data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Parasitic Wasp Reprograms Its Host Spider 39
Dan writes: "The New York Times has an article about a bizarre Costa Rican spider parasite. This tiny wasp larva forces its host, an orb spider, to do its bidding before killing it. Instead of building a normal round web, the spider spends its last night stringing together a frame. The larva then kills the spider and uses the frame to support its cocoon. The scientist who discovered the behavior still doesn't know how the parasite does it." Since this is an older article, there's probably some more recent information available about this critter.
Larva motto... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Larva motto... (Score:1)
Re:Neat. (Score:1)
Re:Neat. (Score:2, Interesting)
National Georgaphic (Score:2, Informative)
More information here. [nationalgeographic.com]
more pictures (Score:1)
spiders and drugs (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.psychiatry.wustl.edu/Resources/Liter
Since the researchers think that it's a response of spiders to chemicals. Here's the famous spiders on drugs experiment.
http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl5pwall/spiders/spider
Re:spiders and drugs (Score:1)
Yum! (Score:4, Interesting)
Inside the bird, the parasite lays its eggs and dies. The eggs get spread with the bird droppings, which hopefully fall on snail-edible plants, etc...
It's pretty obvious really... (Score:3, Funny)
Toxoplasma gondii and host manipulation (Score:4, Interesting)
This organism has two different hosts in it's life cycle, cats and rats. An infected cat will shed parasites in its feces which are then picked up by rats. The parasites take up residence in the rat until it is eaten by a cat, completing the life cycle.
The parasite takes up residence in various tissues of the rat, including the brain. Interestingly enough, infected rats show behavioral modifications. They become less cautious and more "curious", and may lose their normal aversion to the scent of cat urine -- thus making them easier prey.
Toxoplasma gondii also frequently infects humans, with some estimates suggesting up to half of the population having been exposed. It is dangerous to human fetuses and individuals with deficient immune systems (such as those with AIDS), but healthly carriers are usually asymptomatic.
It is uncertain whether or not the organism produces behavioral changes in humans, but there have been some suggestions that it might. Toxoplasma gondii link [carlzimmer.com].
Hey, maybe that's what I've got! Re:Toxoplasma (Score:1)
Creepy Philosphy Note... & a Practial Applicat (Score:3, Interesting)
Philosophy aside, this could have some real applications. By manipulating basic, instinctual behavior of animals with a chemical application, you could all sorts of things.
For example, in California we have a well known problem with fruit fly infestations. There are two basic ways to deal with them: poison the buggers en masse, or sterilize a batch of males with radiation and release them (apparently, the females will mate only once, so they hook up with the guys shooting blanks and never reproduce - thus eliminating two of the creatures for the price of one). If a chemical could be developed that causes male fruit flies to somehow interrupt their mating behavior (say, do the courtship dance but never consumate the deed) you've essentially combined both techniques. Instead of releasing a few thousand sterile males (an expensive process), you wind up esentially sterilizing any male you expose - potentially many millions.
I just hope Madison Avenue never finds the equivilent formula for human buying behavior. (*GRIN*)
Re:Creepy Philosphy Note... & a Practial Appli (Score:3, Insightful)
Only problem with this is that a *LOT* of research would have to be done before releasing it into the environment. You could affect a lot of other fly species that are very closely related to the fruit fly, but are otherwise harmless to crops.
I'm from Australia and we've learnt our leasons the hard way here. Cane toads are probably our best known stuff up. They were introduced to control another introduced species (a bettle I think) that was eating sugar cane. The Cane toad ended up completely ignore the beetle and eating every native insect it could. Now it's a major pest that is very hard to control.
Re:Creepy Philosphy Note... & a Practial Appli (Score:1)
Vertebrates and Invertebrates have been evolving independently for hundreds of millions of years, yet they still have much in common at the molecular level. A general introduction of behavior-modifying chemicals to the environment could potentially disrupt the behavior of just about any animal in the area.
Also, I see little reason to assume that behavioral poisons would be less expensive than lethal poisons, so where is the advantage in this approach?
The scourge of the cane toad... (Score:2)
Cane beetles (also introduced to Australia) do fly. So the cane toads are pretty useless at killing them.
Instead, they breed enmasse, and are then consumed by both native animals and pets. Cane toads being poisonous, this tends to end the lives of said native animals and pets - the pets are an individual loss and can be coped with, but the native animals dying by eating cane toads is actually threatening the existance of some native species - fresh water crocodiles for example.
Re:Creepy Philosphy Note... & a Practial Appli (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, it wasn't you. It was the grasses (wheat) secreting a chemical (starch) in order to use you (humans) as a weapon (agriculture) in their eons-old war against the trees.
Re:Creepy Philosphy Note... & a Practial Appli (Score:2)
the earth needs plastic.
Evolution? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Evolution? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, "Seems" is the important word. Try reading some Richard Dawkins. I think that'll help straighten you out.
Re:Evolution? (Score:1)
Regarding the silliness of evolution: you think in big steps, and think about design by a Creator. Of course you're entitled to think in this way, but I think you are wrong.
It is quite common in nature that parasites use a host to reproduce in, and the evolutionary advantage is quite straightforward: free food for the larva!
Now all that needs to happen is one spider that gets confused by the [chemicals produced by the] larva, and starts building disorganised webs. That's not design, it's deviance from the default behaviour since the spider is in *big trouble*. When you feel sick as hell, do you feel like cleaning up the house and keeping everything neat and ordered? So there we have the riddle solved. The larva that reproduced in this spider will have a higher chance at survival, and thus will become more widespread in the population. Of course this doesn't happen in one big step (although it could, by chance), but probably in a series of smal incremental increases of "spider disorientation" by the larva.
Why doesn't the wasp-larva make it's own cocoon? Well simply because it's energetically more favourable to use a host when reproducing.
The above comment *is* a simplification, but illustrative enough to make the point clear to a layman like you. You really should do some reading and inform yourself better before commenting on these issues. With comments like these, you just cause darwinists [like myself] to take you less seriously, which is not good for an open and constructive dialog.
Regards,
Meneer de Koekepeer
um, doesn't that cut both ways? (Score:2)
So what is it? Is it "proof of a smart creator" that makes a cool wasp, or "proof of a dumb creator" that makes a susceptible spider?
(Personally, I think a smart creator sets the wheels in motion, turns on all the machines, activates the program, and runs behind the scenes.:)
Not so far fetched (Score:1)
Re:Not so far fetched (Score:1)
Also- brain surgery (lobotomy, anyone?), drugs/alcohol/medications, etc.
Personally I dont think we have souls.. I dont even think we have free will. But that's just my opinion.
-J5K
that's nothing! (Score:2)
some more info (Score:1)