These Are The Miserable Remains Of A Chestnut Weevil (Curculio Elephas) Who Will Never Again Feel The

I want to play "let's ___ with mama" with the shrimp I study, but they generally do not meet their offspring because of how their life cycle works. The shrimp put their eggs in the mud and then the young may not hatch for years, until some obscure shrimpy conditions are met. They live with a mixed group of strangers and relatives, some of which may be literal decades older, but not mama.

Leeches, on the other hand, carry their young on their underside. Let's remain safely attached to mama

TWO INJURED SEA COMBS CAN FUSE INTO A SINGLE ENTITY, AND THRIVE

In a surprising new discovery, scientists have found that two injured individuals of Mnemiopsis leidyi, a species of comb jellies or ctenophores, can fuse into a single entity. This phenomenon, which challenges our typical understanding of biological processes, reveals just how remarkable these planktonic creatures truly are.

Ctenophores, known for their translucent beauty and delicate movement in the ocean, appear to lack a mechanism called allorecognition—the ability to distinguish between self and non-self. This means that, when two comb jellies are injured and placed close together, they can merge, not just physically, but also functionally. Their nervous systems combine, allowing them to share nerve signals (or action potentials), and even their digestive systems become one.

The discovery was made by Dr. Jokura and his team, who were observing comb jellies in a seawater tank. After removing parts of their lobes and placing them side by side, they were astonished to see 9 out of 10 injured comb jellies fuse to form a single organism. Even more fascinating, the newly formed organism survived for at least three weeks, with its muscle contractions fully synchronized within just two hours. The digestive system also fused, enabling food taken in by one mouth to travel through their shared canal and exit through both anuses—although not at the same time!

While the exact benefits of this fusion are still unclear, the researchers believe that studying this phenomenon could provide valuable insights into how organisms integrate nervous systems and even how tissue regeneration occurs. It may also offer clues about immune system functions in species where the lines between individual organisms become blurred.

This discovery offers a glimpse into the hidden potential of the ocean’s lesser-known inhabitants, challenging what we think we know about biological boundaries and cooperation.

Video: Kei Jokura

Reference: Jakura et al., 2024. Rapid physiological integration of fused ctenophores. Current Biology

also I want to append to this, we shouldn't necessarily assume that animals will be like humans; in scientific research you want to be careful with your preconceptions and personal biases, and in dealing with animals in person over-anthropomorphizing them can even be dangerous, for you and for them. But I think dismissing it out of hand in the other direction is just pretty ignorant given all the things we do know and all the things we know we don't, dubious from a moral perspective (if a creature looks like it's in pain, uh should not the null hypothesis be that it is in pain?), and stems from a really anthropocentric philosophy that has plagued even certain areas of biology itself (if you've read about like, human brain evolution you know what I mean) in a way that is soo frustrating and just is like, augh stop the ghost of Aristotle haunts you

Also I picked those fruit fly examples because they demonstrate ways in which insects are like us, but there's also by no means anything lesser about animals or other organisms that aren't like us either! Not everything is going to be like us and I think there's value and respect-worthiness in that too.

also there's evidence that white garden snails can distinguish numbers up to five

It's always so weird to come down from the biology heavens to see what the average person believes about animals, plants, ecosystems, just the world around them. I don't even mean things that one simply doesn't know because they've never been told or things that are confusing, I'm talking about people who genuinely do not see insects as animals. What are you saying. Every time I see a crawling or fluttering little guy I know that little guy has motivations and drive to fulfill those motivations. There are gears turning in their head! They are perceiving this world and they are drawing conclusions, they are conscious. And yet it's still a whole thing if various bugs of the world feel pain or if they are simply Instinct Machines that are Not Truly Aware of Anything At All????? Help!!!!!! How can you look at a little guy and think he is just the macroscopic animal version of a virus

thinking about that time scientists put tracking collars on jellyfish

One small step for leeches, one giant leap for leechkind! For the first time, we have concrete evidence that at least one species of terrestrial leech in Madagascar can jump. Mai’s work is important to conservation efforts because leeches are increasingly being collected to survey vertebrate biodiversity. By analyzing their blood meals, researchers are able to identify other animals living alongside the leeches, ranging from wildcats to frogs to ground-dwelling birds. Read more about Mai's research in our latest blog post.

Have you ever seen a leech jump? Let us know in the comments!

me walking up to the whalefall: hey my fellow hagfish hows it slimin' hagatha (she's a hagfish): are you sure you're a hagfish? you look kinda like some kinda lungfish me: haha dont worry check this out (i breathe in some pollen) HURHUHUHHHUUUURURGURGUGRGG hagatha: yep, that's a hagfish-y amount of slime. come hag out! (hagfish for hang out)

scientists: oh hey we found a new species of deep sea feather star, neat :)

the news: TERRIFYING and ALIEN creature with ONE THOUSAND ARMS discovered LURKING in the DEEP ABYSS of the sea

the public: omg im never swimming in the ocean again!!!

the animal:

The first image linked is not actually a priapulid but a sea cucumber in its spawning posture! It was misidentified on iNaturalist and went viral before it was corrected— see the original observation here. (It gets kinda heated which I think is kinda funny. Penis worms are serious business!) I have always said before that I want internet fame specifically for two reasons: to make PSAs about Anomalocaris’s head carapace which everybody always leaves out of drawings because of that one inaccurate museum model, and about the incorrectly identified sea cucumber photo about which is now like the first image result you get when searching for penis worms and is my NEMESIS 😠 (the misinformation, not the photo or the sea cucumber, those are great)

For all the worm fans— priapulids are super easy to identify; there are as of the time of writing only 22 recognized species, and for many of them the only photos of them are from articles in scientific journals. Over half the species are microscopic, and the macroscopic ones are mainly found in polar regions, often in the deep sea, where they are usually burrowed in sediment and thus are little-encountered by people. The only one of them that is commonly photographed (and studied) is Priapulus caudatus, which is broadly found across the northern northern hemisphere even in shallow waters and I think probably has to be the most accessible species in general. They look like this:

image by Thomas Trott

This species accounts for probably 99% of the images of priapulids out there, and its relatives look rather similar, such as its southern hemisphere counterpart Priapulus tuberculatospinosus or the two-tailed species Priapulopsis bicaudatus. The intricate, feathery tails (referred to in the literature as “caudal appendages”) are probably the most distinctive feature of this group; they are believed to be involved in respiration, though as with many things about the phylum it is not known for certain. (See this recent paper for a review of macroscopic priapulid morphology.) In the zoomed-out photos of that sea cucumber you can see on the iNat page, it lacks a tail which is a dead giveaway that it is not any of these; also note that while it has some longitudinal striations along what sorta looks like a proboscis, they don’t actually bear any teeth! The spined, toothed proboscides of priapulids are indeed super cool and are their most distinctive feature setting them apart from other proboscis-bearing worms like peanut worms or spoon worms, which are often also misidentified online as priapulids. A fun fact is that the shape of their teeth varies across species in a way that appears to be closely correlated with their diet, see this paper for a neat study that uses tooth shapes to examine the different ecological niches occupied by extant priapulids and their Cambrian relatives!

The only other macroscopic priapulids that don’t look much like Priapulus are the two species Halicryptus spinulosus and Halicryptus higginsi, the latter of which I believe there are literally like two full-body photos in existence of it, one of which is from a login-walled journal article from 1999 and the other of which is one of the specimens from that 1999 article photographed after 25 years preserved in a museum. There’s a decent number of photos floating around of H. spinulosus (though still not as many as P. caudatus); they look like this:

image by Claude Nozères

As you can see, Halicryptus lack tails and have a much less prominent proboscis than Priapulus and its relatives, which you can only see the spines of on the very tip; H. spinulosus in particular has a rather short and small body that distinguishes it a lot, while H. higginsi is the largest known species of priapulid in the world (see this paper for a review of both of them). They’re maybe less distinctive-looking but idk, I don’t know off the top of my head if there’s super anything else you would mistake them for, and images of them are pretty uncommon anyway. In any case as far as macroscopic priapulids go, these are the only ones you have to look out for; if you’ve got those down you’re all set! As stated before, most priapulid species are actually microscopic; just for fun here’s the tropical meiobenthic species Tubiluchus corallicola:

image by Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University

look at that squiggly tail!

And yeah in conclusion priapulids are super cool and underrated and I wish there were more people paying attention to them; there’s soooo many neglected taxa that we’re still only just discovering basic aspects of their biology and priapulids are one of them! If you want to see their amazing extensible proboscis in action, linked below is by far the best priapulid video out there, I highly recommend it. And most of all remember everybody THAT PHOTO IS A FRICKING SEA CUCUMBER, NOT EVERY WORM THAT LOOKS LIKE A PENIS IS A PENIS WORM AAAAAAA 😭😭😭

Can't believe any real animal has teeth as awesome as penis worms have.

They are meat eaters :)

Invertebrates are definitely capable of learning! A lot of people who don’t know anything about bugs say they’re automata who just do everything by instinct like an if-then computer program, and they absolutely have not looked into it because there’s SO much literature on invertebrate cognition including learning. One of the neatest papers I’ve seen was about Drosophila fruit flies (there’s a ton of fruit fly literature cuz they’re a common lab animal). So when a female fruit fly is exposed to parasitoid wasps, she will start laying fewer eggs. These researchers showed that fruit flies who have been exposed to wasps can communicate the presence of a threat via wing movements to other female fruit flies, and those flies will start laying fewer eggs too even if they haven’t seen the wasps at all, an example of social learning.

But what’s more: they can communicate threats like this not just with flies of their own species, but with flies of closely related species too. If the species are too distant, they stop being able to communicate as successfully HOWEVER these authors showed that if you house a bunch of flies together in mixed-species groups, afterwards their success at communicating goes up! This suggests the existence of a fruit fly “language” which differs between species, but which they’re capable of learning other species’ languages as well! Sources: 1, 2

see also this very scientific diagram from here:

One interesting thing about those studies is that they found that if you raise a fruit fly in isolation from hatching, it won’t be able to communicate as well. This suggests that there’s a critical period of socialization which flies require to learn how to do communicate properly and without it their ability to do so is impaired. (I believe there’s other studies on how other social interactions are affected by social isolation but I haven’t read them; again there’s sooo much fly literature ^^)

Another cool one I’ve seen is on antlion larvae, who hunt by digging pits and then waiting in the middle for ants and other bugs walking by to fall in. It’s generally thought that sedentary animals have fewer cognitive capabilities than mobile ones, due to their less demanding lifestyle, however these studies (which I’ve only skimmed) have been carried out which demonstrate that they are still capable of learning. Specifically, they can be taught to anticipate and identify approaching insects based on vibrations in the sand, and will subsequently adapt their behavior to hunt more efficiently! Even animals with what seems like a simple feeding behavior are still very capable of modifying it, which makes sense evolutionarily; while obviously different animals will require different levels of intelligence, you can imagine in a lot of cases that being able to modify your behavior based on experience is distinctly advantageous. Source 1, 2

Not an arthropod, but another bug that there’s been a lot of research into is Lymnaea pond snails, which are another common model organism for studying neurology and cognition. A ton of work has been done on their capabilities for associative learning, i.e. classical conditioning (“dog learns to salivate at the ring of a bell”) and operant conditioning (“rat learns that pressing a button gives food”). It’s been found that their ability to learn is actually a lot more complicated than just those simple kinds of stimulus ↔ response. They can take stuff they’ve learned in stressful situations (simulated experimentally by exposing them to the smell of crayfish, which eat snails) and generalize it to situations beyond just the original context, which you can imagine must be pretty important for surviving in the wild. Conversely, they can also place memories in context: when taught stuff in the presence of both crayfish smell and carrot smell, subsequently they will recall what they’ve learned in response to the carrot smell alone; in other words, they’re not just learning “carrot + crayfish smell”, but “carrot smell = crayfish smell”, placing their memories in the broader context of their environment (which again, must be helpful for survival). So they can not just learn but pretty flexibly as well! Sources 1, 2, 3

This isn't a bug at all but pretty recently there was a study that found that box jellyfish are capable of associative learning. This one research lab has done a lot of work into vision in the Caribbean box jellyfish (they have eyes btw) on both a behavior and a neurological level and have found a lot of cool things, like that these box jellyfish use their vision to navigate through their habitat of mangrove forests, and that though they don't have a brain as such, they do have a central nervous system in the form of a ring nerve connecting four small clusters of neurons that process and combine input from their eyes. I can't actually read the paper (paywall :P) but last year they did an experiment where they put jellies in a tank with darkened bars on the glass to simulate mangrove roots. Normally the jellies gauge the distance to a root by how dark it appears and then swim around it when they get near; however the bars in the experiment were colored so that they looked like they were farther away than the wall actually was. At first the jellyfish kept bumping into the all, but after several rounds of trial and error they began to avoid them, indicating that they were able to learn from the experience! Jellyfish! Aaaaa nature is so cool. Source 1, 2, 3

I have a question! About bugs and arachnids and all them. Sorry to lump them all into one category, but I'd rather not make the same post multiple times.

My question is: Can they learn "tricks?"

By this I mean are they capable of learning, in general, I suppose. Like mice in a maze, magpies with a rock.

Also, what sorts of things have they learned? How do they learn (like watching others or from experience)?

I ask because it's something that really interests me. I know the ability to learn doesn't add or subtract value from a being, it's a curious thought as I know very, very little about beetles, and spiders, and bees, and so on!

Do they just know how to do things because it's all their kind have done since the beginning of them? Do they have to learn or are capable of it?

important anomalocaris dorsal carapace representation... the anomalocarapace...

sick and tired of inaccurate anomalocaris paleoart ,, decided to take matters into my own hands