Thursday, December 31, 2015

Fish Success Story: Cod Makes a Comeback

TakePart.com
Fish Success Story: Cod Makes a Comeback
Fish Success Story: Cod Makes a Comeback
The cod is coming back.

The species that was for centuries a mainstay of the American and Canadian economies had virtually vanished off the Northeastern North American coast by the 1990s owing to overfishing. That led regulators in 1992 to impose a moratorium on cod fishing.
It appears to have worked.
New research shows that cod biomass has increased from the tens of tons to more than 200,000 tons within the last decade. This spring, scientists documented large increases in cod abundance and size for the first time since the moratorium in the more northerly spawning groups, according to a study published Monday in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
“Cod was historically one of the most important fish stocks in the world,” said George Rose, director of the Center for Fisheries Ecosystems Research at the University of Newfoundland in Canada and author of the new report on the cod’s recovery. “When the stocks collapsed in the 1990s, it became the icon of all the bad things we are doing to the ocean, and in many ways, it changed how we deal with our oceans worldwide.”
For hundreds of years, cod were so common—and so huge—that people reported being able to walk across their backs. Cape Cod was named after the fish, and salt cod is credited with sustaining explorers crossing the Atlantic from Spain and Iceland.
When the fishing ban took effect, cod had dwindled to  5 percent of its historic biomass. The moratorium threw 22,000 fishers and processing plant threw employees in more than 400 coastal communities in the United States and Canada out of work.
RELATED: Google Wants You to Fight Overfishing
The moratorium played a big part in the cod’s recovery, as did the return of the fish’s food source, according to the study.
Around the time that cod stocks crashed, a parallel collapse occurred in populations of plankton and capelin, a small smelt fish that provides sustenance for larger fish. “Capelin are the main conduit of energy, from plankton right up to the top of the food chain,” said Rose. “We still don’t know exactly why, but it was really uncertain whether cod could survive the changes at all.”
The first hint of the comeback came in 2008, when researchers saw regrouping of cod on their breeding grounds along with the return of the capelin.
The reasons for the return of the capelin are a mystery, but Rose said it pointed to the need for a more comprehensive approach to fishery management. “This is one of the most important examples why we need to understand the full ecosystem and not just the stocks of fish,” he said.
Cod’s future is still in question. Stocks are low in New England and other parts of the fish’s range where the ocean is warming. But in more northern areas, it is thriving.
He said there are indications that climate change will increase cod populations in Newfoundland and other northern regions.
But don’t expect cod on your dinner plate anytime soon. The Canadian fishing ban remains in place, and the U.S. has also tightened restrictions on cod fishing.
“Nature has kind of given us a second chance,” Rose said. “We don’t want to blow it this time.”

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Scientists discover furry new post-apocalyptic critter that survived demise of the dinosaurs

Sixty-six million years ago, a chunk of space rock the size of a mountain slammed into the Earth. The planet would never be the same.
Debris from the impact went flying into the air, forming clouds so thick they blocked out the sun. Earthquakes shook the ground and sent massive tsunami waves roiling toward shorelines. At the same time — maybe unrelated to the impact, maybe exacerbated by it — a vast flow of lava was flooding across India, oozing ash and noxious gases that caused the climate to fluctuate like a yo-yo and may have helped kill off anything that survived the initial cataclysm.
It was not a good time to be alive, and most species made a swift exit from the global stage: Vegetation withered. Ocean life gasped for air and energy, then collapsed. Gone were the fearsome Tyrannosaurus, the winged Pterosaurs, the massive Triceratops with its three horns and bony neck frill. The dinosaurs’ 100 million-year reign had ended. And when the smoke cleared, a new hero had taken over.
It was buck-toothed and furry and had the goofy appearance of a character from a children’s cartoon. Instead of Earth-shaking stomps, it likely moved with a rodent’s fearful scurry.
Its name is Kimbetopsalis simmonsae, scientists say in a paper published Monday in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. And although it was only about three feet long and no more intimidating than a beaver, it was one of the largest animals around. If Tyrannosaurus was the king of the Cretaceous, Kimbetopsalis was early royalty during the millennia that followed — an era we now call the “Age of the Mammals.”
Kimbetopsalis, which was recently discovered among the shifting sands and spooky rock formations of New Mexico’s badlands, was something of an evolutionary dark horse. First born in the Jurassic period, the fuzzy creature (creatures really — Kimbetopsalis represents a whole new genus) bided its time for a million centuries while dinosaurs tromped about.
After the meteorite-induced apocalypse, “all this ecological space became available and the mammals went a bit nuts,” explained Sarah Shelley, a paleontologist at the University of Edinburgh and a co-author on the paper.
Almost no one went more nuts than Kimbetopsalis, which grew from tiny proportions to the size of a very large beaver over the course of just 500,000 years — a mere blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Paleontologists believe it had a beaver’s broad face and chunky frame as well, though it lacked a paddle-like tail. 
Though it looks like a rodent, Kimbetopsalis has no living descendants. But it is one of the longest-living groups of mammal in history: its 160-million-year run is longer than that of any mammal species alive today.

Proof of Kimbetopsalis’s existence comes from a few teeth and a fragment of skull discovered during an archaeological dig in a remote New Mexico desert last summer. The fossils were uncovered by Carissa Raymond, a sophomore at the University of Nebraska out on her first dig.
Raymond had never even taken a mammal biology class and had no formal training in fossil finding at the time. But when she called over project leader Thomas Williamson, curator at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, he “grinned right away,” Shelley recalled.
A new genus had just been discovered.
‭“It’s rare for anybody to find one of these,” Williamson said in a University of Nebraska press release. “I wish I had found it.” ‬ ‭
Teeth are some of the most telling fossils you can find when identifying a new species, Shelley explained — they’re the best indicators of what an animal ate, and what you eat pretty much determines everything about you. From those fragments, Shelley and her colleagues gained a rough understanding of how the ancient mammal looked and lived.
Though it’s now a dry and dramatic desert, at the time New Mexico would have been a lush semitropical forest, full of sustenance for an enterprising young herbivore. Kimbetopsalis had huge, knife-like incisors were ideal for gnawing on plants. And though predators certainly existed, very distant predecessors of modern cattle and horses, life would have been a lot safer than it was before the end-Cretaceous extinction.
Kimbetopsalis was among the biggest, but it was hardly the only mammal to flourish in the newly dinosaur-free world. After epochs of living in the shadows of their larger, lizard-like contemporaries, the early years of what’s now called the Palaeogene period saw the rise of hoofed animals and opossum-like marsupials, bats and even early primates. It pays, it would seem, to be small, good at hiding and willing to wait for a meteorite to wipe out your competitors.
The rapid growth and proliferation of the Kimbetopsalis is a testament to the power of environmental change and the persistence of early mammals, researchers say.
“The history of life hinges on moments that can reset the course of evolution,” , a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Edinburgh and another co-author on the paper, wrote in an essay for the Conversation. Amid the destruction and rapid change caused by the meteorite impact, “dinosaurs couldn’t cope and all of a sudden they were gone. Their size and strength couldn’t save them. Mammals fared better, and now one species of brainy ape occupies that dominant place in nature that was once held by the dinosaurs.”

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Scientists suggest a new, earth-shaking twist on the demise of the dinosaurs

October 19
New research suggests that the asteroid or comet that slammed into the Earth 66 million years ago rocked the planet so violently that it accelerated a massive volcanic eruption in India, a double catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs and 70 percent of the Earth's species.
The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, puts a twist on the consensus explanation of the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period. Scientists have long been confident that a mountain-sized object crashed into the planet, leaving traces even today of a vast crater at the tip of Mexico's Yucatan peninsula.
[Don’t worry. Matt Damon won’t get stuck on Mars. NASA can’t get him there.]
They’ve also known that massive volcanism in India was happening around the same time, spreading lava across a huge region known as the Deccan Traps. The coincidence of those two events initially hinted at causality, but subsequent dating of the Deccan Traps formations indicated that the flood of basaltic lava began long before the cataclysmic impact.


With the new data, causality's once again in play. The asteroid or comet didn’t cause the initial eruption, but it could have intensified it, according to the paper.
The Chicxulub impact – named after a town in the Yucatan – created earthquakes of magnitude 11 in the vicinity of the crater, the authors say. Magnitude 9 earthquakes would have been felt around the planet, they say.
[A ‘lost world’ of dinosaurs thrived in the snowy dark of Alaska]
The seismic energy made the planet's crust more permeable. Molten rock deep in the interior began flowing through fractures. As that magma expanded, gasses in the solution began forming bubbles. As with a shaken soda bottle, the results were likely explosive.
“Once that’s initiated, it becomes a kind of runaway process,” said Paul Renne, a University of California, Berkeley geologist and lead author of the new paper.

First ever evidence of a swimming, shark-eating dinosaur

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/

When it wasn't putting T. rex to shame, the dinosaur Spinosaurus spent its time swimming -- and chowing down on sharks.
Until now, scientists didn't have any proof that there were swimming dinosaurs. There were some marine reptiles prowling the seas, to be sure, but paleontologists couldn't find fossils that put dinosaurs in the water.
New fossil evidence published Thursday in Science changes that, and the  Spinosaurus aegyptiacus is breaking records left and right. It's now the largest predatory dinosaur to have ever roamed the planet — nearly 10 feet longer than the largest T. rex specimen — although the carnivore was still dwarfed by some of its plant-eating contemporaries. But more importantly, Spinosaurus has the distinction of providing our first ever evidence for a semi-aquatic dinosaur.


Spinosaurus was discovered in the Sahara more than a century ago by German paleontologist Ernst Freiherr Stromer von Reichenbach, but all of his fossils were destroyed during World War II.
When a partial skeleton was uncovered in the Moroccan Sahara -- in a place once home to a massive system of rivers full of all sorts of sharks and other predators  -- scientists had a new clue that there was something fishy about the massive dino.
In addition to revealing a record-breaking length, digital modeling of the skeleton suggested a whole fleet of aquatic adaptations. Tiny nostrils, placed far back on the middle of the dinosaur's skull, presumably allowed it to breathe as it swam at the surface. It also had openings at the end of its snout that are reminiscent of ones in crocodiles and alligators. In the modern animals, these openings house receptors that let them sense movement in the water.

Huge, slanted, interlocking teeth seem perfectly shaped to catch fish, and hook-like claws would have been ideal for catching hold of slippery prey under the water. Big, flat feet (perhaps even webbed) would have been well-suited to paddling water or stomping through mud, and some unusually dense limb bones (more like those seen in penguins than those found in other dinosaurs, the researchers report) would have allowed it to keep itself under the water, instead of floating.
The dinosaur's skeletal shape indicates that it would have been a strange sight to us on land. The Spinosaurus's center of gravity was pushed forward by its long neck, so it was almost certainly impossible for it to walk on two legs. In fact, the Spinosaurus's legs and pelvis are quite like those seen in early whales -- much better for paddling than for walking. Like whales, these dinosaurs probably evolved from land-dwelling ancestors to become semi-aquatic.

Scientists aren't quite sure how Spinosaurus moved when it left the water -- which it must have done, at the very least, to lay and nest eggs. Spinosaurus didn't have the kind of limbs that scientists would expect in a four-legged animal, but it also couldn't have balanced on its hind legs for very long.
"I think that we have to face the fact that the Jurassic Park folks have to go back to the drawing board on Spinosaurus," co-author and University of Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno said in a teleconference held by Science on Wednesday. "It was not a balancing, two-legged animal on land. It would have been something very peculiar."
This isn't to say that Spinosaurus wouldn't have been an impressive sight on land. "It would have been a fearsome animal. There's no question about it, you would not want to meet this animal on land," Sereno said. "But it was not gallivanting across the landscape."
While paleontologists continue to puzzle over how the Spinosaurus managed to walk, you can visit a life-size skeletal replica of the creature at the National Geographic Museum in Washington. The exhibit will run Sept. 12th through April 12.



Were dinosaurs warm or cold blooded? Ancient eggshells could reveal the truth.

https://img.washingtonpost.com

Were dinosaurs warm or cold blooded? New data suggests that the answer might be a simple "yes".
Back in the day, paleontologists assumed that dinosaurs were all lizard-like, and had the slow metabolisms to match — making them cold blooded, like alligators. These kinds of animals, more formally known as ectotherms, have to get most of their body heat from their environment. Endotherms, like humans and other mammals, are capable of producing most of the heat they need internally.
[Fossils might reveal the colors of ancient critters]
Now we know that many dinosaurs were actually bird ancestors. Birds are endothermic, and have super fast metabolisms.
So did some dinosaurs have bird-like metabolisms, and the hot blood to match? A study published Tuesday in Nature Communications claims to have found the answer in fossilized eggshells.
The basic findings line up with what most recent research in the area has concluded: Dinosaur metabolisms were all over the place.
"It's important to realize that there's actually a whole sliding scale of physiology," even in the modern animal kingdom, study author Robert Eagle of the University of California told The Post. Birds have metabolic rates that put humans to shame, he explained, making them arguably more "warm blooded" than we are. And then you have critters like sloths, that are on the slowest, coolest end of the warm blooded spectrum. "So the real question is where dinosaurs fell on that spectrum," he said.
[A crummy dinosaur fossil turns out to hold 75 million-year-old blood and proteins]
That's where Eagle's work comes in. He and his colleagues analyzed the chemical makeup of ancient eggshells, using a technique previously perfected on teeth to estimate the temperature of the body they formed in. By measuring the abundance of chemical bonds between two rare, heavy isotopes (carbon-13 and oxygen-18) in calcium carbonate minerals, scientists can estimate body temperature. A mineral that forms at colder temperatures will have more of these bonds than the same mineral formed at a higher temperature. In the case of an egg, scientists can use this ratio to estimate the temperature of the mother's body when she formed it. 
After showing that this measurement worked in eggs from modern animals, Eagle and his colleagues tested fossilized eggs. Many showed signs of decay that would alter any conclusions about temperature, but they were able to analyze two species successfully — and found signs of a range of metabolic rates.
One was a long-necked titanosaur sauropod, and it indicated a maternal body temperature of about 100 degrees Fahrenheit, comparable to large mammals today. Another species — a T. rex-like oviraptorid — indicated a cooler 90-degree body temperature, which is lower than most modern mammals.
But chances are that both of them were at least somewhat endothermic, Eagle explained. Analysis of the soil around the oviraptorid eggs indicates that the air temperature may have been lower than their body temperature.
"We can't take just body temperature and jump to the conclusion that they weren't cold blooded," Eagle said, "but combined with other data, it's consistent with them having some kind of intermediary metabolism. This suggests that maybe they were warm blooded, but hadn't developed the high level of temperature regulation seen in mammals and birds today. They were kind of part way to evolving endothermy."
Since oviraptorids like this one were close relatives to the earliest birds, Eagle hopes that studying the evolutionary lineage more closely will reveal when and how metabolisms sped up so drastically.
"There's just a massive spectrum of different questions we can ask now," he said.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Scientists Have Drafted a Complete Tree of Life


Maddie Stone9/19/15 3:00pm



Humans, bacteria, daffodils: We’re a diverse bunch on the surface, but trace each and every Earthling back far enough, and you’ll arrive at a common ancestor. For the first time, scientists have built a comprehensive tree of life that binds us all together.

A draft of the One Tree, published Friday in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, includes the roughly 2.3 million named species of animals, plants, fungi and microbes. It shows how all of the major branches relate to one another and traces each individual group back to its shared beginnings in a prebiotic soup 3.5 billion years ago.

“This is the first real attempt to connect the dots and put it all together,” said principal investigator Karen Cranston of Duke University in a statement. “Think of it as Version 1.0.”




This family tree of Earth’s lifeforms is considered a first draft of the 3.5-billion-year history of how life evolved and diverged. Image Credit: opentreeoflife.org

To build the tree of all life, researchers compiled thousands of smaller trees that had already been published online. One of the big challenges was simply accounting for the different taxonomic names, spellings and misspellings that crop up across scientific papers. For instance, in a strange fluke of taxonomy that I can only hope has inspired some fantastically weird artwork, spiny anteaters once shared their scientific name with moray eels.

The tree will continue to receive updates over time, of course — scientists are still discovering new species of plants, animals and fungi every year, and with our growing arsenal of genomic sequencing tools, we’re finally beginning to unlock the vast diversity of the microbial world. The team behind the tree is developing software tools that’ll enable researchers to log in and revise things as new data is collected.

In the meanwhile, the biology nerds in the room can start exploring all of this juicy data right now. The tree, along with the raw data and source code that built it, is available for free online at https://tree.opentreeoflife.org.

[Read the full scientific paper at PNAS h/t phys.org]

Thursday, November 19, 2015

10 Incredible Firsts In The Evolution Of Life On Earth

 http://listverse.com/

Kyle Roberts
In order to attain the awe-inspiring diversity of life on this planet, nature had to overcome numerous obstacles over billions of years of evolution. New environments had to be conquered; new forms had be created to exploit newly available resources. Since man first began to look back through the long history of the natural world via paleontology and geology, we’ve uncovered some of the turning points in the development of life on Earth.

10The Earliest Humans
The Omo Remains

ThinkstockPhotos-521698187

Of course, you can trace humanity’s family tree back a long way. But who were the earliest modern humans, like you and the people you know? Well, Omo I and II might just hold the answers. The two partial skulls, discovered in Ethiopia around 1967, were recently confirmed to be an astonishing 195,000 years old, making them the earliest known anatomically modern humans. (There actually is some debate around Omo II, but Omo I is agreed to be a fully modern human.) In fact, scientists now think that Homo sapiens only evolved around 200,000 years ago, making it likely that the Omo pair were among the first true humans ever to walk the Earth.
So what are the implications of the two skulls? Well, aside from confirming humanity’s emergence in Africa, they’ve deepened one of the great mysteries of human evolution. Evidence of cultural traits—like musical instruments, needles, and ornaments—only dates back to around 50,000 years ago. Complex tools like harpoons also appear after that date, although crude stone implements date back much further. So, if entirely modern humans were roaming the land 200,000 years ago, why did it take them 150,000 years to develop anything resembling culture?

9The Earliest Bird
Protoavis

Archaeopteryx_lithographica_by_durbed
Photo via Wikimedia
 
We now know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and that many dinosaurs were actually covered in feathers. As a result, the question “Which was the earliest bird” can seem more like “When do we stop considering a creature a dinosaur and start calling it a bird?” For a long time, paleontologists drew the line at creatures like Archaeopteryx (pictured) and Confuciusornis, small animals covered in feathers and capable of flying, as well as climbing trees and running. We also know that Confuciusornis had a genuine beak, which gives it an advantage over its rivals for the position of earliest true bird.
However, there is an even older candidate for the title of first bird. Protoavis lived around 220 million years ago, at least 80 million years before its nearest rival. The fossil was found in Texas by paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee, who argues that it is even closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, and Protoavis is the oldest known bird, it would potentially rewrite our entire understanding of avian evolution. Currently, the consensus is that birds evolved from coelurosaurian dinosaurs. But Protoavis is easily as old as the first coelurosaurians, making such a scenario impossible. If Protoavis is a bird, then birds must have come from somewhere else.
Don’t rewrite the textbooks just yet, though, because the identification of Protoavis as a bird has proven enormously controversial. The fossil was not in good condition when Chatterjee found it, leading many paleontologists to suggest it’s actually a mixture of bone fragments from two or more species, which an overeager Chatterjee pieced together into a plausible skeleton. Others simply point out that there’s no reason to believe Protoavis is the ancestor of today’s birds. Instead, convergent evolution might simply have resulted in two unrelated species sharing a similar design.

8The First Species To Walk On Land
Tiktaalik And Pneumodesmus


Part fish, part frog, and part alligator, Tiktaalik was the platypus of the Devonian, splashing in the shallows some 375 million years ago. Discovered in Canada in 2004, the species is considered to be an important transitional link between aquatic vertebrates and the very first land animals. Among other adaptations, Tiktaalik boasted ribs capable of supporting its body, lungs, a movable neck, and eyes on the top of its head like a crocodile. It also boasted proto-legs, halfway evolved from fins, that would have allowed it to push itself along riverbeds. However, Tiktaalik‘s “legs” probably didn’t have the range of motion required to truly walk on land. At best, it might have been able to briefly scramble around on mud flats. Otherwise, it probably remained in the shallows.
But while vertebrates like Tiktaalik struggled to make the transfer to land, they had actually been beaten to the punch by a species of millipede known as Pneumodesmus, which lived some 428 million years ago. At just 1 centimeter (0.4 in) in length, the tiny myriapod wasn’t much to look at, but Pneumodesmus was the first creature we know of to actually live on land. That also makes it the oldest air-breathing creature we know of, boasting tiny breathing openings known as spiracles on the outside of its body. As such, Pneumodesmus must be considered one of nature’s most successful experiments, paving the way for all the land animals to come.

7The Earliest True Reptile
Hylonomus Lyelli

ThinkstockPhotos-521368935

Reptiles were the first vertebrates to become completely capable of living on land, even reproducing outside of the water. That makes them pretty awesome, and the tiny critter known as Hylonomus lyelli might just be the most awesome of them all. The lizard-like creature, which measured just 20 centimeters (8 in) in length, is currently the oldest undisputed species of reptile, dating back at least 310 million years. Probably an insectivore, Hylonomus lyelli was discovered in 1860, preserved inside a tree trunk in Nova Scotia.
Of course, 1860 was a long time ago and two challengers to the first reptile title have emerged since then. Westlothiana and Casineria are both slightly older than Hylonomus lyelli (338 million years for Westlothiana and 335 million years for Casineria). However, the scientific community is still debating whether either was indeed a fully evolved reptile, since they share some amphibian traits, meaning that they were probably dependent on a stable water source to live and reproduce. For the time being, Hylonomus lyelli can keep its title.

6The Oldest Creature Capable Of Flight
Rhyniognatha Hirsti

ThinkstockPhotos-86525609

As a means of locomotion, flight requires a complex design (low body weight, but a sturdy frame) and a lot of effort by powerful wing muscles. The first creature capable of flight was actually the oldest known insect, Rhyniognatha hirsti. The tiny insect lived some 400 million years ago, meaning that flight is by no means a recent development from an evolutionary perspective.
Rhyniognatha hirsti was discovered in 1928, in rocks dating back to the Devonian. The fossil was promptly ignored for almost 75 years, until biologist Michael Engel accidentally rediscovered it in a drawer in London’s Natural History Museum. Engel gasped out loud on spotting the incredible specimen—and that was before he even knew how old it was.
Since then, experts have studied its remains thoroughly, confirming that the tiny insect had wings and was very likely capable of using them to fly. However, they are still not completely certain which family of insects it belonged to. Nevertheless, the fossil is a fascinating find and further study should reveal more about the earliest known pioneer of flight.

5The First Flowering Plants
Potomacapnos And Amborella

763px-Amborella_trichopoda_(3065968016)_fragment
Photo via Wikimdia
People tend to associate plants with flowers, but flowers are actually a very recent development, at least on the evolutionary timescale. Before they showed up, plants reproduced via spores for hundreds of millions of years. In fact, scientists aren’t even sure why flowers evolved in the first place, since they are delicate and require huge amounts of energy, which many plants might put to better use growing seeds or increasing in height. Additionally, non-flowering plants have nothing that really corresponds to flowers, making it something of a puzzle where they came from in the first place. These loose ends led Darwin to famously describe the rise of flowers as “an abominable mystery.”
The oldest known flowering plant fossils date to the Cretaceous, between 115 and 125 million years ago. Among the oldest is Potomacapnos, a surprisingly complex plant resembling a modern poppy. Such complexity in early fossils indicates that flowers probably evolved very rapidly to something approaching their modern form, rather than slowly developing over a lengthy period. But it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, since flowers are fragile and rarely survive to be fossilized.
However, some answers might lie with a rare shrub found only on the Pacific island of New Caledonia. Amborella trichopoda (pictured) is the only surviving member of the Amborellales. At the start of the Cretaceous, the Amborellales split from the non-flowering plants dominating the landscape, becoming the oldest order of flowering plants to survive into the present. Later, two other surviving orders emerged: the Nymphaeales, which became modern water lilies, and the Austrobaileyales, from which all other flowering plants developed. Since the Amborellales emerged first, Amborella trichopoda remains closest to the original flowering plants. By comparing it with the Austrobaileyales, we can get some idea of which traits flowering plants originally boasted and which simply evolved further down the line.

4The Earliest Mammal
Hadrocodium Wui

ThinkstockPhotos-482143180

The oldest known mammal resembled a small mouse or modern-day shrew. Hadrocodium wui, identified in China in 2001, was some 3.5 centimeters (1.4 in) long, weighed 2 grams, and probably had a lifestyle and diet similar to modern shrews, since its teeth consisted of specialized fangs for chopping up insects.
So how do we know that Hadrocodium was a mammal and not a therapsid (a type of mammal-like reptile that flourished in the Mesozoic)? Well, as well as a notably large brain for its size, Hadrocodium boasted middle-ear bones separate from its jaw, which is considered a notable point of evolutionary divergence between mammals and reptiles. In fact, Hadrocodium could be considered quite modern in its design, especially when it comes to its sense of smell.
However, what makes Hadrocodium wui truly impressive is its age. At 195 million years old, Hadrocodium lived long before some of the best-known dinosaurs, including the stegosaurus, diplodocus, and tyrannosaurus. In fact, the mighty tyrannosaurus lived closer to us in time than it did to Hadrocodium wui.

3The First Tree
Wattieza

640px-Eospermatopteris_erianus
Photo via Wikimedia
 
Trees played (and still play) a crucial role in the formation of the Earth’s atmosphere. Without their power to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, the planet would quickly become inhospitable to life, at least as we know it. In fact, the first forests drastically changed our ecosystem, causing the planet to cool and directly creating the conditions we take for granted today. As such, the appearance of the tree can be considered one of the most important evolutionary breakthroughs of all time.
Currently, the oldest known tree is a 397-million-year-old species known as Wattieza, which resembled a modern palm and probably reached a height of around 10 meters (30 ft). Wattieza preceded the dinosaurs by some 140 million years, spreading across the planet long before the first vertebrates took to the land. It reproduced using spores, similar to those used by ferns and fungi today. The species is currently extinct, but a 180-kilogram (400 lb) fossil (pictured above) was discovered in New York in 2004, solving many unanswered questions about how forests came to dominate the land.

2The Earliest True Dinosaur
Nyasasaurus Parringtoni


The reign of the dinosaurs began after the dreadful Permian extinction, which took place some 250 million years ago and wiped out around 90 percent of all species on Earth, including 95 percent of marine life and most of the planet’s trees. Afterward, the dinosaurs emerged.
The oldest true dinosaur currently known is Nyasasaurus parringtoni, which was discovered in Tanzania in the 1930s, but only conclusively dated in 2011. Only a few bones from the species have been identified so far—scientists still have no clue whether it was a carnivore or a herbivore, nor are they completely certain whether it walked on two legs or not.
Nevertheless, we can say that Nyasasaurus parringtoni was less-than-imposing, standing just 1 meter (3 ft) tall and weighing 18–60 kilograms (40–135 lb). In fact, it’s barely even a dinosaur by most standards, but analysis of its bones has revealed that it was a fast-growing animal, indicating that it was warm-blooded, an essential trait of dinosaurs. For now, the scientific community hopes to discover more fossils, since we haven’t even been able to identify the family of dinosaurs it belongs to yet.

1The Oldest Life-Form

ThinkstockPhotos-486296422

What is the oldest life-form known to science? Well, it’s a surprisingly tricky question to answer, since early life-forms were so basic its often hard to identify them accurately. For example, rocks discovered near Pilbara in Australia were initially thought to contain traces of a purple, ocean-dwelling microbial community almost 3.5 billion years old. This would have been the oldest evidence of life on Earth and everyone got very excited—until earlier this year, when new testing conclusively proved that the “microfossils” were actually just strangely shaped mineral deposits created by hydrothermal events. In other words, they were never alive at all.
The same thing happened in South Africa, where tiny tubes found in rocks were taken as evidence of 3.4-billion-year-old bacteria, only for a subsequent study to identify them as natural formations created by volcanic activity. Fortunately, these revelations haven’t set the hunt for the oldest fossil back too far, since Australia’s Strelley Pool Formation contains carbon-rich “bag-shaped bodies” that are considered to be convincing evidence of ancient microbial life. At 3.43 billion years old, the Strelley Pool deposits are only about 20 million years younger than the Pilbara “microfossils” were thought to be.
Intriguingly, there’s some evidence that the Strelley Pool organisms were photosynthetic, surviving by converting light to energy. Although no fossil record of them has been found, it’s generally agreed that the earliest bacteria were rock-eaters known as chemolithotrophs, with photosynthetic bacteria emerging later. So we can be pretty sure that the earliest bacteria predate even the Strelley Pool deposits by a long, long time.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Pterodactyls Are Not Dinosaurs. So What The Hell Are They?


Esther Inglis-Arkell

Filed to: explainer 7/24/15 11:11am


1

Pterodactyls lived at the same time as the dinosaurs—but somehow, they’re not actually dinosaurs. They were flying creatures, and paleontologists keep telling us that dinosaurs are birds. But still, we’re supposed to call pterodactyls “pterosaurs.” This feels like a trick—why aren’t pterodactyls dinosaurs?

The name “pterodactyl” is an unfortunate artifact. It was the name given by naturalist and “father of paleontology” Georges Cuvier, to a fossil unearthed in 1801. The flying reptile got its name for its long “finger,” which stretched out to form a wing. It was soon joined by more fossils of winged fingers. Some had teeth and some didn’t. Some were the size of giraffes and some could rest on a person’s hand. They were shaped differently, and clearly ate different diets. The dactyl name just didn’t describe any group of animals any more, and so in 1834 these creatures got the more general name of “pterosaurs.”

This name linked pterosaurs with dinosaurs in the popular imagination—which wasn’t a big deal, because for quite some time paleontologists had no real working definition for dinosaurs. They had scientific names for the different fossils they had discovered, but for them the definition of a “dinosaur” was no different from a bright ten-year-old’s idea of a dinosaur. A dinosaur was defined by popular imagination, not physiology or descent.



In the 1970s, the entire discipline of paleontology took a look at the groups they had placed their fossils in, and found those groups wanting. After re-examining the details of different fossils, they finally came with a new order of things. The wide base group of that order came to be known as Archosauria. You can see crocodiles, the result of one branch of that group, staring up at you from ponds everywhere from Australia to the Florida Everglades.

Another branch from that group is called Avemetatarsalia. Anyone who has had a foot injury knows that metatarsals are located in the foot. The ankle joint of a member of Avemetatarsalia is slightly different from other members of Archosauria. A section of bone that would have been part of an early crocodile’s leg is part of an early member of the group Avemetatarsalia’s foot. This makes the foot work in a slightly different way—a way that can be exploited to get up one one’s back legs and use one’s front arms to grasp, to walk, or to fly. There are other distinguishing characteristics, including elongated metatarsals, a longer neck, and differently-constructed legs, but it’s the ankle that’s the give-away.



What did the members of the Avemetatarsalia do with their snazzy new ankles? Some became Scleromochlus taylori. Scleromochlus taylori would, if shown to most of us laypeople, be immediately identified as a dinosaur—albeit a very slender and elongated one. According to people in the know, however, it has a relatively primitive ankle structure.

That ankle structure was shared by every animal in the group Pterosauria. In fact, Scleromochlus and the Pterosauria sit together on this stubby branch of the evolutionary tree. The animal pictured above and pterosaurs are each other’s closest relatives. To be fair, the pterosaurs didn’t have much use for their ankles. New evidence shows that they were more resourceful in flight than people gave them credit for. They were able to control their body temperature with a fine covering of hair-like fuzz. Their wings were not simple membranes to help them glide, but actual fliers. And they even managed to vault themselves into the air.



But they were on a separate branch of the classification tree from the the members of Dinosaurmorpha—which still weren’t dinosaurs. And they weren’t among the group of animals that branched out from Dinosaurmorpha to become Dinosauriformes—still not dinosaurs. It took yet another branch to get to Dinosauria. Dinosauria had all kinds of limb improvements, from a crest on the humerus to a tibia with a “transversely expanded subrectangular distal end.” It’s no wonder that they probably spent the time between 220 million years ago and 200 million years ago wiping out most of the Dinosaurimorphs. Dinosaurs really did rule the Earth.

Which makes it admirable that pterosaurs hung in perfectly fine until 65 million years ago. They only went extinct when the actual dinosaurs did. So what is the difference between pterosaurs and dinosaurs? The complicated answer is a lot of slight but specific changes to the leg bones. A more general way to look at it though is thinking of a dinosaur as yourself and a pterosaur as your grandmother’s sister. She’s a couple of generations back, and you’re not really her descendant, but you’re both in the same family, and come from a common ancestor.

But she can fly, so she’s cooler.
Top Image: Matt Van Rooijen. Second Image: Daderot. Scleromochlus Image: Jaime A. Headden

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Children's Mysterious Paralysis Tied to New Virus


Children's Mysterious Paralysis Tied to New Virus
A new study suggests that a new strain of a poliolike virus may be responsible for some of the mysterious cases of paralysis in children over the past few years. (Photo: Getty Images) 
Mysterious cases of paralysis in U.S. children over the last year have researchers searching for the cause of the illness. Now, a new study suggests that a new strain of a poliolike virus may be responsible for some of the cases.
So far, more than 100 children in 34 states have suddenly developed muscle weakness or paralysis in their arms or legs, a condition known as acute flaccid myelitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Previously, researchers linked a virus called enterovirus D68 (EV-D68), which can cause respiratory illness similar to the common cold, with some of these cases.
But only about 20 percent of children with paralysis tested positive for EV-D68, and even in these cases, it wasn’t clear if EV-D68 was the cause of the child’s condition. 
In the new study, researchers say that one case of paralysis, in a 6-year-old girl, is linked with another strain of enterovirus, called enterovirus C105. This virus belongs to the same species (enterovirus C) as the polio virus.
Although the new study doesn’t definitely prove that enterovirus C105 was the cause of the girl’s paralysis, it suggests that there are other viruses besides EV-D68 that are contributing to the outbreak of acute flaccid myelitis.
The study should make researchers aware that “there’s another virus out there that has this association” with paralysis, said study co-author Dr. Ronald Turner, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. “We probably shouldn’t be quite so fast to jump to enterovirus D68 as the [only] cause of these cases,” Turner told Live Science.
The 6-year-old girl was previously healthy, but she caught a cold from members in her family, and developed a mild fever. Her fever and cold symptoms soon went away, but she was left with persistent arm pain. Then her parents noticed that the girl’s shoulder appeared to droop, and she had difficulty using her right hand, the researchers said.
At the hospital, the girl was diagnosed with acute flaccid myelitis, and a sample from her respiratory tract tested positive for enterovirus C105. This virus was only recently discovered, and the new study is the first report of enterovirus C105 in the United States, the researchers said. The girl tested negative for EV-D68.
Some tests can miss enterovirus C105, because of variation in the virus’s genetic sequence, Turner said. This virus may have gone unrecognized in the current outbreak until now because it is relatively new, and can be hard to detect, he said.
“The presence of this virus strain in North America may contribute to the incidence of flaccid paralysis and may also pose a diagnostic challenge in clinical laboratories,” the researchers said in their study, which will be published in the October issue of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases.
The researchers noted that enterovirus D68, and now enterovirus C105, have been found in the respiratory tract of children with acute flaccid myelitis, but so far, these viruses have not been found in the spinal fluid of these patients. That’s important because a virus in the respiratory tract would not necessarily cause paralysis.
“You can have a virus in your respiratory tract that’s not doing anything to your nervous system,” Turner said.
In order to more definitively link these cases of paralysis with enterovirus, researchers would need to find the virus in the spinal fluid, he said. But so far, tests have not found the virus there.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Who ya callin’ bird brain?

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Are crows the smartest animals of all?
Many scientists think that corvids — the family of birds that includes crows, ravens, rooks and jays — may be among the most intelligent animals on Earth, based on their ability to solve problems, make tools and apparently consider both possible future events and other individuals’ states of mind.
“There’s a lot of research that has been done with both ravens and crows because they are such intelligent species,” said Margaret Innes, an assistant curator at the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore.
Even in humans, defining and measuring intelligence is difficult, and it’s more complicated in other species, which have very different body shapes and have evolved for their niche in the environment. However, scientists who study cognition have defined a few measures of intelligence: recognizing oneself in a mirror, solving complex problems, making tools, using analogies and symbols, and reasoning about what others are thinking.
For a long time, biologists expected most of these mental feats to be unique to primates. The great apes — chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas — succeed at nearly all of these tasks, from making and using tools to learning large vocabularies of symbols, as well as recognizing themselves in mirrors
.
Crows: Smart as your average 7-year-old?
In this study by the University of Auckland and the University of Cambridge, crows drop objects into tubes filled with water, raising the water level and obtaining a food reward. Researches found that this species of crows can solve a science puzzle about as well as the average 7-year-old kid. (University of Auckland, University of Cambridge)
 
A select few other mammals also meet most of the accepted criteria for intelligence. Dogs and dolphins, for instance, are very good at tasks involving social intelligence, such as communication, conflict resolution and reasoning about what others are thinking. Dolphins are also capable of basic tool use — for instance, carrying sea sponges in their mouths to shield their noses from scrapes and bumps as they forage on the ocean floor.
However, the greatest intellectual rival to the brainy apes may be a noisy scavenger with a sharp beak, bright eyes and a brain about the size of a walnut: the crow and its corvid relatives.
Clever problem-solvers
Crows and ravens are clever problem-solvers, expert toolmakers and adept social movers, but scientists haven’t reached a consensus about how corvid minds handle abstract thinking or how closely their mental processes resemble those of humans.
Researchers from the University of Iowa and Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia reported early this year that crows can use analogies to match pairs of objects. To reach that conclusion, the scientists trained crows to recognize whether two objects were identical or different, which the birds indicated by pressing one button when shown pictures of objects that matched and a different button when the objects didn’t match. Once all the birds were good at matching objects, researchers showed the crows images of pairs of objects. Some images depicted matched pairs, while others depicted two mismatched objects with different shapes or colors. In response, crows could press buttons to choose between a matched pair or a mismatched pair.
The researchers wanted to see if crows could figure out the relationship between pairs of objects and then choose a pair with the same relationship: matched or mismatched. For instance, a crow looking at a mismatched pair would then select the mismatched pair from their response choices. Nearly 78 percent of the time, the birds succeeded. According to the researchers, the birds recognized that the relationship between the two pairs of objects was the same. In other words, they were making analogies.
Other scientists contend that a type of reasoning less sophisticated than analogies could have produced the same results. For instance, the crows in the analogy test could have simply chosen images with similar characteristics, such as objects of the same color, instead of reasoning about the relationship between the objects, to get the correct answer.
Some behaviors, like those employed in the analogy test, could have more than one explanation, and until recently, scientists could only see what the birds did, then make inferences about the mental processes behind the behavior.

Now, researcher John Marzluff and his colleagues at the University of Washington are using positron emission tomography, or PET, scans to study which parts of a crow’s brain are active when it performs such tasks as recognizing friendly and unfriendly birds. And he says that another team of researchers, at the University of California at Davis, is preparing to use the same technique to study the brain activity of New Caledonian crows, a species that makes sophisticated tools. The team hopes to actually see the crows’ brains at work while they’re crafting tools.
Birds’ minds
Corvids seem to understand that other birds have minds like theirs, and their decisions often take into account what others might know, want or intend, according to several studies of crows, ravens and jays. Psychologists call this a theory of mind, and it’s a fairly sophisticated cognitive ability. Humans don’t develop it until late in childhood. Crows and their fellow corvids are social animals, much like primates, so theory of mind probably offers significant evolutionary advantages.
For one thing, it may help prevent food theft. Crows and ravens often hide food in caches and retrieve it later. “You can actually see them watching both the other birds that they are with and the humans, and if they sense that they have been seen, they will take that food and they’ll go and hide it somewhere else,” Innes said of the Maryland Zoo’s ravens. The birds appear to realize that watchers will know where they’ve hidden the food and might use that knowledge to steal it later.
Studies of several corvid species have documented this re-caching, as it is called. Skeptics of the birds’ advanced intelligence say simpler mental processes might prompt re-caching, such as making an association between being seen and later having a cache stolen.
Innes, however, is convinced that the re-caching is a sign that ravens have a theory of mind, based on her observation of re-caching behavior in ravens at the Maryland Zoo. “Definitely,” she said. “I think it definitely indicates that.”
Other test results are harder to dismiss as simple association. When researchers in Austria hid food behind a partition, ravens found it, apparently by noticing where the humans were looking and following their gazes to the hidden food. “You’re using the person’s gaze to infer information about something you can’t see,” Marzluff said.
Brain imaging studies could settle the question, Marzluff said, because advanced cognition in all animals uses different areas of the brain than simpler associative learning.
Feathered craftsmen
Corvids’ toolmaking is much more clearly the product of sophisticated cognition, according to biologists who study them.
Several animals use found objects to get food, such as otters and sea gulls that use rocks to crack shellfish, and apes that use sticks to fish termites out of nests. But deliberately crafting tools is a much more sophisticated skill. Only four species are known to actually make tools: humans, chimpanzees, orangutans — and New Caledonian crows. Although other corvid species have learned to make and use tools in labs, only the crows found on the Pacific island of New Caledonia have been found to actually make tools in the wild.
With their beaks, the crows sharpen forked twigs into hooks for scooping larvae and worms out of holes in wood. The crows often spend more than a minute finding the right stick and then sculpting it into the right shape. Even chimpanzees don’t craft their tools so meticulously, and some researchers say that the crows’ work is on par with very early human tools such as spears and sharpened digging sticks.
New Caledonian crows even take steps to avoid losing their carefully crafted tools. Biologists recently discovered that the birds sometimes stash their hooks in holes, or simply stand on them, when they aren’t in use. The crows are especially careful when the risk of losing their tools is greatest, such as when the birds forage in high branches.
The aptitude for toolmaking is probably an instinct for most corvids, as it is for humans. Corvids use found objects as tools — ravens and crows, for example, drop nuts onto flat rocks to crack the shells — and nearly all corvids seem to have a knack for solving physical problems. In one set of experiments, captive crows figured out how to bend wires into hooks to retrieve food from a tube. And captive rooks, close relatives of crows and ravens, have done the same thing.
It’s unsurprising that chimpanzees and orangutans share so many abilities with humans, because they are very closely related to us, but it’s striking that corvids share so many skills once believed to set humans apart. After all, birds and mammals have spent the last 300 million years evolving on different paths, which produced very different brain structures and bodies.
Parts of the brain that evolved earlier than 300 million years ago, such as the primitive structures in the brainstem that control basic bodily functions, look the same in most animals, including primates and corvids. But structures that developed more recently, like those involved in cognition, are organized very differently in birds than are they are in mammals.
Mammalian brains have evolved with what is called a laminar structure, in which brain cells are organized in six layers that make up the cerebral cortex, or forebrain. The cerebral cortex handles cognitive tasks, and it’s especially well developed in humans and our fellow apes, as well as other intelligent animals such as dolphins and dogs. In the bird brain, a structure called the nidopallium caudolaterale handles cognitive tasks, and it’s especially well developed in corvids.
“All three of those animals have very large forebrains relative to the rest of their brains, for their particular group,” Marzluff said. “Certainly the forebrain of a bird and a mammal differ, but they have the same sorts of functions — that is, you know, higher-level thought and processing of sensory information.”
In birds’ brains, cells form clusters called nuclei instead of layers. For years, biologists held that the layered cerebral cortex gave mammals some cognitive advantages, but research on corvids has cast doubt on that assumption.
Bird brains
That such distantly related animals with such different brains could evolve such similar abilities is surprising, but when two different species face similar evolutionary pressures, natural selection can lead to similar traits. Biologists call this convergent evolution, and it’s the same process by which birds and bats both evolved wings. At some point, biologists say, the ancestor of today’s corvids must have found itself in an ecological niche where intelligence boosted the odds of survival, so corvid brains evolved with cognitive abilities similar to those of primates.
Convergent evolution may have led to similar wiring despite the differences in physical structure between bird and mammalian brains. The network of connections between areas of the brain looks very similar in corvids and primates, and one recently published paper compared bird and primate brains to Apple and PC computers. “At one level of analysis, they do the same things in a similar way, but viewed from another perspective, their operating systems are indeed different,” wrote the author, Cambridge University psychologist Nicola Clayton.
In the coming years, the differences and similarities between corvids’ mental operating systems and those of mammals will be analyzed with brain imaging. At that point, said Marzluff, we may have “some of those answers” to the question of how smart crows really are.