I have covered the ladybird parasitoid Dinocampus coccinellae before. Some recent research, however, has uncovered some fascinating aspects of this little wasp's manipulation of its host behaviour. The parasitoid wasp, below, injects a single egg on a ladybird using its ovipositor (visible in the top photo of a just emerged D. coccinellae).
Graced with a few black spots and a shade of yellow in their underwings, the plain wings of white butterflies contrast with the colourful and rich patterns of other butterflies. Unfortunately, this is a reflection of the limitations of our visual system. Male and female Small White butterflies, Pieris rapae, have different upper wing colours, especially in the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum: males absorb UV strongly but reflect most visible light, so they look a brighter white than females to us, but have a dark tone in the UV spectrum, which we cannot see.
These newborn green shieldbugs, Palomena prasina, look most unlike adults. They have a bright black-red warning colouration in their first instar, for a few days they cluster tightly together on top of their egg shells. After moulting into their second instar they change colour to green and black and they disperse away from their siblings. All shieldbugs, including nymphs have stink glands between the first and second pair of legs. If handled roughly they can release repellent chemicals and they are often brightly marked. But why do these bugs cluster together?For, although with the adult insect the effect of increased distastefulness upon the actions of the predator will be merely to make that individual predator avoid all members of the persecuted species, and so, unless the individual attacked possibly survives, to confer no advantage upon its genotype, with gregarious larvae the effect will certainly be to give the increased protection especially to one particular group of larvae, probably brothers and sisters of the individual attacked. The selective potency of the avoidance of brothers will of course be only half as great as if the individual itself were protected; against this is to be set the fact that it applies to the whole of a possibly numerous broodFisher's hypothesis of kin selected aposematism has been questioned recently. Although aposematic organisms tend to be gregarious, phylogenetic analysis suggest that aposematism evolved before gregariousness, so aposematism makes gregariousness easier to evolve, and not the other way round.
Ectemnius wasps are skilled fly hunters. Not only they hunt flies, but some species specialise in hoverflies, those masters of controlled flight. Like their prey, Ectemnius wasps are able to hover. As their large eyes suggest, they hunt visually and inspect flower patches that hoverflies frequent, hovering a bit, changing body direction, inspecting their terrain thoroughly. Once they detect a hoverfly, they try to approach from behind, and when at about 10 cm they aim and attack. Ectemnius provisions its nest - dug in dead wood - with hoverflies, which will serve as food for its larvae. The adults themselves feed on nectar. I was trying to photograph this digger wasp stalking hover flies, when it came across a male Syritta pipiens. The tiny hoverfly male, which often confronts other hoverfly males on this patch of wild rocket, instead of fleeing, it confronted the wasp, mirroring the predator movements and keeping his distance, both insects hovering perfectly still in front of each other for a few moments. Surprisingly, the wasp did not attack the fly and just moved on. Some insects have been shown to display a stealth strategy called "motion camouflage" by which an individual (the shadower) can conceal its movements to another individual (the shadowee) by maintaning its position in the retina of the shadowee. The shadower then appears as an stationary object from the point of vision of the shadowee. Some male hoverflies (and Syritta pipiens in particular) use this flying strategy to track females undetected and dragonflies use it to avoid being detected when intruding in other territories and it is also suspected to be used by visual insects when approaching prey. A range of models have been developed to simulate this strategy. Unsurprisingly, engineers are developing motion camouflage strategies to be applied to robots, satellites or with military purposes.Motion camouflage can be used by a predator to stealthily pursue the prey, but a motion-camouflage strategy can also be used by the prey to evade a predator. The only difference between the strategy of the predator and the strategy of the evader is that the predator seeks to approach the prey while maintaining motion camouflage, whereas the evader seeks to move away from the predator while maintaining motion camouflage.
The Brown-lipped or Grove snail, Cepaea nemoralis has received a lot of attention by evolutionary biologists for more than a century, due to their strikingly variable shell colour - what is called colour polymorphism. In the decades of the middle of the last century it was a very popular research organism. The shiny shell can be yellow, pink or brown. Over each of these background colours there can be no bands, one band or five bands, and the bands can also be fused and be of variable width. The snail above, which we found yesterday feeding on the fallen leaves on the garden path, is a yellow/one banded one. This polymorphism happens within the same population, but what puzzled biologists was the occurrence of sharp changes in the frequency of colour forms from one population to the next, and these differences seem to persist with time. This phenomenon was called "area effects". Many explanations have been proposed through the years to explain how the polymorphism is maintained and how area effects come to be, from differential predation (especially by song thrushes), adaptation to microhabitat, or other forms of selection to chance effects due to colonization after the glaciations, genetic linkage, dispersal between populations, etc. Many of these factors are not mutually exclusive and seem to have different importance depending on the population.
While removing an old pot containing a lot of grass and a dead Agapanthus, next to a rainwater filled pot, I stumbled upon this little snail. I was quite surprised as initially, I thought it was a pond snail, but closer inspection revealed the tell-tale eyes-on-top-of-tentacles characteristic of land snails and slugs, while aquatic snails have their eyes at the base of their tentacles. After sifting through a Molluscs guide I found out it was a Common Amber Snail, Succinea putris. Although not aquatic, it usually lives near water or in waterlogged habitats, and it is often found on the stems of aquatic plants. It cannot retract its body completely inside the shell, and the lower pair of tentacles is vestigial. I have no idea how this snail got into our garden, but snails, despite being slow and strongly dependent on humidity, are known to disperse widely. In the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin believed birds were the most common long range dispersal agents of snails and other aquatic animals and plants. In 1893, Harry Wallis Kew reviewed the dispersal of land and water molluscs, and discusses the evidence for external transport on the feathers of birds:Sir C. Lyell, remarking on the wide range of Succinea putris, a land-shell which inhabits moist places on the borders of pools and streams suggested that water-fowl might have distributed its ova entangled among their feathers and it seems quite likely that ova of certain terrestrial kinds may be occasionally thus carried, either in the feathers or on the feet of birds; indeed, we have a near approach to proof of such transportal, the Rev. Canon Tristram, as we have seen, having once found ova, believed to be those of a Succinea, upon one of the feet of a mallard shot by him, on the wing, in the desert of Sahara. It is doubtful, however, whether Succinea, from the nature of the localities they often or usually inhabit, ought not, for the present purpose, to be classed with fresh-water, rather than with land-shells. Mr. Darwin suggested that the just-hatched young, possibly, might sometimes crawl upon the feet of ground-roosting birds, and thus get transported; and it certainly seems in the highest degree probable that such is the case, but, as far as I know, no observations in support of such a supposition have yet been made.
A tantalizing possibility, also first put by Darwin, is that of internal transport of organisms in the digestive tract of birds. Many bird species feed on snails, and given that no gastric juices occur in bird's crop, they can potentially survive for a while and maybe be discharged later elsewhere by the bird, or regurgitated by raptor if the bird falls prey to it. Kew stated:
In 1968, Biggs reported on the recovery of a living Succinea putris from a pigeon's crop at least 8 h after the bird had died. Indeed, although it seems even more unlikely, some snails can survive passage through the whole digestive tract of birds provided the shell is more or less unbroken. This has recently been shown to happen to a small estuarine snail, Hydrobia ulvae, which can survive passage through the digestive tract of Shelducks, and also in some small Japanese terrestrial snails, Tornatellides boeningi a proportion of which were recovered alive in the feces of two species of terrestrial bird they had been fed to.Twenty specimens of a Succinea, peculiarly packed together, and four of Pupa viuscornvi were once found by Mr. W. H. Dikes in the crop of a bearded titmouse (Parus biarmicus); all the shells, it is said, were uninjured, but it is not stated that any were observed lo be alive.