Wednesday, June 25, 2008

New Basal Tetrapod Skull: Ventastega


The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Even though Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.

While an earlier discovery found a slightly older animal that was more fish than tetrapod, Ventastega is more tetrapod than fish. The fierce-looking creature probably swam through shallow brackish waters, measured about three or four feet long and ate other fish. It likely had stubby limbs with an unknown number of digits, scientists said.

"If you saw it from a distance, it would look like a small alligator, but if you look closer you would find a fin in the back," said lead author Per Ahlberg, a professor of evolutionary biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. "I imagine this is an animal that could haul itself over sand banks without any difficulty. Maybe it's poking around in semi-tidal creeks picking up fish that got stranded."

[...]

Ahlberg didn't find the legs or toes of Ventastega, but was able to deduce that it was four-limbed because key parts of its pelvis and its shoulders were found. From the shape of those structures, scientists were able to conclude that limbs, not fins were attached to Ventastega.


Ventastega doesn't seem to be a recent discovery, but this find does seem significant.

1 comment:

  1. Not a new animal, per se, but a new specimen of an animal named in '94. You know, I've got a love/hate relationship with early tetrapods. On the one hand, I feel like I should be a lot more interested in them than I am. They're the pioneers, dammit! On the other hand, they all look more or less the same. I feel bad saying that. They don't really, but you see what I'm saying, don't you?

    I will say this: They're viciously difficult to restore accurately.

    ReplyDelete