Misfit fossil

[C1ay]

lefthttp://hypography.com/gallery/files/9/9/8/fossil_thumb.jpg[/img]A strange 525 million-year-old fossil creature is baffling scientists because it does not fit neatly into any existing animal groups.

 

The animal, from the early Cambrian Period, might have belonged to a now extinct mollusc-like phylum, academics from America and China say...

 

The trouble is the animal, named Vetustodermis planus, did not possess a set of features, or characters, which placed it clearly within any known group.

 

When it was first described in 1979, Vetustodermis was included in the annelid category. Later researchers argued against this classification, saying it was, in fact, either an arthropod or a mollusc....

 

More....

Is this one of those missing links in the fossil record?

 

Thanks to Buffy for the lead on this story :)

[infamous]

Is this one of those missing links in the fossil record?

 

:)

Curious little creature indeed, if it does not fit into either the molluscs, annelids, or arthropods, what the heck is it? Maybe we have a new phylum on the way?

[OpenMind5]

Looks like a slug...

 

Just my opion...LOl

 

Op5

[Biochemist]

...Maybe we have a new phylum on the way?

That would be my take as well. We have lost about 70% of the phyla that erupted after the Cambrian explosion (falling form about 100 to about 30). Losing one more does not change much.

 

You would have to squint pretty hard to make this a missing link between one of the 3 pre Cambrian phyla and one of the 100 post Cambrian phyla, unless there were specific phenotypic elements that were transitional between an earlier and a later phylum. I don't think anything like that shows up here.

[nkt]

I'd say it was the thing out of Tremors, or perhaps Star Trek II. Any idea what size is it/was?

 

With DNA it would be easy to find out, but with a single fossil, it's going to be very hard. Genetic studies keep showing us weird evolutionary changes that aren't clear even with live specimens to study, and correcting observations that still appear correct from that data.

[C1ay]

Any idea what size is it/was?

From the linked article:

The 5-10cm-long (2-4 inch) fossil, from Anning in China, had a flattened body and horizontal fins which, researchers think, could have been used to support it as it moved along the sea floor. It also had well developed senses, including a pair of eyes on stalks.

[alxian]

yep... eden must have been quite a busy place.

 

looks like a mix between a slug and a snail, an early shrimp maybe?

 

also, the game Spore will allow people to create such animals.. wouldn't it be weird if even the strangest creatures people come up with have analogues in nature?

[nkt]

So they don't know either? 5 to 10 cm long? How can they be that unsure about the size of a fossil?

 

Remember the coelacanth, though. These things are probably still swimming around somewhere under the sea.

[alxian]

coelacanths are awesome

 

amazing how science ignores what people talk about, the people around the waters where the animals were found claimed to have seen them but those claims were dismissed.

 

in future i hope science listens more carefully to such stories.

[C1ay]

So they don't know either? 5 to 10 cm long? How can they be that unsure about the size of a fossil?

Why do you think they're unsure? Could it be that small one's were about 5cm and large one's were about 10cm? Many animals have a range of size.

[alxian]

he probably assumed there was only one fossil

[Skippy]

Is this one of those missing links in the fossil record?

 

Thanks to Buffy for the lead on this story :)

Looks like a flounder to me. The picture you show is an artist's depiction of what they think it looked like. The fossil in the article looks exactly like a flounder.

 

The language used to describe it is suspicious, "It also had well developed senses.." How do they determine that from a rock? That language implies much is known about these creatures, yet "...it was first described in 1979..." and they still cannot place it as a mollusc or an arthropod. Makes one wonder...

[Tormod]

The language used to describe it is suspicious, "It also had well developed senses.." How do they determine that from a rock?

 

The rest of that sentence reads "including a pair of eyes on stalks", so I don't think there is much "suspicious" activity going on. Why would this be suspicious, BTW?

[Fishteacher73]

The understanding of invertibrate fossils is shaky at best. They get all kinds of conorted in the fossilization process because they have only squichy parts. Remember the misunderstanding of many of the Burgess fossils and how they had to "create all these new phyla", but over time have reconciled many into existing phyla.

 

The fossil looks remarkablt like a nudibranch. All the characteristics that it describes are present in them. The size range is good, (although some can get up to about 6", most are in the 1-3" range), they have protuberances that could be misunderstood as "eye stalks".

 

See the picture...

http://www.divegallery.com/3rdimage.htm

[infamous]

coelacanths are awesome

 

amazing how science ignores what people talk about, the people around the waters where the animals were found claimed to have seen them but those claims were dismissed.

 

in future i hope science listens more carefully to such stories.

The question is really "how far do we go with only a story leading the way". I'm sure there are many people that insist on believing in The Lock Ness Monster, Big Foot, and many other sort of legendary creatures but until evidence is found, what we have is only legend. Science is always looking for evidence, that is what science is, investigating and testing. But until evidence is found, science cannot lend support to only stories.

[Skippy]

But until evidence is found, science cannot lend support to only stories.

pssst... you must not have been reading the "is Evolution a Religion" thread.

[Skippy]

The rest of that sentence reads "including a pair of eyes on stalks", so I don't think there is much "suspicious" activity going on. Why would this be suspicious, BTW?

I think Fishteacher pointed out why the language was supicious. Supposed eye stalks do not necessarily mean the existence of eyes. It is easy to assume that this animal had highly developed senses...we don't have any way to prove otherwise, they're all gone now. Again, from the picture in the article we have a stone fossil, 5 to 10 cm long. Nothing is said about cross-sections revealing a brain and it would be highly improbable to be able to tell how developed a nervous system it had, much less a central nervous system. Language which is so strong about something which I so difficult to prove/disprove is always suspect.