Slashdot Mirror


Man Sized Sea Scorpion Fossil Found

hereisnowhy writes "A giant fossilized claw discovered in Germany belonged to an ancient sea scorpion that was much bigger than the average man, an international team of geologists and archaeologists reported Tuesday. In a report in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters, the team said the claw indicates that sea scorpion Jaekelopterus rhenania was almost 2.5 meters long, making it the largest arthropod — an animal with a segmented body, jointed limbs and a hard exoskeleton — ever found. In the report, the authors said the scorpion exceeds previous size records for arthropods by almost half a meter."

216 comments

  1. Man Sized? by tak+amalak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Try double-man sized. That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights. 2 times what an American weighs.

    --
    Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
    1. Re:Man Sized? by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try double-man sized. That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights. 2 times what an American weighs. It's all extrapolation. I bet it had a 46cm claw and a tiny disproportionate 4cm body with weedy legs, making it the early equivalent to the modern programmer and not the scary hideous gargantuan portrayed by the media.
      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    2. Re:Man Sized? by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously you watch too much TV, if you think the American weight average is double everyone else. Just because you see extreme cases all the time doesn't mean that everyone in America is like that. We don't have THAT many bulemic movie stars to throw the curve off that much...we're at least 3 or 4 times fatter than the rest of the world, not just double. Sheesh.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    3. Re:Man Sized? by waugsqueke · · Score: 1

      When I first read this, I figured it was some sort of fake Cloverfield viral tie-in.

    4. Re:Man Sized? by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Informative
      Thanks to the McDonaldization of Europe, there are now plenty of fatties waddling around the old continent too.

      At least you can get a beer or wine with your KFC.

    5. Re:Man Sized? by d0rp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Man sized sea scorpion? Must be a cousin of the infamous Claw Shrimp

    6. Re:Man Sized? by MindKata · · Score: 1

      Either that or a gigantic prehistoric Sea Monkey.

      http://www.sea-monkeys.com/html/aboutsm/whatarethey.html

      I would like to see a fish tank full of them!

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    7. Re:Man Sized? by PatPending · · Score: 1

      It's all extrapolation. I bet it had a 46cm claw and a tiny disproportionate 4cm body with weedy legs, making it the early equivalent to the modern programmer and not the scary hideous gargantuan portrayed by the media. He would have a tiny schwanzstucker, too.
      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    8. Re:Man Sized? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Try double-man sized. That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights. 2 times what an American weighs."

      Man.. it's ugly, too. Still, though, if they ever came back, they could easily get jobs as French movie stars!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Man Sized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't is also the natural enemy of Manbearpig?

    10. Re:Man Sized? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Shrimp with claws do exist, you know.

      Sam

    11. Re:Man Sized? by quickpick · · Score: 0

      Ha Ha, OKAY y'all can make fun of us Americans but remember when this thing shows up on YOUR doorstep that our fat guy would just slap that sucker with hot sauce and wolf it down like a craw-dad! No. I'm not from the deep south.

    12. Re:Man Sized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights. 2 times what an American weighs."

      And intelligent also. 1/10 the intelligence of Americans and 2 times the intelligence of Europeans.

    13. Re:Man Sized? by zgregoryg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I should point out that these sort of creatures existed when the earth's climate was much hotter than today. ;-)

    14. Re:Man Sized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if Noah got this one onto the ark. I think insects were included too.
      Love to you all :)
      Bobby Romanski

    15. Re:Man Sized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i for one welcome our new man sized sea scorpion overlords!

    16. Re:Man Sized? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      A giant fossilized claw discovered in Germany belonged to an ancient sea scorpion that was much bigger than the average man
      Maybe the average man was much bigger 300 million years ago.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:Man Sized? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Slightly off but trying to stay on topic of the THREAD to which I responded...

      Same happening in Japan, too... and Korea, Philippines, etc. with non-traditional foods with processing and preserving chemicals fattening up people. What's better: food that doesn't contribute to fattening up even when sedentary, or foot that fattens up, increases lethargy (in the absence of compensatory exercising), and introduces new medical risks?

      I understand that the high-tech sector craze is a BOON for biomedical researchers and doctors in Texas, in places like Dallas and San Antonio and Austin. So many jobs were created along with so many homes being build that people with money they previously didn't spend are now eating their asses off more than ever before, pigging out at all number of ever-popping-up eateries and huge-steak-serving restaurants. Why a boon to medical? Because ever increasing is the number of heart-disease prospects who are going in for clinical trials, diagnoses and more, including procedures and pills dispensation.

      Maybe in all that cow meat eaten some chemicals will cause freakish babies to be born? There are still farms out there somewhere where girls exposed to steroids are growing facial hair and enlarged pre-pubescent organs...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    18. Re:Man Sized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans still dominate the Olympics and have overall some of the best athletes in the world.

      Rest of the countries are all borderline getting fat, even France now has a problem and the woman there are getting fat. Although most Frenchies seem to be hooked on the speed and heroin, you can look at their teeth and tell by it.

    19. Re:Man Sized? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights. 2 times what an American weighs.

      Yes, let the rest of the world mock America for our extra-wide airplane seats, our Big Macs and Diet Cokes, our sedentary habits...

      But when the Sea Scorpions rise up and conquer the rest of the world, only we will be able to stand against them, for in that final battle, every American is the equal of any two lesser men!

      We'll show you! We'll show you all!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    20. Re:Man Sized? by Spacezilla · · Score: 1

      Well played, many of us didn't see that one coming. :)

  2. Amazing by downix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who says the age of giants was only during the dinosaur era? It appears more and more that nature gets into these size races, then massive killing off, then start over. I wonder how long before we're standing at over 15 feet ourselves?

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Amazing by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nobody does. It's believed that the last ice age killed off many larger versions of creatures that are very similar to what we have today. Think pony:horse comparisons, but where our modern day horses were considered the "ponys".

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Amazing by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long before we're standing at over 15 feet ourselves?

      Unlikely, given the tendency of current humans to become wider rather than taller :P

      Seriously, though, with Earth's gravity, a 15ft human would have to either be very thin or wear an artificial exoskeleton to help support the weight.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    3. Re:Amazing by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Considering "Giant-killer" is a heroic title from ancient history, it might be a while. Sure, we're 10-20cm taller than folks from previous eras, but we seem pretty stable for now.

    4. Re:Amazing by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly: We are already at the max size for our current skeletal design, as anyone over 6-4 (about 190 centimeters for those of you who use a logical measurement system) should be able to tell you. To grow any taller we'd need further extension of our ribcage (or something) to support our lower torso better.

      Anyone past that height currently either has back problems, or keeps themselves in decent shape so that their mucles can take some of the load in moderate high-stress situations, like falling over when you trip.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    5. Re:Amazing by camperdave · · Score: 1

      a 15ft human would have to either be very thin or wear an artificial exoskeleton to help support the weight.

      Giraffes seem to get by quite well without the artificial exoskeleton, and they can reach upwards of a ton in weight.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your point maybe valid, but your analogy is off. Modern day horses are giants compared to their ancestors. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

    7. Re:Amazing by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Giraffes seem to get by quite well without the artificial exoskeleton, and they can reach upwards of a ton in weight.

      But they are very thin, and also quadrupeds.

      They're also unlikely to become as ubiquitous as humans, since most of the world doesn't have acacia trees for them to graze on (acacia trees that not many other creatures can graze on, because the food is too high up - hence the evolution of the giraffe as a specialist acacia feeder).

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    8. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The body type of a giraffe is oh-so-slightly different from a human's, wouldn't you say? Or are you really that stupid?

    9. Re:Amazing by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nobody does. It's believed that the last ice age killed off many larger versions of creatures that are very similar to what we have today.
      The current widelw-accepted theory is that human predation caused those extinctions in the Americas, which was enabled by the last ice age (from the diaspora of peoples via the north pacific land bridge). Large animals that did not co-evolve with humans were easy prey for voracious hunter-gatherers. Large carnivorous animals followed, due to both reduction of their food supply by human hunters, and by direct hunting by humans.

      In Eurasia, reduced habitat due to encroaching ice reduced mammoth populations, not just because of less food, but also because it forced the mammoths to migrate to areas where human predation was a bigger problem. Not sure if this is considered the current theory for the cave bear as well.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    10. Re:Amazing by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, with Earth's gravity, a 15ft human would have to either be very thin or wear an artificial exoskeleton to help support the weight.

      That's where genetically engineered bones and organs come into play. Seriously, it would take something tremendous (global epidemic, nuclear war, etc.) to make humans humans evolve "naturally." I suspect all our future evolution will be artificial.

    11. Re:Amazing by magarity · · Score: 1

      Who says the age of giants was only during the dinosaur era?
       
      Speaking of giants, they only found 1 of these things, not a whole race of them. How do they know it wasn't the "Andre the Giant" of the sea scorpions?

    12. Re:Amazing by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      If, by widely accepted, you mean that environmental activists try to make people feel guilty by claiming that humans have been destroying their environment since the dawn of civilization.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011025072315.htm

      Extinctions amongst megafauna during the end of the last ice age are better-attributed to {gasp} the end of the last ice age! Large, heavy-coated, cold-adapted animals couldn't deal with global warming. Stone-age humans were certainly hunting individual mammoths, camels, etc. but human society and technology was simply not advanced or numerous enough to kill off multiple species in a short time frame.

    13. Re:Amazing by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Ahh, thank you for that. Yes, my pony:horse example was purely meant as an analogy, not as an actual example.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    14. Re:Amazing by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010608081621.htm says the exact opposite, from about 6 months earlier than the synopsis you provided.

      It's an area of debate, to be sure. My understanding is that (like the mammoth in Eurasia example I used in my OP in this thread) there was negative population pressure from both means -- climate change enabled overkill, but overkill was the ultimate cause of extinction.

      Also note that the paper you refer to speaks specifically of the Clovis people of 11000 years ago; it hints at the earlier presence of man in the Americas, but a lot has been published since 2001 on when man came to the Americas. Do you know of any recent research on the topic that I would find helpful? I'm guessing by your userID that you're at minimum a serious hobbiest... if you could point me towards additional enlightening materials I'd appreciate it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:Amazing by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Burn karma Burn

      They're also unlikely to become as ubiquitous as humans, since most of the world doesn't have acacia trees for them to graze on (acacia trees that not many other creatures can graze on, because the food is too high up - hence the evolution of the giraffe as a specialist acacia feeder).

      Horse poo. Think about it.

      First animal: "Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. Too bad they are like 15 feet up there".
      Next Generation: "Still looks yummy, too bad it is still 15 feet up there."
      Next Generation: "Hey! Now I am getting closer! Still can't get any acacia yet!"
      Next Generation: "only 8 feet more to got!!!"
      NG...
      NG...
      NG...
      Giraffe: "Mmm... yummy Acacia."

      A slightly taller horse/(giraffe ancestor?) would have no special advantage unless they became 15 feet tall in one generation. And if that happened, their head would explode the first time they leaned down for a drink of water without the special valves in their veins. Don't forget to 'evolve' those while you are getting taller.
    16. Re:Amazing by CrashPoint · · Score: 2, Funny

      Speaking of giants, they only found 1 of these things, not a whole race of them. How do they know it wasn't the "Andre the Giant" of the sea scorpions?
      Because were that the case, they would also have found two smaller sea scorpions in the same place; one wearing black and the other looking for the six-clawed scorpion that killed his father.
    17. Re:Amazing by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Wow, so I'm guessing that this Acacia tree instantly grows to it's full height once the seed is planted?

    18. Re:Amazing by icebrain · · Score: 1

      The acacia would also be growing--it wouldn't start out at 15 feet high with the animals growing to reach it.

      Rather, they probably started out short, with the ones on the tall end of the bell curve surviving more. Evolutionary pressures push the acacias taller at the same time as the giraffes. It's just like any other adversarial pairs evolving (encryption/decryption, radar/ECM, etc.)

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    19. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A slightly taller horse/(giraffe ancestor?) would have no special advantage unless they became 15 feet tall in one generation. Are you really that stupid? You think that that tree heights were completely static during the millions of years it takes for something to evolve? Did you ever stop to think that there might be more than one reason why an animal evolves certain attributes? Like, I don't know, maybe it's easier to see approaching predators from tall grass and brush with a higher view point. But enough of this, we all know that evolution isn't real, it's just a "test" given by god to see who the true believers are.
    20. Re:Amazing by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's more like:

      Animal:"Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. It's a good thing they're not, like, 15 feet up in the air."
      Acacia:"Pesky proto-giraffes! I'll show them. I'll get my offspring to grow a little taller."
      Next Gen Animal:"Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. It's a good thing they're not, like, 15 feet up in the air. I wonder how Mom and Dad could have reached them, though. They're short!"
      Next Gen Acacia:"Pesky proto-giraffes! I'll show them. I'll get my offspring to grow a little taller."

      NG
      NG
      NG
      Giraffe:"Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. It's a good thing they're, like, 15 feet up in the air. Nobody else can reach them, but me!"
      Acacia:"Pesky giraffes! I'll show them. I'll get my offspring to grow a little taller."

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    21. Re:Amazing by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      LMAO :0)

      Mr Dawkins would mod you +5 - Intelligent Design, I'm sure.

      The giraffe ancestor, IIRC, is some sort of camel, or at least that's what I dimly remember from my schooldays.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    22. Re:Amazing by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Admit it, you only used an analogy containing (zOMG) pwnies because this is slashdot. :P

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    23. Re:Amazing by cnettel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While this is true of the horse (and current equine are probably the largest ones ever), there are many almost-current-size horse-relatives in the fossil records. They just didn't survive, and the ancestors to the current species of horse did. The "gradually larger" trend is visible only with hindsight.

    24. Re:Amazing by GreggBz · · Score: 1

      This theory is best illustrated by the species of giant ground sloths that inhabited north America.

      There were large populations of 4 species of giant ground sloth in North America before humans arrived. They were large powerful creatures with big claws and could easily fend off predators.

      However, they were probabbly slow, and easy pickins' for a pack of humans with spears or large rocks.

      Eliminating one or two of these species, probabbly interrupted enough of the food chain dependency to accelerate the extinction of other large predators and herbivores.

    25. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually during the Cenozoic there were several dog sized horses, so those were "ponys" compared to todays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse). From what I recall from paleontology all "horses" I can think off were smaller or modern sized. The actual cause of extinction of megafauna is still cause of debate. One of the leading theories is that over hunting by humans caused the extinction. So you cannot really say "It's believed that the last ice age killed off", it would be more appropriate to say "during the last ice ages ... went extinct"

    26. Re:Amazing by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      First animal: "Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. Too bad they are like 15 feet up there".
      Next Generation: "Still looks yummy, too bad it is still 15 feet up there."

      Except the first generation of giraffes would die out, because they couldn't reach the food. Therefore no evolution due to extinction.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    27. Re:Amazing by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

      Except the part where it was more like: Animal "Pete":"Hey Dave! Look at those yummy proto-acacia leaves. They're so just perfectly at mouth level!" Animal "Dave":"Ya, good for you stretch! I'll go find something else to eat..." (Dave starves, the pwnies at all the food at his height level). Acacia "Joe" (The one being eaten):"Pesky proto-giraffes! It sucks being the family midget!" Next Gen Animal "Pete Jr.":"Hey! Look at those yummy acacia leaves. Good thing I'm tall like Dad!" Next Gen Acacia:"Pesky proto-giraffes! I wish I was a giant like cousin Vinny!" NG NG NG Giraffe:"Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. It's a good thing they're, like, 15 feet up in the air. Nobody else can reach them, but me!" Acacia:"Pesky giraffes! I wish I was taller like cousin Vincent!"

    28. Re:Amazing by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Passenger Pigeon, look it up. Extinct by the hands of humans in 1/100th of the time this took, and there were 5 BILLION of them. Scientists come in all political alignments. Most of them agree, that this is a very sound theory. The impact of humans upon this Earth is undeniable and factual. I don't care how you feel about it.

    29. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actully horses grew from fox-sized animals to the sizes we see them today. So no giant horses in the past, unless you assume the wooly rhinoceros was a horse.

    30. Re:Amazing by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      All this talk of humongo-king crabs and giant claws makes me want to buy Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea DVDs to see those cheesy-ass sea lobsters attack the Seaview... I guess I can see aliens, too, to get through some of yesterday's Aliens Among us treat posted yesterday.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    31. Re:Amazing by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It's believed that the last ice age killed off many larger versions of creatures that are very similar to what we have today.

      I'm pretty sure it was human expansion that did it. Large animals + no fear of humans = GOOD EATING! At least, I've read that in Jared Diamond books, especially for North/South America and Australia. (For Europe it's less clear, but African large animals survived because they learned to fear/kill humans when humans were not numerous enough or good enough hunters to hunt them to extinction.

    32. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I am an ID guy, I believe the claim everyone is making is co-evolution - the acacia and giraffe evolved together, each growing taller to spite the other. While your idea makes sense, the others are not claiming that giraffes started out much shorter than the acacia, as you imply, but rather both evolved to become taller over time. That's my understanding in any case.

    33. Re:Amazing by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Only one example in 100,000 or so gets fossilized. If that 1 in 100,000 is also the Andre the Giant of its species, the odds multiply, so it's extremely less likely (1 in 10^10).
            (Yes, I'm simplifying a lot. Different types of beings have greatly different chances of leaving fossils, depending on things such as how bony they were, what environment they frequented and probably fifty other factors).
            Science assumes things are typical unless proved otherwise. Astronomy, for example, frequently involves assuming Earth is not in a special position, and anyone else would see the sorts of things we see, on a sufficiently large scale. Xenobiology assumes we are unlikely to be the first species to evolve to intelligence, and are more probably somewhere in the middle range of a vast number of species.
            Of course, something, somewhere is bound to be exceptional. Somewhere, there may be a species that is unusually close to a number of black holes, and thinks they are much more common than they actually are. One, out of all those dinosaur fossils we've found, may be the smallest of its kind ever to reach adulthood, etc. But in any given case, that's not the way to bet.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    34. Re:Amazing by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "others are not claiming that giraffes started out much shorter than the acacia"

      That was exactly what the OP was saying (well technically he was saying that the acacias were much taller than the giraffes, but same thing), and I was pointing out the flaw with his logic.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    35. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favourite is the Australian megafauna, most of which only died out 30-40 thousand years back. From the smaller metre long echidnas to wombats as large as hippos and crocodiles averaging over 5 metres long, they have always captured my imagination.

    36. Re:Amazing by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Admit it, you only used an analogy containing (zOMG) pwnies because this is slashdot.

      He really only had three choices, I just don't think either Natalie Portman or a car analogy would work here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    37. Re:Amazing by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      Passenger pigeons (a single species) were killed off in the 19th century. I'm not saying modern, industrialized humans aren't responsible for habitat and species loss. I'm just saying that its a bit extreme to blame the disappearance of dozens of large mammal species on a population of humans that hadn't even discovered agriculture.

    38. Re:Amazing by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      I'm in between grad degrees right now, mostly teaching geology. But, I never cease to be amazed at how many old theories and downright myths from paleontology and geology are still circulating. If you look up "north american megafauna" you'll find a number of articles and studies a bit more scholarly than sciencedaily.com. Like this abstract: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/1dxw1577mlad9wl1/

      People forget that as recently as 10,000 years ago, humans were just about on equal footing with the other animals in their environment. What we lacked in strength and speed, we just barely made up for in the ability to communicate and plan ahead. The ability to dramatically impact nature is a talent we picked up much later on.

    39. Re:Amazing by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I'd mod him Lamarckian .

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  3. eurypterids by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

    Irypterids, eurypterids, werypterids. Bet they got some tasty tails.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:eurypterids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but would you eat it with butter? Or with Tartar sauce? Lobster fork or Pitchfork?

    2. Re:eurypterids by protolith · · Score: 1

      Imissedthebus, youmissedthebus, wemissedthebus, weallmissedthebus

      I do like the thouoght of a 40lb lobster claw, I agree eurypterids would probabaly be some tasty eating.

    3. Re:eurypterids by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      so, we will need 25lbs (10 kilos for our metric friends) of butter, a bushel basket (I don't know the metric conversion for that) of lemons, and a BIG fscking bib for that baby.
      Yum. unless they taste like giant squid, yuck.

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    4. Re:eurypterids by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, seafood buffet eats all it can of YOU!!

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    5. Re:eurypterids by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Whensthenextbus?

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    6. Re:eurypterids by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Werepterids? Better get some silver bullets.

    7. Re:eurypterids by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1
      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  4. Yes, but by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can it rock you like a hurricane or summon the winds of change?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Yes, but by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Bwahaha!! Screw the downmodders, that made my morning.

    2. Re:Yes, but by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      I bet it tastes good with a little MSG.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:Yes, but by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Agreed - here's a little something to brighten up the afternoon - Rock You Like a Hurricane

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    4. Re:Yes, but by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      It's not a rock. It's a rock lobster.

    5. Re:Yes, but by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      It did not appear to have the lands necessary to generate that much mana.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    6. Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully it wasn't a Virgin Killer.

      Yikes, gettin' edgy and controversial!

    7. Re:Yes, but by Abreu · · Score: 1

      It's not a rock. It's a rock lobster. your comment will be modded down, down, down, down....
      --
      No sig for the moment.
    8. Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, but it runs netbsd!

    9. Re:Yes, but by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      No it won't.

    10. Re:Yes, but by Abreu · · Score: 1

      somebody give this kid a B-52's cd...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  5. DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they can get DNA from this fossil. If we had these things crawling around, even the Nanny State couldn't prevent idiots from surviving.

    1. Re:DNA by monomania · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it being a fossil of an ordinary type, there's no biological material remaining whatsoever; from the photograph you'll note that it's merely the chitinous exoskeleton of the claw -- it's entirely mineralized, as with so many such fossils; so, no DNA. Such cases, wherein soft tissue is preserved, are incredibly rare. I share your interest however in being able to recreate such a beast. Looks like tasty eatin'. Certainly not kosher. But tasty, I'll wager.

    2. Re:DNA by hotwatermusic · · Score: 0

      Chef might have been wrong. I guess scorpion and and elephant DNA just might splice..

    3. Re:DNA by oni · · Score: 1

      If we had these things crawling around, even the Nanny State couldn't prevent idiots from surviving.

      So, the nanny state prevents idiots from surviving??

    4. Re:DNA by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If we had these things crawling around, even the Nanny State couldn't prevent idiots from surviving.

      So... you're saying two things here:
      1) The nanny state is trying to kill idiots
      2) Sea scorpions are helpful creatures that prevent idiots from getting into accidents?

      Kind of weird, but ok!

    5. Re:DNA by ross.w · · Score: 1

      In Far North Queensland they already have crocodiles for that.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  6. I, for one... by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...would be legging it the other way if I found that under a rock.

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    1. Re:I, for one... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      ...would be legging it the other way if I found that under a rock.

      Given it's size I'd be concerned that the rock I'm running on is the one it's under. Bugger of a thing to jump off the end of the rock and land right in it's claw.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    2. Re:I, for one... by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      But just think how big you would have to be in order to move the rock it was under.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
  7. 2.5 metres by niceone · · Score: 3, Funny

    The previous record was 2 metres, already quite scary enough. Well, I hope they keep updating us on any slightly larger seafood they find.

  8. Arthur Clarcke by Ploum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mmm, am I the only one for which giant sea scorpions sounds more like songs of distant earth than rock music ?
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Songs_of_Distant_Earth )

    1. Re:Arthur Clarcke by keithius · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking of that myself. Thank goodness these things are extinct, so we don't have to start building electrified scorp barriers.

      --
      "Programming is the fine art of making a machine that has absolutely no intelligence act as though it does."
  9. Headline by Ristol · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Sea scorpion fossil belonged to biggest bug ever: scientists" Wonderful editing they have these days.

    --
    What wouldn't Jesus do?!
  10. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know which one is the scarier:
    -finding proof of alien races living deep down in our oceans
    -having a wikipedia articles dedicated to the aforementioned races

  11. Wow by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

    That's the second biggest scorpion I ever saw...

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:Wow by Ristol · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, anyone know the origin of the joke? I've seen it referenced in both Monkey Island and the Garfield and Friends cartoon I watched in the (very) early 90's. If Garfield is referencing Monkey Island that would make the show much cooler than I'd previously thought!

      --
      What wouldn't Jesus do?!
    2. Re:Wow by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      This one is larger and heavier with a harder exoskeleton, but it too died out.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Wow by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember it being a catchphrase on "Get Smart", so it goes back to the '60s at least. It may be older than that; I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn it goes back to vaudeville--a lot of the classics do.

      Chris Mattern

  12. Seriously... f@#k that by bmajik · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're telling me scorpions, which are scary enough at 2 inches in length, used to run around here at 2.5 meters in length ?

    I'll tell you what happened..

    Whatever sentinent life showed up here a long time ago basically said "return to the ship and nuke the site from orbit"

    And you know what? They were right.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:Seriously... f@#k that by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whatever sentinent life showed up here a long time ago basically said "return to the ship and nuke the site from orbit" And umpteen million years later, instead of water dwelling arthropods with no technology, who can't even support their own weight on dry land, they've got to deal with a horde of vicious hairless monkeys with nukes of our own. They're probably kicking themselves right now, assuming their anatomy allows such a feat.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Seriously... f@#k that by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      You're telling me scorpions, which are scary enough at 2 inches in length, used to run around here at 2.5 meters in length ?

      It's unclear how much it relied on its tail stinger, but the speculation is that its claws and jaws were its primary weapons.

    3. Re:Seriously... f@#k that by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying what was chronicled in Starcraft is true? Mar Sara = Earth?

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    4. Re:Seriously... f@#k that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      or feet?

    5. Re:Seriously... f@#k that by A+New+Normalcy · · Score: 1

      Nuke+Scorpion=convergence. USS Scorpion SSN-589 is no longer with us, either. ...Lorenzo (unless you consider Davy Jones to be one of us)

      --
      ...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
  13. no no no.... by pablo_max · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone who has seen Clash of the Titans knows that this story is just silly. It was clear that giant scorpions were all over the entire region. There were not too many other giant insects, but there were swamps and robot owls....this much is clear.

    1. Re:no no no.... by skoontastic · · Score: 1

      Winged horses and Krakens...here we come!

  14. 2.5 meter man... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 0

    I think the previous record of 2 meters would have been tall man sized. 2.5 meters is closer to the height of Robert Wadlow (2.73m), the tallest man we have on record.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  15. mmmm....arthropod by cheebie · · Score: 1

    Quick! Somebody get a gigantic bowl of drawn butter!

  16. Uh oh by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're gonna need bigger a bigger boot...

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got two words for you: Kuribo's Shoe

  17. Ants vs Scorpions by seyyah · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jesus Christ. Where are our ant overlords when we need them?

    1. Re:Ants vs Scorpions by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      This just begs for an XKCD comic... but next to ants and scorpions it also has to have velociraptors of course!

    2. Re:Ants vs Scorpions by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember that ridiculous movie "Honey, I shrunk the Kids"? The part where they ride the ant and the scorpion in the back yard was comparable size? Might small scorpion for what appeared to not be new.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    3. Re:Ants vs Scorpions by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whoever wins, we lose.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  18. Is this that unusual? by kurt555gs · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some of the restaurants in Joliet Illinois, where I live have cockroaches close to this size.

    Cheers

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Is this that unusual? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      So, how do they serve them?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Is this that unusual? by kilo_foxtrot84 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, how do they serve them? Obediently.
    3. Re:Is this that unusual? by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      +1 Awesome.

      Now, I'm off to clean my keyboard...

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  19. Jaekelopterus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is this related to the legendary Jackalope?

    1. Re:Jaekelopterus by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was gonna say .. (until you did).

      Somewhere, some paleontologist is laughing his ass off.

      Could be worse: imagine what THIS creature looks like:

      SELDEN, P A. 1986. A new identity for the Silurian arthropod Necrogammarus. Palaeontology, 29(3):629-631.

      A giant turtle? A giant _dead_ turtle?

  20. Pinchy! by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    Pass the (sniff) butter.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  21. You played way too much to RPGs when... by Rastignac · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...you start seeing giant scorpions.

    --
    -- Rastignac was here.
    1. Re:You played way too much to RPGs when... by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      It just looks like an scorpion claw in the dark, if you take it to the light you will see it is actually a bat wing...

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    2. Re:You played way too much to RPGs when... by MC+Negro · · Score: 1

      You played way too much to RPGs when ...you start seeing giant scorpions. That, or you've taken just the right amount of LSD.
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
  22. Dubious extrapolation by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's pretty dubious. You can't extrapolate the size of the animal from the size of a claw. Many arthropods today-- lobsters, fiddler crabs, stone crabs-- have an enlarged claw. Particularly if sexual selection acts on the size of the claw ("that guy has a really big one. Ooh! He must be fierce").

    Take a look, for example, at this picture of a Fiddler crab, or even this picture of a stone crab, and then scale the "computer-generated visualization" in the article to that claw to body size, and you'll estimate that the guy is, maybe, half a meter long.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Near-complete specimens of pterygotid eurypterids (which is what this thing is) are already known, and were already known to exceed 2 metres in length. For example, look at this specimen of Pterygotus from a famous locality in New York where eurytperid specimens are mined. So, this isn't some random extrapolation where the remaining anatomy is complete guesswork, it is based on the typical anatomy in the group. Pterygotus and its relatives was freaking huge. While it is true that this specimen could be from a species with an exaggerated claw size compared to other pterygotids, the claws described in the paper are pretty darn big, even for one of these sea scorpions.

    2. Re:Dubious extrapolation by aeroelastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, with fossils, you sometimes have to do a lot of extrapolation. Very often you only find bone fragments or shell parts, especially with rare species. Euripterid fossils are relatively common, and the different species (300+) are fairly well documented. It is not a stretch to get a reasonably accurate length measurement based on one part. It would be similar to estimating human height based on hand size.

      It has been a while since my paleo-biology days, but I have no recollection of asymmetric body structures of any kind of euripterid. A quick search turns up no records of any species with different sized claws. Euripterids are more closely related to scorpions or spiders than crabs anyway. Info here, under classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelicerata

      --
      "It doesn't take a rocket scientist" -I guess I should leave then
    3. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You can't extrapolate the size of the animal from the size of a claw. Many arthropods today-- lobsters, fiddler crabs, stone crabs-- have an enlarged claw.

      Yes, but the kind of animal of the fossil is not known to have such lopsided claws. Perhaps it is an unknown species with a disproportional claw, but not likely. There are probably consistent characteristics of the known sea scorpion claws of the time. A new species would have a different claw design. (Sure, all arthropod claws look the same to you and me, but not to experts.)

    4. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Floritard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC stength varies with the square of the size of a thing. That's why giant ants in B-movies are a dumb concept. You can have itty bitty scorpions with huge claws they can carry around effortlessly, but once you start getting larger and larger you need to have more scorpion body not just to have that thing remain attached, but to be able to carry the thing around and be able to use it. I would think you'd want to be able to manipulate a huge claw pretty effortlessly for it to be of any use, otherwise it'd just be holding you back, and to do so you'd need big scorpion muscles. Although the thing is in the water so that could give you some leeway on weight, but still you'd need a big body to be able swing the claw around and not have it swing you.

    5. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of this of course occurred to any of the scientists in question. It isn't like any of the people involved where expert biologists or palaeontologists or anything.

      I'm guessing you were the one who posted the same idiocy on The Register earlier on today.

    6. Re:Dubious extrapolation by siliconwafer · · Score: 5, Informative

      While only a claw was found this time, I'd like to point out that this is not the first very large Eurypterid to be found. A complete Eurypterid was found, that is a few meters in length, at Lang's Quarry near Herkimer, NY. (Eurypterid fossils are commonly found there, and in many locations across Upstate NY and Ontario, Canada). A cast is on display at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Ontario Canada for the public to see. I don't recall the exact length, but it's taller than I am (at 5'11"). Most Eurypterids are pretty small. I have a collection of complete Eurypterid specimens but none of mine are more than 12" in length.

    7. Re:Dubious extrapolation by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      I concur, without both claws at least, and one body segment, it's impossible to say it wasn't more like a fiddler with one 5x-sized claw.

      --
      stuff |
    8. Re:Dubious extrapolation by robson · · Score: 1

      Indeed. See Haldane's classic essay On Being the Right Size .

    9. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Eurypterids are pretty small
      Yeah, well, most Amurricans are pretty dumb, so there.
    10. Re:Dubious extrapolation by ddrichardson · · Score: 1

      Many arthropods today-- lobsters, fiddler crabs, stone crabs-- have an enlarged claw.

      Quite true, though what if this is the smaller claw? Could have been even bigger.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    11. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's pretend that the scientists who spend their whole lives dealing with these sorts of things maybe already thought of that. Also, let's pretend that given other fossilized sea scorpions have two similar sized claws, and that they're not really that closely related to modern fiddler crabs, that it's safe to assume that Big Daddy here had two similar sized claws.

    12. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, with fossils, you sometimes have to do a lot of extrapolation.

      No, you don't have to do any extrapolation. The scientific thing would be to say: "We found a big claw, but we're not sure what the rest of the animal looked like."
      The speculation only serves to attract attention.

      It has been a while since my paleo-biology days, but I have no recollection of asymmetric body structures of any kind of euripterid.

      Exactly, but let me ask you this: Do you have any recollection of euripterids of this size? This might be the first one with an asymmetric body structure. Or it might be the first one of this size. We just don't know.

      However whether it is a unusually big euripterid or an unusually asymmetric euripterid, it still is a pretty cool and significant find.

      captcha: dinosaur :)
    13. Re:Dubious extrapolation by Nasajin · · Score: 1

      To add to your comment, it is more fallacious to assume that the arthropod in question is going to have a body with disproportionate limb sizes based on the current evolution of a few species in a different subphylum. Fiddler crabs and the like are anomalous instances within the crustacean subphylum, and comparable instances in other arthropod groups aren't regular enough to assume that odd proportions are normative, especially considering that crustaceans and euriptids are seperated into different clades within the arthropod phylum.

  23. Re:Obl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me be the first to welcome our redundant-slashdot-meme-posting overlords.

  24. Wait a Minute by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article said that all they found was the claw. Yet they've got a drawing of the whole creature. So the whole thing is 90% guesswork. There's no indication on the drawing as to which parts are factual, and which are guesswork. For all we know, this could have been a lobster, or a crab, rather than a scorpion. It could even have been from a small species where an individual had some giganticism disease. Unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of knowing.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Wait a Minute by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Even better, it's a fossil. So, it might not even be the real size of the claw (it's not the original material).

    2. Re:Wait a Minute by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

      No, the whole thing is a prank... did you see the name of the thing? "Jaekelopterus rhenania" that's not far from "Jackelope".

      Something tells me there's a paleontologist that woke up one day and said "oh fuck it- they'll believe anything we say."

    3. Re:Wait a Minute by Drall · · Score: 1

      So the whole thing is 90% guesswork. They've found (more than) a few smaller examples of these elsewhere. In places like 'Everywhere but Antarctica'.
    4. Re:Wait a Minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think again.

      It's a different species, but a close relative with similar anatomy.

    5. Re:Wait a Minute by foote · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the claw is similar in form to other fossil claws they've found that were attached to more completely fossilized eurypterids, which are colloquially known as sea scorpions. It's not really ninety-percent guesswork. The claw might be from a creature with outsized claws, but it's likely that it's from a creature with claws that are in the same proportion to its body as all the others they've found from the same species. This type of extrapolation is not unusual in paleontology, where they deal with incomplete fossils all the time.

    6. Re:Wait a Minute by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      There's no indication on the drawing as to which parts are factual, and which are guesswork.

      I'm guessing that when they say they found "a claw" (and show a picture of the rock containing said fossil), it means the other bits are guesswork. Maybe I assume too much.

      For all we know, this could have been a lobster, or a crab, rather than a scorpion.

      The fact that this creature appeared over 200 million years before crabs and lobsters evolved could be a clue.

      Unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of knowing.

      Correction: unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of you knowing. But I would say that when you have a fossil record crammed with claws that you know are from sea scorpions, and you find one that's similar but much larger, it's a fairly safe assumption that what you've found is a claw from a really big sea scorpion, unless there's some compelling evidence to the contrary.

      We call this application of logic to evidence "science". It seems to work pretty well.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    7. Re:Wait a Minute by danzona · · Score: 1

      We call this application of logic to evidence "science". It seems to work pretty well.

      Only because you measure the success of your "science" in the same speculative way.

    8. Re:Wait a Minute by siliconwafer · · Score: 1

      No way of knowing what? Eurypterid fossils are not uncommon. It's the New York State fossil. We know exactly what a Eurypterid looks like from head to telson (tail). I am not sure why this is such a big deal. Complete Eurypterid specimens have been found that are this big before. This is only one claw.

  25. Nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Nothing new... by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      But luckily, they take double damage from fire, so even a normal mage can kill them in a turn! Against a Red Mage or above, they get toasted by a single hit.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  26. Ever see a lobster with a disproportionately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever see a lobster with a disproportionately huge claw? I've seen claws nearly half the size of the attached body. How can they say with any certainty that this thing's body is as large as a person based on a fossil of merely one claw?

  27. Long Live Harryhausen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. IMAGE of the sea scorpion! by phillips321 · · Score: 1

    Here it is for those wondering, looks like it's eating something
    http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195657934.jpg

    1. Re:IMAGE of the sea scorpion! by seededfury · · Score: 0

      Looks to me like a massage....

    2. Re:IMAGE of the sea scorpion! by PylonHead · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, that's good... right there.. yeah.. HEY! LESS STING! LESS STING!

      --
      # (/.);;
      - : float -> float -> float =
  29. Scorpion? Why? by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do they call this a scorpion? Did it have a poisonous stinger on its tail? It looks like in their total speculation about the creature (the actual fossil was just a claw), they drew (see image in TFA) a creature with a swimming tail, like a lobster or a shrimp.
    Wouldn't "giant lobster" or "giant shrimp" be a better description of a large sea arthropod? Maybe it doesn't sound as exciting, but why would they call it a "sea scorpion" if there is no reason to believe it had the most well-known feature of land scorpions?
    Additionally, how do they know it wasn't a much smaller beast with proportionally larger claws, given that according to TFA, one of the leading theories about how and why such a huge arthropod evolved was an "arms race" with early armored fish?

    --
    "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
  30. Radscorpions! by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Aha! Fallout had it right for once! Now all we need is to find a two-headed cow and then the legend of the Vault Dweller will have no doubters ever again!

  31. Maybe... by spleen_blender · · Score: 1

    it was a Zergling? That claw sure looks like it.

  32. No Problem!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Boy!, fetch me my +50 damage Warhammer and enchanted armour!

  33. In Other News by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    descendants of Sub Zero file suit to get DNA testing done to see if in fact it matches the crime scene of Sub Zero's allegeded murder.

  34. Egads! by ThePyro · · Score: 1, Redundant

    They found a Claw Shrimp! Big as a man!

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Re:Scorpion? Why? by kalirion · · Score: 1

    It's probably more closely related to a land scorpion than seahorses and sea lions are to their land counterparts....

  37. 2nd Fossil Imprint by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

    They didn't mention that the fossil scorpion was found under the imprint of a 10m long foot.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  38. That explains it by sd_diamond · · Score: 1

    I was wondering why Nigel Marvin didn't return from his last trip.

  39. we call them land-sea-scorpions. by Floydius · · Score: 2, Funny

    I tame them.

  40. Over 2M long? How's that supposed to work? by murderlegendre · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression the the primary limiting factor for the size of an arthropod was the creature's copper-based blood. Copper based blood, when compared to iron based, is a much poorer carrier of oxygen - hence the size of the creature must remain relatively small, else the blood will be depleted of oxygen by the time it reaches the extremities.

    Do scorpions, lobsters, shrimp have some form of de-centralized respiratory intake, such that the blood could be re-oxygenated at several sites around the circulatory loop?

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
    1. Re:Over 2M long? How's that supposed to work? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      TFA said that at the time these things roamed the earth, the levels of oxygen were much higher than they are now, allowing them to grow far larger than they ever could today.

    2. Re:Over 2M long? How's that supposed to work? by joto · · Score: 1

      Actually, the TFA didn't say that. It said an oxygen-rich environment was one possible explanation. Another explanation was that it was simply a result of a size-race which pretty commonly occurs in a stable ecosystem, where both predators and prey increase in size to compete with each other. Either way, they just don't fucking know yet, and perhaps never will, as the thing is certainly extinct by now.

    3. Re:Over 2M long? How's that supposed to work? by ross.w · · Score: 1

      You mean like those giant squids?

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  41. Giant Enemy Crab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nothing!
    Ancient Japan had larger enemy crabs.

  42. crab people by ritalinvillain · · Score: 1

    crab people, crab people, crab people!

  43. What's the big deal? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    They've got these things in the back of our local Chinese restaurant. Keeps the rat population down.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  44. Crikey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lookit this one! She's a beauty!
    She's gotta be ovah eight feet lohng!
    Lookit the soize of these claws!
    She uses these ... easy honey, you're alroight ... Oim not gonna huht ya ...
    to snap her proiy in half!

    sigh

  45. Oh Crap-cue the SF channel movie now by lordmonger · · Score: 1

    I'm totally sure I saw a documentary on this on the SF channel the other day.

  46. Re:Scorpion? Why? by Drall · · Score: 1

    It looks like in their total speculation about the creature As others have pointed out, these creatures were quite common in their day and we have many, many fossils of them to infer overall size from. This is just a larger-than-previously-seen variety of a known species.
  47. Oh no! Quick! by rpillala · · Score: 1
    Someone form X-Com!

    Lobster Man

    This is a staggering creature, taller than a man and boasting six limbs, it resembles nothing more than an aquatic Demon. The similarities between this creature and the Earth lobster have earned it the nickname of Lobsterman with the X-Com troops. This is a behemoth of the deep. A carefully designed fighting creature of incredible strength and practically invulnerable to missile fire. Its pincers alone can crush steel.

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  48. Other large fossil athropods by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

    said the claw indicates that sea scorpion Jaekelopterus rhenania was almost 2.5 meters long...making it the largest arthropod ever found.

    Other potential size challengers include the Arthropleura, which was a giant centipede-like critter. Although, it probably lacked the bulk of the sea scorpion.

    Another contender was the Anomalocaris, which looked kind of like a giant brine shrimp with two front tenticals. It was the first known "large" preditor. It's one of the odder Cambrian critters. However, it's classification as an arthropod is still up in the air. It may be from an extinct sister phyla to arthropods.

  49. Re:Scorpion? Why? by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

    They weren't actually scorpions, but they were in a group that is closer to the arachnids and scorpions than to the crustaceans. WQikipedia, as usual, has all the details on the eurypterids.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  50. This isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These fossils have been found before. The species was on a Discovery or Animal Planet special.

  51. You guys are way off by 228e2 · · Score: 1

    You guys are reading too far into this. This is obviously the Decepticon that attacked the Air Force.

    --
    Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  52. The Scorpion King... by joaommp · · Score: 0

    ...actually drowned and became a fossile.

  53. Re:Scorpion? Why? by foote · · Score: 1

    They didn't make up the term "sea scorpion" for this find. It's the colloquial term for eurypterids, which are a well known class of extinct arthropods.

    The stinger may be the most well-known feature of land scorpions to to lay people, but there are a number of body structures of sea scorpions that are similar to land scorpions. These features, and the general shape of the creature, led to the term sea scorpion.

    The claw might be from a creature with outsized claws, but it's likely that it's from a creature with claws that are in the same proportion to its body as all the others they've found from the same species. This type of extrapolation is not unusual in paleontology, where they deal with incomplete fossils all the time.

    And regarding the "arms race," note that body size itself is a weapon. That is, weapons don't have to be what we immediately recognize as weapons: claws, teeth, armor, stingers, etc. There were dinosaurs that developed what were obviously weapons to fight increasingly-large predators (triceratoops with the horns, ankylosaurus with the body armor and tail club, stegosaurus with the spiked tail) but the gigantic size of a brachiosaurus was a weapon as well. Similarly, a sea scorpion growing larger, but maintaining the same proportions, is also participating in an arms race.

  54. Marketing for Cloverfield movie? by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

    /snark

  55. Re:Scorpion? Why? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    It's probably more closely related to a land scorpion than seahorses and sea lions are to their land counterparts....

    But where is that in comparison to sea cucumber:land cucumber?

  56. Love on the rocks by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    > "This is an amazing discovery. We have known for some time that the fossil record
    > yields monster millipedes, super-sized scorpions, colossal cockroaches, and jumbo dragonflies"

    I think he meant "damned-huge dragonflies".

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  57. Germany has monstrous crabs by corifornia2 · · Score: 1

    I heard this is what killed it. . .

  58. Enlarged claw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These giant scorpions also developed the internet, the PS3, and lite beer over 250 million years before humanity. However, they were smaller than we think. The enlarged claw was caused by excessive masturbation to internet pr0n.

  59. your sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you believe your sig, no wonder politicians keep screwing us - you think good words = good heart? too simple, man, too simple.

  60. This is appalling! by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    Not even ONE "I for one, welcome..." joke. When I read the story on cnn.com, I came over here assuming I'd see like 20 of those jokes. But not even one? C'mon, this story was tailor made for the meme!

    Well...I, for one, welcome our new non meme-using slashdot readers.

    --
    blah blah blah
    1. Re:This is appalling! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our deceased giant sea scorpion overlords. :) Ya, I was expecting it too, but I couldn't really put it together to make it work. Hell, they've been extinct for quite a while now. Unless they're.....

          I for one welcome our time traveling giant sea scorpion overlords!

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:This is appalling! by PhoenixOr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or unless John Hammond gets his hands on one...

    3. Re:This is appalling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading with -1 threshold

  61. Scorps by Convector · · Score: 1

    It's the scorps from "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Arthur C. Clarke. Did anybody else read that one? It was set on a planet almost entirely covered in ocean and the human colonists discovered slightly intelligent, 2-meter long lobsters.

  62. Gives new meaning to... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    ...throw another shrimp on the barbie.

    And that's MR. SHRIMP to you. ;-)

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  63. Re:Scorpion? Why? by siliconwafer · · Score: 1

    Eurypterids have been studied since 1825. We know a lot about them. There are many many many complete specimens and they've been studied at length. I have an entire collection that I've found myself in private quarries. There is no doubt in the community that they were predators and that they did indeed have a poisonous stinger.

    We can't see it stinging another creature today just as we cannot see the T-Rex eating another dinosaur today. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

  64. For a moment there I was really scared by GroceryShopper · · Score: 1

    I thought they dug up Karl Rove again

  65. Yao Ming / Willie Shoemaker by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

    The problem with these one off fossil finds is, what I like to call, the Yao Ming & Willie Shoemaker problem. For example: if in 100,000 years alien explorers come to Earth long after mankind is gone and dig up only the bones of Willie Shoemaker or Yao Ming, they're get a very wrong impression about what average humans look like.

    The same problem applies to any animal species we uncover. We cannot assume the average size of a species by a single discovery of remains because they have too high a change of being an aberration. Therefore, there's a good chance that the remains found are of a "Yao Ming" of that species.

    --
    - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
  66. posting anonymously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does posting anonymously remove moderations?

  67. Re:Dubious extrapolation.. Hold on... by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    While I check your theory against my tape measure...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  68. Wrong loacation by FCD1 · · Score: 1

    The article is wrong about the location. Pruem is actually located 200 kilometers west of Frankfurt (close to the Belgian border), in a region called the Eifel.

  69. Why "man?" by hereisnowhy · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm disappointed that the slashdot editors changed "person" to "man" in the title. Disappointed too that the article uses the word "man" to refer to a generic person. I thought that kind of terminology had been left behind.

  70. Reminds me by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    Of the sand sharks(the fictional kind) which looked like a mix between a manta ray and scorpion.Nature is stranger then fiction.

  71. Re:Scorpion? Why? by David+Gould · · Score: 1

    Mr. President, we cannot ALLOW a body size gap!

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  72. man sized? by Aussie+Osbourne · · Score: 1

    ZOIDBERG?

  73. FAT PIGS Rule America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Try double-man sized. That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights. 2 times what an American weighs. >Obviously you watch too much TV, if you think the American weight average is double everyone else. Just because you see extreme cases all the time doesn't mean that everyone in America is like that. We don't have THAT many bulemic movie stars to throw the curve off that much...we're at least 3 or 4 times fatter than the rest of the world, not just double. Sheesh. > > That thing must weigh 4 times what a man weights, about the same weight as an average American (2 short ton [1,814 Kg]). By the year 2015 Americans will be so heavy that most of the midwest will become lower than sea level, the rocky and appellation mountain ranges will flatten, New York and California will sink into the ocean and the U.S. military will not be able to fly their planes (except of course the B-1 bomber can still drop 1 bomb weighing 2 lb.), sail their ships (with more than 20 people) and no weapons - except maybe an M16 with no bullets and soldiers cannot carry their weapons (lack of oxygen). . No wonder the U.S. government wants pizza, pepsi and other FAT foods in the schools and promote families to eat that shit at McDonnell's, Wendy's and other take outs. It is a lot easier to control FAT PIGS than skinny and healthy humans.

  74. In ancient Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In ancient Germany, bugs smash you!

  75. Re:Man Sized? -- Which man? by gr8scot · · Score: 1

    Once you start down the off-topic path, forever will it rule your destiny. Consume you it will. Or something like that.

    Speaking of other countries where obesity is becoming a problem, I read somewhere not very long ago (in geological terms, anyway) that the first known civilization to show evidence of cardiac illness was Egypt, which was also the first to harvest grain and make beer. Long story short, white flour and simple carbohydrates have a higher ratio of empty calories to nutrient than just about anything else. So, unless you eat them in ridiculous quantities or eat something else, they won't nourish you very well. Pastry and liquor turn out to be the bane of humanity. Who's surprised?

    --
    All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..