• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Natural Selection Stymied by this tactic?

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
Is this truly an example of a situation where natural selection is stymied?


http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-snake.html

An Australian snake employs a special feeding behavior to avoid
poisoning by toxic frogs, reports The American Naturalist. University
of Sydney scientists Ben Phillips and Richards Shine found that the
northern death adder not only distinguishes between different species
of toxic frogs, but modifies its feeding behavior to enable it to eat
species that rely on different poisons and defensive strategies.
First the adder bites and waits for its prey to die. Depending on the
species, the snake then waits a specific length of time for the
frog's toxins to degrade: 12 minutes for the marbled frog, the toxins
of which lose potency after about 10 minutes, and 30-40 minutes for
the Dahl's aquatic frog, which is rendered harmless about 30 minutes
after death. The behavior, which takes place only after the death of
a frog, is highly effective from an evolutionary standpoint, write
the authors.

"In evolutionary terms, the snake's strategy of 'bite, release, and
wait' is unbeatable by the frogs. Although prey often evolve ways of
overcoming predator tactics, the frogs can't do so in this case -
because the snake's strategy only becomes effective after the frog
has died. Natural selection ceases to operate on an individual after
that individual's death, so frogs will probably never evolve toxins
that last longer in response to the snake's tactic. Thus, this
waiting strategy is likely to be stable and unbeatable over
evolutionary time."

CITATION: Ben Phillips and Richards Shine (2007). When dinner is
dangerous: toxic frogs elicit species-specific responses from a
generalist snake predator. The American Naturalist VOLUME 170 NUMBER
5 NOVEMBER 2007.
 
What "stymies" evolution is when all members of a species live and reproduce. Human evolution has been slowed because of this. I know a girl who was the product of incest who has had two children even though she has many genetic anomalities. Her arms are permanently locked into a boxer like position because she was born without elbows. her legs had a similar problem also but surgery has partly corrected this. Her children whose father was a healthy college student have similar problems but the problems were corrected by surgery. Shes a good girl but I wish she had not had kids.
 
I'm with drkitten: not in the least. A few seconds of thought was sufficient to come up with something that seems plausible. Consider a random mutation such that the toxin is much longer lived, even if it's no longer as poisonous. Frogs that make you ill, even after a few hours, are unlikely to be a preferred food source.
 
How did the snakes evolve to know how to wait?

Some of them, for many reasons, would not catch/find the frogs before the poison had ceased to work. Those survived.

Some would catch/find the frogs when the poison was almost gone, and got sick. Those learned to stay away - and survived.

If anything, this proves natural selection. It doesn't "stymie" it at all.
 
If the frogs' sole predator is the snake and producing toxin has a cost, then frogs which fail to produce toxin will evolve.

If the snake is not the sole predator, then mutations will continue to produce variation in the frog toxins, forcing the snake to adapt.

Of course the snake's behaviour might be learned rather than genetic, in which case we have a very smart snake, which is now doomed, as humans have learned about it.

Possibly the frogs blew the whistle deliberately?
 
Thanks so far for the responses. I also thought that as DD said this is an opportunity for evolution on the part of the frogs. The other responses were equally as valid IMHO.

(half-jokingly...)the author may've been premature in citing this interesting set of circumstance as unbeatable by the frogs. How
long is evolutionary time again?
 
Thanks so far for the responses. I also thought that as DD said this is an opportunity for evolution on the part of the frogs. The other responses were equally as valid IMHO.

(half-jokingly...)the author may've been premature in citing this interesting set of circumstance as unbeatable by the frogs. How
long is evolutionary time again?

Calculations suggest at least 6000 years.:D

Like the end of history, the end of evolution seems some way off.
 
Not in the least.
Correct. The frogs will create random mutations in their skin poison over time; some will have poison that lasts longer. Snakes that adapt and wait long enough will live, ones that don't will die. It's not just the frogs that get killed that benefit; the rest of the frogs benefit as well, because there are less snakes, but the more frogs with longer-lasting poison there are, the less snakes there will be. More frogs with long-lasting poison being the fittest, this works fine.
 
...so long as the cost to the frog of creating the long lasting toxin is not too great.
 
Natural selection ceases to operate on an individual after
that individual's death, so frogs will probably never evolve toxins
that last longer in response to the snake's tactic.
That's pretty disjointed. The mechanism of selection is death. And natural selection doesn't exactly operate on individuals it operates on gene pools and populations.
 
That's pretty disjointed. The mechanism of selection is death. And natural selection doesn't exactly operate on individuals it operates on gene pools and populations.

Well- it operates through the selective reproduction of individuals. All individuals die, but some reproduce more than others first. Any effect on a genepool or population arises as a summation of effects on individuals.

Another possible adaptation for the frogs would be mimicry of each other.- Darat

There's a thought. What happens if
10 minute frogs mimic 30 minute ones? Nada.
30 minute frogs mimic 10 minute ones? Dead snake. This is of no benefit to the frog, (also dead), but may be to the frog's kin. You would expect the snakes to just extend the wait to 30 minutes for all frogs- but that may have a cost to the snakes.

 
Last edited:
This is a very good example of how even scientifically educated people think they understand natural selection far better than they actually do. The authors are making a basic Lamarckian error, and should ask themselves how being poisonous to a predator can ever be a survival advantage. After all, in their words, this "only becomes effective after the frog has died". What difference can it make to the individual frog whether or not the snake also dies? (And how, by the way, is it any different from the snakes evolving immunity to the poison? It's just a rather interesting example of an evolutionary arms race between species, one that evidently involves learnt behaviour.)

The general answer (not necessarily frogs/snakes) is that predators have learnt (or, in some cases, evolved) to avoid prey that are (or appear to be) poisonous. Being poisonous confers no direct advantage on the individual, as the trait never manifests itself unless the individual is eaten, but advertising itself as being poisonous can confer a powerful advantage. It's actually a very complex subject, as we need to consider many complicating factors such as the co-evolution of poison and advertisement, kin and population selection, and, as Darat mentions, mimicry.

Let me emphasise: becoming effective only after the individual's death is absolutely not a problem for natural selection. In Steve's example the actual problem for the frogs is that the poison has ceased to work. Individuals that are (or appear to be) poisonous will eventually lose their survival advantage, because the predators will learn (or, in other examples, evolve) not to avoid this prey. Therefore the frogs will, through natural selection, evolve other defence mechanisms, e.g. different poisons (the arms race could resume if the poison's timing changes or becomes less predictable), or changing their habitats or habits. Or possibly not, in which case they may become extinct.

That's natural selection for you.
 
Last edited:
On the issue of how the snakes learn how long to wait, it is necessary to know that they have extremely keen olfactory senses. I surmise they can smell (even "taste")the difference between a potent poison and one which has lost its potency. Snakes actually smell as well as taste with their tongues, picking up odor molecules with each flick and thus retrieved draw it back into an olfactory organ in the roof of their mouth known as Jacobson's organ.

The odor or taste difference, in a manner of speaking, could be a zeitgeber or "time giver."

Zeitgeber (from German for "time giver") is any external (exogenous) cue that entrains the internal (endogenous) time keeping system of organisms. The strongest Zeitgeber, for both plants and animals, is light. Other, non-photic, zeitgebers include temperature, social interactions, pharmacological manipulation and eating/drinking patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeber

I suggest that in this case it falls under the definition where "pharmacological manipulation" is concerned.

Anyone care to wager who will win this? The snakes or the frogs?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom