Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Oldest Fossilised Winged Insect Yet Discovered 24

Posted by Hemos from the from-the-wayback-machine dept.
tr0llb4rt0 writes "The Scientific American reports on an article in Nature (paid subscription required for full text) on how the fossilised mouth parts of an insect discovered in Scotland in 1928 has turned out to be the oldest winged insect yet discovered, pushing back the age of the earliest appearance of winged insects nearly 80 million years. Previos fossils of winged insects have dated to around 330 million years and scientist believe this new discovery lived between 408 and 438 million years ago. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oldest Fossilised Winged Insect Yet Discovered More

Oldest Fossilised Winged Insect Yet Discovered

Comments Filter:

  • Oldest bug found. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16, 2004 @12:47PM (#8295432)
    Yeah, it was infesting someone's Windows 3.11 system.

  • Finally proof.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Metex ( 302736 )
    that when I was young our stone tablet punchcards had bugs and man were they huge

  • Mouth = wings? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...fossilised mouth parts of an insect discovered in Scotland in 1928 has turned out to be the oldest winged insect yet.

    It had wings on its mouth, did it? How can you really tell without, say, a piece of fossilized body? Did someone just say, "hey, this looks close enough to that big blue bug we stepped on yesterday"?

    • Re:Mouth = wings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @04:38PM (#8297975) Homepage Journal
      It had wings on its mouth, did it? How can you really tell without, say, a piece of fossilized body?

      You allways need a whole body to identify a creature huh AC? You can't tell a rhino from a cow just by looking at its head?

      Well guess what, biologist who specialise in fossilised insects can recognise them on based on their distinctive mouth parts.

      • Re:Mouth = wings? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You allways [sic] need a whole body to identify a creature huh AC?

        No, but you need to read the article carefully before you speak, lest you wedge your foot in your mouth. Here's the important bit, since you obviously didn't read the article:

        "Rhyniognatha could have had wings, say the authors, but this is impossible to confirm since the wings themselves are missing."

        Care to try again?

        • Re:Mouth = wings? (Score:3, Informative)

          by nobody69 ( 116149 )
          When discussing organisms at the genus level and up, you usually find that looks of seemingly unrelated characteristics are found together. Iirc from my zoology classes a decade-plus ago, mouthparts are pretty variable in insects, so it's not that unlikely that going an insect could be identified as a flyer from just the mouth parts.

          Of course, since all fossils are fakes, this discussion is probably moot:)

  • how old? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "lived between 408 and 438 million years ago"... so it was 30 million years old? no wonder it went to live in Scotland!

  • Protowings? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ktanmay ( 710168 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @02:38PM (#8296732)
    The article is pretty sketchy on details, so here's something [bbc.co.uk] that will help a little. Now here's the most important part from that article, "Rhyniognatha could have had wings, say the authors, but this is impossible to confirm since the wings themselves are missing."

  • Jaws and wings (Score:5, Informative)

    by axolotl_farmer ( 465996 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @04:59PM (#8298230)
    How can they tell that these mandibles are from a winged insect when there are no wings fossilized?

    Winged insects and silverfish (the closest realtice of the winged insects) share several advanced traits. One is how the mandible attaches to the head capsule. This type of mandible attaches by two point and is called 'dicondylic'.

    The fossil mandibles are clearly dicondylic, and are also of a type not known from silverfish at all. They are of a broad chewing type more associated with 'higher' insects such as grasshoppers or cockroaches. Since there are no wings, they can't be abolutely sure if this was a winged insect or an unknown wingless insect more closely related to winged insects that to silverfish.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close