Thanks. The first article has more info, e.g. that those beetles are flightless.
But that makes me suspect that they spend a lot of time on one tree, only pollinating that tree, which would be pointless because there is no exchange of genes.
> To minimize the risk of self-pollination, which can result in inbreeding depression and recessive mutations, the flowers open in the morning and the stigmas are receptive to pollen that is brought to them by foraging beetles throughout the day. When evening comes, the innermost tepals close around the carpel and trap the pollinating beetle. While the tepals are closed, the beetle deposits pollen all over the receptive stigmas. The stigmas then close and the anthers become active, covering the same beetle in fresh pollen so that when the sepals open in the morning, it will fly out and find another flower to pollinate. This precise delay in flower function helps to ensure cross pollination.
That reminds me that people who hear the word for butterfly (Schmetterling) in German for the first time usually think it sounds extremely violent. Ok, then again, "butterfly" sounds slightly disgusting if you think about it. But TIL that they actually have a similar root: the "Schmetter-" doesn't come from smashing, but from "Schmetten", a word derived from the Slavic "smetana" (cream). Apparently butterflies got their name from the popular belief that witches could turn into butterflies to steal milk or cream (and probably also other dairy products?).
I have to say that if we're also talking about wild grasses, my wire fox terrier is also a pollinator. He collects an incredible amount of seeds and burrs during his walkies investigations and I have to pick them out of his fur afterwards (risky because he gets annoyed easily).
My grandpappy told me that if you want a good crop of pawpaws you have to hang a dead cat in the tree. I think dead cats were in greater supply back in his day.
Fascinating flowers for a tree though. Red meat color and odor only a fly could love.
Yeah I've wondered about just really nasty ass stinky fresh manure around the base of each tree. That would attract flies.
Probably a flush of nitrogen at exactly the wrong time tho. Most plants respond to that by pushing excess green growth instead of flowering and fruit set.
The farm next door occasionally grows cauliflower. Like 15 acres of it. When that happens and they do the harvest in the end of August the whole area stinks like rotting brassicas and there's flies everywhere. If I could just replicate that experience in mid-May...
Email me and I can connect you with some. There is a FB group for folks growing them in the NYC area, plus a list of all the parks where they are planted.
The giant arum is another example of beetle pollinated flowers. It smells of manure so attracts manure-loving beetles.
With more traditional pollinators, I've always found that a fascinating example of bee pollination that does not involve the plant taking advantage of the insect drinking its nectar is Ophrys Apifera, which has a distinct bee-shape silhouette and relies on the mating instincts of male bees in order to pollinate.
If it becomes a problem I would imagine that most victim plants will evolve certain defence mechanisms. For example, some insects will simply chew through flowers to reach the nectar stores - so I think in such cases a flower would just evolve a tougher skin, or secrete something that deters insects from doing that.
The earliest angiosperms appeared in the Cretaceous. This is after the appearance of Hymenoptera (Jurassic) and Diptera (Triassic). While a nice story, this needs additional substantiation. An alternative explanation is likelier imo.
The early Hymenoptera were predatory, like wasps still are.
Bees, which feed on pollen and nectar from plant flowers, instead of catching other insects, have evolved much later from wasp-like Hymenoptera, after angiosperms were already widespread.
From your link, the bees are nested within Crabronidae, most of which are predatory wasps, e.g. the beewolves.
So there is no doubt that the immediate ancestors of bees were predatory, like also their more distant ancestors that they share with ants and other kinds of wasps.
Hymenoptera has split early into two branches, one leading to wasps and the other to sawflies.
Most sawflies, as you say, feed on plants. So the question is what kind of food was used by the common ancestor of all Hymenoptera, given that from that ancestor there are two descendant groups, one predatory and one phytophagous (plant-eating).
There is no certain evidence for this, but there are arguments that it is much more likely that the common ancestor was predatory and the sawflies have evolved from that into plant-eating insects.
There are two arguments for this. One is that eating plants is more difficult for animals and all plant-eating animals had to develop special abilities in order to digest plants. Because of this there are a lot of examples among animal groups where the ancestors of a group were predatory, and only some of their descendants have succeeded to transition to feeding on plants.
There are much fewer examples of plant-eating animals that have become predatory again, because once some animals become able to eat plants, they normally have access to a much more abundant source of food than the predatory animals, so reverting to a predatory lifestyle would be disadvantageous. Humans are one of the few exceptions, because their ability to throw weapons at a distance has allowed them to become extremely successful hunters.
The second argument is that Hymenoptera form one of the two branches of Holometabola, the insects with complete metamorphosis. For the orders of insects that belong to the other branch of Holometabola, e.g. for beetles, wherever there is reasonable certainty about the lifestyle of the ancestors, they were also predatory, so it is more likely that the common ancestor of all Holometabola was also predatory.
Right, the whole point of bees as insect pollinators (reflecting that they are recent evolutionary line) is that they are by a healthy margin the most intelligent arthropod. They will inspect then successfully pollinate anything floral over a wide geographic range. Most insect pollinators are instinctually tied to certain species/families.
You mean honeybees? Because there are lots of other (wild) bee species that are very specialized. And they also contradict most of the other things we think we know about bees: they are usually solitary, and they rarely sting (honeybees only do that to protect the hive).
Maybe it's the other way around: humans selected honeybees to "domesticate" because of their versatility (and of course the fact that they produced honey)?
Around my location (southern brazil) there are hundreds of species of stingless bees, living in colonies. Many (most?) produce honey too. I don't dispute that there are also lots of solitary bees. Bees are wonderful and way more diverse than people usually think.
Obviously you can't give them an IQ test but all the data I've seen (and I am no expert here) shows they are possible the smartest arthropod out there. There are of course different species of jumping spider so mileage may vary.
Restricting the word "insects" to hexapods is a modern convention that does not have any basis in etymology.
Aristotle used the word "insects" for all terrestrial arthropods and this was followed for millennia until the last two centuries when someone preferred to use "Insecta" instead of "Hexapoda", without giving any reason for this, and others followed this taxonomy.
Even so, the exact extent of the term "insects" varies between biologists, because some do not include all wingless hexapods under "insects".
In an informal discussion, I do not see any mistake in using the word "insects" with its original meaning from Aristotle, which is also the meaning that can be encountered in a lot of old books. For unambiguous animal classification, the word "hexapods" is preferable.
This is a discussion about animal intelligence. Jumping spiders have a different brain layout than bees, which are formally insects. Other insects are more like the bee than spiders.
So in this case, it matters that spiders are not in fact insects in the strict sense.
Thanks, I never thought about bees like that. They certainly can use many types of flowers, as evidenced by various sorts of honey. Nitpick: some spiders are pretty darn intelligent and even seem to dream when they sleep, apparently.
Note there are various species who're oligolectic meaning they only collect pollen and nectar - and hence pollinate only - a single family or sometimes even single species of plants. Moreover they are usually also better at pollinating than more generalistic species especially honeybees.
Or perhaps all of your thousands of children being in peril, having found themselves on a murderous human, with no obvious path to escape as the gigantic scary human swaths hundreds at a time?
My magnolia is the only thing that seems to attract honeybees, which I rarely see otherwise. The article doesn't seem to justify the "not bees" part, though. I'd imagine bees can pollinate them too.
Magnolia make one of my favorite smells on earth. We have a huge one in front of a house we have moved away from and back to many times. The intoxicating smell when I mow the leaves and seeds beneath it is something I want to keep forever. I collected the red seeds and put them in a bottle with alcohol and I go back and smell it often to remember. The house flooded four days before closing on selling it, so we got more time with the house. We are wrapping that up and we will say goodbye to that old house, and it’s now quite huge magnolia in the front. I never knew the flowers were pollinated by beetles or why the scent smelled like that. I collected seeds last year and cold stratified a bunch all winter in our fridge. I planted them this spring and 7 survived the process and are now growing in red cups in my new house.
Mountain mints are also pollinated by beetles—and a bazillion other critters. They are extraordinary pollinator magnets. Beetles, bees, flies, wasps, mosquitos (!), moths, butterflies, ...
A recent study of just a few mountain mint species (https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2024.2411072) found that they attracted a crazy variety of pollinators. Check the supplementary materials for the full list.
Mosquitoes (which are flies) don’t really deserve the exclamation mark, given that the males of all mosquito species live exclusively on nectar, with the females (of most but not all species) augmenting their diet with animal protein in order to produce eggs.
The long, thin proboscis originally evolved for nectar drinking like in many other insects (and some birds!); its use for sucking animal blood was a later adaptation.
- https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/magnolias-be...
- https://gardens.si.edu/learn/blog/the-botany-of-magnolias/
But that makes me suspect that they spend a lot of time on one tree, only pollinating that tree, which would be pointless because there is no exchange of genes.
> To minimize the risk of self-pollination, which can result in inbreeding depression and recessive mutations, the flowers open in the morning and the stigmas are receptive to pollen that is brought to them by foraging beetles throughout the day. When evening comes, the innermost tepals close around the carpel and trap the pollinating beetle. While the tepals are closed, the beetle deposits pollen all over the receptive stigmas. The stigmas then close and the anthers become active, covering the same beetle in fresh pollen so that when the sepals open in the morning, it will fly out and find another flower to pollinate. This precise delay in flower function helps to ensure cross pollination.
After all, in Europe these butterflies are commonplace, but I've never seen the American bird in my life.
You must have caught it within two or three hours after its arrival.
In the US we have similar hawk moths; the tomato hornworm also looks like a hummingbird when it reaches maturity.
Their moths are important pollinators of some nice native flowers.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy....
I have a couple 100 foot rows of them, it's tricky to get good pollination.
Fascinating flowers for a tree though. Red meat color and odor only a fly could love.
For anyone that’s close, go to the upcoming Ohio Pawpaw festival! https://ohiopawpawfest.com/
Probably a flush of nitrogen at exactly the wrong time tho. Most plants respond to that by pushing excess green growth instead of flowering and fruit set.
Maybe you meant fresher manure.
The farm next door occasionally grows cauliflower. Like 15 acres of it. When that happens and they do the harvest in the end of August the whole area stinks like rotting brassicas and there's flies everywhere. If I could just replicate that experience in mid-May...
Also, southern Ontario.
would not rule out the cash crop farming on both sides of me from doing a number on the insects, though i seem to have plenty overall.
unfortunately an excessive number of japanese beetles
With more traditional pollinators, I've always found that a fascinating example of bee pollination that does not involve the plant taking advantage of the insect drinking its nectar is Ophrys Apifera, which has a distinct bee-shape silhouette and relies on the mating instincts of male bees in order to pollinate.
See https://www.backyardecology.net/not-all-flower-visitors-are-...
Bees, which feed on pollen and nectar from plant flowers, instead of catching other insects, have evolved much later from wasp-like Hymenoptera, after angiosperms were already widespread.
So the timeline fits into the story.
Were they? Sawflies are herbivores, and are at minimum share a common ancestor with those that were not herbivores.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221...
So there is no doubt that the immediate ancestors of bees were predatory, like also their more distant ancestors that they share with ants and other kinds of wasps.
Hymenoptera has split early into two branches, one leading to wasps and the other to sawflies.
Most sawflies, as you say, feed on plants. So the question is what kind of food was used by the common ancestor of all Hymenoptera, given that from that ancestor there are two descendant groups, one predatory and one phytophagous (plant-eating).
There is no certain evidence for this, but there are arguments that it is much more likely that the common ancestor was predatory and the sawflies have evolved from that into plant-eating insects.
There are two arguments for this. One is that eating plants is more difficult for animals and all plant-eating animals had to develop special abilities in order to digest plants. Because of this there are a lot of examples among animal groups where the ancestors of a group were predatory, and only some of their descendants have succeeded to transition to feeding on plants.
There are much fewer examples of plant-eating animals that have become predatory again, because once some animals become able to eat plants, they normally have access to a much more abundant source of food than the predatory animals, so reverting to a predatory lifestyle would be disadvantageous. Humans are one of the few exceptions, because their ability to throw weapons at a distance has allowed them to become extremely successful hunters.
The second argument is that Hymenoptera form one of the two branches of Holometabola, the insects with complete metamorphosis. For the orders of insects that belong to the other branch of Holometabola, e.g. for beetles, wherever there is reasonable certainty about the lifestyle of the ancestors, they were also predatory, so it is more likely that the common ancestor of all Holometabola was also predatory.
Maybe it's the other way around: humans selected honeybees to "domesticate" because of their versatility (and of course the fact that they produced honey)?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3357
Bees' intelligence relies on them being a hive organism.
Aristotle used the word "insects" for all terrestrial arthropods and this was followed for millennia until the last two centuries when someone preferred to use "Insecta" instead of "Hexapoda", without giving any reason for this, and others followed this taxonomy.
Even so, the exact extent of the term "insects" varies between biologists, because some do not include all wingless hexapods under "insects".
In an informal discussion, I do not see any mistake in using the word "insects" with its original meaning from Aristotle, which is also the meaning that can be encountered in a lot of old books. For unambiguous animal classification, the word "hexapods" is preferable.
So in this case, it matters that spiders are not in fact insects in the strict sense.
Quote from above:
> they are by a healthy margin the most intelligent arthropod
Note there are various species who're oligolectic meaning they only collect pollen and nectar - and hence pollinate only - a single family or sometimes even single species of plants. Moreover they are usually also better at pollinating than more generalistic species especially honeybees.
https://imgur.com/a/OAHQCW4
And Equisetum/Horsetail/Schachtelhalm
A recent study of just a few mountain mint species (https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2024.2411072) found that they attracted a crazy variety of pollinators. Check the supplementary materials for the full list.
The long, thin proboscis originally evolved for nectar drinking like in many other insects (and some birds!); its use for sucking animal blood was a later adaptation.