3 ms·
> ...wormlike critters with plump bodies and many tiny legs. So they are saying, “wormlike” insects ie, not the butterflies, but caterpillars came first. That’s
by nyc111 8y ago
> ...wormlike critters with plump bodies and many tiny legs.
So they are saying, “wormlike” insects ie, not the butterflies, but caterpillars came first. That’s how I read it.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago> Fossils dating to 280 million years ago, however, record the emergence of a different developmental process. Around this time, some insects began to hatch from their eggs not as minuscule adults, but as wormlike critters with plump bodies and many tiny legs. What they mean is: before this developmental change 280 years ago, they hatched as (albeit tiny) fully fledged adults, rather than in their intermediary state.
- nyc111 8y agoStill I don't get it. There are two creatures, the caterpillar and the butterfly. Which one came first?... Complete metamorphosis is a circular process as pictured here: http://burns-classroom.weebly.com/module-6-plants-and-life-cycles.html http://burns-classroom.weebly.com/module-6-plants-and-life-c... Caterpillar (or larvae) turns into pupa; pupa turns into butterfly and butterfly (turns?) into egg; and egg turns into larvae and so on... I am curious to know which of these organisms came first. Did the butterfly exist before the caterpillar? Or were they two different species who entered into a symbiosis agreement? And why is it that the transformation of a seed into a tree not considered a metamorphosis? The seed and the tree are as different as the caterpillar and the butterfly.
- diroussel 8y agoThey are no more different species than a chicken and an egg are different species. Neither the butterfly nor it’s larval stage, not it’s egg, came first. They are all one species that evolved from species before them. Originally the adult form was born from the egg, but other stages evolved later.