Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin claim to have identified the world’s oldest bug. The specimen is a millipede ancestor found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland, and it dates back 425 million years.

The specimen is an extinct millipede species called Kampecaris obanensis. While the fossil itself was discovered as far back as 1899, it’s only just now been accurately dated.

To do so, the team used radiometric dating on zircons in the sediment. Zircons are tiny mineral grains that are incredibly durable, so they survive all kinds of geologic events that deep time can throw at them. That makes them perfect time capsules.

The fossil of the world’s oldest known bug was found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland

Interestingly, the team also believes that the fossils described here are not just the oldest bugs discovered so far – they’re among the oldest bugs, period. They say that older bug fossils have not been found in older deposits that are known to preserve other delicate fossils.

That said, the hypothesis clashes with another method known as molecular clock dating. This technique estimates when types of species arose based on tracing back the rate of DNA mutations. According to the molecular clock, millipedes should be about 500 million years old – 75 million years older than these fossils.

https://newatlas.com/science/world-oldest-known-bug-millipede-kerrera/

Millipedes were the oldest creatures to leave the primordial soup and live permanently on land, according to U.S. and U.K. scientists.

Dr Heather Wilson from Yale University in Connecticut and Dr Lyall Anderson from the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh published their study of fossilised millipedes in the latest issue of the Journal of Paleontology.

The millipede was 420 million years old, about 20 million years older than the daddy longlegs spider that previously held the record for the oldest life form to live on land.

The researchers looked at the ancient millipede’s spiracles, holes that absorb oxygen directly from the air into the body, the same way millipedes do today. These spiracles were the oldest ever found, indicating this was the first creature known to have a respiratory system to allow it to breathe on land.

“The fact has got very well developed structures to breathe air suggests there must have been things prior to that which these developed from, so we should be looking further back in time to see if this thing had ancestors,” he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/01/27/1031780.htm

PermeateFree said:

Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin claim to have identified the world’s oldest bug. The specimen is a millipede ancestor found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland, and it dates back 425 million years.

The specimen is an extinct millipede species called Kampecaris obanensis. While the fossil itself was discovered as far back as 1899, it’s only just now been accurately dated.

To do so, the team used radiometric dating on zircons in the sediment. Zircons are tiny mineral grains that are incredibly durable, so they survive all kinds of geologic events that deep time can throw at them. That makes them perfect time capsules.

The fossil of the world’s oldest known bug was found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland

Interestingly, the team also believes that the fossils described here are not just the oldest bugs discovered so far – they’re among the oldest bugs, period. They say that older bug fossils have not been found in older deposits that are known to preserve other delicate fossils.

That said, the hypothesis clashes with another method known as molecular clock dating. This technique estimates when types of species arose based on tracing back the rate of DNA mutations. According to the molecular clock, millipedes should be about 500 million years old – 75 million years older than these fossils.

https://newatlas.com/science/world-oldest-known-bug-millipede-kerrera/

Millipedes were the oldest creatures to leave the primordial soup and live permanently on land, according to U.S. and U.K. scientists.

Dr Heather Wilson from Yale University in Connecticut and Dr Lyall Anderson from the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh published their study of fossilised millipedes in the latest issue of the Journal of Paleontology.

The millipede was 420 million years old, about 20 million years older than the daddy longlegs spider that previously held the record for the oldest life form to live on land.

The researchers looked at the ancient millipede’s spiracles, holes that absorb oxygen directly from the air into the body, the same way millipedes do today. These spiracles were the oldest ever found, indicating this was the first creature known to have a respiratory system to allow it to breathe on land.

“The fact has got very well developed structures to breathe air suggests there must have been things prior to that which these developed from, so we should be looking further back in time to see if this thing had ancestors,” he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/01/27/1031780.htm

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin claim to have identified the world’s oldest bug. The specimen is a millipede ancestor found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland, and it dates back 425 million years.

The specimen is an extinct millipede species called Kampecaris obanensis. While the fossil itself was discovered as far back as 1899, it’s only just now been accurately dated.

To do so, the team used radiometric dating on zircons in the sediment. Zircons are tiny mineral grains that are incredibly durable, so they survive all kinds of geologic events that deep time can throw at them. That makes them perfect time capsules.

The fossil of the world’s oldest known bug was found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland

Interestingly, the team also believes that the fossils described here are not just the oldest bugs discovered so far – they’re among the oldest bugs, period. They say that older bug fossils have not been found in older deposits that are known to preserve other delicate fossils.

That said, the hypothesis clashes with another method known as molecular clock dating. This technique estimates when types of species arose based on tracing back the rate of DNA mutations. According to the molecular clock, millipedes should be about 500 million years old – 75 million years older than these fossils.

https://newatlas.com/science/world-oldest-known-bug-millipede-kerrera/

Millipedes were the oldest creatures to leave the primordial soup and live permanently on land, according to U.S. and U.K. scientists.

Dr Heather Wilson from Yale University in Connecticut and Dr Lyall Anderson from the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh published their study of fossilised millipedes in the latest issue of the Journal of Paleontology.

The millipede was 420 million years old, about 20 million years older than the daddy longlegs spider that previously held the record for the oldest life form to live on land.

The researchers looked at the ancient millipede’s spiracles, holes that absorb oxygen directly from the air into the body, the same way millipedes do today. These spiracles were the oldest ever found, indicating this was the first creature known to have a respiratory system to allow it to breathe on land.

“The fact has got very well developed structures to breathe air suggests there must have been things prior to that which these developed from, so we should be looking further back in time to see if this thing had ancestors,” he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/01/27/1031780.htm

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Best you read the article where admitted it is a general term.

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Quite. I wonder what the hell they mean.

Obviously they don’t mean real bugs (Hemiptera).

The article says

“Bug” is a pretty casual term, but in this case, the team says it refers to any insect, arachnid, or any other creepy-crawly creature. That’s quite a wide net, but makes it more impressive that this fossil is the oldest of them all.

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin claim to have identified the world’s oldest bug. The specimen is a millipede ancestor found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland, and it dates back 425 million years.

The specimen is an extinct millipede species called Kampecaris obanensis. While the fossil itself was discovered as far back as 1899, it’s only just now been accurately dated.

To do so, the team used radiometric dating on zircons in the sediment. Zircons are tiny mineral grains that are incredibly durable, so they survive all kinds of geologic events that deep time can throw at them. That makes them perfect time capsules.

The fossil of the world’s oldest known bug was found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland

Interestingly, the team also believes that the fossils described here are not just the oldest bugs discovered so far – they’re among the oldest bugs, period. They say that older bug fossils have not been found in older deposits that are known to preserve other delicate fossils.

That said, the hypothesis clashes with another method known as molecular clock dating. This technique estimates when types of species arose based on tracing back the rate of DNA mutations. According to the molecular clock, millipedes should be about 500 million years old – 75 million years older than these fossils.

https://newatlas.com/science/world-oldest-known-bug-millipede-kerrera/

Millipedes were the oldest creatures to leave the primordial soup and live permanently on land, according to U.S. and U.K. scientists.

Dr Heather Wilson from Yale University in Connecticut and Dr Lyall Anderson from the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh published their study of fossilised millipedes in the latest issue of the Journal of Paleontology.

The millipede was 420 million years old, about 20 million years older than the daddy longlegs spider that previously held the record for the oldest life form to live on land.

The researchers looked at the ancient millipede’s spiracles, holes that absorb oxygen directly from the air into the body, the same way millipedes do today. These spiracles were the oldest ever found, indicating this was the first creature known to have a respiratory system to allow it to breathe on land.

“The fact has got very well developed structures to breathe air suggests there must have been things prior to that which these developed from, so we should be looking further back in time to see if this thing had ancestors,” he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/01/27/1031780.htm

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Best you read the article where admitted it is a general term.

A general term for Americans?

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Quite. I wonder what the hell they mean.

Obviously they don’t mean real bugs (Hemiptera).

The article says

“Bug” is a pretty casual term, but in this case, the team says it refers to any insect, arachnid, or any other creepy-crawly creature. That’s quite a wide net, but makes it more impressive that this fossil is the oldest of them all.

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

Your second para.
That is precisely what I was thinking

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Quite. I wonder what the hell they mean.

Obviously they don’t mean real bugs (Hemiptera).

The article says

“Bug” is a pretty casual term, but in this case, the team says it refers to any insect, arachnid, or any other creepy-crawly creature. That’s quite a wide net, but makes it more impressive that this fossil is the oldest of them all.

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

But they were NOT land animals.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Quite. I wonder what the hell they mean.

Obviously they don’t mean real bugs (Hemiptera).

The article says

“Bug” is a pretty casual term, but in this case, the team says it refers to any insect, arachnid, or any other creepy-crawly creature. That’s quite a wide net, but makes it more impressive that this fossil is the oldest of them all.

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

But they were NOT land animals.

Why does that matter?

After a bit of digging, it seems that this is the oldest fossil of an air-breathing (not amphibious) terrestrial animal. (Not including trace fossils)

So that really is headline news. Why they have to fuck it up by calling it the oldest known “bug”, I don’t know. There comes a point where dumbing it down becomes counterproductive.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Researchers at the University of Texas in Austin claim to have identified the world’s oldest bug. The specimen is a millipede ancestor found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland, and it dates back 425 million years.

The specimen is an extinct millipede species called Kampecaris obanensis. While the fossil itself was discovered as far back as 1899, it’s only just now been accurately dated.

To do so, the team used radiometric dating on zircons in the sediment. Zircons are tiny mineral grains that are incredibly durable, so they survive all kinds of geologic events that deep time can throw at them. That makes them perfect time capsules.

The fossil of the world’s oldest known bug was found on the island of Kerrera in Scotland

Interestingly, the team also believes that the fossils described here are not just the oldest bugs discovered so far – they’re among the oldest bugs, period. They say that older bug fossils have not been found in older deposits that are known to preserve other delicate fossils.

That said, the hypothesis clashes with another method known as molecular clock dating. This technique estimates when types of species arose based on tracing back the rate of DNA mutations. According to the molecular clock, millipedes should be about 500 million years old – 75 million years older than these fossils.

https://newatlas.com/science/world-oldest-known-bug-millipede-kerrera/

Millipedes were the oldest creatures to leave the primordial soup and live permanently on land, according to U.S. and U.K. scientists.

Dr Heather Wilson from Yale University in Connecticut and Dr Lyall Anderson from the National Museums of Scotland in Edinburgh published their study of fossilised millipedes in the latest issue of the Journal of Paleontology.

The millipede was 420 million years old, about 20 million years older than the daddy longlegs spider that previously held the record for the oldest life form to live on land.

The researchers looked at the ancient millipede’s spiracles, holes that absorb oxygen directly from the air into the body, the same way millipedes do today. These spiracles were the oldest ever found, indicating this was the first creature known to have a respiratory system to allow it to breathe on land.

“The fact has got very well developed structures to breathe air suggests there must have been things prior to that which these developed from, so we should be looking further back in time to see if this thing had ancestors,” he said.

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/01/27/1031780.htm

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Best you read the article where admitted it is a general term.

So why the need to resort to the use of the word bug, so many times?

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

dv said:

After a bit of digging, it seems that this is the oldest fossil of an air-breathing (not amphibious) terrestrial animal. (Not including trace fossils)

So that really is headline news. Why they have to fuck it up by calling it the oldest known “bug”, I don’t know. There comes a point where dumbing it down becomes counterproductive.

Misleading headline indeed.

furious said:

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

Yep.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

But they were NOT land animals.

Why does that matter?

Because that is what the article is about. It is a pity you place your entire reasoning on the interpretation of a single general and commonly used word and totally ignore the science behind it.

furious said:

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

furious said:

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

This article contains a picture.
This article also avoids the word “bug”…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oldest-land-animal-1.5592917

dv said:

After a bit of digging, it seems that this is the oldest fossil of an air-breathing (not amphibious) terrestrial animal. (Not including trace fossils)

So that really is headline news. Why they have to fuck it up by calling it the oldest known “bug”, I don’t know. There comes a point where dumbing it down becomes counterproductive.

It is a shame you don’t read my entire post instead of rushing into supercilious indignation. I purposely had included another reference to cover the shortcomings of the main article, which you would have seen had you had read more than the first few lines of text.

dv said:

After a bit of digging, it seems that this is the oldest fossil of an air-breathing (not amphibious) terrestrial animal. (Not including trace fossils)

So that really is headline news. Why they have to fuck it up by calling it the oldest known “bug”, I don’t know. There comes a point where dumbing it down becomes counterproductive.

^

but the dumber the population the easier it is to pull that wool across the flock immunity

dv said:

furious said:

PermeateFree said:

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

This article contains a picture.
This article also avoids the word “bug”…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oldest-land-animal-1.5592917

Why don’t you read my entire article, but no which just shows your insincerely of intention.

Kampecaris obanensis was about 2.5 centimetres long with a segmented body. It resembled modern millipedes, but was a member of an extinct group and is not ancestral to millipedes alive today. (British Geological Survey)
The oldest land animal ever found
An inch-long critter similar to a millipede looks to be the oldest animal known to have lived on land. Fossil imprints of Kampecaris obanensis from the island of Kerrera in Scotland have been radiometrically dated to around 425 million years ago, in the Silurian period. The arthropod probably fed on decomposing plants on a lakeside. Even earlier land animals, from the Cambrian era, are known to have existed, but only indirectly, from their tracks.

https://milled.com/nature-journal/scientists-are-investigating-the-risk-of-catching-the-coronavirus-from-infected—kpdB4kG_vNlrRQ6D

amusing how when they play the ball not the man, the son takes it per-ally

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

After a bit of digging, it seems that this is the oldest fossil of an air-breathing (not amphibious) terrestrial animal. (Not including trace fossils)

So that really is headline news. Why they have to fuck it up by calling it the oldest known “bug”, I don’t know. There comes a point where dumbing it down becomes counterproductive.

It is a shame you don’t read my entire post instead of rushing into supercilious indignation. I purposely had included another reference to cover the shortcomings of the main article, which you would have seen had you had read more than the first few lines of text.

Good show old bean.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2020.1762593?journalCode=ghbi20

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

furious said:

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

This article contains a picture.
This article also avoids the word “bug”…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oldest-land-animal-1.5592917

Why don’t you read my entire article, but no which just shows your insincerely of intention.

Well now let’s not make this all about me.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

But they were NOT land animals.

Why does that matter?

Because that is what the article is about. It is a pity you place your entire reasoning on the interpretation of a single general and commonly used word and totally ignore the science behind it.

That’s how they started the article. Quickest way to stop the reader in their tracks.

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Yes.

furious said:

PermeateFree said:

furious said:

Is it reasonable to inquire why they included a picture of the location it was found but not a picture of the actual fossil?

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

I imagine it looks more like a millipede than a bug.

dv said:

furious said:

PermeateFree said:

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

This article contains a picture.
This article also avoids the word “bug”…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oldest-land-animal-1.5592917

Thanks.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Quite. I wonder what the hell they mean.

Obviously they don’t mean real bugs (Hemiptera).

The article says

“Bug” is a pretty casual term, but in this case, the team says it refers to any insect, arachnid, or any other creepy-crawly creature. That’s quite a wide net, but makes it more impressive that this fossil is the oldest of them all.

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

It’s still a pretty good bug, by any standards.

And it’s Scottish!

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

After a bit of digging, it seems that this is the oldest fossil of an air-breathing (not amphibious) terrestrial animal. (Not including trace fossils)

So that really is headline news. Why they have to fuck it up by calling it the oldest known “bug”, I don’t know. There comes a point where dumbing it down becomes counterproductive.

It is a shame you don’t read my entire post instead of rushing into supercilious indignation. I purposely had included another reference to cover the shortcomings of the main article, which you would have seen had you had read more than the first few lines of text.

Good show old bean.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2020.1762593?journalCode=ghbi20

At least the article I produced has made you do some checking for yourselves. Had it not been for the article I would not have known about it myself in which case we would all be ignorant. So please get of your supercilious horse and appreciate the endeavors of others who bring such things to your otherwise trivial attention.

dv said:

furious said:

PermeateFree said:

It is a millipede that have changed little since those times. Millipedes are known as a living fossils

Still, a picture of the thing that the article is about would have been nice…

This article contains a picture.
This article also avoids the word “bug”…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oldest-land-animal-1.5592917

Thanks…

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

This article contains a picture.
This article also avoids the word “bug”…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oldest-land-animal-1.5592917

Why don’t you read my entire article, but no which just shows your insincerely of intention.

Well now let’s not make this all about me.

Because you are just a smartarse.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t aware that millipedes were bugs. When did this revelation occur?

Quite. I wonder what the hell they mean.

Obviously they don’t mean real bugs (Hemiptera).

The article says

“Bug” is a pretty casual term, but in this case, the team says it refers to any insect, arachnid, or any other creepy-crawly creature. That’s quite a wide net, but makes it more impressive that this fossil is the oldest of them all.

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

It’s still a pretty good bug, by any standards.

And it’s Scottish!

It’s just a wee bug. D’ye ken?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

It is a shame you don’t read my entire post instead of rushing into supercilious indignation. I purposely had included another reference to cover the shortcomings of the main article, which you would have seen had you had read more than the first few lines of text.

Good show old bean.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2020.1762593?journalCode=ghbi20

At least the article I produced has made you do some checking for yourselves. Had it not been for the article I would not have known about it myself in which case we would all be ignorant. So please get of your supercilious horse and appreciate the endeavors of others who bring such things to your otherwise trivial attention.

Dunno about trivial but otherwise, yes old chap.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Why does that matter?

Because that is what the article is about. It is a pity you place your entire reasoning on the interpretation of a single general and commonly used word and totally ignore the science behind it.

That’s how they started the article. Quickest way to stop the reader in their tracks.

I have included two 2 articles in my first post of which certain people here chose to ignore.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Yeah okay but “any other creepy-crawly creature” would include plenty of older fossils. There are trilobite fossils going back over 500 million years. Likewise for Marrellomorpha. In what way are they not “creepy-crawly”?

It’s still a pretty good bug, by any standards.

And it’s Scottish!

It’s just a wee bug. D’ye ken?

Was it deep fried?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Good show old bean.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2020.1762593?journalCode=ghbi20

At least the article I produced has made you do some checking for yourselves. Had it not been for the article I would not have known about it myself in which case we would all be ignorant. So please get of your supercilious horse and appreciate the endeavors of others who bring such things to your otherwise trivial attention.

Dunno about trivial but otherwise, yes old chap.

Rb, you seem to think that every post is directed at you and in need of your attention. However I am sorry to inform you that my posts are usually directed at the person who wrote the post immediately above mine, which in this case was dv.

Oh PF wrong again

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Because that is what the article is about. It is a pity you place your entire reasoning on the interpretation of a single general and commonly used word and totally ignore the science behind it.

That’s how they started the article. Quickest way to stop the reader in their tracks.

I have included two 2 articles in my first post of which certain people here chose to ignore.

I noted but only after you told me that the link or links weren’t the same as the abstract you pasted.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

At least the article I produced has made you do some checking for yourselves. Had it not been for the article I would not have known about it myself in which case we would all be ignorant. So please get of your supercilious horse and appreciate the endeavors of others who bring such things to your otherwise trivial attention.

Dunno about trivial but otherwise, yes old chap.

Rb, you seem to think that every post is directed at you and in need of your attention. However I am sorry to inform you that my posts are usually directed at the person who wrote the post immediately above mine, which in this case was dv.

Am aware. I was rferring to the fact that I didn’t regard dv as even marginally trivial about galloping horses and was agreeing with you about causing others to read more.

Something about this thread is bugging me, it doesn’t make sense

Cymek said:

Something about this thread is bugging me, it doesn’t make sense

It seems to have more than enough legs.

Cymek said:

Something about this thread is bugging me, it doesn’t make sense

they call it a mole

Cymek said:

Something about this thread is bugging me, it doesn’t make sense

Something tells me the story has legs…

Interestingly the source paper does mention some older creatures that could be considered land animals, but as they earthworm-like I suppose they would not be “creepy-crawly”.

So I suppose what we would say as that these are the first land animals with legs.

dv said:

Interestingly the source paper does mention some older creatures that could be considered land animals, but as they earthworm-like I suppose they would not be “creepy-crawly”.

So I suppose what we would say as that these are the first land animals with legs.

Nature didn’t do legs by halves then when it first started

dv said:

Interestingly the source paper does mention some older creatures that could be considered land animals, but as they earthworm-like I suppose they would not be “creepy-crawly”.

So I suppose what we would say as that these are the first land animals with legs.

I did think of that.

Cymek said:

dv said:

Interestingly the source paper does mention some older creatures that could be considered land animals, but as they earthworm-like I suppose they would not be “creepy-crawly”.

So I suppose what we would say as that these are the first land animals with legs.

Nature didn’t do legs by halves then when it first started

Well, segmented annelids to legmented wormlike creatures?

Did they become extinct and then reappear or have they existed since that time continuously in some form

Cymek said:

Did they become extinct and then reappear or have they existed since that time continuously in some form

Species came and went, but millipedes did not go extinct.

Cymek said:

Did they become extinct and then reappear or have they existed since that time continuously in some form

“Kampecaris obanensis was about 2.5 centimetres long with a segmented body. It resembled modern millipedes, but was a member of an extinct group and is not ancestral to millipedes alive today. (British Geological Survey/Reuters)”

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Did they become extinct and then reappear or have they existed since that time continuously in some form

Species came and went, but millipedes did not go extinct.

That’s a good way of putting it.

Cymek said:

Did they become extinct and then reappear or have they existed since that time continuously in some form

The exact species described here doesn’t exist any more because of evolution and stuff…

But millipedes, generally, have existed for the entire time. This ain’t Jurassic Park, things don’t go extinct and then revive.

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

PermeateFree said:

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

The “record” of note is that this is the first land animal. Just lead with that. People know what “animal” means.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

The “record” of note is that this is the first land animal. Just lead with that. People know what “animal” means.

or creepy crawlie to make it clear it’s a condie scendie

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

The “record” of note is that this is the first land animal. Just lead with that. People know what “animal” means.

Yes virtually anything that is not flora, which might be the problem being too broad as most people think of mammals when animals are mentioned. It is obvious that the author was trying to associate with an insect type of thing, but obviously could not use this grouping.

It is very difficult to place millipedes and centipedes into a category without using scientific words that few people are familiar. The word bug has a general connotation of being a crawling insect type of thing and even includes arachnids. A bug is also the name of group of sucking insects, but like many words there can be numerous meanings. Wiki has some definitions:

Bug, a pathogen, any microorganism that causes illness (slang)

Insects of the order Hemiptera known as “true bugs”

More broadly, any of many small, primarily terrestrial invertebrates, such as Insects, Arachnids, Myriapods, Crustaceans, Worms, Terrestrial molluscs, A subset of arthropods.

All of which indicates a rather narrow and limited meaning used by many in this thread.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

The “record” of note is that this is the first land animal. Just lead with that. People know what “animal” means.

We’ll come clean: first land animal seems much more impressive to us than first land infection or first land hemipteran. If you want arthropods, say arthropods, it’s not too esoteric and the audience may appreciate the respect for their intellect.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

The “record” of note is that this is the first land animal. Just lead with that. People know what “animal” means.

We’ll come clean: first land animal seems much more impressive to us than first land infection or first land hemipteran. If you want arthropods, say arthropods, it’s not too esoteric and the audience may appreciate the respect for their intellect.

Sorry I was forgetting your superior intellect. An arthropod is an invertebrate animal having an exoskeleton, a segmented body, and paired jointed appendages. Arthropods form the phylum Euarthropoda, which includes insects, arachnids, myriapods, and crustaceans. Wikipedia. So includes everything the author was trying to exclude. It is not a hemipteran either.

And by the way, I did not write the article, but appreciate the difficulties involved that you obviously don’t.

PermeateFree said:

And by the way, I did not write the article, but

recognise that is exactly the point, that others workshopping it into a better article is not something to be taken personally. It is something to be thankful for.

We agree. Cheers.

SCIENCE said:

recognise that is exactly the point, that others workshopping it into a better article is not something to be taken personally. It is something to be thankful for.

Plus it is what we have always done, pick something to pieces.

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

And by the way, I did not write the article, but

recognise that is exactly the point, that others workshopping it into a better article is not something to be taken personally. It is something to be thankful for.

We agree. Cheers.

But you did not and have not. Perhaps in future people should just read the articles and add to them if you wish, not go out of your way to demean them over some trivial matter.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

SCIENCE said:

recognise that is exactly the point, that others workshopping it into a better article is not something to be taken personally. It is something to be thankful for.

Plus it is what we have always done, pick something to pieces.

Perhaps in future people should just read the articles and add to them if you wish, not go out of your way to demean them over some trivial matter.

We agree with the quoted portion, and indeed agree that being posted here it is not out of our way, and agree that we are seeking to improve them over nontrivial matters. We also thank you for contributing them in the first place because along the way we did learn of the first land animal, and we or others learned about the varied meanings of bug, the systematics of arthropods, and the errors of execution that have plagued software since valves were hardware.

With gratitude,

SCIENCE.

Bogsnorkler said:

SCIENCE said:

recognise that is exactly the point, that others workshopping it into a better article is not something to be taken personally. It is something to be thankful for.

Plus it is what we have always done, pick something to pieces.

You don’t pick it to pieces in an informative way, but just to distract from the story and information contained in the original post. The articles I present here are written by intelligent people whose job it is to present scientific information in an acceptable format for non-scientific people. They get their information from scientific papers, which you can become more involved if you wish, the articles themselves do not pretend to be the original research and should be viewed as such.

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Plus it is what we have always done, pick something to pieces.

Perhaps in future people should just read the articles and add to them if you wish, not go out of your way to demean them over some trivial matter.

We agree with the quoted portion, and indeed agree that being posted here it is not out of our way, and agree that we are seeking to improve them over nontrivial matters. We also thank you for contributing them in the first place because along the way we did learn of the first land animal, and we or others learned about the varied meanings of bug, the systematics of arthropods, and the errors of execution that have plagued software since valves were hardware.

With gratitude,

SCIENCE.

You really have tickets on yourself SCIENCE. Please refrain from patronising me in future.

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps in future people should just read the articles and add to them if you wish, not go out of your way to demean them over some trivial matter.

We agree with the quoted portion, and indeed agree that being posted here it is not out of our way, and agree that we are seeking to improve them over nontrivial matters. We also thank you for contributing them in the first place because along the way we did learn of the first land animal, and we or others learned about the varied meanings of bug, the systematics of arthropods, and the errors of execution that have plagued software since valves were hardware.

With gratitude,

SCIENCE.

You really have tickets on yourself SCIENCE. Please refrain from patronising me in future.

Well look if you aren’t going to send out tickets for you then we can only patronise those venues we are welcome at now, isn’t that the case ¿

But you’re right and we agree again, having them tickets on ourselves, we’d better make use of them and patronise our own venues, see you later ¡

Michael V said:

Kampecaris obanensis was about 2.5 centimetres long with a segmented body. It resembled modern millipedes, but was a member of an extinct group and is not ancestral to millipedes alive today. (British Geological Survey)
The oldest land animal ever found
An inch-long critter similar to a millipede looks to be the oldest animal known to have lived on land. Fossil imprints of Kampecaris obanensis from the island of Kerrera in Scotland have been radiometrically dated to around 425 million years ago, in the Silurian period. The arthropod probably fed on decomposing plants on a lakeside. Even earlier land animals, from the Cambrian era, are known to have existed, but only indirectly, from their tracks.

At a guess, centipedes came before millipedes?

I’m just going by the observation that single leg per segment was shared between centipedes and many other arthropods, but the two pairs of legs per segment of millipedes is very rare among other arthropods.

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Kampecaris obanensis was about 2.5 centimetres long with a segmented body. It resembled modern millipedes, but was a member of an extinct group and is not ancestral to millipedes alive today. (British Geological Survey)
The oldest land animal ever found
An inch-long critter similar to a millipede looks to be the oldest animal known to have lived on land. Fossil imprints of Kampecaris obanensis from the island of Kerrera in Scotland have been radiometrically dated to around 425 million years ago, in the Silurian period. The arthropod probably fed on decomposing plants on a lakeside. Even earlier land animals, from the Cambrian era, are known to have existed, but only indirectly, from their tracks.

At a guess, centipedes came before millipedes?

I’m just going by the observation that single leg per segment was shared between centipedes and many other arthropods, but the two pairs of legs per segment of millipedes is very rare among other arthropods.

Centipedes and Millipedes had a common ancestor, but by around 420 million years ago they had each evolved into different organisms. As the fossil record around this period, evidence is difficult to come by and is still a work very much in progress. There is speculation in one of the articles that their ancestor might go back as far as 500 million years.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Kampecaris obanensis was about 2.5 centimetres long with a segmented body. It resembled modern millipedes, but was a member of an extinct group and is not ancestral to millipedes alive today. (British Geological Survey)
The oldest land animal ever found
An inch-long critter similar to a millipede looks to be the oldest animal known to have lived on land. Fossil imprints of Kampecaris obanensis from the island of Kerrera in Scotland have been radiometrically dated to around 425 million years ago, in the Silurian period. The arthropod probably fed on decomposing plants on a lakeside. Even earlier land animals, from the Cambrian era, are known to have existed, but only indirectly, from their tracks.

At a guess, centipedes came before millipedes?

I’m just going by the observation that single leg per segment was shared between centipedes and many other arthropods, but the two pairs of legs per segment of millipedes is very rare among other arthropods.

Centipedes and Millipedes had a common ancestor, but by around 420 million years ago they had each evolved into different organisms. As the fossil record around this period, evidence is difficult to come by and is still a work very much in progress. There is speculation in one of the articles that their ancestor might go back as far as 500 million years.

That’s got a lot of legs. They are efficient animals.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I asked in another thread what would you call a millipede, for instance it has more than 6 legs so not an insect. It has more than 8 legs so not an arachnid, so what do you call this group in a non-technical manner that most people would understand and be interested enough to read the article?

Anyone?

The “record” of note is that this is the first land animal. Just lead with that. People know what “animal” means.

:)

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

And by the way, I did not write the article, but

recognise that is exactly the point, that others workshopping it into a better article is not something to be taken personally. It is something to be thankful for.

We agree. Cheers.

But you did not and have not. Perhaps in future people should just read the articles and add to them if you wish, not go out of your way to demean them over some trivial matter.

The article was Canadian but it spoke in yank speak. Which in itself is a travesty in itself.
I know we all need to communicate and comprehend and a universal language may help. They tried that once, Esperanto.