[HN Gopher] Why are there so many beetle species?
___________________________________________________________________
Why are there so many beetle species?
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 38 points
Date : 2024-04-19 15:10 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (knowablemagazine.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (knowablemagazine.org)
| anotherhue wrote:
| An old question There is a story, possibly
| apocryphal, of the distinguished British biologist, J.B.S.
| Haldane, who found himself in the company of a group of
| theologians. On being asked what one could conclude as to
| the nature of the Creator from a study of his creation,
| Haldane is said to have answered, "An inordinate fondness
| for beetles."
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I wonder how the theologians responded...
| gweinberg wrote:
| Almost certainly never really happened. Haldane wasn't shy
| about his atheism.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I mean, it is the sort of barb a witty atheist might
| respond with in the company of theologians.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| They probably laughed and enjoyed the meal
| xnx wrote:
| Not sure how the article doesn't include this quote from British
| evolutionary biologist and geneticist J.B.S. Haldane: "If a god
| or divine being had created all living organisms on Earth, then
| that creator must have an inordinate fondness for beetles."
| bee_rider wrote:
| Beetles are like the MVP of species (minimum viable, not most
| valuable). Some superstructure (which can often double as armor)
| plus food storage. Even crabs are extravagant next to a beetle:
| crab takes that recipe and adds on attack capabilities, which are
| sometimes wasteful (crabs attacking humans are wasting their time
| for example).
|
| Life: beetles, plus extra features which must be justified.
| the_af wrote:
| Don't some beetles also have complex attack capabilities,
| sometimes even biochemical attacks, and don't they also
| sometimes attack humans?
|
| I never read the opinion that beetles were simple in the "MVP"
| sense of the word. I think they can be quite complex life
| forms.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Compared to the mammal template, beetles don't have to do
| satisfy as many requirements (no temperature regulation,
| simple brains, etc). So they can have complicated biochemical
| attacks because they have a solid foundation, easy to build
| on.
|
| It is definitely possible I haven't thought this out very
| well.
| the_af wrote:
| Well, yes, but this describes plenty of other organisms
| that are neither mammals nor beetles.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Bombardier beetles shoot boiling chemicals at their enemies!
| 100 degree Celsius eye/respiratory irritants.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Those are plugins you're describing.
| COGlory wrote:
| I would suggest that a clam or a worm or sponge is a minimum
| viable animal.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Good point.
|
| I'd like to suggest the swap of oyster in the place of clam,
| because oysters are less mobile than clams.
|
| This leads to a funny observation: for some reason I think a
| worm and an oyster are obviously animals, like if you were a
| caveman with no notion of genetics or the tree of life and
| you came across either, I suspect you'd think "this thing is
| obviously some kind of animal." But a sponge is not so
| obvious, I think, to our hypothetical caveman. I could
| believe a sponge is a weird plant.
|
| I think you need at least one distinguishing feature beyond
| the minimal to become obviously an animal, for some reason.
| COGlory wrote:
| I can see that. Without knowledge of cellular level
| biology, sponges appear to be plants or fungi.
| fullstop wrote:
| Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2314/
| Scarblac wrote:
| Many beetles are predators, and they can fly. And they also go
| through metamorphosis. Not simple at all.
| mc_maurer wrote:
| There are tons of other insect groups that could be very easily
| described as similarly "minimum viable" that don't have nearly
| the diversity. Abundance of some group doesn't necessarily
| correlate with the speciation within that group. Ants are an
| exceptionally successful type of insect with orders of
| magnitude fewer described species.
| enriquto wrote:
| > Beetles are like the MVP of species (minimum viable, not most
| valuable).
|
| Dude... There are water beetles that live underwater, but do
| also fly and walk. This is not "mininum viable" in any sense of
| the term. Just because they have smaller brains and less
| developed immune systems does not mean that they are millions
| of years beyond mammals in fantastic specialization!
| onion2k wrote:
| _crabs attacking humans are wasting their time for example_
|
| Maybe they enjoy it.
| roomey wrote:
| Surely someone will mention the Last Continent by Terry
| Pratchett!
| Loughla wrote:
| I do not remember the beetle reference in that one.
| Terr_ wrote:
| There was a God of Evolution on Mono Island, where the
| biology quickly adapted to the wizardly visitors. Ponder
| Stibbons was especially impressed by the methodical logic,
| until he realized the god's main obsession was cockroaches,
| all "higher" life was incidental.
| Loughla wrote:
| I'll have to re-read that series again. I have completely
| written that out of my memory!
| Scarblac wrote:
| Surely that's a reference to the biologist mentioned in
| another comment, who said God had "an inordinate fondness
| of beetles".
|
| Pratchetts's books are full of that kind of reference.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| Cockroaches aren't beetles.
| Terr_ wrote:
| True, my summary was inaccurate, I don't think Pratchett
| specifically mentioned cockroaches as any of the-insects-
| in-question.
| roomey wrote:
| The god was obsessed with making different beetles.
|
| But then he was talking about the "pinnical" of life and
| evolution. Ponder thought he meant humans, capable of
| mastering their world.
|
| Then he looked down and saw the leg twitch...
| Terr_ wrote:
| Self-reply to add quotes, 'cuz Pratchett is worth quoting.
|
| _________
|
| > The little god's hands twitched. 'I don't know, I do try
| to diversify, but sometimes it's so difficult...'
|
| > Suddenly he ran across the crowded cave towards a huge
| pair of doors at the far end, and flung them open. 'I'm
| sorry, but I just have to do one,' said the god. 'They calm
| me down, you know.' Ponder caught up. The cave beyond the
| doors was bigger than this one, and brilliantly lit. The
| air was full of small, bright things, hovering in their
| millions like beads on invisible strings.
|
| > 'Beetles?' said Ponder.
|
| > There's nothing like a beetle when you're feeling
| depressed!' said the god. He'd stopped by a large metal
| desk and was feverishly opening drawers and pulling out
| boxes. 'Can you pass me that box of antennae? It's just on
| the shelf there. Oh yes, you can't beat a beetle when
| you're feeling down. Sometimes I think it's what it's all
| about, you know.'
|
| > 'What all?' said Ponder.
|
| > The god swept an arm in an expansive gesture.
| 'Everything,' he said cheerfully. 'The whole thing. Trees,
| grass, flowers... What did you think it was all for?'
|
| > 'Well, I didn't think it was for beetles,' said Ponder.
| 'What about, well, what about the elephant, for a start?'
|
| > The god already had a half-finished beetle in one hand.
| It was green. 'Dung,' he said triumphantly.
|
| _________
|
| > 'Apes? Oh, very amusing, certainly, and obviously the
| beetles have to have something to entertain them, but . .
| .' The god looked at him, and a celestial penny seemed to
| drop. 'Oh dear, you don't think _they 're_ the purpose of
| the whole business, do you?'
|
| > 'I'd rather assumed--'
|
| > 'Dear me, the purpose of the whole business, you see, is
| in fact to be the whole business. Although,' he sniffed,
| 'if we can do it all with beetles I shan't complain.'
|
| > 'But surely the purpose of-- I mean, wouldn't it be nice
| if you ended up with some creature that started to think
| about the universe--?'
|
| > 'Good gravy, I don't want anything poking around!' said
| the god testily. 'There's enough patches and stitches in it
| as it is without some clever devil trying to find more, I
| can assure you. No, the gods on the mainland have got that
| right at least. Intelligence is like legs - too many and
| you trip yourself up. Six is about the right number, in my
| view.'
| knodi123 wrote:
| * No head, when screwed on to a body, ought to make sound
| like a cork being pushed into a bottle, but the beetle's did
| in the hands of the god.
|
| * And in that moment he knew that, despite the apparent
| beetle fixation, here was where he'd always wanted to be, at
| the cutting edge of the envelope in the fast lane of the
| state of the art.
| eigenket wrote:
| They meet the god of evolution, he is completely obsessed
| with beetles.
| choeger wrote:
| Came here for that comment.
| usrusr wrote:
| Armchair evolutionist suggestion: because there must be something
| in the code that makes them better than other species at being
| picky mating? Or particularly susceptible for breaking
| compatibility in terms of _successful_ mating?
| mc_maurer wrote:
| I think this is much closer than the "they're a very good blank
| slate". There are plenty of exceptionally successful groups of
| organisms with far less diversity. The point is not how
| successful beetles are, it's how differentiated they are.
| Something about their ability to occupy niches that promote
| isolation and therefore speciation has to be involved.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| The article mentioned that they diversified early due to the
| diversification of the first flowering plants, so re-
| radiating into each others' niches over the following hundred
| million years could certainly help that while keeping species
| distinct.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| TIL: some beetles have _species-specific_ genitalia
|
| I suppose that helps with species longevity.
| bombcar wrote:
| Today I learned that elytra is not just wings in Minecraft.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Meta comment: I really like submissions like this which share
| great knowledge from a totally different field and spur
| inspiration and discussion. I learn a lot and also find comments
| like bee_rider's (current) top comment to be relevant to tech
| work.
| Xadith wrote:
| Note: The article shares a common misconception about beetle
| anatomy, that the thorax is short and only has one pair of legs.
| Like all other insects, beetles thoraxes have three pairs of
| legs. It's just that their abdomen is shorter than it appears.
|
| See this video from Clint's Reptiles for the explanation:
| https://youtu.be/-aV78eNbdTU?si=DCe3ZUx8C6IKlXJe&t=978
| happypumpkin wrote:
| iirc in one of his videos (maybe that one) he also spends a lot
| of time discussing how because of their elytra they can have
| flight, without the downside of always-vulnerable wings like
| most (all?) other flying animals. I was surprised the article
| didn't go into more detail on that point.
| mc_maurer wrote:
| Lots of beetles, but almost certainly even more wasps! Parasitoid
| wasps attack pretty much every known insect species, even other
| parasitoid wasps. If there's not a known parasitoid for a given
| insect species, you usually just haven't looked hard enough.
| Given that parasitoids tend to be specialists, attacking one or
| only a few other species, the math works out to there being more
| parasitoids than anything else around. Great paper on the topic
| here:
| https://bmcecol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12898-01...
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| _Anything_ else? The prokaryotes would like to have a word...
| bena wrote:
| I think it's interesting as there is a common beetle ancestor.
|
| Usually, when we find something like this, the answer is because
| "taxonomy is more art than science". Like trees or fish. Both
| exist all over their respective branches of the evolutionary
| tree. You have fish species that do not have a common ancestor
| that does not also include "not fish".
|
| Same with trees. Two "trees" can exist in groups with "not trees"
|
| Although, I guess the picture could also be incomplete. It could
| just be showing the beetle lineage and not anything else that may
| branch from those branches.
|
| In which case, this could be another case of cancerification. As
| much as nature loves a crab, it loves to start from a beetle.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| >> _Why are there so many beetle species?_
|
| Because beetles are randy little buggers... yeah, baby. [0]
|
| (It also helps when both your size and food source(s) let you
| survive extinction events easier than those silly mega-
| fauna/flora)
|
| [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=beetle+mating&tbm=isch
| codelobe wrote:
| Maybe the Sumerian or (blue-skinned) Vedic Gods saw some giant
| sentient machine life, and went out of their way to honor these
| "Angels" with many eyes and huge wings by creating what we call
| insects (in addition to Humans [Hanuman's ilk]).
|
| When you transcend the physical form into a body of energy (hint:
| OR=constructive, XOR=deconstructive, NOT=XOR(k,1), NOT( OR(j,k)
| )=NOR(j,k), NOR=Functionally Complete, ergo EMF or even sound can
| be Turing Complete), then as an energy body you may want to
| interact with physical forms again w/o ionizing them; So you'll
| create (sentient) machinations that can do tasks. Because your
| design parameters include survivability across large thermal and
| pressure gradients you'll [re]discover giant robotic beetle
| design.
|
| If you'll excuse me, I've got to tend a Kephri (beetle of
| remanifestation) who is eagerly attempting to choose an Odin to
| ride this 6-legged "Steed" next Ragnorok.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-19 23:00 UTC)