Arthropod Chain Gangs
monk writes "Science News references a story in the October 10 Science about Cambrian invertebrates which formed weird permanent chains up to twenty individuals long. 'The discovery of 525-million-year-old fossils belonging to a new species of arthropod shows that these animals formed communal chains never before seen in fossilized invertebrates.' It should be obvious to any Slashdotter of a certain age that this is the true origin of the so called 'centipede' in the eponymous game."
That's 524,994,000 before Earth was created!
Trolling is a art,
Reminds me of the segmented body of a tape worm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeworm#Proglottids
This could've been some sort of mating protocol, used for collective trail or possibly the bunny hop....
is older than we figured...
Never know. Those bugs were some crazy party animals.
...to get from point A to point B. But I doubt it would be permanent unless something happened which led to their fossilization en route.
Lobster migration anyone?
perhaps it's some ancient forbidden love dance gone horribly wrong; such chain "action" is seen in the "living fossil" horseshoe crabs. (which are also arthropods, rare surviving relative of the trilobite, and almost as old as the little guys in TFA)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blondeonblonde/462916466/in/set-72157594323781031/
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
cthulhu fhtagn
Its a 20-organism daisy chain! Damn hippies and their group sex.
Ants link together to form a raft in a flood.
Given that the chains covered the mouths of the animals they must have been temporary.
They got fossilized whole so they must have sunk into some liquid/mud.
Maybe they were linking together to form a raft or to climb out of the mud.
But the researchers still don't know why these arthropods linked themselves together. Feeding behavior is an unlikely reason since each individual's mouth is covered by the tail of the preceding arthropod.
The chain acted as one giant snake, swimming around. The first one in the chain ate the food, absorbed some of the nutrients, and crapped out the rest into the mouth of the one behind, which in turn crapped into the mouth of the one behind it and so on..
Reminds me of the asexual "budding", a form of epitoky, that occurs in certain polychaete worms such as Nereis .
The echidna (a monotreme mammal, related to the platypus) forms conga-lines for sex.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/June2000/default.htm
To further amaze and/or impress you, the male echidna has a four-headed penis. Two of them become erect at a time and are both used during mating. The pairs of active penis heads alternate in subsequent matings.
Mind you, I bet their sex lives are pestered horribly by grad students wielding research grants and expensive cameras.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1):
He and his colleagues found 22 complete or partial chains, but only one solitary specimen.
2):
But unlike those lobster trains, these fossil arthropod chains, dated to the early Cambrian, appear to have been almost unbreakable. The animals collectively show signs of twisting, turning, bending and telescoping, all without coming apart.
3):
Feeding behavior is an unlikely reason since each individual's mouth is covered by the tail of the preceding arthropod.
Hello? Had someone's brain cells formed chains and migrated out of his skull? Is logic now optional for biologists?
If the formation was permanent, and individual organisms were able to survive, they definitaly were somehow capable of feeding while in chain, so it would be dumb to claim that chain could not be related to feeding because it supposedly makes it impossible. Either, chain is not permanent, observation in (1) is incomplete and (2) is false, or chain does not prevent feeding, so (2) is nonsense.
How in the world someone can write those two things few sentences apart? What brings us to
3):
"When you're dealing with 525-million-year-old animals, it's not like math where five plus five is ten. There are a lot of interesting discussions to have," explains Siveter.
The problem is certainly related to the lack of logic, however I think, it shouldn't be blamed on 525 million years old animals.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Why do the authors suggest that this is not related to reproduction? It seems similar to the habits of Crepidula fornicata (the slipper shell) http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=600
they definitaly were
"they definitely were", of course.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
a genus that includes lobsters, beetles and tarantulas
I had no idea they were that closely related.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
and still no "Imagine Beowulf of those!". What the world is coming to?