How many errors can you spot?
I only see one – iStock is misspelled. The correct spelling is iDon’tVetContent.
Well said, Greg, but here goes…
Not Myrmica rubra. The ant in the picture is a Lasius (in subfamily Formicinae, none of which can sting), perhaps L. umbratus
In any case, Myrmica rubra is not a fire ant – properly, a species of the Solenopsis saevissima group – though sometimes called “Northern (or European) fire ant”.
The “eggs” are pupae in cocoons and the pupae pictured appear to include at least both males and workers. Pupae of neither of the above-mentioned myrmicine ants (nor of any others in subfamily Myrmicinae) are in cocoons, rather they are always naked.
Ah, I would have gotten the others, but not the fact that Myrmicinae species are never in cocoons. I am woefully ignorant about such specifics pertaining to ant natural history…
And, DrAnt, it is not protecting but caring for the cocoons…
The only other error I would add is you apparently trying to order a “Large” version of the photo…
Can we count poor flash diffusion (ring light I assume) and a direct overhead shot as errors too?
And, wrong or not, the genus ‘myrmica’ should definitely be capitalised 🙂
It is good to criticize iStock photos. I have a textbook that uses this resource for many of its pictures. There are several blatant errors, and it is hard to believe the authors, editor, and text reviewers did not spot them.
ZERO! I can spot zero errors! Ha, I correctly guessed the number of errors I could spot, do I get a prize?
(Strictly speaking, I did spot that those were pupae, not eggs, but that’s not as funny.)
Fire ants are not Myrmica rubra, and Myrmica rubra doesn’t have cocoons, and the ant in picture is probably a Lasius, for the cocoon shape and the ant color…
I actually keep that species, it is Lasius Flavus