2
   

Are there any "Living Fossil" species with descendants?

 
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 04:47 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
So I guess we're saying that there are no (known) animals who are presently contemporaneous with their ancestors (ancestors greater than at least a 'species' difference).


Is that a real word?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 04:54 pm
ros wrote-

Quote:
. Why do we feel that those kingdoms would be different in probability of having contemporaneous ancestor/descendants?


I don't bloody know. I can't imagine feeling like that. I feel a nice rosy glow well short of pissed but okay for a Monday night.

But go on then-

Why do we feel that those kingdoms would be different in probability of having contemporaneous ancestor/descendants?

What's the punch line?

We will have to hope that it isn't that old chesnut that it makes us sound important and scientificsassy.

Oh Lord preserve us from that.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 04:55 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Plants, Fungi, Bacteria, those are different kingdoms. Why do we feel that those kingdoms would be different in probability of having contemporaneous ancestor/descendants? Is it just because we are less familiar with them? Or is there a specific difference that makes it more likely? (The reason I ask is that the 'specific difference', whatever it may be, is what I'm actually interested in).


Just my own opinion but I think you'd find a wider diversity of species in those kingdoms than in the animal kingdom as well as a higher likelyhood that a fungi or bacteria could have been isolated long ago and survived in that form while other fungi/bacteria in other regions could have evolved. A fungi or bacteria would only need a single cave for isolation. Not many animals could survive isolated in that small of a space.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 04:58 pm
Quincy wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
So I guess we're saying that there are no (known) animals who are presently contemporaneous with their ancestors (ancestors greater than at least a 'species' difference).


Is that a real word?

Yes.
con·tem·po·ra·ne·ous [kuhn-tem-puh-rey-nee-uhs] Pronunciation Key
- adjective
living or occurring during the same period of time; contemporary.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:00 pm
fishin wrote:
Just my own opinion but I think you'd find a wider diversity of species in those kingdoms than in the animal kingdom as well as a higher likelyhood that a fungi or bacteria could have been isolated long ago and survived in that form while other fungi/bacteria in other regions could have evolved. A fungi or bacteria would only need a single cave for isolation. Not many animals could survive isolated in that small of a space.

That sounds reasonable.

I've been looking at various plant cladograms but I haven't found anything definitive yet.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:02 pm
Cripes! What's a "cladogram" when it's at home?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:04 pm
Is it the opposite of a "stripogram".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:09 pm
They are pretty definite. Especially the expensive ones.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:11 pm
ros said
Quote:
Plants, Fungi, Bacteria, those are different kingdoms. Why do we feel that those kingdoms would be different in probability of having contemporaneous ancestor/descendants?
Mostly because these organisms can respond to changes in climate and overlap ranges, and climate zones, while animal, with metabolic rates that are much faster , would have microadapted.
Most "extremophyles" are the simpler plants and animals, and its mostly because of microadaptation.
Set, the only reason that a "working definition" of species surrounds free interbreeding is because all higher taxa are totally and solely concerned with morphological systematics. There is a Linnean "key" to taxonomythats used by guys like EO WIlson. It is actually kind of Creationist in its sense . Ill see if I cant dig up something in the recent lit.. There was an article in Geotimes a few years ago and it was in support of the new proposed alphaneumeric system of a "new" binomial nomenclature. It is mixed with morphology and genetics.Still, species is the foundational brick in the wall.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:28 pm
Will someone kindly translate that for me?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 05:31 pm
With the exception of "Sir Oinker", its been an interesting few pages. Ernst Mayr was dead set against using a ckladistics approach in classification because , by definition, there had to be a given break point in the classification, merely to show that some evolutionary linkage was "artificially" created. Im a fan , because, I only use cladistics in defining "stratigraphic zones' and dont worry about the connections among groups.
Mayr had always said that, the simpler the clades got, the more clades youd need to properly differentiate among organisms. He did one (as a testimonial to Hennigs foundational work in the discipline of cladistic classification.) It was a classification of two subgroups of annelids and it had so many SUper phyla, subphyla, supeclasses, classes, and subclasses that it was in danger of making its point by "fog factor" alone.

Cladistics can be circular by itself (that is, without the total complement of genetics and morphology and biogeography) because the subgroups are, by their selected clades, only shown to be derivative and therefore an evolutionary departure by morphology entirely . (If RL is listening in, dont worry hes not used to honest revelations on his side) :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jul, 2007 06:04 pm
He will be able to understand the "fog factor" if nothing else.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2007 03:02 am
Wollemia nobilis (Woolemi pine Family Araucariaceae

Relatives Kauri, Norfolk Island, Hoop, Bunya and Monkey Puzzle pines.

Wild population Less than 100 mature trees

http://www.wollemipine.com/fast_facts.php
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2007 03:19 am
Why don't you search "living fossils" on Google?

Wikipedia has a longish entry. Much more enlightening than anything on here.

They are not happy with it and are asking for an expert to revise it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2007 05:42 am
So, in the wollemi pine apparently we have another species that , while not technically a direct ancestor of later pines , has remained. In that respect its like a Coelecanth .
How are they propogating these pines? from planting the seeds in their cones? or do they do more vegetative propogating?
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2007 08:54 am
farmerman wrote:
So, in the wollemi pine apparently we have another species that , while not technically a direct ancestor of later pines , has remained. In that respect its like a Coelecanth .
How are they propogating these pines? from planting the seeds in their cones? or do they do more vegetative propogating?


As seeds from the wild population are difficult and dangerous to collect, and collection poses the threat of damage to the trees, propagation is being carried out vegetatively from young plants grown from the original seeds and cuttings from the Wollemi Pines in the wild. Research is also being conducted to test the viability of utilising micro propagation methods for commercial production.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2007 06:53 pm
I was reading through a Children's trade book on mammals today and came across a page on rhinoceri. There are five major species, one of which is the sumatran rhino. It is distinct from it's rhino family and dna testing shows that is very much the same as the wooly rhino of the Pleistocene.

Quote:
The final modern species of Rhinoceros to be contrasted is Dicerorhinae sumatrensis. This species is thought to be the most ancient of the five that are alive today. Morphologically this is because of its covering of hair and thick skin armoring around the snout and eyes. The lack of a specific method of conveying food to the mouth (as is found in the other four species) also suggests that this species is from a separate, older lineage. Another trait that suggests that this species is older than the others is the fact that it has retained its canines and incisors but they lack any specific degree of specialization (as compared to the other Asian species which have modified incisors). This theory of the unique and ancient origins of D. sumatrensis was confirmed by a study comparing the mitochondrial DNA of the extinct Wooly Rhino (Ceolodonta antiquitat), of the Pleistocene, with the mitochondrial DNA of the modern species. This experiment was done based on a theory acquired through comparison of the similarities in morphology of the two species. This study showed a boot strap support of 100% indication that the Sumatran Rhinoceros was indeed the closest living relative to the Wooly Rhinoceros (Orlando, 2003). This data indicates that D. sumatrensis is literally the last of its line, a representative of an ancient species living in modern times.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2007 07:05 am
As we get more and more genetic databases, we come to understand the lines of descendance that present themselves in living animals.
During the Pleistocene, Sumatra was connected to the Mayasian Peninsula and the Asiatic mainland by a large expanse of open grassland and jungle. The wooly rhino could have colonized this locale and evolved and become isolated as the ocean level rose. Wooly rhinos are really a worldwide species. I think that thyre still trying to figure out how they extended their ranges when (it is assumed) that the ice connections between Asia and North America would require them to migrate through large ice fields. mammoths , on the other hand, were known to migrate around the kamchatka and would come over a land bridge during some interstadial Wurm periods. They arent so sure about how rhinos did it. (since they are quite a bit smaller than mammoths)

I really dont care but Im sure that somebody's working on it as we speak.
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2007 10:08 am
I think it would be more fruitful to look for an example in bacteria/viruses/parasites, but that is just a totally un-justified assertion from someone who doesn't know better.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 09:20:59