It is natural/surprising/etc. that A should ...

Hello everyone. I have a question.

Regarding the last sentence of the passage below, can we replace "would" with "should" without changing the meaning? I mean, can we say that the clause "it is not surprising that a grasshopper would become a cicada, or a cicada a grasshopper" is a variation of the "It is natural/surprising/etc. that A should ... construction?

Funny, I think, in the story I remember the singers are cicadas rather than grasshoppers. Poor Aesop, the stories ascribed to him were only permanently recorded some two hundred years after the sixth century B.C., during which he purportedly lived as a slave on the Greek island of Samos. For the Japanese, another one thousand years would pass before the Jesuits brought the fables to their shores. As the story is handed down from generation to generation, it is not surprising that a grasshopper would become a cicada, or a cicada a grasshopper.