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."

Comments

525 million years!

[grub]

That's 524,994,000 before Earth was created!

Re:525 million years!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's 524,994,000 before Earth was created!

550496256 in hard disk years

Re:525 million years!

[Jrabbit05]

We found Sarah Palin's Slashdot account too!

Re:525 million years!

[ReverendRyan]

clicked wrong mod button, posting to undo...

Re:525 million years!

[morgan_greywolf]

We found Sarah Palin's Slashdot account too!

Nope. Everyone knows that there are no girls on Slashdot.

Re:525 million years!

[TuringTest]

Why did you have to do this, Felicia? The ABBA turd wasn't enough for you?
</obscure gay geek cinematography joke>

Re:525 million years!

[Woldry]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "No more f***ing ABBA!"

Re:525 million years!

[TuringTest]

:)

Tapeworm?

[Misanthrope]

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....

The conga line...

[Robin47]

is older than we figured...

tail as old as time

[nadaou]

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/

Re:tail as old as time

[grikdog]

Erm, horseshoe crabs are not modern trilobites. Different orders, vaguely similar shapes.

Re:Maybe They Were At a Wedding Dance

[4D6963]

All the media is liberal, and is of course accordingly biased, tremendously may I add, except Fox News, which is fair and balanced.

Echidna sex

[AliasMarlowe]

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.

What kind of clown wrote this?

[Alex Belits]

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.

Re:What kind of clown wrote this?

[akozakie]

Funny how you got so emotional about percieved lack of logic instead of applying it yourself. I know it's sometimes difficult to understand written text, but please, at least make an effort.

Where in TFA is it written that this formation prevents feeding? They simply state that this formation doesn't seem to make feeding easier or more efficient, more probably less so. This is a reason to rule out feeding as the cause for this formation. That's it, that's all they are saying.

The formation might be useful for something else - they suggest defence during migration - and that advantage probably offsets the small or nonexistent difficulties during feeding.

Learn the three Rs: reread, rethink, repeat. If the problem persists after a few iterations, then rant. Please.

Re:What kind of clown wrote this?

[porky_pig_jr]

> The problem is certainly related to the lack of logic, however I think, it shouldn't be blamed on 525 million years old animals.

Unless it's Senator McCain, of course.

Re:What kind of clown wrote this?

[Alex Belits]

Where in TFA is it written that this formation prevents feeding? They simply state that this formation doesn't seem to make feeding easier or more efficient, more probably less so. This is a reason to rule out feeding as the cause for this formation. That's it, that's all they are saying.

Really? You mean, any behavior related to feeding must minimize the effort for opening one's mouth, and if it doesn't, it can't be a part of feeding process? Great logic indeed.

A chain may easier move through surfaces covered with food, organize the feeding process to reduce collisions and uncovered areas, use itself as a brush, propel itself through water or other substances... Unless those things spend their whole lives with their mouth sealed, those activities can be of a great help in a feeding process, and the only reason why it was suggested that it's "unlikely" is based on two mutually exclusive statements -- that chain is permanent, and that an individual has some kind of horrible trouble feeding while in chain.

The formation might be useful for something else - they suggest defence during migration - and that advantage probably offsets the small or nonexistent difficulties during feeding.

So does it or doesn't it mean that those organisms have to break the chain when not migrating, when feeding, etc? How does it explain extremely small number of unattached individuals found? What is known about feeding behavior, potential enemies -- anything relevant to those things at all?

Why don't those biologists realize that their reasoning is pure undiluted shit, and they have absolutely no idea what that chain it is really for, so it warrants further study instead of jumping to conclusions based on blatantly invalid reasoning?

Re:What kind of clown wrote this?

[Valdrax]

Is logic now optional for biologists?

*cough* The article refers to arthopods as being a genus. You can guarantee that no biologist wrote the article.

If you apply logic.

Typo

[Alex Belits]

they definitaly were

"they definitely were", of course.

Genus?

[PFI_Optix]

a genus that includes lobsters, beetles and tarantulas

I had no idea they were that closely related.

it's already Saturday

[porky_pig_jr]

and still no "Imagine Beowulf of those!". What the world is coming to?

Re:I have a hypotesis..

[tietokone-olmi]

Plz to be rating this one up, it's the best thing yet on slashdot