Slashdot Mirror


The 300 Million Year Old Brain

Pickens writes "Paleontologists recently discovered the world's oldest brain nestled within a 300-million-year-old fish fossil of one of the extinct relatives of modern ratfishes, also known as 'host sharks' or chimaeras. These chimaera relatives, called iniopterygians, represented bizarre beasts that sported massive skulls with huge eye sockets, shark-like teeth in rows, tails with clubs, huge pectoral fins that were placed almost on their backs, and bone-like spikes or hooks tipping the fins. The brain shows details such as a large vision lobe and optic nerve stretching to the proper place on the braincase, which fits with the fish's large eye sockets. The ear canals of the extinct fish only exist on a horizontal plane so the fish could only detect side-to-side movements, and not up or down. 'There is nothing like this known today; it is really bizarre,' said John Maisey, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. 'But now that we know that brains might be preserved in such ancient fossils, we can start looking for others. We are limited in information about early vertebrate brains, and the evolution of the brain lies at the core of vertebrate history.'"

68 comments

  1. Amazing by eclectro · · Score: 4, Funny

    That it escaped all the zombies from back then. Dinosaur zombies.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      300m years ago called. They want their brain back.

    2. Re:Amazing by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Troll?

      Cracksmoking mods with no sense of humour.....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  2. Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The brain in question is pretty small compared to the brain case. Since brain case size is the main method of telling how large a brain an animal had this is going to suggest some possible need to reevaluate that technique's accuracy beyond providing an upper bound on brain size.

    1. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this specimen didn't attend school.

    2. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I believe the best way that we can extrapolate is by examining known intracranial volume of transitional fossils.

      It's exciting times for evolutionary physiology in American research. Not only have we found the missing link between Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens , we elected him for president!

    3. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by Meneguzzi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not a doctor, archaeologist, biologist or any other relevant profession, but is there not any shrinkage do body parts and organs as they lose humidity after death? Of course this is not necessarily a good comparison, but all the mummies I saw on museums had clearly shrunk with time, so is it not fair to assume that fossilized brains were larger when the animal was alive?

      --
      www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
    4. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny

      It did attend school.

      Only, as TFA said it - it was a Kansas school.
      So it got a little confused about evolving a proper size brain. Or was that intelligently designing a proper size brain?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    5. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      I'm by no means an expert in this area, but from my reading of TFA there isn't much sign of shrinkage in this case. In particularly, the optic nerves stretch out more or less as far as they should if there wasn't much shrinkage.

    6. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      While funny, I can't help but think that if it was a joke supporting 'intelligent' design it would of been modded Troll/Flamebait...

    7. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah... it must have died in warm water...

    8. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      It must have attended college and law school. It was a patent lawyer for SCO.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    9. Re:Is going to cause some serious reexamination. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "would of"? I suspect you are indeed a graduate of the Kansas Bible School system.

  3. Ah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's where that went!

  4. Kansas? by JoshDmetro · · Score: 0

    Just a thought but that fish looks like a deep water ocean fish. Large eye for seeing in the dark. Is it a salt or freshwater fish? Why Kansas of all places?

    1. Re:Kansas? by anagama · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was transported there by rail of course. Airplanes didn't exist way back when earth that makes up Kansas was underwater.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Kansas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Kansas? Let me put it like this...

      Though my eyes could see I still was a blind fish
      Though my mind could think I still was a mad fish
      I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
      I can hear them say

      Carry on my wayward fry
      There'll be peace when you are done
      Lay your weary fins to rest
      Don't you blub no more.

    3. Re:Kansas? by Gregory+Arenius · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was stranded there after God flooded the Earth. Really. :)

      Cheers,
      Greg

    4. Re:Kansas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Kansas of all places?

      'Cause there's no place like home.

    5. Re:Kansas? by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Large eye for seeing in the dark.

      Large eyes might correlate with needing to see in the dark THESE days, but we can't really make that assumption about other times without (at least) hard statistics. It could be, for example, that all eyes were large eyes, until small eyes evolved.

    6. Re:Kansas? by radtea · · Score: 1

      Just a thought but that fish looks like a deep water ocean fish. Large eye for seeing in the dark.

      It's fairly common for fish that live near the littoral to have large eyes. Modern ratfish, of which this thing is an ancestor, have big eyes, and I've seen them in shallow water.

      Not only is it dark half the time even at the surface, the amount of light available drops off very quickly with depth in most places due to plankton etc. Divers travel the world to find places with good visibility.

      Furthermore, in high latitudes the amount of light that penetrates the surface when the sun is low in the sky can be amazingly small: I've been on evening dives in summer at 50 degrees north where it was pitch black at sixty feet even though it was bright and sunny on the surface.

      So basically a lot of the ocean is dark most of the time, even within a few feet of the surface, and lakes are generally more turbid, which makes them even darker.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  5. Re:Terrible News! Please read! by easyTree · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We're not gonna ask how you have data for both sides of that comparison...

  6. WTF? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    So does it still work after all this time or not?

    1. Re:WTF? by nu1x · · Score: 1

      Of course ! If there's a glaspipe around, there should be a sufficient motivation for it to hop around and light one UP ! :P

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    2. Re:WTF? by Naomiah · · Score: 1

      How would it know? The bud from 300 million years ago probably hadn't even evolved to be sticky.

      --
      "Yes, I am a lawyer." - Star Jones
  7. Host Sharks? by nog_lorp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please. Also known as ghost sharks makes a little more sense.

    1. Re:Host Sharks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An understandable mistake. The g is silent.

    2. Re:Host Sharks? by Samah · · Score: 1

      Please. Also known as ghost sharks makes a little more sense.

      Wait, is that ghosts who became sharks, or sharks who became ghosts?

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    3. Re:Host Sharks? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      it was just a hostscript error afterall!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  8. Joan Rivers? by Forrest+Kyle · · Score: 1

    When I first read the headline, I thought to myself, "What does Joan Rivers have to do with science?" =)

    1. Re:Joan Rivers? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      What? You don't think of Joan Rivers when you think of something that is really, really old?

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  9. This research is useful... by MillenneumMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am hoping they can apply the results of this research to finding brains in Senators and Congressmen

    1. Re:This research is useful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do, but in order to get good data they need to wrangle all of them together. Otherwise the test specimen is simply too small for proper testing. Also this test group tends to have an enlarged area within their brains known as the "Bullshitious to the Maximus" lobe, so the tests are naturally skewed. Better to stick with lab rats.

  10. So they found one so long ago... by MindVirus · · Score: 1

    And can't find one now?

  11. Re:I am trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. Tinfins 2 by Safiiru · · Score: 1

    If ever any brain needed to be put in a robot body, it would be that one.

  13. Re:I am trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to stop taking twitter so seriously

  14. Re:Terrible News! Please read! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    citation needed.

  15. lasers by rogeroger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    those huge eye sockets may interfere with standard laser mounts

    1. Re:lasers by MadKeithV · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only on /. could that possibly be insightful.

    2. Re:lasers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And only on Slashdot could your post be informative.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:lasers by dino2gnt · · Score: 1

      Wait, where's the +5, Funny? ??? Profit?

      --
      Future events such as these may affect you in the future!
    4. Re:lasers by chadplusplus · · Score: 1
      The huge eye sockets were the laser mounts. That's why the were so huge!

      These chimaera relatives, called iniopterygians, represented bizarre beasts that sported massive skulls with huge eye sockets, shark-like teeth in rows, tails with clubs, huge pectoral fins that were placed almost on their backs, and bone-like spikes or hooks tipping the fins.

      A beast like that MUST have lasers somewhere! . . . And big pointy teeth.

    5. Re:lasers by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Aint it great?

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    6. Re:lasers by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Only on /. could that possibly be insightful.

      What else can you tag a comment about eyes?

  16. What? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    No "they saved fishy's brain" jokes? Not even a tag?`

    You're getting old, people.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What? by jd · · Score: 1

      Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

      I fink so, Brain, but why do Slashdotters paint their toenails pink after eating custard?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:What? by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Some of us do! ;)

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    3. Re:What? by jd · · Score: 1

      What, ponder that? :)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:What? by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Haha, I was waiting for someone to call me out on that. One of those moments where you realise the awkward phrasing *after* it's too late.

      I mean no, I meant it that way. And then I ponder myself pondering that. And so forth and so on and then holy crap infinite loop of ponderage.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
  17. Aby someone?! by GlobalColding · · Score: 2, Funny

    Igor: Yes, I believe that is what the label said. Maybe Aby Normal...

  18. Surface by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Also, the grey matter surface (cortex) plays a more important role than the total volume occupied by the brain.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  19. Upside down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From that drawing of what the fish may have looked like, it seems to me the fish spent its time upside down. The dorsal fins high up on the body there would be used as "legs" for hopping about on the sea bed. The gills are then angled away from the mud and crap dredged up from below. Having the mouth above the eyes might be useful if it feeds on smaller sea-bed bound critters. And being restricted to the floor would explain the wierd "2D" hearing mentioned in the article.

    Just a thought.

  20. As a means of defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But of course, prehistoric sharks would have clubs instead of lasers.

  21. Define irony... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are limited in information about early vertebrate brains, and the evolution of the brain lies at the core of vertebrate history.'

    But paleontologists recently discovered the oldest known example nestled within a 300-million-year-old fish fossil from Kansas.

    Boy, are some intelligently designed people going to be pissed off at this fish.
    Not only is it 300 million years old, but it is also not very intelligently designed with that "can't see up or down"-vision.
    And all that right under their noses without them even noticing it.

    One would think that the 300 million years old fishy smell would be a giveaway.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  22. RIAA's lost brain by tomrud · · Score: 1

    So they have finally found the brain that RIAA is missing.

    --
    For a nice date: Call strftime(3C)!
  23. Is it really bizarre? by macxcool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that the act of labeling this fish bizarre is itself bizarre. Just because proportions are not what we are used to seeing does not make them necessarily weird. Organisms are designed for the environment they live in and their physical characteristics reflect that. Perhaps interesting or unusual would be better adjectives ;-).

  24. I thought the chimera were defeated... by jacksinn · · Score: 1

    [Enter Nathan Hale]

    --
    Life==Jeopardy. All the answers are right in front us - the hard part is coming up with the correct question.
  25. Of course not - don't be silly... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    What else can a support of "intelligent" design be but a joke?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Of course not - don't be silly... by modecx · · Score: 1

      What else can a support of "intelligent" design be but a joke?

      What is a pity?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  26. Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."also known as 'host sharks' "

    BZZZZT. Ghost sharks is the creature you tried but failed abjectly to refer to. Host sharks? Lol, where did you come up with it?

  27. Unexpected by huckamania · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unexpected is a more apt description. I haven't read TFA yet, cause I like to read the funny on /. first, but it isn't unusual for modern scientists to describe some phenomena as bizarre because the universe did not yield the results they expected. What is interesting is the increase in bizarre phenomena which doesn't fit the current dogma.

    A true scientist will admit that they don't have all of the answers. A great scientist will realize that they aren't even asking the right question.

    It's all there in your HHGttG, or Kindle.