An old story from December 2021, which I somehow missed, is currently being given another airing in the social media, so I'll take this opportunity to make up for my earlier oversight. It is the news that the largest known ancient arthropod was discovered on a Northumberland, UK, beach.
It is interesting not so much because it refuted creationism by living 326 million years before the Universe existed according to creationism, but because it could only have reached that size by living in a high-oxygen environment such as pertained in the Carboniferous Era.
The basic problem with all the arthropods is that they depend on passive diffusion to exchange gasses (oxygen (\(\small \ce{O2})\) and carbon dioxide (\(\small \ce{CO2})\)) with their environment via series of spiracles, so the rate of diffusion is proportional to the concentration of \(\small \ce{O2}\) and \(\small \ce{CO2}\) in the atmosphere. The millipedes partly overcome this limitation by being long and thin.
Tell me all about the giant arthropod, Arthropleura, please.
Arthropleura was a fascinating and enormous prehistoric arthropod that lived during the Carboniferous Period, approximately 315 to 299 million years ago. It is one of the largest-known land-dwelling invertebrates ever to have existed, and it is often compared to modern-day millipedes due to its segmented, elongated body.
Physical Description
Arthropleura was a colossal creature, with some estimates suggesting it could reach lengths of up to 2.5 meters (about 8 feet) or more. Its body was composed of numerous jointed segments, each covered by a pair of armor-like plates called tergites. These segments gave Arthropleura a ribbed appearance and allowed it to move with surprising agility for its size. Unlike modern millipedes, which have numerous legs on each segment, Arthropleura's limbs were relatively small compared to its overall body size, though they were still numerous.
The exoskeleton of Arthropleura was likely made of chitin, a tough, protective material found in the exoskeletons of all arthropods. This exoskeleton provided protection from predators and may have played a role in retaining moisture, which would have been important for surviving in the terrestrial environments of the Carboniferous Period.
Habitat and Lifestyle
Arthropleura thrived in the lush, swampy forests that were prevalent during the Carboniferous Period. These forests were dominated by giant ferns, horsetails, and other primitive plants, which created a humid and oxygen-rich atmosphere. This high oxygen content in the Earth's atmosphere is believed to have been a key factor in allowing Arthropleura and other large arthropods to grow to such enormous sizes.
Arthropleura was likely an herbivore, feeding on the abundant plant material in its environment. Some evidence suggests it might have consumed decaying plant matter rather than live plants, making it more of a detritivore. Its large size would have allowed it to access a variety of food sources, from low-lying vegetation to fallen leaves and other organic debris.
Behavior and Movement
Despite its size, Arthropleura was likely a relatively fast-moving creature, capable of navigating through the dense undergrowth of its forested habitat. Its body structure suggests it moved in a serpentine or undulating manner, using its many legs to propel itself forward.
There is little direct evidence of Arthropleura's behavior, but its size and the structure of its exoskeleton suggest it had few natural predators. It may have relied on its size and the tough armor of its exoskeleton for defense, rather than speed or agility.
Extinction
Arthropleura went extinct at the end of the Carboniferous Period, around 299 million years ago. The reasons for its extinction are not entirely clear, but several factors may have contributed. The drying out of the Earth’s climate, the reduction in atmospheric oxygen levels, and the rise of new predators, such as early reptiles, could have all played a role in its decline.
Fossil Evidence
Fossils of Arthropleura are relatively rare, but they have been found in various parts of the world, including North America and Europe. These fossils usually consist of fragments of the exoskeleton, as the softer parts of the body did not fossilize well. However, trace fossils, such as footprints, have also been discovered, providing valuable information about how this giant arthropod moved and lived.
Significance
Arthropleura is significant not just because of its enormous size, but also because it represents a time when arthropods dominated the Earth’s ecosystems. Its existence during the Carboniferous Period is a testament to the unique environmental conditions of the time, particularly the high oxygen levels that allowed such giant invertebrates to thrive.
In summary, Arthropleura was an extraordinary giant millipede-like arthropod that lived in the Carboniferous forests. Its size, habitat, and extinction provide valuable insights into the evolutionary history of arthropods and the environmental changes that shaped life on Earth millions of years ago.
The fossil was discovered in January 2018, in a large block of sandstone that had fallen from the cliff in Howick Bay in Northumberland. Fortunately the block split open in such a way as to perfectly expose the fossil, where it was spotted by a formed PhD student.
The fossil was painstakingly extracted from the block of sandstone and taken to Cambridge University's Department of Earth Sciences where it was examined by a team led by Neil S Davis. The team’s findings were published in the Journal of the Geological Society and announced in a Cambridge University news release in December, 2021:
Largest-ever fossil millipede found in Northern EnglandThe largest-ever fossil of a giant millipede – as big as a car – has been found on a beach in the north of England.
The fossil – the remains of a creature called Arthropleura – dates from the Carboniferous Period, about 326 million years ago, over 100 million years before the Age of Dinosaurs. The fossil reveals that Arthropleura was the largest-known invertebrate animal of all time, larger than the ancient sea scorpions that were the previous record holders.
The specimen, found on a Northumberland beach about 40 miles north of Newcastle, is made up of multiple articulated exoskeleton segments, broadly similar in form to modern millipedes. It is just the third such fossil ever found. It is also the oldest and largest: the segment is about 75 centimetres long, while the original creature is estimated to have measured around 2.7 metres long and weighed around 50 kilograms. The results are reported in the Journal of the Geological Society.
The fossil was discovered in January 2018 in a large block of sandstone that had fallen from a cliff to the beach at Howick Bay in Northumberland.
It was a complete fluke of a discovery. The way the boulder had fallen, it had cracked open and perfectly exposed the fossil, which one of our former PhD students happened to spot when walking by.
Neil S. Davies, First Author
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Unlike the cool and wet weather associated with the region today, Northumberland had a more tropical climate in the Carboniferous Period, when Great Britain lay near the Equator. Invertebrates and early amphibians lived off the scattered vegetation around a series of creeks and rivers. The specimen identified by the researchers was found in a fossilised river channel: it was likely a moulted segment of the Arthropleura’s exoskeleton that filled with sand, preserving it for hundreds of millions of years.
The fossil was extracted in May 2018 with permission from Natural England and the landowners, the Howick Estate.
It was an incredibly exciting find, but the fossil is so large it took four of us to carry it up the cliff face.
Finding these giant millipede fossils is rare, because once they died, their bodies tend to disarticulate, so it’s likely that the fossil is a moulted carapace that the animal shed as it grew. We have not yet found a fossilised head, so it’s difficult to know everything about them.
Neil S. Davies
The fossil was brought back to Cambridge so that it could be examined in detail. It was compared with all previous records and revealed new information about the animal’s habitat and evolution. The animal can be seen to have only existed in places that were once located at the Equator, such as Great Britain during the Carboniferous. Previous reconstructions have suggested that the animal lived in coal swamps, but this specimen showed Arthropleura preferred open woodland habitats near the coast.
There are only two other known Arthropleura fossils, both from Germany, and both much smaller than the new specimen. Although this is the largest Arthropleura fossil skeleton ever found, there is still much to learn about these creatures.
The great size of Arthropleura has previously been attributed to a peak in atmospheric oxygen during the late Carboniferous and Permian periods, but because the new fossil comes from rocks deposited before this peak, it shows that oxygen cannot be the only explanation.
The researchers believe that to get to such a large size, Arthropleura must have had a high-nutrient diet.
While we can’t know for sure what they ate, there were plenty of nutritious nuts and seeds available in the leaf litter at the time, and they may even have been predators that fed off other invertebrates and even small vertebrates such as amphibians
Neil S. Davies
Arthropleura animals crawled around Earth’s equatorial region for around 45 million years, before going extinct during the Permian period. The cause of their extinction is uncertain, but could be due to global warming that made the climate too dry for them to survive, or to the rise of reptiles, who out-competed them for food and soon dominated the same habitats.
The fossil will go on public display at Cambridge’s Sedgwick Museum in the New Year [2022].
Neil Davies is a Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. The research was supported in part by the Natural Environment Research Council.
The paper in the Journal of the Geological Society is still behind a paywall, so only the abstract is available:
Abstract Arthropleura is a genus of giant myriapods that ranged from the early Carboniferous to Early Permian, with some individuals attaining lengths >2 m. Although most of the known fossils of the genus are disarticulated and occur primarily in late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) strata, we report here partially articulated Arthropleura remains from the early Carboniferous Stainmore Formation (Serpukhovian; Pendleian) in the Northumberland Basin of northern England. This 76 × 36 cm specimen represents part of an exuvium and is notable because only two comparably articulated giant Arthropleura fossils are previously known. It represents one of the largest known arthropod fossils and the largest arthropleurid recovered to date, the earliest (Mississippian) body fossil evidence for gigantism in Arthropleura, and the first instance of a giant arthropleurid body fossil within the same regional sedimentary succession as the large arthropod trackway Diplichnites cuithensis. The remains represent 12–14 anterior Arthropleura tergites in the form of a partially sand-filled dorsal exoskeleton. The original organism is estimated to have been 55 cm in width and up to 2.63 m in length, weighing c. 50 kg. The specimen is preserved partially in three dimensions within fine sandstone and has been moderately deformed by synsedimentary tectonics. Despite imperfect preservation, the specimen corroborates the hypothesis that Arthropleura had a tough, sclerotized exoskeleton. Sedimentological evidence for a lower delta plain depositional environment supports the contention that Arthropleura preferentially occupied open woody habitats, rather than swampy environments, and that it shared such habitats with tetrapods. When viewed in the context of all the other global evidence for Arthropleura, the specimen contributes to a dataset that shows the genus had an equatorially restricted palaeogeographical range, achieved gigantism prior to late Paleozoic peaks in atmospheric oxygen, and was relatively unaffected by climatic events in the late Carboniferous, prior to its extinction in the early Permian.
It is, of course, a characteristic of these sorts of finds that they are corroborated by and in turn corroborate several different strands of evidence. Such a large arthropod, given what we know of arthropod respiration, could only have evolved and lived at a time when there was a high level atmospheric \(\small \ce{O2}\) and a plentiful supply of nutrient material. This places it in the Carboniferous, in exactly the age of the rock formation in which it was found. This corroborates the theory that the Carboniferous would have been when large arthropods would have existed, given what we know of evolutionary biology.
Although creationists will try to present that as circular reasoning, it is in fact exactly what we would expect because real events involving several different geological, climatological and biological processes have a causal relationship so will always be mutually corroborative, just as the extinction of these organisms will also coincide with geological and climatological changes that caused them.
This is as obvious as the prediction that the formation of lakes and rivers in the Sahara would have been when the climate was wetter and rainfall was higher, and conversely that wetter weather and higher rainfall in the Sahara would have resulted in the formation of lakes and rivers. Not circular; merely corroboratory.
Sadly for creationists, there are no such independent strands of evidence corroborating any of their claims - either magic creation of species without ancestors a few thousand years ago or a global genocidal flood a few thousand years later. In fact, what evidence there is, such as this fossil, utterly refutes creationism, which continues to be not only an evidence-free superstition but an inherited superstition which runs counter to the available evidence.
Advertisement
What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You
How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.
Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle
Advertisement
Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It
This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.
Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle
A favourite creationists straw man parody of science says that evolutionary biologists believe evolution is a process of increasing complexity, leading eventually to humans - the most complex of all species.
This is utter nonsense, of course, being intelligently designed to easily attack and make evolutionary biology look like something no rational person would believe, so creationists dupes can feel smugly superior to scientists without bothering to learn any real science.
Creationists dogma also says that a genome was intelligently designed, so does not contain any redundant or non-coding DNA, since an intelligent designer would not have designed needless complexity and prolific waste (both characteristics of a mindless evolutionary process).
So, it leaves creationists floundering when science discovers genomes many times larger (for larger read 'more complex', in creationist terminology) than the human genome. In fact, the human genome is about average for the number of genes and size of the genome compared to other animals and very much smaller than that of many animals and plants.
Ten-year-old Tegan went looking for fossils on a South Wales beach with her mother, Clair, and found something completely unexpected - a set of footprints made by a massive dinosaur 200 million years ago.
These have been identified by dinosaur expert, Cindy Howells, from the National Museum Wales, as almost certainly the tracks of a sauropodomorpha. The tracks were in a red sandstone 'pavement' on the beach at Lavernock Point between Cardiff and Barry on a stretch of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast known to be a prehistoric hotspot.
If there is anything guaranteed to have creationists metaphorically, if not actually, screwing up their eyes, putting their hands over their ears and jumping up and down shouting "'Tisn't! 'Tisn't! 'Tisn't!" its news about the mass extinction 66 million years before 'Creation Week' that exterminated all but the non-avian dinosaurs and the early mammals and about 75% of all other species.
This event reminds them not only that Earth is very much older that their cult requires them to believe but also that Earth is not the 'finely-tuned' haven for life that their belief in a perfect creator requires them to believe. Instead, Earth is very old and subject to unpredictable catastrophes, not the least of which are cosmological events such as meteor strikes and the consequential mass extinctions.
News that a team of evolutionary biologists are reassessing what we thought we knew about the dodo, Raphus cucullatus, is a good excuse to look at what the dodo teaches us about evolution.
The dodo was a species of pigeon which had spread to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, where in common with many island birds had lost the ability to fly. In the context of an island with no mammalian predators, any advantage of flight is balanced against the greater disadvantage of occasionally being blown out to sea. Natural selection, with no foresight and no plan, results in a flightless bird, and, as events transpire, extinction.
The arrival of Europeans with their rats, cats and dogs and need for supplies for a long sea voyage, was an environmental change that the dodo could not adapt to because evolution has no reverse gear and rarely reinvents what was lost earlier. The ground-nesting dodo like its close relative, on a neighbouring island, the Rodriguez Island Solitaire, Pezophaps solitaria, were doomed. They were extinct by the late 17th century.
Evolution is an unintelligent process. This would not be so, if species like the dodo had been intelligently designed by an omniscient designer, who could have foreseen and prepared for the coming of Europeans with their rats, cats and dogs. It is not an intelligent act to design a species headed for inevitable extinction because it can't adapt to what can be anticipated.
What information do you have on the 'Oxford dodo' and it's role in literature and biology?
The "Oxford dodo" is a significant artifact in both biological and literary history. Here's an overview of its importance:
Historical Background
The Dodo: The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird native to Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean. It became extinct in the late 17th century due to overhunting by humans and the introduction of non-native animals.
Oxford Dodo: The Oxford dodo refers to the most complete known specimen of the dodo, which is housed at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. This specimen includes the only remaining soft tissue (a dried head and a foot) from any dodo in the world.
Role in Biology
Scientific Study: The Oxford dodo has played a crucial role in scientific studies on the species. Since it includes soft tissue, researchers have been able to extract DNA, providing insights into the dodo's genetic makeup and its relationship to other bird species.
Extinction Studies: The dodo is often cited as one of the earliest recorded examples of human-caused extinction. The Oxford specimen has contributed to studies on extinction, illustrating the impact of human activity on isolated ecosystems.
Role in Literature
Lewis Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland": One of the most famous literary references to the dodo is in Lewis Carroll's 1865 novel *Alice's Adventures in Wonderland*. The dodo in the story is believed to represent Carroll himself, who had a stammer and sometimes introduced himself as "Do-do-Dodgson" (Carroll's real name was Charles Dodgson). The character of the dodo in the story is depicted as a wise figure who proposes the "Caucus-race," where everyone wins and all must have prizes—a satire on political processes.
Symbol of Extinction: In literature and popular culture, the dodo has come to symbolize obsolescence and extinction, often representing something that is outdated or doomed to disappear. The Oxford dodo, as a physical reminder of a lost species, has reinforced this symbolism.
Cultural and Educational Impact
Exhibitions: The Oxford dodo has been featured in various exhibitions, not just as a scientific specimen but also as a cultural icon. It serves as a powerful educational tool about biodiversity loss and conservation.
Inspiration for Research and Art: The dodo has inspired a wide range of research, from studies in paleontology and conservation biology to its portrayal in art, literature, and even in discussions about colonialism and its impact on indigenous species.
Recent Developments
DNA Analysis: Advances in DNA technology have allowed scientists to conduct more detailed studies on the Oxford dodo's remains, leading to a better understanding of its biology and the causes of its extinction. These studies are crucial for understanding the dynamics of extinction and the evolution of island species.
Conservation Lessons: The story of the dodo, as illustrated by the Oxford specimen, is frequently used in discussions about conservation and the need to protect endangered species today. It serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of human activity on the environment.
In summary, the Oxford dodo is more than just a biological specimen; it is a symbol of extinction and a cultural icon that has influenced literature, conservation science, and our understanding of human impact on the natural world.
Is there any evidence for the story that it was rescued from a bonfire of 'rubbish' at either the Ashmolean or the Oxford University Natural History Museum?
The story that the Oxford dodo was rescued from a bonfire of "rubbish" at the Ashmolean Museum, or the Oxford University Museum of Natural History is a widely circulated anecdote, but its accuracy is somewhat debated. Here's what is known:
Origins of the Story
Historical Context: The story typically claims that the dodo specimen, or parts of it, were nearly discarded during a clean-up or reorganization at one of the Oxford museums, likely the Ashmolean Museum, where the dodo was initially housed. The account suggests that someone recognized the value of the remains just in time to save them from being burned as rubbish.
Attribution: This anecdote is often linked to John Tradescant the Younger, an early naturalist and collector, whose collection formed the core of the Ashmolean Museum's early holdings. It is also sometimes associated with Elias Ashmole, the museum's founder.
Supporting Evidence
Lack of Concrete Records: There is no definitive archival evidence or documentation to substantiate the bonfire rescue story. The tale seems to have been passed down through oral history and later written accounts, but without solid documentary support.
Museum Records: Some records suggest that by the late 18th century, parts of the dodo specimen were discarded because they had decayed. The surviving head and foot were kept, while the rest of the body, which had likely decomposed significantly, was disposed of. This might have contributed to the myth that the specimen was almost entirely lost.
Plausibility and Scholarly Opinions
Scholarly Views: Historians and museum curators generally agree that while the story is plausible, it is likely an exaggeration or a simplification of events. It is plausible that during a period of reorganization or decay of the specimen, parts of the dodo were discarded, and someone recognized the importance of preserving the head and foot.
Interpretation: The bonfire story has become part of the dodo's lore, serving as a dramatic reminder of how close we came to losing this invaluable specimen. Whether or not it is literally true, the story underscores the precarious nature of historical artifacts and the importance of preservation.
Cultural Impact
Moral of the Story: The bonfire rescue tale is often used to highlight the fragility of historical artifacts and the importance of vigilance in preservation. It also serves to enhance the mystique of the dodo, a species already surrounded by a sense of loss and extinction.
In summary, while the story of the Oxford dodo being rescued from a bonfire at either the Ashmolean or the Oxford University Museum of Natural History is an intriguing one, it remains an anecdote with limited concrete evidence. The story has likely been embellished over time, though it reflects the real dangers historical specimens face when not properly cared for.
The extinction of the dodo on Mauritius had a long-lasting effect on the island's ecosystem of which the dodo was an essential part, but its contribution to the history of Oxford and it's literary heritage that is perhaps as interesting, coming as it does from the fact that the 'New' Ashmolean Museum became the depository of the only known remains of a dodo, which, when the collection in the Ashmolean was shared with the Oxford University Natural History Museum, and Pitt Rivers museum, was housed there, where it fascinated the Oxford Academic, Charles Ludwig Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll (the Latinized form of Charles Ludwig).
Dodgson had a stammer and would introduce himself as Charles Do-Do-Dodgson, earning him the nickname Dodo Dodgson. When he wrote Alice in Wonderland, he based the Dodo on the 'Oxford dodo' and himself.
Part of the Oxford story concerning the Oxford dodo is probably apocryphal but serves to illustrate the importance of conservation, the fragility of specimens and recognising the importance of specimens which may not seem important at the time. The story is that it was saved from destruction at the last minute when it was destined for a bonfire of 'rubbish' that was being thrown out. The story varies as to who rescued it and whether it was the Ashmolean or the Natural History Museum that was about to burn it. What is probably true, and probably contributed to the story, is the fact that there was initially much more of the dodo but much of it decayed and was destroyed, leaving only the beak, feet and skin of the head and face.
The new study by researchers from the University of Southampton and Oxford University Museum is the subject of an open access paper in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, and a University of Southampton News release:
Rethinking the Dodo Researchers are setting out to challenge our misconceptions about the Dodo, one of the most well-known but poorly understood species of bird.
In a paper published today in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society researchers from the University of Southampton, Natural History Museum (NHM) and Oxford University Museum of Natural History have undertaken the most comprehensive review of the taxonomy of the Dodo and its closest relative, the Rodriguez Island Solitaire.
They’ve painstakingly gone through 400 years’ worth of scientific literature and visited collections around the UK to ensure this iconic species, embodying humanity’s destructive potential, is correctly classified.
The Dodo was the first living thing that was recorded as being present and then disappeared. Before this, it hadn’t been thought possible for human beings to influence God’s creation in such a way. This was a time before the scientific principles and systems we rely on to label and classify a species were in place. Both the Dodo and the Solitaire were gone before we had a chance to understand what we were looking at.
Dr Neil J. Gostling, co-corresponding author
School of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Correcting the record
Much of what was written about the Dodo and the Solitaire was based on accounts from Dutch sailors, representations by artists, and incomplete remains.
The lack of a definitive reference point (type specimen) or convention to label species (zoological nomenclature) led to a series of misidentifications in the centuries following their extinction. New species such as the Nazarene Dodo, the White Dodo, and the White Solitaire were named, but the paper confirms that none of these creatures existed. Still, these erroneous ‘pebbles’ sent ripples through the waters of zoological literature.
By the 18th and early 19th centuries, the Dodo and the Solitaire were considered to be mythological beasts. It was the hard work of Victorian-era scientists who finally proved that the Dodo and the Solitaire were not mythological but were giant ground doves. Unfortunately, no one could agree how many species there had been. Throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries, researchers thought there were three different species, although some people thought there had been four or even five different species.
Dr. Mark T. Young, co-corresponding author
School of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
To unpick this confusion, researchers went through all the literature on the Dodo and Rodriguez Solitaire encompassing hundreds of accounts dating back to 1598 and visited specimens around the UK, including the world’s only surviving soft tissue from the Dodo, in the Oxford Museum.
More has been written about the Dodo than any other bird, yet virtually nothing is known about it in life. Based on centuries of nomenclatural confusion, and some 400 years after its extinction, the Dodo and Solitaire, continue to prompt heated debate. We’ve gone from where the first statements were made, seen how these have developed, and identified various rabbit holes to correct the record, as best we can.
Dr Julian Hume, co-author
Bird Group
Natural History Museum
Tring Hertfordshire, UK.
Through this work, researchers were able to confirm that both birds were members of the columbid (pigeon and dove) family.
Understanding its wider relationships with other pigeons is of taxonomic importance, but from the perspective of conservation, the loss of the dodo and the solitaire a few decades later means a unique branch of the pigeon family tree was lost. There are no other birds alive today like these two species of giant ground dove.
Dr Neil J. Gostling.
Challenging our misconceptions
The Dodo was an integral part of the ecosystem of Mauritius.
Artwork by Julian Pender Hume.
The researchers believe the popular idea of the Dodo as a fat, slow animal, predestined for extinction is flawed.
Even four centuries later, we have so much to learn about these remarkable birds. Was the Dodo really the dumb, slow animal we’ve been brought up to believe it was? The few written accounts of live Dodos say it was a fast-moving animal that loved the forest.
Dr. Mark T. Young.
Evidence from bone specimens suggests that the Dodo’s tendon which closed its toes was exceptionally powerful, analogous to climbing and running birds alive today. The dodo was almost certainly a very active, very fast animal. These creatures were perfectly adapted to their environment, but the islands they lived on lacked mammalian predators. So, when humans arrived, bringing rats, cats, and pigs, the Dodo and the Solitaire never stood a chance.
Dodos held an integral place in their ecosystems. If we understand them, we might be able to support ecosystem recovery in Mauritius, perhaps starting to undo the damage that began with the arrival of humans nearly half a millennium ago.
Dr Neil J. Gostling.
Learning ‘valuable lessons’
The study marks the beginning of a wider project to understand the biology of these iconic animals.
The mystery of the Dodo bird is about to be cracked wide open. We have assembled a fantastic team of scientists to uncover the true nature of this famous extinct bird. But we are not just looking back in time - our research could help save today's endangered birds too.
Using cutting-edge computer technology, we are piecing together how the Dodo lived and moved. This isn't just about satisfying our curiosity. By understanding how birds evolved in the past, we are learning valuable lessons that could help protect bird species today. It's like solving a 300-year-old puzzle, and the solution might just help us prevent more birds from going the way of the Dodo.
Professor Marcus O Heller, co-author
Bioengineering Research Group
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Palaeoartist Karen Fawcett’s Dodo sculpture
The project will include work with palaeoartist Karen Fawcett , who has created a detailed, life-size model of the Dodo to bring the words on the pages of books and journal articles to life.
This work has been the merging of science and art to achieve accuracy and realism so that these creatures come back from the dead, real and tangible for people to touch and see.
Karen Fawcett
Palaeoartist
The work is supported by the University of Southampton’s Institute for Life Sciences.
The Institute was delighted to support this exciting work which exemplifies Southampton’s strength in interdisciplinary research and advanced scholarship.
Professor Max Crispin.
Director
Institute for Life Sciences.
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Creationists might want to ignore or prepare to lie about the following, especially the section on the terminology and nomenclature background, which contains a description of how taxonomy has adapted to the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, cladistics, shared common ancestry and monophyletics as it will make distressing reading for those who have been fooled into believing that biologists are abandoning the TOE as not fit for purpose, since nothing could be further from the truth, as this paper shows:
Abstract
The Dodo and its extinct sister species, the Solitaire, are iconic exemplars of the destructive capabilities of humanity. These secondarily terrestrial columbids became extinct within a century of their first encounter with humanity. Their rapid extinction, with little material retained in natural history collections, led 18th and some early 19th century naturalists to believe that these aberrant birds were mythological. This meant that the nomenclatural publications in which their scientific nomina were established were based on accounts written before the species became extinct. As such, no type specimens were designated for either the Dodo or the Solitaire. Our in-depth historical overview of both species and associated family-group nomina found that the nominal authority of the Dodo-based family group is not what is reported in the literature. Moreover, our detailed review of the family-group nomina based on columbid genera ensures that the current columbid family-group systematization is valid. Changing nomenclatural norms between the 19th and 20th centuries had a profound impact on Dodo nomenclature; so much so that the Dodo is an example of how pervasive nomenclatural ‘ripples’ can be and a warning for our current world of multiple nomenclatural codes.
INTRODUCTION
The Mauritian Dodo, †Raphus cucullatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Fig. 1), and the Rodrigues Solitaire, †Pezophaps solitaria (Gmelin, 1789) (Fig. 2), are textbook examples of evolutionary transitions and of human-made extinctions. Their morphologies were so aberrant that for a time, during the 18th and early 19th centuries, they were considered mythological (Duncan 1828, de Blainville 1835, Strickland 1844, 1848, Hume 2006; see Figs 1, 2). As said by Strickland (1848: 4): ‘So rapid and so complete was their extinction that the vague descriptions given of them [Dodo and Solitaire] by early navigators were long regarded as fabulous or exaggerated, and these birds, almost contemporaries of our great-grandfathers, became associated in the minds of many persons with the Griffin and the Phœnix of mythological antiquity’. The existence of the Solitaire, in particular, was long doubted, because for several decades it was known solely from the descriptions by Leguat (1708). Strickland (1844: 324) mentioned that the Solitaire had been considered either ‘fictitious, or to be founded on an imperfect description of the true Dodo’.
Dodo (†Raphus cucullatus) mounted composite skeleton [NHMUK S/1988.50.1 (PV A 3302)]. A, cranial view. B, left lateral view.
Solitaire (†Pezophaps solitaria) mounted skeletons (on display at the Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK in 2023). A, female individual. B, male individual. Note the difference in skeleton size and robusticity between the sexes.
A series of key papers during the early 19th century ‘resurrected’ the Dodo and the Solitaire from the realm of the mythological to the material (Duncan 1828, de Blainville 1835, Strickland 1844). The seminal work of Strickland (1848) and Melville (1848.1), in their shared volume, described in detail the anatomy of specimens still found in European collections at that time, in addition to giving an authoritative account of the history of the two species. However, it was not until new expeditions to the islands of Mauritius and Rodrigues during the 1860s that new incomplete skeletons of both species were discovered. The skeletal remains discovered in the ‘Mare aux Songes’ marsh during 1865 (Clark 1866, Hume et al. 2009) allowed the Dodo to be described more fully (Owen 1866.1), and the Solitaire was described by Newton and Newton (1868, 1869) after the Jenner excavations of 1865 discovered skeletal remains (Parish 2013: 234; Hume et al. 2015).
There has been renewed interest in the biology of the Dodo and the Solitaire in the 21st century. Studies have explored Dodo body mass (Brassey et al. 2016, van Heteren et al. 2017) and bone histology (Angst et al. 2017.1), and the endocranial anatomy of both species has been reconstructed digitally from computed tomography scans (Gold et al. 2016.1). New Dodo material has been discovered from Mare aux Songes, and the ecosystem of the Mare aux Songes Lagerstätte has been studied (see Rijsdijk et al. 2009.1, 2015.1, Meijer et al. 2012). The remarkable ‘Thirioux Dodos’ have been described in-depth, which includes the most complete Dodo skeleton known (Claessens and Hume 2015.2; Claessens et al. 2015.3). There have even been attempts to reconstruct digitally how these animals would have looked (Rodríguez-Pontes 2016.2). With each decade, our understanding of these aberrant birds is being revolutionized. To ensure that this work is on a firm basis, we need to ensure that the alpha and beta taxonomy (and accompanying nomenclature) of both species is stable. As we will show, there are no known type specimens for either species. Moreover, given that the use of Dodo-based (i.e. †Raphus) family-group nomina is now accepted within columbid systematics, we need to ensure that these names are themselves valid, in order to maintain the nomenclatural stability of extant pigeons and doves. To those ends, we provide an in-depth historical overview of the Dodo, the Solitaire, and the family-group nomina based upon them. We also establish a new nomen to unite both species: †Raphina.
Terminology and nomenclatural background
Before starting our historical overview, it is worth stating that the current rules of zoological nomenclatural are ‘relatively’ recent and have evolved from prior rules/suggestions made during the 19th century. We wish this to be clear from the outset, in order that readers will not mistake our comments hereafter as undue criticisms of past workers. There have also been dramatic shifts in both systematics (the paradigms and methods used to hypothesize clades) and nomenclature (the establishment of names for said clades, and the rules governing those names) between the 18th and 21st centuries. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the rules and norms of zoological nomenclature were being developed (e.g. Linnaeus 1758, Kirby 1815, Westwood 1836, 1837a, 1837.1b, Strickland 1837.2, 1878, Strickland et al. 1843, Dall 1878.1, Société Zoologique de France 1881, Douvillé 1882, American Ornithologists’ Union 1886, Blanchard 1889, Bütschli et al. 1893), prior to their widespread formulation and promulgation during the 20th century (ICZN 1905, 1961, 1964, 1985, 1999). Moreover, the paradigms used to hypothesize taxa were distinctly different, with the transition from a pre-evolutionary paradigm to an acceptance of paraphyletic groupings and groups united based on shared similarity, which then shifted to our current paradigm based on shared common ancestry and monophyletic groups (for a general overview of thought, see Mayr 1942, 1965, 1982, Hennig 1966, Nelson 1973, de Queiroz 1988, Mishler 2009.2; and for some clade-specific examples, see Allard et al. 1999.1, Dornburg and Near 2021, Cotterill et al. 2014 and the references therein).
The current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Fourth Edition, ICZN 1999, 2003, 2012.1, 2016.3; ‘Zoological Code’ hereafter) is a direct descendent of ‘Blanchard’s Code’ (Blanchard 1889) via the Règles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique [International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature] (ICZN 1905). Raphaël Blanchard, the ‘father of International Zoological Nomenclature’ (Bock 1994: 33), was the Chair of the nomenclatural committee of the International Congress of Zoology, the first President of the International Committee on Zoological Nomenclature, and the Editor of the French edition of the Règles Internationales. For the first International Congress of Zoology, he wrote an overview of zoological nomenclature and outlined what he believed would be an acceptable set of rules for the international corpus of zoologists (‘Blanchard’s Code’; Blanchard 1889). ‘Blanchard’s Code’ did not exist in a vacuum, because a plethora of nomenclatural codes for zoology had been proposed during the 19th century, with the earliest comprehensive code being proposed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science (‘Strickland’s Code’).
‘Strickland’s Code’ (Strickland et al. 1843) was formulated by a committee of British zoologists and palaeontologists (including famous individuals, such as Charles Darwin and Richard Owen, in addition to Hugh Strickland, who was pivotal in our understanding of the Dodo and the Solitaire), who set down many of the norms we recognize today; norms of the so-called ‘Linnean’ system of nomenclature, although this is perhaps more accurately called ‘Linnean–Westwoodian–Stricklandian’ nomenclature (sensuDubois 2011: 4–5). However, there were some important differences between ‘Strickland’s Code’ and the current Zoological Code (ICZN 1999), such as the proposed ‘start date’ for zoological nomenclature, which in ‘Strickland’s Code’ was 1766, beginning with the publication of the 12th edition of Systema Naturæ (Linnaeus 1766). The ensuing controversy over the ‘start date’ for zoological nomenclature cost ‘Strickland’s Code’ support amongst zoologists (Linsley and Usinger 1959: 41), with Dall (1878.1: 15) noting that the starting point used by the British Association had begun ‘admitting to recognition some ichthyological works printed between the dates of the tenth and twelfth editions [of Systema Naturæ]’. Other national societies began proposing their own nomenclatural codes, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Dall 1878.1), the Société Zoologique de France (Société Zoologique de France 1881), the American Ornithologists’ Union (American Ornithologists’ Union 1886), and the Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft (Bütschli et al. 1893), as did the Congrès international de géologie [International Congress of Geology] (Douvillé 1882). It was ‘Blanchard’s Code’ (Blanchard 1889) and the subsequent Règles Internationales (ICZN 1905) that would begin to bring international stability to zoological nomenclature (for further details, see Linsley and Usinger 1959, Bock 1994).
Zoological nomenclature of the 18th and early 19th centuries did not adhere to the quasi-legal system in place today. The renaming of pre-existing genera and specific epithets was commonplace (particularly up to the 1840s–1850s). Therefore, readers should not be surprised that the principal of priority with regard to nominal authority was not adhered to in Dodo nomenclature during this time period or that the formulation of names does not meet the requirements on the Zoological Code as we understand it today (ICZN 1999). It is also worth noting that when the Dodo and Solitaire were first named (Linnaeus 1766, Gmelin 1789), the concept of nomenclatural types did not exist. Witteveen (2016.4: 156) credited Westwood (1837a) as the originator of this concept, which then became incorporated into ‘Strickland’s Code’ (and subsequent nomenclatural codes). As such, type specimens were not designated for the Dodo or the Solitaire.
Before continuing, we also need to define the terminology we will be using. We will follow the suggestions and recommendations of Dubois and Fitzhugh. Dubois (2021.1: 39) noted that, ‘the term taxonomy is traditionally used in two distinct senses, to designate either a scientific discipline, or any scientific classification of organisms produced by this discipline and adopted as valid by taxonomists’. In order to distinguish between both meanings, Dubois (2005: 406) erected the term ergotaxonomy for the latter (‘classification used by a given author in a given work’, Dubois 2006.1: 250). To remove any ambiguity, we use the term ergotaxonomy to refer to any ‘taxonomic framework’ considered valid by their proposer.
We will use the term ‘systematics’ rather than ‘taxonomy’ throughout. There is disagreement within the field of evolutionary biology regarding whether taxonomy and systematics are different subfields (e.g. Simpson 1961.1, Wiley and Lieberman 2011.1), whether taxonomy is a subdiscipline within systematics (e.g. Michener et al. 1970, Dubois 2006.1, Pavlinov 2013.1, Winsor 2023 and the references therein), or whether systematics is a subfield of taxonomy (e.g. Toepfer 2011.2). However, others, such as Mayr and Ashlock (1991) and Fitzhugh (2008), have proposed that taxonomy is a synonym of systematics. We will follow Fitzhugh (2008: 54) and use the term ‘systematics’ throughout.
We also use the term ‘systematization’ in preference to ‘classification’ following Fitzhugh (2008). Fitzhugh (2008: 54) defined classification as the ‘segregation of objects into classes based on specified properties’, whereas systematization is ‘the organization of observations into a system of concepts, in the form of hypotheses, according to theory’ (the definitions of these terms given by de Queiroz 1988: 241 was similar). We consider the latter to be the best description of systematics, because both species and ‘higher-level’ clades are explanatory hypotheses rather than objects (e.g. see Fitzhugh 2005.1, 2008, Mortimer et al. 2021.2).
Herein, we follow ornithological convention and capitalize English vernacular names of species (Parkes 1978; and the International Ornithological Committee World Bird List v.13.2; https://www.worldbirdnames.org/english-names/spelling-rules/). Moreover, we use the English vernacular names for columbid species that appear in the International Ornithological Committee World Bird List v.13.2 (https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/bow/pigeons/), but with the following exceptions: (i) Didunculus strigirostris (Jardine, 1845) is referred to as the Samoan Tooth-billed Pigeon, because another species (†Didunculus placopedetesSteadman, 2006.2) was present throughout the islands that constitute the Kingdom of Tonga until ~2850 years ago (Steadman 2006.2; Worthy and Burley 2020) and was also present on Efate Island, Vanuatu (Worthy et al. 2015.4); and (ii) we generally refer to †Pezophaps solitaria as the Solitaire rather than the Rodrigues Solitaire, in order that it is consistent with the use of ‘the Dodo’ for †Raphus cucullatus (i.e. not using Mauritian Dodo). We follow Dubois (2000: 39) in using the term nomen (plural nomina) for any ‘scientific name’ that is formulated in compliance with a nomenclatural code, which, in this case, is the Zoological Code (ICZN 1999, 2003, 2012.2, 2016.5).
Our open nomenclature and synonymy lists follow the recommendations of Richter (1948) (see: Matthews 1973.1, who outlined them in English, and Becker 2001, who gave a recent overview in German), Sigovini et al. (2016.6), and Horton et al. (2021.3). Finally, we use the dagger (†) symbol in front of nomenclatural nomina that denote extinct taxa (except when they appear in quotations).
The dodo was named before biologists understood about evolution and believed species were created without ancestors, so the idea of a systematic nomenclature which reflected the evolutionary relationships between species had not occurred to them, so the dodo and its close relative, the Rodriguez Island Solitaire, were given different family names. This new study proposes a new family name, Raphina, for both species which reflects their evolutionary relationship and puts them in their correct position in the evolutionary tree of the pigeons and doves (the columbids) based on a DNA analysis.
The fact that human agency could drive a species to extinction was a shock to the early biologists who subscribed to the 'creation' mythos and assumed that what God had created mankind would be unable to destroy. We now know that both parts of the superstition were wrong and disastrously so. Not only are species the product of their environment but can be destroyed simply by changing that environment. There is no god playing any part in the process and least of all protecting its 'creation'.
This realisation made the Oxford dodo an object of fascination especially for academics like Do-Do-Dodgson who saw in it a metaphor for revealed wisdom about the nature of reality and the difference between it and human expectations, based on religious mythology.
Creationists might find it distressing to read how modern taxonomy has been revised to reflect the modern evolutionary synthesis, recognising that species can be arranged in clades and family trees based on how they evolved and diversified from common ancestors which themselves were the result of diversification from earlier common ancestors. They will probably find it distressing too how a DNA analysis of an extinct species like the dodo is confirming that view of the origins of biodiversity and no sign of that impending abandonment of the Theory of Evolution that their cult leaders have been assuring them is about to happen, any day now, real soon.
Just as amputees can't regrow a lost limb, so spine-injured patients can't repair a damaged spine, and yet, several species of amphibian can grow new limbs and Zebra fish can grow a new spinal cord.
Which leaves intelligent [sic] design creationists to explain why, if their putative designer can give some species the ability to regrow a lost limb or repair a transected spinal cord, he chose not to give that ability to his supposedly favourite, 'special' creation, humans.
But of course, those are not the only abilities and systems that could have been better in humans if the same designer designed other animals with superior abilities and systems:
Birds of prey have a vastly superior visual acuity to humans; birds in general have a much more efficient respiratory system which enables then to fly at heights at which we would be unconscious for lack of oxygen. Many animals have a vastly superior sense of hearing to what we have, and bats have a better immune system. Elephants and sharks both rarely get cancer, and so the list goes on.
Fusarium wilt of banana is currently decimating the Cavendish banana—the world’s most popular commercially available banana. Once present in a banana field, the fungus cannot be eradicated, making future production of Cavendish bananas almost impossible.
The soil-borne fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Cubense is a specialised form of F. oxysporum which parasitized banana plants (Mussa sp.), causing Panama disease or Fusarium wilt. Entire plantations can be wiped out in a year.
It is believed to have originated in Southeast Asia and was first reported in Australia in 1876. Since then, it has spread to almost all banana-producing parts of the world. One method of spread is by infected rhizomes which appear normal. Cultivated bananas are seedless so need to be reproduced asexually with offshoots or rhizomes.
The fungus kills the plant by triggering a self-defence mechanism that produced first a gel, then tylose which block the conductive tissues and prevent water and nutrients from travelling up from the roots.
By the mid-20th Century, resistant cultivars of the ‘Cavendish’ banana had been developed. However, the fungus has managed to overcome this resistance in the Eastern Hemisphere, and this is expected to spread to the Western Hemisphere. Currently, there are no other resistant cultivars available. There is now a real possibility that this economically and nutritionally important crop could become extinct!
Creationism’s putative intelligent designer appears to have a down on bananas and has twice modified a soil-born fungus to kill them. Firstly before 1876 and then again in the 20th Century, to overcome resistance in the ‘Cavendish’ cultivar. It doesn’t just stop at bananas, either. F. oxysporum also affects the plantain, Mussa acuminata × balbisiana, which is a staple crop in tropical regions.
An outcrop called ‘the Bubble’ on Eileach an Naoimh (Holy Isle). It shows a huge white rock fragment, tens of metres across, which was originally part of the underlying rock sequence. The layering in the carbonate rock has been squeezed tightly under immense pressure and transported by thick ice sheets to its final resting as one of many different rock fragments within a moraine.
Credit: Professor Graham Shields
In the foreground are limestone beds of the pre-glacial Garvellach Formation. The image looks north from Garbh Eileach over to Dun Chonnuil. Due to tectonic tilting, the sedimentary layers get younger, and closer to the onset of glaciation, as you move to the right.
Creationism continues to be overwhelmed by a deluge of science papers that incidentally refutes it. In fact, with the latest refutation, being buried beneath an avalanche or crushed under a glacier would probably be better metaphors.
All that remains to sweep it away as surely as a glacier sweeps all before it, is for creationists to find the honesty, humility and intellectual integrity to stop believing their superstitions trump reality and accept that they are not as important as they like to imagine they are.
The latest refutation comes in the form of an open access paper just published in the Journal of the Geological Society which presents evidence of a sudden transition from relatively warm climate to a period of intense cold that resulted in 'snowball Earth' between 660 and 720 million years ago - a period known as the 'Sturtian Glaciation'.
