Figure from Nikon Small World Gallery.
The Mesozoic was inhabited by some strange-looking critters, and here’s another example: a Jurassic dinosaur called Epidexipteryx, which has spiky teeth, big claws, fluffy feathers all over its body, and four long decorative feathers coming off a stumpy tail. It resembles a particularly ugly bird with a nasty bite, but it couldn’t fly — none of the feathers covering its forelimbs are pennaceous, but are more like an insulating fur. Or, alternatively, its feathers were all about display, a possibility suggested by the odd long feathers of the tail. Here are the bones; as you can see, the integument is remarkably well preserved, with a scruffy ruff of short, non-shafted feathers over the body and limbs, and a surprising spray of just four very long feathers coming off the tail.
And here’s what it would have looked like in life (only the colors are imaginary). It would have been about the size of a pigeon — I think a pack of these scurrying about New York’s Times Square would be both scenic and would quickly clean up the pigeon problem there.
For all the details, read the write-up on Tetrapod Zoology.
Zhang F, Zhou Z, Xu X, Wang X, Sullivan C (2008) A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers. Nature 455:1105-1108.
At first, I was a bit disappointed in this result, but then I realized it’s actually rather interesting in a negative sense. Investigators tested the effects of squid ink on other squid; the entirely reasonable idea being that it could contain an alarm pheromone that would have the function of alerting neighboring squid in the school of trouble. It works — adding ink to a tank of Caribbean reef squid sends them scurrying away.
However, when they removed the pigments from the ink and added that, the squid couldn’t care less. That says there is no chemical signal, only a visual signal.
That makes sense, I suppose — oceans are big and would dilute any chemical signal fairly rapidly, so pheromones would only work well over a fairly short range (although some fish certainly do have extremely sensitive olfactory senses, so it could be done). Still, Aplysia eject some potent chemical signals with their secretions, which work when directly squirted into the face of a predator, so there was a chance the cephalopods might have evolved something similar.
How can I respond to a story about zebrafish, development, and new imaging and visualization techniques? Total incoherent nerdgasm is how.
Keller et al. are using a technique called digital scanned laser light sheet fluorescence microscopy (DSLM) to do fast, high-resolution, 3-D scans through developing embryos over time; using a GFP-histone fusion protein marker, they localize the nucleus of every single cell in the embryo. Some of the geeky specs:
1500×1500 pixel 2-D resolution
12 bits per pixel dynamic range
Imaging speed of 10 million voxels per second
Complete scan of a 1 cubic millimeter volume in 3µm steps in 90 seconds
Efficient excitation (5600 times less energy than a confocal, one million times less than a two-photon scope) to minimize bleaching and photodamage
Trust me, this is great stuff — as someone who was trying to do crude imaging of fluorescently labeled cells in the 1980s using a standard fluorescence scope and storing stills on VHS tape, this is all very Buck Rogers. Just load your embryo into the machine, start up the scanner, and it sits there collecting gigabytes of data for you for hours and hours.
But wait! That’s not all! They’ve also got sophisticated analysis tools that go through the collected images and put together data projections for you. For instance, it will color code cells by how fast they are migrating, or will count cell divisions. Similar tools have been available for C. elegans for a while now, but they have an advantage: they’re tiny animals where you might have to follow a thousand cells to get the full story. In zebrafish, you need to track tens of thousands of cells to capture all the details of a developmental event. This gadget can do it.
Here, for instance, are a couple of images to show what it looks like. The right half is the raw embryo, where each bright spot is a single cell nucleus; the left is one where the pattern of cell movement is color-coded, making it easier to spot exactly what domains of cells are doing.
I grabbed one of their movies and threw it on YouTube for the bandwidth-challenged. It’s not very pretty, but that’s the fault of reducing it and compressing it with YouTube’s standard tools. This is an example with color-coded migration (blue cells are relatively motionless, orange ones are moving fast), and you can at least get the gist of what you can detect. You can see the early scrambling of cells in the blastula, migration during epiboly and blastopore closure, and convergence in the formation of the body axis fairly easily. Well, you can if you’re familiar with fish embryology, anyway.
This crappy little video doesn’t do it justice, however. Take a look at the Zebrafish Digital Embryo movie repository for much higher resolution images that are crisp and sharp and unmarred by compression artifacts. It contains DivX and Quicktime movies that are somewhat large, 10-40M typically, that represent visualizations of databases that are several hundred megabytes in size.
What can you do with it? They describe observations of early symmetry breaking events; patterns of synchrony and symmetry in cell divisions; direct observations of the formation of specific tissues; and comparisons with mutant embryos that reveal differences in cell assortment. It’s fabulous work, and I think I’m going to be wishing for a bank of big computers and lasers and scopes for Christmas—only about $100,000 cheap! Until then, get a fast internet connection and browse through the movies.
Keller PJ, Schmidt AD, Wittbrodt J, Stelzer EHK (2008) Reconstruction of Zebrafish Early Embryonic Development by Scanned Light Sheet Microscopy. Science 2008 Oct 9. [Epub ahead of print].
Here’s a very strange fossil from the Chengjiang Lagerstätte, an early Cambrian fossil bed from 525 million years ago. It’s a collection of Waptia-like arthropods, nothing unusual there; these are ancient creatures that look rather like headless shrimp. What’s weird about it is the way the individuals are locked together in a daisy chain, with the telson (tail piece) of each individual stuck into the carapace of the animal behind. It’s not just a fluke, either — they have 22 fossil chains, and just one animal all by its lonesome.
They do not look like animals that were constrained in a burrow, or that were crawling over the surface. Rather, they had been swimming together in a chain at death, and the whole chain fell to the sea bed, bending and kinking but still remaining firmly locked together.
Why were they doing this? My first thought was of sex; everyone knows how dragonflies and damselflies lock together for mating, but of course that would predict pairs of individuals, not 20 at a time. It also reminded me of the Drosophila mutant fruitless, in which male flies court other male flies, and they spontaneously form conga lines in the culture bottles. That’s also unlikely, since that kind of behavior doesn’t lead to a consistent pattern of successful reproduction, but maybe if these animals were hermaphroditic, it might work. It’s not a behavior that any modern arthropods show, however.
The authors consider the possibility it is a feeding strategy, but that’s even worse: they’re locked basically mouth to anus, which would mean the fellow at the end of the line gets a very unpleasant diet. They conclude that the most likely explanation is that this represents a migratory behavior, perhaps involved in daily vertical migration. It may have been that strings of these animals would link up and paddle together to move to new feeding sites, where they separated and dispersed until the time came to move elsewhere.
Hou X-G, Siveter DJ, Aldridge RJ, Siveter DJ (2008) Collective Behavior in an Early Cambrian Arthropod. Science 322(5899):224.
This is too much verisimilitude. The movie below is of the mating behavior of the jellyfish Carybdea sivickisi, and the first thing you’ll notice is that the scientists have set it to good old classic porn music.
The second thing you’ll notice, that I found annoying, is that they used too high a power objective to film it, so everything is jerking everywhere and none of the participants stay in the field of view for any length of time. Why is it that porn is afflicted with so many gynecological close-ups? Come on, set the mood, show us whole individuals instead of fragmented zooms of body parts.