Connect with us

Science

In the Ocean, It’s Snowing Microplastics

Published

on

In the Ocean, It’s Snowing Microplastics

So long as there was marine life, there was marine snow — a ceaseless drizzle of demise and waste sinking from the floor into the depths of the ocean.

The snow begins as motes, which mixture into dense, flocculent flakes that step by step sink and drift previous the mouths (and mouth-like apparatuses) of scavengers farther down. However even marine snow that’s devoured will probably be snowfall as soon as extra; a squid’s guts are only a relaxation cease on this lengthy passage to the deep.

Though the time period might counsel wintry whites, marine snow is generally brownish or grayish, comprising largely useless issues. For eons, the particles has contained the identical issues — flecks from plant and animal carcasses, feces, mucus, mud, microbes, viruses — and transported the ocean’s carbon to be saved on the seafloor. More and more, nonetheless, marine snowfall is being infiltrated by microplastics: fibers and fragments of polyamide, polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate. And this fauxfall seems to be altering our planet’s historical cooling course of.

Yearly, tens of hundreds of thousands of tons of plastic enter Earth’s oceans. Scientists initially assumed that the fabric was destined to drift in rubbish patches and gyres, however floor surveys have accounted for less than about one % of the ocean’s estimated plastic. A current mannequin discovered that 99.8 % of plastic that entered the ocean since 1950 had sunk beneath the primary few hundred toes of the ocean. Scientists have discovered 10,000 instances extra microplastics on the seafloor than in contaminated floor waters.

Marine snow, one of many main pathways connecting the floor and the deep, seems to be serving to the plastics sink. And scientists have solely begun to untangle how these supplies intrude with deep-sea meals webs and the ocean’s pure carbon cycles.

Advertisement

“It’s not simply that marine snow transports plastics or aggregates with plastic,” Luisa Galgani, a researcher at Florida Atlantic College, mentioned. “It’s that they will help one another get to the deep ocean.”

The sunlit floor of the ocean blooms with phytoplankton, zooplankton, algae, micro organism and different minuscule life, all feeding on sunbeams or each other. As these microbes metabolize, some produce polysaccharides that may kind a sticky gel that draws the lifeless our bodies of tiny organisms, small shreds of bigger carcasses, shells from foraminifera and pteropods, sand and microplastics, which stick collectively to kind bigger flakes. “They’re the glue that retains collectively all of the parts of marine snow,” Dr. Galgani mentioned.

Marine snowflakes fall at totally different charges. Smaller ones have a extra languid descent — “as gradual as a meter a day,” mentioned Anela Choy, a organic oceanographer at Scripps Establishment of Oceanography on the College of California, San Diego. Larger particles, resembling dense fecal pellets, can sink faster. “It simply skyrockets to the underside of the ocean,” mentioned Tracy Mincer, a researcher at Florida Atlantic College.

Plastic within the ocean is continually being degraded; even one thing as huge and buoyant as a milk jug will ultimately shed and splinter into microplastics. These plastics develop biofilms of distinct microbial communities — the “plastisphere,” mentioned Linda Amaral-Zettler, a scientist on the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Analysis, who coined the time period. “We form of take into consideration plastic as being inert,” Dr. Amaral-Zettler mentioned. “As soon as it enters the surroundings, it’s quickly colonized by microbes.”

Microplastics can host so many microbial hitchhikers that they counteract the pure buoyancy of the plastic, inflicting their raft to sink. But when the biofilms then degrade on the best way down, the plastic may float again up, probably resulting in a yo-yoing purgatory of microplastics within the water column. Marine snow is something however secure; as flakes free-fall into the abyss, they’re always congealing and falling aside, lease by waves or predators.

Advertisement

“It’s not so simple as: All the pieces’s falling on a regular basis,” mentioned Adam Porter, a marine ecologist on the College of Exeter in England. “It’s a black field in the course of the ocean, as a result of we will’t keep down there lengthy sufficient to work out what’s happening.”

To discover how marine snow and plastics are distributed within the water column, Dr. Mincer has begun to pattern deeper waters with a dishwasher-size pump filled with filters that dangles on a wire from a analysis boat. The filters are organized from huge mesh to small to filter out fish and plankton. Operating these pumps for 10 hours at a stretch has revealed nylon fibers and different microplastics distributed all through the water column beneath the South Atlantic subtropical gyre.

However even with a analysis boat and its costly and unwieldy tools, a person piece of marine snow is just not simply retrieved from deep water within the precise ocean. The pumps typically disturb the snow and scatter fecal pellets. And the flakes alone provide little perception into how briskly some snows are sinking, which is important to understanding how lengthy the plastics linger, yo-yo or sink within the water column earlier than deciding on the seafloor.

“Is it many years?” Dr. Mincer requested. “Is it tons of of years? Then we will perceive what we’re in right here for, and how much drawback this actually is.”

To reply these questions, and work inside a funds, some scientists have made and manipulated their very own marine snow within the lab.

Advertisement

In Exeter, Dr. Porter collected buckets of seawater from a close-by estuary and loaded the water into constantly rolling bottles. He then sprinkled in microplastics, together with polyethylene beads and polypropylene fibers. The fixed churning, and a squirt of sticky hyaluronic acid, inspired particles to collide and stick collectively into snow.

“We clearly don’t have 300 meters of a tube to make it sink,” Dr. Porter mentioned. “By rolling it, what you’re doing is you’re making a unending water column for the particles to fall by.”

After the bottles rolled for 3 days, he pipetted out the snow and analyzed the variety of microplastics in every flake. His workforce discovered that each sort of microplastic they examined aggregated into marine snow, and that microplastics resembling polypropylene and polyethylene — usually too buoyant to sink on their very own — readily sank as soon as integrated into marine snow. And all of the marine snow contaminated with microplastics sank considerably quicker than the pure marine snow.

Dr. Porter instructed that this potential change of the pace of the snow may have huge implications for the way the ocean captures and shops carbon: Quicker snowfalls may retailer extra microplastics within the deep ocean, whereas slower snowfalls may make the plastic-laden particles extra obtainable to predators, probably ravenous meals webs deeper down. “The plastics are a weight-reduction plan tablet for these animals,” mentioned Karin Kvale, a carbon cycle scientist at GNS Science in New Zealand.

In experiments in Crete, with funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 analysis program, Dr. Galgani has tried mimicking marine snow on a bigger scale. She dropped six mesocosms — big baggage that every contained almost 800 gallons of seawater and recreated pure water motion — in a big pool. Below these situations, marine snow shaped. “Within the area, you largely make observations,” Dr. Galgani mentioned. “You will have so little house and a restricted system. Within the mesocosm, you’re manipulating a pure system.”

Advertisement

Dr. Galgani blended microplastics into three mesocosms in an try and “recreate a sea and possibly a future ocean the place you may have a excessive focus of plastic,” she mentioned. The mesocosms laden with microplastics produced not simply extra marine snow but additionally extra natural carbon, because the plastics provided extra surfaces for microbes to colonize. All this might seed the deep ocean with much more carbon and alter the ocean’s organic pump, which helps regulate the local weather.

“In fact, it’s a really, very huge image,” Dr. Galgani mentioned. “However we have now some indicators that it could actually have an impact. In fact, it is dependent upon how a lot plastic there may be.”

To know how microplastics would possibly journey by deep-sea meals webs, some scientists have turned to creatures for clues.

Each 24 hours, many species of marine organism embark on a synchronized migration up and down within the water column. “They do the equal of a marathon daily and night time,” Dr. Choy mentioned. Guilherme V.B. Ferreira, a researcher on the Rural Federal College of Pernambuco in Brazil, puzzled: “Is it doable they’re transporting the plastics up and down?”

Dr. Ferreira and Anne Justino, a doctoral scholar on the identical college, collected vampire squids and midwater squids from a patch of the tropical Atlantic. They discovered a plethora of plastics in each species: largely fibers, but additionally fragments and beads.

Advertisement

This made sense for midwater squids, which migrate towards the floor at night time to feed on fish and copepods that eat microplastics instantly. However vampire squids, which stay in deeper waters with fewer microplastics, had even greater ranges of plastic, in addition to foam, of their stomachs. The researchers hypothesize that the vampire squids’ main weight-reduction plan of marine snow, particularly meatier fecal pellets, could also be funneling plastics into their bellies.

“It’s very regarding,” Ms. Justino mentioned. Dr. Ferreira mentioned: “They’re probably the most weak species for this anthropogenic affect.”

Ms. Justino has excavated fibers and beads from the digestive tracts of lanternfish, hatchetfish and different fish that migrate up and down within the mesopelagic, 650 to three,300 toes down. Some microbial communities that decide on microplastics can bioluminesce, drawing in fish like a lure, mentioned Dr. Mincer.

Within the Monterey Bay Canyon, Dr. Choy needed to know if sure species of filter feeders have been ingesting microplastics and transporting them into meals webs in deeper water. “Marine snow is among the main issues that connects meals webs throughout the ocean,” she mentioned.

Dr. Choy zeroed in on the enormous larvacean Bathochordaeus stygius. The larvacean resembles a tiny tadpole and lives inside a palatial bubble of mucus that may attain as much as a meter lengthy. “It’s worse than the grossest booger you’ve ever seen,” Dr. Choy mentioned. When their snot-houses turn into clogged from feeding, the larvaceans transfer out and the heavy bubbles sink. Dr. Choy discovered that these palaces of mucus are crowded with microplastics, that are funneled to the deep together with all their carbon.

Advertisement

Large larvaceans are discovered the world over’s oceans, however Dr. Choy emphasised that her work was centered on the Monterey Bay Canyon, which belongs to a community of marine protected areas and isn’t consultant of different, extra polluted seas. “It’s one deep bay on one coast of 1 nation,” Dr. Choy mentioned. “Scale up and take into consideration how huge the ocean is, particularly the deep water.”

Particular person flakes of marine snow are small, however they add up. A mannequin created by Dr. Kvale estimated that in 2010, the world’s oceans produced 340 quadrillion aggregates of marine snow, which may transport as many as 463,000 tons of microplastics to the seafloor every year.

Scientists are nonetheless exploring precisely how this plastic snow is sinking, however they do know for certain, Dr. Porter mentioned, that “the whole lot ultimately sinks within the ocean.” Vampire squids will stay and die and ultimately turn into marine snow. However the microplastics that move by them will stay, ultimately deciding on the seafloor in a stratigraphic layer that may mark our time on the planet lengthy after people are gone.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

U.S. Efforts to Cut Emissions Stalled in 2024 as Power Demand Surged

Published

on

U.S. Efforts to Cut Emissions Stalled in 2024 as Power Demand Surged

America’s efforts to cut its climate change pollution stalled in 2024, with greenhouse gas emissions dropping just a fraction, 0.2 percent, compared to the year before, according to estimates published Thursday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.

Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.

The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting President Biden’s goal of slashing greenhouse gases 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.

Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade. That seems increasingly unlikely, experts say, especially since President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to dismantle Mr. Biden’s climate policies and promote the production of fossil fuels, the burning of which generates greenhouse gases.

“On the one hand, it is notable that we’ve now seen two years in a row where the U.S. economy grew but emissions went down,” said Ben King, an associate director at the Rhodium Group. “But it’s far from enough to achieve our climate targets.”

Advertisement

The biggest reason that U.S. emissions have fallen in recent years is that electric utilities have been retiring their older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and replacing them with cheaper and less-polluting natural gas, wind and solar power. That trend mostly continued last year, with a few unexpected ups and downs.

The nation’s demand for electricity, which has stayed more or less flat for two decades, suddenly jumped by roughly 3 percent in 2024, in large part because scorching heat during the summer caused many Americans to crank up their air-conditioners. A smaller factor was that tech companies have been building more energy-hungry data centers in states like Virginia and Texas.

While power companies installed large numbers of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries last year to meet rising demand, natural gas use also rose to record highs, while coal use declined only slightly. The net result was that emissions from the power sector increased an estimated 0.2 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.

At the same time, transportation, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases, saw an 0.8 percent rise in emissions last year. Gasoline and jet fuel consumption both increased as Americans continued to drive and fly more after the pandemic. Nearly 10 percent of new car sales in 2024 were less-polluting electric vehicles, but those models still make up a small fraction of total cars on the road and have yet to put a major dent in transportation emissions.

On the flip side, emissions from America’s industrial sector — which includes steel, cement and chemicals — fell by 1.8 percent in 2024. Some of that may have been the result of lost output, as two hurricanes and a strike at the nation’s ports disrupted some factory activity in the fall, Mr. King said.

Advertisement

“It’s a reminder that there’s always some bumpiness in emissions,” Mr. King said. “It’s not just a question of how many electric vehicles are on the road or how much solar we’ve installed. A big portion of our economy still relies on fossil fuels.”

One of the most striking findings in this year’s data was that emissions from oil and gas operations dropped roughly 3.7 percent in 2024. Even though the United States produced record amounts of oil and near-record amounts of natural gas last year, many companies appear to have curbed leaks of methane, which is the main ingredient in natural gas and which can seep into the atmosphere and contribute significantly to global warming.

Over the past few years, the Biden administration and several states have adopted new regulations that require oil and gas producers to detect and fix methane leaks. Many companies also have financial incentives to capture methane to sell rather than vent it into the air.

Between 2014 and 2024, U.S. companies appear to have reduced the amount of methane that escaped, per each cubic feet of gas they produced, by 40 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.

Several experts have estimated that greenhouse gases generated in the United States could start dropping sharply in the years ahead if many clean energy policies stay in place, particularly the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into low-carbon energy technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear reactors, green hydrogen and batteries.

Advertisement

While Mr. Trump has pledged to scrap many of Mr. Biden’s subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles and low-carbon energy, it remains to be seen whether Congress will agree.

That law has not yet had a major impact on the country’s emissions, said Mr. King, since it takes time for new factories to open and power plants to get built. But, he said, data shows that low-carbon energy and transportation now make up fully 5 percent of total U.S. private investment.

“That’s a leading indicator that things are changing quickly,” he said.

Continue Reading

Science

How to protect yourself from the smoke caused by L.A. wildfires

Published

on

How to protect yourself from the smoke caused by L.A. wildfires

You don’t have to live close to a wildfire to be affected by its smoke. With severe winds fanning the fires in and around Pacific Palisades, the Pasadena foothills and Simi Valley, huge swaths of the Southland are contending with dangerous air quality.

Wildfire smoke can irritate your eyes, nose, throat and lungs. The soot may contain all kinds of dangerous pollutants, including some that may cause cancer. The tiniest particles in smoke can travel deep into your lungs or even enter your bloodstream.

Conditions like these aren’t good for anyone, but they’re particularly bad for people in vulnerable groups, including children, those with asthma or other respiratory conditions, people with heart disease and those who are pregnant.

Here’s what you should know to keep yourself safe.

Advertisement

Stay indoors

Minimize your exposure to unhealthy air by staying inside and keeping your doors and windows shut.

If you have a central heating and air conditioning system, you can keep your indoor air clean by turning it on and keeping it running. Make sure the fresh-air intake is closed so that you’re not drawing in outdoor air.

Keep your pets inside

They shouldn’t breathe the unhealthy air either.

Check your air filters

Clean filters work better than dirty ones, and high-efficiency filters work better than regular ones. The California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District recommend filters with a MERV rating of 13 or higher.

You might consider using portable high-efficiency air cleaner in a room where you spend the most time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has information about them here, and CARB has a list of certified cleaning devices here.

Advertisement

Don’t pollute your indoor air

That means no burning candles or incense. If your power is out and you need to see in the dark, you’re much better off with a flashlight or headlamp.

If you’re cold, bundle up. This is not the time to start a cozy fire in the fireplace. Don’t use a gas stove or wood-fired appliances, since these will make your indoor air quality worse, not better, the AQMD says.

The CDC also advises against vacuuming, since it can stir up dust and release fine particles into the air.

Take care when cleaning up

You don’t want your skin to come into contact with wildfire ash. That means you should wear long sleeves, pants, gloves, socks and shoes. The AQMD even wants you to wear goggles.

If you’re sweeping up ash outdoors, get a hose and mist it with water first. That will keep it from flying up in the air as you move it around. Once the ash is wet, sweep it up gently with a broom or mop. Bag it up in a plastic bag and throw it away.

Advertisement

It’s a good idea to wash your vehicles and outdoor toys if they’re covered in ash. Try not to send ashy water into storm drains. Direct the dirty water into ground areas instead, the AQMD advises.

Those with lung or heart problems should avoid clean-up activities.

Discard spoiled food…

If you lost power for a significant length of time, the food in your refrigerator or freezer may be spoiled.

Food kept in a fridge should stay safe for up to four hours if you’ve kept the door closed. If you’ve been without power for longer than that, you’ll need to toss all perishable items, including meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk and cut fruits and vegetables. Anything with “an unusual smell, color, or texture” should be thrown out as well, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease and Control Prevention.

Refrigerated medicines should be OK unless the power was out for more than a day. Check the label to make sure.

Advertisement

…even if it was in the freezer

Your freezer may be in better shape, especially if it’s well-stocked. Items in a full freezer may be safe for up to 48 hours if it’s been kept shut, and a half-full freezer may be OK for up to 24 hours. (The frozen items help keep each other cold, so the more the better.)

If items have remained below 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) or you can still see ice crystals in them, they may be OK to use or refreeze, according to the federal government’s food safety website.

Ice cream and frozen yogurt should be thrown out if the power goes out for any amount of time. Meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, milk and most other dairy products need to go if they were exposed to temperatures above 40 degrees F for two hours or longer. The same goes for frozen meals, casseroles, soups, stews and cakes, pies and pastries with custard or cheese fillings.

Fruit and fruit juices that have started to thaw can be refrozen unless they’ve started to get moldy, slimy or smell like yeast. Vegetables and vegetable juices should be discarded if they’ve been above 40 degrees F for six hours or more, even if they look and smell fine.

Breakfast items like waffles and bagels can be refrozen, as can breads, rolls, muffins and other baked goods without custard fillings.

Advertisement

Consider alternative shelter

If you’ve done everything you can but your eyes are still watering, you can’t stop coughing, or you just don’t feel well, seek alternative shelter where the air quality is better.

Hold off on vigorous exercise

Doing anything that would cause you to breathe in more deeply is a bad idea right now.

Mask up outdoors

If you need to be outside for an extended time, be sure to wear a high-quality mask. A surgical mask or cloth mask won’t cut it — health authorities agree that you should reach for an N95 or P-100 respirator with a tight seal.

Are young children at greater risk of wildfire smoke?

Very young children are especially vulnerable to the effects of wildfire smoke because their lungs are still rapidly developing. And because they breathe much faster than adults, they are taking in more toxic particulate matter relative to their tiny bodies, which can trigger inflammation, coughing and wheezing.

Any kind of air pollution can be dangerous to young children, but wildfire smoke is about 10 times as toxic for children compared to air pollution from burning fossil fuels, said Dr. Lisa Patel, clinical associate professor of pediatrics at Stanford Children’s Health. Young children with preexisting respiratory problems like asthma are at even greater risk.

Advertisement

Patel advises parents to keep their young children indoors as much as possible, create a safe room in their home with an air purifier, and try to avoid using gas stoves to avoid polluting the indoor air.

Children over the age of 2 should also wear a well-fitting KN95 mask if they will be outdoors for a long period of time. Infants and toddlers younger than that don’t need to mask up because it can be a suffocation risk, Patel said.

What are the risks for pregnant people?

Pregnant people should also take extra precautions around wildfire smoke, which can cross the placenta and affect a developing fetus. Studies have found that exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy can increase the risk of premature birth and low birth weight. Researchers have also linked the toxic chemicals in smoke with maternal health complications including hypertension and preeclampsia.

What about other high-risk populations?

Certain chronic diseases including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other respiratory conditions can also make you particularly vulnerable to wildfire smoke. People with heart disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease should take extra care to breathe clean air, the CDC says. The tiny particles in wildfire smoke can aggravate existing health problems, and may make heart attacks or strokes more likely, CARB warns.

Get ready for the next emergency

Living in Southern California means another wildfire is coming sooner or later. To prepare for the bad air, you can:

Advertisement
  • Stock up on disposable respirators, like N95 or P-100s.
  • Have clean filters ready for your A/C system and change them out when things get smoky.
  • Know how to check the air quality where you live and work. The AQMD has an interactive map that’s updated hourly. Just type in an address and it will zoom in on the location. You can also sign up to get air quality alerts by email or on your smartphone.
  • Know where your fire extinguisher is and keep it handy.
  • If you have a heart or lung condition, keep at least five days’ worth of medication on hand.

Times staff writer Karen Garcia contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Science

Punk and Emo Fossils Are a Hot Topic in Paleontology

Published

on

Punk and Emo Fossils Are a Hot Topic in Paleontology

Mark Sutton, an Imperial College London paleontologist, is not a punk.

“I’m more of a folk and country person,” he said.

But when Dr. Sutton pieced together 3-D renderings of a tiny fossil mollusk, he was struck by the spikes that covered its wormlike body. “This is like a classic punk hairstyle, the way it’s sticking up,” he thought. He called the fossil “Punk.” Then he found a similar fossil with downward-tipped spines reminiscent of long, side-swept “emo” bangs. He nicknamed that specimen after the emotional alt-rock genre.

On Wednesday, Dr. Sutton and his colleagues published a paper in the journal Nature formally naming the creatures as the species Punk ferox and Emo vorticaudum. True to their names, these worm-mollusks are behind something of an upset (if not quite “anarchy in the U.K.”) over scientists’ understanding of the origins of one of the biggest groups of animals on Earth.

In terms of sheer number of species, mollusks are second only to arthropods (the group that contains insects, spiders and crustaceans). The better-known half of the mollusk family tree, conchiferans, contains animals like snails, clams and octopuses. “The other half is this weird and wacky group of spiny things,” Dr. Sutton said. Some animals in this branch, the aculiferans, resemble armored marine slugs, while others are “obscure, weird molluscan worms,” he said.

Advertisement

Punk and Emo, the forerunners of today’s worm-mollusks, lived on the dark seafloor amid gardens of sponges, nearly 200 million years before the first dinosaurs emerged on land. Today, their ancient seafloor is a fossil site at the border between England and Wales.

The site is littered with rounded rocky nodules that “look a bit like potatoes,” Dr. Sutton said. “And then you crack them open, and some of them have got these fossils inside. But the thing is, they don’t really look like much at first.”

While the nodules can preserve an entire animal’s body in 3-D, the cross-section that becomes visible when a nodule is cracked open can be difficult to interpret “because you’re not seeing the full anatomy,” Dr. Sutton said.

Paleontologists can use CT scans to see parts of fossils still hidden in rock, essentially taking thousands of X-rays of the fossil and then stitching those X-ray slices together into one digital 3-D image. But in these nodules, the fossilized creatures and the rock surrounding them are too similar in density to be easily differentiated by X-rays. Instead, Dr. Sutton essentially recreated this process of slicing and imaging by hand.

“We grind away a slice at a time, take a photo, repeat at 20-micron intervals or so, and basically destroy but digitize the fossil as we go,” Dr. Sutton said. At the end of the process, the original fossil nodule is “a sad-looking pile of dust,” but the thousands of images, when painstakingly digitally combined, provide a remarkable picture of the fossil animal.

Advertisement

Punk and Emo’s Hot Topic-worthy spikes set them apart from other fossils from the aculiferan branch of the mollusk family. “We don’t know much about aculiferans, and it’s unusual to find out we’ve suddenly got two,” Dr. Sutton said.

Stewart Edie, the curator of fossil bivalves at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, said that Punk and Emo’s bizarre appearances shook up a long-held understanding of how mollusks evolved. Traditionally, scientists thought that the group of mollusks containing snails, clams and cephalopods “saw all of the evolutionary action,” said Dr. Edie, who was not involved with the new discovery. “And the other major group, the aculiferans, were considerably less adventurous.” But Punk and Emo “buck that trend,” he said.

The new alt-rock aculiferans reveal the hidden diversity of their group in the distant past and raise questions about why their descendants make up such a small part of the mollusk class today. “This is really giving us an almost unprecedented window into the sorts of things that were actually around when mollusks were getting going,” Dr. Sutton said. “It’s just this little weird, unexpected, really clear view of what was going on in the early history of one of the most important groups of animals.”

Continue Reading

Trending