https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm

On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm

Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6

Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 8:53:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
>
> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
>
> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.

Here, shit yourself silly:

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dead-fish-life-evolutionary-fins.html

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 9:26:18 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 8:53:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
> >
> > Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
> >
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
> >
> > Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
> Here, shit yourself silly:
>
> https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dead-fish-life-evolutionary-fins.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiKqfi0Djvo

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 11:53:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
>
> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
>
> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.

I hadn't expected it to be a freshwater dweller.

On 10/3/22 11:13 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 11:53:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
>>
>> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
>>
>> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
>
> I hadn't expected it to be a freshwater dweller.

Is there a clear and obvious understanding of what
fish fossils are supposed to be freshwater and what
fish fossils are supposed to be marine?

I would guess that if there is understanding of that
for many species, it would involve looking at the
sediments that the fossils are embedded in?

I am getting the idea that paleontologists in general
consider marine osteichthyes to be derived from freshwater
fish, with the general evidence being the existence of
at least vestigal kidneys in marine fish species, as well
as the salinity of the blood of osteichthyes, but there might
be some more direct evidence as well?

In general, how do marine fish lower the salinity of their
blood? Can kidneys actually reduce the salinity of blood
beyond the salinity of ingested seawater or is some other
process used? I am thinking that marine turtles 'cry'
hypersaline 'tears' into the water but I am not sure about
bony fish.

If it is possible for kidneys to produce urine that is
more saline than seawater, then why do paleontologists
think that kidneys are evidence that osteichthyes in
general is derived from freshwater species? Or do
paleontologists not actually hold this view to begin
with?

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 6:51:14 PM UTC-4, Trolidan7 wrote:
> On 10/3/22 11:13 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 11:53:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
> >>
> >> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
> >>
> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
> >>
> >> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
> >
> > I hadn't expected it to be a freshwater dweller.
> Is there a clear and obvious understanding of what
> fish fossils are supposed to be freshwater and what
> fish fossils are supposed to be marine?
>
> I would guess that if there is understanding of that
> for many species, it would involve looking at the
> sediments that the fossils are embedded in?
>
> I am getting the idea that paleontologists in general
> consider marine osteichthyes to be derived from freshwater
> fish, with the general evidence being the existence of
> at least vestigal kidneys in marine fish species, as well
> as the salinity of the blood of osteichthyes, but there might
> be some more direct evidence as well?
>
> In general, how do marine fish lower the salinity of their
> blood? Can kidneys actually reduce the salinity of blood
> beyond the salinity of ingested seawater or is some other
> process used? I am thinking that marine turtles 'cry'
> hypersaline 'tears' into the water but I am not sure about
> bony fish.
>
> If it is possible for kidneys to produce urine that is
> more saline than seawater, then why do paleontologists
> think that kidneys are evidence that osteichthyes in
> general is derived from freshwater species? Or do
> paleontologists not actually hold this view to begin
> with?

---

Trolidan, this may help?

Per r norman at SAP:

Invertebrates and early chordates, like the hagfish (myxine), have
body fluids very similar to sea water, which has not changed that much
in the half billion years. There are differences in individual ion
concentrations, but the osmotic pressure is very close. The later
vertebrates are a completely different story, having salt
concentrations far lower. One major hypothesis (frankly, I do not
know whether it is universally accepted) is that they evolved in fresh
water. Modern marine vertebrates including sharks, bony fish,
reptiles, birds, and amphibians, reinvaded the ocean afterwards.

So the body fluids of humans, mammals, and tetrapods in general is
much lower than sea water not because sea water was more dilute back
then but because they inherited that feature from freshwater
ancestors.

This is my first look at this thread, and I am disappointed
by the lack of interest in the main hypothesis of the authors.
Glenn's lack of interest I can understand; but why nothing from John?

Glenn, on the other hand, did us all a service by finding a
non-paywalled popularization with magnificent illustrations
based on the ones in the paywalled (but available to me
through my university) _Nature_ article.

On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:26:18 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 8:53:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
> >
> > Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.

Strange use of words: "cool" vs "real".

Not cool enough to provide pictures, though.
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
> >
> > Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.

No mention of what makes it exciting for paleontologists:
instead of paired fins, the fossils of these Silurian fish are
interpreted as having very narrow fin folds extending
all along the body:

"Perhaps the most unexpected feature of the postcranial anatomy of galeaspids is a pair of pronounced ventrolateral fins that extend continuously from a branchial to a caudal position, effectively bifurcating from the ventral lobe of the caudal fin."
[from the _Nature_ article]

Their significance is hypothesized to be as follows:

"Corresponding author Professor Donoghue said, "Tujiaaspis breathes new life into a century old hypothesis for the evolution of paired fins, through differentiation of pectoral (arms) and pelvic (legs) fins over evolutionary time from a continuous head-to-tail fin precursor."
-- from the popularization linked by Glenn below.

However, there is a disquieting feature that seems to rule out anything
like a direct ancestral role to Tujiaaspis or closely related taxa:

"A small oval orifice preserved in the midline of the abdominal area at about half of the body length is probably the anal opening (cloaca), but no anal fin is observed posterior to the anus (Figs. 1 and 2f)."
[from the paywalled part of the _Nature_ article]

Ironically, had Glenn known about this, it would have given him an excuse
for the following inappropriate language:

> Here, shit yourself silly:

Crikey, why not tell us the really interesting thing:
this is the first of the three non-paywalled references with illustrations.
And it even has something lacking in the paywalled part of the
article: a 10-second video originating in China that shows the
artists' conception of the fish swimming, with views from many angles.

> https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dead-fish-life-evolutionary-fins.html

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 10/11/22 7:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is my first look at this thread, and I am disappointed
> by the lack of interest in the main hypothesis of the authors.
> Glenn's lack of interest I can understand; but why nothing from John?
>
> Glenn, on the other hand, did us all a service by finding a
> non-paywalled popularization with magnificent illustrations
> based on the ones in the paywalled (but available to me
> through my university) _Nature_ article.
>
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:26:18 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 8:53:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
>>>
>>> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
>
> Strange use of words: "cool" vs "real".
>
> Not cool enough to provide pictures, though.
>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
>>>
>>> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
>
> No mention of what makes it exciting for paleontologists:
> instead of paired fins, the fossils of these Silurian fish are
> interpreted as having very narrow fin folds extending
> all along the body:
>
> "Perhaps the most unexpected feature of the postcranial anatomy of galeaspids is a pair of pronounced ventrolateral fins that extend continuously from a branchial to a caudal position, effectively bifurcating from the ventral lobe of the caudal fin."
> [from the _Nature_ article]
>
> Their significance is hypothesized to be as follows:
>
> "Corresponding author Professor Donoghue said, "Tujiaaspis breathes new life into a century old hypothesis for the evolution of paired fins, through differentiation of pectoral (arms) and pelvic (legs) fins over evolutionary time from a continuous head-to-tail fin precursor."
> -- from the popularization linked by Glenn below.
>
> However, there is a disquieting feature that seems to rule out anything
> like a direct ancestral role to Tujiaaspis or closely related taxa:
>
> "A small oval orifice preserved in the midline of the abdominal area at about half of the body length is probably the anal opening (cloaca), but no anal fin is observed posterior to the anus (Figs. 1 and 2f)."
> [from the paywalled part of the _Nature_ article]
>
> Ironically, had Glenn known about this, it would have given him an excuse
> for the following inappropriate language:
>
>> Here, shit yourself silly:
>
> Crikey, why not tell us the really interesting thing:
> this is the first of the three non-paywalled references with illustrations.
> And it even has something lacking in the paywalled part of the
> article: a 10-second video originating in China that shows the
> artists' conception of the fish swimming, with views from many angles.
>
>> https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dead-fish-life-evolutionary-fins.html

When you pepper your posts with personal attacks and replies to quotes
several layers deep it makes me less inclined to respond.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/11/22 7:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > This is my first look at this thread, and I am disappointed
> > by the lack of interest in the main hypothesis of the authors.
> > Glenn's lack of interest I can understand; but why nothing from John?
> >
> > Glenn, on the other hand, did us all a service by finding a
> > non-paywalled popularization with magnificent illustrations
> > based on the ones in the paywalled (but available to me
> > through my university) _Nature_ article.
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:26:18 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 8:53:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
> >>>
> >>> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
> >
> > Strange use of words: "cool" vs "real".
> >
> > Not cool enough to provide pictures, though.
> >
> >>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
> >>>
> >>> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
> >
> > No mention of what makes it exciting for paleontologists:
> > instead of paired fins, the fossils of these Silurian fish are
> > interpreted as having very narrow fin folds extending
> > all along the body:
> >
> > "Perhaps the most unexpected feature of the postcranial anatomy of galeaspids is a pair of pronounced ventrolateral fins that extend continuously from a branchial to a caudal position, effectively bifurcating from the ventral lobe of the caudal fin."
> > [from the _Nature_ article]
> >
> > Their significance is hypothesized to be as follows:
> >
> > "Corresponding author Professor Donoghue said, "Tujiaaspis breathes new life into a century old hypothesis for the evolution of paired fins, through differentiation of pectoral (arms) and pelvic (legs) fins over evolutionary time from a continuous head-to-tail fin precursor."
> > -- from the popularization linked by Glenn below.
> >
> > However, there is a disquieting feature that seems to rule out anything
> > like a direct ancestral role to Tujiaaspis or closely related taxa:
> >
> > "A small oval orifice preserved in the midline of the abdominal area at about half of the body length is probably the anal opening (cloaca), but no anal fin is observed posterior to the anus (Figs. 1 and 2f)."
> > [from the paywalled part of the _Nature_ article]
> >
> > Ironically, had Glenn known about this, it would have given him an excuse
> > for the following inappropriate language:
> >
> >> Here, shit yourself silly:
> >
> > Crikey, why not tell us the really interesting thing:
> > this is the first of the three non-paywalled references with illustrations.
> > And it even has something lacking in the paywalled part of the
> > article: a 10-second video originating in China that shows the
> > artists' conception of the fish swimming, with views from many angles.
> >
> >> https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dead-fish-life-evolutionary-fins.html

> When you pepper your posts with personal attacks and replies to quotes
> several layers deep it makes me less inclined to respond.

These words would have weight if you had bothered to
say something on-topic that befits your educational level.

You had a whole week to do it. Yet you don't do it even now.

Whatever happened to the John Harshman who would do unmarked
snips to personal comments that offended him, and would then respond
to the on-topic comments? Have you lost your interest in responding to them?

As it is, you come across like a spoiled child who tries to manipulate others
into catering to his whims ("makes me less inclined").

I have been planning to do a thread on reproduction in coelacanths,
and ran out of time yesterday. I was about to begin now,
and even to add lungfishes to the study. But your behavior here
makes me wonder whether you will ever try to
make comments that move the topic forward.

Peter Nyikos

PS When you wrote "personal attacks" were you only thinking
of yourself, and not Glenn also?

On 10/11/22 5:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/11/22 7:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> This is my first look at this thread, and I am disappointed
>>> by the lack of interest in the main hypothesis of the authors.
>>> Glenn's lack of interest I can understand; but why nothing from John?
>>>
>>> Glenn, on the other hand, did us all a service by finding a
>>> non-paywalled popularization with magnificent illustrations
>>> based on the ones in the paywalled (but available to me
>>> through my university) _Nature_ article.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 12:26:18 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
>>>> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 8:53:21 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
>>>
>>> Strange use of words: "cool" vs "real".
>>>
>>> Not cool enough to provide pictures, though.
>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
>>>>>
>>>>> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
>>>
>>> No mention of what makes it exciting for paleontologists:
>>> instead of paired fins, the fossils of these Silurian fish are
>>> interpreted as having very narrow fin folds extending
>>> all along the body:
>>>
>>> "Perhaps the most unexpected feature of the postcranial anatomy of galeaspids is a pair of pronounced ventrolateral fins that extend continuously from a branchial to a caudal position, effectively bifurcating from the ventral lobe of the caudal fin."
>>> [from the _Nature_ article]
>>>
>>> Their significance is hypothesized to be as follows:
>>>
>>> "Corresponding author Professor Donoghue said, "Tujiaaspis breathes new life into a century old hypothesis for the evolution of paired fins, through differentiation of pectoral (arms) and pelvic (legs) fins over evolutionary time from a continuous head-to-tail fin precursor."
>>> -- from the popularization linked by Glenn below.
>>>
>>> However, there is a disquieting feature that seems to rule out anything
>>> like a direct ancestral role to Tujiaaspis or closely related taxa:
>>>
>>> "A small oval orifice preserved in the midline of the abdominal area at about half of the body length is probably the anal opening (cloaca), but no anal fin is observed posterior to the anus (Figs. 1 and 2f)."
>>> [from the paywalled part of the _Nature_ article]
>>>
>>> Ironically, had Glenn known about this, it would have given him an excuse
>>> for the following inappropriate language:
>>>
>>>> Here, shit yourself silly:
>>>
>>> Crikey, why not tell us the really interesting thing:
>>> this is the first of the three non-paywalled references with illustrations.
>>> And it even has something lacking in the paywalled part of the
>>> article: a 10-second video originating in China that shows the
>>> artists' conception of the fish swimming, with views from many angles.
>>>
>>>> https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dead-fish-life-evolutionary-fins.html
>
>> When you pepper your posts with personal attacks and replies to quotes
>> several layers deep it makes me less inclined to respond.
>
> These words would have weight if you had bothered to
> say something on-topic that befits your educational level.
>
> You had a whole week to do it. Yet you don't do it even now.
>
> Whatever happened to the John Harshman who would do unmarked
> snips to personal comments that offended him, and would then respond
> to the on-topic comments? Have you lost your interest in responding to them?
>
> As it is, you come across like a spoiled child who tries to manipulate others
> into catering to his whims ("makes me less inclined").
>
> I have been planning to do a thread on reproduction in coelacanths,
> and ran out of time yesterday. I was about to begin now,
> and even to add lungfishes to the study. But your behavior here
> makes me wonder whether you will ever try to
> make comments that move the topic forward.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS When you wrote "personal attacks" were you only thinking
> of yourself, and not Glenn also?

I have no response to this off-topic post.

I hope Daud and Trolidan7 are still following this thread (and one out of two ain't bad).

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 6:25:35 PM UTC-4, daud....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 6:51:14 PM UTC-4, Trolidan7 wrote:
> > On 10/3/22 11:13 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 11:53:21 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 10/3/22 8:38 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> > >>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm
> > >>
> > >> Well, this is cool. Here's the abstract of the real publication.
> > >>
> > >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04897-6
> > >>
> > >> Full body fossils of galeaspids; very exciting.
> > >

[Daud:]
> > > I hadn't expected it to be a freshwater dweller.

[Trolidan:]
> > Is there a clear and obvious understanding of what
> > fish fossils are supposed to be freshwater and what
> > fish fossils are supposed to be marine?
> >
> > I would guess that if there is understanding of that
> > for many species, it would involve looking at the
> > sediments that the fossils are embedded in?
> >
> > I am getting the idea that paleontologists in general
> > consider marine osteichthyes to be derived from freshwater
> > fish, with the general evidence being the existence of
> > at least vestigal kidneys in marine fish species, as well
> > as the salinity of the blood of osteichthyes, but there might
> > be some more direct evidence as well?
> >
> > In general, how do marine fish lower the salinity of their
> > blood? Can kidneys actually reduce the salinity of blood
> > beyond the salinity of ingested seawater or is some other
> > process used? I am thinking that marine turtles 'cry'
> > hypersaline 'tears' into the water but I am not sure about
> > bony fish.
> > If it is possible for kidneys to produce urine that is
> > more saline than seawater, then why do paleontologists
> > think that kidneys are evidence that osteichthyes in
> > general is derived from freshwater species? Or do
> > paleontologists not actually hold this view to begin
> > with?

Romer held this view in his 1945 classic _Vertebrate Paleontology_, where he wrote,

"The active swimming characteristic of vertebrates suggests that their home lay in fresh waters where mobility was necessary to counteract the downward sweep of stream currents. Studies of kidney structure and function indicate that the primitive vertebrate kidney was one `invented' for use in a freshwater environment and that this structure was variously modified by later marine types. The fossil record is in accord with these other lines of evidence. Nearly all records of Silurian and early Devonian vertebrates are of a type that suggests that the oldest known fish lived in inland waters. Most ostracoderms were apparently stream and pond dwellers...few of the higher bony fishes appear to have been ocean dwellers before the Mesozoic." [p. 36]

I don't know whether newer books have departed from this opinion, and I
am too close to my bedtime [I've been an early riser all year] for me to
find out today. Did either of you find out anything from newer sources this past week?

The Silurian fish in the article are ostracoderms, jawless fish like the
lampreys, which have taken to fresh water with catastrophic results to the Great Lakes.

> Trolidan, this may help?
>
> Per r norman at SAP:

Has Richard Norman resurfaced at sci.anthropolgy.paleo? That would be very welcome news!
When did he make the following comments?
> Invertebrates and early chordates, like the hagfish (myxine), have
> body fluids very similar to sea water, which has not changed that much
> in the half billion years.

It used to be believed that hagfish are more distantly related to ostracoderms than to lampreys.
This seems to be evidence for that old theory, and contrary to what Wikipedia
takes to be the more popular present view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish

> There are differences in individual ion
> concentrations, but the osmotic pressure is very close. The later
> vertebrates are a completely different story, having salt
> concentrations far lower. One major hypothesis (frankly, I do not
> know whether it is universally accepted) is that they evolved in fresh
> water. Modern marine vertebrates including sharks, bony fish,
> reptiles, birds, and amphibians, reinvaded the ocean afterwards.
>
> So the body fluids of humans, mammals, and tetrapods in general is
> much lower than sea water not because sea water was more dilute back
> then but because they inherited that feature from freshwater
> ancestors.

In partial answer to Trolidan's questions, I have seen informative
posters in Columbia's highly regarded Riverbanks Zoo which say
that freshwater fish and saltwater fish have opposite problems wrt
salinity. The former have to keep expelling water to keep the proper
level, while the latter have (paradoxically!) to keep drinking water
while vigorously expelling salt. In the former case, pure water
tends to go through the skin, while in the latter, osmotic
pressure pushes water out into the more saline environment.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220928113007.htm

Jawed & teethed fish
https://scitechdaily-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/scitechdaily.com/new-findings-rewrite-the-evolutionary-story-of-fish-to-human/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16670825370429&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fscitechdaily.com%2Fnew-findings-rewrite-the-evolutionary-story-of-fish-to-human%2F

I have wondered if the slimy tongue of snails is related to the tongue of jawed toothed fish and snakes. If so, is the snail's shell like a viper's hollow fang?