![]() |
like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods. Others are less easy to interpret and may belong to extinct phyla. But besides the fossils of soft bodies, Vendian rocks contain trace fossils, probably made by wormlike animals slithering over mud. The Vendian rocks thus give us a good look at the first animals to live on Earth. The Ediacaran hey-day predates by a distinct interval of perhaps 20 million years or more, the so-called "Cambrian Explosion". Although some scientists believe that many of these Ediacara fauna might have survived into the Cambrian period, they had vanished without a trace from later fossil records. Other scientists have suggested that the Ediacaran fauna were "failed experiments" in the evolution of multicellular animals. Unlike the Cambrian organisms, these odd designs left no descendants. A novel explanation suggests that the Ediacaran fossils weren't animals at all. Rather, they were probably lichens. Whatever the interpretation, it seems that the appearance of the Ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian biota are two separate events, and both flourished suddenly in a "complete state". |
Figure 01a Ediacara Fauna [view large image] |
![]() |
For much of the past 20 years the debate has been polarized between those who believe that the Ediacarans were a dead-end experiment in evolution and those who maintain that the Ediacarans are the "long fuse" of the Cambrian explosion. As more fossils were discovered in Newfoundland, ... (Avalon assemblage - the oldest), the White Sea region of Russia (White Sea assemblage including those from Ediacara Hills, ...), and Namibia, ... (Nama assemblage), it turns out that both camps are, to some extent, right. As shown in Figure 01b, the Avalon assemblage consists of primitive type of animal living in deep sea with fungus-like traits that left no descendants. The other group from the White Sea and Nama assemblages lived in shallow-water. One of these, Parvancorina, bears a close resemblance to a recently discovered early Cambrian arthropod. Another, Arkarua, looks a lot like a Cambrian echinoderm. It is now thought that a handful of Ediacarans did cross over into the early Cambrian. The overwhelming majority did not make it, though; the few that did vanished within 5 million years. The first experiment in complex, multicellular life was over. But it laid the foundation for everything that followed. It is suggested that the sudden precambrian boom was triggered by massive increase in deep-sea oxygen levels, and plenty of organic matter from the melting glaciers. |
Figure 01b Ediacarans |
The experimental method was to create large body from small units through fractal repetition. |
![]() |
Recent measurement of oxygen level over the past 600 million years suggests that oxygen may be the driving force for evolution. Figure 01c shows that periods of lower oxygen level have coincided with all the major mass extinctions, whereas land colonisation occurred with rising levels. The importance of oxygen can be illustrated by the lack of it. It is well known that animals need to feed, drink, reproduce and respire. The first three requirements can usually be put off for days or even years, but for the vast majority of animals respiration can be put off only for a few minutes. Evolution is prodded by natural selection, which is an euphemism for variable rates of death. And nothing kills quicker than lack of oxygen. |
Figure 01c Oxygen Level |
![]() |
|
Figure 01d Cambrian Period [view large image] |
still survive today. They are the lampreys and hagfish. |
![]() |
They include virtually all the groups known from the Burgess Shale and other Middle Cambrian localities, thus compressing the available time for the morphological diversification of metazoans, known as the Cambrian Explosion, to just 10 Million years or so. These extraordinary fossil deposits, where organisms are so well preserved that even their soft parts remain as carbon films, are referred to as Lagerstätten, a German word that means "resting places", only recently borrowed by geologists. A lagerstatte is a spectacular rarity, and a few dozen of them are scattered through the Earth's geologic record like gems. |
Figure 01e Chengjiang Fossils [view large image] |
![]() |
warned against too exclusive a reliance on natural selection. Close examination of the history of life shows that the change is not necessarily progressive; it is certainly not predictable. The earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events such as the Cambrian explosion and the mass extinctions, which imparts a quirky and unpredictable character to life's evolutionary pathway. There is still much controversy over the significance of the Burgess and Chengjiang fossils. What is certain is that the transformation of life from single-celled organisms to multicellular organisms was swift, sudden and widespread. Another significant point is that if evolution was occurring at such a rapid rate, why are the Chengjiang fossils and the Burgess fossils so similar? During the 20 million year period between the two sites, evolution seems to have produced very little change. It seems that all of the diversity that was going to occur happened in a time period as short as 10 million years. Hardly an observation that supports a Darwinian view that life evolved by the slow accumulation of fortuitous mutations. Thus, there is suggestion that complex life came to earth (in the early Cambrian and probably Vendian) from elsewhere with many if not all of the biochemical processes in place. A possible fault with this kind of argument is the strong DNA linkage between the unicellular and mulitcellular organisms. It is highly improbable that the DNA structures of these organims are so closely related if the seed for multicellular organisms has another place of origin. |
Figure 01f Natural Selection |
![]() |
Research in 2004 attributed the complexity of multicellular organism to the use of RNA based regulatory signals. The Cambrian explosion was related to the abrupt addition of this genetic regulatory system. Figure 01g shows the complexity of eubacteria and archaea at low levels over the past billion years up to the present. While the complexity in eukeayote organisms advanced graudully up to a ceiling and then |
Figure 01g Evolution of Complexity |
increased abruptly at the Cambrian explosion when a new regulatory system became available. (click here for detail). The proliferation of complex life forms some 20 million years prior to the Cambrian explosion might be just the initial trials to become multicellular. |
![]() |
It is reported in 2009 that rather than evolving during the Ediacaran period, the first multicellular animals evolved as early as 850 million years ago (Figure 01h), but remained on the fringes of life until ice ages changed the environment to be more favourable for them. The new |
Figure 01h Rise of Animals [view large image] |
discoveries include: 1. Embryo-like fossils for animals (could be sponges) preserved in seabed layers between 550 and 580 millions |
![]() |
|
Figure 02a Ordovician Period [view large image] |
![]() |
|
Figure 02b Biodiversity |
![]() |
|
Figure 03 Silurian Period [view large image] |
beside the sea were already occupied by low vegetation composed of the most primitive types of vascular plants that reproduce like ferns. |
![]() |
![]() |
lungfish) is another one that can breathe air. Figure 04b shows some of the fossilized Devonian fish from Yunnan, China. The one on upper left is the Youngolepis - a specimen in between the lobe-finned fish and the lungfish. Figure 04c summarizes the evolution of fish in a sequence from the jawless fish in the Cambrian, |
Figure 04b Devonian Fish |
Figure 04c Evolution of Fish |
to the primitive jawed fish with amour in the Silurian, and finally advanced to bony fish in the Devonian. |
![]() |
|
Figure 04d Devonian Shark |
![]() |
![]() |
A 365-million-year-old arm bone fossil was found in 2004 (see Figure 04e). It came from one of the first creatures able to do push-ups, an evolutionary step that was necessary for animals to move from the sea to dry land. This four-legged creature had a humerus, or upper arm bone. Such a bone, far different from the flipper bones of fish, gave the creature an important new ability - it could raise its upper body like an athlete doing push-ups. The defining moment has been captured by the drawing in Figure 04f. These are lobe-finned fish called Eusthenopterons, which were more than a fish but |
Figure 04e Fossil [view large image] |
Figure 04f First Land Animal |
less than a true amphibian. They are supposed to be the first creature that crawled onto land about 380 million years ago. |
![]() |
A popular scenario suggests that fish like Eusthenopteron, stranded under arid conditions, used their muscular appendages to drag themselves to a new body of water. Over time those fish able to cover more ground - and thus reach ever more distant water sources - were selected for, eventually leading to the origin of true limbs. Recent research in 2005 on the fossil of Acanthostega indicates that although this animal had four legs, they would not have been able to support its body on land. It seems that they may have initially functioned to help the animal in lifting its head out of oxygen-poor shallow water instead of moving on land. Only later did they find use ashore. Figure 04g shows the transformation of body structure from lobe-finned fish to modern reptile. |
Figure 04g Tetrapod Trans-formation [view large image] |
![]() |
![]() |
Discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil in 2006 has illuminated more detail on the transition between fishes and land vertebrates. As shown in Figure 04h, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys (red) represent the transitional forms between the lobe-finned fish Eusthenopteron and the primitive tetrapod Acanthostega. The skull roofs (left) show the loss of the gill cover (blue), reduction in size of the postparietal bones (green) and gradual reshaping of the skull. It also shows the pectoral, and distal fins gradually |
Figure 04h Tetrapod Transition |
Figure 04i Transition of Forelimbs |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
marine tidal flat sediments. The footprint fossils had been securely dated to 397 MYA in the early Middle Devonian period. The tracks show a very large tetrapod exceeding 2 meters in length, lived in fully marine intertidal to lagoonal environments some 18 |
Figure 04k Tetrapod Evolutionary Tree, Old [view large image] |
Figure 04l Tetrapod Evolutionary Tree, 2010 [view large image] |
Figure 04m Tetrapod Trackways |
million years before the earliest-known tetrapod body fossils were deposited as shown in Figure 04m. |
![]() |
Figure 04n shows the evolution of the living vertebrates in terms of substitutions per site (in a 2013 study), which is a measurement of mutation rate by checking on the replacement of one nucleotide in a DNA sequence. Thus the length of the lines indicates how much the DNA of each lineage has diverged from their common ancestor. The evolutionary tree is rooted on cartilaginous fish, and shows that the lungfish is more closely related to tetrapods than the coelacanth (settling a debate on tetrapod evolution), and that the coelacanth is evolving slowly. Pink lines (tetrapods) are slightly offset from purple lines (lobe-finned fish), to indicate that these species are both tetrapods and lobe-finned fish. |
Figure 04n Vertebrate Evolution, 2013 |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Figure 05a Carboniferous Period [view large image] |
Figure 05b Reptiles |
freedom to lay their eggs on land. Their descendants include all other reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals (Figure 05b). |
![]() |
Hylonomus is the oldest vertebrate recognized as a reptile. Unlike most of the amphibians, these animals were generally not tied to water for reproduction, but laid eggs that were able to survive in a terrestrial environment. Hylonomus had an unbroken expanse of bone behind each eye opening. Other reptiles had one or more gaps, the temporal openings, occupying various positions and enclosed by various bones. Though these patterns vary in details, the gaps themselves - or the lack of them - are the basis for splitting the reptiles into four major groups as shown in Figure 05c. |
Figure 05c Groups of Reptiles |
![]() |
|
Figure 06 Permian Period [view large image] |
![]() |
|
Figure 07a Triassic Period |
and ran on their hind legs, captured prey with fore- limbs and jaws, and balanced their swaying bodies with stiffly extended tails. |
![]() |
primitive reptile) on the left. Figure 07b shows a confrontation between the phytosaur and a top predator. The plateosaurus is a primitive member of a group called sauropods (lizard-footed), which walked on four feet, developed massive legs both fore and aft, and had teeth that were suited only to a diet of soft, juicy plants. Plateosaurus has peg-like teeth and the hands had huge thumb claws, used perhaps to gather in plant material |
Figure 07b Triassic Confrontation |
from tall trees. The other subdivision is called theropods (beast-footed). With a few exceptions, the theropods were bipeds that walked on three birdlike toes, had short forelegs, and were carnivorous. |
![]() |
shown in Figure 07c. The difference in the orientation of the pubis is related to the feeding habits and stance when walking. All ornithschians were herbivores and many were bipedal. As vegetarians they would have a large gut to allow the food to pass through sufficiently slowly to allow it to be digested, a process involving symbiotic bacteria. Thus, an erect ornithischian would have a "beer Belly", which has to hang between the legs with the pubis pointing backward. The bipedal saurischians were all carnivores so their guts would have been much smaller as meat is quickly digested. |
Figure 07c Pelvic Structures |
![]() |
|
Figure 07d Sauropodomorpha |
Table 01 below explains the adoptions that allow the existence of sauropods' unprecedented bulk. |
| Function | Requirement | Adoptions | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protection and Competition | Large size | Eat more, breed slow | First to die when food is scarce |
| Reproduction | Enough # of young | Laid eggs in clutches more often | Provide no care for offsprings |
| Growth | High growth rate (2 tonnes/year) |
Fast metabolism | Need lots of food (1 tonnes/day) |
| Support and movement | A body plan to move massive body | Long neck, small head, barrel-like body, thick sturdy legs | Movement becomes cumbersome |
| Breathing | Lots of oxygen | Bird-like lungs, and air sacs inside the body | No disadvantage; but also help to reduce weight and stop overheating |
| Digestion | Eating huge amount of poor nutritional vegetation | Long neck and peg-like teeth to pluck leaves and branches; long retention time in the digestive tract | Lengthy microbial fermentation inside producing lot of gas |
![]() |
This is the classic scenarios of mammalian evolution. It posits an orderly acquisition of key evolutionary innovations leading to adaptive diversification (first column in Figure 07e). But newly discovered fossils in the 2000's show that evolution of such key characters as the middle ear and the tribosphenic teeth (cutting and grinding molars) is far more labile among Mesozoic (250-65 MYA) mammals. Many of such mammal groups led to dead-end lineages. But some iteratively developments eventually succeeded into modern mammals (Figure 07e). |
Figure 07e Diversification |
![]() |
![]() |
As more mammalian fossils have been unearthed in the past few years, a very different picture of early mammals has emerged to replace the shrew-like description. Dinosaurs may have been the dominant creatures, but mammals were very much a part of their world. They invaded many more ecological niches and developed many more lifestyles than was previously thought possible before the extinction of the dinosaurs. Figure 07f presents a brief guide to early mammal evolution. According to this |
Figure 07f Early Mammal Evolution [view large image] |
Figure 07g Early Mammals [view large image] |
diagram, mammals evolved from a group of "mammals-like" reptiles called cynodonts that prospered during the Triassic period. The larger members of this group went |
![]() |
![]() |
happened, it didn't affect everything. Plenty of groups, including small predatory dinosaurs, the early mammals, and some crocodile relatives survived into the Jurassic. Yet large groups of archosaurs mysteriously vanished at the end of the Triassic (Figure 07i). It really isn't obvious why the non-dinosaurs get hammered the most. Anyway, the end-Triassic extinction pruned a number of dinosaurs, but the group as a whole marched on, and prospered in the Jurassic period. |
Figure 07h Extinctions |
Figure 07i Triassic Extinction [view large image] |
![]() |
|
Figure 08a Jurassic Period |
braincase, this crow-sized extinct animal is much more like a small running dinosaur. |
![]() |
It was believed that feathers evolved from scale for flight. New evidence from fossils and recent idea in developmental processes indicate that they evolved for some other purpose and were then exploited for a different use. Numerous functions of feathers are plausible, including insulation, water repellency, court-ship, camouflage and defense. The development of such feature can be traced back to the theropods in the Triassic Period. In essence, all feathers start from a tube produced by proliferating epidermis with the nourishing dermal pulp in the center. The |
Figure 08b Feathers [view large image] |
evolution involved many stages from an unbranched, hollow cylinder (like the pinfeather) to the asymmetrical flight feather (see Figure 08b). |
![]() |
![]() |
The consequence of recent fossil finds has prompted reconsideration of the biology and life history of the theropod dinosaurs. Birds - modern birds and the group that includes all species descnded from the most recent common ancestor of Archaeopteryx - used to be recongnized as the flying, feathered vertebrates. Now we have to consider them as a group of the feathered theropod dinosaurs that evolved the capacity of powered flight (Figure 08c). Other dinosaurs are |
Figure 08c Avian Evolution [view large image] |
Figure 08d Archaeopteryx Traits [view large image] |
very likely to have had feathered skin but were not birds. |
![]() |
about 148 MYA. Figure 08d shows the characteristics of the Archaeopteryx. It indicates that Archaeopteryx is at the transitional stage between reptile and bird. The size of Archaeopteryx is about 45 cm, and it fed on insects. It has a long bony tail, three-fingered hands with claws, and jaws with teeth. The claws on its feet and hands suggest that Archaeopteryx could climb trees, and the wings are clearly those of an active flying animal. This bird could fly as well as most modern birds, and flying allowed it to catch prey that were not available to land-living relatives. In effect, it had explored a niche in the air. Figure 08e shows the first Archaeopteryx fossil from Bavaria, southern Germany, and an artist's renderings of the very first birds. |
Figure 08e Archaeopteryx and Fossil [view large image] |
![]() |
![]() |
It was only in the 1990's, more evidences turned up in fossil-rich quarries in northern China. Various dinosaur fossils clearly show fully modern feathers and a variety of primitive feather structures. The dromaeosaurs discovered at Liaoning seems to represent the theropods that are hypothesized to be most closely related to birds but that clearly are not birds. It may be the missing link depicted in Figure 08c. Then a four-winged dinosaur fossil (Figure 08f) was discovered in 2009, the Anchiornis Huxleyi is dated to 151-161 million years ago making it the oldest feathered dinosaur. It |
Figure 08f Oldest Feathered Dinosaur [view large image] |
Figure 08g Dinosaurs in China |
has the size of a chicken (less than 50 cm) with long feathers covering the arms and tail, but also the feet. Figure 08g shows some locations of dinosaur fossils in China. |
![]() |
more than a century over the relationship between the wing of birds and the digits in theropod dinosaurs when palaeontologists mistakenly identified the dinosaurs' to be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Until now in 2009, analysis of the digits in a Limusaurus fossil shows that those are indeed the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits - the same as the modern birds (Diagram d, Figure 08h). This explanation vastly simplifies the current convoluted evolutionary story which, either assumes that birds lost their 1st digit and re-grew their 4th one or that birds descend from another kind of dinosaurs. |
Figure 08h Digits of Bird and Dinosaur [view large image] |
![]() |
Viperidae (vipers), Elapidae (cobras and coral snakes), and Atractaspididae (stiletto snakes). New research in 2006 suggests that venom evolved in a lizard ancestor before snakes appeared (Figure 08i). Even the supposedly harmless Colubrids such as those sold in pet stores have enough poison in their venom glands to kill a human. Fortunately for the would-be pet owners, they have no front fangs, leaving them with a rather crude venom-delivery system in the back teeth. Snakes such as boas may have lost their venom as they evolved to kill by constriction. It is also found that venom didn't evolve from ever more toxic saliva but from altering cells from other parts of the body including the brain, eye, lung, heart liver, muscle, ovary and testis. Over generations these proteins, usually involved in key biological processes such as blood clotting or regulating blood pressure, were mutated into more potent varieties and concentrated into catastrophic overdoses. The common ancestor had nine such toxins in its venom. Modern snakes have recruited 17 more. |
Figure 08i Snakes [view large image] |
![]() |
Report in 2007 purported to find the missing link between lizards and snakes. The 95 million years old fossil has greatly reduced forelimbs, a diminished supporting skeletal girdle and an elongated neck (see Figure 08j), as seen today in snakes including pythons and boas. But |
Figure 08j Half Snake [view large image] |
researchers still cannot conclude that snakes evolved directly from such lizards without other fossils to fill the evolutionary gaps. |
![]() |
|
Figure 09a Cretaceous Period [view large image] |
![]() |
Another cat-like fossil by the name of Pakasuchus was uncovered in East Africa. It seems that this creature had embarked on a failed attempt to evolve from crocodile to cat around 100 million years ago. It has nasal openings on the front of their skulls implying land living. By contrast, surviving crocodilians all have nares on the tops of their heads for breathing while partially submerged. The specimen had a short, broad, cat-like skull but the bone arrangement is otherwise distinctively crocodilian. It had mammalian teeth but retained the scaly armour on its tail. At about 50 cm long from nose to tail, these reptiles would have been active, agile hunters of insects and other small preys. This kind of creature disappeared around the same time as the |
Figure 09b Cat-like Crocodile [view large image] |
extinction of dinosaurs. But the ancestors of modern crocodiles were able to weather the storm and prosper ever since. |
![]() |
![]() |
thought to become extinct at the end of the Triassic Period, and the feathered dinosaurs belong exclusively to the saurischian lineage (Figure 09d). It is suggested that if these are protofeathers, then they might not related in any way to flight. The fact that the filaments over the tail are so long and stiff, points to a possible display function. Figure 09d shows the progression of dinosaur skin characteristics from scaly skin to |
Figure 09c Tianyulong Confuciusi [view large image] |
Figure 09d Dinosaur Skin Characteristics |
filamentous proto-feathers and onto pennaceous feathers. This surprising discovery raises fresh questions about the evolution of feathers. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Figure 09e Tree Shrew |
Figure 10a Tertiary Period |
eight feet tall at the shoulder, belonged to a group of odd-toed ungulate (hoofed). The threatening carnivores are sabre-toothed tigers. While a leopard attacked an early horse. |
![]() |
|
Figure 10b Maternal Care |
![]() |
|
Figure 10c Circulation Evolution [view large image] |
through the heart due to the substitution of lungs for gills in higher vertebrates. In the fish the blood from the gills flowed directly, via the arteries, to the body (systemic capillaries), and hence the heart was a simple pump. The lungs, however, return their |
![]() |
A novel explanation suggests that it was probably herbivores, which initiated the warm-bloodedness. These kind of animals consume a lot of leaves to get the nitrogen for making amino acids, and nucleotides, all the excess carbon are burn off as body heat. It is noticed that warm-bloodedness started at the same time as the rise of flowering plants at the early Cretaceous period around 145 million years ago. Small herbivorous dinosaurs evolved to birds while some herbivorous mammals turned into |
Figure 10d Warm-bloodedness and Fungi [view large image] |
carnivorous. A recent (2011) theory suggested that either by design or by fortuity, a warm-blooded body constitutes a good defence against fungal pathogens beside maintaining high level of activity. The hypothesis is supported by several coincidences: |
![]() |
|
Figure 10e Brain Evolution [view large image] |
other vertebrate stock in their degree of mental development. |
![]() |
Figure 10f shows the difference between the mammalian and avian brains. It looks similarly shaped but smaller, and it is much less furrowed. Given the well-known dictum that more convolution means higher cognitive function, most scientists have long assumed that birds have limited mental powers. Recent research suggests that the largest part of the avian brain, the pallium (corresponding to the cortex in mammal), works along with structures below it to control complex behaviors (see Figure 10f). Although the nervous systems of the two classes of animals are constructed very differently, they have functional similarities. Many parts of the brain are comparably connected by nerve pathways that have similar functions. For example, when parrots learn to produce new |
Figure 10f Avian Brain |
sounds, the structures activated are analogous to those that are activated in humans. |
![]() |
A big brain requires a tremendous amount of energy expenditure to support. The brain consumes roughly 65% of a baby's total energy consumption and no less than 20-25% of an adult's, even though brain tissue accounts for only 2% of adult body mass. The trend toward big brain in human and primates started about 2 million years ago and accelerated between the past 800000 to 200000 years (Figure 10g, with the exception of Homo floresiensis in blue circle). It has been suggested that the costs of brain expansion were covered by reduction in gut size as early human gradually acquired high-quality diets. |
Figure 10g Big Brain |
It has also been shown that only humans and other primates have brain size negatively correlated with gut size. However, a recent (2011) study proposed that bigger brain is the result of trade-off between brain size and fat deposits. |
| Animal(s) | Component(s) | Function(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Choanoflagellae (unicellular organism) |
Surface receptors, Sodium channels |
Receiving and transducing chemical signals, Passing electrical signals within cell |
| Hydra | Network of neurons | Passing electrical signals between cells with a brief chemical phase across tiny gap (synapse) |
| Urbilaterian (a hypothetical ancestor of all the bilaterians§ ) | Groups of neurons ~ nerve | Photoreceptors link to nerves (there may be a small brain as well) |
| Invertebrates (such as flatworms, roundworms, arthropods, ...) | Small brain with ganglions (small lump of nerve cells) connected by nerve cords | A small central processor links to smaller units for distributed processing |
Vertebrates![]() |
Olfactory bulb, cerebrum (forebrain), tectum (midbrain), cerebellum, spinal cord (see diagram on the left) |
Smell detection to find food and mate, Controlling the 5 senses, Controlling internal environment, Controlling motion, Providing communication between the brain and other parts of the body |
| Primates (including human) |
Increasing folding in forebrain and more brain mass (see also Human Brain) | Dealing with more complicated envirnoment |
![]() |
front of the mouth. In mammals there has developed a bony partition, which separates nasal and food passages back to the throat, a feature of importance in forms in which constant breathing is a vital necessity. In reptiles there are normally some seven bones in the lower jaw; the mammals have but one (the dentary), and this articulates with a different bone on the side of the skull. The whole joint has changed. Figure 10h shows a series of side views of the skull from a lob-finned bony fish A to |
Figure 10h Skull Evolution |
human I. These form a morphologically progressive set of stages representing the various groups through which human ancestors passed. |
![]() |
A (in Figure 10h) is the skull of a fish. It had evolved from the jawless and limbless type (a in Figure 10i). The primitive vertebrate skull has the main structure in the form of a braincase - a box of cartilage or replacement bone, which surrounded the brain, internal ear, nostrils, and eyes. A second element is the skeletal bars, which stiffened the gill slits. The jaws in a shark (b) were derived from the third gill bar. These are both freely movable and are quite clearly in line with the related ordinary gill bars behind them. In the |
Figure 10i Skull Formation |
bony fish (c), the dermal armour (skin bones) were added to cover the top and sides of the head completely, have fused with the original upper jaws, and the braincase, and have united them into a solid structure - a true skull. |
![]() |
differentiated. There was some early variation, but in the ancestors of the higher mammals the dentition came to be made up of three sharp nipping teeth, or incisors, at the front of each half of each jaw, a single large, stout, piercing tusk, the canine, four premolar teeth behind this in the front of the cheek region, and three grinders, the molars (see Figure 10j). This gives a total of 44 teeth. Most mammals have lost some of this set of teeth (human has 32); few have exceeded this number. Mammals also have precise |
Figure 10j Mammalian Teeth |
occlusion (the fit between upper and lower teeth). This type of dentition is one suitable for a carnivore, and the ancestry of all the mammals lies through a long line of flesh-eating types. |
![]() |
|
Figure 10k Ear Evolution |
sensitive to sound lies near the base of the small pocket termed the lagena. In human this has expanded into the coiled cochlea. In the shark a duct from the ear (end) still connects with the surface; in human the connection is lost, and the duct ends blindly. |
![]() |
![]() |
thumb or big toe out, 2-3-4-5-3; in mammals the middle fingers have shortened up, giving a count of 2-3-3-3-3 as shown in Figure 10m with thumb or big toe to the right. The illustrations also reveal the specialization of the proximal ankle bones in mammals, some reduction in the number of wrist and ankle bones, and the variations in the thumb and big toe. |
Figure 10l Locomotion [view large image] |
Figure 10m Evolution of Hand and Foot [view large image] |
![]() |
![]() |
rise to the Old World primates of today reclaimed a third cone through duplication and subsequent mutation of the gene for one of the remaining pigments. Thus, mammalian colour vision distinctly limited when compared with the visual world of birds and other vertebrates especially in the near ultraviolet region of the spectrum. We cannot comprehend the sensation of colour in these animals, but a camera equipped to detect only ultraviolet light "sees" patterns invisible to us as |
Figure 10n Colour Vision |
Figure 10o UV Photo |
shown in Figure 10o. |
![]() |
change that occurred about 30 to 40 million years ago, after the geologic split between the African and South American continents, and thus separated the old world primates to the new world primates. The evolutionary changes have been located at three amino acid sites following the duplication. The mutations are retained because they appeared to have imparted a substantial advantage on the species (the old world primates) that bored them (see Figure 10p). The diagram shows those amino acid positions at 180, 277, and 285 within the opsin protein, which is bound to the light sensitive retinal. These differences are enough to shift the maximal light absorption from 560 nm for the red opsin to 530 nm for the green opsin. |
Figure 10p Opsin Protein |
![]() |
All the special features in mammals (Figure 10q) can be summarized into one word - "activity". The ancestors of the mammals were carnivores, leading lives in which speedy locomotion was a necessity. The limb development has given effectiveness to this kind of activity. Brain growth has given it intelligent direction. The maintenance of a high body temperature and the various changes associated with this are related to the need of a continuous supply of energy in animals leading a constantly active life. Even the improvements in reproductive habits, which are a prominent feature of mammalian development, seem related to the needs for a slow maturation of the complex mechanisms (particularly the brain) upon which the successful pursuit of an alert and active life depends. |
Figure 10q Mammals [view large image] |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Figure 11 Mammal Evolution |
Figure 12a Diversification |
to the living monotremes (such as the platypus who lay eggs, and marsupials who nurtured the young in a pouch; see Figure 11 for the evolutionary history of the mammals). |
![]() |
While Morganucodon was alive, Pangaea was starting to break up; as a result these animals are isolated in Australia. The Afrotheres and Xenarthrans generally evolved to groups on the lower right of Figure 12a. They originated on the southern continents of Pangaea, and are now the basis of the mammals in Africa and South America. The Laurasiatheres are probably the most diverse group of living mammals. It includes the hoofed animals, the familiar carnivores as well as the bats and whales (most of the animals on the top and left in Figure 12a). They were originally living in the Northern Hemisphere; but they now dominate the other groups in the continents of Africa and South America as well. The rodents and primates are very closely related, and have always been a very widespread group. The ancestor of both the rodents and the primates was probably an animal which looked rather like a small squirrel or tree shrew (click to see more on examples and characteristics of modern mammals). Figure 12b shows the phylogeny for mammals based on anatomy and fossils. The horizontal black bars represent the age range of the group; question marks indicate controversial branching points, where gene studies reveal different relationships. |
Figure 12b Phylogeny |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Figure 13 Oldest Hominid |
Figure 14 Hominids in Africa [view large image] |
![]() |
![]() |
in 2009 identified fossils for even earlier hominid - Ardipithecus ramidus (known as 'Ardi') at 4.5 MYA. Reconstruction shows that the hands and wrists don't have many of the distinctive chimp characteristics. The foot, with its big toe sticking out sideways, would have allowed Ardi to clamber in trees, walking along limbs on her palms. And the teeth show no tusk-like upper canines, which most apes have for weapons or display during conflict. Thus, Ardi is most probably not in the lineage of modern chimps. Figure 16 shows the Homo lineage starting |
Figure 15 Family Tree |
Figure 16 Human Evolution |
from about two million years ago. The use of tool and fire started about the same time. The first exodus of hominids from |
![]() |
|
Figure 17 Quaternary Period Extinction [view large image] |
large animals have the disadvantages that its smaller size of population is more vulnerable and they have a much slower rate of reproduction taking years to give birth. |
![]() |
![]() |
who emigrated from Africa about 65000 years ago, may have slaughtered the Neanderthals. Eventually, around 35000 years ago only one species, Homo sapiens sapiens, was left. We thus find ourselves alone and yet the most numerous and successful primates in history. Such success may be at the expense of the natural environment. All the giant animals disappeared around this time. Since this was not associated with any obvious climatic change, we must therefore suspect that human may very possibly have played a large part in these extinctions2. The earth's mammal faunas have been even more reduced during the last hundred years, until many of the herbivores that once roamed North America and Africa in their thousands are nearly extinct or can be seen only in protected game parks. |
Figure 18 Neanderthals |
Figure 19 Homo Sapiens [view large image] |
![]() |
on climate, altitude, soils and the presence of other species. At present, the number of species estimated to have gone extinct as a result of human activities is still far smaller than are observed during the major mass extinctions of the geological past. However, it has been argued that the present rate of extinction is sufficient to create a major mass extinction in less than 100 years. Others dispute this and suggest that the present rate of extinctions could be sustained for many thousands of years before the loss of biodiversity matches the more than 20% losses seen in past global extinction events. |
Figure 20 Diversity of species [view large image] |