Pick and mix 5 – more links to ponder

Another set of links that interested me enough to read (and this week, watch) them all the way through.

 

Interesting (tongue-in-cheek) post about using Ribwort plantain as a garden flower

Jo Cartmell (@watervole) on how to turn your boring lawn into a beautiful wildflower meadow

Gretchen Vögel asks – Where have all the insects gone?

How ploughing and deep tillage methods are harming earthworms worldwide

We have been telling our students for years that one of the advantages of biological control compared with conventional use of pesticides is that prey are unlikely to evolve resistance to natural enemies.  Well, we were wrong – here is a story about a pest weevil that has done just that  – unfortunately behind a pay wall

Insects and ethics – Some very interesting points, but as much as I love insects which I do passionately, I am very happy, that ethically speaking, they are not classified as animals. Research would be impossible. That said, all insects in my garden live a free and happy life and are never knowingly killed, not even if they are on my bean plants 🙂

A nice article about photographing spiders and also mentions ethics

Here Markus Eichhorn writes about the questionable ethical standpoints of some otherwise reputable scientists from the last century

An interactive blog post about global crop diversity and eating habits – quite revealing, try it and see

An interesting and well produced short video that could be useful if you want to explain how sustainable management of tropical forests helps the planet and why you should only buy FSC certified products

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

Arthropod orchids – who’s fooling who?

A few weeks ago I read the first volume of Jocelyn Brooke’s Orchid trilogy, The Military Orchid. I have never been a great fan of orchids, my main experience of them being as ornamental house plants in which context I have always found them ugly, ungainly and obtrusive.

My colleague Lucy’s orchid ‘brightening up’ our communal office kitchen area

‘Artistically displayed’ for sale by an on-line florist – still just as ugly

Jocelyn Brooke’s account of his search for the Military Orchid was however a bit of a revelation.  His obsession with the eponymous orchid reminded me of how I quite liked seeing the first emerging spikes of the common spotted orchid, Dactylorhiza fuchsii appearing in Heronsbrook Meadow at Silwood Park as I returned from my lunchtime run.  A little bit later Jeff Ollerton posted an interesting article about orchid pollination myths and this got me thinking about the common names of our native UK orchids, especially those named after arthropods.

It turns out that there are fewer than I thought; Bee, some varieties of which seem to be called the wasp orchid, the Fly, Lesser butterfly, Greater butterfly, Early spider and Late spider orchid being the lot.  My self-imposed mission was to first find a suitable photograph of each species to see if it did look like its namesake and secondly to identify the main pollinators.  Or to put it another way, exactly what are they mimicking and what or who are they really fooling?  Orchids generally speaking are honest brokers, providing nectar as a resource for pollination services (Nilsson, 1992).  About a quarter of orchid species are however frauds or cheats (Nilsson, 1992), either pretending to be a food source or a receptive female insect, nutritive deceptive or sexually (reproductive) deceptive as the jargon has it (Dafni, 1984).  Ophrys orchids are sexually deceptive (Nilsson 1992).

The Bee Orchid, Ophrys apifera, is pollinated by a solitary mining bee, Eucera longicornis  (Kullenberg, 1950) belonging to a group commonly known as long horned bees, which in the UK is rather uncommon meaning that the Bee Orchid is generally self-pollinated.

The Bee Orchid, Ophrys apiferahttps://thmcf.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bee-orchid-imc-3702.jpg with pollinator Eucera longicornis http://www.bwars.com/bee/apidae/eucera-longicornis

If you look at the female bee, which is what we suppose the flower is mimicking, you can just about convince yourself that there is a slight resemblance between the two.  Insects of course do not see things the same way humans do (Döring et al., 2012) so what we think is almost certainly irrelevant.  That said, it doesn’t actually have to be a particularly good visual mimic for the insects either, as it is the smell that really matters and as long as the flower is the right shape to enable the deceived male to copulate in such a way that the flower is fertilized that is all that matters.   To quote Dafni (1984) “The olfactory specificity allows a high degree of morphological variability because the selective pressures leading to uniformity-as a means for better recognition-are relaxed. When odors become the main means of attraction, they efficiently serve as isolating agents among closely related species

The fly orchid, Ophrys insectiflora, is also sexually deceptive, but despite its common name is pollinated by digger wasps and bees (Kullenberg, 1950; Wolff 1950).

Ophrys insectifera   Fly orchid  By Jörg Hempel, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32968796  with pollinator Argogorytes mystaceus (formerly Gorytes) http://www.bwars.com/category/taxonomic-hierarchy/wasp/crabronidae/nyssoninae/gorytes

Oddly, despite being sexually deceptive it does, at least in my opinion, resemble its pollinators fairly well.

Next up (alphabetically), we have the Lesser Butterfly Orchid, Planthera bifolia, which despite its name is pollinated by night-flying hawk moths,

 

The Lesser Butterfly Orchid, Planthera bifolia.  By © Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4112191 and the two leading pollinators Hyloicus pinastri and Deilephila elpenor.

most commonly by the Pine Hawk Moth, Hyloicus pinastri and the Elephant Hawk Moth, Deilephila elpenor  (Nilsson (1983). These orchids provide a nectar reward, and attract their pollinators by producing a strong scent (Nilsson, 1978) easily detected by humans even at a distance (Tollsten & Bergström, 1989).  As an added extra, the flowers are very light-green and also highly light-reflecting, giving the moths a visual as well as an olfactory signal (Nilsson, 1978).  In terms of shape the flower more closely resembles H. pinastri.

The closely related Greater Butterfly Orchid, Planthera chlorantha is also pollinated by night-flying moths, the two Elephant hawk moths  Deiliphila porcellus and D.elpenor, 

Platanthera chlorantha,  The Greater Butterfly  Orchid https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7795/17960863138_721033c527_b.jpg with hawk moth and Noctuid pollinators.

but mainly by Noctuid moths, most commonly, Apame furva (The Confused) and  A. monoglypha (the Dark Arches) Nilsson (1983).  Although recent video evidence has shown that the Pine Hawk moth also pollinates it (Steen, 2012).  Like the Lesser Butterfly Orchid, the flower only vaguely resembles its pollinators.  The chemicals responsible for the characteristic and intense fragrances of these two closely related orchids differ between the species and is probable that they are linked to the preferences of the different pollinator species (Nilsson, 1978).

Despite its name and suggested resemblance to its namesake, the Early Spider Orchid, Ophrys sphegodes is pollinated by a solitary bee,

Ophrys sphegodes, The Early Spider Orchid

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ophrys_sphegodes_subsp._sphegodes#/media/File:Ophrys_sphegodes_Taubergie%C3%9Fen_22.jpg

Andrena nigroaenea (Schiestl et al. 2000).  The scent of the nectarless flower, closely resembles the female sex pheromone of the bee and fools the male into ‘mating’ with it (Schiestl et al., 2000).  If you allow your imagination to run riot you could possibly just about see the flower as a giant female bee which might act as an extra stimulus for an excited male bee (Gaskett, 2011).

The final arthropod orchid is the Late Spider, Ophrys fuciflora; do be careful how you pronounce it, a soft c might be advisable 🙂

Ophrys fuciflora, the Late Spider orchid and two of its documented pollinators, Eucera longicornis (originally tuberculata) and Phyllopertha horticola.  Orchid Photo by © Pieter C. Brouwer and his Photo Website

As with all Ophrys orchids, they are sexually deceptive and attract male insects to their nectar-free, but highly scented flowers, with the promise of a good time Vereecken et al., 2011).  Most pollination is by solitary bees (Kullenberg, 1950) although the Garden Chafer, Phyllopertha horticola has been recorded as pollinating it in northern France (Tyteca et al., 2006).  Again both pollinators could be said to resemble the flowers to some extent

That concludes my tour of UK arthropod orchids.  Having learnt a lot about other orchids in the last couple of weeks while researching this article it seemed a shame to waste it.  So, as an added bonus, I’m going to finish with a few imaginatively named orchids, the names of which do not refer to their pollinators but rather to the imagination of their human namers.

Orchis anthropophora, The Man Orchid.  Photo by Erwin Meier

This not usually pollinated by sexually-deceived humans but by two beetles, Cantharis rustica (soldier beetle) and Cidnopus pilosus (click beetle) and also by two species of sawfly Tenthredopsis sp. and Arge thoracia (Schatz, 2006).

Orchis simia, The Monkey Orchid. Photo Dimìtar Nàydenov

Again, as with the Man Orchid, the Monkey Orchid, is not pollinated by cruelly deceived anthropoids.  There are, as far as I can discover, only a few confirmed pollinators of O. simia.  They include the beetle C. pillosus, the moth Hemaris fuciformis and some hymenopterans such as honeybees (Schatz, 2006).  According to PlantLife, hybrids of the Man Orchid and Monkey Orchid are called the Missing Link Orchid.

My fellow blogger Jeff Ollerton and his colleagues (Waser et al., 1996), point out that pollination systems are not as specialist as many might think, and even in sexually-deceptive orchids that use pheromone mimics, many of their pollinators can get ‘confused’ and pollinate closely related orchid species.  Hence the existence of what are termed ‘natural hybrids’ such as the Missing Link Orchid and the interesting hybrid between the Fly Orchid and the Woodcock Orchid pictured below.

The hybrid, Fly x Woodcock  Orchid.  Photo Karen Woolley‏ @Wildwingsand

It looks like a belligerent penguin to me, but is of course pollinated by insects.

Often regarded as one of the most bizarrely flowered orchids is the Flying Duck Orchid, Caleana major from Australia.

Flying duck orchid Caleana major (from Australia) sawfly pollinated (Adams & Lawson, 1993).

I was intrigued to notice what appears to be a Cantharid beetle, species of which are known to pollinate other orchids (Schatz, 2006), lurking in the background. There are a number of Cantharids noted as being pollinators in Australia, some of which have been recorded pollinating orchids, although not specifically on Calaena (Armstrong, 1979) so this may be an overlooked pollinator, just waiting to be confirmed by a dedicated pollinator biologist or orchidologist.  There is also, if you wondered, a Small Duck Orchid, Paracaleana minor.

Who would have thought that reading a biography would have started me off on such an interesting paper hunt?  Perhaps the most interesting new bit of information I discovered was that male orchid bees although they attract females with scents, do not produce their own pheromones but collect flower volatiles which they mix with volatiles from other sources like fungi, plant sap and resins (Arriaga-Osnaya et al., 2017).  They use these ‘perfumes’ as part of their competitive courtship behaviour to attract females; the best perfumier wins the lady J

And then you have Dracula vampira….

Dracula vampira (Vampire orchid) – only found in Ecuador (Photo: Eric Hunt, licensed under CC by 3.0).© Eric Hunt.  I hasten to add this is not pollinated by vampires, bats or otherwise.

 

But to finish, here is the one that started it all…

The one that started it all, The Military Orchid, Orchis militaris  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Orchis_militaris_110503a.jpg

 

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Manu Saunders over at Ecology is Not a Dirty Word for sending me a key reference and also to her and Jeff Ollerton for casting critical ‘pre-publication’ eyes over this post.

References

Armstrong, J.A. (1979) Biotic pollination mechanisms in the Australian flora — a review.  New Zealand Journal of Botany, 17, 467-508.

Adams, P.B. & Lawson, S.D. (1993) Pollination in Australian orchids: A critical assessment of the literature 1882-1992.  Australian Journal of Botany, 41, 553-575.

Arriaga-Osnaya, B.J., Contreras-Garduño, J., Espinosa-García, F.J. García-Rodríguez, Y.M.,  Moreno-García, M., Lanz-Mendoza, H., Godínez-Álvarez, H., & Cueva del Castillo, R. (2016) Are body size and volatile blends honest signals in orchid bees? Ecology & Evolution, 7, 3037–3045.

Dafni, A. (1984) Mimicry and deception in pollination.  Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 15, 259-278.

Döring, T.F., Skellern, M., Watts, N., & Cook, S.M. (2012) Colour choice behaviour in the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus (Coleoptera: Nitulidae). Physiological Entomology, 37, 360-368.

Gaskett, A.C. (2011) Orchid pollination by sexual deception: pollinator perspectives. Biological Reviews, 86, 33-75.

Kullenberg, B. (1950) Investigations on the pollination of Ophrys species. Oikos, 2, 1-19.

Nilsson, L.A. (1978) Pollination ecology and adaptation in Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae).  Botaniska Notiser, 131, 35-51.

Nilsson, L.A. (1983) Processes of isolation and introgressive interplay between Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich and P. chlorantha (Custer) Reichb. (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 87, 325-350.

Schatz, B. (2006)  Fine scale distribution of pollinator explains the occurrence of the natural orchid hybrid xOrchis bergoniiEcoscience, 13, 111-118.

Schiestl, F.P., Ayasse, M., Pauklus, H.F., Löfstedt, C., Hansson, B.S., Ibarra, F. & Francke, W. (2000) Sex pheromone mimicry in the eraly spider orchid (Ophrys sphegodes): patterns of hydrocarbons as the key mechanism for pollination by sexual deception.  Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 186, 567-574.

Steen, R. (2012) Pollination of Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae): new video registration of a hawkmoth (Sphingidae). Nordic Journal of Botany, 30, 623-626.

Tollsten, L. & Bergström, J. (1989) variation and post-pollination changes in floral odours released by Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany, 9, 359-362.

Tyteca, D., Rois, A.S. & Vereecken, N.J. (2006) Observations on the pollination of Oprys fuciflora by pseudo-copulation males of Phyllopertha horticola in northern France. Journal Europäischer Orchideen, 38, 203-214.

Vereecken, N.J., Streinzer, M., Ayasse, M., Spaethe, J., Paulus, H.F., Stökl, J., Cortis, P. & Schiestl, F.P. (2011) Integrating past and present studies on Ophrys pollination – a comment on Bradshaw et al. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 165, 329-335.

Waser , N.M., Chittka, L., Price, M.V., Williams, N.M. & Ollerton, J. (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology, 77, 1043-1060.

Wolf, T. (1950) Pollination and fertilization of the Fly Ophrys, Ophrys Insectifera L. in Allindelille Fredskov, Denmark. Oikos, 2, 20-59.

 

8 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Science writing

Pick and mix 4 – more links to ponder

I found these interesting, perhaps some of you will?

 

Interesting post on urban re-wilding

From a couple of years ago, but if you ever wondered how Drosophila became a model organism then read this

How the noise natural gas extraction machines make can affect insect abundance

A nice easy to read post to help make non-entomologists realise the importance of insects and how abundant they are

The Backwinter – A lyrical account of a cold snap in London and its effect on insect and plant emergence by Emma Maund

A timely reminder that there is a lot of genetic material in the wild that can help our domesticated crops taste better

If you wondered what they really ate in the middle ages wonder no longer

An interesting read about an early collector of curiosities Ole Worm’s Cabinet of Wonder: Natural Specimens and Wondrous Monsters

If you are a fan of spring flowers this post from Alice Hunter is a must read/see

Ray Cannon on the tale of a tail 🙂

 

3 Comments

Filed under Pick and mix

Pick and mix 3 – another set of eclectic links

Another ten links to stuff I found intersting reading

After last week’s many Marches for Science, Timothy Caulfield on why we need “agenda free science

Check out these great images from Dynamic Ecology also celebrating March for Science

Did you know that some beekeepers not only name their Queens but keep a ‘family tree’; also some great photos

Some musings on what you can see if you stand still long enough from Loose and Leafy

An excellent summary from Terry McGlynn on writing good peer reviews

Interesting study from the USA showing that although fungicide residues made up more than 90% of the pesticides found in pollen insecticides posed the most risk

An interesting review paper on how the scent of predators is interpreted by their potential prey, sometimes fatally.  Warning for entomologists, many vertebrate examples given 🙂

For those interested in forest and woodland ecology – here is how to make a middle-aged wood into an ancient one

Amy Hahs on how to bring biodiversity back into cities

As someone who has had some papers rejected multiple times this joint post by Stephen Heard and Andrew Hendry on why multiple rejections are not a sign of poor quality made heartening reading

 

4 Comments

Filed under Pick and mix

Typos, typos everywhere – a call for the return of human copy editors and better proof reading

When I first started writing and publishing papers, publishers employed copy editors who checked pre-publication proofs for accuracy, style and grammar.  Authors had limited access to computer spell checkers, using print dictionaries instead and were supposed to check their proofs rigorously.   Nowadays, copy and style editors are mythical beasts, and we all suffer from the tyranny of the dreaded auto-correct.  The advent of automated copy editing and computerised spell checking has had a serious effect on the levels of exasperation in the Leather household. My wife, a former Editorial Assistant and copy editor*, and I find that we are increasingly drawing each other’s attention to glaring grammatical and typographical errors in the novels we read; baited breath when the author (I hope) meant bated, need instead of knead, dependent instead of dependant, principle instead of principal, effect when affect is meant and vice versa, etymology instead of entomology (oh heinous sin) and once to my total disbelief, dough instead of dhow!  And don’t even get me started on the greengrocer’s apostrophe!

It wouldn’t be so bad if this were confined to fiction but every now and increasingly then, I find something in a scientific paper or a grant proposal that makes me cringe and sigh despairingly (and not always quietly).

A high proportion of grant proposals and cvs that I see, use Principle Investigator instead of Principal Investigator.  I am happy that PIs are principled but just wish that they were a little bit more grammatically knowledgeable 🙂 That said, it is not just scientists who have a problem with the difference between principle and principal.

But, back to the reason I was stimulated to write this post.  I recently read a paper in Nature Communications, and was stunned by the appalling state of the references.  How these got past the copy editor (if there was one) and authors I have no idea.  Nature Communications is regarded as a high impact journal, in its own words publishing “high quality research” so one might expect and hope their production values to be equally high.

Author fatigue and Copy Editor failure!

 As a renowned senior scientist of my acquaintance (Professor Helmut van Emden if you wondered) once remarked during a PhD viva, “if you can’t be bothered to check your references for accuracy, how am I supposed to believe you collected your data and analysed it any more carefully?”  What particularly upset/disappointed me about the paper above was that two of the authors are former students of mine and have had the Van Emden adage related to them more than once!

To be fair, I too am not immune to letting the odd typo slip past my eagle eye.  Shortly after an editorial of mine was published (Leather, 2017) I received an email which I reproduce in full below.

Dear Prof. Leather

 I have just come across your recent editorial in Annals of Applied Biology.  Despite a few typographical errors (spelling of my name and a hanging reference to the “former” when the former is not clear), I could not agree more with your message, and I am honored that you chose my work on weed suppression as an example of the gap that needs to be closed.  Your description of the situation with respect to our research was right on target. I was also very impressed by the quotation from Benjamin Walsh, which is just as relevant today as it was back in 1866.

 The problem exists in both directions.  Basic researchers can be snobs who look down on applied research. But applied researchers often react to this by responding negatively to relevant basic research.  J.L. Harper often said that the distinction between basic and applied research is artificial, but there is clearly a cultural “gap”.

 With best wishes from Copenhagen

Jacob Weiner

On being reminded, very politely, that no matter how senior we are we are neither perfect nor infallible 🙂

The misspelled reference duly corrected, albeit after the fact.

Reference

Leather S.R. (2017) Mind the gap: time to make sure that scientists and practitioners are on the same page.  Annals of Applied Biology 170: 1-3

*Those of you whom had papers published in Ecological Entomology between 1996 and 2003 will have experienced her ferocious red pen 🙂

 

8 Comments

Filed under Bugbears

Pick and mix 2 – more eclectic links

Ten more links to peruse or not.

Not just British hedgehogs, but French hedgehogs are also on the decline

If you are a lover of Wisteria then this is definitely for you

A very thoughtful piece from Terry McGlynn on the ethical and moral stances that scientists take

Here is a report of a workshop run by an ex-PhD student of mine to discuss the future of farming insects for food in the UK

A really interesting paper describing how competition between two parasitic wasps can be influenced by the presence of an endosymbiont

Here is a paper of great relevance to farmers and policy makers but as usual has been published in a high impact journal that farmers and agronomists won’t read; as scientists we have to be more open to publishing in ‘lower scientific impact’ venues but that have a high impact in the real world

BioMed Central highlighting ways in which food crops might be protected against drought caused by climate change

According to Sir John Marsh the future of the countryside depends on economics

Chris Sandbrook asks what is meant by biodiversity in a conservation context

Like Manu Saunders I am a great believer in having others read my papers before submission, their chances of getting through the peer review process relatively unscathed are much improved

Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

Small and frequently overlooked, but without them we could not exist

Without them, we would find the world a very different place, that is if we were still alive.  Yet very few people give them a thought, and then usually only to dismiss them or castigate them for impinging on our comfortable lives. Animals without backbones, the micro-flora and fauna, are what keep the world a place in which we can make a living.  Politicians however, and many others of our fellow travellers on this fragile planet, seem unaware of their importance.  Donald Trump rescinds environmental protection laws as if they are a hindrance to humankind rather than a boon, BREXIT politicians and their supporters in the UK extol the virtues of escaping from those silly EU environmental laws that prevent them from polluting our beaches and rivers and making our air unbreathable. We all need to take a step back and adjust our vision so that we can appreciate the little things that run the world and understand that despite our size, our abundance and our apparent dominance, that we too are a part of nature.

I and many others have written about this topic on many occasions but it is a message that bears repetition again and again.  I leave you with the passage that stimulated my latest rant and a few links to similar pieces.

“In terms of size, mammals are an anomaly, as the vast majority of the world’s existing animal species are snail-sized or smaller.  It’s almost as if, regardless of your kingdom, the smaller your size and the earlier your place on the tree of life, the more critical is your niche on Earth; snails and worms create soil, and blue-green algae create oxygen; mammals seem comparatively dispensable; the result of the random path of evolution over a luxurious amount of time.”

Elizabeth Tova Bailey  (2010)  – The Sound of a Wild Snail Eating

Here are a few links to give you food for thought and to inspire you to find more of the same.

Michael Samways  Small animals rule the world. We need to stop destroying them

E O Wilson (1987) The little things that rule the world

Gregory Mueller & John Schmidt (2007) on why we should know more about fungi

Robert May (2009) Ecological science and tomorrow’s world

Mark Gessner and colleagues (2010) on the importance of decomposers

Anders Dahlberg and colleagues (2010) on why we should conserve fungi

Anne Maczulak (2010) on the importance of bacteria

Me complaining about plastic and other environmental dangers

Me again, this time about conserving small things

Sorry, but me again, this time about appreciating nature

and from Gerald Durrell, who was a great inspiration to me through his various writings…

And finally, If you haven’t read this, then I can certainly recommend it:

Ehrlich, P.  & Ehrlich, A. (1981) Extinction, Random House, New York.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Bugbears

Pick and mix – eclectic links to stuff that caught my interest last week

Hopefully some of these links may be of interest to some of you.

 

Scientists, admittedly probably not all, can appreciate and enjoy poetry, as Stephen Heard points out here

On the Death’s Head Hawkmoth as a honey thief

For those of you who like France, bees and might be considering becoming beekeepers

On the value of native trees and shrubs for wildlife

On a similar vein, here is a paper about the value of native trees for insectivorous birds

More evidence of the importance of biodiversity for ecosystem functioning

The Journal of Biogeography celebrates the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Theory of Island biogeography by posing fifty fundamental questions that might take the discipline further forward

Another one from one of my favourite French sites, this time on the beauties of mosses and lichens

A French farmer asks for help from politicians using an ingenious message board

Over on Dynamic Ecology Jeremy Fox asks if you can think of any successful ecological models based on loose physical analogies?

And finally, announcing the launch of Pantheon, the tool to help you analyse your invertebrate species samples

 

2 Comments

Filed under Pick and mix

Sloth Moths – moving faster than their hosts

One of the minor downsides of our Biology and Taxonomy of Insects module on the MSc course is, that we do have to review a lot of families within some of the groups, Lepidoptera being a prime example.  Current estimates range from 250 000 to 500 000 species in 124 families (Kristensen et al., 2007). Going through the basic biology of each family can be pretty dry stuff, even if I have a personal anecdote or two to help lighten information overload.  I am, for example, able to wax lyrical for several minutes about small ermine moths and their incredible silk-production activities, but even after more than 40 years of playing around with insects I don’t have a personal story for every family of Lepidoptera 🙂 so I am always on the lookout for an extra interesting or mind-blowing fact to help leaven the student’s knowledge diet.

Imagine my delight then when I came across a clip* from a BBC One Wildlife programme, Ingenious Animals, describing an obligate association between sloths and moths and not just because of the rhyming opportunity** 🙂

Sloth with moths – BBC One Ingenious Animals

The earliest record of a moth associated with a sloth that I have been able to find is in 1877 (Westwood, 1877) which merely records that the unidentified moth was “parasitic on the three-toed sloth”. In 1908 a Mr August Busck on a visit to Panama saw a two-toed sloth, Choloepus hoffmanni fall from a tree and noticed several moths flying out of the sloth’s fur.  He caught these and on his return to the United States presented them to Dr Harrison Dyar (Dyar, 1908a).  If the name seems familiar to you that is because Harrison Dyar is better known in connection with Dyar’s Law, the observation that larval growth in arthropods is predictable and follows a geometric progression (Dyar, 1890). The moths were identified by Dyar as a new species which he named Cryptoses choloepi.  Dyar hypothesised that the moths and their larvae lived in the fur of the sloth and it was this that caused the sloth’s matted hair.

Cryptoses choloepi (Lepidoptera, Chrysauginae)

http://nmnh.typepad.com/department_of_entomology/2014/03/sloths-moths-and-algae-whos-eating-whom.html

Shortly after publishing the first note Dyar came across two more moth specimens, this time collected from a sloth in Costa Rica.  He felt that these were another species, possibly Bradipodicola hahneli (Dyar, 1908b).  The next mention of a sloth moth that I could fine is in a marvellously titled paper (Tate, 1931) who refers to a moth shot in western Ecuador whose fur was “literally alive with a small species of moth, whose larvae possibly fed on the greenish algae which grew in the hair”.  The idea that sloth moths fed on the fur of living sloths was further reinforced by Brues (1936) although this was not based on any personal observations.  It was only in 1976 that it was discovered that the larvae of the sloth moth Cryptoses choloepi were actually coprophagous (Waage & Montgomery, 1976), the female moths waiting for the three-toes sloth B. infuscatus to descend from the trees to relive their bowels, which they do about once a week.  As an aside, I have known Jeff Waage for many years in his role as a biological control expert but until I discovered this paper about a month ago, had no idea that he had ever spent time inspecting sloth faeces 🙂  Jeff and his co-author Gene Montgomery, described the association between the moths and the sloths as phoretic, rather than parasitic, as they saw no harm being caused to the sloths, but a number of benefits accruing to the moths, namely oviposition-site location being simplified, the fur of the sloth acting as refuge from avian predators and diet enhancement from sloth secretions (Waage, 1980).  It turns out however, that some species of sloth moth do spend their whole life cycle on the sloth, B. hahneli lose their wings once a sloth host is found and their eggs are laid in the fur of the sloth (Greenfield, 1981).  The algae that these moths presumably feed on is considered to be in a symbiotic association with the sloths, providing camouflage and possibly nutrition in the form of trace elements (Gilmore et al., 2001).  Hereby lies a tale.  The two-toed sloths have a much wider diet and home range than three-toed sloths and also defecate from the trees, unlike the three-toed sloths which have a very narrow diet (entirely leaves) and narrow home ranges, yet descend from the relative safety of the forest canopy to defecate, albeit only once a week, but still a risky undertaking (Pauli et al., 2017).  Rather than a phoretic relationship Pauli and colleagues see the relationship between sloths, algae and moths as a three-way mutualism, beautifully summarised in their Figure 3.

Postulated linked mutualisms (þ) among sloths, moths and algae: (a) sloths descend their tree to defecate, and deliver gravid female sloth moths (þ) to oviposition sites in their dung; (b) larval moths are copraphagous and as adults seek sloths in the canopy; (c) moths represent portals for nutrients, and via decomposition and mineralization by detritivores increase inorganic nitrogen levels in sloth fur, which fuels algal (þ) growth, and (d ) sloths (þ) then consume these algae-gardens, presumably to augment their limited diet. This figure brazenly ‘borrowed’ from Pauli et al. 2014).

The sloths take the risk of increased predation by descending to ground level, because by helping the moths they improve their own nutrition and hence their fitness.  Yet another great example of the wonders of the natural world.

 

Post script

Although not as exotic as the sloth moth, we in the UK can also lay claim to a coprophagous moth, Aglossa pinguinalis, the Large Tabby which feeds on, among other things, sheep dung.  In Spain it is recorded as a cave dweller feeding almost entirely on animal dung, apparently not being too fussy as to the source.

 

References

Bradley, J.D. (1982) Two new species of moths (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae, Chrysauginae) associated with the three-toed sloth (Bradypus spp.) in South America.  Acta Amazonica, 12, 649-656.

Brues, C.T. (1936) Aberrant feeding behaviour among insects and its bearing on the development of specialized food habits.  Quarterly Review of Biology, 11, 305-319.

Dyar, H.G. (1890) The number of molts of lepidopterous larvae. Psyche, 5, 420–422.

Dyar, H.G. (1908a) A pyralid inhabiting the fur of the living sloth.  Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 9, 169-170.

Dyar, H.H. (1908b) A further note on the sloth moth. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 10, 81-82.

Dyar, H.G. (1912) More about the sloth moth. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 14, 142-144.

Gilmore, D.PP., Da Costa, C.P. & Duarte, D.P.F. (2001) Sloth biology: an update on their physiological ecology, behaviour and role as vectors of arthropods and arboviruses.  Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 34, 9-25.

Greenfield, M.D. (1981) Moth sex pheromones: an evolutionary perspective.  The Florida Entomologist, 64, 4-17.

Kristensen, N., Scoble, M.J. & Karsholt, O. (2007)  Lepidoptera phylogeny and systematics: the state of inventorying moth and butterfly diversity.  Zootaxa, 1668, 699-747.

Pauli, J.N., Mendoza, J.E., Steffan, S.A., Carey, C.C., Weimer, P.J. & Peery, M.Z. (2014) A syndrome of mutualism reinfocrs the lifestyle of a sloth.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281, 20133006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3006.

Pinero, F.S. & Lopez, F.J.P. (1998) Coprophagy in Lepidoptera: observational and experimental evidence in the pyralid moth Aglossa pinguinalisJournal of Zoology London, 244, 357-362.

Tate, G.H.H. (1931) Random observations on habits of South American mammals.  Journal of Mammalogy, 12, 248-256.

Waage, J.K. (1980) Sloth moths and other zoophilous Lepidoptera.  Proceedings of the British Entomological and Natural History Society, 13, 73-74.

Waage, J.K. & Montgomery, G.G. (1976) Crytopses choloepi: a coprophagous moth that lives on a sloth.  Science, 193, 157-158.

Westwood, J.O. (1877) XXVIII. Entomological Notes.  Transactions of the Entomological Society, 25, 431-439.

 

*For the clip about the sloth moth see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04840xn

**Now, when I see a sloth,

My first thought is for the moth,

That has to make that desperate jump

When the sloth decides to take a dump!

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized

Ladybird, ladybug or Alder warbler

Insects with common names are usually those that are notable in some way, be that because they are causing us harm or are beautiful, brightly coloured and give us joy.  Vernacular names for agricultural pest insects usually refer to the crop they are harming, such as the grain aphid, the apple moth, the large pine weevil.  For non-pests however, names appear more arbitrary.  One of the most well-known and loved insect, is the ladybird, or if you are from North America, the ladybug.  These are not, however, the only names that these useful animals have acquired since they first attracted human attention.  They have, over the centuries, acquired a wonderful variety of names around the world.o start with, you may well ask why they have the prefix lady.  In England they were originally called “Our Lady’s bird”.  Leaving aside the mystery of why they were called birds, the first part of the name referred to the fact that the most commonly noticed ladybirds are red (albeit with white or black spots), and in the Middle ages images of the Virgin Mary usually showed her in a red dress.  Another linkage to the Virgin Mary is that the most commonly seen ladybird is the seven spot ladybird (Coccinella septempunctata), and this was associated with the Seven Joys and the Seven Sorrows of Mary.

 

The association with Mary is also seen in Spanish, mariquita, meaning little Mary and in German Marienkäfer, Mary’s beetle.  The reference to the colour red is reflected in the fact that ladybirds belong to the family Coccinellidae which comes from the Latin for scarlet, coccineus, see also cochineal.

Other languages also make reference to the Virgin Mary, in Bosnian, as in German, they are called Mary’s beetle, bubamara.  The Basuques, as far as I can make out with the help of Google Translate, refer to them as Mary’s yolk, marigorringoa. The religious association is also seen in Dutch, lieveheersbeestje which means  the Lord’s sweet little creature.  The Russians call ladybirds Божья коровка [bozhya korovka] which translates to God’s little cow. Lithuanians have two names for ladybirds, Dievo karvytė  God’s cow  but also call them boružė .  The Welsh have lost the religious reference and instead refer to ladybirds as red cows, buwch goch gota. The Greeks make a religious link with a reference to Easter, pashalitsa (Easter is Pasha), but also refer to it as “kind of beetle with fine plumage (feathers)”, είδος κάνθαρου με ωραία πτερά.  The Portuguese have opted for joaninha (ninha means baby), whereas the Slovenians and Slovaks have homed in on the spots, ladybird being pikapolonica (pika is dot) and slunéčko sedmitečné  (sedmit is seven) respectively. The Bulgarians call them калинка (kalinka) but the Finns take the prize for the most obscure name, with Leppäkerttu, which literally translated means alder warbler 🙂

It seems apposite, that as in Finnish they apparently sing,  I should include these two rhymes; one that most of us have come across in some form or other

 

and one from Sweden that will probably be less familiar to English speakers, but which similarly exhorts the ladybird to fly away and at the same time introduces yet another feathered name for the ladybird.

Guld-höna, guld-ko!
Flyg öster, flyg vester,
Dit du flyger der bor din älskade!

Gold-hen, gold-cow!
Fly east, fly west,
You’ll fly to where your sweetheart lives.

 

A gold cow with wings – Kamadhenu  a wish-fulfilling Hindu goddess

In Hindi, ladybirds are called sonapankhi, or golden wings and are associated with passing or failing exams, depending on whether it stays on your hand long enough for you to count the spots or not.

And finally, to prove that not all verse about ladybirds is doggerel, this poem by the poet Clive Sansom captures both the beauty and fragility of nature.

The Ladybird

Tiniest of turtles!
Your shining back
Is a shell of orange
With spots of black.

How trustingly you walk
Across this land
Of hairgrass and hollows
That is my hand.

Your small wire legs,
So frail, so thin,
Their touch is swansdown
Upon my skin.

There! break out
Your wings and fly:
No tenderer creature
Beneath the sky.

3 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized