The detail that makes this interesting is the two-layer mechanism. There’s a 20-hour free-running oscillator that doesn’t meet the usual definition of circadian because it’s temperature-sensitive and then on top of that a separate countdown triggered by sunrise that governs the spawning event. Two imprecise systems combining into precise, synchronised behaviour.
Also worth noting that the hydrozoan lineage lost the CLOCK/BMAL1/CRY genes associated with circadian rhythms in most other animals. So whatever this timing system is, it seems to have evolved independently.
Rosato’s question in the commentary is a good one: how many other unconventional clocks are out there that people have missed because they were looking only for the usual genetic components? There’s something very neat about evolution backing into a precise clock this way because the reproductive timing pressure is doing so much work.
Would love to see this kickstart research into more unconventional time-keeping processes that might be out there.
Sounds like nature's take on building a jalopy out of whatever it can scrounge. What it makes me wonder is perhaps this cobbling together creates a resilience that the other clocking architecture is vulnerable to. Could these outliers serve as a kind of important reservoir? Against calamities Earth periodically goes through that blot out the sun for longer than an individual life cycle? Or perhaps even more resilient than that - buffering against variations in planet/moon rotation speed or distances.
That kind of thing is more standard procedure for evolution than an exception. Since evolution doesn't plan but just makes use of what it has with slide variations, changes play out along paths that are easier rather than optimal. That's how you get a thumb on the panda evolved from a projection on the wrist.
I find it amusing to jump straight to the "because some species lack watches." It isn't like humans started with them. Kids aren't even really able to use a clock for quite a few years.
Article is still neat, mind. I am curious why it is not more compelling to think in terms of reserves and duty cycles. Build up enough energy to get you through periods of needed energy and you will settle on a cycle that matches when energy is available. At least, if you want to minimize complete depletion. Which is about the only thing I would expect evolution to fully avoid. Or, at least, the ones that didn't will have died off.
> A circadian clock must be self-sustained and internally driven, as the 20-hour cycle of the jellies’ spawning is. It must also be regulated by an environmental stimulus such as light; while the jellies’ spawning clock can run on a 20-hour cycle under persistent light in the lab, in nature it resets every day.
Based on what? This reads as pretty standard science journalism to me. She uses em-dashes, but so do I. It's a real punctuation mark with legit uses, and certainly not a 100% LLM marker.
The detail that makes this interesting is the two-layer mechanism. There’s a 20-hour free-running oscillator that doesn’t meet the usual definition of circadian because it’s temperature-sensitive and then on top of that a separate countdown triggered by sunrise that governs the spawning event. Two imprecise systems combining into precise, synchronised behaviour.
Also worth noting that the hydrozoan lineage lost the CLOCK/BMAL1/CRY genes associated with circadian rhythms in most other animals. So whatever this timing system is, it seems to have evolved independently. Rosato’s question in the commentary is a good one: how many other unconventional clocks are out there that people have missed because they were looking only for the usual genetic components? There’s something very neat about evolution backing into a precise clock this way because the reproductive timing pressure is doing so much work.
Would love to see this kickstart research into more unconventional time-keeping processes that might be out there.
Sounds like nature's take on building a jalopy out of whatever it can scrounge. What it makes me wonder is perhaps this cobbling together creates a resilience that the other clocking architecture is vulnerable to. Could these outliers serve as a kind of important reservoir? Against calamities Earth periodically goes through that blot out the sun for longer than an individual life cycle? Or perhaps even more resilient than that - buffering against variations in planet/moon rotation speed or distances.
Jellyfish == System Recovery Mode.
That kind of thing is more standard procedure for evolution than an exception. Since evolution doesn't plan but just makes use of what it has with slide variations, changes play out along paths that are easier rather than optimal. That's how you get a thumb on the panda evolved from a projection on the wrist.
I find it amusing to jump straight to the "because some species lack watches." It isn't like humans started with them. Kids aren't even really able to use a clock for quite a few years.
Article is still neat, mind. I am curious why it is not more compelling to think in terms of reserves and duty cycles. Build up enough energy to get you through periods of needed energy and you will settle on a cycle that matches when energy is available. At least, if you want to minimize complete depletion. Which is about the only thing I would expect evolution to fully avoid. Or, at least, the ones that didn't will have died off.
I don't understand how this works on a 20 hour cycle.
What happens to the missing 14 or missing 4 hours ?Does it reset back to zero after a cue of darkness? That's the only thing I can think of.
> A circadian clock must be self-sustained and internally driven, as the 20-hour cycle of the jellies’ spawning is. It must also be regulated by an environmental stimulus such as light; while the jellies’ spawning clock can run on a 20-hour cycle under persistent light in the lab, in nature it resets every day.
Sounds like that is what happens.
Very difficult to read, and think anything but, “This is AI slop”…
Based on what? This reads as pretty standard science journalism to me. She uses em-dashes, but so do I. It's a real punctuation mark with legit uses, and certainly not a 100% LLM marker.
What are the tells? It seems fine to me.