Extinct Bird Re-Evolved Itself Back Into Existence
Discussion
I'm baaaack! Good article here about a flightless bird that was wiped out 136,000 years ago when the atoll it lived on was overwhelmed by floods. Fast forward a few (thousand) years, and it's surviving ancestors specie moved back onto the atoll... and evolved to be flightless once more!
Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
glazbagun said:
I'm baaaack! Good article here about a flightless bird that was wiped out 136,000 years ago when the atoll it lived on was overwhelmed by floods. Fast forward a few (thousand) years, and it's surviving ancestors specie moved back onto the atoll... and evolved to be flightless once more!
Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
Exactly. Why grow wings if you don't need them? NZ is a good example.Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
Evolution homework project: Why don't lemmings have wings? They have lots of predators, then fall over a cliff and die
glazbagun said:
I'm baaaack! Good article here about a flightless bird that was wiped out 136,000 years ago when the atoll it lived on was overwhelmed by floods. Fast forward a few (thousand) years, and it's surviving ancestors specie moved back onto the atoll... and evolved to be flightless once more!
Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
My guess on evolutionary pressure based on the hint in that article is that a flightless bird can have heavier bones and muscles. Or to put it another way, with flight not being an advantage in a predator free environment, being less prone to broken bones is probably the advantage - and after a few rounds of selection the birds are no longer light enough to fly.Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
I love evolution and how it results in things like this. On a different scale, convergent evolution results in characteristics being evolved multiple times, sometimes evolved, lost and re-evolved. Look at giraffes: ancestors had antlers/horns, lost them, then re-evolved osseocones.
Even intelligence has evolved multiple times: octopodes are great at problem solving, and as molluscs their last common ancestor with mammals and birds was a snail or similar.
Even intelligence has evolved multiple times: octopodes are great at problem solving, and as molluscs their last common ancestor with mammals and birds was a snail or similar.
Simpo Two said:
glazbagun said:
I'm baaaack! Good article here about a flightless bird that was wiped out 136,000 years ago when the atoll it lived on was overwhelmed by floods. Fast forward a few (thousand) years, and it's surviving ancestors specie moved back onto the atoll... and evolved to be flightless once more!
Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
Exactly. Why grow wings if you don't need them? NZ is a good example.Aside from being a cool story, it reminded me of the flightless birds that were dotted around all over the place for a very long time (after the even more famous flightless birds had gone, of course). The ability to fly seems like such an advantage that it's strange to think that there are environments were there would be evolutionary pressure against it. Presumably an ample supply of food and few predators?
Evolution homework project: Why don't lemmings have wings? They have lots of predators, then fall over a cliff and die
I read Richard Dawkins 'Flights of Fancy' earlier this year. Much lighter than most of his stuff but very interesting nonetheless.
One of the more curious evolutionary tales I've heard is that of the Sydney Funnel-web Spider.
It's venom is highly toxic and its bite often fatal to humans and other primates but relatively harmless to all other mammals... and yet it has spent millions of years evolving on a continent where no primates existed.
It's venom is highly toxic and its bite often fatal to humans and other primates but relatively harmless to all other mammals... and yet it has spent millions of years evolving on a continent where no primates existed.
glazbagun said:
Yeah I read Other Minds. The part about the parallel evolution of their eyeball blew me away. To have so little in common with us and yet end up so similar in some ways is remarkable.
Would you recommend? Is it Brian Cox "wow, amazing!" pop science or does it delve a bit deeper?If you'll humour my enthusiasm, there's examples everywhere. Warm-bloodedness has evolved multiple times (mammals, birds, certain sharks). Blood itself has evolved multiple times too (hence my beloved octopodes having blue blood with haemocyanin Vs our red blood with haemoglobin). Viviparity too - some sharks even give birth to live young with umbilical cords, which evolved completely separately to placental mammals. Then there's flight, and even the similarities between the societies of ants and naked mole rats.
Edited by donkmeister on Saturday 1st July 01:20
The Gauge said:
Non of this story can be believed until Sir Attenborough has made a tv programme about it. Only then can it be true
Who will replace him when he's gone?It didn't escape my notice that Maggie Aderin-Pocock is basically a reincarnation of Patrick Moore, so presumably we need the most Attenboroughesque naturalist to continue his work.
donkmeister said:
The Gauge said:
Non of this story can be believed until Sir Attenborough has made a tv programme about it. Only then can it be true
Who will replace him when he's gone?It didn't escape my notice that Maggie Aderin-Pocock is basically a reincarnation of Patrick Moore, so presumably we need the most Attenboroughesque naturalist to continue his work.
donkmeister said:
Would you recommend? Is it Brian Cox "wow, amazing!" pop science or does it delve a bit deeper?
If you'll humour my enthusiasm, there's examples everywhere. Warm-bloodedness has evolved multiple times (mammals, birds, certain sharks). Blood itself has evolved multiple times too (hence my beloved octopodes having blue blood with haemocyanin Vs our red blood with haemoglobin). Viviparity too - some sharks even give birth to live young with umbilical cords, which evolved completely separately to placental mammals. Then there's flight, and even the similarities between the societies of ants and naked mole rats.
I'd recommend it, but it's definitely pop science. And the science is front loaded, the last third is more about their uncommon behaviors in one particular colony and how the author came to be interested in them.If you'll humour my enthusiasm, there's examples everywhere. Warm-bloodedness has evolved multiple times (mammals, birds, certain sharks). Blood itself has evolved multiple times too (hence my beloved octopodes having blue blood with haemocyanin Vs our red blood with haemoglobin). Viviparity too - some sharks even give birth to live young with umbilical cords, which evolved completely separately to placental mammals. Then there's flight, and even the similarities between the societies of ants and naked mole rats.
Edited by donkmeister on Saturday 1st July 01:20
As a summary of all the things that makes them basically the closest we'll ever get to an intelligent alien it's enjoyable. Talks about their eyes, blood, weird distributed brain/nervous system, how we think their camoflage works, etc.
It's been a few years since it was written so much of what made it fresh is more widely known thanks to youtube, etc. If nothing else, it stopped me eating Octopus!
donkmeister said:
It didn't escape my notice that Maggie Aderin-Pocock is basically a reincarnation of Patrick Moore, so presumably we need the most Attenboroughesque naturalist to continue his work.
She has an infuriating habit of accentuating every third word.I think Chris Packham is probably next in line as Mr Naturalist.
I can't think of a single creature that can run fast and fly. You need big muscles to run fast, and muscles are heavy, which isn't great for flight. If a bird is better off running fast than flying, I guess it'll lose the power of flight.
But deep down, I do think flightless birds are a bit rubbish. No one ever discovered a swimless fish.
But deep down, I do think flightless birds are a bit rubbish. No one ever discovered a swimless fish.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff