Skip to main content

Moths whispering sweet nothings?

When I was a student of zoology at university, we used to jangle our keys and watch as a moth would suddenly plunge to the ground.   No surprise that moths would respond to sound, but what they are really responding to is the greatest threat to a moth.  It is the sound we cannot hear - the sound of a bat. 

Emitting tiny pulses of ultrasound, bats use radar - echolocation - to 'see' where they are flying and to detect their prey - moths.  But in evolution, moths have fought back in the acoustic war. It is a battle as intense and vital as the Battle of Britain in World War 2.  Moths can avoid the bat's radar.

photo courtesy of Emiko Peterson Yoon
Some eared-moths have developed sound-producing organs, warning, startling and jamming the attacking bats, and also communicating with other moths.  Many species of moth have sound-producing organs - tymbals - on the metathorax.

This a war in the sky, a battle of life and death.  But all is fair in love and war, and some moths also make love with the sound they make.

Recent studies of moth sound communication reveal that using close-range contact, with low-intensity ultrasound male moths 'whisper' sweet nothings during their courtship with a possible mate.  So, a male moth sings a love song - love me tender. 

Sexual sound communication in moths may apply to many eared-moths, perhaps even a majority. The low intensities and high frequencies explain why this was overlooked for so long. In nature, our bias leans towards what humans can sense when studying communication in animals.  But there is more to a click than meets the...ear.  A click can warn, engage, communicate, avoid, confuse, and in the dark, it can be a matter of life or death. 

Ray Noble is a Chartered Biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology. 


 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As