Pitcher plant port-a-potty for the tree shrew

A pitcher plant (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Timeline, 2009: As humans, we are a bit limited in our imaginations. For example, we’d probably never consider climbing onto the edge of a toilet seat and licking the sides while…um…employing the toilet for standard uses. Perhaps one reason—among many obvious choices—is that we’re not tree shrews living in the wilds of Borneo in Southeast Asia.

If you’re now envisioning tree-dwelling rodents enjoying the civilized development of having their own toilet, you’re not too far off. Borneo is home to a number of unusual relationships between species, but none may be stranger than the one that has developed between the tree shrew and the pitcher plant. The pitcher plant is carnivorous, and as its name implies, has a pitcher-shaped structure that it uses to trap its food.

The many uses of the pitcher plant

Normally, a pitcher plant growing on the ground is the perfect trap for hapless animals drawn to its minimal nectar output. For some species, they’re not a death trap but a place to brood offspring—one frog uses the pitcher plant to lay its eggs, where trapped, digested insects may provide some nourishment. The insects fall in because the funnel-shaped pitcher part of the plant has a slippery lip that acts as a deadly superslide for any insect that alights on it. Unable to gain a foothold, the animal slides helplessly into the plant’s interior, landing in a pool of digestive enzymes or bacteria that slowly break it down.

What does a pitcher plant do with digested insect? It does what any organism, plant or otherwise, does with its food—it extracts nutrients from it. One primary nutrient that plants (and everything else) require is nitrogen. This element is part of life’s important building blocks for DNA and RNA and the amino acids that make up proteins. Thus, to grow and reproduce, organisms must acquire nitrogen from somewhere. Some plants form a partnership with bacteria to get their nitrogen. Pitcher plants digest insects for it.

Unless no insects are available. While ground-growing pitcher plants in Borneo can subsist on available ants and other crawly critters, some pitcher plants grow on vines and trees, where ants are largely unavailable. In addition, mountainous environments are not known for harboring lots of ants, so the pitcher plant needed a new plan for getting its nutrients.

Nectar for nitrogen

The plan, it seems, was selection for making more nectar, reducing the slippery factor, and behaving like both a toilet and a food source for an abundant animal in the Borneo mountains, the mountain tree shrew. Using video cameras, researchers based at a Borneo field station captured one of the most unusual mutually beneficial relationships in nature: the tree shrew, while enjoying the abundant nectar uniquely produced by these aerial pitcher plants, also poops into the pitcher plant mid-meal. The plant, perfectly shaped for the tree shrew to park its rear just so while it eats, takes up the feces and extracts nitrogen from it. In fact, these pitcher plants may derive up to 100 percent of their nitrogen from the tree shrew poop.

Researchers think that this friendly relationship must have been in the making for a very long time. The pitcher plant opening is perfectly shaped and oriented so that the nectar collects just at the lip and the shrew must orient while eating so that the funnel-like pitcher collects any poop that emerges. The plant also has developed sturdier and thicker structures that can support the weight of a dining/excreting tree shrew, which isn’t much at less than half a pound, but quite a bit for a plant to support.

As odd as this adaptation may seem, it’s not unique. Ground-dwelling pitcher plants have formed similar mutually beneficial relationships with insect larvae that help themselves to some of the insect pickings that fall in. These larvae excrete any leftovers, and the plant harvests nutrients from these excretions. Interestingly, the tree shrew itself dines on insects, so the pitcher plant is still indirectly deriving its nitrogen from insects even when it uses tree shrew poop. It’s just getting it from the tail end of a rodent intermediary instead.

Sexual selection: Do females follow fads?

Is this male attired in the fashionable look of the season? Based on the reaction of the female in the background, perhaps not. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Timeline, 2008: Sexual selection is a mechanism of evolution that sometimes butts heads with natural selection. Under the tenets of natural selection, nature chooses based on characteristics that confer a competitive edge in a given environment. Under this construct, environment is “the decider.” But in sexual selection, either competition between the same sex or a choice made by the opposite sex determines the traits that persist. Sometimes, such traits aren’t so useful when it comes to the everyday ho-hum activities like foraging for food or avoiding predators, but they can be quite successful at catching the eye of an interested female.

Those female opinions have long been considered unchanging. In the widowbird, for example, having long, flowing black tailfeathers is a great way to attract the lady widow birds. But perhaps they don’t call them widowbirds for nothing: if those male tailfeathers get too long, the bird can’t escape easily from predators and ends up a meal instead of a mate. In these cases, natural selection pushes the tailfeather trait in one direction—shorter—while sexual selection urges it the other way—longer. The upshot is a middling area for tailfeathers length.

This kind of intersexual selection occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Probably the most well-recognized pair that engages in it is the peacock and peahen. Everyone has seen the multicolored baggage any peacock worth his plumage drags around behind him. A peacock will fan out those feathers in an impressive demonstration, strutting back and forth and waving its tail in the wind, showing off for all he’s worth. It’s a successful tactic as long as nothing is around that wants to eat him.

Frogs hoping for a mate find themselves elbow deep in the “paradox of the lek.” The lek is the breeding roundup for frogs, where they all assemble in a sort of amphibian prom. For the males, it’s a tough call, literally. They must call loudly enough to show the females how beautifully androgenized they are—androgens determine the power of their larynx—while at the same time not standing out enough to attract one of the many predators inevitably drawn to a gathering of hundreds of croaking frogs. Trapped in this paradox, the frog does his best, but natural selection and sexual selection again end up stabilizing the trait within expected grooves.

This status quo has become the expectation for many biologists who study sexual selection: natural selection may alter its choices with a shifting environment, but what’s hot to the females stays hot, environmental changes notwithstanding. But the biologists had never taken a close look at the lark bunting.

A male lark bunting has a few traits that may attract females: when it shakes off its drab winter plumage and takes on the glossy black of mating season, the male bird also sports white patches on its wings that flash through the sky and sings a song intended to draw in the ladies. But the ladies appear to be slaves to fashion, not consistently choosing large patches over small, or large bodies over lighter ones. Instead, female lark buntings change their choices with the seasons, selecting a large male one year, a dark-colored male with little in the way of patches the next, and a small-bodied male the next. Lark buntings select a new mate each year, and the choice appears to be linked to how well the male will aid in parenting duties, which both parents share. It may be that a big body is useful in a year of many predators, but a small body might work out better when food supplies are low.

The researchers who uncovered this secret of lark bunting female fickleness watched the birds for five years and based their findings on statistical correlations only. For this reason, they don’t know exactly what drives the females’ annually varying choices, but they speculate that environmental factors play a role. Thus, sexual selection steps away from the realm of the static and becomes more like—possibly almost indistinguishable from—natural selection.

No legal limit for bats?

  • A bat in the hand

    Timeline, 2010: People with a blood alcohol level of 0.3 percent are undeniably kneewalking, dangerously drunk. In fact, in all 50 states in the US, the cutoff for official intoxication while driving is 0.08, almost a quarter of that amount. But what has people staggering and driving deadly appears to have no effect whatsoever on some bat species.

Why, you may be wondering, would anyone ask this question about bats in the first place? Bats are not notorious alcoholics. But the bat species that dine on fruit or nectar frequently encounter food of the fermented sort, meaning that with every meal, they may also imbibe a martini or two worth of ethanol.

Batty sobriety testing

Recognizing this exposure, researchers hypothesized that the bats would suffer impairments similar to those that humans experience when they overindulge. To test this, they selected 106 bats representing six bat species in northern Belize. Some of the bats got a simple sugar-water treat, but the other bats drank up enough ethanol to produce a blood alcohol level of more than 0.3 percent. Then, the bats got the batty version of a field sobriety test.

Bats navigate by echolocation, bouncing sound waves off of nearby objects to identify their location. To determine if the alcohol affected the bats’ navigation skills and jammed the sonar, the researchers festooned a ceiling with dangling plastic chains. The test was to see if the animals could maneuver around the chains while under the influence of a great deal of alcohol. To their surprise, the scientists found that the drunk bats did just as well as the sober ones.

Some bats hold their drink better than others

Interestingly, the bats did show a human-like variation in their alcohol tolerance, with some bats showing higher levels of intoxication than others. But one question that arises from these results is, Why would bats have such an enormous alcohol tolerance?

As it turns out, not all of them do. These New World bats could, it seems, drink their Old World cousins under the table. Previous research with Old World bats from Egypt found that those animals weren’t so great at holding their drink. Thus, it seems that different bat species have different capacities for handling—and functioning under the influence of—alcohol.

One potential explanation the investigators offer for this difference is the availability of the food itself. In some areas, fruit is widely available at all times, meaning that the bats that live there are continually exposed to ethanol in their diet. Since they can’t exactly stop eating, there may have been some selection for those bats who could get drunk but still manage to fly their way home or to more food. In other bat-inhabited areas, however, the food sources vary, and these animals may not experience a daily exposure to intoxication-inducing foods.

Alcohol driving speciation?

This study may be one of the first to identify a potential role for alcohol in the speciation of a taxon. Bats as a group underwent a broad adaptive radiation, meaning that there was a burst of speciation as different bat species evolved in different niches. Factors driving this burst are thought to have included different types of fruit; for example, tough fruits require different bat dentition features compared to soft fruits. Now, it seems that alcohol availability may also have played a role in geographical variation of alcohol tolerance in bats. Bats with greater tolerance would have been able to exploit a readily available supply of alcohol-laden foods.

What’s next in drunk-animal research? The investigators who made this unexpected bat discovery have a new animal target—flying foxes, which aren’t really foxes at all but yet another species of bat that lives in West Africa. We’ll have to wait and see how these Old World bats compare to the New World varieties when it comes to holding their liquor.

An author reading today

Doing my author reading at the library today with my friend Charles Darwin on the screen

Today, I did my first reading/teaching presentation from The Complete Idiot’s Guide to College Biology. Below are a couple of excerpts from what I read today.

From Chapter 16: Darwin, Natural Selection, and Evolution

Evolution, a change in a population over time, can be a controversial concept, and things were no different when Darwin first proposed his theory of how evolution happens. Since that time, we’ve identified several other ways by which evolution can occur. Scientists have synthesized natural selection and genetics and worked out a way to identify if evolution is happening in a population.

The Historical Context of Darwin’s Ideas

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, into a society with fixed ideas about the role of divinity–specifically the Christian God–in nature. Darwin’s destiny, as it turned out, was to address nature’s role in nature, rather than God’s. He was not completely comfortable in some respects with that destiny, but this man was born with his ear to the ground, listening to Nature’s heartbeat. He was born to bring to us a greater understanding of how nature fashions living things.

Yet, he did not emerge into a howling wilderness of antiscientific resistance. Scientists and philosophers who had come before him had posited bits and pieces of what would become Darwin’s own theory of how evolution happens. But it required Charles Darwin to synthesize those bits and pieces–some of them his own, gathered on the significant voyage of his lifetime–to bring us a complete idea of how nature shapes new species from existing life.

Alfred Russel Wallace: The Unknown Darwin

Alfred Russel Wallace developed the theory of evolution by natural selection at the same time as Darwin. His road to enlightenment came via his observations on another island chain, the Malay Archipelago. Like Darwin, Wallace was a naturalist savant, and on this archipelago alone, he managed to collect and describe tens of thousands of beetle specimens. He, too, had read Malthus and under that influence had begun to formulate ideas very similar to Darwin’s. The British scientific community of the nineteenth century was a relatively small world, and Wallace and Darwin knew one another. In fact, they knew each other well enough to co-present their ideas about natural selection and evolution in 1858.

Nevertheless, Wallace did not achieve Darwin’s profile in the field of evolution and thus today does not have his name inscribed inside a fish-shaped car decal. The primary reason is likely that Darwin literally wrote the book on the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Wallace, on the other hand, published a best seller on the Malay Archipelago.

From Chapter 13: DNA

DNA, as the central molecule of heredity, is key to many aspects of our lives (besides, obviously, encoding our genes). Medicines and therapies are based on it. TV shows and movies practically feature it as a main character. We profile it from before we’re born until after we die, using it to figure out what’s wrong, what’s right, what’s what when it comes to who we are, and what makes us different and the same.

But it wasn’t so long ago that we weren’t even sure that DNA was the molecule of heredity, and it was even more recently that we finally started unlocking the secrets of how its genetic material is copied for passing along to offspring.

The History and Romance of DNA

The modern-day DNA story is dynamic and fascinating. But it can’t compare to the tale of the trials, tribulations, and downright open hostilities that accompanied our recognition of its significance.

Griffith and His Mice

Our understanding started with mice. In the 1920s, a British medical officer named Frederick Griffith performed a series of important experiments. His goal was to figure out the active factor in a strain of bacteria that could give mice pneumonia and kill them.

His bacteria of choice were Streptococcus pneumoniae, available in two strains. One strain infects and kills mice and thus is pathogenic, or disease causing. These bacteria also have a protein capsule enclosing each cell, leading to their designation as the Smooth, or S, strain. The other strain is the R, or rough, strain because it lacks a capsule. The R strain also is not deadly.

Wondering whether or not the S strain’s killer abilities would survive the death of the bacteria themselves, he first heat-killed the S strain bacteria. (Temperature changes can cause molecules to unravel and become nonfunctional, “killing” them.) He then injected his mice with the dead germs. The mice stayed perky and alive. Griffith mixed the dead, heat-killed S strain bacteria with the living, R-strain bacteria and injected the mice again. Those ill-fated animals died. Griffith found living S strain cells in these rodents that had never been injected with live S strain bacteria.

With dead mice all around him, Griffith had discovered that something in the pathogenic S strain had survived the heat death. The living R strain bacteria had picked up that something, leading to their transformation into the deadly, pathogenic S strain in the mice. It was 1928, and the question that emerged from his findings was, What is the transforming molecule? What, in other words, is the molecule of heredity?

Hershey and Chase: Hot Viruses

A fiery debate tore through the ranks of molecular biologists and geneticists in the early twentieth century, arguing about whether proteins or DNA were the molecules of heredity. The protein folk had a point. With 20 possible amino acids, proteins offer far more different possible combinations and resulting molecules than do the four letters (nucleotide building blocks) of the DNA alphabet. Protein advocates argued that the molecule with the most building blocks was likely responsible for life’s diversity.

In a way, they were right. Proteins underlie our variation. But they were also fundamentally wrong. Proteins differ because of differences in the molecule that holds the code for building them. And that molecule is DNA.

Like what you’ve read? Read the rest in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to College Biology.

Nematode may trick birds with berry-bellied ants

Comparison of normal worker ants (top) and ants infected with a nematode. When the ant Cephalotes atratus is infected with a parasitic nematode, its normally black abdomen turns red, resembling the many red berries in the tropical forest canopy. According to researchers, this is a strategy concocted by nematodes to entice birds to eat the normally unpalatable ant and spread the parasite in their droppings. (Credit: Steve Yanoviak/University of Arkansas)

Timeline, 2008: Host-parasite relationships can be some of the most interesting studies in biology. In some cases, a parasite requires more than one host to complete its life cycle, undergoing early development in one host, adult existence in another host, and egg-laying in still another. There’s the hairworm that turns grasshoppers into zombies as part of its life cycle, and the toxoplasma parasite, which may alter the behavior of humans and animals alike. Often, the infection ends with the host engaging in life-threatening behaviors that lead the parasite to the next step in the cycle.

A recent discovery of a most unusual host-parasite relationship, however, results in changes not only in host behavior but also in host appearance. The infected host, an ant living in the forest canopy in Panama and Peru, actually takes on the look of a luscious, ripe fruit.

Berry-butted ants

Researchers had traveled to the Peruvian forest on a quest to learn more about the airborne acrobatics of these ants, Cephalotes atratus. This ant is a true entomological artist, adjusting itself in midair if knocked from its perch. Re-orienting its body, it can glide back to the tree trunk, grabbing on and climbing to where it belongs, avoiding the dangers of the forest floor.

As the investigators monitored the colony, they became aware of some odd-looking members of the group. These ants had large red abdomens that shimmered and glowed and looked for all the world like one of the tropical berries dotting the forest around them. Curious about these odd ants, the scientists took some to the lab for further investigation. Ant researchers are an obsessive breed, and they had even placed a bet over whether or not these berry-bellied ants were a new species.

A belly full of another species’ eggs

When they sliced open one of the bellies under a microscope, what they found surprised them. Inside, a female nematode had packed the ant’s abdomen full of her eggs. The bright red belly was an incubator and, the researchers surmised, a way station on the nematode’s route to the next step in its life cycle. This was the same old C. atratus with a brand new look.

Tropical birds would normally ignore these ants, which are black, bitter, and well defended with a tough, crunchy armor. But any tropical bird would go for a bright, red, beautiful berry just waiting to be plucked. The scientists found that in addition to triggering changes to make the ant belly look like a berry, the nematode also, in the time-honored manner of parasites, altered its host’s behavior: the berry-bellied ants, perched on their trees, would hold their burgeoning abdomens aloft, a typical sign of alarm in ants. A bird would easily be tricked into thinking that the bug was a berry. One quick snap, and that belly full of nematode eggs would be inside the belly of a bird.

Poop: A life cycle completed

And then the eggs would exit the bird the usual way, ending up in the bird’s feces. The ants enter the picture again, this time collecting the feces and their contents as food for their colony’s larvae. The eggs hatch in the larvae and the new nematodes make their way to the ant belly to start the cycle anew.

The nematode itself is a new find, a new species dubbed Myrmeconema neotropicum. And it seems that earlier discoverers of the berry-bellied ants also thought they had a new species on their hands: the researchers turned up a few previous berry-bellied specimens in museums and other collections labeled with new species names. No one had thought that the difference in appearance might be the result of a parasitic infection: this relationship is the first known example of a parasite causing its host to mimic a fruit.

Birds remain the missing link

There is one hitch to the newly discovered nematode-ant-bird association: the researchers never actually saw a tropical bird snap up a juicy, fruit-mimicking ant. They report seeing different species of birds scan the bushes where such ants sheltered, but there were never any witnessed ant consumptions. Thus, this inferred piece of the puzzle—the involvement of birds and their droppings in the life cycle of this nematode—remains to be proven.

Think the eye defies evolutionary theory? Think again

The compound lens of the insect eye

Win for Darwin

When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection, he recognized at the time that the eye might be a problem. In fact, he even said it was “absurd” to think that the complex human eye could have evolved as a result of random mutations and natural selection. Although evolution remains a fact, and natural selection remains a theory, the human eye now has some solid evolutionary precedence. A group of scientists that has established a primitive marine worm, Platynereis dumerilii, as a developmental biology model has found that it provides the key to the evolution of the human—and insect—eye.

Multiple events in eye evolution, or only one?

The divide over the eye occurred because the insects have the familiar compound-lens—think how fly eyesight is depicted—and vertebrates have a single lens. Additionally, insects use rhabdomeric photoreceptors, and vertebrates have a type known as ciliary receptors. The rhabdomeric receptors increase surface area in the manner of our small intestine—by having finger-like extensions of the cell. The ciliary cells have a hairy appearance because of cilia that pop outward from the cell. A burning question in evolutionary biology was how these two very different kinds of eyes with different types of photoreceptors evolved. Were there multiple events of eye evolution, or just one?

Just once?

P. dumerilii work indicates a single evolutionary event, although the usual scientific caveats in the absence of an eyewitness still apply. This little polychaete worm, a living fossil, hasn’t changed in about 600 million years, and part of its prototypical insect brain responds to light. In this system is a complex of cells that forms three pairs of eyes and has two types of photoreceptor cells. Yep, those two types are the ciliary and the rhabdomeric. This little marine worm has both kinds of receptors, using the rhabdomeric receptors in its little eyes and the ciliary receptors in its brain. Researchers speculate that the light receptors in the brain serve to regulate the animal’s circadian rhythm.

How could the existence of these two types of receptors simultaneously lead to the evolution of two very different kinds of eyes? An ancestral form could have had duplicate copies of one or both genes present. Ultimately, if the second copy of the rhabdomeric receptor gene were recruited to an eye-like structure, evolution continued down the insect path. But, if the second copy of a ciliary cell’s photoreceiving gene were co-opted for another function, and the cells were ultimately recruited from the brain for use in the eye, then evolution marched in the vertebrate direction.

All of the above is completely speculation, although this worm’s light-sensitive molecule, or opsin, is very much like the opsin our own rods and cones make, and the molecular biology strongly indicates a relationship. It doesn’t completely rule out multiple eye-evolution events, but it certainly provides some nice evidence for a common eye ancestor for insects and vertebrates.

Note: This work appeared in 2004 and got a detailed writeup at Pharyngula.

Tricky little orchids

Orchids attract collectors all over the world. One of the things that draws us to these unusual plants is their Machiavellian approach to life. They unfeelingly employ deception to their benefit, usually practicing their art on unsuspecting members of the insect community. Research has revealed that one species of orchid, Anacamptis morio (or Orchis morio), or the green-winged orchid, lays its bold insect trap in an attempt to avoid a trap itself.

Inbreeding avoidance: not just for royalty

Although plants can do many things that most members of the animal kingdom cannot—self-fertilize or increase chromosome numbers in a generation—they’re still better off when reproductive measures result in an increase in genetic variation. As with most organisms, inbreeding is not a healthy thing for a plant, and many plants have mechanisms to avoid it.

The idea of inbreeding avoidance led researchers to a theory to explain the remarkable behavior of many orchids. These beautiful, much-coveted flowers attract humans and insects with their alluring fragrances and colors. For insects, some orchids add to the attraction by mimicking the female of the insect species, or wafting the scent of eau d’ dung for insects that prefer laying their eggs in such places. But of the 30,000 known orchid species, about 10,000 have nothing to offer the hapless insect in return: their flowers have no nectar.

Why keep coming back for nothing?

Researchers have sought to explain why insects would continue to visit such a stingy plant, and why the plants continue to get away with and employ their nectar-free strategy. The strategy itself seems in violation of so much of our understanding of the natural world, a place typically characterized by tradeoffs. In fact, orchids without nectar are not wildly popular among insects—it is difficult in many cases to witness a bee pollinating a green-winged orchid in the wild—but they still do manage to get pollinated.

Scientists investigated wild-growing green-winged orchids on a Swedish island and figured out why this species cheats insects so mercilessly. It’s about genetic variation. The flowers attract the bugs, but offer the foraging insects nothing, driving them on to explore other plants. Although the orchids have not provided food, they have given the unsuspecting insect a payload of a different kind: pollen. The bug—still on a quest for nectar—forages in other plants, pollinating as it goes along. Voila! No self-pollination. Plants that result from self-pollination are usually weak and unhealthy, and self-pollinating can be a waste of precious pollen.

Interviewing bees

Scientists detected this self-pollination avoidance by interviewing bees. They queried specific bees with plants that had been artificially dosed with nectar or with plants in their natural nectar-free state. The researchers found that bees stayed around the nectar-ful plants twice as long and investigated twice as many flowers on the same plant, which would promote self-pollination. Bees that found no nectar moved along to other plants, promoting cross-pollination.

One thing that could confound the interpretation of these results is that bees can remember how a plant smells. If a bee strikes out with one orchid, it will remember that orchid’s smell and not waste its time foraging around in other flowers that smell the same.

In separate research performed by a team in Switzerland, scientists found that the flowers of a nectar-producing orchid species all smell very much the same. But flowers on different plants of the green-winged orchid all smell different. A bee might have failure at one green-winged orchid and remember the smell, but then fly straight into another green-winged orchid plant because its smell is different. The unhappy bee falls into the orchid’s trap and gets nothing, but the deceitful orchid itself has had a great success: avoiding the trap of self-pollination.

Is the tree of life really a ring?

A proposed ring of life

The tree of life is really a ring

When Darwin proposed his ideas about how new species arise, he produced a metaphor that we still adhere to today to explain the branching patterns of speciation: The Tree of Life. This metaphor for the way one species may branch from another through changes in allele frequencies over time is so powerful and of such long standing that many large studies of the speciation process and of life’s origins carry its name.

It may be time for a name change. In 2004, an astrobiologist and molecular biologist from UCLA found that a ring metaphor may better describe the advent of earliest eukaryotes. Astrobiologists study the origins of life on our planet because of the potential links between these earthly findings and life on other planets. Molecular biologists can be involved in studying the evolutionary patterns and relationships that our molecules—such as DNA or proteins—reveal. Molecular biologist James Lake and astrobiologist Mary Rivera of UCLA teamed up to examine how genomic studies might reveal some clues about the origins of eukaryotes on Earth.

Vertical transfer is so 20th century

We’ve heard of the tree of life, in which one organism begets another, passing on its genes in a vertical fashion, with this vertical transfer of genes producing a tree, with each new production becoming a new branch. The method of gene transfer that would produce a genuine circle, or ring, is horizontal transfer, in which two organisms fuse genomes to produce a new organism. The ends of the branches in this scenario fuse together via their genomes to close the circle. It is this fusion of two genomes that may have produced the eukaryotes.

Here, have some genes

Eukaryotes are cells with true nuclei, like the cells of our bodies. The simplest eukaryotes are the single-celled variety, like yeasts. Before eukaryotes arose, single-celled organisms without nuclei—called prokaryotes—ruled the Earth. We lumped them together in a single kingdom until comparatively recently, when taxonomists broke them into two separate domains, the Archaebacteria and the Eubacteria, with the eukaryotes making up a third. Archaebacteria are prokaryotes with a penchant for difficult living conditions, such as boiling-hot water. Eubacteria include today’s familiar representatives, Escherichia coli.

Genomic fusion

According to the findings of Lake and Rivera, the two prokaryotic domains may have fused genomes to produce the first representatives of the Eukarya domain. By analyzing complex algorithms of genomic relationships among 30 organisms—hailing from each of the three domains—Lake and Rivera produced various family “trees” of life on Earth, and found that the “trees” with the highest cumulative probabilities of having actually occurred really joined in a ring, or a fusion of two prokaryotic branches to form the eukaryotes. Recent research If we did that, the equivalent would be something like walking up to a grizzly bear and hand over some of your genes for it to incorporate. Being eukaryotes, that’s not something we do.

Our bacterial parentage: the union of Archaea and Eubacteria

Although not everyone buys into the “ring of life” concept, their findings help resolve some confusion over the origins of eukaryotes. When we first began analyzing the relationship of nucleated cells to prokaryotes, we identified a number of genes—that we call “informational” genes—that seemed to be directly inherited from the Archaea branch of the Tree of Life. Informational genes are involved in the processes like transcription and translation, and indeed, recent “ring of life” research suggests a greater role for Archaea. But we also found that many eukaryotic genes traced back to the Eubacteria domain, and that these genes were more organizational in nature, being involved in cell metabolism or lipid synthesis.

Applying the tree metaphor did not help resolve this confusion. If eukaryotes vertically inherited these genes from their prokaryotic ancestors, we would expect to see only genes representative of one domain or the other in eukaryotes. But we see both domains represented in the genes, and the best explanation is that organisms from each domain fused entire genomes—horizontally transferring genes—to produce a brand new organism, the progenitor of all eukaryotes: yeasts, trees, giraffes, killer whales, mice, … and us.

Did division of labor defeat the Neanderthals?

According to some anthropologists, the classic depiction of Paleolithic man as a few strapping cavemen ganging up on a mammoth with their spears might need to be replaced with dioramas of women gathering seeds or a man scraping an animal carcass from the ground to take home for dinner. In addition, this division of labor between men and women may have given Homo sapiens the upper hand when it came to their competition with Neanderthals in the Upper Paleolithic, about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago.

You may be familiar with some of the usual reasons proposed for the extinction of the Neanderthals and the supremacy of H. sapiens in the competition for resources: The wily H. sapiens swarmed the Neanderthals, defeating them in war with superior weaponry or a greater ability to resist disease or defy climate change. Some experts have proposed that a combination of these climatological and cultural factors may have contributed to the Neanderthal’s loss. But until now, no one had focused on differences in division of labor as giving H. sapiens the advantage.

The crushing hand of the Neanderthal woman

Evidence shows that Neanderthal men and women may have shared similar robust builds. In addition to bone finds that suggest as much, a researcher who focuses on hand mechanics has found that the Neanderthal female hand could exert as much force as that of a male. In addition, Neanderthal home sites rarely include artifacts such as tools for grinding seeds or trapping small animals, or even evidence of clothing production, such as needles. Thus, it seems that the Neanderthals may have, as a group—men, women, and children—spent their time focusing on one thing: big game.

Hunting a large animal that has defense ranging from tooth to antler to hoof to claw is a dangerous business, more so when your only weapon is a pointed stone attached to the end of a stick. Neanderthals got a big payoff when their spears worked, however, in the form of calorie- and protein-rich meat for the group. Evidence suggests that the whole group participated in this dangerous task—the bones of females as well as males bear the signs of many fractures, possibly the result of this dangerous lifestyle. Women and children may have been responsible for driving game or forging escape routes should the angered and frightened animal have turned on the group.

The pitfalls of group big-game hunting

This focus on a single kind of food source can have predictable consequences. In times of scarcity, the Neanderthals lacked other options. If they had no training or skills to obtain other food sources, then scarce big game translated into scarce Neanderthals. Homo sapiens, on the other hand, may have developed a division of labor between men and women before emerging from Africa 150,000 years after the Neanderthals, equipped with women who knew how to make protective clothing, trap small animals, and collect and prepare seeds and vegetation, and men with advanced weaponry who could efficiently hunt game. In addition, these people may have relied on scavenging as well as hunting to boost their food supply.

Division of labor gave H. sapiens the upper (non-crushing) hand?

The division of labor, which in some societies was reversed or not allocated in the same way between men and women, allowed Homo sapiens to adjust when food was scarce and boom when food was plentiful, or so some researchers now argue. These archaic humans could use their clothes-making skills to handle climate change and their efficient allocation of time resources to bring in food simultaneously from different sources, even when times were tough. Their booming population may have given them the numbers they needed to outcompete the Neanderthals.

…Or maybe not

Some researchers disagree with this hypothesis, suggesting that evidence of a division of labor dates back one or two million years, and there have been some predictable references in the news media to men’s and women’s roles today. One of the authors of the “division of labor” study explicitly cautions that what was beneficial 40,000 years ago isn’t necessarily a guide to what is beneficial today. Traits that provide a competitive edge are after all entirely reliant on context: What’s good in one environment may not necessarily be that helpful in a different set of circumstances.

Going to Hawaii? Watch out for the flesh-eating caterpillars

Flesh-eating caterpillars lurk in Hawaii’s rainforests

Islands can produce some of the strangest evolutionary novelties on the planet. Island-living elephants shrink to tiny sizes, while tortoises grow gigantic. The fate of species on islands is its own specialized study because the only way species can arrive on an island is over the water. Scientists, in the study of island biogeography, focus on how plants, animals, and microbiota end up on the islands where they occur.

What happens after they arrive is apparently anybody’s guess. Islands are unusual because they can lack the stiff competition of mainland ecosystems. Common factors in our daily lives, like ants, can be completely lacking. Because so many pieces of an ecological puzzle are missing on an island, niches remain open for the organisms that do arrive and get a foothold. Animals and plants end up doing things on islands that their kindred are not known to do anywhere else in the world. A recently discovered example is a caterpillar that has broken all the rules of caterpillardom. It eats meat. It hunts its prey. It uses its silk as a weapon. It deliberately camouflages itself with non-caterpillar components. And it’s a brutal killer.

Like a wolf that dives for clams

This particular capterpillar and its four just-discovered relatives reside on one of the most isolated island chains in the world, the Hawaiian archipelago. These islands are well known for evolutionary novelties, and these new species of the genus Hyposmocoma are no different. Well, actually, they’re very different. One scientist has said that discovering the behavior of these larval moths is like discovering a wolf species that dives for clams.

This caterpillar, a tiny, brutal, sneaky killer, creeps up on its prey, an unsuspecting snail resting on a leaf in the Hawaiian rainforest. The caterpillar itself is bound in silk, and it proceeds to spend almost a half hour anchoring the hapless snail to the leaf with more silk. The silk, made of gelatinous proteins, pins the snail by its shell as tightly as a spider wraps its threads around prey.

Once the caterpillar has immobilized its target, preventing the snail from escaping through a fall off of the leaf, the nascent moth emerges from its own silk casing. The snail retreats into its shell, and the caterpillar follows, beginning to feed on the trapped snail, starting with the head. It literally eats the snail alive.

This behavior is extraordinarily unusual for a caterpillar, the juvenile form of moths and butterflies. The vast majority of caterpillar species are vegetarian; of the 150,000 known species, only 200 have been identified as flesh eaters and predators. These few do not use their silks to trap their food, and they don’t eat snails, which are mollusks, targeting instead soft-bodied insects.

Caterpillar divers and adaptive radiation

But the genus Hyposmocoma is known for its diversity. Some of its members dive underwater for food. The interesting thing about the snail-eating caterpillars is that they seem to have radiated through almost all of the Hawaiian islands. The first species was identified on Maui, but since its discovery, researchers have found species on most of the other islands. Evolutionary biologists are intrigued by the many novel aspects of this caterpillar’s life history because it is so unusual for this many unique factors—novel food source, novel hunting technique, novel eating technique—to have evolved in the same species.

Wearing the spoils of capture as camouflage

One other unique thing about this caterpillar’s approach to dinner is its use of decoration. Once the mollusk-eating caterpillar has spent the day dining on escargot, it will attach the snail’s empty shell to its silken casing, along with bits of lichen and other materials, in an apparent attempt to camouflage itself.

%d bloggers like this: