09
Sep
09

Falsehoods: “Living Fossils”

I don’t mean to upset those of you with easily shattered views of reality (actually, yes, I do; if it’s that fragile to begin with, you shouldn’t be near me), but some of you (that’s being conservative) have probably heard of the term “living fossil” in one of the many media outlets available and even in some scientific literature. Here is the short list of “living fossils” which are living, but aren’t fossils:

Crocodilians,  Sequoia, Coelacanth, Horsetails, Nautilus, Ginko, Horseshoe Crab, Lycophyta, Vampire Squid, Whisk Ferns, Tuatara, Cycads, Ratites ….

I’m sure you get the idea. Anyway, the term “living fossil” is a falsehood. The reason for this isn’t due to the definitions used in scientific literature, in fact, that is usually used to describe “species with little or no morphological change over a significant portion of geological time with relatively little radiation of the clade after a significant genetic bottleneck.” Additional colloquial definitions include “a living organism with ancient traits” and “a living species which has remains relatively similar to the fossil ancestors.”

A problem with the idea of a “living fossil” is the idea that these organisms are truly unchanged. While they may appear similar, this morphology may, in fact, be the result of stabilizing selection for a specific morphology. A perfect example is the “living fossil” story I am, and you probably are, most familiar with: the coelacanth. There are, in fact, two living species of coelacanth and these two species, while very similar morphologically, are actually quite distinct (color is the main thing that jumps at me). This is an example of an unpreserved trait. There are many of these and without a genetic analysis, it is impossible to make the claim that the modern populations are truly “identical” to the fossil organisms. It would be difficult to distinguish the two living species from each other given only fossil morphological evidence, but genetic analysis indicates they diverged >20 mya compared to the human/chimpanzee lines diverging <10 mya. In other words, these two species are very genetically distinct from one another and there is no reason to suspect that the ancestral species were no less different from modern coelacanths than the two living species are at present.

In case you don’t remember one of the key aspects of evolution I talked about here:

…evolution is not something which is measured within an individual organism, or even within a population at a given time; it is measured between populations separated through time OR space or both

The “time” component is very important. A species will continue to change (on the genetic level) with or without a selective pressure. A population does not maintain identical allelic frequencies in the absence of selection. This is termed genetic drift, and this is even more pronounced after a genetic bottleneck of some kind. In other words, the exact thing that results in a “living fossil” (a species which does not radiate after a genetic bottleneck) is in the exact situation which results in a high level of genetic drift!

Ancestral populations will never (I know, this is a strong statement) be identical to modern populations. These “living fossils,” like all other organisms, are not static in terms of the genetics of their populations. The allelic frequencies (at the very least, mutations within unselected regions of the genome) will continue to change. We must keep in mind, however, that as similar morphologically as the living Latimeria species are to the fossil forms, they would be very genetically distinct from one another.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Falsehoods: “Living Fossils””


  1. 1 Pliny-the-in-Between
    September 9, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Nicely done!

    “While they may appear similar, this morphology may, in fact, be the result of stabilizing selection for a specific morphology.”

    I am going to steal this line for future use.

  2. 2 jaredcormier
    September 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Seems a bit clunky to me, but use it if you must.

  3. September 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Hey would you mind sharing which blog platform you are operating with?
    I am planning to start my personal blog within the near future
    but I am possessing a difficult time making a decision between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal.
    The reason I ask is mainly because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

RSS Adventures in Ethics and Science

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Blag Hag

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS denialism blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS ERV

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Greg Laden’s Blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Laelaps

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Lawful Good Wonk

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Pharyngula

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Tetrapod Zoology

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS White Coat underground

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Older stuff

wordpress stats

%d bloggers like this: