile hormone is present at each step of nymph development in insects that do not experience complete metamorphosis, and the researchers found that juvenile hormone correlates with the expression of the broad gene during the nymphal stage. Juvenile hormone disappears in the last nymphal stage and the broad gene is no longer expressed, allowing the insect to make the final transition to adulthood.

“This is the first time that anyone has seen the broad gene appear in the development of insects having incomplete metamorphosis,” said Riddiford. “It appears in the late embryonic stage and stays throughout nymphal life, then disappears when the insect transforms to an adult.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]01064049.htm

It would appear that there are people that have figured it out - or at least have a more useful answer than anything the likes of you could ever produce.

jobby whines…

Homometabolous .… Hemimetabolous

what is the intermediate to the 2 above??

Dude, seriously, you can Google homometabolous and hemimetabolous, but you can’t find “metamorphosis” in general? If you had, you might find ametabolous insects, especially ancient species like silverfish, which neatly illustrate that the various stages you’re so concerned about are, well, pretty arbitrary.

The absolute irony to all your arguments of late, J ( or B ) is that you have an uncanny ability to pick out some of the most interesting, and best understood, tidbits of biology and information theory.

The gaps are gettin’ small for your side, J.

I observe the above, and make a prediction:

When confronted with evidence for evolution powered by natural selection, the creationist will select some sub-heading in the evidence and ask for further evidence about that. On being provided with it, he or she will simply repeat the process with the new evidence. This repetition can, in principle, be infinite. But human knowledge of anything is finite. Therefore, if the process is repeated sufficiently, the boundary of what is known will eventually be found, and the only honest answer will be “That is unknown at present”. The creationist will then smirk and declare himself the winner.

It’s simple, foolproof, and inevitable, and it impresses fools. A sufficiently adroit shyster can even succeed in presenting it as genuine enquiry, for a while. Most scientists have enormous goodwill about appears to be scientific enquiry. But of course, there is no intention to enquire, and their goodwill is being abused. It’s nothing but a scam, dishonest and mendacious from the start.

prof weird said:

*snip*

The pupa is essentially a modified nymphal stage; what, EXACTLY, would a ‘half-pupa’ stage LOOK LIKE ?

*snip*

Apparently, the pupae of snakeflies, unlike other holometabolous insects, are very mobile, and, prior to achieving the adult form, skitter to and fro.

Stanton said:

prof weird said:

*snip*

The pupa is essentially a modified nymphal stage; what, EXACTLY, would a ‘half-pupa’ stage LOOK LIKE ?

*snip*

Apparently, the pupae of snakeflies, unlike other holometabolous insects, are very mobile, and, prior to achieving the adult form, skitter to and fro.

I vaguely recall something about thrips - they’re close to being holometabolous, but not quite there. Their pupae look like their nymphs, except they don’t move. So, on the leaf you’d see nymphs of various ages, plus a few just standing still. Those few standing still are the pupa.

I also vaguely recall a (flour ?) beetle that pupates several times - goes through egg, larvae, pupa, nymph 1, pupa, nymph 2, pupa, nymph 3, pupa, then adult.

(My photographic memory for images is out of focus sometimes ;D )

like i don’t see plenty of these guys on my screen when i come home from work. although i never knew they came from the very common white caterpillars that i have been seeing. i always figured they came from another type caterpillar.

prof weird said:

I vaguely recall something about thrips - they’re close to being holometabolous, but not quite there. Their pupae look like their nymphs, except they don’t move. So, on the leaf you’d see nymphs of various ages, plus a few just standing still. Those few standing still are the pupa.

I also vaguely recall a (flour ?) beetle that pupates several times - goes through egg, larvae, pupa, nymph 1, pupa, nymph 2, pupa, nymph 3, pupa, then adult.

(My photographic memory for images is out of focus sometimes ;D )

Thrips have independently evolved cocoon-spinning, in that during the instar (molt stage) just prior to adulthood, the nymph leaves its host plant, and burrows underground to spin a cocoon, whereupon the adult then leaves. Other hemimetabolous insects have achieved their own versions of metamorphosis, like those of the plant lice known as whiteflies and scale insects: apparently, the nymphs soon become nonmotile, and assume a button-like form: female scale insects never leave this nonmotile button stage. With whiteflies (and some male scale insects), the button form continues to feed, and molt, until it starts to look like a pillbox, then, the nymph molts once more, and a 4-winged adult emerges from the pillbox and flies away.

Also, metamorphosis has been lost, at least with the strepsipterans, in that the females remain looking like the grub-like larvae, and mature without pupating. (one tells if a female is mature when she begins to protrude from underneath one of her host’s abdominal segments) I’m not sure about the flour beetles: all I dug up was reports about how stress and the resistance to certain juvenile hormones bring about precocious metamorphosis in some flour beetle species.

Therefore, if the process is repeated sufficiently, the boundary of what is known will eventually be found, and the only honest answer will be “That is unknown at present”. The creationist will then smirk and declare himself the winner.

It puzzles me how anybody (anti-evolution or not) can take that kind of “argument” seriously. Pointing to unanswered questions can’t refute answers to questions for which people have answers; to do that, one must point to something that contradicts the existing answer(s).

Henry

That’s not a moth, this is a moth.

Gorgeous photo – I just love arctiids. I used to see a lot of H. tessellaris around my old place in Michigan. Always thought those blue-green bands on the thorax were really striking; the photo captures the colors and wing scale patterns beautifully.

Zarquon said:

That’s not a moth, this is a moth.

Behold the prophecied coming of Mothros, Destroyer of Worlds and Devourer of All Things Knitted!

The bit of white on the wood near the moth’s posterior looks suspiciously like Elmer’s Glue holding the moth in place.

The bit of white on the wood near the moth’s posterior looks suspiciously like Elmer’s Glue holding the moth in place.

Not really, it looks a bit jagged. The most it has going for it in that asshatted zone is that it’s white. Congratulations on discovering “color”.

Huh? Dave Scot has been unbanned and undisemvoweled?

Go to Bookfinder, and enter “insect evolution” into the title box. If you’re interested, you can just buy three or four or a dozen or two dozen of the many books available. It’s what I usually do when I want to thoroughly understand a subject, to the point when I can at least not come off as a total moron. I mean, duh.

Not gonna happen. It’s like pointing a mosquito to a blood bank. It would rather just annoy you.

DaveScot said:

The bit of white on the wood near the moth’s posterior looks suspiciously like Elmer’s Glue holding the moth in place.

Looks like moth poop to me.

OT: Stephen Barr has a little piece here, linking the Large Hadron Collider to the anthropic principle. I groan about it here.

Do not feed the trolls!

These comments are not the place to bitch-slap people. If you want to have a knock-down drag out, vulgar argument take it to the forums. I’m tired of reading trolls AND those of you who respond to them in an unproductive manner.

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Do not feed the trolls!

These comments are not the place to bitch-slap people. If you want to have a knock-down drag out, vulgar argument take it to the forums. I’m tired of reading trolls AND those of you who respond to them in an unproductive manner.

Thanks for deleted the vulgarities.

For those of you who don’t remember the original posts from several years ago:

This moth was hanging out on the weather stripping of our front door one morning when we got home from eating breakfast out. So I went inside, grabbed my camera and started to take its picture. In the process I disturbed it and it flew away, landed on me the landed again on the door. It then proceeded to walk back to the weather stripping, and I took the above picture.

Phototaxis at work.

But how many sweaters did it eat in the meantime? ;)

It is exactly as beatuful when it flies as it is ugly when not. Honestly, it looks disgusting!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on September 10, 2008 10:01 PM.

Upgrades was the previous entry in this blog.

Prof Steve Steve rules is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter