Filthy little parasitic wasps.

Carl: It’s the subjunctive. You can look it up.

Kristoffer: I see, although I don’t really agree with the word “incidental”. A distinction between there being one or two stages would be interesting.

Bob/Paul: I gathered from the summary that this was not healthy behavior, but I think that it may be a distinction between a general behavior when sick and a behavior when sick *in this particular manner*. Very interesting all around

I’ll have to add the paper to my reading list!

Your problem, Carl, is that you are aware of complex interspecies relationships such as this, yet you are not skeptical of evolution theory. You even wrote a book titled “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea.”

I wrote on my blog,

Previously my arguments about co-evolution were restricted to the evolution of obligate mutualism (i.e., total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms) because I thought that only co-evolution of obligate mutualism could require that a mutation in one kind of organism be immediately answered by a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism at the same geographical location in order to produce a benefit or even just for survival. I didn’t see parasitism per se as a problem for evolution because I assumed that mutations involving parasitism do not require an immediate corresponding mutation in the other organism. However, I have just discovered literature about bizarre parasitisms that may require changes in the traits of the host and so also may be a problem for evolution.

My argument about co-evolution was originally stated as follows:

“In the co-evolution of obligate mutualism, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air, water in its different forms, and land its many forms, there may be nothing to adapt to, and the reason why there may be nothing to adapt to is that the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be initially absent locally.”

I present “buzz” pollination as a good example of this dilemma of the co-evolution of obligate mutualism.

Anyway, thanks very much, Carl, for bringing this example of parasitism to my attention. I have added it to my group of posts under the post label “Non-ID criticisms of evolution” on my blog.

Ps this is not obvious to me am not a bio student.

What’s the difference? There isn’t any decision making that goes into causing this behavior, it wasn’t *chosen* as an adaptation, so it’s going to be a by-product.

Is the question whether the actions are beneficial or not?

‘The host remains alive, stops feeding and moving, spins silk over the pupae, and responds to disturbance with violent head-swings (supporting information).’

I guess the host spinning silk over the pupae is pretty conclusive concerning the “bodyguard” theory. Although I am still wondering whether the violent head-swings is not just a natural defensive change after having its inside eaten?

1. Could it be that the moth thought that the parasites were its own eggs or something? I remember seeing how a certain predator of ants could somehow pretend to be one of their own ants using its antennas to mimic the ants’. Walked straight into a nest full of ants like that and managed to survive without as much as a scratch. That is so cool.

2. How did the scientists rule out the “byproduct of being sick” theory? Comparing the behavior of the “infected” vs “healthy” does not rule that out, does it? I mean, if they were not “infected” then they will not shown any of these signs in the first place, right?

3. I skimmed through the paper and while it did mention several times that the scientists removed the infected caterpillars, did they also verify that it was not showing any “bodyguard” behavior after they were removed? If no such behavior was detected after they were removed, would that also not be a significant argument to support the bodyguard theory? In that case, have I somehow missed it in the paper? If they still showed “bodyguard” behavior after they were removed, would that not support the “byproduct of being sick” rather than the “bodyguard” theory?

(P.S. The typos mentioned by Joshua Z. above are still not fixed)

Incidentally, you may want to fix “ture” “W,hat” and “cateripillars.”

Perhaps the bodyguard caterpillars are being piloted by one or two wasps that stay behind, defending their siblings from predators while surrendering their own lives.

Kinda like the fraction of cells in a slime mold which give up their chance at making spores. . . I know some evolution-of-altruism people who would eat this example up.