When did the Neanderthals go extinct?

August 28, 2014 • 7:36 am

by Greg Mayer

In a recent paper in Nature (abstract only), Tom Higham of Oxford and several colleagues report on their effort to determine by radiocarbon dating when Neanderthals went extinct. Higham et al. conclude that it was about 40,000 years ago. It’s gotten a fair amount of media coverage—more on this below—but let’s look at the science first. What’s most interesting is that they strove very hard to get accurate dates not biased by contamination of their samples by younger carbon (developing new and refined methods along the way), and that they sampled a large number of sites across (mostly Western) Europe. Here’s the basic result.

a) Sites studied; b) dates of last occupation of the various sites (expressed as a probability distribution).
a) Sites studied; b) dates of last occupation of the various sites (expressed as a probability distribution); c) detail of the overall estimate of the end of Neanderthal culture (the Mousterian).

You can see that latest dates range from about 49 to 40 KYA, with a joint estimate of the end of the Mousterian culture at about 40 KYA. There are a few caveats. First, there’s no explanation in the paper for why there are no dates in panel (b) for the 7 southern Iberian localities. These sites are of special interest, because it has been argued in the past that the latest survival of Neanderthals (ca. 35 KYA) was in southern Spain. The Spanish localities are mentioned in the 160+ page supplement, and some are said to not have produced reliable data, but others did, and, maybe the answer’s buried somewhere in the enormous supplement, but I could not readily locate it. (This by the way, is yet another example of the bad practice, characteristic of Science and Nature, of having extremely short papers with monographic online supplements that contain not just the details, but critical parts of the work. If your work is that substantial, then you should publish a monograph, not a tiny summary in Science or Nature.)

Second, many of the sites have little in the way of human remains, so the datings are of a particular cultural style, and the associated type of human is assumed (Neanderthal in the case of the Mousterian), although on fairly robust empirical grounds.

And third, the geographic sampling is sparse outside Western Europe. A claimed late refuge in the Arctic, for example, was not sampled. (There was a very late refuge, until historic times, for mammoths in the Arctic.)

What about the media coverage? It’s been very confused– see examples here and here. Media reports hail the work as showing that Neanderthals went extinct earlier than previously thought; and that we now know Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans overlapped significantly in time, thus allowing opportunities for the genetic mixing that has been now well documented (and much discussed here at WEIT). But these two claims are contradictory– earlier extinction means less temporal overlap; and the second thing is something we’ve known for quite awhile.

So what are we to make of the media claims? Well, the new work doesn’t say much at all about genetic mixing– it occurred whether Neanderthals were all gone by 40 KYA (as this latest work proposes), or survived in Spain till 35 KYA (as some earlier authors had claimed). Higham et al. estimate that there was an overlap of several thousand years of Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans, plenty of time for interbreeding. If the Spanish localities really are a late survival of Neanderthals, that would just add a few thousand more years of opportunity. Now, it will be of great interest to learn (if we can) exactly when and where the interbreeding occurred, but the new paper just adds constraints to the timing– it doesn’t suddenly make interbreeding now seem plausible.

I normally go see what John Hawks has to say about paleoanthropological matters, especially as in this case, since I felt perhaps I was missing something. I looked, but he hasn’t posted in a few weeks– he must be on vacation. I expect he’ll have something to say when he returns.

____________________________________________________________

Higham, T et al. 2014. The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearance. Nature 512:306-309. (abstract only)

h/t Barry Lyons

A bizarre blood-sucking Jurassic maggot

June 25, 2014 • 10:06 am

by Matthew Cobb

Just out in eLife, an Open Access journal that aims to rival Science and Nature, is this fantastic fossil of an aquatic fly larva from the Chinese mid-Jurassic (around 165 MY ago), published by Chen et al. Soft-bodied animals rarely fossilise well, but the Chinese fossil-hunters have been able to find three of these fossils, exquisitely preserved. The beast is called Qiyia jurassica – Chen et al write: ‘Qiyia is from the Chinese ‘qiyi’ meaning bizarre; jurassica is a reference to the Jurassic age of the fossils.’

Here’s the ‘holotype’ (ie the one they made their taxonomic descriptions on the basis of, and in this case the best of the three fossils) (click to see the full size photo). This is Figure 1 from the paper and the scale bar in A is 5mm.

Panel D shows the amazing preservation of an odd structure, which they interpret as ‘a thoracic sucker with six radial ridges, unique in insects’. Here’s a hi-res picture of the six ridges (again, click to see it in all its glory). Will you look at this? It looks like it has been preserved in alcohol!

sucker

The authors think these ridges – which they suspect are modified prolegs (fly maggots don’t actually have legs) were covered in a thin layer of skin forming a sucker that would have enabled the maggot to hang onto a prey’s smooth flesh, so that its bitey mouthparts (D and E in the figure above) would then be able to suck the blood of their prey.

On the basis of a detailed anatomical description, the authors conclude:

This combination of primitive and derived features demonstrates that Q. jurassica is a stem lineage representative of the Athericidae (water snipe flies), a family sister to the more familiar horse flies (Tabanidae).

The spiracles on the sides of the maggots indicate that these were air-breathing (this is typical of dipteran maggots – even larvae that spend their whole life in the water, such as rat-tailed maggots or mosquito larvae, breathe air rather than dissolved oxygen in water, which requires gills). They also have two structures at the rear, which may have been used for water-breathing, or for dealing with salt. So, it had a sucky thing and bitey mouthparts and it lived in water. The authors state:

Suckers are widespread in aquatic ectoparasites such as leeches, fish lice, and lampreys (Kearn, 2004) which require more suction power to avoid becoming dislodged; other aquatic ectoparasites without attachment organs embed themselves in skin or muscle, such as cyclopoid copepods (anchor worms) (Kearn, 2004). In addition to the sucker, the stiff, upward directed bristles and apical hooks on the prolegs (Figure 1F) are also specialized attachment structures. These morphological adaptations provide compelling evidence that Q. jurassica adhered to a host as an ectoparasite, providing further specialization for a dense, watery habitat.

And what were they eating? Well the fossil beds at Daohugou are full of fossil salamanders, so the authors suggest that they were sucking the blood of Jurassic salamanders. Here’s a reconstruction of the beast. The head end is at the left, with the sucker on the ventral surface of the thorax. The mouthparts are at the far left:

And here’s an imaginary view of what it might have looked like, attached to an oddly-cheery-looking salamander:

One of the things that is interesting about the fossil, apart from its stunning detail, is that it pushes the origins of blood-sucking further back. In an accompanying piece (also open access, hooray), Ricardo Pérez-de la Fuente point out that ectoparasitic blood-sucking (i.e. sitting on the outside and sucking), evolved several times over in the insects, as shown in this figure (our maggot is bottom left, with the star shape, meaning its precise affinities aren’t known):

As to what the adult fly might have looked like, here are two modern representatives of the Athericidae and the Tabanidae, respectively:

Athericidae_-_Atherix_ibis

(Atherix ibis, from Wikipedia, photo by Hechtonicus

Horse_fly_Tabanus_2

 

Tabanus spp, by Dennis Ray, from Wikipedia.

This stupendous set of fossils shows that there are amazing things to be discovered in the earth, and in particular in China. We are living through an amazing period in palaeontology!

Reference:

Chen J, Wang B, Engel MS, Wappler T, Jarzembowski EA, Zhang H, Wang X, Zheng X, Rust J. 2014. Extreme adaptations for aquatic ectoparasitism in a Jurassic fly larva. eLife 3:e02844

[Edited to take account of John Harshman’s perspicacious critique in the comments below – thanks John!]

Earliest evidence of birds visiting flowers

May 30, 2014 • 4:50 am

Angiosperms, or flowering plants, first appear in the fossil record about 160 million years ago. A new paper in Biology Lettersby Gerald Mayr and Volker Wilde (reference below and—I think—a free download) shows that by about 50 million years ago, birds had already evolved to take advantage of this new food source.

Mayr and Wild report a new bird fossil from the famous Messel formation of Germany. The specimen, Pumiliornis tessellatus, is remarkably well preserved as a complete skeleton and is dated at roughly 47 million years, in the middle Eocene.  It is not a member of any of the three modern groups of birds that independently evolved the ability to eat nectar and pollen: hummingbirds, lorikeets + hanging parrots, and some groups of the Passeriformes (“perching birds,” whose nectar-and-pollen eaters include sunbirds, honeycreepers, etc.).

The remarkable thing about this specimen, as shown in the photo below, is that there is a clump of pollen grains near the femur—right where the stomach would be in a living bird.  Although there are also a few insect parts (perhaps accidentally ingested along with the pollen), the number of grains, their clumping, and their position suggests that this bird was in fact eating pollen. Notice the wonderful feather impressions in the fossil below:

sn-eocene

Here are some scanning electron microscope (SEM) photos of the fossilized pollen:

Screen shot 2014-05-30 at 6.36.48 AM

The other clue that this bird didn’t accidentally eat pollen, and was adapted to a flower-feeding lifestyle, comes from its appearance. It has a long beak and enlarged nasal openings characteristic of modern birds that sip nectar, and it has “zygodactyl” feet, meaning that the fourth toe could be turned backwards—a trait of perching birds that climb branches and flower stems. The #1 toe is the one you should look at in the photo below:

Screen shot 2014-05-30 at 6.40.42 AM

Now it’s not clear if pollen was the primary object of this bird’s diet, was ingested accidentally while drinking nectar, or if the bird ate both pollen and nectar.  What is pretty clear is that by the middle Eocene, when this bird lived, birds had already evolved to use as food flowering plants that had been around for over 100 million years.

Although the authors were unable to identify the plant that produced this pollen, they suggest that it was already itself evolutionarily adapted to pollination by animals rather than wind:

Although pollen size does not allow discrimination of insect and bird pollination, the large size of the grains and the fact that some are still clumping (figure 2c) indicate direct ingestion from a plant adapted for animal rather than wind pollination.

This pushes back the earliest known bird/nectar/pollen interaction by 17 million years, as heretofore the earliest such specimen dated at about 30 mya.

 _____________

Gerald Mayr and Volker Wilde. 2014. Eocene fossil is earliest evidence of flower-visiting by birds. Biol Lett 2014 10: 20140223

Good news! Religion expunged from South Carolina fossil bill

May 15, 2014 • 7:38 am

Reader Barry called my attention to a piece on yesterday’s Raw Story that, for once, gives good news.  You may remember the kerfuffle in South Carolina about making the wooly mammoth the state fossil. That suggestion, which came from an eight-year-old girl, Olivia McConnell, riled up some creationist legislators, and though the legislature voted to adopt the fossil, they insisted on inserting creationist language into the bill, to wit:

Screen shot 2014-05-15 at 7.48.06 AM

The Raw Story reprises Rachel Maddow’s report on the fossil:

It passed the state House, said Maddow, “But then it turned out that this fairly harmless, fairly adorable official state fossil bill just didn’t sit right with some members of the South Carolina state Senate.”

One tried to block the state from naming any further state symbols, another said that the bill should go forward, but should include verses from the book of Genesis from the Christian Bible.

Including the Creationist language, Maddow said, invalidates the whole exercise.

“Behold our official state thing that we don’t believe in!” she quipped.

The rewritten bill stalled out in the state House and now, conservative lawmakers have finally agreed to strike the Biblical and Creationist lines from the bill altogether.

“Good work, Olivia,” concluded Maddow. “You’re almost there.”

Well, the governor still has to sign it, but I’m hopeful.

Here’s Maddow’s  3.25-minute report.  I love that woman—and Olivia too!

~

The world’s prettiest fossil

May 11, 2014 • 9:37 am

And it’s now missing, thanks to thieves who stole it from a private collection. Reader Ant called it to my attention from a post on ZME Science‘s “Fossil Friday”:

It’s the fossil of a giant ammonite, an ancient and prolific group of mollusks that has gone extinct without leaving descendants.

I have one (not opalized!) about a foot wide, polished and encased in its stone matrix, but this one is far better. For it’s become opalized: the mineral matrix that replaced the animal was a form of hydrated silica—the type that makes what is in my view the world’s most beautiful gem, the opal.

And what better combination than to have a fossil in opal! You can buy smaller ones on Etsy, but not like this one, said to be worth half a million dollars (or was worth, since it’s now missing):

RKE2nLs

As the website says, stuff like this is best put in a museum where it’s less liable to be stolen, and can be enjoyed by everyone. Still, I wouldn’t mind having a small version!

ammolite-fossil

You can see more opalized ammonites here.

 

A lovely fossilized beetle

April 12, 2014 • 12:25 pm

Reader Ant sent me a link to this photo and short article from ZME Science showing a beetle that is way, way old, with jeweled exoskeleton nicely preserved. The caption (the website is starting a “Fossil Friday” feature):

So, here’s a jewel beetle from the Messel Pit, Germany, 47 million years old. It’s fossilized in such a way that it maintains its iridescence and you can still see the contour of the exoskeleton – stunning!

Image via Reddit user archaeopteryxx.

Prachtkäfer_aus_der_Grube_Messel

~*~

 

Pterosaurs take Manhattan

April 11, 2014 • 9:42 am

by Greg Mayer

Last weekend, a new exhibit opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York: “Pterosaurs: Flight in the Age of Dinosaurs“. The New York Times had a piece on the making of the exhibit last week, and today their museum critic, Edward Rothstein, weighs in with his take on the pterosaurs. We’ve had occasion to favorably note Rothstien’s reviews previously here at WEIT, and his conclusion is that the exhibit is well worth seeing.

pterosaurs-lead_homepage_slide

He writes:

The exhibition is unusually compelling, given its directness and simplicity. In one sense, pterosaurs are quite familiar: Any image of the dinosaur age shows them ruling the skies. But as you work your way through this exhibition, they become confoundingly strange. Walking on wings! A fourth finger for flying! Crests larger than heads!

His review also considers how it is we come to know about the pterosaurs (‘pterosaur epistemology’), the serendipity of fossilization and discovery, and how small clues can be used to build up a more complete picture of the creature, noting, for example  how a small mass of ejected bones (a gastric pellet), which might be overlooked, reveals what pterosaurs ate.

It reminds us of what exists before hypotheses accumulate, and what the paleontologist must accomplish, combining meticulous examination with speculative reconstruction. The pellet presents just a slightly more extreme version of how many pterosaur fossils are found. Some are seen here: jumbles of flattened bones and random filaments, gastric pellets spat out of some geological maw. …

Out of accidents, order takes shape; we see this to be as true of the paleontologist’s enterprise as it is of evolutionary change. The effect is to make us wonder which is more marvelous: the creatures themselves, or the ways they have been recreated?

The accompanying website is chock full of images, videos and information– go have a look. Here’s a nice summary video.

Some aspects of the reconstructions are speculative– we don’t really know what colors their crests were (although we do have evidence for the color of some Mesozoic reptiles). And, surprisingly to me, there is almost nothing about the “hairs”– called “pycnofibers”–  that have been described in a number of pterosaurs. I’ve always thought the suggestion of pterosaurs being haired was very exciting, and, if true, a nice example of convergence, and evidence that pterosaurs were warm-blooded. The only mention I can find on the AMNH site concerns Jeholopterus, a small pterosaur with pycnofibers,  seen in the following gif:

Jeholopterus, a "haired" pterosaur (AMNH).
Jeholopterus, a “haired” pterosaur (AMNH).

Pterosaurs are, of course, reptiles (and not dinosaurs!), and one of the three groups of tetrapods to have evolved true flight (as opposed to gliding, which has evolved many more times). Pterosaurs’ air foil is membranous skin, stretched along an enormously elongated 4th finger; bats, too, have a membranous wing, but it is supported by fingers 2 through 5; birds have a wing of feathers, which project not from elongated finger bones, but from a shortened and fused set of hand/finger bones. These structures are nicely illustrated in the following figure from Steve Gatesy and Kevin Middleton:

Pterosaur (A), bird (B), and bat (C) wings. Gatesy & Middleton, 2007.
Pterosaur (A), bird (B), and bat (C) wings. Gatesy & Middleton, 2007.

Powered flight is thus an excellent example of convergent evolution— the origin of similar structures as adaptations to similar conditions of existence. The wings, because they evolved independently, are said to be analogous (i.e. not derived from a common ancestor possessing wings), as is evident from the different nature of the air foil, and the different modifications of the bones involved in the wings of the three groups– the similarities are superficila nad functional. It also nicely shows the hierarchical nature of homology. The front limbs of bats, birds, and pterosaurs are homologous as limbs (i.e. derived from a common ancestor possessing front limbs), but not as wings. The common structures (humerus, radius, ulna, etc.) are homologous at the level of tetrapods, but the modifications of these structures as wings are separate evolutionary events.

The exhibit is temporary, and will be up through January 4, 2015. Be sure to put it on your list of things to see while in New York; it’s on mine!

________________________________________________________________

Gatesy, S.M. and K.M. Middleton. 2007 Skeletal adaptations for flight. pp. 269-283 in Hall, B.K., ed., Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Development, and Transformation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.