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."

52 of 211 comments (clear)

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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...

  3. 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 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.
  4. 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: 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
    3. 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!

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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
  8. Re:Octopus? by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


    They should call it Octavius Palinus

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  9. 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

  10. 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.

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

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

  12. 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.

  13. Re:FSM by illeism · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Help test the /. effect at my min
  14. "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.
  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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 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!
  18. so it's like by Weh · · Score: 2, Funny

    cthulhu?

  19. 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.

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

    what does God need with a starship?

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. 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

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

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

  24. 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?

  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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...

  28. 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 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.

  29. 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.