The Emerald Cockroach Wasp
| January 5, 2007 | Posted by Dave S. under Evolution, Intelligent Design |
The emerald cockroach wasp (Ampulex compressa, also known as the jewel wasp) is a parasitoid wasp of the family Ampulicidae. It is known for its reproductive behavior, which involves using a live cockroach (specificially a Periplaneta americana) as a host for its larva. A number of other venomous animals which use live food for their larvae paralyze their prey. Unlike them, Ampulex compressa initially leaves the cockroach mobile, but modifies its behaviour in a unique way.
As early as the 1940s it was published that wasps of this species sting a roach twice, which modifies the behavior of the prey. A recent study using radioactive labeling proved that the wasp stings precisely into specific ganglia. Ampulex compressa delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion of a cockroach to mildly paralyze the front legs of the insect. This facilitates the second sting at a carefully chosen spot in the cockroach’s head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the cockroach will now fail to produce normal escape responses.
The wasp, which is too small to carry the cockroach, then drives the victim to the wasp’s den, by pulling one of the cockroach’s antennae in a manner similar to a leash. Once they reach the den, the wasp lays an egg on the cockroach’s abdomen and proceeds to fill in the den’s entrance with pebbles, more to keep other predators out than to keep the cockroach in.
The stung cockroach, its escape reflex disabled, will simply rest in the den as the wasp’s egg hatches. A hatched larva chews its way into the abdomen of the cockroach and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of eight days, the wasp larva consumes the cockroach’s internal organs in an order which guarantees that the cockroach will stay alive, at least until the larva enters the pupal stage and forms a cocoon inside the cockroach’s body. After about four weeks, the fully-grown wasp will emerge from the cockroach’s body to begin its adult life.
The wasp is common in tropical regions (Africa, India and the Pacific islands), and has been introduced to Hawaii by F. X. Williams in 1941 as a method of biocontrol. This was unsuccessful because of the territorial tendencies of the wasp, and the small scale on which they hunt.
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.
141 Responses to The Emerald Cockroach Wasp
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Crandaddy, I am attempting to limit ID and keep it where I think it belongs.
I’m afraid I’m with Barrett on this one.
And I find answers like the following just beyond bizarre.
Conversion for the resistant via insect watching?
I don’t know if we can know the designer, but we can know God.
Yes, that is a hopeful possibility, and I believe I’ve read that pleasurable, herioin-like endorphines take over in many prey animals as they are being killed. I wonder, though, if the bliss chemicals remain in force as the internal organs are being eaten.
This doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Probably not, but it worries me for you to feel that way. I think that sort of mindset makes you vulnerable to evil beings.
There are instances of people going through near-death experiences, who felt themselves sinking into hell, but they called for help and were rescued.
troutmac
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/792
malnutritious
Perhaps the original poster should have said a viable, self-sufficient ecology instead of just an ecology. In any designed ecology the usual result is death for everything. Attempts at designing such an ecology by humans have all failed. Biosphere 2 is perhaps the most ambitious attempt. It didn’t last 3 years.
Dave,
Malnutritious gave the obvious and trivial answer from first year biology courses. Once you upset the equilibrium of an ecology some new equilibrium will happen based on local resources and a new local ecology will form.
What I meant was that the planet’s ecology or even most local ecologies are based on the interaction of tens of thousands or more species with the geography, geology and climate of the region and getting an ecology that is “viable and self sufficient” as you said would be an immense task.
I understand the materialist will respond with “some ecology will evolve over time and that the one that we have now is just one of a zillion that could have evolved if things had happened a little bit different at various points in time.”
But the ecology is amazingly fine tuned for a lot of things and Darwinian theory would seem to lead to a deteriorating ecology. As each species blindly heads for some form of superiority since it doesn’t care a wit for any other species, it would then eliminate competition. But yet we don’t witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection. So I maintain that the preservation of the ecology is part of the design.
I was actually directing my comments to those who question the wasp example as cruel and bizarre and that maybe this example is just one of the many small things that help to sustain a viable and self-sufficient ecology. Certainly predator and prey do this but I obviously have no evidence that the wasp and cockroach contribute to anything, just speculation.
Hey, maybe the designer left around a lot of nifty processes for us to discover and eventually use. Biologists seem to be discovering new ones each week. One of the premises of the Privileged Planet was that we were meant to discover things.
Thanks for the Biosphere 2 example.
Troutmac, I don’t think anybody was questioning the morality of the wasp/roach behavior. I posted that it was bizarre and had a hard time envisioning a God in his celestial studio designing such bizarre instinctive behavior. Others agreed, but felt it was instructive, a kind of message in a bottle to humanity. Tribune7 had an interesting insight in this regard.
I find your crop circles argument wanting. Now, I’ve been reading this thread for a long time, so I understand completely your argument. But here’s my problem.
The fact that we can not get inside the designer’s head with any accuracy is problematic for me, and I’m sure others. After all, if CS Lewis is right, our consciousness is a gift from God. We share this gift with Him. As such, God and His ways are quite understandable.
You see, we know that people create crop circles and similar hoaxes for fun. Sure, there are other possibilities for crop circles besides the merry pranksters. Alien visitors? Probably not. First of all, there is no hard evidence for alien visitation. And second of all, it is nonsensical that an alien would spend his time in a corn field and not visit Times Square. I contend that the second argument (that it makes no sense for an alien to spend time in a crop circle) is equal to or more convincing than the lack of objective proof. For certain, the arguments together provide resounding proof that it is a prank.
So, back to the wasp/roach shenanigans. ID puts forth logical reasoning that leads us to believe that a designer is at work in this behavior. We conclude this by using Dr. Dembski’s filter (the hard evidence). But then we get to the second question. Does it make sense that a designer would instill such bizarre behavior? Nope. Not to me anyway.
I think this is extremely important. I have talked to many a scientist who understands the reasoning and science behind ID. Some find it faulty and some find it reasonable. But unanimously, they have a very difficult time concluding that a designer is really at work (at least an understandable designer) in the creation and evolution of life. Dr. Dembski has spent the time to write about the Fall. And I agree, if we put this wasp/roach example into the Christian paradigm, it makes sense (I guess). But what if you don’t accept the Fall? Now we have an ID theory that only makes sense for Christians. And that folks is unfortunate. And suspicious.
DaveScot, perhaps this topic has been beaten to death. Just let me know and I won’t bother with it anymore.
That’s because we missed it! Presumably they all ramp up together, imperceptably slowly. What a treat it would be to time travel to a few million years ago, and witness a world in which protobirds are hopping comically with half developed wings, yet often evading their predators who themselves have not yet gotten big enough or fast enough, or whose noses barely work, so that they are equally ineffective chasers of birds as the birds are ineffective fliers. It wouldn’t matter that the octopus (jellyfish?) had no ink, because the fish who wants a meal has only 6% of an eye anyway. Yes, I would love to go back there. It would be so comical, and so very different than the world we see today, where the workings of all things are such a marvel.
By the way, being concerned over the suffering of an animal is not an anthropomorphism, unless you believe that only humans can suffer. However, that is scientifically impossible, as a pain and fear response are necessary to any animal, and perhaps plants as well.
Morally, I draw a firm line between inducing any gratuitous suffering versus a quick kill. That’s why I like to eat venison and think the way we treat livestock is a sin.
But of course animals eat one another. The hard thing to envision is the fiendish mind of the designer coming up with such an elaborate and prolonged method.
barret1,
I doubt cockroaches and wasps are conscious entities. It’s basically one machine overtaking another in a rather humorous way, IMO.
Perhaps life on this planet had a whole team of very smart designers. And perhaps one (or all) of them had a sense of humor and thought it was kinda funny to make a wasp kill a cockroach in this manner. (I think it’s kinda funny, why wouldn’t they?) Or maybe they wanted to see what we would think about it when we noticed it. Maybe they are amused at our musings on the subject. Or maybe they are learning something from us by watching discuss it.
Who the hell knows? It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with some scenarios here. Free your mind.
Bottom line is, your emotional revulsion of it is not evidence one way or another.
Davescot:
“But the ecology is amazingly fine tuned for a lot of things and Darwinian theory would seem to lead to a deteriorating ecology. As each species blindly heads for some form of superiority since it doesn’t care a wit for any other species, it would then eliminate competition. But yet we don’t witness species getting continually faster, stronger, smarter, living longer with better smell, sight, hearing etc as would be predicted by natural selection. So I maintain that the preservation of the ecology is part of the design.”
Species depend on each other, leading to a natural system of checks and balances.
A deteriorating ecology is the exact opposite to be expected by such a system. Equilibrium is to be expected.
The game of life is like rock paper sissors, some “advantages” are disadvantages in different situations. I would argue that there is no ultimate “model” for living organisms. Predators are binded to their availability of prey, and so on down the food chain. Other limitations are environmental, including those of organic nature, such as trees for arboreal species, figs for symbiotic wasps, and roaches for parasitic wasp larvae. A resource is a resource be it inanimate or organic. If the resource preexists an organism can grow to depend on it. The difference with organic resources is that they too change over time. And so, it would be unreasonable to expect, that a distinct population(species) would develop in a manor which would completely outpace their competition. Even though this can occur, it cannot be expected to be the norm, this would not be supported by any ecological model.
In addition there are limitations on the variation within a particular population on which natural selection can act upon. I would have to propose that it would be unreasonable to beleive that there are no limits to biological systems in terms of speed, intelligence, strength, etc. And that new organisms will not face pressure even if they have an “advantageous” mutation.
Equilibrium I would argue is the natural tendancy not the spiraling arms race you have described and espoused.
Natural selection would actually select against organisms which are so “successful” that it would destroy the resources on which the species depends. It is precicely this reasoning which has had biologists predicting decreases in the virulence of disease over time. And the prediction of shorter evolutionary life spans of top predators, especially those in limited environments.
Speaking of limited environments, Biosphere 2 is an interesting example. It was not a failed ecology, it only failed to meet the expectations of being a self contained environment which can support 8 human beings. In it’s natural tendancy to equilibrium the biosphere ecology destroyed much of the larger more dependent lifeforms in favor of a more suitable balance. (Due to complicated factors the structure favors an atmostphere high in CO2.)
To my Aussie friend,
I was just offering a minor clarification, that’s all. Carry on.
I apologize the original comment I responded to was made by jerry, not DaveScot.
Avocationist: “By the way, being concerned over the suffering of an animal is not an anthropomorphism, unless you believe that only humans can suffer. However, that is scientifically impossible, as a pain and fear response are necessary to any animal, and perhaps plants as well.
Morally, I draw a firm line between inducing any gratuitous suffering versus a quick kill. That’s why I like to eat venison and think the way we treat livestock is a sin.
But of course animals eat one another. The hard thing to envision is the fiendish mind of the designer coming up with such an elaborate and prolonged method. ”
Suffering involves cognition. There is no evidence that insects are even capable of such. It is quite possible that any detected “damage” (e.g. that which would be inflicted by a predator) simply triggers a pre-programmed flight response, without any sensation of pain comparable to what a mammal feels. Ice responds to heat by melting. I would suggest that an insect’s response to being consumed by another is far more like ice melting than what we would feel in a cannibal’s pot. And if that is true, then there is nothing fiendish at all. Your argument might be more persuasive if it applied to some similar relationship between (say) a cat and a dog.
My take on this is that the form of predator/prey relationships is calibrated to the level of cognition of the species involved, and actually minimizes the suffering involved. Kind of evidence of a benevolent designer, as opposed to a Hobbesian struggle.
SCheesman, yes, but I was always wary of those kids who plucked wings off of flies. It had a flavor of sadism in my mind. Just a tad. But I was sensitive lad.
Frankly, I am not concerned about the morality of insect behavior. But I still contend it is a strange design. Not immoral, mind you. But strange. And to think of a designer putting on his thinking cap…well, I guess it’s possible.
You seem to havesaid, in effect “That is so bizzare. God would never have invented that.” Yet I have yet to see you show any qualms about the bizzarness of a God that would invent sex.
Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage.
“Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage.”
Interesting comment-well done!
Best regards,
apollo230
Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage.
Nice one.
Merry Little Christmas.
The volume of responses to this posts indicates that the particular nature of the programmed behaviour of this wasp is very hard to grasp if one holds a gradualistic approach.
It also indicates that objections to ID are often philosophical and religious.
On the other hand, the recognition of design is free from the luxury of excluding dystasteful candidates from the design inference.
Thanks Dave for this provocative and a bit bizzare post.
malnutritious
Biosphere 2 is an interesting example. It was not a failed ecology, it only failed to meet the expectations of being a self contained environment which can support 8 human beings
Actually almost all vertebrates died and all pollinating insects died.
I’m getting a little tired of correcting you. Either improve the quality of your comments or find a different blog.
idnet.com.au wrote:
“The volume of responses to this posts indicates that the particular nature of the programmed behaviour of this wasp is very hard to grasp if one holds a gradualistic approach.
It also indicates that objections to ID are often philosophical and religious.”
Beyond that, it indicates that the “problem of evil” is still very real to most of us.
I am skeptical of crop circles, but let me play Devil’s advocate for a bit…
I think you may be anthropomorphizing here. Corn fields are collections of living things. So is times square. To an alien organism, with presumably no knowledge of the human significance of NY city, why would one collection of living things hold more interest than another? Cause of the pretty lights and cars? Maybe they think that corn fields are centers of worship, where lonesome humans live among these great collections of corn creatures, serving them, grooming them and taking care of their needs.
When trying to get inside the mind of an unkown being, we got to be careful about our assumptions. This is why IDist tend to shy away from pop-psycologizing any would-be designer(s).
[off topic]
EndoplasmicMessenger,
I tried contacting you via the e-mail address you registered at UD regarding your querry about IDEA. Did you get my e-mail?
Salvador