Ants Profiler 4 Crack
Key features.NET Framework 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 2.0; Microsoft Visual Studio 2015, 2013, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2005; Windows 10, Windows Server 2016, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows 8, Windows Server 2012, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008; 32 -bit and.
- Our prices include ComponentSource technical support and, for most downloadable products, an online backup and a FREE upgrade to the new version if it is released within 30 days of your purchase. All sales are made on our standard Terms and Conditions and subject to our Return Policy.
- Traditional usage scenarios for a.NET profiler: High memory usage: Profilers are extremely powerful when it comes to tracking down memory leaks and optimizing memory usage. We proactively use the Visual Studio Profiler and ANTS to tune the performance of our Windows monitoring agent.
Dottrace Vs Ants Profiler
Closed as off-topic by, Dec 3 '15 at 5:29 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:.
'Questions asking us to recommend or find a book, tool, software library, tutorial or other off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, and what has been done so far to solve it.' – Pang, Yvette Colomb, Taylan Aydinli, Harikrishnan T, Zim-Zam O'Pootertoot If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the, please.
Contents. Identification Mackay and Mackay (2002) - The majors of this species are large (head length, excluding mandibles2 mm, total length of ant more than 5 mm).
The anterior 1/3 of the head is sculptured with rugae, the intrarugal spaces are mostly shining, and the posterior 2/3 of the length of the head is smooth and glossy. The dorsum of the pronotum is smooth and glossy, the promesonotum forms a single, convex unit, and the dorsum of the propodeum is nearly flat. The propodeal spines are well developed, but are thick and blunt. The apex of the petiole is sharp in profile, concave as seen from behind; the postpetiole is wide with well-developed connules, as seen from above. The structure of the promesonotum is similar to that of, but the 3-segmented club and the predominantly glossy and shiny head easily separates this species from the latter mentioned species. The minor workers are remarkably small, most slightly longer than 2 mm, the head is smooth and glossy, the pronotum is smooth and glossy, and the remainder of the mesosoma is sculptured but at least moderately smooth and glossy. The smooth and glossy pronotum, as well as the moderately glossy remainder of the mesosoma, separates the minor workers of this species from many of the others, but it may be difficult to recognize his species on the basis of the minor workers only.
Redgate Ants Profiler
Also see the in the nomenclature section. Keys including this Species. Distribution Southern Arizona, New Mexico, extreme western Texas. (Wilson 2003) Distribution based on:.:.
Check distribution from. Distribution based on specimens. Defensive posture of a major worker of Pheidole militidda This nest consisted of two chambers connected by a single, long passage which could be blocked or unblocked in the middle without disturbing the nest. The block consisted of a cotton plug which could be pushed into the connecting passage through a glass tube set at right angles to it.
With the plug in place the.nest was divided into two separate chambers; with the plug removed the two. Chambers communicated with each other through the single connecting passage. After the plug was in place majors and minors of militicida were placed in one chamber and their prospective intruders in the other. The nest was then set aside until both groups were accustomed to their surroundings. Usually it took no more than twelve hours for each group to become thoroughly tranquil and to demonstrate by this tranquility that it was unaware of the other group’s presence nearby. The ants selected as intruders were and.
This choice was made because both species occur in close proximity to militicida colonies in the field and the harvesting activities of all three species lead to frequent encounters outside the nests. On the removal of the blocking cotton plug both groups would begin to explore the communicating passage. The Pogonomyrmex workers moved slowly into the passage but rapidly backed out of it when they became aware of the advancing militicida workers. In most cases the militicida minors first entered the passage. Some of them would usually be seized and killed by the Pogonomyrmex workers but others returned to the nest and alerted the majors. When these entered the passage they showed precisely the reactions that they had exhibited around their nest entrances. They advanced very cautiously, with the jaws wide open, and made frequent short lunges in the direction of the Pogonomyrmex workers.
As the militicida majors wedged themselves tightly into the passage, three or four ranks deep, the passage was completely blocked and the front face of this block was a highly dangerous area for the Pogonomyrmex workers for it consisted of the closely approximated heads and wide open jaws of the militicida majors. As to what happened next depended on the Pogonomyrmex workers, who would charge up to the barrier and slash at the militicida majors with their mandibles. These attacks were usually futile, tor the only exposed parts of the militicida major which could be damaged were the antennae and these were held so closely against the head that the Pogonomyrmex workers were seldom able to grasp them. If these attacks were vigorously pressed the Pheidole militicida major usually stood perfectly still and waited until the mandibles of its opponent were near its own. It then lunged toward, closed its jaws on the mandible of the Pogonomyrmex worker and attempted to break off the crushed mandible.
The majors did not always succeed in doing so, particularly in the case of maricopa, whose heavy mandibles are hard to break, but they seldom iailed to. Mangle the mandible so badly that it was useless. It may be added that this attack on the mandible is deliberate, for the militicida major will rarely strike at other parts when these are presented. We have repeatedly seen the Pogonomyrmex workers thrust their antennae or legs between the open jaws of the militicida major without causing the major to strike. They do not do so until there is a good chance that the mandible can be grasped and they rarely miss their target. After a number of Pogonomyrmex workers had been put out of action with useless mandibles, or sooner it the Pogonomyrmex workers did not press the attack vigorously, the militicida majors emerged from the passage and began a different sort of action. They no longer faced their opponents and struck at their mandibles but approached them from the rear and struck at the thorax or the petiolar nodes. Uniextract command line.
As a result, most of the Pogonomyrmex workers were ultimately cut in two, either at the petiole or behind the pronotum. In this more open fighting it was also obvious that the petiolar nodes and the mesothoracic area were the principal targets.
An examination of the Pogonomyrmex workers at the end of an engagement always showed much damage to mandibles, thorax and petiolar nodes and surprisingly little damage to legs and antennae. In short, there is nothing haphazard about the way in which the militicida majors deal with their opponents; they only strike at parts which will put their opponents out of action or kill them.
It is clear that their method is highly effective for it was only occasionally that the Pogonomyrmex workers got the better of the engagement. Even when they outnumbered the militicida majors they often failed to kill a single one of them and when they did so it was usually a result of the militicida major having been stung. This incapacitates them but does not immediately kill them. Militicida major shows an efficiency that is completely unlike its bumbling efforts elsewhere.
This, plus the fact that these responses are repeated with surprising exactness time after time, and by majors from different nests, leads us to conclude that they are the normal guarding responses of the militicida major. If this is true the major of militicida is best regarded as a soldier. Its role in the harvesting activities of the colony is slight and it is not primarily a seed-crusher, as has been mistakenly supposed. Castes Worker Minor.
The following images are provided by AntWeb. Nomenclature The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's, a catalogue of the world's ants. militicida.
Pheidole militicida Wheeler, W.M. 1915b: 398 (s.w.) U.S.A. Creighton & Gregg, 1955: 11 (q.m.). See also: Wilson, 2003: 586. Unless otherwise noted the text for the remainder of this section is reported from the publication that includes the original description. Description From Wilson (2003): DIAGNOSIS A giant species of the pilifera group distinguished in addition as follows.
Major: reddish yellow; petiolar node in side view tapering to a blunt point, its apex bearing a transverse carina; the postpetiolar node from above angulate, its crest also bearing a transverse carina; a small, angular subpostpetiolar process present; the posterior half of the head and almost all the rest of the body smooth and shiny; pilosity erect, relatively short, and very dense. Minor: eye very large, head quadrate in full-face view; humerus lobose in dorsal-oblique view; postpetiolar node depressed; almost all of the body smooth and shiny. MEASUREMENTS (mm) Syntype major: HW 2.66, HL 2.50, SL 0.96, EL 0.32, PW 1.20. Syntype minor: HW 0.84, HL 0.92, SL 0.74, EL 0.26.
COLOR Major: concolorous reddish yellow. Minor: body dark reddish brown, appendages brownish yellow.