Scientists Puzzled by Giant Ancient Life Forms
Scientists are suggesting there may be a brand new type of life — or, at least, that one existed back in the day.
In a new, yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper, scientists from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland argue that the massive and mysterious tubelike fossils known as "prototaxites" deserve their own life form classification because, basically, they're too weird to belong to any other.
Since their discovery in the 1800s, prototaxites have long been a head-scratcher and a point of contention for scientists who to this day cannot figure out their nature. Fossils of this bizarre organism, which lived some 400 million years ago, were initially thought to be the remains of rotted trees, complete with the fungi that assisted their decomposition inside them. In 1872, however, a ticked-off Canadian scientist named William Carruthers trashed that concept and suggested, against scientific convention, that the name prototaxites, which translates to "first yew," be changed to "nematophycus," which means "stringy algae."
Fast forward to 2007, and Stanford botanist Kevin Boyce declared, after analyzing the carbon isotypes found within a prototaxites fossil, that the strange monstrosities were some kind of fungus because they seemed to have gotten carbon from other organisms the way fungi do. Now, Edinburgh's Corentin Loron and his team are pouring water on that hypothesis as well — and suggesting, provocatively, that prototaxites don't belong to any other known lineage of organism and thus deserve their own.
To reach that conclusion, Loron and his colleagues analyzed the chemical makeup of Prototaxites taiti, a type of prototaxites found in Scotland that was, unlike its cousins, only a few centimeters tall. Fungi were abundant in the area where p. taiti was found, so the scientists were able to compare the composition of those fossilized fungi to that of the prototaxites fossils.
As they discovered, the cellular composition of p. taiti was vastly different from the fungi that grew alongside it — and indeed, was distinct from all known fungi, extinct or otherwise. Specifically, the prototaxites sample did not contain any chitin, a polymer that makes up fungal cell walls, which to their minds meant that it wasn't a fungus at all. Its anatomy was also "fundamentally distinct from all known extant or extinct fungi," the researchers wrote in their paper, which added to their contention that prototaxites should be granted their own lineage.
Boyce, the botanist who insisted that prototaxites are a fungus nearly 20 years ago, admitted in an interview with New Scientist about the new research that with the information that's been uncovered in the intervening years, "there is no good place" for the organism in the fungal lineage.
"Maybe it is a fungus," he told the magazine, "but whether a fungus or something else entirely, it represents a novel experiment with complex multicellularity that is now extinct and does not share a multicellular common ancestor with anything alive today."
Notably, scientists still don't know why prototaxites went extinct. This new research provides another clue about this bizarre and long-dead organism — and deepens the mystery, too.
More on weird life: Scientists Modified Genes In Mice to Give Them Traits of Woolly Mammoths, and the Results Are Frankly Adorable
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists make jaw-dropping discovery after satellite images reveal what's hiding over a mile beneath Antarctic ice: 'It's like uncovering a time capsule'
Scientists studying the East Antarctic Ice Sheet discovered a 34-million-year-old river-carved landscape hidden under more than a mile of ice, The Brighter Side of News reported. The concealed world offered a unique glimpse into the history and potential future of the critical ice sheet. "It's like uncovering a time capsule," said Stewart Jamieson of Durham University, the study's lead author, per The Brighter Side of News. The preserved landscape, which existed before the formation of the Antarctic sheet ice, spanned nearly 4 million square miles, providing experts with an unprecedented view into the region's geological history. The team used RADARSAT, a Canadian satellite system, to detect the landscape beneath the ice, per The Brighter Side of News. By studying the preserved landscape, researchers can better understand previous cycles of freezing and melting that can be crucial to predicting how future Antarctic ice melt will unfold. Because the Antarctic ice sheets sit on land rather than floating in water like Arctic ice, their melting would have a dramatic impact on sea levels around the world. According to the University of Texas Institute of Geophysics, the basin where the researchers discovered the hidden landscape contained enough ice to raise sea levels by a catastrophic 25 feet or more. Still, the land under the surface of that crucial ice sheet remained more mysterious to researchers than the surface of Mars. "And that's a problem because the landscape controls the way that ice in Antarctica flows, and it controls the way it might respond to past, present, and future climate change," Jamieson told UTIG. Researchers expressed hope that the discovery will lead to similar findings in other regions. "This landscape hanging out there in the middle of the basin is a little bit of an odd phenomenon," said Duncan Young, a research scientist for UTIG. "We're now working to answer why it was preserved and use that knowledge to find others." Combined, the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland contain two-thirds of Earth's fresh water, and they are melting at an astounding rate, according to NASA. The Antarctic ice sheet alone is shedding a jaw-dropping 150 billion tons of ice every single year. While studying the potential future impacts of rising global temperatures is important, it is just as important to prevent planet-warming pollution from entering the atmosphere in the first place. By taking steps like installing solar on your home, switching to an electric vehicle, or growing your own food in a home garden, you can do your part to help limit increasing global temperatures and sea-level rises. While these might seem like small things to do in the face of such a momentous challenge, if we multiply those actions by millions or even billions of people, we can make a real difference. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Strawberry Moon 2025: When to see June's full moon in NY
June marks the first month of summer and with it comes a fittingly fruit-themed full moon — the Strawberry Moon. While the Strawberry Moon isn't typically red in nature, it could be this year as it's expected to be the lowest full moon in almost 20 years and could be affected by smoke from the Canadian wildfires. Here's what to know about June's full moon. The full Strawberry Moon will make its appearance on Wednesday, June 11, and will reach peak illumination at 3:44 a.m. EDT, according to the Old Farmer's Almanac. June's full moon is called the Strawberry Moon as many ripening berries were ready to be harvested around this time in the northeastern United States, according to the Old Farmer's Almanac. The Strawberry Moon is also known as the Birth Moon, Hot Moon, Blooming Moon, and the Green Corn Moon. The strawberry moon is the most colorful of the year because it takes a low, shallow path across the sky, said Bob Bonadurer, director of the Milwaukee Public Museum's planetarium, according to reporting by USA TODAY. The June full moon's arc across the sky means moonlight must travel through more of the Earth's atmosphere, which can give it a colorful tint. Smoke in the atmosphere from Canadian wildfires could also act to create a colorful moon. According to EarthSky, the moon will the lowest in the sky that it's been since 2006, USA TODAY reported. "That's because we're in the midst of a major lunar standstill," which has to do with the moon's orbit around the Earth. "It's all about the inclination of the moon's orbit, which undergoes an 18.6-year cycle," noted EarthSky's John Jardine Goss. "The cycle happens because the moon's orbit is being slowly dragged around – mostly due to the pull of the sun – every 18.6 years." This year's major lunar standstill culminated in January 2025. And we're still close enough to it that the standstill is affecting the path of this June full moon, EarthSky said. Celestial events: When to see 2025's full moons, total lunar eclipse and supermoons According to the Old Farmer's Almanac, moonrise for the Rochester area will happen by roughly 8:53 p.m. Tuesday, June 10 and will set at 4:28 a.m. Wednesday. Moonrise for the White Plains area will happen by roughly 8:27 p.m. Tuesday, June 10 and will set at 4:21 a.m. Wednesday, the Old Farmer's Almanac says. While there's a chance for showers and thunderstorms for both the Rochester and White Plains areas earlier in the day Tuesday, skies should clear up by nightfall in Rochester, according to the National Weather Service. In the lower Hudson Valley, there's a slight chance of showers before 8 p.m. and skies may be a bit cloudy the rest of the night. Rain, rain and more rain: Thought May felt wetter than usual? You were right The next full moon is the Buck Moon, which occurs on July 10. Moonrise in the Rochester area is roughly 9:18 p.m. and around 8:54 p.m. in the Westchester area. A few additional celestial events are taking place this month. Here's when you should take a look at the night sky to try and catch a glimpse: While it won't be as bright as it was in early May, you'll be able to see Mars for a couple hours after dark all month long, according to NASA. The Milky Way — a faint, cloud-like band that arches southwardly across the sky — will be visible all night each night in June, NASA says, and will continue through the month of August. For the best viewing conditions of the celestial spectacle, travel away from bright city lights and find a nice, dark place to sky gaze. At the end of the month, you may be able to see Mercury for several nights if you have a clear view of the western horizon, according to NASA. Between June 21-30, look low in the sky around 30-45 minutes after sunset to try and catch a glimpse of the planet. Contributing: USA TODAY Emily Barnes on consumer-related issues for the USA TODAY Network's New York Connect Team, focusing on scam and recall-related topics. Follow her on X and Instagram @byemilybarnes. Get in touch at ebarnes@ This article originally appeared on Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: Strawberry Moon 2025: When to see June's full moon in NY
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@ If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone? – Jeffrey Very few people live beyond a century. So, if no one had babies anymore, there would probably be no humans left on Earth within 100 years. But first, the population would shrink as older folks died and no one was being born. Even if all births were to suddenly cease, this decline would start slowly. Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed. As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. Eventually, civilization would crumble. It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. To be sure, an abrupt halt in births is highly unlikely unless there's a global catastrophe. Here's one potential scenario, which writer Kurt Vonnegut explored in his novel 'Galapagos': A highly contagious disease could render all people of reproductive age infertile – meaning that no one would be capable of having babies anymore. Another possibility might be a nuclear war that no one survives – a topic that's been explored in many scary movies and books. A lot of these works are science fiction involving a lot of space travel. Others seek to predict a less fanciful Earth-bound future where people can no longer reproduce easily, causing collective despair and the loss of personal freedom for those who are capable of having babies. Two of my favorite books along these lines are 'The Handmaid's Tale,' by Canadian writer Margaret Atwood, and 'The Children of Men,' by British writer P.D. James. They are dystopian stories, meaning that they take place in an unpleasant future with a great deal of human suffering and disorder. And both have become the basis of television series and movies. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people also worried that there would be too many people on Earth, which would cause different kinds of catastrophes. Those scenarios also became the focus of dystopian books and movies. To be sure, the number of people in the world is still growing, even though the pace of that growth has slowed down. Experts who study population changes predict that the total will peak at 10 billion in the 2080s, up from 8 billion today and 4 billion in 1974. The U.S. population currently stands at 342 million. That's about 200 million more people than were here when I was born in the 1930s. This is a lot of people, but both worldwide and in the U.S. these numbers could gradually fall if more people die than are born. About 3.6 million babies were born in the U.S. in 2024, down from 4.1 million in 2004. Meanwhile, about 3.3 million people died in 2022, up from 2.4 million 20 years earlier. One thing that will be important as these patterns change is whether there's a manageable balance between young people and older people. That's because the young often are the engine of society. They tend to be the ones to implement new ideas and produce everything we use. Also, many older people need help from younger people with basic activities, like cooking and getting dressed. And a wide range of jobs are more appropriate for people under 65 rather than those who have reached the typical age for retirement. In many countries, women are having fewer children throughout their reproductive lives than used to be the case. That reduction is the most stark in several countries, including India and South Korea. The declines in birth rates occurring today are largely caused by people choosing not to have any children or as many as their parents did. That kind of population decline can be kept manageable through immigration from other countries, but cultural and political concerns often stop that from happening. At the same time, many men are becoming less able to father children due to fertility problems. If that situation gets much worse, it could contribute to a steep decline in population. Our species, Homo sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct. Consider what happened to the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens. They first appeared at least 400,000 years ago. Our modern human ancestors overlapped for a while with the Neanderthals, who gradually declined to become extinct about 40,000 years ago. Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals. If humans were to go extinct, it could open up opportunities for other animals to flourish on Earth. On the other hand, it would be sad for humans to go away because we would lose all of the great achievements people have made, including in the arts and science. In my view, we need to take certain steps to ensure that we have a long future on our own planet. These include controlling climate change and avoiding wars. Also, we need to appreciate the fact that having a wide array of animals and plants makes the planet healthy for all creatures, including our own species. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michael A. Little, Binghamton University, State University of New York Read more: The problem with pronatalism: Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a Ponzi scheme The dip in the US birthrate isn't a crisis, but the fall in immigration may be A country can never be too rich, too beautiful or too full of people Michael A. Little does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
