# How exactly does a caterpillar morph into a butterfly?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-a-caterpillar-morph-into-a-butterfly/463275>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [September 12, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-a-caterpillar-morph-into-a-butterfly/463275 "2008-09-12T15:02:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-a-caterpillar-morph-into-a-butterfly/463275/21 "2008-09-25T00:24:58Z")

</div>

> [@Pleonast](#):
>
> I’m curious about the evolutionary history of metamorphosis. In how many lineages did this evolve? Only one, or have separate groups developed it independently? Or is it so complicated that these questions aren’t meaningful?
> 
> Or, relatedly, **Algernon** answers why metamorphosis is advantageous, but how did they get to this complex process? What were the antecedents?

At the very least, it evolved twice – amphibians employ it because they have to lay their eggs in water because they need water to flush away embryonic piss. More advanced vertebrates use other solutions, involving processing urea into uric acid, which can then settle out in the egg (reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and monotremes), or letting the mother take care of the problem (placental mammals). (I don’t know about marsupials.) Insects, on the other hand, use metamorphosis to help solve the problem of growth with an exoskeleton; a caterpillar can molt much more easily than a butterfly could.

In both cases, only the actual metamorphosis process had to evolve. Frogs, having fish ancestors, have no great problem starting life as fish. Insects, having worm ancestors, have no great problem starting life as worms. (“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is only partially true, but it _is_ partially true, especially when it happens to be useful.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-a-caterpillar-morph-into-a-butterfly/463275/22 "2008-09-25T12:50:23Z")

</div>

> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#):
>
> In both cases, only the actual metamorphosis process had to evolve. Frogs, having fish ancestors, have no great problem starting life as fish. Insects, having worm ancestors, have no great problem starting life as worms. (“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” is only partially true, but it _is_ partially true, especially when it happens to be useful.)

Thank you for your explanation, which for me at least, deepens my understanding this complex process. While the details always seem to be more miraculous than natural, the light bulb in my head went off when you described frogs from fish and insects from worms.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-a-caterpillar-morph-into-a-butterfly/463275.md?page=1)