Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Living Fossils Message-ID: <399@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Oct-84 17:23:59 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.399 Posted: Fri Oct 19 17:23:59 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Oct-84 07:38:14 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW Primate Center Lines: 108 The term "living fossil" has been used a couple of times by Larry Bickford in this newsgroup. Exception has been taken to this phrase by at least two people. Ethan Vishniac called it a "silly term" and Michael Ward said: > Living fossils? I have heard some wild claims, but this is the best > yet! Please, cite the reference. Where can I go so see living stone? This being so, I thought that some additional information might be of interest. --- As noted by Steven Stanley [1], Darwin himself seems to have been the first person to use the term, in the first edition of The Origin. Since, fortuitously, I happen to be currently reading this very edition, I looked it up; here is Darwin's comment, with enough context to give the sense: "And it is in fresh water that we find seven genera of Ganoid fishes, remnants of a once preponderant order: and in fresh water we find some of the most anomalous forms now known in the world, as the Ornithorhyncus and Lepidosiren, which, like fossils, connect to a certain extant orders now widely separated in the natural scale. These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition." [2] Note that Darwin, in the cautious manner so characteristic of The Origin, says "may almost be called..." Hesitant or not, the phrase stuck and is with us to this day: it means, generally, those organisms found in the fossil record from long ago, which have persisted unchanged (either completely, or nearly) into recent times. Examples that have been given in this group include the coelacanth, (a putative fish - amphibian link) which was thought to have been extinct for 70 million years, but was first found alive in 1938 and several times since [3]. It has remain unchanged for about 350 million years, except that living representatives are larger than those found in the fossil record. Ladd [4] notes that the coelacanth has "been able to retain its ancient form and structure." (makes it sound as though it was "trying"!) Another example that has been mentioned is the tuatara [5]. The most recent fossil is 135 million years old, and it remains unchanged today. Ladd includes a section on living fossils in his article, although he seems to use a somewhat different definition than that given above, since he includes a couple of organisms which are unknown in the fossil record: In 1938, primitive crustacea of species Derocheilocaris typicus were found in interstitial waters of beach sands in New England. At that time it was the most primitive living crustacean known. In 1953, a still more primitive type was dredged from mud in Long Island Sound (Hutchinsoniella macrocantha). This was small enough to go through the eye of a needle, and so primitive it was placed in a new subclass. Its closest relative (Lepidocaris) lived in the Middle Devonian 300 million years ago. In Acapulco Trench off Central (?) America, the Danish ship Galathea dredged up a living monoplacophoran mollusk - thought to have become extinct during the Devonian period. So it hasn't changed since then. --- For further discussion, look in Stanley's book. He also mentions that Delamare-Deboutteville and Botosaneanu have devoted a volume to this topic, called "Formes Primitive Vivartes". However, judging from the title, it's in french. --- Note that while this article is directed to evolutionists, and points out that some of them are deriding terms apparently invented and widely used by evolutionists, I am not trying to concoct a scenario of division within the evolutionary camp. Rather, it seemed to me that the dissatisfaction with "living fossil" was directed at Larry, as if it were a creationist term that he made up. I have tried to show that this is not so. --- [1] Steven M Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable." Basic Books, New York, 1981. Page 85. [2] Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species" (A Facsimile of the First Edition). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1964. Page 107. [3] Jacques Millot, "The Coelacanth." Scientific American, December 1955, 34-39. [4] Harry S Ladd, "Ecology, Paleontology, and Stratigraphy." Science, 129(3341),69-78, 9 January 1959. [5] Charles M Bogert, "The Tuatara: Why is it a Lone Survivor?" Scientific Monthly, 76(3), 163, March 1953. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Psalm 119:35