h/t: Moto, Andrew
Tool-using dolphins and living fossils
Well, here’s another putative example of “tool use” that people can debate, but this seems to qualify as the real thing—even given the various and conflicting definitions of animal tools (the one I like best involves carrying an object for future use).
Physorg.com reports that, in Shark Bay in western Australia, bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) have been seen surfacing with a conch shell in their mouths, which they shake. This dislodges any small fish inside the shells, which are promptly nommed by the dolphins. Further, the behavior may be spreading—an example of cultural evolution:
A dolphin “conching” (photo from Phys.org)
It’s not clear whether the dolphins actually herd the fish into the shells to trap them, simply carry empty shells to the surface to capture any fish that may be inside (but how do they know that the shells don’t have the conch inside, which can’t be eaten?), or, as some researchers suggest, set out the shells, open side down, as fish traps to be harvested later.
“Shark Bay” may ring a bell with some of you. It’s not only a World Heritage Site, a marine reserve harboring large numbers of dugongs and dolphins, but also one of the few places on earth where we can see groups of living organisms, cyanobacteria (formerly called “blue-green algae”), that form structures nearly identical to some of the earliest traces of life on earth. These living bacteria form layers of biofilms that trap sediments which, over time, build up into dome-like structures called stromatolites.
You can see living stromatolites at only a few places on Earth, for they require special conditions, especially extremely salty water that precludes grazing animals who would quickly destroy the domes. Here are some stromatolites in Shark Bay:
Some fossil stromatolites, of undoubted biological origin, are 3.5 billion years old: the layers that they form are unmistakable, and absolutely similar to the layers of the modern, life-containing domes. Here’s an ancient stromatolite.
On parasitoid wasps – now, then and in fancy dress
by Matthew Cobb
Darwin once wrote to a friend “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created theIchneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.” These creepily amazing solitary wasps lay eggs in or on other insects; the hatched larvae then proceed to devour their prey from within, generally keeping all the vital functions going while they are about it.
Some of these amazing wasps have recently been captured on video (300 fps!), attacking various Spanish ants that were going about their business. The films form part of a paper by Cees van Achterberg and José Maria Duran published in the open access journal Zookeys.
With incredible dexterity, the tiny wasps (less than 2 mm long) managed to lay eggs in their hymenopteran cousins, just slipping their ovipositor between the plates on the ant’s gaster. At the end of the first film, one of the ants manages to grab her tormentor in mid-air and nom her, as we scientists say. So yes, the ants most definitely know the wasps are there and do their best to avoid been attacked.
The first film shows the wasp Elasmosoma luxemburgense ovipositing in Formica rufibarbis ants. There’s no soundtrack. I happened to be listening to Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater ‘O quam tristis’ when I watched them, which is recommended for a suitably grim accompaniment.
The second film shows Kollasmomsoma sentum attacking Cataglyphis ibericus:
The authors clinically describe the behaviour of four different species of wasp, and their precise adaptations for attacking their prey. Here’s the section on Elasmosoma luxemburgense:
The wasp attacks always come from behind, paralleling their longitudinal axis to those of the ants. When they are less than 1 cm from an ant they dart forward and the fore legs contact the dorsal surface of the metasoma first. Meanwhile the hind legs, arranged in curved shape, are situated to brace the apex of the metasoma (Fig. 2).
Contact with the fore legs is usually followed by hitting of the parasitoid’s head on the host’s metasoma. At this moment the middle and hind legs grasp the metasoma and the wasp folds its wings. The site chosen by the wasp for the initial hit of the fore legs, or the head, is usually the posterior margin of the first gastral segment (T1; Fig. 3), i.e., of a total of 48 hits observed, 44 were on the posterior margin of the first gastral segment (91.7%), three on the posterior margin of the second (6.3%), and one on the posterior margin of the third (2%).
When the hit occurs at the posterior margin of the second or third gastral segments, the wasp climbs onto the metasoma, changing its position to reach the posterior margin of the first gastral segment (Fig. 4).
This locational preference for alighting may be visually stimulated by the differentiated border of the posterior margin of the first gastral segment, enhanced by the characteristic dark stripe behind it. The frame analysis in the film clip suggests that the wasp’s head hits the posterior margin of T1 with the mandibles opened, and that a slight deformation of the suture between T1 and T2 is produced. Presumably, the modified structure of the T1-T2 suture is used by the wasp to secure its grasp. The tarsal modifications of Elasmosoma (vestigial tarsal claws and enlarged pulvillus; Shaw 1985, 2007) may be adaptations to effect this grasping behaviour. In the final arrangement, prior to oviposition, the fore tarsi usually grasp the posterior margin of the first gastral segment, and the hind tibiae and tarsi brace the apex of the metasoma on the fourth gastral segment, with the middle legs positioned near or somewhat posterior to the hind margin of the second gastral segment (Fig. 5).
This arrangement of the legs facilitates the appropriate position of the wasp’s metasoma in order to insert the ovipositor into the posterior area of the last metasomal segment, between the pygidium and the hypopygium, probably through the anus. Poinar (2004) dissected the metasoma of the ant Formica obscuriventris clivia Creighton, 1940, a host of Elasmosomamichaeli Shaw, 2007, and found for the first time the wasp egg “just under the body wall of the ant’s metasoma.”
The existence of parasitoid wasps posed a real problem for people trying to work out what the relationship was between caterpillars, pupae and butterflies/moths. I wrote about this in my book The Egg & Sperm Race (aka Generation in the US):
Johannes Goedaert (1617-1668) was an artist from Middleburg in the Dutch Republic, who often included butterflies and moths on his flower paintings. But as well as representing the striking form and colour of these insects, Goedaert tried to understand their natural history. Throughout his life, Goedaert was obsessed with tracking the transformation from egg to caterpillar to pupa to adult. He carefully collected larvae and caterpillars from the Zeeland fields, brought them home, did his best to find appropriate food to keep them alive, drew the caterpillar, noted when the insect began to pupate, drew the pupa, then waited to see what would emerge. This sometimes took several months, after which he drew the adult that he found fluttering, buzzing or scrabbling around in the container.
In 1662, after 45 years of observations, but with no scientific or academic training, Goedaert published Metamorphosis et Historia Naturalis Insectorum (“The change and natural history of insects”). (…) In 236 pages and 80 hand-coloured plates, Goedaert showed larvae, pupae and adults. In 1667 and 1668, two further volumes followed, containing a further 126 coloured plates. The stunning illustrations in Goedaert’s book, backed up by a series of observations (…) showed there was a link between the two stages of the life-cycle of many insects – the larva (or maggot or caterpillar) and the adult. However, although Goedaert realised there was a consistent relationship between the two stages – for example, each kind of caterpillar produced a specifically shaped pupa which went on to release a specific kind of butterfly – he did not think that they were the same organism with different shapes. Instead, he accepted the generally-held view that the adult was generated from the decay of the caterpillar.
To his surprise, however, Goedaert frequently found that a given kind of caterpillar did not always produce the expected butterfly – sometimes a caterpillar would generate dozens of flies or wasps (“out of one and the same Species of Catterpillars, a Butterfly is produced, and 82 Flyes”). Goedaert was nonplussed by this apparent violation of the systematic transformation of each kind of caterpillar into a specific type of butterfly; he felt that it was “against the usuall course of Nature, that from one and the same Species of Animals, an Offspring of different Species shou’d be gendred”.
We got a similar surprise at the Manchester University Zoology Xmas party in 2007. As usual, the students had to dress up as their favourite animal. Some of the girls came as a caterpillar, which was reasonably impressive:


Reminder: your cat scan is due
Just a reminder: you have two more days to submit your cat scan; the winner gets an autographed hardback of WEIT—if there are ten or more entries, and so far there are about five. If there are fewer entries the winner gets a paperback. Put your kitteh on the scanner: what do you have to lose?
How Ricky Gervais became an atheist
You can’t watch this short but sweet video too often: Ricky Gervais explains how his brother helped him jettison Jesus.
I can’t claim anywhere near this man’s rhetorical brilliance, but we do have one thing in common: we both went from a believer to an atheist in the space of one hour.
This is from the up-and-coming We Are Atheism site. Make your own video and upload it there!
Neanderthals are us– More evidence
by Greg Mayer
Alert reader daveau has drawn my attention to a manuscript (abstract only; BBC story here) posted on Science’s website by Laurent Abi-Rached and others on the genetic evidence for interbreeding between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and earlier Eurasian Homo (Neanderthal man, and a related group, the Denisovans.) Jerry and I have addressed this issue earlier here at WEIT here and here.
The story so far is that study of ancient DNA has shown that Neanderthals contributed a few percent to the nuclear genome of modern Eurasian populations (but not African), and that a previously unknown population of archaic humans, the Denisovans from Siberia, has contributed a slightly higher percentage of the genome of Melanesians. There are two new developments, both discussed by Ann Gibbons in a news article (abstract only) in Science, in which she reports on a conference hosted by Russian researchers held at the fossil sites (including Denisova) in southern Siberia. First, Australian Aborigines, like Melanesians, derive about 5% of their genome from the Denisovans. Second, Abi-Rached and colleagues have looked at three loci involved in the immune response (HLA loci), and found a much higher proportion of Neanderthal/Denisovan contribution at these loci. Over half the alleles had an archaic origin, and they reached frequencies of over 50% in some modern populations.

Abi-Rached et al. attribute this to interbreeding between anatomically modern humans coming from Africa, and the resident archaic populations (Neanderthals/Denisovans) of Eurasia. Why would the immune loci show much stronger influence than the genome as a whole? Immune loci are highly functional, and subject to strong selection. Diversity of alleles is selectively advantageous at immune loci, so that heterozygotes resulting from interbreeding would be favored, and the particular alleles of archaic humans, who had been in the Eurasian environment for a long time, might also be favored.
John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, finds this a plausible interpretation, and favors it himself. But he does raise some cautions. Because these loci are subject to strong selection, some of the alleles may have been maintained in human populations for a long time, without any need for interbreeding to introduce them into anatomically modern humans. And one of the alleles that Abi-Rached et al. think shows archaic influence, HLA-B*73, wasn’t actually found in any of the archaic individuals studied. (This is not as bad as it sounds– HLA-B*73 is closely associated with linked alleles that are in the Denisovan.) He has some other cautions, and his full account is well worth reading.
So where does this leave us? Mostly wanting more data, especially from more archaic individuals, but the conclusion Jerry and I (and John Hawks) came to still stands, and is in fact now slightly firmer: Neanderthals, and Denisovans, are us.
(As an aside, it is unclear to me if the posting by Abi-Rached will eventually appear as a paper in Science or not. It is not one of the posted-just-before-publishing posts, since it has not been formatted for publication, and at nine pages it’s longer than what Science usually publishes. There are also 45 pages of supplemental text, with 26 extra figures– if they think they have a monograph, they should publish a monograph! As John Hawks dryly put it, “bibliographic information not yet available“. Science has had some bad experience lately with posting things they intended to publish, but then things didn’t work out as well as they hoped. I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong here, just that this odd state of not knowing if or when a manuscript will be published is not something to be encouraged.)
Rhino horn thieves foiled!
by Greg Mayer
Jerry has called attention to the problem of theft of rhino horns from museums and other collections in Europe, citing a NY Times piece from Friday. Officials at the Natural History Museum at Tring (Lord Rothschild‘s former private museum) were aware of the problem, and ready for it. Thieves broke into the Museum early Saturday morning, and made off with two horns, but the horns were fakes! As the BBC put it:
Unfortunately for them [the thieves], staff at the Hertfordshire museum were aware of the string of thefts from other museums and auction houses, and had swapped the real rhino horns for carefully crafted fakes, almost indistinguishable from the real thing. And totally worthless.
Here’s one of the afflicted rhinos:

The real horns are safe at the museum. The Associated Press provides a further account.
Rhino horns snatched from museums
Woo harms not only humans, but animals, too. As you may know, many rhinoceros have been killed simply for their horns, which are regarded as aphrodesiacs and curatives in the Far East. (You might also know that rhino horns aren’t bone, but keratin with a calcium core. They are not, as is often believed, composed of hair.)
Now that there are strict bans against exporting rhino horns from Europe, thieves are starting to snap off the horns from museum specimens (see the sad photo of Rosie the rhino below). According to an article in Friday’s New York Times, there have been 30 such thefts this year.
Rosie the rhino, now hornless in the Ipswich Museum (from NYT article)
What surprises me is the value of these horns:
While horns have sold recently for upward of $200,000, the powder, Mr. Lawson said, is reported to fetch £60,000 a kilo (about $45,000 a pound) on the black market — more than gold, heroin or cocaine.
Sadly, the strict ban on exportation from Europe has led to an increase in the slaughter of live rhinos in Africa. As the Times reports, 260 rhinos have been killed this year alone in South Africa; poachers often saw the horns off of live animals and let them bleed to death.
Needless to say, the ground-up keratin horns have no medicinal value.
As for Rosie, they’re not going to leave her hornless:
Museum officials said they debated whether to leave Rosie hornless as a reminder of what had happened, but decided instead to replace her missing horn with an ersatz one.
“We will have a big sign saying, ‘This is a fake,’ ” said Ms. Rudkin, the local council member. “ ‘This is not real. So don’t come and get it.’ ”





