[HN Gopher] Insect memories may not survive metamorphosis
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Insect memories may not survive metamorphosis
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 147 points
       Date   : 2023-07-27 10:28 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | So from the insect's perspective, this is like dying?
        
         | pfdietz wrote:
         | I have no clear conception of what "the insect's perspective"
         | is.
        
         | rf15 wrote:
         | Now I wonder what it's like for sea stars and sea urchins as
         | they grow from their larval bilateral symmetry to the adult
         | 5-way version, in which everything is also
         | reabsorbed/rearranged to an absurd degree.
        
           | mannykannot wrote:
           | It is extremely unlikely that these animals have any sense of
           | self, in which case they would be completely unaware of
           | what's happening to themselves.
        
             | _Microft wrote:
             | Why is it unlikely in your opinion?
        
               | simonh wrote:
               | There's been a lot of research on self identification in
               | many species. One paper I'm aware of did an analysis of
               | 50 years worth of research on over 30 species. So we have
               | a fairly decent idea about the development of theory of
               | mind and self identification in animals. For example self
               | identification has only been found in social animals, and
               | lacking in all the solitary animals studied.
               | 
               | It seems like there's a progression from simple organisms
               | with sense/response behaviour but little or no cognitive
               | modelling of the environment. Then organisms that can
               | model and reason about their environment in fairly
               | sophisticated ways. Then some animals develop the ability
               | to model the knowledge, intentions and responses of other
               | creatures. That's what evolutionary psychologists call
               | theory of mind.
               | 
               | Finally there's development of a sense of self, and then
               | further on the ability to reason about one's own
               | thoughts, motivations, intentions and cognitive
               | abilities, and act to change those. That's us. It's a
               | continuum though, with various species at different
               | points along the line.
        
               | quonn wrote:
               | It's unlikely because decades of experiments suggest so
               | and also because it's unlikely that animals with a very
               | basic neural system can have a sense of self. The burden
               | of proof is on those claiming differently.
        
               | guerrilla wrote:
               | The burden of proof is on anyone claiming anything
               | because the polarity of propositions is irrelevant to
               | standards of proof, which is why you brought up the
               | studies, because you know that intuitively if not
               | formally.
        
               | adammarples wrote:
               | That's seems backwards. Everything is highly unlikely, a
               | priori. To say that something isn't unlikely is the
               | assertion which requires evidence.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | quonn wrote:
         | I would say, subjectively yes, but these insects are incapable
         | of worrying about that. Furthermore, biologically not quite,
         | because they can reproduce with 100% their original DNA
         | afterwards (unlike offspring which has less and less overlap).
        
           | MrBodangles wrote:
           | Has it even been proven that insects retain "memories" as we
           | know them? The question always leads back to 1 of 2 options.
           | 1) insects are biological robots and their "instinct" is akin
           | to a program executing code based on the I/O of their senses,
           | or 2) the information required to perform their "instinctual"
           | actions is carried genetically.
           | 
           | Option 1 has significant implications for humanity; are we
           | just more complex machines who believe we're different (due
           | to a complexity beyond our understanding), but are ultimately
           | just deterministically executing code like a spider? Are we
           | genetically/chemically pre-determined to learn, think, feel
           | and decay the way we do based on the I/O of our lives, and
           | everything we've ever done would be repeated identically if
           | we were rebooted and exposed to the exact same I/O (down to
           | the planck unit).
           | 
           | Option 2 indicates more of an inherent "free will"... but
           | even then, are the memories just a more complex form of
           | input, but still inescapably deterministic.
           | 
           | Personally, I believe in determinism -- that another universe
           | which started in the EXACT same way (down to the most
           | miniscule detail), exposed to the exact sane external forces
           | (if any) would lead through the EXACT same events to the
           | EXACT same end.
        
             | andrewflnr wrote:
             | Your 1) and 2) both describe biobots, and neither
             | description relates to memory.
        
       | getarofilter wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | bennyschmidt wrote:
       | > Insect memories
       | 
       | That time a flea saw the Eiffel Tower - gone.
        
       | wonderwonder wrote:
       | As a lay person, Metamorphosis is the strangest biological
       | process I am aware of. Somehow they have evolved to almost
       | completely break down and then reform as a new creature. How did
       | something like this even come to be? Just a fascinating process
       | that I struggle to understand. Insects, specifically social
       | insect as a whole are just incredibly interesting to me as far as
       | how completely alien they are to us.
        
         | sandworm101 wrote:
         | Human embryos go through some crazy changes too. Parts grow and
         | are reabsorbed (tails). Many animals also shed hard
         | exoskeletons regularly (lobsters, spiders). That involves
         | softening up the inner animal. Perhaps that was a part-way step
         | towards full metomorphosis.
        
           | usrusr wrote:
           | Another interesting perspective is to look at it not as a
           | more elaborate form of exoskeleton shedding, but as hatching
           | from a very sophisticated egg.
        
             | derefr wrote:
             | Or as similar to a two-generation-cycle parasite that
             | alternates between a host-A form creating eggs that grow
             | into a host-B form (creating eggs that grow into a host-A
             | form, etc.)
             | 
             | The pupa internally "gestates" the adult as a
             | parthenogenetic clone-child; the adult being gestated,
             | _absorbs_ the pupal parent 's entire body for nutrients --
             | and, crucially, the pupal parent's body _allows_ this
             | absorption of its entire body, producing no immune response
             | to it, because they have the same DNA. As with a cyclic
             | parasite, you get two different complete lifecycles, that
             | are each born, live, and die from the same genetic program,
             | given a different epigenetic kickstart, in a back-and-forth
             | cycle.
        
               | cvwright wrote:
               | This sounds strangely similar to the code for the Morris
               | worm.
        
         | alserio wrote:
         | In a sense organizing tissues is the thing multicellular life
         | does.
        
         | simonh wrote:
         | I think the hypothesis is that it started as a delay in the
         | internal development of wings. This split the creatures life
         | cycle into a pre-winged feeding stage and a post-winged adult
         | breeding stage.
         | 
         | The possession of wings in the later stage created a very
         | different environmental situation, so the selective pressures
         | on the winged stage are very different from those in the pre
         | winged stage. These cause a split in the evolutionary
         | environment of pre and post winged stages, causing selection
         | for further divergent trait acquisition in the transitional
         | stage during wing development.
         | 
         | Not an entomologist though, so if anyone has a better
         | understanding I'd be grateful.
        
           | chrisco255 wrote:
           | Frogs go through this process too though, and they don't have
           | wings.
        
             | Tagbert wrote:
             | Frogs seem to have a delayed Ontogeny, too, but the
             | restructuring is much less drastic than insects.
             | 
             | Vertebrates go through several stages in their development
             | while in the egg (or placental sack, which stands in for
             | the egg). The develop a head, spine, and tail initially.
             | Then they add front limbs and finally rear limbs. Frogs
             | hatch from their eggs prior to the limb development stage
             | and retain that neotenous legless form while tadpoles. They
             | are essentially hatched as embryos and don't assume their
             | adult form until later.
        
             | wonderwonder wrote:
             | Frogs are strange too, but not as odd as insects at least
             | to me. Frogs almost seem to just pause growth and then
             | resume it. Definitely interesting as well though.
        
               | afavour wrote:
               | > pause growth and then resume it
               | 
               | Which shouldn't feel so alien to us because human
               | childhoods are a period of much slower growth than you
               | see in other animals. Not a pause but still. IIRC it's
               | speculated that slowed growth is to give time for the
               | brain to mature and to learn but either way it's
               | interesting to think about. If we grew the way dogs and
               | cows do we'd be fully grown by around 10 years old.
        
               | wonderwonder wrote:
               | You are right, and I am hard pressed to think of anything
               | scarier than a pack 10 year olds with the strength of a
               | man. Society may have taken an interesting direction.
        
             | simonh wrote:
             | Sure, the reasons why some creatures evolved this sort of
             | behaviour could be different to others. I was specifically
             | talking about Endopterygota.
        
             | Earw0rm wrote:
             | Not entirely - they change shape certainly, but don't
             | encapsulate and rework almost their entire organ system to
             | do so. Insect metamorphosis is far more drastic.
        
           | omginternets wrote:
           | It also prevents adult insects from competing with juveniles.
        
         | xwdv wrote:
         | Someday, I predict humans will be able to undergo a similar
         | process. Our main obstacle is building a suitable cocoon
         | structure that could hold a human for the duration of the
         | metamorphosis. Essentially what we do is trigger a process that
         | can rembryonize the body and break down the excess material
         | into base elements. This stew of embryo and nutrients then goes
         | through a process of regrowth over the course of 9 months until
         | the human has become a newborn baby again, with some core
         | memories retained. Once born, the baby learns to walk and talk
         | all over again until they are as functional as before the
         | metamorphosis.
         | 
         | The obvious advantage of this process is you can regenerate a
         | body if your current one is no longer suitable, due to disease,
         | degeneration, or even dysphoria.
        
           | rrgok wrote:
           | If reincarnation is real, isn't that already happening?
           | Granted, it is not the same exact base material that gets
           | rebuilt in a baby, but in a way the dead body gets
           | decomposed, eaten by other animal and join the soil through
           | feces or get cremated and join the soil/water. Then after
           | sometime, someone gets pregnant gets nutrient form the soil
           | (plants, fruits, grass fed beef...) and a baby is built.
           | Obviously some of the individual base parts will go to other
           | creatures too.
           | 
           | We only miss the memory, that which makes us individual human
           | beings. I wonder where the hell does it go. That's is
           | marvelous to me. Where does the memory go?
        
             | IggleSniggle wrote:
             | If memories are just a side effect of where certain
             | chemicals flow along pathways, then along the lines of your
             | comment...
             | 
             | A river is like a memory: water generally flows the same
             | way down them, some days stronger some days drier, and the
             | more they are used, the more they shift their course.
             | 
             | Memory is just a word for the human experience of localized
             | state. There is a universal state that we experience a
             | small piece of as we live. Though our experience of it
             | ceases when we die, the state of the universe continues its
             | natural course, with no loss of continuity, just a phase
             | shift.
             | 
             | The experience of human life is like a river. At first we
             | are small mountain trickles, barely aware of our existence.
             | As we make our way through the middle of our lives, we are
             | self-important rivers, providing an ecosystem to those
             | around us, sometimes with others flowing their experience
             | into ours, and sometimes as we give our experience to
             | others; some amount evaporating to who knows where and some
             | amount being replenished by rains, growing ever larger.
             | 
             | Towards the end, we either become stuck in lakes, or we are
             | like large idle bays, full of experience, most of us moving
             | now with less fundamental "purpose." Lake or bay,
             | eventually we disperse back to the ocean of existence.
        
             | burnished wrote:
             | Where does a stack of stones go after it is toppled?
        
             | solardev wrote:
             | Maybe in the old days. These days you'd just reincarnate as
             | decomposition bacteria and then live out your life in a
             | pool of formaldehyde and human jerky chunks inside a sealed
             | casket.
             | 
             | There are those cool liquefaction burial places though that
             | will dissolve you in a strong acid (or base?). Your family
             | is left with some you juice that they can flush down the
             | toilet (or drink in a cocktail, I suppose).
             | 
             | Maybe the Tibetans and their sky burials with vultures
             | eating your fresh meat is the way to go.
        
           | jallasprit wrote:
           | Interesting idea, but I wonder how DNA error correction is
           | going to function over artificially extended lifespans
        
           | joker_minmax wrote:
           | To me this reads as a really complicated form of physician
           | assisted suicide. I also think the marketability of this
           | would be complicated, as most adult people would want to
           | start over in their teens or twenties, not as a baby.
        
             | xwdv wrote:
             | Starting as a baby gives you a better chance at building a
             | foundation for the kind of lifestyle you want when you
             | reach your teens or twenties. Those baby years will go by
             | quickly anyway.
             | 
             | It isn't really suicide because your consciousness isn't
             | extinguished, you just end up unconscious for a bit while
             | you restructure.
        
               | saagarjha wrote:
               | Who is going to raise a baby with the mind of an adult?
        
               | solardev wrote:
               | Advertisers? Sponsoring baby content makers, baby
               | athletes, baby celebrities... babies with six packs
               | wearing designer diapers, riding their hipster
               | e-strollers. Shit's dystopian, man.
        
               | xwdv wrote:
               | Well this would be included in your payment for the
               | service, a day care type home for regenerated humans.
               | Maybe covered by insurance even.
        
               | gagged_s_poster wrote:
               | Family? Are we so broken that it doesn't pop out as an
               | obvious choice? In China (lived there 10 years) I feel
               | like many would accept this without even a moment's
               | hesitation.
        
               | saagarjha wrote:
               | No, like putting that aside, because I assume that it'll
               | exist. I'm thinking more along the lines of, how do you
               | satisfy the emotional needs of an adult who is trapped in
               | a body that is not responsive to them? If I behaved like
               | I do as an adult to my parents and teachers but I was a
               | child I'd spend my entire youth in the timeout corner.
        
               | psunavy03 wrote:
               | Paul Atreides and the Fremen.
        
               | Pigalowda wrote:
               | Porn companies.
        
             | mock-possum wrote:
             | Or a horrifically fascinating take on religious belief in
             | reincarnation.
        
           | cosmojg wrote:
           | This idea is a major plot point in one of my favorite
           | webcomics: https://www.genocideman.com/?p=483
        
           | bpiche wrote:
           | Reminds me of Bruce sterling's holy fire a bit
        
       | jeffrallen wrote:
       | Kafka was wrong.
        
       | retrocryptid wrote:
       | To be fair, most human politician's memories don't survive
       | election, so let's not go throwing stones in _that_ glass house.
        
       | romusha wrote:
       | Somehow reminds me of that story where our form right now is
       | actually human larvae form, and we'll metamorphosize into "adult"
       | humans once we eat the "apple of eden"
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | Rhinobird wrote:
         | That reminds me of Pak Protectors from Larry Niven's Known
         | Space stories
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector
        
         | falcor84 wrote:
         | That's interesting. I'll just nitpick that the bible never
         | actually mentions an apple, but rather "the fruit ... of the
         | tree of the knowledge of good and evil ... the day ye eat
         | thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
         | gods, knowing good and evil". I suppose this could actually fit
         | your story very well, except for the fact that the biblical
         | story is considered aetiological - we are the way we are now
         | *because* our ancestors ate that fruit.
        
           | robinduckett wrote:
           | The OC is maybe referring to Larry Niven's ring world, in
           | which a race of humanoids called the Pak which resemble real
           | life elderly people, only with armoured joints and immortal,
           | have a life cycle where their offspring are humans. Once
           | reaching old age, pheromones given off by a certain type of
           | tree that bear a fruit similar to an apple, cause the humans
           | to be overcome until they eat the fruit, at which time they
           | metamorphize into an adult Pak, increasing intelligence
           | massively and lifespan. In the book, the humans of earth stay
           | as the larval stage as the "Tree of Life" were never planted
           | (or never produced the correct fruit, I can't recall) on our
           | planet as there wasn't the right kind of minerals to support
           | it.
           | 
           | The Pak went about colonising planets and they left their
           | offspring on earth when they discovered radiation coming from
           | the centre of the galaxy that was changing the genetic makeup
           | of their offspring, causing the adult Pak to murder their own
           | offspring and all sorts of wars.
           | 
           | The Pak built a massive ringworld (think Halo) because that's
           | easier than colonising a planet apparently, but their
           | offspring started to mutate wildly into different offshoots
           | of humans, pygmies, humans with gills, etc.
           | 
           | It's a good series and enjoyable to read but it's not a
           | particularly serious story. One of the aliens is depicted as
           | being some sort of hand puppet with legs. Super odd stuff.
        
             | andrewflnr wrote:
             | Yes, quite a silly story in some ways. For instance, one of
             | its premises is the idea of luck as a genetically heritable
             | trait. That pays off in a pretty funny way.
        
       | ggm wrote:
       | Yet, across both sides of morphogenesis and reproduction, some
       | remarkably complex behaviour persists: food preferences,
       | predatory and predator evading behaviours, mating, signalling for
       | mating, epigenetic or not, so something cellular and
       | mechanistically related to "memory" in a linguistic sense
       | persists. How is this so?
       | 
       | The problem of english: we call it "memory" but it encompasses
       | more than just overt neuronal knowledge acquisition, it includes
       | the gut brain relationship and intracellular activity.
       | 
       | Maybe all the things I list are not in fact "memories" but then..
        
         | tsol wrote:
         | Biological beings so indeed code information at multiple levels
         | including genetic, epigenetic, at the cellular level in the
         | form of interneuronal connections, etc. Whether you can that
         | memory or not is irrelevant eyes, as it's still information
         | that the biological being has encoded at some level to achieve
         | some function
        
         | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
         | DNA persists, so of course behaviors in it also persist.
        
           | sandworm101 wrote:
           | But can learned behavior persist in DNA? Could a gene
           | activated by environmental triggers be later still be
           | activeated after metamorphosis?
        
             | 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
             | I doubt. I've found the "proof" the butterfly remembers
             | very dubious. A lot of modern studies are very low quality.
             | Has anyone reproduced it? No. I doubt they will.
        
             | mannykannot wrote:
             | Maybe via epigenetic changes? From my limited knowledge of
             | the topic, I can imagine that a species might evolve such
             | that, if the larva is in an unusually hostile environment
             | (too cold, too dry...) then a gene controlling the imago's
             | behavior gets methylated.
        
         | mannykannot wrote:
         | What you are contemplating here is a question of English-
         | language semantics and usage, not biology. It is commonplace
         | for words previously used in one restricted sense to be adopted
         | to talk about other situations that are merely analogous in
         | some sense. This is useful and probably inevitable, but it does
         | not mean we can take these disparate uses to imply a sameness,
         | where the expanded usage is merely the consequence of a
         | similarity (and sometimes the similarity is quite abstract.)
         | 
         | In this case, neuronal information storage and retrieval, which
         | is the biological basis of memory as the word is ordinarily
         | used, is quite different and separable from the genetic storage
         | and use of information.
        
           | ggm wrote:
           | Quite right. I argue this point frequently in connection with
           | AI. Undoubtedly artificial, no intelligence!
        
             | mannykannot wrote:
             | Thank you for another example of where arguments from
             | language semantics and usage fails to address a complex
             | issue!
             | 
             | This example happens to contain all there is to Searle's
             | "Chinese Room" argument.
        
               | weard_beard wrote:
               | You just lost, "The Game".
        
               | cosmojg wrote:
               | It's been a while since I lost the game.
        
               | SpikyBlackHard wrote:
               | And I was on a real heater too. Why does this keep
               | happening.
        
             | stevenhuang wrote:
             | AI has a degree of intelligence.
             | 
             | Preclude even that and you preclude some humans from the
             | same.
        
               | tremon wrote:
               | Show me your definition of intelligence and I will show
               | you how people might reasonably disagree with it.
               | 
               | (The simplest refutation would be that demonstrating
               | intelligence requires first demonstrating motivation on
               | the part of the subject. The current way we interact with
               | "AI" is much more akin to prodding an organism with a
               | stick, seeing it recoil in response to the stimulus, and
               | then claiming that it therefore has intelligence. No, you
               | haven't demonstrated intelligence, you have at most
               | proven it has an autonomous sensory response -- anything
               | beyond that is confusing the complexity of the response
               | with complexity of the mechanism producing it).
        
               | flangola7 wrote:
               | Motivation has nothing to do with intelligence
        
               | burnished wrote:
               | What? Can you give an example of a being that does (or
               | could) be considered intelligent without the ability to
               | engage in self directed actuons?
        
             | irrational wrote:
             | Same with the recent linguistic discussion of whether AI is
             | lying, hallucinating, or confabulating (personally, I think
             | confabulation has the closest linguistic meaning to what AI
             | does). All of these are really terms that apply to agents
             | with agency and don't apply to LLMs, but we don't currently
             | have terms for them, yet.
        
               | mannykannot wrote:
               | Of these, lying is most clearly (definitely, I would say)
               | a term that applies to entities with agency, but I don't
               | see hallucinating being so. Confabulation seems to me to
               | fall somewhere between: insofar as it is not simply a
               | synonym for lying, that seems to lie in it being a
               | pathology, and one which tends to compromise the
               | subject's ability to act with agency (a person fully
               | aware that their confabulation is false is, if they hope
               | their listeners will believe them, lying, and has
               | apparently chosen to do so.)
               | 
               | Personally, I feel that the last two are useful analogies
               | while the first is not, but they are all of limited
               | applicability because I doubt an LLM's use of language
               | follows from, or is indicative of, an understanding that
               | there is an external world.
        
               | burnished wrote:
               | Ooh good word choice. Lying and hallucinate have felt
               | inadequate, I agree with you that confabulation best
               | captures what is going on.
               | 
               | Plus I think its kind of archaic now, so it has less
               | baggage to contend with/be translated between folk
        
       | seeknotfind wrote:
       | How do we know metamorphosis evolved from a single organism, as
       | opposed to a parasitic relationship (like mind controlling wasps)
       | that developed into these multiple life stages? Has anyone
       | researched the origin?
        
         | koeng wrote:
         | You don't even need genetic testing to see holes in that
         | hypothesis (though there is no proof of a parasitic
         | relationship genetically) - it is pretty easy to see
         | phylogenetically the evolution of metamorphosis. Ie,
         | hemimetabolous insects vs homometabolous insects.
        
       | momirlan wrote:
       | more importantly : does their soul survive metamorphosis ?
        
         | Juliate wrote:
         | First, you need to define what a soul is, and how to spot one.
        
       | derbOac wrote:
       | I thought it had already been demonstrated that butterflies
       | retain memories acquired premetamorphosis? Eg,
       | 
       | https://www.wired.com/2008/03/butterflies-rem/
       | 
       | The article is odd because it's written as if this hasn't been
       | tested and it has, or I thought it had.
       | 
       | Towards the end they acknowledge butterflies might be different,
       | but don't mention any of the prior research at all.
       | 
       | The whole article is structured very strangely given the existing
       | literature.
        
         | stevenwoo wrote:
         | It is odd they don't mention that paper, but there is a caveat
         | buried near the bottom in about prior studies showing it in
         | higher insects and how fly brains are more primitive than
         | butterflies. IIRC only about 2/3 to 3/4 of butterflies of the
         | type tested retained the aversion response, and only if they
         | were of a certain age - they needed to have certain cells
         | developed in caterpillar form to be able to remember. It is
         | possible that the species they studied simply does not retain
         | memories or that they missed the development window or that the
         | method they used would not detect memories - the butterfly
         | study showed aversion behavior to smell, this one does not
         | measure behavior at all - it's possible that some behavior was
         | retained but they did not measure it, though I think the
         | particular cells they studied in flies is the same one the
         | butterfly studies relied upon existing to work.
         | 
         | Off the top of my head, monarch butterflies taking multiple
         | generations to travel up and down the west coast to and from
         | Mexico each year implies if not conscious memory as we think of
         | it, some sort of genetic imprint of how and where to travel
         | that is mind blowing to me.
        
         | samstave wrote:
         | Yes! Monarch butterflies have a multigenerational migration in
         | which every third generation is the super generation with the
         | migration memory
        
           | samstave wrote:
           | The origin of the term "entomologist" has alwas bugged me.
        
           | rcme wrote:
           | That's pretty much the opposite of memory, as the behavior is
           | completely innate.
        
             | samstave wrote:
             | There are so many interesting stories on them,
             | 
             | https://duckduckgo.com/?q=npr+talk+monarch+butterflies&atb=
             | v...
             | 
             | But one thing thats reall interesting is that we have been
             | decimating their only foodsource and breeding grounds ;
             | milkweed.
             | 
             | We treat milkweed, as a weed and its decimated by RoundUp
             | (monsatan)
             | 
             | https://www.nwf.org/Garden-For-Wildlife/About/Native-
             | Plants/...
             | 
             | but its really interesting that there is a really large
             | hippocampus in birds, and some insects - which allows for
             | them to have a really spacial/geographic memory - they
             | recall where they find food.
             | 
             | But the interesting thing about monarchs is that this
             | information has some ability to encode over skipped
             | generations...
             | 
             | But because we monsatan the "weeds" we are FN the monarchs
             | up.
             | 
             | When I wasa child, in Lake Tahoe Monarchs were on the
             | migration path and we would have entire pine trees covered
             | in them
             | 
             | https://imgur.com/gallery/acxne3V
             | 
             | This was a regular for me in elemetary school...
        
               | mock-possum wrote:
               | BRB, grabbing milkweed to plant in my yard
        
               | samstave wrote:
               | Does a "Mock-Possum" Play *Live* to enscape capture?
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | ryanblakeley wrote:
       | The title of the article says "Insect", the first few paragraphs
       | are about lacewings, but the study being cited only looked at
       | fruit flies. The study didn't test memory. It looked at neuron
       | location and activation, which could indicate something about
       | memory, but that's a journalistic leap.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-07-29 23:01 UTC)