Two short articles in this week's Science link the orb-weaving spiders back to a common ancestor in the Early Cretaceous, with both physical and molecular evidence. What we have is a 110-million-year-old piece of amber that preserves a piece of an orb web and some captured prey, and a new comparative study of spider silk proteins that ties together the two orb-weaving lineages, the Araneoidea and the Deinopoidea, and dates their last common ancestor to 136 million years ago.
Araneoids and Deinopoids build similar looking webs—a radial frame supporting a sticky spiral—but they differ in how they trap prey. Deinopoids spin dry fibers that they fluff into threads that adhere electrostatically to small insects; Araneoids secrete glue onto the the strand, which takes less work (no fluffing), and is much more strongly adhesive. The differences are enough to make one question whether there was a single origin of orb weavers, or whether the two groups independently stumbled on the same efficient form of architecture.
First, the pretty specimen. This is piece of Spanish amber which captured a small piece of a web 110 million years ago. The threads are fine enough that you can't really see them in the picture, but the authors have marked their positions, and the insets show what the strands look like at high magnification. The geometry of the fragmentary strands suggests that this could be a scrap of an orb web, but isn't conclusive—other forms could also be compatible with it. There are also suggestions of glue droplets along the strands.
The other paper is a little more abstract, but just as interesting. Araneoid spider silk genes have already been identified and sequenced, and different proteins are used for different structural functions. Web silks aren't uniform—in some places, spiders need strength, in others elasticity, in others stickiness. Some of the proteins are:
(i) MaSp1 and MaSp2, major ampullate proteins of the frame and radii, (ii) MiSp, minor ampullate scaffolding protein, and (iii) Flag, flagelliform protein of capture spirals.
Garb et al. sequenced silk proteins from deinopoid spiders. If deinopoids evolved their web architecture independently from the araneoids and converged independently on the same style, then we'd expect they'd have adopted or generated different proteins to meet the engineering demands of their webs. If araneoids and deinopoids diverged from a common ancestor that already had these diverse proteins in place, then we'd expect to find homologous proteins in their silks.
The answer is diagramed below: both araneoids and deinopoids use related MaSp1, MaSp2, MiSp, and Flag proteins, suggesting that the last common ancestor of both had all of those proteins present.
The implication is that the evolution of the orb web preceded the divergence of these major spider groups, probably at some time in the Jurassic. It would have been an important innovation that would lead to an explosion of spider diversity in the Cretaceous as a consequence of another event: the co-evolution of flowering plants and insect pollinators. Flowers may be pretty, but they're also important pasturage for spider dinners.
Garb JE, DiMauro T, Vo V, Hayashi CY (2006) Silk Genes Support the Single Origin of Orb Webs. Science 312(5781):1762.
Peñalver E, Grimaldi DA, Declòs X (2006) Early Cretaceous Spider Web with Its Prey. Science 312(5781):1761.
On a related matter: PZ, do you know anything or could you point us to anything about how the instructions for how to create an orb web are encoded in the DNA of spiders? Or is that really still unknown?
Now that I know so much about orb-web proteins, I'd like to learn more about which proteins are used for the other kinds of webs.
Anybody know where I could see a chart like B, above, but with all the necessary proteins laid out for all the kinds of spinners, with possible times of evolutionary splitting shown?
My favorite kind of thing, like what PZ alluded to at the beginning of this post, is if completely different proteins were shown to produce the same kinds of strands.
Divergent evolution is cool, but not very exciting to me. I mean, my kids are divergent from their parents, and so on.
Convergent evolution, on the other hand, is "living proof" how the environment "shapes" things to fit:
*Smilodon and Thylacosmilus coming into being at separate times and on un-connected land masses.
*Naked mole-rats that live amazingly like termites.
I have nothing intelligent to say, I am just commenting to let you know that this is my favorite post of the day, even though it has the fewest comments.
When I was looking up some info about the naked variety, I found this article about Damaraland mole rats:
Two things to look for:
In yet another instance of convergent evolution, the Damaraland mole rats evolved up the branch and out the stem from the naked variety. So the eusocial behavior evolved in the older group, the naked ones, and then the ones in between gave it up, and then it evolved again in the newer Damarland variety.
Another thing about Damaraland mole rats is that they have a group of rats (they are more closely related to guinea pigs, it says) who do 5% of the work, and consume 35% of the food. Converget evolution with human societies, yes?
So, wait, do orb-weaving spiders share a common ancestor with the ogre-faced spiders, or that silk-genes evolved only once in spider evolution, and that there were no obvious orb weavers before the early Cretaceous?
That fly is amazing. You can see wing venation and everything. That's just as cool as the spiders, if not more.
Fascinating. Just the kind of stuff I'm looking for. "Silken Fetters" in Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" is good and all that, but I'm more interested the details of the *origin* of "silken fetters", so to speak. This seems to take us closer to that.