Thursday, March 14, 2024

Part 4: (3/14/24) How do animals fake each other out, and why?

  Mussels are remarkable... 

California mussel (Mytilus californianus

... I hope I've convinced you of that.   We've learned about the amazing mimicry behavior of mussels--they use both their mantles (soft tissue at the edge of the shell) and create conglutinates (long mucus-like secretions in which they tuck some glochidia), both of which look like prey items to lure fish to take a bite, but end up spraying the larval glochidia into their mouth and onto the gills.  

The point of all this fakery and elaborate mimicry is to get their larval baby mussels (aka glochidia) onto the gills where they can clamp on for a temporary ride on the host fish. The big question you are probably asking yourself now is this...   

3. The point of all this mussel-bound fakery is to get the glochidia into the gills of fish.  Are the glochidia actually parasites?  Or are they just hitching a ride on the fish's gills? 

The big question here is to determine if the glochidia are actually parasites on the fish, or if they're just along for the ride.  As we've learned in the last two posts, getting the precise word to describe what you're searching for is often a huge help.  So, let's look for the right word by doing this search: 

     [ a word describing an organism that gets a free ride on a host ] 

With a little looking at those results I learned the exact definitions of: 

Commensalism ... in which members of one species gain benefits while those of the other species neither benefit nor are harmed
Mutualism... in which both organisms benefit from each other; 
Amensalism... where one is harmed while the other is unaffected
Parasitism... where one is harmed and the other benefits, usually in order to obtain nutrients

AND 

Phoresy ... in which a phoretic animal latches onto a host animal for the purpose of dispersal. 

The word phoresy derives from the Greek phorein, which means ‘to carry’. Typically, the attacher is an animal, such as a nematode or mite, with limited ability to travel great distances on its own is happy to get a lift from a highly mobile host, such as a fly or bee.  (More details at the Wikipedia entry for phoresy.) 

So, now we have a very precise term to search for what we want:  Are glochidia parasites or phoronts?  

Next query: 

     [ mussel glochidia parasite phoresy ] 


This takes us to several great resources. Here's the first one:  


 This paper tells us that 

“These larvae [glochidia] attach to the gills or fins of the fish, encyst and derive nutrients from fish blood and tissues, complete metamorphosis and excyst, then drop off to begin their sessile, filter-feeding life stage”   Later on it says that “Freshwater mussel larvae attach to fish and feed on tissues and blood..."    

HOWEVER... the next paper listed in the SERP is this one: "Adaptations to host infection and larval parasitism in Unionoida." 

And this paper says:  

"Freshwater  mussel  larval  parasitism  of  fish  is  unique  among  bivalves.  The  relationship  is primarily  phoretic  rather  than  nutritive;  only  the  smallest  glochidia  and  the  haustorial [a parasite that penetrates the tissues of the host]  larva  grow substantially while on the host. Growth of the smallest larvae suggests a lower functional size limit of ~150 μm for the juveniles... "  

Uh oh.  We've got a difference of a opinion.  The first paper is written by virologists looking for a way that mussels transmit viruses to fish, so their focus is really on mussel-to-fish blood contact.  While everyone agrees that the glochidia create little cysts while attached to the gills, it's kind of a relative thing--do they actually pull nutrients from the host fish or not?  In the "Adaptations" paper, they say (basically) that "sure, there's a little extraction, but not much..."  

I'll spare you the entertaining hours I spent reading papers in benthology (that is, is the study of the community of organisms that live on, in, or near the bottom of a sea, river, lake, or stream--that is, the benthos), but will summarize it by saying that there is a debate about how parasitical the glochidia are in reality.  Some researchers find that their is nutrient exchange between the host fish and the mussel (see "Glochidia Infection" in the citation list below) where they write that: 

"Although the relationship between glochidium larvae of freshwater mussels Unionoida and their obligatory fish hosts has been frequently described as phoretic commensalism (glochidia benefit from transportation services by fish, with no harm to fish) or even symbiotic (both partners benefit), increasing evidence has indicated that the relationship is parasitic. Stable isotope analysis, during the glochidial attachment to the fish host, indicates the acquirement of nutrients from the fish." 

So the debate is really about how many nutrients the glochidia pull out of the host fish and whether or not the mussels are really primarily along for the ride to other locations in the river or stream.  


“No specific glochidia structures have been observed to extract nutrients from the host, but stable isotope analysis does show such transfer. It is hypothesized that this transfer results from the glochidia digesting the host tissue captured within the initial bite. Denzymes used in the process of breaking down the captured tissue may seep out of the glochidia and digest some surrounding host tissue. Passive absorption of compounds from the intercellular space and blood plasma has also been proposed.”  

So.. maybe it's not such a big deal, just a little bite.  

But as always, use caution when asking LLMs about a topic even as esoteric as this one.  

Q: do Freshwater mussel larvae attach to fish and feed on tissues and blood?  

Gemini: 
“While freshwater mussel larvae do attach to fish, they don't feed on tissues and blood… The glochidia is NOT parasitic and doesn't harm the fish.  

Here's a breakdown of the interesting relationship between freshwater mussels and fish:

Parasitic dependence: Mussels rely on fish as hosts for their glochidia to survive and develop.

Temporary attachment: Glochidia latch onto the fish's gills, fins, or other external body parts for a few weeks. This attachment is relatively harmless to the fish.

Nutritional source: During this period, the glochidia obtain nutrients not directly from the fish but rather from the surrounding water.

This unique adaptation is crucial for freshwater mussels as it ensures the dispersal of their offspring. After several weeks, the glochidia transform into juvenile mussels and detach from the fish, settling at the bottom of the waterway to mature into adults.” 

ChatGPT: 

“Freshwater mussel larvae, known as glochidia, do attach to fish, but their method of feeding and interaction with their host fish is a bit more nuanced than simply feeding on tissues and blood. When glochidia are released into the water by the adult female mussel, they must attach to the gills, fins, or body of a suitable host fish to complete their development. This parasitic stage is crucial for the lifecycle of freshwater mussels.

During this stage, the glochidia encyst on the host fish's surfaces and undergo transformation into juvenile mussels. While encysted, they may derive nutrition from the fish, but rather than actively feeding on the fish's tissues and blood, they are thought to absorb nutrients directly through their tissues, benefiting from the fish's circulatory system indirectly. The interaction is generally not harmful to the fish, and most fish hosts recover without significant harm once the larvae detach and complete their metamorphosis into juvenile mussels.”

Interesting difference.  In this case, ChatGPT is a lot closer to the nuances and subtleties of reality.  (And I would say that Gemini just gets it wrong.)  


SearchResearch Lessons 


Over all of the past few posts, several lessons have become clear.. 

1. Get the most precise term you can find.  Learning the speciality (and precise) terms "mimicry" and "glochidia" get you to the best results fast.  When they're available for your research, learn and use them.  (Such as, phoresy.)

2. Pay attention as you read--you'll pick up important concepts and terminology.  As we read through the SERP results, we often found words and ideas that we could use to zero in on what we were really looking for!  

3. Remember: Sometimes simple questions have complicated answers.  It seems like an obvious question--do mussel larvae parasitize their host fish?  But the answer is nuanced... yes... but!  

4. Caution when asking LLMs... they might really get it wrong, or at least not-nuanced.  


I hope you've enjoyed this little excursion into the sometimes startling world of mussels and mimicry behavior.  I certainly did!   (And I'm grateful I don't have a glochidia infection!)  

Keep searching.  



-------- 
Plasticity, Paralogy, and Pseudogenization: Rhabdoviruses of Freshwater Mussels Elucidate Mechanisms of Viral Genome Diversification and the Evolution of the Finfish-Infecting Rhabdoviral Genera” Goldberg, T. L., Blevins, E., Leis, E. M., Standish, I. F., Richard, J. C., Lueder, M. R., ... & Bishop-Lilly, K. A. (2023). Journal of Virology, 97(5), e00196-23.

"Adaptations to host infection and larval parasitism in Unionoida.Barnhart, M. Christopher, Wendell R. Haag, and William N. Roston.  Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27.2 (2008): 370-394.  https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1899/07-093.1

"Glochidia Infection of Endemic Fishes from Lake Prespa, N. MacedoniaBlazhekovikj-Dimovska, D., Stojanovski, S., Taskinen, J., Smiljkov, S., & Rimcheska, B. (2022). Hydrobiology, 2(1), 36-43

"Effects of parasitic freshwater mussels on their host fishes: a review." Rock, Sebastian L., et al.  Parasitology 149.14 (2022): 1958-1975.  

Mussels on the beach in northern California (P/C Dan)


Monday, March 11, 2024

Part 3: (3/11/24) How do animals fake each other out, and why?

 Now we know a couple of things... 

California mussel (Mytilus californianus

... including that some freshwater mussels, such as Lampsilis reeveiana, release a huge cloud of mussel larvae (video), known as glochidia when a fish tries to eat the fake fish lure.  

The fake fish lure is pretty amazing: 

Not a fish, but the exterior part of a mussel that looks 
and moves just like a tiny shiner fish.

As someone pointed out, that's a pretty amazing bit of mimicry for an animal that can't see--but of course, the ability to see doesn't matter in an evolutionary context.  It's not like the eyes are connected to the mantle tissue that extends outside of its shell, so whether or not it can see isn't material to the mimicry.  

2. In addition to a fake fish lure, there are OTHER mimic devices that freshwater mussels use.  Can you find them as well?  (Think beyond a minnow sitting on top of the mussel shell.) 

Now that I know that "mimicry" is the preferred term of art, my next query was: 

     [ mussel mimicry -Lampsilis 

 Why the -Lampsilis in the query?  Because I wanted to find OTHER mechanisms than what Lampsilis would use.  I already know that they use a fake fish lure--but what would other mussels do to attract fish to their glochidia?  

Sure enough, the very first hit was to a National Wildlife Federation page about other kinds of mussel lures.  Here I learned about snuffbox mussel and riffleshell mussel, both of which trap curious fish with a snap of their shells and while holding them tight, douse them with a cloud of tiny glochidia! That's pretty aggressive action by a otherwise quiet mussel!  You can see the snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) grabbing a logperch fish by the nose and holding on for a few seconds, blowing glochidia into its mouth and over the gills.  



Here's a still frame from that video, the mussel holding the logperch quite firmly: 
 

What's more, the edge of the mussel shell has denticles (little teeth-like serrations) that help it hold onto the fish snout.  In this mussel, a part of the mantle inflates to form a gasket-like seal around the head of the captured fish, reducing the leakage of glochidia.  

And one more video of mussel mimicry and fish capture behavior, just because it's so wonderful: 




But wait.. there's more!  

While reading, I was impressed when I read this sentence: "Many species of [mussels such as] Pleurobemini and some Lampsilini release conglutinates of eggs and larvae that resemble host food items."  

That's a big tipoff: a conglutinate that resembles host food items?  What's that? 

My next query was: 

     [ mussel conglutinate mimicry ] 

and I quickly learned that "the mantle lures and conglutinates of various mussel species can mimic fish, a wide variety of aquatic insects, crayfish, snails, leeches, worms, and other prey of their fish hosts.."  

Looking at the Images tab shows us some of the various forms of the conglutinates (which I learned are bits of mucus-like stuff that stick together with glochidia.  Again, through the power of evolution, these conglutinates look an awful lot like tasty fish food.  

Thumbnails of different mussel conglutinates. Some look like worms, insect larvae,
others like fish, while  others like shrimp or packets of eggs. 

This is a closeup of the conglutinate in the lower left: 

Looks like a watercolor painting, but is actually the conglutinate of
Ptychobranchus subtentum, which strongly resembles pupae of the blackfly. 

Or, for a better image of the entire conglutinate mass, here's an image from the US Fish and Wildlife Service showing how they all stick together: 

Mussel conglutinate with mimicry of blackfly pupae. P/C Rachel Mair @ FWS.


 Once again, we see the importance of knowing the right terms.  Last time we learned about "mimicry" as a technical term that will improve the accuracy of your searches.  This time we found that removing Lampsilis as a term would let us see even more results.  And we found "conglutinates" as just the right words to let us find even more amazing mimicry behavior.  

For our third special-edition SRS Challenge of the week, we turn our attention to the point of all this fakery--the glochidia.  

3. The point of all this mussel-bound fakery is to get the glochidia into the gills of fish.  Are the glochidia actually parasites?  Or are they just hitching a ride on the fish's gills? 

Let us know what you find out.  

Keep searching.  

Friday, March 8, 2024

Part 2: (3/8/24): How do animals fake each other out, and why?

 Mussels are more than you might think... 


... in Wednesday's Challenge I asked:  
 

1. Given that mussels are fairly quiet and sessile creatures, do they ever try to do some kind of fakery in their appearance?  If so, why?   

When you think about animals doing fakery, the word that should spring to mind is (as SRS Regular Reader Krossbow pointed out) is mimicry.  

It's true that mussels are stationary for most of their lives, but they're not static.  They can open their shells and do stuff.  Plus, they've been evolving for around 500 megayears and are capable of quite rapid evolutions!  

My first query was: 

     [ mussels mimicry ] 

which quickly led me to find this result from PBS (the Nature series)

For example, females in the mussel genus Lampsilis have an extension of the mantle tissue that strikingly resembles a small fish. The mussel displays this tissue outside its shell between the valves and twitches it repetitively to attract its predaceous fish host – like a fishing lure.

Be sure to check out their video (especially at :52)  


That's a wonderful example of mimicry which you can also see in
this video
 with a slightly different camera angle:  


This is one of those cases when knowing just the right word works really well.  In this case, knowing the vocabulary word mimicry makes a huge difference.  This particular freshwater mussel, Lampsilis reeveiana, releases a huge cloud of mussel larvae (video), known as glochidia, some of which then attach themselves to the gills of fish that dares to try and eat the fake fish lure.  (See the glochidia attach themselves to fish gills in this video.) 

But that's not all... There's much more to discover, and that's the second part of this 3-part Challenge.... 

2. In addition to a fake fish lure, there are OTHER mimic devices that freshwater mussels use.  Can you find them as well?  (Think beyond a minnow sitting on top of the mussel shell.) 

As always, let us know what you find and what you did to find it!  

(Warning: These next couple of mimicry mechanisms are wild!)  

 

Keep searching.  

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

SearchResearch Challenge (3/6/24): How do animals fake each other out, and why?

While strolling on a Northern California beach one day... 


... I spied a large colony of mussels.  (See above.)  The mussels in the top pic are around 1 inch across (2.5 cm), but they vary widely in size (see bottom pic).  

By mussel I mean bivalves of the marine family Mytilidae, most of which live on exposed shores in the intertidal zone, attached to rocks and stable platforms by means of their strong byssal threads (which are, by the way, incredibly strong).  

Interestingly, marine mussels have a wide range of predators--they're eaten by humans, starfish, seabirds, dog whelks. Likewise, freshwater mussels are eaten by muskrats, otters, raccoons, ducks, baboons, humans (again), and geese.

For an animal that's been around for nearly 500 million years (early precursor bivalves evolved during the middle of the Cambrian era, around 100 million years before trees evolved on land!), they seem pretty static.  I mean, look at them--they just hang around and filter feed for most of their life.  

As I was standing in the tidepools looking at them I couldn't help but wonder if such a long-lived creature had something else up its behavioral sleeve. 

We know that many creatures go to great lengths to create fake displays.  Here's one that I saw while scuba diving--the fabled frogfish, which looks and acts a lot like a sponge, until a small fishy swims too close to its mouth, and then learns the hard way that it's not a sponge! 

Frogfish in Bonaire.  P/C  dive buddy Megaaan. 
You can see the mouth on the lower left, with the eye right above.

So this brings up our SearchResearch Challenge for this week.  

BUT... this is going to be slightly different than normal. I've got 3 SRS Challenges that I'll release one-at-a-time over the next few days. (I'm doing it like this to make a kind of cliff-hanger experience.  You'll see why...)  

Here's the first Challenge: 

1. Given that mussels are fairly quiet and sessile creatures, do they ever try to do some kind of fakery in their appearance?  If so, why?   

Once you figure that out, I'll post SRS Challenge #2 about mussel fakery.  It will all become clear in a bit. 

Let us know how you found the answer!  

Keep searching.  


Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Answer: Are tree rings nested cones or cylinders?

  Simple questions... 

P/C Sevenstorm (from Pexels.com)

... can begin from humble circumstances and can lead to deep insights. 

In this Challenge, I saw the stump of a tree wondered if the number of growth rings near the top of the tree would be the same as the number of rings near the bottom.  I counted the rings and found that it was around 25 years old.  But then I saw another cross section of the tree, but much narrower and taken from much higher up on the trunk, a bit like this: 


THAT made me pause for a moment and wonder--if I could somehow X-ray the tree, how would the rings be arranged on the inside?  

In other words, are number of rings the same at the bottom of the tree as at the top?   

1. Are the rings in a tree trunk arranged as a cone or as a collection of cylinders?  In other words, if you count the rings at the top of the tree, would you see the same number of rings as at the bottom?  (If they're stacked cones, you'd expect the number to be different--if they're cylinders, you'd expect them to be the same.)  How ARE the tree rings organized inside of the tree trunk? 

This turns out to be more complicated than it sounds.  (See what I mean?  Even simple questions about things you see everyday can lead to unanticipated depths.)  

I was thinking of the inside of tree like this: 

Dan's sketch of a tree

And, if you took a vertical cross-section of the tree, you'd see something like one of these two sketches of the very top of the tree:

Cross section of a tree.

The question I had in mind was this: Are the tree growth rings arranged like the one on the left? (Like nesting cones stacked on top of each other.) Or more like the one on the right?  (All of the growth rings flow from a single point on top of the tree.) 

In other words, are the growth rings conical or cylindrical?  

This matters because if you cut the tree at level 1 (see above), the left tree would show only 2 rings, while the right tree would show 3 rings.  So... which is it? 

I did various versions of searches like: 

     [ tree growth rings same at top and bottom ] 

     [ are the number of tree rings the same at the top and bottom ] 

     [ are tree rings arranged in a cone or a cylinder ] 

These searches all led to Quora pages or Reddit pages, most of which disagreed with each other.  Some say the number of rings are constant from bottom to top (like cylinders) while some say the number varies from bottom to top (like stacked cones).  

I asked Bard and ChatGPT this question: 

     [ do trees have the same number of growth rings at
        the top of the tree as at the bottom of the tree?  ] 

ChatGPT:  

Yes, trees have the same number of growth rings at the top of the tree as at the bottom. Growth rings, also known as annual rings, are layers of wood produced by the tree's cambium (the layer of growing tissue) each year during its growing season. These rings indicate the age of the tree and can provide information about the environmental conditions during each year of the tree's life.

The number of growth rings is consistent throughout the entire height of the tree because the rings represent the growth of the tree in a given year, regardless of the height at which you are examining the tree. Whether you're looking at a cross-section near the base of the tree or a cross-section higher up, you will count the same number of growth rings, assuming the sections are from the same tree and the tree is healthy and growing normally.

The uniformity of growth rings throughout the tree is a result of the tree's growth process, which occurs outward from the cambium layer, encircling the entire trunk and branches. This process ensures that each year's growth is recorded as a ring around the entire circumference of the tree.

Gemini/Bard: 

Yes, trees generally have the same number of growth rings at the top as at the bottom of the tree. This is because new growth occurs at the tips of the branches and the main stem, and this new growth adds a new ring to the entire tree, from the top to the bottom. 

Imagine the tree trunk as a long, thin cylinder. As the tree grows taller, the cylinder gets longer, but its overall width stays the same. The growth rings are like the layers of paint on the cylinder, and each new layer is added on top of the previous ones, all the way from the top to the bottom.

Aside from telling me that trees don't taper as they get taller (really, Gemini?), interestingly, and oddly, the Gen-AI answer feature in Google gave a different answer in the SERP than regular Gemini!  (See below. The SERP says "no," but Gemini says "yes."  What's up with that?) 



Okay... How am I going to get an authoritative answer?  

Rather than asking the LLMs, or believing the conflicting stories in Reddit and Quora, I went to Google Scholar and Google Books.  Both have pretty reliable content, most of which is peer-reviewed (or in the case of Books, at least carefully reviewed by an editor and publishing house).  

In Google Books I did: 

     [ tree ring growth same at top of tree as at the bottom ] 

and found several books of interest, but one in particular stood out.   Tree rings: timekeepers of the past. Phipps, R. L., & McGowan, J. (1993). US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

In this book (published by the USGS, a reputable organization) you'll read: 

Looking down at a stump top, it may be difficult to visualize how tree rings go together to make a tree. Perhaps this is because a tree is a three-dimensional object and a stump top displays only two dimensions. The idea of three-dimensional growth can be clarified, however, by disregarding for the moment the leaves, branches, roots, and bark, and considering only the wood portion of the tree trunk. At the end of its first summer, after germination from a seed, a tree seedling is composed of one annual growth increment or growth layer. This somewhat cone-shaped increment, a fraction of a centimeter in diameter and only a few centimeters high, will not grow or change dimensions after the year in which it was formed, but will remain the same size and in the same position as long as the tree exists.

During the second year, another annual growth increment is formed around and above the first year's increment. At the end of the third year, an increment has been formed around that of the second year, and similar cones of growth are formed in each succeeding year. The growth increment of each year thus increases the diameter and height of the tree trunk.  

Most intriguing, it also has this diagram: 

Figure from page 7 of "Tree Rings" (1993) 

Which shows pretty clearly that the correct model of tree rings is that of stacked cones.  (And is pretty similar to my hand-drawn sketch above.)  

But... just to be sure, I wanted a verification check. So, I also did a search in Google Scholar for papers on this topic.  There, my search was much shorter and to the point: 

     [ cross-section tree height ] 

That led me pretty quickly to a technical paper "Two models for predicting the number of annual rings in cross-sections of tree stems" published in the Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research (2007).  

I won't bore you with the details (it's a fun paper to read, but you have to be willing to read through the math), but the key insight for me was that one of the key parameters of the model is "Number of annual rings (cambial age) in cross-section at height h", which strongly suggests that the number of tree rings varies by height.  (Looking at the data in detail shows that it does.)  More support for the idea of "stacked cones" rather than a simple cylinder.  

  

2. If tree rings are the fingerprints of a tree, I know that cloned trees can have very different ring patterns, but what about humans?  Do identical twin humans have identical fingerprints, or not?  

This was a much simpler Challenge.  My query was much like Ramon's: 

     [ identical twins fingerprints ] 

which quickly leads to two articles from reputable sources.  Medline Plus and  Healthline both of which tell us that: 

The finer details of the patterns of skin ridges are influenced by other factors during fetal development, including substances taken during pregnancy and the environment inside the womb. These developmental factors cause each person’s dermatoglyphs to be different from everyone else’s. Even identical twins, who have the same DNA, have different fingerprints.

And there you have it: reputable source and a verification from a second reputable source.  


SearchResearch Lessons

1. Even simple questions can be difficult to answer.  I guess that's often the case (standard example, "why is the sky blue?" is tricky), but you'd think searching out the answer would be straightforward. As you see, this isn't always the case.  Here we had to dig into the Books and Scholar literature to get a decent answer. Which reminds me... 

2. (Once again) Don't trust the LLMs for answers to tough questions.  It's bad enough that both ChatGPT and Gemini/Bard got the answer fundamentally wrong, but the fact that Gemini gives different answers between the SERP and the regular chat interface should give you a clue that something's really weird here.  

I'll say it again:  Always verify. Always get a second source (and asking another LLM is NOT validating.)  


Keep Searching!  

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

SearchResearch Challenge (2/14/24): Are tree rings nested cones or cylinders?

 While walking through a forest... 

P/C Sevenstorm (from Pexels.com)

... of very tall trees, I was wondering how old the trees were.  Luckily, just around the next bend in the trail there was the stump of a tree.  I counted the rings and found that it was around 25 years old.  But then I saw another cross section of the tree, but much narrower and taken from much higher up on the trunk, a bit like this: 


THAT started me thinking about markers of growth.  As you know, each ring is 1 annual growth cycle.  The dark bands are usually made of smaller cells that grow close together when times are tough, while the light bands are larger cells, created when living conditions are much better. 

But is the number of rings the same at the bottom of the tree as at the top?  That is... 

1. Are the rings in a tree trunk arranged as a cone or as a collection of cylinders?  In other words, if you count the rings at the top of the tree, would you see the same number of rings as at the bottom?  (If they're stacked cones, you'd expect the number to be different--if they're cylinders, you'd expect them to be the same.)  How ARE the tree rings organized inside of the tree trunk? 

2. If tree rings are the fingerprints of a tree, I know that cloned trees can have very different ring patterns, but what about humans?  Do identical twin humans have identical fingerprints, or not?  

Can you work your SRS magic on these Challenges and let us know?  

As always, tell us what you found, and how you found it.  (And yes, you can use LLMs or anything that floats your boat, including asking your fingerprint specialist detective uncle.)  Just be sure to include the details of what you did, including any tools or resources... be they AI or human.  

Keep Searching!