Slashdot Mirror


Eight-Armed Animal Preceded Dinosaurs

Garimelda writes "Scientists have discovered what they believe is an eight-armed creature which colonized a large section of the world's oceans over 300 million years before the first dinosaurs emerged."

211 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Game? by firex726 · · Score: 1

    I thought Spore was a game?

    1. Re:Game? by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought Spore was a game?

      That's a common misconception, it's actually five really crappy games.

  3. Looks exactly like a wacky wall walker by jeffrlamb · · Score: 1

    Next up. Scientists discover Slinky like organism as missing link between Apes and Man.

    1. Re:Looks exactly like a wacky wall walker by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're called 'Homo Scientists'.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    2. Re:Looks exactly like a wacky wall walker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's midi-chlorians actually.

  4. Eight-armed creature by MisterSquirrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eight-armed, in the sense that a starfish is five-armed. Not quite as sci-fi weird as the headline might sound.

    1. Re:Eight-armed creature by KovaaK · · Score: 1

      Erm... did many people interpret it as such? When I first read it, I definitely didn't imagine something as intricate as some crazy sci-fi creation.

    2. Re:Eight-armed creature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1) Don't ever write "Erm..."

      2) This is Slashdot. Of course many of us read it that way. Maybe you don't belong here?

    3. Re:Eight-armed creature by maxume · · Score: 1

      You mean like a bat-eating centipede?

      http://www.google.com/search?q=bat+eating+centipede

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Eight-armed creature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thought was a starfish eh?

      O-C-T-O-P-U-S

    5. Re:Eight-armed creature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Erm... did many people interpret it as such?

      I did. It's because of the "preceded dinosaurs" which made me think it was eight-armed vertebrates, for about two seconds. There's no reason to say "preceded dinosaurs" when it was significantly before dinosaurs and had nothing to do with them. You could say they preceded humans. It's just silly and confusing. It turns out these fossils are twice as old as dinos.

      A better word would be "predate" which doesn't imply a close correlation in time.

    6. Re:Eight-armed creature by theaveng · · Score: 4, Informative

      This animal is more like a hydra with multiple tentacles but extremely small and simplistic in design.

      BTW there were LOTS of creatures that came before the dinosaurs.

      There were the Cambrian creatures, followed by the Synapsids that were huge reptile-like creatures that dominated the planet until they were eventually replaced the dinosaurs. The Synapsids then evolved into mammals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid For more info see the BBC's "Before the Dinosaurs"

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    7. Re:Eight-armed creature by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      yea, i thought that was kind of weird. i mean, there are tons of simple lifeforms that far predate dinosaurs. so that's not a very significant discovery.

      it would have been more appropriate to mention jellyfish or other soft-bodied diploblastic animals.

    8. Re:Eight-armed creature by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      I was imagining my mother-in-law, but thanks for ruining the moment

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    9. Re:Eight-armed creature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Eight-armed, in the sense that a starfish is five-armed."

      It is called a Seastar. It is not a fish!

    10. Re:Eight-armed creature by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      Erm... OK, why exactly should one never write "Erm"?

      Is "Umm" better? "Ehhh"? "Aaah...um"? "Mmmmnn"?

      What is the preferred /. ettiquette for this situation? Have we discovered the next poll topic?
      More importantly, should the government create a commission to look into this asap?

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    11. Re:Eight-armed creature by Kanasta · · Score: 1

      Kinda like our 20 armed jellyfish eh?
      Looks a bit small to be called a 'creature'

    12. Re:Eight-armed creature by lpq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno...eight arms? soft? like a pussy cat...hey, lets call it an octopus! Who knows...some day maybe someone can get a Ph.D. studying these creatures -- we could call 'em Doc-Oc...

    13. Re:Eight-armed creature by mcvos · · Score: 1

      1) Don't ever write "Erm..."

      Why not? And how else can you signify being slow-witted?

  5. Kraken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They became Krakens!

  6. Or two four-armed creatures. by erroneous · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I am not a scientist!

    --
    erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
  7. The summary is... by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ladies and gentlemen, the plot to next year's summer movie flop.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:The summary is... by baKanale · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or the next SciFi Channel Original "Movie"...

    2. Re:The summary is... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I've had it with these mother fucking octopuses on this mother fucking plane!"

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:The summary is... by savorymedia · · Score: 0

      "I've had it with these mother fucking octopi on this mother fucking plane!"

      Fix'd. ;)

      --
      1 is the square root of all evil.
    4. Re:The summary is... by digitig · · Score: 1

      "I've had it with these mother fucking octopodes on this mother fucking plane!"

      Fix'd. ;)

      Fixed your fix for ya.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:The summary is... by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've had it with these mother fucking eels on this mother fucking hovercraft!

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:The summary is... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The movie was better in the original Klingon:

      jIH ghaj ghajta' 'oH tlhej bIHnuch yIHmey'vam Daq bIHnuch Duj'vam!

      (I've had it with these coward tribbles on this coward ship!)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:The summary is... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I've had it with these mother fucking ostriches on this motherfucking Popemobile!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  8. Octospiders by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    Sounds similar to the octospiders featured in the Rama sequels. Okay, not really, I just felt like throwing out references to pop science fiction.

    1. Re:Octospiders by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds similar to the octospiders featured in the Rama sequels.

      Oh god. I've been trying to forget those for over ten years now, and now you've brought all the horror back. In case anyone doesn't know, Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama is a science fiction classic that only gets better with age. The sequels made in collaboration with Gentry Lee, however, have no touch of Clarke's genius. It's suggested that Gentry Lee penned them all by himself, and his interests were peculiar indeed. The third volume of the series has some of the most ridiculous sex ever found in science fiction, a genre already infamous for bad erotic scenes. Then, in the fourth volume, Lee reveals that the mysterious aliens whose starship humans had boarded were, in fact, angels serving the Christian God. Though why an omnipotent deity works through robots and subjects races to agonizingly slow slower-than-light travel is never explained.

    2. Re:Octospiders by butterflysrage · · Score: 5, Funny

      what does God need with a starship?

      --
      the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    3. Re:Octospiders by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For an instant I was upset that you spoiled it. That feeling was immediately washed away by gratitude.

      Thank you for sparing me from reading this.

      -Peter

    4. Re:Octospiders by innerweb · · Score: 1

      You owe me a new computer keyboard. I just snorted soda all over it. Funniest damn reply I have read in ages!

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    5. Re:Octospiders by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      8 legged spiders? Are you mad?!!!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    6. Re:Octospiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cruise control.

    7. Re:Octospiders by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      Sounds similar to the octospiders featured in the Rama sequels.

      Radial symmetry, amoeboid, found as fossils ... I'm more reminded of H. P. Lovecraft's At The Mountains of Madness. Bad news for all albino, cave-dwelling penguins.

    8. Re:Octospiders by hachkc · · Score: 1

      Same thing that jumped to my mind also.

    9. Re:Octospiders by JickL · · Score: 1

      Really? I found no mention of this through a quick search on Wikipedia, the repository of all human knowledge.

    10. Re:Octospiders by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      The greatest thing about the Rama series is the sense of scale that it inspires. You get a sense of adventure in reading the book, and that is a rare gem.

      In spite of its flaws, I can recommend.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    11. Re:Octospiders by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      to build cities out of Rock and Roll, they don't just build themselves

    12. Re:Octospiders by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Then, in the fourth volume, Lee reveals that the mysterious aliens whose starship humans had boarded were, in fact, angels serving the Christian God.

      Holy chit.

      By some quirk of fate I stopped at the third book, Thank-Xenu!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    13. Re:Octospiders by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Seconded. I'm a big fan of classic, hard SF in the style of Clarke, and this series is one of my favourites. Besides, the ending makes it pretty clear that the Christian explanation is just one of the possible interpretations. IIRC, each of the characters in the book receives an ending they believe in.

      However, Gentry Lee wrote another series of books in the Rama universe, namely Bright Messengers and Double Full Moon Night, which was mostly a disappointment to me. For one thing, the Christian references were way too strong.

      On the other hand, I strongly recommend a single novel by Clarke and Lee that I think started their collaboration in the first place, the aptly named Cradle.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    14. Re:Octospiders by lennier · · Score: 1

      Except for Boston.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    15. Re:Octospiders by crono_deus · · Score: 1

      God is a SciFi LARPer?

      --
      Ne Cede Malis.
    16. Re:Octospiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there *any* sequels that Clarke "co-wrote" with other authors that don't suck? I still have fond memories of one of Clarke's earlier stories, "Against the Fall of Night", which I read as a teenager. The sequel, with Gregory Benford, which only vaguely resembles or relates to the themes of the original, was a shambling mess that I wish I had left on the bookstore shelf.

    17. Re:Octospiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG YESSSSS I loved these books... Must re-read ...I kinda thought of octospiders right away ;/

    18. Re:Octospiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The third volume of the series has some of the most ridiculous sex ever found in science fiction"

        GOD DAMN IT. Now I have to read that. See what you did?

    19. Re:Octospiders by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      In case anyone doesn't know, Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama is a science fiction classic that only gets better with age.

      I recall reading it a couple of decades ago. Flagged as "probably worth a re-read, when I've nothing better on the to-do list". (I'm currently re-reading Time Enough for Love.)

      The sequels made in collaboration with Gentry Lee, however, have no touch of Clarke's genius.

      An allegation I've heard before.

      It's suggested that Gentry Lee penned them all by himself, and his interests were peculiar indeed.

      This does not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for bypassing the book.

      The third volume of the series has some of the most ridiculous sex ever found in science fiction, a genre already infamous for bad erotic scenes.

      This does not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for bypassing the book.
      In some circles, it could be a feature.

      Then, in the fourth volume, Lee reveals that the mysterious aliens whose starship humans had boarded were, in fact, angels serving the Christian God.

      Ah, satire?

      Though why an omnipotent deity works through robots and subjects races to agonizingly slow slower-than-light travel is never explained.

      It is well established that the christian deity is an unjust sadist. So having this sort of behaviour attributed to this deity is what you'd expect from satire.

      I'm intrigued - I might remember to get pick up one of the Rama books next time I'm idly browsing the bookshop. How did Lazarus Long put it? "One man's blasphemy is another's belly-laugh." ?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:Octospiders by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Ah, satire?

      No, Gentry Lee is a devout Roman Catholic. His following several books were even more preachy.

    21. Re:Octospiders by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Ah, satire?

      No, Gentry Lee is a devout Roman Catholic. His following several books were even more preachy.

      Sweet!
      We had one of those "beat the meek into church by shouting at them in the street" organisms cluttering up Mammon square in town this afternoon. But since he was doing such a hilariously bad job of persuading people to take Bog's shilling (sorry, last week's book was "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" ; until then, I'd forgotten about the Russian honorific for the monotheists' common delusion), I let him carry on making a fool of himself in public. Why, indeed, go about interrupting organisms who are damaging your enemies' case so effectively?

      There's something particularly nice about a Bog-fan shooting his religion in the back by means of a particularly crass piece of advertisement. Costs them money, brains and time, while making them publicly ridiculous and reducing their already waning support. Sweet!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. four accidental or metabolically efficient? by peter303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe four limbs gives you more bang for the buck in terms of the energy of development and survival locomotion. However insects and relatives have been more creative with all even numbers - 2, 4, 6, 8 and dozens.

    1. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have always wondered where we got our 5-fold symmetry from. Our core body sprouts 5 elements (head, 2 arms and 2 legs), and the arms and legs at least sprout 5 fingers and toes.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by lartful_dodger · · Score: 1

      I'm at a loss to think of any two-limbed complex organisms.
      Purely in terms of locomotion on land, though, bipedal is reputedly more energy efficient than quadripedal movement.

      --
      The face of 'evil' is always the face of total need
    3. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by lartful_dodger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The basic mammalian model, I always thought, was a 6-element system - most mammals have a tail, even some humans are born with one, albeit vestigial.

      --
      The face of 'evil' is always the face of total need
    4. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Paaskonijn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm at a loss to think of any two-limbed complex organisms.

      Pirates!

    5. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Most people call it bilateral symmetry (i.e., side-to-side).

      My hand has some symmetry with my foot, but my head has quite a bit less.

      The inner-middle-outer (endo-meso-ecto) tissue groupings also seem more logical than grouping the stuff that sticks out of the torso.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      fish?

    7. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

      We don't have 5-fold symmetry. We're bilaterally symmetric; we have a top, bottom, left, and right. A starfish has a top and bottom, but no left or right. For what it's worth, not even a five-armed starfish has exactly 5-fold symmetry. They are considered radially symmetric, but are thought to have evolved from bilaterally symmetric organisms and have some structures that show this.

    8. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I download music and have more than 2 limbs?? I'm confused.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    9. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately for some of us, we have that sixth element that hangs down between our knees. Works great for balance, like a steadycam. :)

    10. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by lartful_dodger · · Score: 1

      No, fish tend to have a couple of sets of bilaterally symmetrical fins, the pectoral and the ventral or pelvic.

      --
      The face of 'evil' is always the face of total need
    11. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      I'll thank you to leave my family out of this discussion.

      Good day, Sir!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      yeah but only the pectoral fins really move (the others are mostly just raised/lowered). I don't suppose you count your ears, hair, and uh... other appendages as limbs.

    13. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

      These two pirates are talking in a bar, and the tail of the story goes...

      "... and that thar seagull splotted in me eye, and I was a-fergettin' that I'd a-just gotten me hook... and that's how I got me eyepatch! Yarrrr!"

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    14. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you that even if I'm a Slashdot reader, my sixth element, even if I don't use it the way it was meant to be used, is not vestigial at all.

    15. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tetrapods don't quite represent 5-fold symmetry.

      Think of the tailbone to top-of-skull as a single axis, with two sets of limbs poking out along the axis.

      This developed from the pelvic and pectoral girdles of Sarcopterygians.

      Basically, the whole vertebral column from tail to cervical vertebrae is the principle axis with limbs branching from it. Split down the middle of the principle axis, the body (for the most party) is a mirror image. Thus, two-fold symmetry. Bilateralism.

      Tetrapodia
      5-Fold symmetry

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    16. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, a midget porn star?

    17. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      A starfish has a top and bottom, but no left or right. For what it's worth, not even a five-armed starfish has exactly 5-fold symmetry. They are considered radially symmetric, but are thought to have evolved from bilaterally symmetric organisms and have some structures that show this.

      Correct. Newborn starfish (maybe brittle stars as well?) have bilateral symmetry and only later turn into the radially symmetric creatures we know and love. So, chances are there is some advantage to the starfish shape, even over bilateral symmetry.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    18. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      I am going to have to ask you to use the correct term: sea kittens http://www.peta.org/sea_Kittens/

    19. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We arnt really bilaterally symmetric. heart, lungs and intestines are the three i can think of off the top of my head. Digestive system in general now that I mention it.

    20. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      ... the arms and legs at least sprout 5 fingers and toes.

      Not necessarily true for all tetrapods (mammals, birds, dinosaurs, lizards, amphibians, etc.). Some digits are lost or greatly reduced on limbs of some species. Occasionally, a six-fingered mutant is born.

      The earliest tetrapods commonly had from four to eight digits on their fore-limbs and hind-limbs. This corresponded to the ancestral lobe structure of their immediate fishy predecessors. This settled out when the five-digited tetrapods turned out to be most successful.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    21. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      I've been pondering the five fingers/toes. Your upper arm and your thigh have one bone each. Forearm and lower leg have two bones. Then in your wrist and ankle, a layer of three bones, and then four. Then finally the five digits.

      Is there anything to this pattern?

    22. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This kind of 5-fold symmetry seems very common in organisms - both plants and animals.

      It is quite different to the even-numbered symmetries one sees in non-organic forms.

      Often, the quickest way to visually distinguish between organic or inorganic natural structures is to consider the symmetry.

      Conjecturing wildy, perhaps it is nature's way of encoding genetic information in fractal form?

    23. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by lartful_dodger · · Score: 1

      mmmm possibly, but I don't use my 'ears, hair, and uh... other appendages' for locomotion, either, as the fish does its fins.
      And fishes' motile fins are connected skeletally by structures more or less homlogous to our own anatomy.
      So I'd still count them.

      --
      The face of 'evil' is always the face of total need
    24. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Individually we are not usually fully bilaterally symmetric, only grossly so externally. Some individuals have heterotaxic situs ambiguus and are highly bilaterally symmetric. Moreover, as a species, however, we are pretty bilateral -- check out dextrocardia situs inversus totalis. Admittedly these are unusual conditions in most populations, but the gene is far from extinct.

    25. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      have you ever watched a mudskipper walk?

    26. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I liek mudskippers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I'm at a loss to think of any two-limbed complex organisms.

      Extant ones ... look at the ratite birds ostriches (who you could argue have 4 limbs, but two of them are almost useless), or at emus (better example of 2-limbed), or at kiwis arms anatomically present, but almost completely invisible under the plumage.
      Looking back in time ... the Phorusrhacos had no effective forelimbs.
      Whether the Tyrannosaurids could make effective use of their forelimbs is open to debate. and what the hell was Mononychus up to?

      A number of snakes have one pair of rear limbs, or front limbs, or indeterminate limbs, or internal limb girdles but no external expression ; and whether they fit your "two-limbed" criterion is up to you. Axolotls too, IIRC.

      Stretching the definition beyond the tediously stereotypic vertebrates, or even the chordates, there's a range of water-dwelling near-microscopic organisms which have one pair of limbs. "Copepods" (not a formal genus, IIRC), Daphnia (a modified crustacean, IIRC) I have a clear mental image of, and there are hosts (tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of species) of conodont morphospecies whose host organisms I believe are thought to be two limbed. At least in the Leith specimens. But they're back into the chordates, if not vertebrates, so we might as well chuck the lampreys and/ or hagfish in too, as they're two-limbed too.

      Enough, already?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      However insects and relatives have been more creative with all even numbers - 2, 4, 6, 8 and dozens.

      Echinodermata, anyone? Pentameric symmetry (as a secondary developmental twist, literally, on an early embryological bilateral symmetry). Maybe not as numerically significant as 6-limbed (insects), 8-limbed (Chelicates, spiders & scorpions) and 10-limbed (Decapoda, crustaceans), but probably beating the miserable 4-limbed vertebrates.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    29. Re:four accidental or metabolically efficient? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The earliest tetrapods commonly had from four to eight digits on their fore-limbs and hind-limbs.

      The last time I looked, octadactyl limbs were known, heptadactyls and (of course) the stereotypical pentadactyl ; I'm not sure whether hexadactyl limbs are or are not known from the fossil record, but I'm sure that tetradactyls are not reported except as reduced pentadactyls.

      This corresponded to the ancestral lobe structure of their immediate fishy predecessors.

      Hmmm, that's a VERY broad brush. I'd recommend Jenny Clack's "Gaining Ground" for a medium-weight introduction. (I'll admit - despite JC's relatively engaging style, I've not finished reading my copy.) There's also a commemorative volume coming out of the Geological Society's Publishing House for Pete Forey's work on the fishy end of the tetrapod continuum, which might be clearer. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/publications/bookshop/page3213.html

      Come to think of it, Forey's coelacanth book is pretty good too, when it comes to the different structures of fish limbs.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  10. Octopus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this thing sounds a lot like a octopus.

    1. Re:Octopus? by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if an octopus lacked internal organs and had a jelly like outer skin.

    2. Re:Octopus? by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


      They should call it Octavius Palinus

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:Octopus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm amazed you were able to gleam that all from the summary!

    4. Re:Octopus? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Wow, you can tell /. is really going downhere when the possibility that someone actually read TFA doesn't even cross people's minds.

    5. Re:Octopus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOOSH

    6. Re:Octopus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and a dog is a lot like a cat. After all they both have four legs.

  11. Apologies to Douglas Adams by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I would take it that these creatures would have invented personal deoderant before the wheel?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Apologies to Douglas Adams by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to The Guide, it was the Jatravartids who were "unique", and since The Guide predates Ediacaran period, it is more likely to be correct (unless life itself is guilty of being neither beautiful, nor true).

      Plus, if these newly discovered creatures had 8 limbs, they'd be similar to Octopuses (or octopi/octopodes) who are not known to use deodorants (and instead use a foul smelling chemical to avert predators). Thus, since Octopuses are not known to invent deodorants it is less likely that Eoandromeda octobrachiata invented them either.

      Hence, the guide wins and Jatravartids keep the trophy.

    2. Re:Apologies to Douglas Adams by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Hey, you sass that hoopy UnknowingFool, there's a frood who really knows where his towel is

    3. Re:Apologies to Douglas Adams by Rtech · · Score: 1

      Damn right you owe apologies to DNA, they invented the aerosol deodorant first, not personal. Bah.

    4. Re:Apologies to Douglas Adams by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      that 'foul smell' is their deodorant

  12. I for one lament by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny

    The passing of our 8 legged, sea dwelling, Gondwanalandish ancestral overlords

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:I for one lament by Geak · · Score: 3, Funny

      "According to palaeogeographic reconstructions, South China and South Australia were close to each other at the time, belonging to a supercontinent called Gondwana," says lead author Dr Maoyan Zhu.

      I think the more important discovery here is time travel. How else would he know the continent was called Gondwana 300 million years ago? Also suprising is that these 8 legged creatures were able to tell him that. I don't think humans existed back then.

  13. Cthulu!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awcjsadfjhcsdfhadhfaoesuhfeobncosadcu!!!!!

  14. To kill two birds with one stone also applys here by feedayeen · · Score: 1

    It will soon be discoverd that two quadrupeds can be killed with one stone.

  15. could it be... by catdevnull · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cthulu--the ancient one!

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    1. Re:could it be... by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome the old eight-arms overlord!

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    2. Re:could it be... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      Shelob maybe?

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    3. Re:could it be... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing some "h"s here and there.

    4. Re:could it be... by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cthulu--the ancient one!

      Dagon it, I thought it was the other one!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:could it be... by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Its the spaghetti-monster, duh!

    6. Re:could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...soft-bodied, dome-shaped organism that lived on seabeds and fed by absorbing dissolved nutrients..." hmmm... Dick Cheney

    7. Re:could it be... by mdrplg · · Score: 1

      That's what I immediately thought of... Cthulu! At least a mini Cthulu. Sort of like those little plush Cthuli dolls. Did you see the size of that brain cavity! Weird to think of the dark dreams these little critters were dreaming 500,000,000 years ago...

      --
      Today is an ephemeron, doomed to the crypt of yesterday.
    8. Re:could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cthulhu fhtagn

    9. Re:could it be... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      McCain it, it's that one.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  16. computer evolution experiments by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recall people studying the evolution of locomotion by allowing any kind of movement- walking, tumbling, slithering, wheels, etc. Computer programs "evolve" trying random mutations and look at resulting locomotive efficiency. Some clever, unexpected solutions result which you dont see in nature. I forget the reference, but may be associated with the Sante Fe Artificial Life Institute, etc.

    1. Re:computer evolution experiments by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here they are. He has some pretty cool videos showing the different types of locomotion that resulted. I love the one that grows really tall and falls over; it certainly achieved some fast movement over a short distance - but a bit of an evolutionary dead end. :)
      http://www.karlsims.com/evolved-virtual-creatures.html

    2. Re:computer evolution experiments by Graywolf · · Score: 1

      Fascinating stuff. Of course, it depends on the initial setup and evolutionary possibilities defined in the software, but seeing those "sea snakes" having evolved out of a mess of apparently randomly arranged pieces is pretty awesome.

  17. Re:FSM by Andr+T. · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll believe ID when they find a fossilized watch.

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  18. Not quite what I imagined by eagee · · Score: 1

    I was thinking more like a half fish half humanoid eight armed sea monster from an ancient and extinct civilization.

    What's wrong with me? Have I really reached a point in my life where a subscription to national enquirer might be in order??

    1. Re:Not quite what I imagined by nawcom · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with me? Have I really reached a point in my life where a subscription to national enquirer might be in order??

      Bah don't read that bullcrap. If you want to read a reliable news source Weekly World News is where it's at.

    2. Re:Not quite what I imagined by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that I read an article in my local "legitimate" newspaper that was not only a word for word reprint from the Weekly World News, but it was printed 6 months AFTER the Weekly World News.

    3. Re:Not quite what I imagined by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Parent is right. The Enquirer is nothing but celebrity crap. But WWN covers important stuff like Bat-boy!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  19. Cthulhu Fhtagn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

    1. Re:Cthulhu Fhtagn by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

      They weren't discovered beneath the antarctic ice, were they?

    2. Re:Cthulhu Fhtagn by turgid · · Score: 3, Funny

      How's the weather in North Wales today, Mrs Trellis?

  20. Obligatory Aha! Moment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embrace....extend....extinguish...

    THERE'S your prior art! :P ....ok, ok, back under the bridge I go....

  21. Sounds like...... by prestomation · · Score: 3, Funny

    .....someone played Spore a bit too much...

  22. I knew it by Andr+T. · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...they describe other early living things that looked like leaves, shells, stars and something almost akin to a peace symbol.

    Damn hippie fossils!

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    1. Re:I knew it by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      See what happens when you believe in peace? You go extinct.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  23. Re:FSM by illeism · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll believe in fossilized watches once somebody proves intelligence...

    --
    Help test the /. effect at my min
  24. "preceded dinosaurs" by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the time scales involved, that's kind of like saying "Alexander preceded Napoleon" -- I mean, it's true, but it leaves out a whole lot that happened in between.

    Oh, never mind. The past is telescoped. There's old stuff (things that happened before my parents were born) older stuff (George Washington and other guys in funny clothes) very old stuff (King Arthur and Robin Hood) extremely old stuff (cavemen and dinosaurs) and, apparently, incredibly old stuff (before cavemen and dinosaurs -- who knew?) No point in asking people to maintain a sense of persepective.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:"preceded dinosaurs" by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a strict Fundamentalist Christian, I applaud how your examples became more fantastical/mythical the farther back in time you go, with the obvious (and proper) implication that caveman and dinosaurs are even sillier works of fiction than King Arthur and Robin Hood. Bravo!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:"preceded dinosaurs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the only thing he missed was finishing off that list with "God"!

    3. Re:"preceded dinosaurs" by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      what we need is some sort of an all-inclusive list of begats to keep things straight

    4. Re:"preceded dinosaurs" by Alsee · · Score: 1

      And of course the talking snake is farther back than the cavemen :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:"preceded dinosaurs" by genner · · Score: 1

      No King Arthur probably existed.

    6. Re:"preceded dinosaurs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the bible is also a fantastic work of fiction.

  25. Re:FSM by jemtallon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check those noodly appendages... intelligent design indeed!

    Just further proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's great tentacle guides us all across the saucy plate of life

  26. ooOOOooohhh by Dop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So... it's an eight armed starfish? Astounding.

  27. Another view ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps back then female populations were much higher, therefore every male needed as many hands as he could get

  28. Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by timholman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To me, the most interesting aspect of these early, pre-Cambrian-Explosion fossils was that bilateral symmetry (which is the norm for practically all animal life today) was nothing special. You had lots of organisms that were radially symmetric or just plain asymmetric. Whatever mass extinction event wiped out the majority of the Ediacaran biota gave a foothold to the bilaterally symmetric ancestors of modern animal life, which then dominated the Cambrian Explosion. It is just a fluke of evolution that we are not radially symmetric or asymmetric. Shades of Niven & Pournelle's Moties!

    1. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just a fluke of evolution

      Or, put another way, it was selected for naturally.

      Why? Because radially symmetric creatures are FREAKY of course! Dad's freak when a girls' boyfriend just has two arms. Can you imagine him having MORE?

    2. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by Hoplite3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think bilateral symmetry could be shown to have advantages out-of-water. In the ocean, movement in three dimensions is common, and radially-symmetric designs are reasonable. But on land, movement is confined (mostly) to a plane, so the extra symmetry doesn't help an organism very much. There'd be a lot of wasted tentacles.

      Like an octopus bar on $1 tequila night.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    3. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Moties genetically engineered themselves to be asymmetrical (huge strong arm on one side, two small arms for detail work on the other side).

      Too bad they couldn't solve their pesky reproductive cycle.

    4. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not pure chance at all. Radial symmetry doesn't work on land where the movement is 2D and through a much thinner fluid. It adds too much weight also (something you don't have to worry about as much in the water).

    5. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I'm being dead serious: Can you show me some examples of macroscopic animals that aren't symmetric in some way? I'm curious, I've never heard of any.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    6. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately in the ultra competitive ecology that is Mote Prime, a very high birth rate is an almost overwhelming advantage. Like the warrior caste, any rational leader caste would be foolish to voluntarily limit their reproduction. They would be quickly crowded out by their competition.

      --
      -
    7. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by DoubleReed · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by RedBear · · Score: 1

      I'm being dead serious: Can you show me some examples of macroscopic animals that aren't symmetric in some way? I'm curious, I've never heard of any.

      Fiddler crabs? But they're only partially asymmetrical. Don't know of any others. But 550 million years ago there were some pretty bizarre lifeforms living in the ocean where it was probably a lot easier to be asymmetrical and survive.

      Once animals needed to swim, walk and fly in any specific direction bilateral symmetry would have been a significant advantage over anything else. Most animals with radial symmetry don't move very quickly even in the water. On land radial symmetry would be very difficult to use as efficiently as bilateral forms. Forget about flying with a radially symmetric form unless you're a giant helium-filled gasbag. So I don't think it was mere chance that we aren't asymmetrical as the other poster said. Competition among lifeforms basically rules out the survival of asymmetric forms over time where speed and efficiency of directional movement is a survival trait.

    9. Re:Bilateral symmetry by pure chance by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Whatever mass extinction event wiped out the majority of the Ediacaran biota gave a foothold to the bilaterally symmetric ancestors of modern animal life

      Spriggina was a bilateral Precambrian critter. The most interesting feature of the era was that the animals (or creatures) lacked internal digestive tracks: they appeared to absorb nutrients from the outside in.

      I suspect that they fought and competed by using toxic digestive juices against each other. This is why physical fighting hadn't evolved yet -- chemical fighting was more evolved and stayed the main offense. It took a while before physical battles became dominant, displacing the chemical warrior model.
           

  29. They were purple... by just-a-stone · · Score: 1

    ... and stopped by a time machine toilet.

  30. so it's like by Weh · · Score: 2, Funny

    cthulhu?

  31. I wish McCain had won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we could torment the VP with news like this.

  32. Re:FSM by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

    I wonder what Dawkins will say about this. It's undeniable!

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  33. Re:FSM by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is in outer space. There's a Hubble picture of it at the supplied link.

  34. Re:FSM by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

    Especially if it's a DIGITAL watch that has subsequently gone extinct.

  35. Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! by legomad · · Score: 0

    At the Mountains of Madness.

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Re:To kill two birds with one stone also applys he by KillerBob · · Score: 1

    If the stone's big enough, you can kill far more than 2. *nodnod*

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  38. Nah, not Cthulhu by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Sounds closer to these guys to me.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  39. My favorite ancient marine creature is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the wonderful Hallucigenia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucigenia

    Called because the discover thought he was seeing things!

  40. big whoop by flahwho · · Score: 0, Troll

    so they found a small octopus?

  41. Reminds me of the Jatravartids by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    I wonder whether they would have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  42. Options... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  43. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if I'm a straight man, I'd run away like hell if I ever saw a woman with eight vaginas.

  44. Warning: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was probably made by Italians. Be careful, America! Eternal vigilance!

  45. Re:fp by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I have eight vaginas, you insensitive clod!

    (And eight penises on the other side. But shhhhh, do not tell him. He better has eight orifices. Huar, huar, huar,... *drool*...)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  46. Re:FSM by dogdick · · Score: 0

    That's funny, it looks like a fossilized butthole to me.

  47. who says ..... by Brigadier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i'm off topic on this one, but I never did understand why the assumption was always made that got created creatures the way they exist today. When the Bible says man who says they were refering to the first bi-ped. Who isn't to say the Bible wasn't refering to the final iteration of homosapain. Just food for thought here not trying to start a new religion.

    1. Re:who says ..... by alexborges · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who isnt ready to not say that the bible isnt reffering to what is not a man and a woman, but a large bowl of spaghetti?

      I for one, have no idea.

      --
      NO SIG
    2. Re:who says ..... by Undead+NDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the Bible says man who says they were refering to the first bi-ped. Who isn't to say the Bible wasn't refering to the final iteration of homosapain.

      If you adopt that line of reasoning (i.e.: words don't really mean what they mean), why stop there?

      Who isn't to say that all the words in the Bible don't mean something else entirely because the book was actually written in an unknown language that only coincidentally resembled ancient Hebrew?

    3. Re:who says ..... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      You realise that the ancient Hebrew differs vastly from many (at least) English translations in a fairly broad range of spots? Just making the point.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    4. Re:who says ..... by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Hurrah for British spelling--but in other news, ancient Hebrew obviously differs from ALL English translations in that it was written in... Hebrew.

      You are probably noting a failure of transmission though and when doing so, it is usually helpful to cite specific examples. Modern textual criticism both within "biblical studies" and in other ancient literature has progressed significantly and a comment that there is (I assume this is your comment) significant transmission error in the text requires specific support.

      But hey, this is slashdot and we don't even read the article here ;)

    5. Re:who says ..... by hachete · · Score: 1

      Well, the originals were written in Greek, then translated to Aramaic. then English.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    6. Re:who says ..... by presentchaos · · Score: 1

      Here is quite a bit for some to consider. Job 38-41 Job 38 The LORD Speaks 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [a] shouted for joy? 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'? 12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! 22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? 31 "Can you bind the beautiful [c] Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons [d] or lead out the Bear [e] with its cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's [f] dominion over the earth? 34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water? 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? 36 Who endowed the heart [g] with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind [h] ? 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 38 when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together? 39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions 40 when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? 41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food? Job 39 1 "Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn? 2 Do you count the months till they bear? Do you know the time they give birth? 3 They crouch down and bring forth their young; their labor pains are ended. 4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds; they lea

    7. Re:who says ..... by joto · · Score: 1
      Because "man" means "man", not "biped", "bird", "kangaroo", or "dinosaur". You could just as well question why people assume the standard meaning of any other word or phrase in the bible. Why not interpret "created" as "having sex with for the first time", and "God" as "Lola"?

      That way "On the sixth day God created man" could be interpreted as "On the sixth day Lola had sex with kangaroos for the first time".

  48. Re:FSM by skeeto · · Score: 1

    Made in His image!

  49. Maybe it's just me... by silentben · · Score: 1

    When I enlarged the photo, the putty impression looked a lot like a nipple.

    Maybe mammalian nipples originated from an ancient symbiosis with these creatures!

  50. Looks like... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Looks like a miniature replica of a galaxy...maybe the circle does keep perpetuating.

  51. Re:FSM by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think he'd say something like this:

    "Hey everyone, I'm British! Look at me! Look! Look damn you!"

    --
    I hate printers.
  52. Not the same kind of limb by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. Well, you have to also realize that different environments might favour different configurations. For example an octopus doesn't use its noodly appendages in the same way as you use your legs, and not even like a fish uses its fins.

    Each is optimized for its particular use. It's safe to assume that for a fish that particular tail and fin configuration is good, because it evolved several times from something different to that exact configuration. E.g., dolphins evolved to the same scheme, but so did Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs and Mosasaurs, plus a few of their relatives and ancestors. There are two different configurations of four legs which evolved into such a fish-like configuration that Ichthyosaur skeletons were first believed to be fish. So it's safe to assume that for that style of swimming, a fish-like configuration is optimal, and indeed better than four legs or even than two legs.

    Two legs vs four legs also seems to be not that clear cut. The two-legged configuration evolved independently more than once, so it must have _some_ advantages. E.g., all dinosaurs are descendants of a two-legged ancestor. Some, however, returned to four-legged afterwards. Some evolved into birds instead. So again it's probably safe to say that each is good... for a given environment.

    Insects are a funny case, because again they're used differently than you use your legs. Insect legs are autonomous. Each leg has its own autonomous "controller", or rather its own mini-brain. The insect's head just gives an order like "forward" and all legs independently start doing the movements for moving forward. That kind of a wiring would be totally unfit for bipedal use. Heck, even four would be more miss than hit. So an insect must necessarily have a larger number of legs. For the way an insect is built, really, six legs are good, two legs are bad.

    2. But even that is over-thinking it, because the little guys in TFA didn't actually have arms or legs like you. They were really jellyfish with 8 long tubular appendages. There are no muscles there or bones or exoskeleton or anything usable for locomotion at all. The whole thing was really two thin layers of cells, little more than a microbial film, with an amorphous jelly in between. The "arms" were probably more to give it more surface and reach from which it can absorb nutrients, than for anything else.

    We're talking _very_ primitive multi-cellular life forms.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Not the same kind of limb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so eight pirates, each with only one leg decided to walkl together
      Upside down down darkened streets looking for Rum...

    2. Re:Not the same kind of limb by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Insects are a funny case, because again they're used differently than you use your legs. Insect legs are autonomous. Each leg has its own autonomous "controller", or rather its own mini-brain. The insect's head just gives an order like "forward" and all legs independently start doing the movements for moving forward.

            When I was reading about the octopus not long ago it was said that their tentacles are also not directly controlled by their brain, or at least that there was no feedback, and that it was believed they keep track of their tentacles by sight.

              Although there's a lot of categorization going on in this thread like two legged, four legged, fins, bilateral, etc., I have to think from my layman's point of view that all those are just adaptations of a core architecture. In other words, creatures do not develop appendages to accomplish an adaptation to an environment, appendages thrive and change or wither based on how they are used in an environment. It sounds like making a fine point, but it seems to me the opposite view of it.

            And when I say core architecture, I mean way back core. I saw a joking reference to the menstruation cycle on a rerun of Third Rock from the Sun as an event happening on a lunar cycle. And to me that was just remarkable. The moon's orbit affecting hormonal cycles on land dwelling mammals? Not a chance. This goes back to tidal cycles our seawater based cells evolved in.

            For that matter, those lunar tidal cycles still affect the mating of those octopus and others like jellyfish. A lot more than core architecture has come with us from those days and moonlit nights so long ago.

        rd

    3. Re:Not the same kind of limb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's safe to assume that for a fish that particular tail and fin configuration is good, because it evolved several times from something different to that exact configuration. E.g., dolphins evolved to the same scheme, but so did Ichthyosaurs, Plesiosaurs and Mosasaurs, plus a few of their relatives and ancestors.

      Actually, fish and dolphins don't have the same tail configuration: fish tails extend vertically; dolphin tails extend laterally. (Can somebody more knowledgable than me tell us which way the tails of those extinct marine reptiles extended?)

  53. We had these in high school by pRtkL+xLr8r · · Score: 2, Funny

    So big whoop. They were like 25 cents in gumball machines. You'd throw them at windows and they'd slowly crawl down. Can't wait til someone unearths a gummy bracelet or a Swatch watch...

  54. IÃ! IÃ! by Arancaytar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Cthulhu fhtagn!

  55. Re:FSM by Hanyin · · Score: 1

    I'll believe ID when they find a fossilized watch.

    This looks practically fossilized =P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

  56. Re:In the Image of $DEITY Created $DEITY_PRONOUN I by ozbird · · Score: 1

    "In the Image of $DEITY Created $DEITY_PRONOUN It" - like Yoda you speak.

  57. Cool by b0ttle · · Score: 1

    Mini-galaxies... maybe we live inside a planet's ocean of dark matter populated by galaxies.

  58. Are those really limbs? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those 'limbs' are in an exceptionally regular spiral pattern. If you fossilized an octopus, you'd expect the limbs to be all crossed over and tangled up. I'm guessing that those 'limbs' couldn't move independently, and are more like ridges in a sheet of material.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Are those really limbs? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. The impressions of the arms are so evenly spaced that I would suspect they were joined together by some kind of membrane that was probably used for swimming propulsion. When was the last time you saw a fossil of any animal with thin extremities where all the appendages were laid out so neat and orderly?

      On the other hand I once saw something very similar in a tank at a small museum somewhere in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. It too had several spiraling arms around its base and a body about half an inch high. No membrane between the arms. So, it's possible.

    2. Re:Are those really limbs? by GleeBot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those 'limbs' are in an exceptionally regular spiral pattern. If you fossilized an octopus, you'd expect the limbs to be all crossed over and tangled up. I'm guessing that those 'limbs' couldn't move independently, and are more like ridges in a sheet of material.

      More to the point, a soft-tissued creature like an octopus almost never leaves a fossil record. If you find a fossil, it's because of some sort of skeletal structure the creature has left behind, which of course would naturally be rigid. Think of something like an eight-branched exoskeletal structure.

  59. Re:FSM by OptimacyCorp · · Score: 1

    squidbillies

  60. Re:FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    certainly smarter than the idiot who claimed it to be a new species. never heard of an octopus?

  61. Re:FSM by Laser_iCE · · Score: 1

    Besides, this is definite proof that Goro from Mortal Kombat existed at some time:

    http://mkw.mortalkombatonline.com/mka/goro/cutout.png

    It's quite obvious, he was bitten by a radioactive spider and grew the extra arms. Then he found out how expensive fuel was going to be in 2008 and killed himself hundreds of thousands of years in advance.

    Either that, or The Simpsons was right...

  62. Slashdot poll? by eleuthero · · Score: 1

    Favorite artificial language: - Klingon - Qindarin - Java - Jabba the Hutt's gibberish - CowboyNealish - music

    1. Re:Slashdot poll? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Python (and not just because of the reference in my GGP post)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  63. Frosty Piss! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    Octopuses are going to be pissed that missed the 8 arms frist prost.

  64. Those aren't arms... by Shark · · Score: 1

    We all know from hentai about multi-limb ancient creatures from asia...

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  65. brittle/serpent star by mattsqz · · Score: 1

    as anyone with a saltwater fishtank can tell you, that looks like nothing more than an 8-limbed brittle or serpent star, presumably without a mouth.

  66. Re:In the Image of $DEITY Created $DEITY_PRONOUN I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah! *Our* god has a penis! Neener.

  67. 8 Arms by andrikos · · Score: 1

    Should be enough even for emacs

  68. Gondwana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to palaeogeographic reconstructions, South China and South Australia were close to each other at the time, belonging to a supercontinent called Gondwana,

    How did the archaeologists discover that it was named Gondwana?

  69. This router requires a 4chan GOLD account. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This router requires a 4chan GOLD account.

    You will not be able to use a internet unless you have a gold account.

  70. legs by Klobbersaurus · · Score: 0

    It has 8 arms, how many legs does it have?

  71. Re:FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RAmen!

  72. Had we evolved from these creatures... by wolfperson1 · · Score: 1

    ... the Jatravartid people would not be the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. [/geek]

  73. Re:FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fuckwit.

  74. Completely off-topic, sorry by jandersen · · Score: 1

    The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid your neighbors' wallets and give you their money.

    Especially not, I would like to point out, when that "neighbor" is 100 - 1000 times richer than you. Less tax breaks for the super-rich, please.

    Sorry, I just had to comment on the sig.

    1. Re:Completely off-topic, sorry by theaveng · · Score: 1

      If the government actually did tax the rich, I wouldn't care. I think Bill Gates and Donald Trump will do just fine.

      But in reality it's the middle class that gets taxed, and that money goes to poor people too lazy to work. Some of these poor people might be handicapped and therefore have no other choice but to rely on Welfare, but the huge majority of them are perfectly healthy human beings who simply lack a work ethic. I object to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the lazy class.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Completely off-topic, sorry by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I remembered during the cold war period how we used to hear stories about poor academics in the Soviet Union, who had dared to criticise the system, and who ended up having to take any work at all; professors that had to work as streetsweepers and that sort of thing. The Us isn't the the USSR, you might say, but it does illustrate that being poor and/or unemployed is not always becasue you are lazy or stupid.

      My own family background is in the working class, and I have worked hard all my life - very hard. Much harder, in fact, than I think any geek in American suburbia has any idea of; I know just how hard it can be, and I still think it was down to quite a large portion of luck that I have made it through to what I am today. In the process I have had to give up contact with my family and my country; just don't ask.

      And I tell you that you are wrong, completely and utterly. If you are at the bottom, that is where you are likely to stay, because nobody is willing to give a decent break. If you don't have money, you don't get an education, your clothes will be poor and you will be dirty, you won't have a home or a bankaccount, and so on. Who will give you a real job? I think you can guess that: nobody. If you have ever been unemployed, you will know just how desperately dull and deeply depressing that is, and that is just how it is when you actually have an education and a chance of catching a job, once one becomes available. Now add to that the hopelessness that stems from having no education and no chance in hell of getting one either, and you begin to get close to how it is to poor as dirt.

      And you call people lazy? It's easy to work "hard" when all that is, is to sit in an office 80 hours a week with free coffee and fizzy drinks. Try exchanging that with the worst, most filthy, manual labour, and then lets see how much of a trailblazer you really are.

  75. ROW ROW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FIGHT THE POWAH!

  76. Hmm by marqs · · Score: 1

    Soft-bodied, dome-shaped they say. With slim slender arms. I know what this is. It's evidence of the Flying Spaghetti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) Monster with a spaghetti bowl on it's head crawling round creating the world....

  77. Re:fp by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Oh ...come...on....

    Have you no humor? :(

    My humor is crazy, and I love it exactly for this! :P
    You don't know what's funny.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  78. Re:FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's about as intelligent and mature as Dawkins himself.