Let's Make "Living Fossils" Term "Extinct"

[Oxytropidoceras]

Let's make living fossils extinct:

Fossils Lost Worlds Revisited

Mark Carnall, July 6, 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/06/why-its-time-to-make-living-fossils-extinct

“Is it time for scientists to retire the term? It’s

meaningless, incorrect and gets in the way of

understanding.”

Yours,

Paul H.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Oxytropidoceras

[Raggedy Man]

I agree 100%

[Pumpkinhead]

I agree as well. The term is a misnomer on a number of levels

[Ridgehiker]

Agree completely. I cringe when I hear the term. Evolutionary taxonomy at its dumbest.

However, just a note. The word science and scientist are often used. I've never read the term 'living fossil' in a peer reviewed scientific publication. The popular press, including Scientific American, etc., is not accepted 'science' in my discipline or any other that I know.

'Scientists say....whatever'...is no different than scientists predict a soccer score. Its not science. Again...peeer reviewed scientific publications are 'science'.

When talking to people I find myself hesitating and grasing for a word other than using 'extant' to describe currently existing species. Gets confused with 'extinct'. Anyways, 'extant' species are not living fossils.

[tmaier]

"Living fossil" is oxymoronic, because you can't stop the genome from changing. But then, what alternative would people like to use to describe long periods of morphological stasis? How about "temporal morphologically conservative organism"? Not as snappy as "living fossil", and likely to lose a popularity contest.

[ynot]

My 90 year old "living fossil" father is not going to like this.

Tony

[Pumpkinhead]

The thing is, even from a morphological perspective the term 'living fossil" doesn't hold up. Take horseshoe crabs for instance- superficially, they look very similar to their distant Paleozoic ancestors but upon closer inspection huge differences abround. Modern horseshoe crabs legs are uniramous as opposed to the biramous legs of ancient horseshoe crabs, for one. The genus that the Atlantic horseshoe crab belongs to has been around for around 20 million years, which is a far cry from the groups that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

Coelacanths are also frequently referred to as being living fossils. The morphological differences within that group are even more obvious, and living species of coelacanths have striking visual differences when compared to extinct groups. Skull morphology is very diverse, and there are huge differences in the skeletal structure of fins in most of the known species of coelacanth, both extant and extinct. These are only a few differences out of many.

Another issue with the claim of some extant species having near-static morphological and genomic development is the fact that many species within their ecosystems occupying other niches have changed. This makes claims of organisms such as horseshoe crabs having almost negligible development untenable as clearly there has been impetus for change in species around them, and it is illogical to think that that one species is an exception without any supporting evidence. If a true "living fossil" could exist, the morphology of other members of its paleo-community would probably be static as well, as populations are plastic to their environment. You would have living fossil ecosystems, rather than living fossils.

In my opinion, the existence of the term "living fossil" exists solely as a method of sensationalizing fossil discoveries, and this sensationalism has backfired spectacularly on the public's perception of biology and paleontology.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Pumpkinhead

[tmaier]

There are two forms of stasis, and they really do exist.

The long term one is typified by creatures like Lingula, which is what Darwin used as an example of creature that was "stuck". They are practically identical in morphology as their Cambrian ancestors. Darwin pointed out these conundrums to his own theory.

The second type of stasis is on the species level, in which a species exists for up to millions of years with little to no change at all, then goes extinct. Darwin also pointed this out, and hoped it was just an anomaly in the method of how fossils were formed.

In science we don't bury things that bother us. We drag them out into the light and examine them. These forms of stasis mentioned above do exist, and they need to examined. These behaviors are telling us something about how evolution operates, and to ignore them causes a misunderstanding of the system.

Obsoleting a term like "living fossil" because the idea of stasis doesn't seem appropriate is very Orwellian, modifying the language to disallow discussing an obvious effect. A term is needed to describe this behavior of the system, as I mentioned above.

[Scylla]

The term "living fossil" is just fine with me. Look at a picture of a Coelocanth. Aside from the details presented above it looks like a.. a... a what? I don't know where the straw man argument of a living fossil being exactly the same comes from. As a term for communicating to laymen the apparent preservation of major morphological groupings it is at least as good as the "parallel evolution" term. I never saw two identical structures formed from parallel evolution, but the term and concept remain the same and valid IMHO.

I think the real problem the anti living fossil camp has is with the general lack of scientific literacy. If you know the details well enough, the term doesn't derail understanding, but acts as a shorthand to more quickly describe a state of existence.

[tmaier]

The term "living fossil" is just fine with me. Look at a picture of a Coelocanth. Aside from the details presented above it looks like a.. a... a what?

"temporal morphologically conservative organism"?

[Scylla]

"temporal morphologically conservative organism"?

Exactly!

[Pumpkinhead]

There are two forms of stasis, and they really do exist.

The long term one is typified by creatures like Lingula, which is what Darwin used as an example of creature that was "stuck". They are practically identical in morphology as their Cambrian ancestors. Darwin pointed out these conundrums to his own theory.

The second type of stasis is on the species level, in which a species exists for up to millions of years with little to no change at all, then goes extinct. Darwin also pointed this out, and hoped it was just an anomaly in the method of how fossils were formed.

In science we don't bury things that bother us. We drag them out into the light and examine them. These forms of stasis mentioned above do exist, and they need to examined. These behaviors are telling us something about how evolution operates, and to ignore them causes a misunderstanding of the system.

Obsoleting a term like "living fossil" because the idea of stasis doesn't seem appropriate is very Orwellian, modifying the language to disallow discussing an obvious effect. A term is needed to describe this behavior of the system, as I mentioned above.

Just to clarify, I am by no means advocating for burying the idea of stasis in organisms. I apologize if in any way what I have said has come across as an effort to terminate the discussion of this area of evolution or if my post came across as ``Orwelian`` in any way. That`s not what I`m going for. What I was instead trying to do was start a conversation, because I`m still trying to refine my opinions in the area of evolutionary biology. Because of your criticism I have modified my views and am better for it. I agree with you when you say that a more accurate term and better study is needed for this aspect of evolution.

[Ridgehiker]

There are two forms of stasis, and they really do exist.

The long term one is typified by creatures like Lingula, which is what Darwin used as an example of creature that was "stuck". They are practically identical in morphology as their Cambrian ancestors. Darwin pointed out these conundrums to his own theory.

The second type of stasis is on the species level, in which a species exists for up to millions of years with little to no change at all, then goes extinct. Darwin also pointed this out, and hoped it was just an anomaly in the method of how fossils were formed.

In science we don't bury things that bother us. We drag them out into the light and examine them. These forms of stasis mentioned above do exist, and they need to examined. These behaviors are telling us something about how evolution operates, and to ignore them causes a misunderstanding of the system.

Obsoleting a term like "living fossil" because the idea of stasis doesn't seem appropriate is very Orwellian, modifying the language to disallow discussing an obvious effect. A term is needed to describe this behavior of the system, as I mentioned above.

To add

Darwin was unaware of physical process of evolution...the gene and changes in DNA. Organisms are never stuck as the genetic material is constantly evolving. Two computers can appear the same on the outside and be vastly different internally. Also, evolution is not a plus /minus game. The older species does not necessarily disappear when new species evolve from it.

The term living fossil is just wrong. Its like calling a whale a fish. Yes, one may call a whale a fish in popular culture but it gas no place in serious discussion.

[Wrangellian]

So then what to replace the term with? tmaier's "temporal morphologically conservative organism"? What other term should we use to describe something that looks very close to something that existed millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of years ago with very little change? So the genes have changed, but the overall appearance has stayed basically the same (not identical, but basically the same to the average person's eye). Presumably it is a descendant, as would be modern coelacanths from ancient ones, likewise horseshoe crabs and Lingula, and not a case of convergent evolution as in birds/bats and whales/fish. What do we call this phenomenon?

[ynot]

What do we call this phenomenon?

Longevity? Staying power?

And a few words about parallel evolution. Nautiloids and ammonites. Ichthyosaurus and whales. American black bear and india's bear sloth. Bats, birds and pterosaurs.

Tony

[tmaier]

My favorite ways to explain why stasis exists is...

1. The concept of "Good Enough". I thought that up while reading Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable". Dawkins hammers on the concept of evolution being a process of constantly seeking the pinnacle of the mountain of perfection, but I see it as a lot more haphazard, and creatures just finding a mountain path that is good enough to survive at the time. This means they don't climb, and get stuck on the way up towards perfect.

2. "Hazardous Complexity" is when a lineage evolves complex solutions to survival, and these complexities may solve a temporary problem of survival, but in the long run it creates a vulnerability of higher failure of the complex system. Evolution of complex features becomes excess baggage. Evolution is not always a good thing. Simple organisms like bacteria are the biggest winners of the race of evolution... i.e. the ones that seem unevolved are the best fitness for survival. The accumulation of complexity is like a lineage climbing out on a limb, and then it breaks off due to fragile complexity.

3. For species level stasis, I use an analogy of the species being an ocean going juggernaut ship. The genome is so big and wide that it is difficult or impossible for the environment to have much effect on it. Instead of being influenced and evolving to every little influence the big juggernaut just ignores these tiny waves and plows forward mostly guided by sheer probability.

Don't mean to dismiss Dawkins above, his explanation of the mechanisms of evolution are good for a person getting their first drink of the theory, but when you get past half way down the glass, you find the actual drink is a much more complex taste than was initially described.

[Pagurus]

I've never liked the term "living fossils" simply because fossils aren't alive and living animals aren't fossils. I can see where it's useful, though, in helping people appreciate some of the wonders of our world. TFF members can surely appreciate the desire to get a glimpse of our ancient past, and animals like the horseshoe crab, and their close resemblance to extinct species, excite the imagination of many people.

In a 2014 online journal (PLoS One), two researchers, propose the term "stabilomorph" to refer to organisms with few obvious morphological changes over time. The Horseshoe Crab of the Genus Limulus: Living Fossil or Stabilomorph?

Regarding the Jurassic horseshoe crab Limulus darwini self-collected in Poland, the authors (Adrian Kin & Błażej Błażejowski) state,

"After a detailed analysis of three-dimensionally preserved Late Jurassic limulids from Owadów-Brzezinki, it should be explicitly stated that there are no significant morphological differences between these and extant juvenile individuals of the genus Limulus [8] (Figure 3). Without much doubt modern horseshoe crabs of that genus probably are even closer to Late Jurassic forms than previously thought [5], [7]. The morphological features of the opisthosoma of these are very similar to the holotype of Limulus coffini [9], a perfectly preserved, non-flattened opisthosoma from the Upper Cretaceous of Colorado, USA. Presumably both forms were closely related, while L. darwini most probably constitutes an early link both with L. coffini and the extant Limulus polyphemus [8]. This also means that the genus Limulus existed about 148 million years ago and has survived to the present day in an almost unchanged form."

In defining the term, Stabilomorphism, they write:

"In this paper we propose the adoption of a new term stabilomorphism, this being: an effect of a specific formula of adaptative strategy among organisms whose taxonomic status does not exceed genus-level. A high effectiveness of adaptation significantly reduces the need for differentiated phenotypic variants in response to environmental changes and provides for long-term evolutionary success."

[jpc]

stabilomorph is a good word, but not likely to catch on with John Q Public. How about simply 'modern descendant of an ancient animal that look very similar'. Yes, 'living fossil' is a tough phrase to replace.

[Ridgehiker]

Don't mean to dismiss Dawkins above, his explanation of the mechanisms of evolution are good for a person getting their first drink of the theory, but when you get past half way down the glass, you find the actual drink is a much more complex taste than was initially described.

Agree. Thus why popular writers like Dawkins, Gould, Wilson, etc. set the stage for discusion more so than needing to be taken as some pre eminent authority on evolution. When reading their works just about every statement would be questioned by a round table discussion.

[doushantuo]

I'm sorry,what's all this?.Sorry to throw semantics at you all ,but since when have description and circumscription been totally interchangable?

The term LF might not have been scientifically very meaningful or accurate,but everybody knew what it meant.

It's a very handy capsule circumscription of something that otherwise would have needed lavish description by longwinded phrases and convolute terminology.

In the absence of adequate morphological descriptors and/or metrics of size and shape change of skeletal/mineralized parts through the stratigraphical column,it will have to do

Edited July 12, 2016 by doushantuo

[tmaier]

Agree. Thus why popular writers like Dawkins, Gould, Wilson, etc.

Remember that all three of those guys are top scientists in their field, and not just popular writers. There are people who are science writers, who often have a liberal arts degree and a couple of science courses, but don't lump these scientists in that group.

[Ridgehiker]

Remember that all three of those guys are top scientists in their field, and not just popular writers. There are people who are science writers, who often have a liberal arts degree and a couple of science courses, but don't lump these scientists in that group.

Sort of. Depends on what is meant by their field. I'd call Wilson a 10 out of 10 in his field. Dawkins a 8 out of 10. Gould was a ...let's just say his name is not a popular word at the Geological Survey.

When Wilson and Dawkins stick to actual science they are incredible minds. Their issue is that they drift over into sociology and begin to cherry pick examples as debating points.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Ridgehiker

[tmaier]

Sort of. Depends on what is meant by their field. I'd call Wilson a 10 out of 10 in his field. Dawkins a 8 out of 10. Gould was a ...let's just say his name is not a popular word at the Geological Survey.

?

Gould's fields are biology, evolution, genetics, and paleontology. I don't consider geologists to be his peer, because they are very likely to never even have taken a course in his field. To be a peer, the person would have to at least have majored and published in his field. Geology has rocks, but that doesn't mean the person is an expert in genetics.

E. O. Wilson is under attack a lot right now. A large group of scientists (mostly genetic modelers) have banned together to submit a petition to have his papers banned from publication. They are lesser known authors, so their strongest argument is the size of their union. They disagree that animals might ban together in an altruistic way for the common good, so they have banned together for their common good to push their opinion, and silence others. It will be difficult to silence E.O, as difficult as is is to silence Gould.

There is a lot of sniping by lesser known, and lesser accomplished people against these scientists, but that always happens. The peanut gallery is a tough crowd to please.

Just because a scientist was right about somethings, doesn't mean they are right about everything, but these three we are discussing have been influential in their fields and are required reading for anybody interested in evolution.

[Ridgehiker]

Wilson was fine when he stuck to observations of ants and entymology. He then strayed over into human sociology and loses credibility. He becomes an advocate for the flavour of the day.

Re Gould's book on the Burgess Shale. If he was in junior high, would get a D as a science paper and an A plus in Creative writing.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Ridgehiker

[Missourian]

I think the term 'living fossil' is okay. I tend to take a loose approach to semantics, always considering the context. To me, 'living fossil' has or is meant to have an initial impact, either to the scientific world when a species (e.g. coelocanth) is discovered alive, or to a novice who is first introduced to it. I've always believed that it is up to the individual to develop an understanding. If the term 'living fossil' is confusing, all they need to do is continue to learn. For the case of the coelocanth, they could be drawn in by a fascination of the existence of a 'living fossil', and then eventually become even more fascinated as they learn about differences between the modern fish and their Cretaceous cousins.