Bostryx bicolor

Frogs have evolved a wide variety of strategies to evade <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/some-bats-buzz-like-hornets-to-deter-predators/">predators</a>. Some of the defense mechanisms used by frogs are quite bizarre, such as playing dead, screaming, urinating, or puffing up their bodies.&nbsp;



In a new study led by evolutionary biologist Stefan Lüpold at the <a href="https://www.uzh.ch/en.html">University of Zurich</a>, researchers set out to investigate how frogs choose between two specific antipredator strategies: fleeing the scene versus avoiding detection through camouflage. The results suggest that frogs evolved to have either small or large brains depending on which of these defense strategies they use.&nbsp;



Despite their effectiveness, both fleeing and camouflaging come with potential costs. For example, it takes a lot of energy to physically escape a predator. But while camouflage may save energy, it can be detrimental to mating success and greatly limits where animals can safely live.&nbsp;



The study was focused on antipredator adaptations in 102 Chinese frog species. The analysis revealed that frogs with fewer predators had adapted bodies for escaping, including large brains and muscular hind legs.&nbsp;



On the other hand, when frogs are faced with many predators, fleeing is no longer the best option. “Under these unfavorable conditions, the cognitive costs needed for this strategy outweigh its benefits,” explained Lüpold. “Here, evolution has led to a gradual shift from cognitive predator evasion to camouflage – and thus smaller brains.”



According to the researchers, the study is the first to establish a direct link between brain evolution and different strategies for evading predators.



“Our study highlights that research on brain evolution has to consider metabolic costs as much as it focuses on cognitive benefits,” said Lüpold.&nbsp;



"Specifically, our phylogenetic path analysis reveals an indirect relationship between predation risk and crypsis that is mediated by brain size," wrote the study authors. "This result suggests that at a low predation risk, frogs can afford to be conspicuous and use their large brain for cognitive predator evasion. This strategy may become less efficient or energetically costlier under higher predation pressure, favoring smaller brains and instead increasing crypsis."



The study is published in the journal <a href="https://www.science.org/journal/sciadv">Science Advances</a>.



---



By <a href="http://csexton@earth.com">Chrissy Sexton</a>, <a href="https://www.earth.com/staff/">Earth.com</a> Staff Writer

Conspicuous frogs have big brains to evade predators

Frogs have evolved a wide variety of strategies to evade...

According to the World Health Organization, mosquitos are the deadliest animals on Earth. The <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/climate-change-heightens-risk-of-most-infectious-diseases/">diseases</a> they pass on to humans, including malaria, Zika, West Nile, Chikungunya and dengue, are responsible for around 725,000 deaths each year. The insects use olfactory cues to locate humans with an unerring accuracy, preferring to bloodfeed on humans over other animals, and so the means by which they detect human presence has become the object of scientific investigation.&nbsp;&nbsp;



More than a decade ago, Leslie Vosshall, a <a href="https://www.hhmi.org/">Howard Hughes Medical Institute</a> (HHMI) Investigator, turned her attention to understanding the mosquito olfactory system in a quest to find ways to blunt the insect’s uncanny ability to locate human prey. “I wanted to do something the public could be excited about,” she says. And her new work would indeed prove to have a major impact – just not what she’d anticipated. Vosshall describes the results as “a huge, staggering surprise."



Mosquitos detect chemical signals using odor receptors that are located on nerve cells (neurons) found on the antennae and some of the mouth parts. The accepted understanding, based on the Nobel Prize-winning research on mice by Linda Buck (now at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center) and Richard Axel at Columbia, was that the smell sensing systems in animals are exquisitely specialized and organized. Each olfactory neuron has just one type of receptor, which detects a specific odor and then connects to just one structure (called a glomerulus) in the olfactory bulb of the brain.&nbsp;



According to this paradigm, a mosquito would be expected to have separate neurons that detect the smell of human body odor, and the presence of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2), and it might be a straightforward process to disable these particular neurons and render mosquitos insensitive to human cues. Or that’s what the researchers thought. “We as a field were so influenced by Buck and Axel,” says Vosshall (who was a postdoc student in Axel’s lab). “Those were the rules.”



Initially, the researchers analyzed the DNA in the complete genome of a blood-sucking mosquito, something that had not yet been undertaken. “No one had done genome editing before in part because the genome was so fragmented,” Vosshall explains. Then, Meg Younger a former postdoc in the lab set out to try to answer a puzzling question. Mosquitoes are attracted to both the CO2 that people breathe out and to human body odor.&nbsp;



“But there’s something magical about adding those two ingredients together, where one plus one equals twenty,” she says. When both olfactory cues are present together, the insects become very excited and focused, and they start to hunt for humans ferociously. It is as though the two stimuli become amplified somehow in the olfactory system.&nbsp;



In order to understand what was happening, Younger tried to identify which olfactory neurons responded to CO2 and which to body odor, and then to trace the pathways of the signals to the brain. She used the gene editing tool CRISPR to slip a fluorescent marker protein into the neurons that had receptors for CO2 and another marker into those that could sense chemicals from body odor. That’s when the research took an unexpected turn. “It was like Alice in Wonderland – where nothing makes sense,” Vosshall says.



The results, published in the journal <a href="https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867422009278">Cell</a>, show something altogether new in the world of olfactory systems. The fluorescent receptor genes indicated that individual neurons did not only carry receptors for one chemical cue, as was previously thought. Instead, the neurons were chock full of multiple different types of receptors. We found that “all the Buck and Axel rules were thrown in the garbage can by mosquitos,” says Vosshall.&nbsp;



The results were so startling that Vosshall’s lab has spent years painstakingly proving that they were actually real, using several additional lines of evidence. For instance, Olivia Goldman, a PhD student in the lab, harnessed a relatively new and revolutionary technique called single nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) to probe which genes are turned on in individual neurons. The approach confirmed that each neuronal cell does indeed use many different kinds of receptors.&nbsp;



In addition, the researchers teamed up with scientists at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, who had done ground-breaking research using electrodes inserted into individual olfactory neurons in mosquitos. That method also confirmed that a single mosquito neuron can detect different smells – even two different ‘flavors’ of body odor, a perfumy smell and a stinky foot odor, which require two entirely different classes of receptors.&nbsp;



Those results “were a huge relief,” Vosshall says. She anticipated widespread skepticism to her conclusions, “so the number of levels of evidence that we used to prove it was intense,” she says. In fact, many scientists did challenge these new findings at first. But not only was the supporting evidence overwhelming, similar findings were also emerging from neuroscientist Christopher Potter’s lab at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.&nbsp;



Working with both the fruit fly and a mosquito species, Potter’s team published a paper in eLife in April suggesting that “co-expression of chemosensory receptors is common in insect olfactory neurons.” In the past, the conventional wisdom of one receptor per smell and one receptor per neuron was so strong that there was no reason to probe for multiple receptors, says Potter. “Now we know to look for it.”



The findings of Vosshall and her team have overturned the conventional model of the neural circuity animals use to detect, and distinguish between, thousands of distinct smells. “This is a big deal,” says Potter. “It really changes the way we think the insect olfactory system is working.”&nbsp;



The added complexity of the insect olfactory system makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms, as mosquitos must find food in order to survive. The presence of different types of odor receptors on each neuron enhances the insects’ ability to detect exhaled CO2 along with a whole array of body smells. If some receptors were to be blocked, a mosquito would simply use others that remained intact.&nbsp;



“It is a really good trick,” explains Vosshall. “Mosquitoes have Plan B after Plan B after Plan B. To me the system is unbreakable.” That’s obviously not good news for the effort to reduce the toll from mosquito-borne diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, and dengue, by trying to block receptors. But perhaps an alternative strategy might be to overwhelm the whole system with alternative smells, adds Potter. At least now “we have a more realistic view of what we are up against,” he says.



In the meantime, Vosshall aims to compare the olfactory neurons of blood-dining mosquitoes with those from purely vegetarian mosquito relatives to see if the more extreme receptor complexity is a unique adaptation for those species that only hunt humans. And as for the puzzle Vosshall first started to probe – how the combined sensing of both CO2 and body odor greatly amplifies the message to the brain? One of her former postdocs, Meg Younger, is now tackling the question in her new lab at Boston University.



---



By <a href="mailto:bosman@truewan.co.za">Alison Bosman</a>, <a href="https://www.earth.com/staff/">Earth.com</a> Staff Writer

Mosquitos use unbreakable system to track human blood

According to the World Health Organization, mosquitos are the deadliest...

Australian snubfin (Orcaella heinsohni) and humpback (Sousa sahulensis) <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/dolphins-have-accents-that-vary-by-region/">dolphins</a> co-exist peacefully throughout most of their range, primarily in shallow tropical and subtropical coastal waters from southern New Guinea to northern Australia. A team of researchers led by <a href="https://www.flinders.edu.au/">Flinders University</a> has now set out to investigate why these two species are able to co-exist within this range.&nbsp;



“A major challenge in ecology and conservation is to understand the means by which species coexist as this is the basis of biodiversity,”&nbsp;explained study lead author Guido Parra Vergara, an associate professor of Behavioral Ecology at Flinders. “If we are to understand the effects of global change on marine mammal biodiversity, and how we can maintain assemblages of coexisting species, we need to understand their patterns of co-occurrence; the biological significance of their interactions, and the mechanisms underlying their coexistence.”



According to the “<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ecological-niche">ecological niche theory</a>,” the coexistence of closely related species is promoted by resource partitioning in space and time. However, understanding how these two specific dolphin species co-exist is rather challenging, due to their size, high mobility, longevity, and the fact that they spent most of their time underwater.



Each of the species is characterized by small populations (usually fewer than 150 individuals) which overlap spatially, have similar patterns of habitat use and behavioral activities, and are often found in mixed species groups. Thus, segregation into exclusive spatial and temporal ranges, and differences in habitat use and behavioral patterns are insufficient to explain their co-existence.



By comparing stable isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen in their skin – the former providing a quantifiable estimate of habitat and resource use, while the latter offering cues regarding their position in the trophic chain – the scientists found that, although both species feed at similar trophic levels, rely on similar basal food resources, and have substantial dietary overlaps, they are nevertheless characterized by subtle differences in habitat use and prey selection, which may promote their co-existence. More specifically, snubfin dolphins forage on a wider diversity of prey, while humpback dolphins forage in a larger variety of habitats.



“Food diversity and abundance and habitat heterogeneity are key factors promoting the coexistence of these two dolphin species, and pressure from overfishing and pollution that could reduce prey abundance and diversity or deteriorate their habitat quality could affect the future of such dolphin co-existence,”&nbsp;said Professor Parra Vergara.



“Because dolphins play important roles in maintaining the structure and function of marine communities and ecosystems, any pressures on their food and habitat resources need to be considered when planning future multi-species conservation,” he concluded.



The study is published in the journal <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.8937">Ecology and Evolution</a>.&nbsp; &nbsp;



---



By <a href="mailto:andrei.ionescu5891@gmail.com">Andrei Ionescu</a>, <a href="https://www.earth.com/staff/">Earth.com</a> Staff Writer&nbsp;&nbsp;

How two species of dolphins coexist in Australia

Australian snubfin (Orcaella heinsohni) and humpback (Sousa sahulensis) dolphins co-exist...

In recent years, bumblebees and other important insect <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/orchids-evolved-fringed-petals-to-support-pollinators/">pollinators</a> have faced significant population declines. By analyzing a wide range of museum collections, two new studies led by the <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/">Imperial College London</a> and the <a href="https://www.nhm.ac.uk/">Natural History Museum</a> have examined how climate change has affected bumblebees over more than a century.&nbsp;



An analysis of bumblebee wings showed signs of stress associated with increasingly hotter and wetter conditions, while a genomic sequencing study of over one hundred bumblebee museum specimens dating back more than 130 years ago has highlighted how environmental stress may lead to genetic diversity loss in these insects.



The first study – published in the <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2656.13788">Journal of Animal Ecology</a> – has investigated the morphology of bee specimens dating back to 1900. By using digital image, the experts examined the asymmetry in bumblebee wings as an indicator of climatic stress which affected their normal growth. An analysis of four UK bumblebee species has revealed increased markers of stress (higher wing asymmetry) as the 20th century progressed from its lowest point around 1925.&nbsp;



Further investigations showed that all the species displayed a consistently higher proxy of stress in the second half of the century. Moreover, the researchers found that, in hotter and wetter years, bees showed higher wing asymmetry.



“With hotter and wetter conditions predicted to place bumblebees under higher stress, the fact that these conditions will become more frequent under climate change means bumblebees may be in for a rough time over the 21st&nbsp;century,” said study senior author Richard Gill, an expert in the impact of environmental stress on insect populations at the Imperial College London.



In a second parallel study, published in the journal <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.13945">Methods in Ecology and Evolution</a>, scientists sequenced the genomes of over a hundred bumblebee museum specimens, and found evidence of a relatively consistent rate of DNA degradation – a feature confirming the major role of environmental stress in the loss of bumblebees’ genetic diversity over the past 130 years.



&nbsp;“These studies showcase the value of leveraging museums specimens to go back in time and unlock the past’s secrets. But what we have done is just the beginning, and by continuing our work with these vital public collections and collaborating with curators we can only discover more,” Dr. Gill concluded.



---



By <a href="mailto:andrei.ionescu5891@gmail.com">Andrei Ionescu</a>, <a href="https://www.earth.com/staff/">Earth.com</a> Staff Writer&nbsp;&nbsp;

Bumblebees increasingly stressed over the past century

In recent years, bumblebees and other important insect pollinators have...

A new study from the <a href="https://www.nus.edu.sg/">National University of Singapore</a> has revealed the choices that male spiders make to maximize their <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/scientists-explain-spiders-complex-mating-choreography/">mating</a> success. The males have evolved mating strategies to improve their reproductive chances, despite the risk of being cannibalized by their mates.



The researchers explored whether male spiders use cannibalism countering strategies by focusing on two mating tactics. One tactic is based on the “better charged palp” hypothesis. This theory predicts that male spiders selectively make use of their paired sexual organs, known as pedipalps or palps, which contain more sperm for their first copulation.&nbsp;



The other tactic, referred to as the “fast sperm transfer” hypothesis, predicts accelerated insemination when the risk of female cannibalism is high.



The researchers performed comparative tests on five species of orb-web spiders with varying levels of female sexual cannibalism and sexual size dimorphism.&nbsp;



The experts found that male spiders choose one of the paired sexual organs with more sperm for the first copulation with a cannibalistic female. Also, a male transfers significantly more sperm if a female is cannibalistic or when the female is of a much larger physical size. These results support both predictions, providing credibility for the male mating syndrome.



“This study sheds light on how male mating syndrome relates to the levels of sexual cannibalism and suggests that evolutionary arms races do take place, and that animal biology and diversity are importantly shaped by sexual conflict," said Professor Daiqin Li, who led the research.



The experts are planning future studies to better understand the rationale behind male palp choice.&nbsp;



“The large diversity of extant spiders globally indicates that these findings may not apply to all sexually dimorphic and cannibalistic spiders," said Professor Li. "Due to sexual selection, the palpal anatomy can undergo rapid changes, such that mechanisms behind sperm transfer of various species may differ."



The study is published in the journal <a href="https://www.nature.com/commsbio/">Communications Biology</a>.



---



By <a href="mailto:katherinebucko@gmail.com">Katherine Bucko</a>, Earth.com Staff Writer

Male spiders transfer more sperm when mating with cannibals

A new study from the National University of Singapore has...

Reputation is an important component in social interactions of animals living in groups, and plays a significant role in the establishment of cooperation. However, according to a new study led by the <a href="https://www.vetmeduni.ac.at/en/">University of Veterinary Medicine</a> in Vienna, Austria, <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/dogs-domesticated-america-10000-years/">dogs</a> have significant difficulties in remembering incidences of human generosity in food-giving situations, and thus may have no concept of gift-giving reputation.&nbsp;



While previous studies argued that dogs cooperate with humans because they can form an understanding of their reputations – for instance, whether a particular individual is usually offering or withholding food – this new study shows that this may not be the case. The scientists devised a series of experiments to test this ability in dogs, as well as in their closest ancestors, wolves.



In a first experiment, the animals were prompted to observe an interaction between two humans and another animal, with a “generous” person offering food and a “selfish” one withholding it. The second experiment tested whether animals formed reputations after interacting directly with the generous and selfish humans. 



Statistical analyses of the results have shown that, in most cases, the generous handler did not appear to have a better reputation either with the dogs or the wolves, after either indirect observation or direct experience of humans’ generosity regarding food.



“We found that dogs and wolves, at the group level, did not differentiate between a generous or selfish partner after indirect or direct experience, but wolves were more attentive towards the generous person during the observation phase and some dogs and wolves did prefer the generous partner, at least after indirect and direct experience was combined," wrote the researchers.



"Our study suggests that reputation formation may be more difficult than expected for animals and we emphasize the importance of context when studying reputation formation in animals."



However, some significant limitations of the study include the fact that it only investigated the behavior of a small number of animals - six dogs and nine wolves – and that these animals were not food deprived before the experiments.&nbsp;



“In this study, there was only a small cost of not receiving a food reward if the animals chose the selfish partner,” explained the study authors. “Further, the trainer fed the subject every time he/she went back to the starting point for the next trial and the animals were not food-deprived before the test, thus they may not have been very motivated to choose the generous partner.”



Further research with a larger number of animals placed in a variety of contexts is needed to confirm these findings, and to clarify whether animals are more likely to gauge and act according to a human’s reputation while in a dangerous or stressful situation, or if they are particularly hungry.



The study is published in the journal <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0271590">PLoS One</a>.



---



By <a href="mailto:andrei.ionescu5891@gmail.com">Andrei Ionescu</a>, Earth.com Staff Writer&nbsp;&nbsp;

Dogs may not understand humans’ generosity

Reputation is an important component in social interactions of animals...

Salt marshes along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts are ecosystems that burst with life. Several species of crabs make their homes in this seemingly inhospitable habitat that is covered with water half the time and exposed to the terrestrial elements the rest of the time. For Dr. David Johnson, an ecologist at William &amp; Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science, these salt marshes have provided opportunities for fascinating research over the past 20 years. However, while doing research in a Virginia salt marsh at low tide last September, he and his colleagues saw something they’d never seen before.



In a paper set to be published in September in the journal <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19399170">Ecology</a>, Johnson records that he noticed a blue crab,&nbsp;Callinectes sapidus, lying in a water-filled hollow in the mud, long after the tide had receded. Blue crabs are aquatic predators and have adaptations that enable them to swim and capture their prey underwater, not crawl around in the air on an exposed mud flat. Johnson supposed that the blue crab had miscalculated and was forced to shelter in the hollow until the tide returned and it could access its subtidal habitat again.&nbsp;



However, as he watched, he saw the blue crab dart out of its hollow and ambush a fiddler crab (Minuca pugnax) that was passing by. The blue crab retreated hastily into its muddy hollow and proceeded to eat the fiddler crab. Johnson then noticed numerous large claws of deceased male fiddler crabs littering the edges of several other water-filled hollows nearby. He and his colleagues had discovered the unusual behavior of an aquatic predator leaving the water in order to hunt.&nbsp;



“It was amazing because here was an aquatic predator – one that lives, eats, breathes, and breeds under water – feeding out of the water,” said Johnson. “It was like crocodiles ambushing wildebeests in Africa.”&nbsp;



Johnson and colleagues – VIMS PhD student Serina Wittyngham; VIMS Laboratory and Research Associate Leah Scott; and Dr. Cora Baird of the University of Virginia – believe these ambush-style attacks from pits at low tide are the first ever recorded for the blue crab or any other swimming crab, save for an earlier anecdotal account from Dr. Richard Heard of the University of Southern Mississippi. The blue crab’s genus name&nbsp;Callinectes, Greek for “beautiful swimmer,” attests to its aquatic nature.&nbsp;



“It was really hot – 95 degrees – and the tide wasn’t going to return for another three hours,” said Johnson. “But this aquatic crab had figured out a way to feed at low tide: dig shallow pits that fill with water and wait for prey to come to you. One crab was 70 meters away from the shoreline. That’s 800 body lengths. It’d be like if I dove a mile&nbsp;underwater and hid behind a rock to ambush fish that swam by.”&nbsp;



Both biologists and wary fiddler crabs have long known that blue crabs enter the salt marsh ecosystem to feed when the tide is high. During this time, fiddler crabs usually hide in their burrows to avoid becoming prey. But at low tide, when the mud flats are exposed, the habitat becomes the domain of the fiddler crabs because there are no aquatic predators to disturb them from feeding on the local detritus and algae. Or that is what the biologists thought.&nbsp;



“Blue crabs have been known to dash a few feet onto land to snatch fiddler crabs before returning to the water to dismember and eat them,” says Johnson, “But the behavior we saw was different. Blue crabs were not chasing their prey on land; they were waiting on land for their prey to come to them. It’d be like if you went to an Italian restaurant and were suddenly dragged under the table by a giant octopus.”&nbsp;



In order to find out how common this blue crab behavior was, and whether it was a successful strategy, Johnson returned to the same marsh two weeks later to quantify blue crab densities and sizes, and to assess the number of ambush attacks. He also obtained 37 hours of video footage that recorded what happened on the mud flat in his absence.&nbsp;



The data showed that blue crabs occurred at a density of between 0 and 0,6 per square meter of salt marsh. Most of the blue crabs present (83 percent) were juveniles, and the water-filled hollows were pretty much the size of a crab, indicating that crabs were probably excavating their own hollows. This was corroborated by video footage showing the crabs scooping mud out with their claws. But the blue crabs were not loyal to their pit and would move into an empty one – or a water-filled footprint – and even evict a neighbouring blue crab if its muddy patch looked more suitable.&nbsp;



Out of the 33 attacks captured on 37 h of video, 11 (33 percent) were successful. That’s three times as efficient as a polar bear and about the same success rate as a domestic tabby. Mostly, a blue crab attacked a fiddler crab that walked in front of it, but could also ambush those that walked along side, or even to the rear. Johnson estimated that a blue crab would chase its prey up to 5&nbsp;cm away from the pit if the initial ambush was unsuccessful.&nbsp;



When blue crabs were nestled unbecomingly in water-filled hollows, their muddy covering and motionless waiting disguised them both to their potential prey and to passing predators, such as gulls, herons and egrets. “A laughing gull, a known blue-crab predator, walked within centimeters of a blue crab in a pit, but didn’t appear to notice it,” said Johnson.&nbsp;



The scientists also plan to explore another tantalizing observation from their initial fieldwork, which was actually focused on yet another crustacean, the purple marsh crab&nbsp;Sesarma reticulatum. “Sesarma&nbsp;creates denuded areas in the salt marsh by grazing on&nbsp;cordgrass,” said Johnson. He thinks this more open landscape may in turn help the blue crabs by making it easier for them to dig pits and chase down their fiddler crab prey. Initial measurements support his hypothesis: the researchers found almost twice as many blue crabs in grazed areas than in areas with plants, and higher fiddler crab densities as well.



The discovery that&nbsp;Callinectes&nbsp;feeds in salt marshes during low tide suggests these environments are more important to blue crabs than previously thought. “Our observations underscore how vital salt marshes are to blue crab production and the blue crab fishery,” said Johnson.



He also thinks the blue crab’s feeding strategy provides a mechanism that allows nutrients and energy to flow between salt marshes and their adjacent estuaries. “Blue crabs feeding in salt marshes at low tide offer a fascinating opportunity to study how predator behavior can affect the movement of energy from one ecosystem to another,” said Johnson. “Just like crocodiles link the river to the savanna, and grizzlies carry the energy of salmon into the forests of the Pacific Northwest, blue crabs connect the salt marsh to the estuary.”



---



By <a href="mailto:bosman@truewan.co.za">Alison Bosman</a>, <a href="https://www.earth.com/staff/">Earth.com</a> Staff Writer

Aquatic blue crabs ambush their prey on land

Salt marshes along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts are...

Bostryx bicolor

Taxonomic tree: