Mother of all squid!

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png

Well, more like great-great-many-times-great-aunt of all squid, but it’s still a spectacular fossil. Behold the Cambrian mollusc, Nectocaris pteryx.

i-88d7007c6d86cf755d8ee01fe3b145d6-nectocaris-thumb-450x410-49870.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Reconstruction of Nectocaris pteryx.

This was one of those confusing, uninterpretable Cambrian animals, represented by only one poorly preserved specimen. Now, 91 new specimens have been dug up and interpreted, and it makes sense to call it a cephalopod. It has two camera eyes — not arthropod-like compound eyes — on stalks, an axial cavity containing paired gills like the mantles of modern cephalopods, and a flexible siphon opening into that cavity. There are also subtle similarities in the structure of the connective tissue in the lateral fins. Obviously, it has a pair of tentacles; no mouthparts have been preserved, but there are hints in the form of dark deposits between the tentacles, which may be all that’s left of the mouthparts — and are in the right place for a cephalopod ancestor.

There are still mysteries. There’s no hint of a shell; previous theories had postulated a shelled common ancestor to squid, nautiloids, and ammonoids, but either this was a specialized branch that lost the shell, or modern cephalopod groups independently re-evolved the structure. It also has only two tentacles! Again, we don’t know whether this was the ancestral condition, or whether Nectocaris is the product of a derived fusion. Known cephalopod Hox genes use a novel combinatorial scheme to encode arm identities, so I guess I wouldn’t be too shocked if the eight- to ten-arm condition is a relatively recent (in geological terms!) innovation.

About that great-aunt remark…here’s where their analysis places the Nectocarids, as a Cambrian side-branch of the group that led to the modern forms.

i-0ea7483a0596ffca6879571a9e380e6d-nectocaris_phylo-thumb-450x188-49873.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Phylogenetic position of the nectocaridids. Arrows indicate the crown groups of 1, molluscs; 2, conchifera; 3, cephalopods. Stars represent the earliest record of mineralization in each lineage. Clade divergence times (dotted lines) are unconstrained. Early branches follow previous phylogeny.

Note the dotted lines everywhere — those are lineages that we haven’t found in the fossil record yet. Nectocaris is small (about 4cm long) and softbodied, and it required excellent preservation for any trace of them to survive. Specimens from the beginning of the Cambrian, representative of the groups indicated by the red arrows at 1 and 2, would be wonderful to have…but they’re also going to be forms that wouldn’t have been ideal for fossilization. Clearly, we need to fund more paleontology.

Ed Yong has more to say at Not Exactly Rocket Science.

Smith MR, Caron J-B (2010) Primitive soft-bodied cephalopods from the Cambrian. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09068.

Casey Luskin embarrasses himself again

Once again, the Discovery Institute stumbles all over itself to crow victory over evolution, led by the inspiring figure of that squeaking incompetent, Casey Luskin. This time, what has them declaring the bankruptcy of evolution is the discovery of tetrapod trackways in Poland dating back 395 million years. I know, it’s peculiar; every time a scientist finds something new and exciting about our evolutionary history, the bozos at the DI rush in to announce that it means the demise of Darwinism. Luskin has become the Baghdad Bob of creationism.

The grounds for this announcement is the bizarre idea that somehow, older footprints invalidate the status of Tiktaalik as a transitional form, making all the excitement about that fossil erroneous. As we’ve come to expect, though, all it really tells us is that Casey Luskin didn’t comprehend the original announcement about Tiktaalik, and still doesn’t understand what was discovered in Poland.

The fossil tetrapod footprints indicate Tiktaalik came over 10 million years after the existence of the first known true tetrapod. Tiktaalik, of course, is not a tetrapod but a fish, and these footprints make it very difficult to presently argue that Tiktaalik is a transitional link between fish and tetrapods. It’s not a “snapshot of fish evolving into land animals,” because if this transition ever took place it seems to have occurred millions of years before Tiktaalik.

Errm, no. Shubin and Daeschler are smart guys who understand what fossils tell us, and they never, ever argued that Tiktaalik‘s status as a transitional form depended on slotting it in precisely in a specific chronological time period as a ‘link’ between two stages in the evolution of a lineage. A fossil is representative of a range of individuals that existed over a window of time; a window that might be quite wide. They would never express the kind of simplistic, naive view of the relationship of a fossil that the DI clowns seem to have. For instance, here’s a picture of the relationship between various fossils, as published in Nature when Tiktaalik was announced.

i-317070f4db90df3b55f8534f268e8dad-tiktaalik_phylo.jpg
The lineage leading to modern tetrapods includes several fossil animals that form a morphological bridge between fishes and tetrapods. Five of the most completely known are the osteolepiform Eusthenopteron; the transitional forms Panderichthys and Tiktaalik; and the primitive tetrapods Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. The vertebral column of Panderichthys is poorly known and not shown. The skull roofs (left) show the loss of the gill cover (blue), reduction in size of the postparietal bones (green) and gradual reshaping of the skull. The transitional zone (red) bounded by Panderichthys and Tiktaalik can now be characterized in detail. These drawings are not to scale, but all animals are between 75 cm and 1.5 m in length. They are all Middle–Late Devonian in age, ranging from 385 million years (Panderichthys) to 365 million years (Acanthostega, Ichthyostega). The Devonian–Carboniferous boundary is dated to 359 million years ago.

Notice what you don’t see? They didn’t publish this as a direct, linear relationship that could be disrupted by a minor anachronism. It does not look like this:

Ichthyostega
↑
Acanthostega
↑
Tiktaalik
↑
Panderichthys
↑
Eusthenopteron
↑

These are all cousins branching off the main stem that led to modern tetrapods. Tiktaalik was almost certainly not our direct ancestor, but a distant cousin that was representative of a transitional state in the branching cloud of species that emerged out of the Devonian. And the authors of these papers knew that all along, weren’t shy about stating it, and if they made an error about anything, it would be in assuming that a gang of self-styled scholars who claim to be presenting a serious rebuttal to evolutionary ideas would actually already understand a basic concept in paleontology.

You would think Luskin would have also read the Niedzwiedzki paper that describes this new trackway, which rather clearly describes the implications of the discovery. It does not declare Tiktaalik to be uninteresting, irrelevant to understanding the transition between fish and tetrapods, or that Tiktaalik is no longer a transitional form. It clearly is.

No, here’s the new picture of tetrapod evolution that Niedzwiedzki and others have drawn. At the top is a diagram of the relationships as understood before the discovery, at the bottom is the new order.

i-1077993faea342c8477ca4d12095d8c4-clad1.jpegi-91c210e6965144049a9a049f28db61fb-clad2.jpeg
Phylogenetic implications of tracks. a, Phylogeny of selected elpistostegids and stem tetrapods fitted to Devonian stratigraphy. The grey bar indicates replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in body fossil record. b, Effect of adding the Zachełmie tracks to the phylogeny: the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended and the ‘changeover’ is revealed to be an artefact. Pan, Panderichthys; Tik, Tiktaalik; Elp, Elpistostege; Liv, Livoniana; Elg, Elginerpeton; Ven, Ventastega; Met, Metaxygnathus; Aca, Acanthostega; Ich, Ichthyostega; Tul, Tulerpeton. ANSP 21350 is an unnamed humerus described in ref 17. The bars are approximate measures of the uncertainty of dating. These are not statistical error bars but an attempt to reflect ongoing debate.

Look closely.

Hey, the branches are the same! The relationships are unchanged! What has changed is that the branches of the tree go back deeper in time, and rather than a sharp changeover, there was a more prolonged period of history in which, clearly, fish, fishapods, and tetrapods coexisted, which isn’t surprising at all. Tetrapod evolution was spread out over a longer period of time than was previously thought, but this is simply a quantitative shift, not a qualitative change in our understanding of the relationships of these animals. It also says that there is the potential for many more fossils out there over a bigger spread of time than was expected, which is something we can look forward to in future research. Not research from the Discovery Institute, of course. Research from real scientists.

Now also, please look at the b phylogeny above, and tell me where the evidence for Intelligent Design creationism in this new figure lies. Perhaps you can see how a cladogram illustrating the evolutionary relationships between a number of fossils challenges our understanding of evolutionary history, because I don’t see it. If anything, it affirms the evolution, not the Sudden Appearance by Divine Fiat, of tetrapods.

For extra credit, explain where in diagram b of the Niedzwiedzki paper it shows that Tiktaalik has been “blown out of the water,” as Luskin puts it. Should they have scribbled in a frowny face or a skull and dagger next to the Tiktaalik bar, or perhaps have drawn a big red “X” over it? Because I can guarantee you that Niedzwiedzki and coauthors still consider Tiktaalik a transitional form that is part of the story of tetrapod evolution. All they’ve done is put it on the end of a longer branch. Nothing has changed; Tiktaalik is still a revealing fossil that shows how certain vertebrates switched from fins to limbs.

Finally, just for fun, maybe you can try to explain how the “Big Tent” of Intelligent Design creationism is going to explain how the Young Earth creationists in their camp — you know, the ones that think the planet is less than ten thousand years old — are going to find it heartening that a fossil discovery has pushed one stage in tetrapod evolution back farther by another 20 million years. That’s 2 x 103 times greater than the entire span of time they allow for the existence of the universe, all spent in shaping a fin into a foot. There ought to be some feeble expression of cognitive dissonance out of that crowd, but I suspect they won’t even notice; as Luskin shows, they aren’t particularly deep thinkers.

Ahlberg PE, Clack JA (2006) A firm step from water to land. Nature 440:747-749.

Daeschler EB, Shubin NH, Jenkins FA (2006) A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440:757-763.

Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277): 43-48.

Shubin NH, Daeschler EB, Jenkins FA (2006) The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb. Nature 440:764-771.

Tetrapods are older than we thought!

Some stunning fossil trackways have been discovered in Poland. The remarkable thing about them is that they’re very old, about 395 million years old, and they are clearly the tracks of tetrapods. Just to put that in perspective, Tiktaalik, probably the most famous specimen illustrating an early stage of the transition to land, is younger at 375 million years, but is more primitive in having less developed, more fin-like limbs. So what we’ve got is a set of footprints that tell us the actual age of the transition by vertebrates from water to land had to be much, much earlier than was expected, by tens of millions of years.

Here are the trackways. Note that what they show is distinct footprints from both the front and hind limbs, not drag marks, and all that that implies: these creatures had jointed limbs with knees and elbows and lifted them and swung them forward to plant in the mud. They were real walkers.

i-7c534308c9f00e73cf31353a1066764b-trackway1.jpegi-55a13b4b3a79452858e68be0cd01fa4f-trackway2.jpeg
Trackways. a, Muz. PGI 1728.II.16. (Geological Museum of the Polish Geological Institute). Trackway showing manus and pes prints in diagonal stride pattern, presumed direction of travel from bottom to top. A larger print (vertical hatching) may represent a swimming animal moving from top to bottom. b, On the left is a generic Devonian tetrapod based on Ichthyostega and Acanthostega fitted to the trackway. On the right, Tiktaalik (with tail reconstructed from Panderichthys) is drawn to the same shoulder-hip length. Positions of pectoral fins show approximate maximum ‘stride length’. c, Muz. PGI 1728.II.15. Trackway showing alternating diagonal and parallel stride patterns. In a and c, photographs are on the left, interpretative drawings are on the right. Thin lines linking prints indicate stride pattern. Dotted outlines indicate indistinct margins and wavy lines show the edge of the displacement rim. Scale bars, 10 cm.

They were also big, approximately 2 meters long. What you see here is a detailed scan of one of the footprints of this beast; no fossils of the animal itself have been found, so it’s being compared to the feet of Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, two later tetrapods. There are definite similarities, with the biggest obvious difference being how much larger the newly-discovered animal is. Per Ahlberg makes an appearance in a video to talk about the size and significance of the mystery tetrapod.

i-7f4600fb6e10f03a446adb1e20fde705-foot.jpeg
Foot morphologies. a, Laser surface scan of Muz. PGI 1728.II.1, left pes. b, Complete articulated left hind limb skeleton of Ichthyostega, MGUH f.n. 1349, with reconstructed soft tissue outline. c, Left hind limb of Acanthostega, reconstructed soft tissue outline based on skeletal reconstruction in ref. 8. We note the large size of the print compared to the limbs of Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, and that the print appears to represent not just the foot but the whole limb as far as the knee. d, digit; fe, femur; ti, tibia; fi, fibula; fib, fibulare. Scale bars, 10 mm.

What’s it all mean? Well, there’s the obvious implication that if you want to find earlier examples of the tetrapod transition, you should look in rocks that are about 400 million years old or older. However, it’s a little more complicated than that, because the mix of existing fossils tells us that there were viable, long-lasting niches for a diversity of fish, fishapods, and tetrapods that temporally coexisted for a long period of time; the evolution of these animals was not about a constant linear churn, replacing the old model with the new model every year. Comparing them to cars, it’s like there was a prolonged window of time in which horse-drawn buggies, Stanley Steamers, Model Ts, Studebakers, Ford Mustangs, and the Honda Civic were all being manufactured simultaneously and were all competitive with each other in specific markets…and that window lasted for 50 million years. Paleontologists are simply sampling bits and pieces of the model line-up and trying to sort out the relationships and timing of their origin.

The other phenomenon here is a demonstration of the spottiness of the fossil record. The Polish animal has left us no direct fossil remains; the rocks where its footprints were found formed in an ancient tide flat or lagoon, which is not a good location for the preservation of bones. This suggests that tetrapods may have first evolved in these kinds of marine environments, and only later expanded their ranges to live in the vegetated margins of rivers, where the flow of sediments is much more conducive to burial and preservation of animal remains. That complicates the story, too; not only do we have diverse stages of the tetrapod transition happily living together in time, but there may be a bit of selective fossilization going on, that only preserves some of the more derived forms living in taphonomically favorable environments.

Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277): 43-48.

Neil Shubin—“Major Transitions” in Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Embryos

Shubin had a tough act to follow, coming after Kingsley’s great talk. I’m sure it will be good, though — last night I got a tour of his lab, saw the original Tiktaalik specimens and some new ones, and some of his work in progress (which I won’t tell you about until it’s published), so I’m confident I’m going to have a happy hour.

Darwin pulled together diverse lines of evidence to document his ideas. The different lines all reinforce each other making the argument even stronger, and what we’re seeing now is new syntheses, which is the theme of this talk: how do we use different lines of evidence to make a case that is more the sum of its parts.

The questions is the origin of limbs, fins to legs. Fins and legs look very different, with fins having rays and many bones, while legs have few bones in a fixed pattern. Intermediate taxa show us the changes, with transitions with bony core of the limb pattern and fish-like rays. He uses geology and extant fossils to make predictions about where to find intermediates, and paleontology also informs his understanding of developmental processes that build the limb.

Began his work in Pennsylvania, which was like the Amazon delta 360 million years ago. They followed the PA dept. of transportation around looking at road cuts that exposed the rocks of that age. They found many fossils, but one that changed his thinking was a fin of sauripterus, with fin rays and a core of tetrapod-like limbs. Definitely fishy, but contained precursors to the pattern.

They searched in Ellesmere Island for Devonian age rocks and fossils that would reveal the history of the limb. The logistics were very difficult, since the area is inaccessible. First started working in 1999, in rocks that were from marine sources and didn’t yield much. Moved east to freshwater sources. Found a layer of rock that was rich in bone, and found a snout of a flat-headed fish poking out. Eventually exposed about 20 specimens of this animal. Took months to fully expose the details of the specimen.

He showed off a cast of Tiktaalik — physical objects are really good at capturing people’s imagination.

It took a year and a half to prepare out the fins; the bones show articular surfaces, so you can actually see how the structure bent in life. What does this tell us about extant fins?

A tetrapod limb has 3 components: 1 bone, then 2 bones, then multiple bones in wrist and fingers. The limb forms in phases, with an early phase of hox expression that sets up the proximal bone, then phase II in which hox genes switch on in a patterned way to form digits. Are there elements of phase 2 in fish fins?

Looked in Polyodon, and embryos do have a distal phase of hox expression, not identical to tetrapod pattern, but definitely a phase 2.

What is a limb and how did it develop? The AER sets up the proximo-distal axis, ZPA sets up anteriorposterior axis. Cutting off the AER at different stages produces progressive deletions of portions of the limb. ZPA is a source of Sonic Hedgehog and sets up a gradient of positional information.

Does the common ancestor of all fish have these same two-axis signals? Chondrichthyans do, with patterns that can be manipulated in the same way as we do in chickens. The appendage patterning system is general to all vertebrate appendages.

How do fins differ from other outgrowths? Branchial arches have the same patterning, with an AER and ZPA. Seems to be a universal way for vertebrates to set up the patterning of outgrowths. Gill, fin, and limb have similar toolkits of patterning genes.

The patterning mechanisms may have originated in a general outgrowth and been coopted for limbs and gills. Shubin proposes to do targeted collecting of Ordovician vertebrates, expecting to find novel non-limb outgrowths that may be precursors to the patterning mechanism. Paleontology guided by developmental biology!

Paul Sereno— Dinosaurs: Phylogenetic reconstruction from Darwin to the present

Oops, missed the first part of this talk due to the distractions of Lunch. Walked in as he was talking about tree vs. ladder thinking (people have a hard time conceptualizing trees) and history as a chronicle — barebones description of events — or a narrative — events linked by causal explanations.

It took a century for biologists to use systematics to make testable hypotheses about evolution. Darwin himself talked at length about all kinds of evidence for evolution, but strangely neglected fossils and dinosaurs altogether. Sereno blames this on rivalry with Richard Owen, who was the big dinosaur man of the day. One fossil Darwin was pleased with was Archaeopteryx, and Huxley in particular made the link between Archy and birds. Sereno brought in fossil of Confuciusornis — very cool.

We have begun to separate out the chronology from the narrative; chronology is a limiting factor in our hypotheses. We are interested in the trajectory of change over time, and Sereno confesses to baldly exploiting that to get a publication in nature of Raptorex, but he carefully omitted any causal discussion in the paper, trusting readers to infer a narrative from the story, because that’s what we do.

Deplores the thinness of work in the philosophy of phylogeny.

History: Darwin crystallized many of the pieces of an existing chronology into an evolutionary narrative. The next big breakthrough was Hennig (1950) who atomized morphological transformations and branching patterns, defining specific terms to describe phenomena important for understanding trees. Quantitative cladistics (1969) put it on a solid empirical foundation. Character states were coded as mathematical variables.

Problem: everyone has a different matrix for the analysis of characters for each phylogeny examined. The matrix is a black box. We are searching for a methodology that will link everything together. A modern comparative cladistics would open up the black box for universal analysis. Need to figure out what the characters are, and need to be able to do comparative analysis. There is no global understanding of what a character or character state are. There is currently a movement to develop a universal character ontology.

He makes a strong case that we have a serious problem with different investigators studying the same phylogenies, but using different characters and even scoring them differently. We need to standardize to enable full comparisons of multiple data sets.

Darwinopterus and mosaic, modular evolution

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png

It’s yet another transitional fossil! Are you tired of them yet?

Darwinopterus modularis is a very pretty fossil of a Jurassic pterosaur, which also reveals some interesting modes of evolution; modes that I daresay are indicative of significant processes in development, although this work is not a developmental study (I wish…having some pterosaur embryos would be exciting). Here it is, one gorgeous animal.

i-e79bd89fb0f5aef616672d3d792dcc97-darwinopterus-thumb-400x456-20754.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Figure 2. Holotype ZMNH M8782 (a,b,e) and referred specimen YH-2000 ( f ) of D. modularis gen. et sp. nov.: (a) cranium and mandibles in the right lateral view, cervicals 1-4 in the dorsal view, scale bar 5cm; (b) details of the dentition in the anterior tip of the rostrum, scale bar 2cm; (c) restoration of the skull, scale bar 5cm; (d) restoration of the right pes in the anterior view, scale bar 2 cm; (e) details of the seventh to ninth caudal vertebrae and bony rods that enclose them, scale bar 0.5 cm; ( f ) complete skeleton seen in the ventral aspect, except for skull which is in the right lateral view, scale bar 5 cm. Abbreviations: a, articular; cr, cranial crest; d, dentary; f, frontal; j, jugal; l, lacrimal; ldt, lateral distal tarsal; m, maxilla; mdt, medial distal tarsal; met, metatarsal; n, nasal; naof, nasoantorbital fenestra; p, parietal; pd, pedal digit; pf, prefrontal; pm, premaxilla; po, postorbital; q, quadrate; qj, quadratojugal; sq, squamosal; ti, tibia.

One important general fact you need to understand to grasp the significance of this specimen: Mesozoic flying reptiles are not all alike! There are two broad groups that can be distinguished by some consistent morphological characters.

The pterosaurs are the older of the two groups, appearing in the late Triassic. They tend to have relatively short skulls with several distinct openings, long cervical (neck) ribs, a short metacarpus (like the palm or sole of the foot), a long tail (with some exceptions), and an expanded flight membrane suspended between the hind limbs, called the cruropatagium. They tend to be small to medium-sized.

The pterodactyls are a more derived group that appear in the late Jurassic. Their skulls are long and low, and have a single large opening in front of the eyes, instead of two. Those neck ribs are gone or reduced, they have a long metacarpus and short tails, and they’ve greatly reduced the cruropatagium. Some of the pterodactyls grew to a huge size.

Here’s a snapshot of their distribution in time and phylogenetic relationships. The pterosaurs are in red, and the pterodactyls are in blue.

i-d0d352c1204413cbd22c1d7a20e1e0b8-pter_phylo-thumb-400x272-20751.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Time-calibrated phylogeny showing the temporal range of the main pterosaur clades; basal clades in red, pterodactyloids in blue; known ranges of clades indicated by solid bar, inferred ‘ghost’ range by coloured line; footprint symbols indicate approximate age of principal pterosaur track sites based on Lockley et al. (2008); stratigraphic units and age in millions of years based on Gradstein et al. (2005). 1, Preondactylus; 2, Dimorphodontidae; 3, Anurognathidae; 4, Campylognathoididae; 5, Scaphognathinae; 6, Rham- phorhynchinae; 7, Darwinopterus; 8, Boreopterus; 9, Istiodactylidae; 10, Ornithocheiridae; 11, Pteranodon; 12, Nyctosauridae; 13, Pterodactylus; 14, Cycnorhamphus; 15, Ctenochasmatinae; 16, Gnathosaurinae; 17, Germanodactylus; 18, Dsungaripteridae; 19, Lonchodectes; 20, Tapejaridae; 21, Chaoyangopteridae; 22, Thalassodromidae; 23, Azhdarchidae. Abbreviations: M, Mono- fenestrata; P, Pterodactyloidea; T, Pterosauria; ca, caudal vertebral series; cv, cervical vertebral series; mc, metacarpus; na, nasoantorbital fenestra; r, rib; sk, skull; v, fifth pedal digit.

Darwinopterus is in there, too—it’s the small purple box numbered “7”. You can see from this diagram that it is a pterosaur in a very interesting position, just off the branch that gave rise to the pterodactyls. How it got there is interesting, too: it’s basically a pterosaur body with the head of a pterodactyl. Literally. The authors of this work carried out multiple phylogenetic analyses, and if they left the head out of the data, the computer would spit out the conclusion that this was a pterosaur; if they left the body out and just analyzed the skull, the computer would declare it a pterodactyl.

What does this tell us about evolution in general? That it can be modular. The transitional form between two species isn’t necessarily a simple intermediate between the two in all characters, but may be a mosaic: the anatomy may be a mix of pieces that resemble one species more than the other. In this case, what happened in the evolution of the pterodactyls was that first a pterodactyl-like skull evolved in a pterosaur lineage, and that was successful; later, the proto-pterodactyls added the post-cranial specializations. Not everything happened all at once, but stepwise.

i-94819b8301477fb9f96d640f74156a9c-pter_evo-thumb-400x314-20748.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Schematic restorations of a basal pterosaur (above), Darwinopterus (middle) and a pterodactyloid (below) standardized to the length of the DSV, the arrow indicates direction of evolutionary transformations; modules: skull (red), neck (yellow), body and limbs (monochrome), tail (blue); I, transition phase one; II, transition phase two.

This should be a familiar concept. In pterodactyls, skulls evolved a specialized morphology first, and the body was shaped by evolutionary processes later. We can see a similar principle in operation in the hominid lineage, too, but switched around. We evolved bipedalism first, in species like Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, and the specializations of our skull (to contain that big brain of which we are so proud) came along later.

As I mentioned at the beginning, this is an example of development and evolution in congruence. We do find modularity in developmental process — we have genetic circuits that are expressed in tissue- and region-specific ways in development. We can talk about patterns of gene expression that follow independent programs to build regions of the body, under the control of regional patterning genes like the Hox complex. In that sense, what we see in Darwinopterus is completely unsurprising.

What is interesting, though, is that these modules, which we’re used to seeing within the finer-grained process of development, also retain enough coherence and autonomy to be visible at the level of macroevolutionary change. It caters to my biases that we shouldn’t just pretend that all the details of development are plastic enough to be averaged out, or that the underlying ontogenetic processes will be overwhelmed by the exigencies of environmental factors, like selection. Development matters — it shapes the direction evolution can take.

Lü J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2009) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proc. R. Soc. B published online 14 October 2009 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1603

I should have mentioned that Darren Naish has a very thorough write-up on Darwinopterus!

Ardipithecus ramidus

What a day to be stuck in airplanes for hours on end; I had to slurp in a bunch of files on my iPhone and then look at them on that itty-bitty screen, just to catch up on the story of Ardipithecus. Fortunately, you can just read Carl Zimmer’s excellent summary to find out what’s cool about it.

For a summary of a summary: it’s another transitional fossil in our lineage. Ardipithecus ramidus is old, 4.4 million years or so — so it’s well before Lucy and the australopithecines. The latest result is a thorough analysis of a large number of collected specimens that shows it is an interesting mosaic of traits: it was bipedal, but not quite so well adapted to terrestrial locomotion as we are, and it had feet with an opposable big toe. And of course it had a small brain, only a little larger than a chimpanzee’s.

i-12b9eec3922f980ba6a2f37fc2c39182-ardipithecus_skull.jpeg
Digital representations of the Ar. ramidus cranium and mandible. (A to D) The ARA-VP-6/500 and downscaled ARA-VP-1/500 composite reconstruction in inferior, superior, lateral, and anterior views (in Frankfurt horizontal orientation). (E) Individual pieces of the digital reconstruction in different colors. Note the steep clivus plane intersecting the cranial vault on the frontal squama (as in Sts 5 and not apes). (F and G) Lateral and superior views of the ARA-VP-1/401 mandible (cast). (H and I) Lateral and superior views of the ARA-VP-6/500 left mandibular corpus with dentition.

Ardipithecus is clearly different from (but related!) to us, and it’s also very different from a chimpanzee. One thing I’m finding baffling in all the commentary is the argument that this somehow shows that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would have been very unchimpanzee-like, and perhaps closer in morphology to us than to modern chimps. I’m not buying it. Has anybody actually ever suggested that chimpanzees have been in a state of relative stasis for 6 million years? Chimps have evolved in parallel with us for all of that time, so that argument is addressing a non-controversy, or at least, an argument that should have been recognized as silly all along.

We’re also going to have to push the fossil record back another couple of million years to get to that last common ancestor, and there’s no reason to presume that Ardi’s ancestors weren’t also rather different from Ardi. We also need to know more about the breadth of the primate family tree at that time; was Ardi a weirdly specialized sub-branch, or actually representative of a wider trend in the ape species that would lead to us? I think this image is a nice way to illustrate Ardipithecus‘s place in the family tree.

i-dd3f553e424b225cc5b0e4d5ca7e877e-ardi.jpeg
Evolution of hominids and African apes since the gorilla/chimp+human (GLCA) and chimp/human (CLCA) last common ancestors. Pedestals on the left show separate lineages leading to the extant apes (gorilla, and chimp and bonobo); text indicates key differences among adaptive plateaus occupied by the three hominid genera.

Don’t get me wrong: Ardipithecus is a magnificent addition to our family album, and the author’s of the multiple papers that have come out have done a very impressive job of analysis and documentation. We can all jump up and down with joy at these new data, and we can rightly point to this species and say, “Transitional form! Boo-ya, creationists!”

Unfortunately, I’m also seeing the press mangling the story already. National Geographic says, Oldest “Human” Skeleton Found—Disproves “Missing Link”, which is annoying. The article itself isn’t bad, but can we just kill the “missing link” nonsense altogether? It’s as if the only way some science journalists can grasp a new discovery is by relating it to a misbegotten misconception.

The prize for the very worst coverage has to go to Metro News and the Torstar News Service (is that from the Toronto Star?). They put up an article titled New theory may answer missing link question, which opens with the bizarre assertion, Man didn’t descend from apes. There is no new theory here. There is new evidence and further data documenting the details of one lineage’s descent. And if you put the phrase “missing link” in your headline any more, we’re going to have to put a silly hat on your editors and make them sit in a corner.

But the very worst part is this misinterpretation of the suggestion that the LCA of humans and chimps would have had characters we consider human-like. I guarantee you that this will be the core of the creationist response to Ardi in the near future.

The four-foot, 110-pound female’s skeleton and physiological characteristics bear a closer resemblance to modern-day humans than to contemporary apes, meaning they evolved from humanlike creatures — not the other way around.

Brace yourself, gang. The creationists are going to be claiming that this shows humans were created first, and all of these other hairy beasts the paleontologists are digging up are just degenerate spawn of the Fall.