By Daniela Mera & Dirley Cortés

           Full House: the spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin (Gould, 1996). The world, organized through a progression in perfection. The scala naturae (Valdes, 1579): earth’s organisms organized according to an increasing scale of perfection from the least ‘perfect [simple]’ ones at the bottom to the most ‘perfect [complex]’ ones at the top. From Plato: nature being organized hierarchically, where things progress from simple to perfect (primitive to most advanced). The least perfect organisms share a degree of ‘complexity’ completely lesser compared to the most perfect ones, which share in turn a similar degree of ‘complexity’. No intermediary stages between these two. A direction in evolution is now conceived. To Darwin: gradual transformations and diversification. Misunderstanding represented in a number of books as a linear tendency. Origin of Species (Darwin, 1856), showing indeed a branching tree to explain how species originate. All organisms in the tree are equally evolved being influenced by natural selection. There is no a direction in evolution according to Darwin. Gradualism and linearity, a misconception during Darwin’s time: ape-to-human progression. All life is in turn related. ‘Species are not immutable’ (Darwin, 1844). There are changes over time in response to natural selection (even though no fossils were recognized at that time!).

           All over the media, we see images like the ape-to-human straight line. Evolution follows a straight line based on those diagrams upon naked-eye observations. We see then the linear progression in complexity. Is it true that evolution embodies a trend? A tendency for earth’s organisms to ‘increase in anatomical complexity, or neurological elaboration, or size and flexibility or behavioral repertoire, or any criterion obviously concocted (if we would only be honest and introspective enough about our motives) to place Homo sapiens a top a supposed heap”?(Gould, 1996, p. 19). Another way of drawing this ‘progression in perfection’ path is by a pyramid, ‘with man, the most complex but least numerous organism, at the apex, and viruses, the most numerous but least complex organisms, at the base’ (Gould, 1996, p. 25). So, how is that ‘a few creatures have evolved greater complexity in the only direction open to variation [?]. The mode has remained rock-solid on bacteria throughout the history of life -and bacteria, by any reasonable criterion, were in the beginning, are now, and ever shall be the most successful organisms on earth’ (Gould, 1996 p. 38). Now think about this for a moment, and realize that the claim about an increase in complexity of life reflecting a drive to progress in evolution is a tremendous fallacy. Nobody more assertive than S.J. Gould to describe it with such prose:

           ‘Natural evolution includes no principle of predictable progress or movement to greater complexity. But cultural change is potentially progressive or self-complexifying because Lamarckian inheritance accumulates favorable innovations by direct transmission, and amalgamation of traditions allows any culture to choose and join the most useful inventions of several separate societies’ (Gould, 1996 p. 222).

            That is why we must examine the ‘full house’ of the total system of a biological system, and not only a narrow aspect of it (Gould, 1996; Weijer, 1997).

           Here is how our reflection of the Complexity of Life started and what we did learn from it.

           “Complexity” is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as the ‘quality or condition of being difficult to understand’, while other general definitions state that complexity means lacking simplicity. Specific definitions based on the theory of systems incorporate more details to the general definition of complexity in order to quantify somehow such convoluted characteristics (Baeta and Montero 2006). Do these definitions integrate complexity in natural evolution?

           Over dinner in the Gamboa schoolhouse, some people came up with some exciting questions in-depth related to how we define ‘complexity’. What is a complex organism? What is complex in a complex world? Are some organisms more complex than others? Are we biased when we talk about complexity?

           In the discussion we had, we realized that scientists use the word ‘complexity’ indiscriminately and without paying much attention, and we talk about complex patterns, complex systems, complex communication signals, complex physiological mechanisms, etc. However, what do we mean accurately by ‘complexity’?

           Despite the fact that some people think that complexity is measurable, complexity is still very ambiguous and subjective. This was reflected in our conversation in which some of us were arguing that humans are the most complex organism in the tree of life due to the communication capabilities of humans (speaking multiple languages and having a ‘unique’ brain), for being aware of their owns existence along with doing research about surrounding species, for making world impact decisions, and being able to live in societies, among others. These morphological and behavioral capacities place humans -based on our discussion classmates- on top of the complexity pyramid. 

           If we mention remarkable features of the human species, we can also highlight a few other species’ impressive capabilities. For instance, some type of bacteria are able to survive 100°C temperatures (e.g. Wharton, 2004), some fish species lice in the dark depth of the ocean (e.g. Hornung et al. 2003), and a few locusts are able to fly 4,500 km in 10 days (e.g. Hunter 2004). All of these characteristics are unique to those groups, and compared to human species, advantages and disadvantages can be recognized with ease. As differences came up, we cannot acknowledge that humans are less complex because of the fact they lack these characteristics. How would you argue here against this thesis when most of we see on media or vaguely read in books and blogs or even hear from colleagues shows the opposite?

           Something to be considered that afternoon and which we need to take with caution here is the human egocentrism (should we then call it as self-complexity?). Probably, because a social/cultural reasons, we consider (and we wish) ourselves to be on top of anything being then more important than everything. This anthropocentric behavior probably also drives our actions and decisions regarding how we inhabit, share and behave towards other earth’s organisms, their environment, and even other humans!

           After a chaotic initial discussion, we could not get to a consensus! Some of us disagreed with this previous idea mostly because we find really mistaken to consider a ‘progression-in-perfection hierarchy’ within earth’s organisms displaying in the tree of life. As previous brilliant minds pointed out before (e.g. C. Darwin and S.J. Gould), we think that evolution is not linear, that there is not such complexity in that path, and that conceiving a trend in life forms is inaccurate and lacked ‘full house’ attributes. Instead, we see diversification (and innovations) of life forms, exhibiting protuberant and protruding branches following several paths. So, finding a more complex clade on top of it is highly dubious.

           A final aspect to reflect from is that some people consider humans to be on top of the complexity scale, probably because they are the best known and studied species worldwide (e.g. 3’575.260 documents for humans vs. 2’445.892 for category-plants vs. 1’975.535 for mice, Feb 2020). Humans have been always concerned about their own survival as well as questioning their own existence. However, we cannot underestimate other organisms’ complexity because of our lacking of knowledge about the indisputable other 99.99% of extant and extinct species natural history!

           In conclusion, we consider that complexity is by itself a characteristic of every organism in the tree of life. From the very small inconspicuous bacteria to the marine mammal megafauna, including all different kind of ecological interconnections within them, taking different paths along the tree branches, placed over a micro to macro spatiotemporal scales and being permeated by atoms and linked to the galaxies, it is alarming, inconceivable, nonsense, and even funny to this point, to grant a single species with the attribute of being either complex or simple without considering a holistic vision of evolution, the ‘full house’ of the total system of a biological system. If we rather prefer to opt for a <human self-complexity to camouflage complexity in natural evolution> perspective, then we see a predictable (and needless to say) trend here, at least for us.

References

Baeta C., Monteiro F. 2006. O que há de complexo no mundo complexo? Niklas Luhmann e a Teoria dos Sistemas Sociais. Sociologias. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1517-45222006000100007 

Darwin, C. 1856. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. (1809-1882). London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. 1844. In letters. The foundations of the Origin of Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letters/darwins-life-letters/darwin-letters-1844-1846-building-scientific-network

Gould, S. Jay. 1996. Full House : The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, 1st ed. Harmony Books, New York, pp.

Hornung H., Sukenik A., Gabrielides G. 2003. Distribution and composition of fatty acids in muscle lipids of inshore fish and deep water sharks from the eastern Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 28(7): 448-450

Hunter D. 2004. Advances in the control of locusts (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in eastern Australia: from crop protection to preventive control. Australian Journal of entomology. 43 (3): 293-303 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1326-6756.2004.00433.x

Hornung H., Sukenik A., Gabrielides G. 2003. Distribution and composition of fatty acids in muscle lipids of inshore fish and deep water sharks from the eastern Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 28(7): 448-450

Valdes, D. 1579. Scala naturae. Rhetorica Christiana. From the original held by the Dep. Sp. Col. Herburgh Libraries of the University of Notre Dame.

Wharton D. Life at the limits. Organisms in extreme environments. Department of zoology. University of Otago. New Zealand. Cambridge University press. pp. 87

Weijer, C. 1997. Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. BMJ, 314 (7082), p.761.

By Dirley Cortés

“In its belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a… thousand years.” – C-3PO Jabba the Hutt.

The Star Wars’ carnivorous creature Sarlacc from the epic Great Pit of Carkoon battle (Planet Tatooine) in “Return of the Jedi: Ep 6” is not that far from the truth. Sarlacc has a trap in which skywalker is placed into. An antlion larva (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) has perhaps the most exciting pit digging behavior provided by a hole engineering from which that scene was probably inspired.

Thus, bearing ambush tactics, the antlion larva lays pit-fall traps in sand/soil of 1-2 inches deep/width for small-sized arthropods to fall into it while patiently nestling underground. When feeling a disturbance, this hidden and tiny insect gets alert and carefully emerge their long and powerful mandibles slightly over the center of the pit.

There are three scenarios in which insects such as small ants may be involved in that scene:

First (conditioned freedom), an ant walks on the surface and passes really close around risking its life, but ending up entirely free for it did not fall into. Just like in Starwars, Jabba the Hutt attempts to drop Skywalker, Han Solo, and Chewbacca into the multi-tentacled beast. This time, Skywalker frees himself and the rest of them.

In a second scenario (conditioned break), an ant hangs out nearby and suddenly fall into one of those traps. If lucky, it escapes from a terrifying predator just climbing the steep side of that trap while it is being chased by the antlion with no success. In this case, the antlion would do its best effort to throw sand up toward the ant to pull down the ant once again into the pit. For that tiny ant, that is a huge avalanche. One more time, the ant does not give up, it climbs even more, even stronger and determinedly fighting face-to-face against the larva. Successfully for the already scared and tired ant, but unfortunately for the hungry and excited larva, this odyssey ends here, at least until a next and not far away from the trap.

In a more fascinating and tough scenario (becoming dinner), an ant unnoticeably falls into the trap being captured by the clever predator. Although it is not an easy task, that ant loses the fight giving the antlion the most desired banquet. By having a long tube, it secrets a paralytic venom full of enzymes that will slowly liquefy the ant. Once dinner is taken, a dried exoskeleton is now left.

Although cruel to many and dazzling to others, this is simply fascinating and fun to catch up!

*I have prepared a video including the above described three scenarios. Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3O-iVSZWuo

**I noticed these traps for the first time during our expedition to BCI thanks to D. Gálvez who stopped by to explain it to me. There are many of those traps all over the BCI station, so J. Scott encouraged me to take some videos!

Dear colleague,

You have been doing very well. Your astonishing work in science and by providing outstanding and efficient service since you became a natural and curious scientist, you make the world a better place to live in. Naturally, we all are directly or indirectly grateful for such lifelong labor. However, I regret to say that it isn’t entirely meaningful to do science when we forget our inner naturalist and skip our appreciation of the natural world by rushing to collect data and speedy get published?

From my last personal experience in the field, I see this as being alarming, very alarming. Everyone rushing to collect and analyze data, to then spend hours playing with the results to be finally presented. But how can it be avoided? Perhaps by recovering a sense of carefully observing the amazing exposed rocks (or fossils if that is the case), touching the leaves and feeling the breeze, smelling the forest, listening to the creeks, drawing with no moderation, and even tasting (when possible) a pack of seeds … in other words, through a selfless and profound contemplative appreciation for Nature. Embracing modern science but remembering contemplative connection with nature will enable us to be that enthusiastic, humble, attuned and genuine about the natural world first, but also pooling our thoughts and observations after. Of course, we cannot claim to keep living in the preceding naturalists times (such as A.v. Humboldt**, G. Cuvier, J.F. Blumenbach, G.H. Karsten, S. Merian, J. Colden, E. Michael, C. Darwin, among others), but we can be still, mindful, watchful, and present as the contemporary naturalists we are (if there is room to house that word), balancing pure observation and today’s academic system challenges. 

Please do not take this as a complaint, and please do not feel I am assuming to tell you how to run your behavior and work while doing fieldwork. This letter is prompted solely by a desire to react following my personal experience and points of view about ways of doing science in today’s world, that misses someway the foundation of our spectacular predecessors. They made an effort to understand biodiversity, climate, evolution, geography, organisms, etc. through an in-depth thoughtful and pure observations, why on earth we are losing that particular and wholesome taste?

We all are privileged for having the chance to view the natural world from a holistic viewpoint and for doing what we love to do, satisfying our curiosity and understanding the natural world along the way starting from a single but significant question.

You are busy. Please do not trouble to answer this note.

Yours truly,

Dirley

*Along with to this letter, I have inserted some videos showing what astonished me the most during the TropicalBio expedition.  

Land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FKNNWOh6EA

Ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taVn3kLy6eU

**If you want to read a really inspiring book about one of the most innovative and crucial naturalists ever lived, Alexander von Humboldt, I highly recommend this one: “The Invention of Nature” by Andrea Wulf.

By Dirley Cortés

3 IDEAS FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE DURING THE COURSE              

I.

The most effective form of getting your ideas across within colleagues is not speaking out loud, but seeking first to listen, and then kindly speaking about how their points integrate somehow with yours, even if they are completely opposite. As people often say, being kind is sometimes most important than trying to be right while proving others wrong. Here I also quote Henry ford: let’s ‘get the other person’s point of view and see things from his angle as well as from our own’.

II.

No matter how many times you have visited a place before, there’s always lots of first times in places, ecosystems, ideas, people, and experiences when you’re back again. And this is particularly true when coming back to Panama and STRI.

III.

How did life become so diverse? What does drive such diversity? How is that that diversity has maintained across millions of years? And why is there such high biodiversity in the Neotropics? 

Those are some of the most intriguing questions that scientists have been trying to address since the first naturalists undertook the most incredible explorations around the world back in the mid-18^th century. Yet, no single answer has come up after almost three centuries of explorations and research, and perhaps we never will fully know since the processes driving global-scale changes are too complex. Processes that have driven diversification of life across the Neotropics over millions of years may not be modeled or understood as a simple reductionist phenomenon. Nevertheless, articulating interdisciplinary perspectives to tackle those questions might provide important insights to improve our knowledge on this respect. That’s why STRI is that outstanding, and I’m happy to be part of it! 

2 IDEAS FROM OTHERS

I .

“Start with the question, then think of the study system” (Owen McMillan)

II.

“Macroevolutionary patterns arise from microevolutionary processes” (Ummat Somjee)

1 QUESTION FOR YOU

If a country’s economy depends upon the science, how would you influence a government person to set aside some of the national funding to invest in your project?

*The 3-2-1 format is inspired in the J.C. newsletter that I personally find really helpful and practical.