The Weirdest Jellyfish

“Q: woa are upside down jellyfishs actually always upside down? how do they swim?”
— Anonymous

WELL MY FRIEND, they actually don’t! Or, not much, at least.

Some cnidarians (jellies & co) have a pretty neat adaptation in that they have an endosymbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae - a fancy way of saying that they have photosynthetic algae that live right inside of them. The algae gets protection and food in the form of waste, and the host gets delicious, delicious photosynthesized goodies.

Most true jellies do not, of course, entirely rely on photosynthesis, but Cassiopea jellies hang out in shallow water, and it works for them. They can swim, just like a normal jelly, but they usually prefer to just hang out. As a super bonus fun fact, because of this tendency to endlessly chill, they’re also a fairly common accessory for the carrier crab to cart around as protection

Photo from Tim Laman

Photo from Tim Laman

Even though you didn’t ask and likely don’t care*, coral (the “& co” part of Cnidaria) also has a pretty integral relationship with zooxanthellae! Coral is made up of millions of polyps (think perpetual baby jellies) that secrete a calcium carbonate skeleton - a skeleton that would be entirely white without the various species of algae living within. Endosymbiosis!! So perfect!!!!!

Photo from Shutterstock

Photo from Shutterstock

JUST KIDDING the relationship isn’t perfect, and depends on an extremely delicate balance. You’ve heard of “coral bleaching” (usually in conjunction with global warming), where wild corals are slowly losing their trademark colour  - which, when you take into account where that colour is coming from, is actually much more serious than it sounds**.

The stress of a change in water temperature can actually cause cnidarians to lose their cool (pun intended) and kick out the algae as a sort of last-ditch attempt to save themselves. This would be a great strategy if the stress was, say, an infection or parasite, and not the inescapable slow burn of the entire planet.

So the algae leaves, the coral starves, and millions of other organisms have to go find a new home. Except, of course, all the corals are doing it, so pretty soon there won’t be any homes to go to. Coral bleaching is no joke and I got super sidetracked from the whole point of this message but whatever


*But I care and that’s all that really matters so sit the heck down and get out your notebooks class

**This is facetious. How can you hear “bleaching” and think that doesn’t sound serious???? how do people still think this isn’t a big deal????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

Conservation Triage

“Q: could you tell us a bit more about conservation? like, what are the ‘truly integral’ species that we should be trying the hardest to protect?”
— Anonymous
“Q: In light of the pandas post, if I wanted to donate to some conservation effort, do you know if there are ones that make a “better” use of their money than others? ”
— Anonymous

When I call a species “more important”, that is, of course, a hella oversimplification, and you would be right in asking me but how can you really decide which ones are more important? Ecosystems are so complex and interconnected that, when it comes down to it, every species is important - but the loss of certain species would result in greater repercussions than others. For example:

  • Keystone species: a species whose presence affects a disproportionate number of other species, such as predators that control prey populations (sharks, sea otters)

  • Ecosystem engineers: sub-group of keystone species, these guys affect the environment in such a way that it drastically changes the resources available for other species (beavers, crocodilians)

  • Umbrella species: species that require such a large habitat that protecting them would mean thousands of other species would benefit from that protection (bison, or like, monarch butterflies)

  • Flagship species: this is the category the panda falls into - species that capture the hearts of the masses and garner loads of media attention and money; could also act as umbrella species

To protect species, we have to protect environments, and once again we get bogged down with nuances and priorities. Do we protect areas of high biodiversity, like tropical rainforests, where there are hundreds of species within a few metres of each other, that aren’t found anywhere else? Or do we protect areas of high population, like the Canadian boreal forests, where there are few species but so many trees that it stores twice as much carbon as a tropical rainforest?

Conservation is messy and overwhelming, and as I mentioned before, there’s never enough money or interest to protect everything. If you do want to help, do some research on your local zoos or aquariums - certain facilities will have programs for captive breeding, rescue work, research, or other environmental aid. For example, the Vancouver Aquarium runs a sustainable seafood program, and Monterey Bay Aquarium is just a conservation dreamboat, so supporting places like these means you can feel good and have fun all at once.

I don’t know of any independent conservation programs in particular to support over others - though I imagine programs like World Wildlife Fund, the IUCN Red List, and National Wildlife Federation are solid places to start. If anyone has some personal experience, though, I would be more than happy to pass it on.

Milk Sweat Since 110MYA

“Q: could you explain a bit of the what-the-fuckery that is monotremes? how did they evolve, and how have they survived for so long? they separated from the rest of mammals so long ago, and everything else that separated there is extinct, but not monotremes. is there a reason for that, some kind of adaptation?”
— Anonymous

ALRIGHT MY FRIENDS hold on to your egg-laying horses because this will be a convoluted and likely uncomfortable ride.

Photo from Pinterest

Photo from Pinterest

Monotremes, represented these days by platypuses and echidnas, are super goddamn weird mammals. They’re an ungodly patchwork of highly specialized, definitively mammalian traits mixed with some equally primitive reptilian-esque ones, which result in a hot mess that gives me a headache.

For example, monotremes:

  • Lay eggs, but produce milk from mammary glands to feed their young. Not in a normal way, but in a “leaking out of your pores” kind of way.

  • Their X chromosomes resemble those of birds more than they do ours, and they have a cloaca. Why

  • Have tribosphenic molars and inner ear bones incorporated into the skull, both incontrovertible traits of therian mammals. Finally, proof that they are-

  • JUST KIDDING it turns out both of those things could have convergently evolved!! haha! HILARIOUS

  • Their gait is closer to the sprawling synapsid gait than the erect therian one, I can only assume because they are going for a cool and retro look

  • Though platypus venom is derived from proteins also found in the immune systems of therian mammals, guess who else uses those proteins in venom?

  • REPTILES.

  • AUGH

To add insult to injury here, the fossil record for monotremes is fairly garbage, with the absolute earliest examples (Teinolophus and Steropodon - shown below) already being recognizably similar to extant monotremes. These two species are dated to the Early Cretaceous, but based on genetic and molecular data it is thought that monotremes diverged from all other mammals at the very least in the Early Jurassic, and potentially as early as the Late Triassic.

Photo from Australian Museum

Photo from Australian Museum

Of course, it is almost impossible that we’ll ever stumble across the fossil remains of an actual direct ancestor to extant taxa, due to the rarity of fossilization in general. The fossil monotremes that we do have are from a period of highly successful radiation - not only have they been found in several locales across Australia and New Guinea, but a single ancestral platypus tooth was found in South America, proving that monotremes were once fairly widespread across the Gondwana supercontinent. 

So, we have no proof of how and when monotremes came to be, and a lot of their evolutionary history is just straight up missing. The ones that have made it this far likely did so because they managed to grab a hyper-specific niche that live-bearing mammals couldn’t steal from them. Until more fossils are found, the rest is just conjecture.

tl;dr: monotremes are the ultimate wannabe-Triassic mammalian hipsters and nobody knows why we still put up with them

Octopus of Many Talents

“So! I was wondering if you knew anything about the Indonesian Mimic Octopus. Apparently it can mimic 15+ different species like the lion fish or a flounder for defensive purposes, but I was wondering if it would have to observe these animals to mimic them or if its an instinctive evolutionary trait, or if it’s even known. I tried looking for resources but couldn’t find anything definitive. I know octopuses are a far cry from birds but I thought it was cool and was wondering if you knew any more”
— Anonymous

I couldn’t find anything directly relating to this either, unfortunately! According to the original paper of the description of the species, it was hypothesized that the ability to mimic certain shapes was genetic, but when to use each posture was a direct reaction to the current environment.

For example, the octopus would only use the posture resembling a highly venomous sea snake when faced with territorial damselfish - because the damselfish are commonly predated by that specific sea snake. 

Photo from NCBI

Photo from NCBI

It really isn’t that different from other cephalopods and their crypsis - most octopuses mimic surroundings, in terms of changing skin colour, texture, and form - so there is a genetic basis for it. The mimic octopus lives in a predator-heavy, open habitat, however, so there was likely strong selective pressure for an alternative to hiding as rocks or coral. Those who managed to resemble local venomous species were likely way more effective than those who didn’t.

They’re pretty cool though, and if anyone else knows more about them, I’d love to hear it!

Panama Ruined Everything

“So, what do you think about the great american interchange”
— @rosemary-lalonde

As a giant fan of birds (as well as a fan of giant birds) I, for one, am personally offended by the Great American Interchange and would like to know who is claiming responsibility for Panama as I have a strongly-worded letter coming right for them

Photo from Richard Cowen

Photo from Richard Cowen

For those of you unaware of this absolute travesty, the Great American Interchange occurred ~2.5MYA when a land bridge (aka Central America) formed between North and South America, allowing a transfer of species between the two. For a brief period, everything was beautiful and both continents were overrun with phorusrhacids, the feathery incarnation of all of my hopes and dreams.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

But then, like the jerks we are, mammals had to go and ruin everything by out-competing and eating all the giant flightless birds. Now all we’re left with are dogs and bears and a few weird marsupials and only two species of seriemas. U N B E L I E V A B L E

Photo from Project Noah

Photo from Project Noah

Phylogenetics Is Yikes

“what are human’s closest living relatives that live in north america, since there are no primates in north america”
— Anonymous

As with all specific phylogenetic questions, allow me to preface this answer with

phyloyikes.png

Genetics never has and never will be my strong suit, so I’m always cautious talking about it. Not to mention that it seems like these days anybody with electricity and some agarose is publishing new and conflicting phylogenetic trees. And yes, I am looking directly at you, bat geneticists. But I digress.

Just to clarify, there are primates in North America - all kinds of monkeys cavort about in Mexico and Central America, but I’m assuming you specifically mean the US and Canada. Excluding the smaller sister taxa that also aren’t found in North America*, the closest relatives of primates in the US and Canada are Rodentia and Lagomorpha - meaning rodents and rabbits/hares/pikas. 

rabbit.gif

*treeshrew phylogenetic placement is pretty wonky in and of itself, so I’m not even gonna GO there. Just know that they are in the vicinity of primates

How To Google Science

“Q: Hey biologizeable, I was wondering if you knew of a good site to find articles on the declining bee population? You’re the only science blog I follow so I thought I’d ask. Thanks!”
— Anonymous

Hello! As with any form of online research, even such a deceptively simple one, it will likely take longer than you first imagine. But do not fear. You can do it.

Instead of doing your homework for you, however, I am instead going to provide you some super pro tips on finding information online. Way more useful, in the long run, and this way I don’t end up with 300 more questions like this! Everybody wins.

duckdance.gif

In general, a good launching point for research is (and I will fight you over this) Wikipedia. It’s a great place to get a mildly useful summary, keywords to use in further searches, and most importantly, a list of potentially legitimate sources. Never use Wikipedia as your only source of information, but I cannot stress how useful it is in starting out.

When doing general Google searches, a moderately solid rule of thumb for finding information is that any site ending with .edu or .org is probably more credible than a .com. Obviously, this is not always true, but it’s good to keep in mind.

Finally, for some serious science, Google Scholar is your new best friend. Provided your best friends are just really frustrating people. Most of the papers you’ll find are behind paywalls, and you’re gonna have to use all of the fancy new keywords you’ve discovered during your researches to find exactly what you’re looking for.

Anyway, I know this doesn’t immediately help you, so off the top of my head for specific bee things:

beeeeees.gif

Veterinarian Centaurs

“I just discovered that the logo for the Australian Veterinary Association is a centaur holding a caduceus. Considering the similar sentiments we had about centaur design, I thought this might be something you would want to know.”
— @themanfromnantucket

YOU’D THINK VETERINARIANS WOULD BE THE MOST QUALIFIED TO LOSE THEIR SHIT OVER THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A HUMAN/HORSE SIX-LIMBED HYBRID MONSTROSITY ARGH

ava.png

However, because you all may have thought (incorrectly) that I only know piles of useless animal facts, let me also impress you with my mountains of irrelevant Greek myth knowledge!

That stick with one snake is not actually a caduceus - the caduceus was a staff entwined with two snakes, and wings, and carried by Hermes, god of [pretty much everything] commerce, divine messages, thieves, general amorality, flocks of sheep, gymnasiums, etc. This monoserpented staff is actually the rod of Asclepius, the god of medicine. The two are pretty much always confused, and apparently medical historians get their jimmies all kinds of rustled over it.

As for the snake business (which is what you’re all really here for, let’s be honest) there’s actually a species of nonvenomous snake named after this cool dude - the Aesculapian snake. Not only was Asclepius’ staff bedecked with a single magical colubrid, his temples were also always full of free-roaming serpents introduced whenever a new one opened. Honestly, what’s not to like about it amirite

Photo from Nikola Rahmé

Photo from Nikola Rahmé

Alligator Engineers

“Q: So what’s the point of a crocodile/gator? What contribution do they bring to the food chain? and such?”
— Anonymous

You mean besides just being freaking adorable dorks all the time????

Photo from Clayton Bownds

Photo from Clayton Bownds

Well my friend, I hope you are prepared for the long-winded summary on predator-prey population dynamics that you have unleashed here.

As a general rule, any apex predator is crucial to an ecosystem, specifically because they regulate population numbers of their prey species and leave remains that can be exploited by smaller animals. Crocodilians are typically the largest freshwater predator in their ranges, and due to their ambush hunting method and amphibious* lifestyle, they have a huge range of prey species. They will eat anything they can catch, of any size, including fish, amphibians, other reptiles, both large and small mammals, birds, people - the list goes on and on. But let’s get a bit more specific.

Alligators (both American and Chinese) are allogenic ecosystem engineers, meaning that - like beavers, caterpillars and woodpeckers** - alligators physically change their environment and, as a result, change the resource availability in those areas. Adult alligators will dig and expand “gator holes” that stay filled with water even during droughts, allowing tons of other species to survive dry periods.

Photo from EarthSky

Photo from EarthSky

On top of that, American alligators are currently the only predator large enough to make a dent in the invasive Burmese python population that is literally destroying the Everglades as we speak. Unfortunately, the predation goes both ways.

Photo from Reptipedia

Photo from Reptipedia

Crocodiles are a bit tougher to describe, mostly because there are a whole pile of species, but all are important in prey population control and particularly in scavenging carcasses. Crocodiles have the strongest stomach acid of any vertebrate, and as such can eat just about anything, including rotting carcasses that would otherwise pollute water systems. 

I’m not going to go into all of the species of crocodile, because it would take several weeks, but I will say that the saltwater crocodile is pretty neat - not only as the largest crocodilian, and the one with the largest range of prey species - but because it is currently the only predator in Australia that has been shown to be able to survive eating the highly toxic and invasive cane toad***. 

Even though you didn’t ask, I’m gonna just touch on the two other types of crocodilians, because I love them. Gharials are highly specialized crocodilians that would normally regulate fish populations - if they weren’t critically endangered - and caimans are smaller, highly adaptable crocodilians. Cuvier’s dwarf caiman in particular is a keystone species.

A couple other things about crocodilians to chew on:

  • Crocodilian meat and leather is a HUGE market, and is fueling conservation and breeding efforts that might otherwise not be there

  • Crocodilians are a very effective tourist draw (read: more conservation)

  • Abandoned nests turn into peat, also important for wetland ecosystems

  • Crocodile tears are a real thing but most likely not due to emotion

TL;DR: CROCODILIANS ARE SUPER IMPORTANT, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY EAT STUFF


*Except gharials. As a rule, gharials look pretty dorky on land.

**Humans are also technically in this grouping, but I didn’t want to insult alligators with the comparison.

***Not proven as a possible population control, however. Too bad.

Planet Plutoid

“Q: PLUTO????????????”
— Anonymous

Look, friend. I know this is still very emotional for some people. Pluto was there for you when you were a child. The underdog of the solar system. You believed in Pluto, and by thunder, Pluto believed in you. And you are personally offended that this is no longer the case.

NEVER AGAIN will you be able to talk about the nine planets of the solar system. NEVER AGAIN will you be able to say My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas. Now she only serves nachos, or noodles, or nothing. A travesty, you say to yourself, righteous tears running down your face.

But people. Really. It’s not like we detonated a planet-annihilating thermonuclear warhead the day it was announced that Pluto’s status had changed. Pluto is still out there. It’s still out there, doing its weird plutoid orbit thing, and doesn’t give a damn what we call it. Heck, we didn’t even know what Pluto looked like before this summer!

Photo from NASA

Photo from NASA

Not only that, but it’s got a whole new squad to hang out with, and I don’t see anyone getting pissed that Ceres, Haumea, Makemake and especially Eris aren’t planets - let alone the several hundred other possible dwarf planets being argued over constantly. 

Change means we’re moving forward and making progress. Change means that NASA, IAU, and everyone else isn’t just content to let things sit the way they’ve always been. Isn’t it incredibly neat that there’s a whole pile more celestial bodies in our solar system that don’t quite fit what we’ve always thought was true? Isn’t it goddamn amazing to think that there’s stuff in our own solar system there that has yet to be discovered??? LIKE I’M NOT EVEN THAT INTO SPACE AND I’M LOSING MY COOL ABOUT IT

I’m gonna level with you: Pluto not being a “planet” isn’t a travesty, isn’t something to protest over, isn’t even mildly disappointing. It’s EXCITING as SHIT and I will literally fight you over this. 

Fluffosaurus rex

“Q: did t. rex’s have feathers? i’ve been getting conflicting answers”
— Anonymous

I hate to have to tell you this, but the reason you are getting conflicting answers is because the answer itself is unresolved. But never fear, my friend, you came to the right place! I will gladly muddy the situation further by explaining why. No, no, don’t thank me. I am here to serve.

The main problem is that so far no large, fossilized skin impressions attributed to T. rex have been discovered, which is why we can’t say for certain if they were or were not covered in scales, feathers, or some ungodly mix of both.

Photo from SAURIAN

Photo from SAURIAN

Without direct evidence, reconstructions of T. rex are forced to rely on skin impressions and fossils from other dinosaurs, with the likelihood of similarities being based on how closely they’re related; whether or not the species is an ancestor or descendant of the tyrannosauroids; whether they are the same size, same environment, same niche… you get the idea. It’s complicated.

And we do have many skin impressions of dinosaurs that were definitively scaly. Stegosaurs, allosaurs, ankylosaurs and many other species have had soft tissue impressions found, all with scales. It is not completely unreasonable to say that T. rex could also have been entirely scaled.

Original photo from Getty Images

Original photo from Getty Images

Of course, this is all without taking into account Dilong and Yutyrannus. Dilong was a small, basal tyrannosaur - an ancestor to T. rex - and in 2004 a fossil was discovered with preserved filamentous protofeathers.

Photo from Xu et al 2004

Photo from Xu et al 2004

Then, in 2012, Yutyrannus huali was discovered, a tyrannosaur from the Early Cretaceous with definitive impressions of feathers. Also, much closer T. rex in both size and time.

Photo from Xu et al 2012

Photo from Xu et al 2012

At this point, even without significant soft tissue impressions from T. rex itself, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that T. rex was entirely scaled. It is surrounded on all sides, evolutionarily speaking, with feathery species of theropods. It is still possible, of course, since the feathers of its ancestors could have secondarily lost for any number of very valid reasons, but it is just as possible, if not more so, that it would have been covered in some kind of feathery integument.

Anyway, I hope this cleared absolutely nothing up for you, as it has for me. You’re welcome.