Can "no more" have a time-related meaning?

Question

A. They are no more susceptible than any other team.

B. Although we see no more insects, they own our woods.

If I'm not wrong, "A" more is notionally different from "B" more due to the fact that the former seems to be related to a quantity while the latter appears to be related to the time: before there were insects, now they no longer appears—they vanished.

Perhaps these observations seem non-senses to a mother tongue, and probably they are, but, while "A" case is clear to me, I have difficulties with the word "more" in "B" case, in which "more" seems time related.

I read on Wiktionary the more's definition, but I don't find a meaning that fits the "2" case.

Can anybody provide some guidance to correctly use "more" when it is time related? How is "more" different from "longer" in time related cases—e.g.,*Although we see no longer insects, they own our woods*?

_{Note. A and B are quoted from The New York Times}

Answer 1

It is not directly time related in the second case, but rather related to quantity over time. As of yesterday we had seen a total of X insects, today we expect our total of (insects seen today + all insects seen before today) to be a larger number than X. The only way for today's total not to be larger than yesterday's is if we see no insects at all today. Then we are asked:

How many more insects did you see today?

Which means, how many insects can we add to our total of "all insects seen over the course of time?"

We can answer now that

We didn't see any more insects today. or   We saw no more insects today.

If tomorrow we still don't see any insects, and the same the day after that, and so forth, eventually we will reach the point where we decide that we're just never going to see any insects again, at which point we will say

We no longer see any insects.

(Note that "no longer" must go before "see" here.) This is now talking about an event, not a total; the event (seeing insects) used to happen but does not happen now.