 |
 |
Jim
Marden is an associate professor of biology of Evolutionary
and Integrative Physiology and Behavior at Pennsylvania
State University. Marden graduated from the University
of Miami, before obtaining both his Master's degree
and Ph. D from the University of Vermont.
Marden
is interested in how animals work and why they work
that way. He investigates both the mechanisms of animal
physiology, and the ecological and historical reasons
why particular physiological mechanisms have evolved.
Primarily
interested in the physiology, behavioral ecology, life
history, and evolution of aerial locomotion in insects,
Marden is currently examining age-related changes in
muscle physiology and thermal biology during adult maturation
in the dragonfly Libellula pulchella,, the evolution
of insect flight using stoneflies as model organisms,
and the performance physiology of free-flying Drosophila
melanogaster .
|
 |
| |
|
|
For
links to this scientist's home page and other related infomation
please see our resources
page.
Marden responds :
|
4.30.01
Erik asked:
Hi,
I just saw your segment on Scientific American Frontiers.
I was wondering where I could find more examples of
adaptation at work. More specifically, examples such
as your flies that express a half or midway adaptation.
Thank you for your help.
|
|
Marden's
response:
Erik:
First, I'll quibble with the way you have worded the
question, then I will go about answering it. All organisms
are adapted to their environment and to other factors
that affect them (such as interactions with other members
of their species), and one should probably not think
in terms of "a halfway adaptation". The stoneflies that
I study are perfectly adapted to moving in two dimensions
across water surfaces. Evolution has no notion of progress
toward a goal (it only selects for traits that provide
an advantage in the present), so the concept of being
"halfway" to somewhere is really just a construct of
the human mind.
Enough quibbling; I appreciate the thrust of your question.
You want to know about adaptations that represent possible
points along the pathway between one set of abilities
and another, especially when it is difficult to determine
how evolution might have produced a complex trait via
a gradual, incremental process. One classic example
is the fossil bird Archaeopteryx, which has teeth and
a bony tail (and many other traits of Theropod dinosaurs),
along with wings, feathers, and certain other traits
of modern birds. This odd species shows us what the
intermediate stages between dinosaurs and birds might
have looked like.There
is a recent book about Archaeopteryx ("Taking Wing,"
by Pat Shipman) that you might enjoy reading.
Lungfish
and other fish spend time out of water, and they have
fairly rudimentary adaptations for breathing air. Legless
lizards have proceeded along an evolutionary path that
has made them very much like snakes. There is a really
nice recent example of an evolutionary transformation
at the genetic level. It involves a gene that encoded
the enzyme trypsinogen, which is secreted by the pancreas,
evolving in Antarctic fish so that it now encodes an
antifreeze protein.
The
reference is:
L. Chen et al. (1997), "Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein
gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid
fish." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
94(8):3811-6 (available
on the web.)
If
you want more such examples, especially in regard to
behavior, I recommend a college-level textbook called:
"Animal
Behavior, An Evolutionary Approach" (6th edition), by
John Alcock. Another good source of information is the
web
site for a college-level evolution textbook.
It
has some exercises and links that provide lots of information
for students and teachers. It is very difficult to learn
much of anything about evolution from high school textbooks.
The creationists have exerted their influence on publishers
so that virtually all of the material on evolution has
been removed from the books.
|
|
4.30.01
Hank Jablonski asked:
If
the wings of an insect are clipped to the nub, will
they grow back again to its full size, or does the insect
have to live with "nubby" wings and get used to living
that way?
|
|
Marden's
response:
Hank:
No, insect wings cannot grow back. We collect (i.e.
kill and keep) the insects we use in our studies, so
there was never any intent to release those stoneflies.
Do I feel guilty about killing a small number of insects?
Nope. Just go look at how many dead insect bodies are
stuck in the radiator grill of your family car. None
of us stop driving in order to avoid killing insects,
and we don't learn anything from the thousands each
of us kills annually with our cars (prior to now you
probably never even thought about them at all!).
|
|
4.30.01
Cheryl asked:
How
do you know you are not causing the stone fly pain when
you clip its wings? Does it have a normal life after
its wings have been clipped?
|
|
Marden's
response:
Cheryl:
I don't know what a stonefly feels when we clip its
wings. I do know that it shows no overt sign of pain,
and it behaves in a relaxed and completely normal fashion
after its wings have been clipped. No, they do not have
a normal life after we clip their wings, because after
measuring their skimming ability, we collect them (i.e.
kill and keep). Thus, we never had any intent to release
those stoneflies.
|
|
4.30.01
Tony asked:
I
just caught the last portion of your segment, as a result,
I thought I heard something along the line of 'gills
evolving to wings'. If so, isn't that a large leap from
gills to wings and if not, please explain.
|
|
Marden's
response:
Tony:
It is too big a story to tell in a 10-minute segment,
or to grasp from watching only a portion of a 10-minute
segment. Read my recent publication (Marden et al. 2000.
"Surface-skimming stoneflies and mayflies: the taxonomic
and mechanical diversity of two-dimensional aerodynamic
locomotion." Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 73,
751-764.) for the full story.
|
|
4.30.01
Jamie Ringler asked:
Why
do male and female dragonflies often fly in tandem pairs
after they mate?
|
|
Marden's
response:
Jamie:
Male dragonflies stay attached to females after mating
(or in some species detach but hover nearby) in order
to prevent other males from rushing in and mating with
that female. Males can remove sperm from previous males,
so to ensure their individual reproductive success,
males guard females with whom they have mated. Go sit
by a pond on a sunny day this summer and watch dragonflies
for awhile. You will see lots of these interesting behaviors,
and some very vigorous competition among males for access
to females. Wouldn't it be better for the species if
the males competed less and just divided up access to
females without all the competition? Sure, but contrary
to popular belief, evolution does not work "for the
good of the species". Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard
Dawkins for a full explanation of that puzzle.
|
|
4.30.01
Jamie asked:
What
feature do scientists believe was the evolutionary precursor
of wings?
|
|
Marden's
response:
Jamie:
There are two schools of thought. One hypothesis is
that wings evolved from plate-like lateral outgrowths
from the thorax. There is very little evidence to support
this. The other hypothesis, which I prefer, is that
wings evolved from the flapping gills of crustacean-like
ancestors. There is a fairly substantial body of evidence
linking insects to crustaceans, and insect wings to
crustacean gills.
|
|
4.30.01
Pete Cooper asked:
Hello!
I am curious about the assertion that stoneflies are
flightless. As an amateur entomologist and fly fisher,
I have witnessed countless thousands of stone flies
in flight, of many different species. I can only assume
that the stoneflies to which you refer are a particular
flightless species, and I would be most interested to
learn which one. Thanks for taking the time to answer
my question.
|
|
Marden's
response:
Pete:
The species featured in the Scientific American Frontiers
episode is Taeniopteryx burksii, which can in fact fly,
but only if it is unusually warm (Feb - April emergence)
and even then only very weakly. Another species that
we have studied, Allocapnia vivipara, cannot flap its
wings at all, but raises them in response to wind in
order to sail across water surfaces. There are many
species in the families Perlidae, Perlodidae, and Chloroperlidae
that do not skim (or do so very poorly) and are fairly
proficient fliers. All in all, stoneflies are a real
mix in terms of flying ability, and except for the families
mentioned above, nearly all are very good at surface-skimming.
Check out video clips on this web
site for a more complete look at stonefly skimming
behaviors than what was shown on the TV show that you
saw.
|
|
4.30.01
Selome
asked:
Dear
Jim Marden: How is it that that in evolution, an animal's
genetic make-up would all of a sudden change? Are there
any observations that could be shown as proof of evolution?
Has any one ever observed some animals long enough to
see them change?? Is there any hard proof that any way
you look at it, it proves correct and can persuade people?
Thankyou,
Selome, 11
|
|
Marden's
response:
Selome:
Perhaps the best "hard proof" for the process of evolution
is the rapid development of drug resistance by viruses
and bacteria, and insecticide resistance by insects.
In many of these cases, the genetic changes responsible
for the evolution of resistance have been observed and
documented. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy
to persuade someone dying in a hospital bed from an
infection of multi-drug resistant Streptococcus bacteria
that evolution has occurred. The same drugs that wiped
out these bacteria two decades ago now have no effect.
The drug and insecticide companies understand this.
They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
research to find new antibiotics and pesticides because
they know that the ones they make now become less effective
every year. They certainly are not spending this kind
of money because evolution is a "theory". These are
hardheaded business people who know fully well that
the "fact" of evolution will put them out of business
if they don't evolve their products to keep pace.
Another body of "hard proof" is the existence of all
sorts of fossils that are tens or hundreds of millions
of years old, and are different from any creatures that
are alive today. In some cases, these fossils possess
features that are intermediate between major groups
of organisms (i.e. Archaeopteryx, which has both the
feathers of birds and the teeth and boney tail of Theropod
dinosaurs; fossil whales with small limb bones; etc.,
etc.)
A
good source of information is the web
site for a college-level evolution textbook. It
has some exercises and links that provide lots of information
for students and teachers. It is very difficult to learn
much of anything about evolution from high school textbooks.
The creationists have exerted their influence on publishers
so that virtually all of the material on evolution has
been removed from the books. Incidentally, despite photographs
from space of a spherical Earth, there are still people
who believe that the Earth is flat. See the following
web site, although I get the impression that it is authored
by people who are making fun of flat-earthers
( www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm).
Generally,
regardless of how much "hard evidence" you have, it
is a big waste of time to try to dissuade people from
things that they have chosen to believe.
|
|
4.30.01
Christopher
Adamson, Kelowna BC, Canada
asked:
We
were watching the April 10th show and were interested
in the flies with "nub" type wings. You talk of this
as an evolutionary step (wings for skimming along water
instead of for flying). Are there any fossils of insects
with these non-flight wings (the so-called "missing
link" for insect wings from rudders)? Or is this entirely
theory? Thank you for your time.
|
|
Marden's
response:
Chris:
I can do better than fossils. When we filmed that segment,
we were studying another stonefly species in which the
males have short stubby wings that they use to sail
across water surfaces. This species can raise and lower
its wings, but is incapable of flapping them. There
are photos of this species on my web site at www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/project2.html
, a crude animation that runs across the top of my homepage
at www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden,
and a movie of a long-winged female at www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/movies/sailing.mov.
We thought that both species would be included in the
Frontiers segment, but the stubby winged sailors ended
up on the cutting room floor. Since then, we have found
lots of other types of surface skimming, which you can
see at www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/PBZFig1.html
and www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/PNASFig2.html.
One of the species that we have studied uses its wings
to row along the water surface (www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Marden/movies/rowing.mov),
and this species also has what appear to be functional
gills on the ventral abdomen of the adults. There are
many types of fossil insects that have short stubby
wings that certainly look insufficient for flying, and
which also possess what appear to be gills on their
abdomen (these are illustrated in fig. 7 of our recent
paper: "Surface-skimming stoneflies and mayflies: the
taxonomic and mechanical diversity of two-dimensional
aerodynamic locomotion." Physiological and Biochemical
Zoology 73, 751-764.) Thus, while we do plenty of speculation,
we also have a good basis for doing so.
|
|
4.30.01
Rachelle Hill asked:
I
just finished watching "Flying Free." It was quite interesting
and fun, I really enjoyed it. The segment on studying
bug flight spawned some ideas: first, a question, has
anyone yet figured out exactly how a bumblebee flies,
defying engineering? That got me thinking, why are they
so hairy? Could the black hair actually trap heat, allowing
the bumblebee to aid his flight with his own thermals?
The reason I got onto the bumble bee question was because
I noticed the scientists were studying large wings on
relatively light, aerodynamic bugs. It seems to me we
would be better off studying how a non-aerodynamic relatively
heavy bug flies with little wings (because it seems
it would give us some great tips).
|
|
Marden's
response:
Rachelle:
The thermal biology of bumblebees is very well known
(see B. Heinrich, Bumblee Economics). The aerodynamics
of insects with wingbeat kinematics similar to bumblebees
has been recently described (see Dickinson et al. 1999.
Science 284: 1954-1960). There are plenty of people
(including the US military) who share your view that
we can learn much from the aerodynamics of flying insects
(see Ellington CP. 1999. "The novel aerodynamics of
insect flight: applications to micro-air vehicles."
Journal of Experimental Biology. 202: 3439-3448.)
|
|
4.30.01
Ankit Vachher asked:
In
"Taking it to air", why was it necessary to cut only
half the wings off instead of all of them? What was
the purpose of cutting them off?
|
|
Marden's
response:
Ankit:
We trimmed the wings in order to determine if it was
possible for stoneflies to skim across water using wings
much smaller than those that exist in modern insects.
In other words, we wanted to test our hypothesis that
weight-supported aerodynamic locomotion in two dimensions
(skimming across water) requires less sophisticated
equipment than does true flight. It we had cut the wing
off entirely, there would be no way for those insects
to accomplish aerodynamic locomotion of any kind. Our
hypothesis is that insect wings evolved from flapping
gills of aquatic ancestors, not that insect wings evolved
from nothing. Thus, we recreated approximately gill-sized
wings. We also lowered the temperature so that the flight
muscles produced much less power. This was our way of
approximately recreating the "small" muscles that would
have been used to flap the gills.
|
back
to top

|