66-Million-Year-Old vomit fossil discovered in Denmark
Some discoveries are hard to stomach — literally.
A quirky and fascinating new addition to Denmark's natural history has been uncovered — a 66-million-year-old vomit fossil.
The fossil, officially named Danekræ DK-1295, was found at Stevns Klint in eastern Denmark by local fossil hunter Peter Bennicke. "Danekræ" are rare natural treasures of Denmark. They must be evaluated by the national Danekræ committee of the Natural History Museum of Denmark before receiving the designation, according to the University of Copenhagen and National History Museum Denmark.
Bennicke made the discovery after noticing a strange collection of sea lily fragments embedded in chalk and brought it to Geomuseum Faxe in November, according to Jesper Milàn, museum curator at Geomuseum Faxe. After a cleaning and analysis by Dutch sea lily expert John Jagt, it was determined that the clump contained remains from at least two species of sea lilies, the museum said.
Regurgitalites, or fossilized vomit, are rare but invaluable to scientists studying ancient ecosystems as they reveal what predators ate and how food chains functioned millions of years ago, the museum said.
Milàn said that the sea lilies were likely consumed by a Cretaceous-era predator, possibly a fish, that later spat out the indigestible parts.
'It is truly an unusual find. Sea lilies are not a particularly nutritious diet, as they mainly consist of calcareous plates held together by very few soft parts," Milàn stated in a Østsjællands Museum news release.
Visitors can see this unusual relic of prehistoric dining habits during a special exhibition at the Geomuseum Faxe.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Statistically, that shouldn't have happened': Something very weird occurred in the ocean after the dinosaur-killing asteroid hit
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. About 66 million years ago — perhaps on a downright unlucky day in May — an asteroid smashed into our planet. The fallout was immediate and severe. Evidence shows that about 70% of species went extinct in a geological instant, and not just those famous dinosaurs that once stalked the land. Masters of the Mesozoic oceans were also wiped out, from mosasaurs — a group of aquatic reptiles topping the food chain — to exquisitely shelled squid relatives known as ammonites. Even groups that weathered the catastrophe, such as mammals, fishes and flowering plants, suffered severe population declines and species loss. Invertebrate life in the oceans didn't fare much better. But bubbling away on the seafloor was a stolid group of animals that has left a fantastic fossil record and continues to thrive today: bivalves — clams, cockles, mussels, oysters and more. What happened to these creatures during the extinction event and how they rebounded tells an important story, both about the past and the future of biodiversity. Marine bivalves lost around three-quarters of their species during this mass extinction, which marked the end of the Cretaceous Period. My colleagues and I — each of us paleobiologists studying biodiversity — expected that losing so many species would have severely cut down the variety of roles that bivalves play within their environments, what we call their "modes of life." But, as we explain in a study published in the journal Sciences Advances, that wasn't the case. In assessing the fossils of thousands of bivalve species, we found that at least one species from nearly all their modes of life, no matter how rare or specialized, squeaked through the extinction event. Statistically, that shouldn't have happened. Kill 70% of bivalve species, even at random, and some modes of life should disappear. Related: The 5 mass extinction events that shaped the history of Earth — and the 6th that's happening now Most bivalves happily burrow into the sand and mud, feeding on phytoplankton they strain from the water. But others have adopted chemosymbionts and photosymbionts — bacteria and algae that produce nutrients for the bivalves from chemicals or sunlight in exchange for housing. A few have even become carnivorous. Some groups, including the oysters, can lay down a tough cement that hardens underwater, and mussels hold onto rocks by spinning silken threads. We thought surely these more specialized modes of life would have been snuffed out by the effects of the asteroid's impact, including dust and debris likely blocking sunlight and disrupting a huge part of the bivalves' food chain: photosynthetic algae and bacteria. Instead, most persisted, although biodiversity was forever scrambled as a new ecological landscape emerged. Species that were once dominant struggled, while evolutionary newcomers rose in their place. The reasons some species survived and others didn't leave many questions to explore. Those that filtered phytoplankton from the water column suffered some of the highest species losses, but so did species that fed on organic scraps and didn't rely as much on the Sun's energy. Narrow geographic distributions and different metabolisms may have contributed to these extinction patterns. Life rebounded from each of the Big Five mass extinctions throughout Earth's history, eventually punching through past diversity highs. The rich fossil record and spectacular ecological diversity of bivalves gives us a terrific opportunity to study these rebounds to understand how ecosystems and global biodiversity rebuild in the wake of extinctions. The extinction caused by the asteroid strike knocked down some thriving modes of life and opened the door for others to dominate the new landscape. While many people lament the loss of the dinosaurs, we malacologists miss the rudists. These bizarrely shaped bivalves resembled giant ice cream cones, sometimes reaching more than 3 feet (1 meter) in size, and they dominated the shallow, tropical Mesozoic seas as massive aggregations of contorted individuals, similar to today's coral reefs. At least a few harbored photosymbiotic algae, which provided them with nutrients and spurred their growth, much like modern corals. Today, giant clams (Tridacna) and their relatives fill parts of these unique photosymbiotic lifestyles once occupied by the rudists, but they lack the rudists' astonishing species diversity. Mass extinctions clearly upend the status quo. Now, our ocean floors are dominated by clams burrowed into sand and mud, the quahogs, cockles and their relatives — a scene far different from that of the seafloor 66 million years ago. Ecological traits alone didn't fully predict extinction patterns, nor do they entirely explain the rebound. We also see that simply surviving a mass extinction didn't necessarily provide a leg up as species diversified within their old and sometimes new modes of life — and few of those new modes dominate the ecological landscape today. Like the rudists, trigoniid bivalves had lots of different species prior to the extinction event. These highly ornamented clams built parts of their shells with a super strong biomaterial called nacre — think iridescent pearls — and had fractally interlocking hinges holding their two valves together. But despite surviving the extinction, which should have placed them in a prime position to accumulate species again, their diversification sputtered. Other types of bivalves that made a living in the same way proliferated instead, relegating this once mighty and global group to a handful of species now found only off the coast of Australia. These unexpected patterns of extinction and survival may offer lessons for the future. The fossil record shows us that biodiversity has definite breaking points, usually during a perfect storm of climatic and environmental upheaval. It's not just that species are lost, but the ecological landscape is overturned. Many scientists believe the current biodiversity crisis may cascade into a sixth mass extinction, this one driven by human activities that are changing ecosystems and the global climate. Corals, whose reefs are home to nearly a quarter of known marine species, have faced mass bleaching events as warming ocean water puts their future at risk. Acidification as the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide can also weaken the shells of organisms crucial to the ocean food web. Findings like ours suggest that, in the future, the rebound from extinction events will likely result in very different mixes of species and their modes of life in the oceans. And the result may not align with human needs if species providing the bulk of ecosystem services are driven genetically or functionally extinct. RELATED STORIES —Are we in a 6th mass extinction? —After the 'Great Dying,' life on Earth took millions of years to recover. Now, scientists know why. —Refuge from the worst mass extinction in Earth's history discovered fossilized in China The global oceans and their inhabitants are complex, and, as our team's latest research shows, it is difficult to predict the trajectory of biodiversity as it rebounds — even when extinction pressures are reduced. Billions of people depend on the ocean for food. As the history recorded by the world's bivalves shows, the upending of the pecking order — the number of species in each mode of life — won't necessarily settle into an arrangement that can feed as many people the next time around. This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
American Military News
3 days ago
- American Military News
Video: World War I submarine found off San Diego coast
The USS F-1, a World War I-era U.S. Navy submarine, was recently discovered by researchers off the cost of San Diego, California. The discovery comes 108 years after the submarine was 'lost at sea' in a training accident in December of 1917. In a recent press release, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) announced, 'A deep-sea training and engineering dive off the coast of San Diego provided an opportunity for never-before-seen imagery of the U.S. Navy submarine USS F-1, lost at sea in an accident on December 17, 1917, that resulted in the death of 19 crew members.' According to the press release, WHOI researchers captured images of the World War I-era Navy submarine by using 'Sentry,' an autonomous underwater vehicle, and 'Alvin,' a human-occupied vehicle, to access the remains of the submarine located under more than 1,300 feet of water. 'Advanced ocean technology and simple teamwork played a big part in delivering these new images,' Bruce Strickrott, manager of the Alvin Group at WHOI and the senior pilot who helped lead the recent expedition, said. 'Once we identified the wreck and determined it was safe to dive, we were able to capture never-before-seen perspectives of the sub. As a U.S. Navy veteran, it was a profound honor to visit the wreck of the F-1 with our ONR and NHHC colleagues aboard Alvin.' READ MORE: Pics: Surprising WWII shipwreck finds revealed WHOI explained that the recent expedition was part of a training and engineering mission intended to give pilots of the underwater submersibles an opportunity to increase their piloting skills and develop technology for underwater research. 'It was an incredibly exciting and humbling experience to visit these historically significant wrecks and to honor the sacrifice of these brave American Sailors,' Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) Underwater Archaeologist Brad Krueger said. 'All of us at the NHHC are grateful for this collaboration, which also enabled us to document and assess the condition of the crafts.' According to the press release, the crew on the Atlantis, which was stationed above the location of the remains of the USS F-1, held a remembrance ceremony in honor of the 19 Navy members who were killed in the training incident in 1917. 'History and archaeology are all about people and we felt it was important to read their names aloud,' Krueger stated. 'The Navy has a solemn responsibility to ensure the legacies of its lost Sailors are remembered.' A video shared on X, formerly Twitter, by WHOI shows the new footage of the USS F-1 submarine as well as part of the ceremony held in honor of the 19 Navy members.
Medscape
3 days ago
- Medscape
Is Albuminuria Screening the Answer to Tackling Unseen CKD?
VIENNA — Only 7%-20% of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the US are aware of their condition; meanwhile, the disease is projected to become the fifth leading cause of death globally by 2050. But what is the best way to change these statistics? Facing off on opposite sides of a debate at 62nd European Renal Association (ERA) Congress 2025 on whether or not population screening of albuminuria is the answer were Ronald T. Gansevoort, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, and Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. While the two speakers agreed on the importance of early detection of CKD and the limitations of current practice, they diverged on the best path forward. The Case for Population Screening 'Albuminuria is by far the strongest predictor for kidney function decline,' said Gansevoort, who argued for broad screening. 'It can occur in an early stage of kidney disease, when kidney function is still normal,' he said, adding that it is often accompanied by as yet unknown — or poorly controlled — diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and even cardiovascular disease. He illustrated the gravity of the situation with a stark comparison: Patients on dialysis have 5-year survival rates similar to those of patients with colorectal cancer. Worse, survival is improving slightly in patients with cancer, whereas survival in patients on dialysis has not improved at all over the past few decades, he noted. Gansevoort stressed the importance of identifying individuals at risk before a decline in the glomerular filtration rate begins, pointing to the increased availability of effective interventions, including SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. To demonstrate the feasibility of screening, he presented results from THOMAS, a Dutch prospective, randomized, open-label implementation study comparing two home-based screening methods. Using a urine collection kit returned by post, the study achieved a 59% participation rate and identified confirmed high albuminuria in 3.3% of participants. Among those with albuminuria, 90% had newly diagnosed or poorly controlled comorbidities such as hypertension or high cholesterol. Yet only 54% of referred patients actually visited their general practitioner. There's definitely room for improvement there, Gansevoort acknowledged. Nonetheless, he argued that population screening was cost-effective when done at home. The researchers from THOMAS calculated a cost of €9225 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), far below typical European thresholds. 'It's already cost-effective,' he noted, adding that integrating albuminuria testing into existing national screening programs, such as those for colorectal cancer or cardiovascular disease, could further boost cost-effectiveness and increase participation. He described the newly launched Check@Home study — a collaborative effort by the Dutch CardioVascular Alliance, the Dutch Heart Foundation, the Kidney Foundation, and the Diabetes Research Foundation — that combines screening for both CKD and cardiovascular disease. He also highlighted the recently begun CASCADE CKD study, which uses a single at-home kit incorporating both urine and fecal collection to screen simultaneously for CKD and colorectal cancer. 'How easy would it be in the same package to have a second tube to collect some urine and to detect patients with chronic kidney disease?' he asked. By sharing logistical infrastructure, 'It will definitely improve cost-effectiveness even further,' he noted. The Case Against Vassalotti, speaking against general population screening, began with a concession: 'I'm not against population screening for albuminuria,' he said. 'Rather, I think case finding among risk groups is more feasible, sustainable, and impactful.' He emphasized the importance of context, asking the audience to consider 'the public, the patients, the primary care clinicians, and the policymakers. In the US, even among those diagnosed, only half receive urine albumin testing.' 'We're not even doing a good job managing people with CKD,' he said. 'We should implement better case finding or opportunistic screening to start with.' Cost was another sticking point. Vassalotti cited a US study that used Markov models to assess population-wide CKD screening and put the cost at $86,300 per QALY for adults aged 55 years or older, a figure above commonly accepted thresholds. 'Implementation was assumed to be 100%,' he said, 'which in the US is quite a stretch.' Vassalotti praised Gansevoort's THOMAS study but questioned its scalability. 'How can you screen the general population if only 59% participate?' he asked. He added that participation in the US might be even lower, given the lack of public awareness and fragmented health infrastructure. He concluded by advocating for primary care engagement and better CKD education. 'Perceived risk will help us manage the risk condition,' he said. 'And that will result in more awareness, increased detection, and improved management.' Agreement on Need for Action In a rebuttal, Gansevoort reiterated that his model was already more cost-effective than those cited by Vassalotti. 'We do it in the home setting, making it far less costly,' he said. He also called for a more pragmatic view on participation. 'We are not going to save everybody,' he said. 'But should we not save many people because some do not like to be screened?' Vassalotti, in turn, emphasized the need to work on education, for the public, patients, and clinicians alike, before expanding screening. 'How can you screen the public for kidney disease,' he asked, 'when they don't even know what it is?' One key issue emerging from the closing discussion was how often screening should occur. 'It has not been decided yet,' Gansevoort admitted. 'We're looking into Markov models, perhaps a fixed interval or a patient-specific interval.' Vassalotti argued for simplicity: 'Annual screening is something that we can disseminate easily,' he said. 'Less frequent screening is more difficult to socialize.' Despite their differences, both speakers emphasized the need for action. 'We now have effective, sufficiently safe, and affordable treatments,' Gansevoort said. 'The present opportunistic screening approach has proven not to work.' For Vassalotti, the path forward must be grounded in context. 'Every country should develop its own approach,' he said. 'Whether it be population screening or case finding.' No funding was declared. Gansevoort declared having relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Dutch Kidney Foundation, Galapagos, Happitech, Health~Holland, Ipsen, Mironid, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Sandoz, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals. Vassalotti declared having relationships with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi.
