Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo
UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry

A group of four-footed mammals that flourished worldwide for 40 million years and then died out in the ice ages is the missing link between the whale and its not-so-obvious nearest relative, the hippopotamus.

The conclusion by University of California, Berkeley, post-doctoral fellow Jean-Renaud Boisserie and his French colleagues finally puts to rest the long-standing notion that the hippo is actually related to the pig or to its close relative, the South American peccary. In doing so, the finding reconciles the fossil record with the 20-year-old claim that molecular evidence points to the whale as the closest relative of the hippo.

"The problem with hippos is, if you look at the general shape of the animal it could be related to horses, as the ancient Greeks thought, or pigs, as modern scientists thought, while molecular phylogeny shows a close relationship with whales," said Boisserie. "But cetaceans – whales, porpoises and dolphins – don't look anything like hippos. There is a 40-million-year gap between fossils of early cetaceans and early hippos."

In a paper appearing this week in the Online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Boisserie and colleagues Michel Brunet and Fabrice Lihoreau fill in this gap by proposing that whales and hippos had a common water-loving ancestor 50 to 60 million years ago that evolved and split into two groups: the early cetaceans, which eventually spurned land altogether and became totally aquatic; and a large and diverse group of four-legged beasts called anthracotheres. The pig-like anthracotheres, which blossomed over a 40-million-year period into at least 37 distinct genera on all continents except Oceania and South America, died out less than 2 and a half million years ago, leaving only one descendent: the hippopotamus.

This proposal places whales squarely within the large group of cloven-hoofed mammals (even-toed ungulates) known collectively as the Artiodactyla – the group that includes cows, pigs, sheep, antelopes, camels, giraffes and most of the large land animals. Rather than separating whales from the rest of the mammals, the new study supports a 1997 proposal to place the legless whales and dolphins together with the cloven-hoofed mammals in a group named Cetartiodactyla.

"Our study shows that these groups are not as unrelated as thought by morphologists," Boisserie said, referring to scientists who classify organisms based on their physical characteristics or morphology. "Cetaceans are artiodactyls, but very derived artiodactyls."

The origin of hippos has been debated vociferously for nearly 200 years, ever since the animals were rediscovered by pioneering French paleontologist Georges Cuvier and others. Their conclusion that hippos are closely related to pigs and peccaries was based primarily on their interpretation of the ridges on the molars of these species, Boisserie said.

"In this particular case, you can't really rely on the dentition, however," Boisserie said. "Teeth are the best preserved and most numerous fossils, and analysis of teeth is very important in paleontology, but they are subject to lots of environmental processes and can quickly adapt to the outside world. So, most characteristics are not dependable indications of relationships between major groups of mammals. Teeth are not as reliable as people thought."

As scientists found more fossils of early hippos and anthracotheres, a competing hypothesis roiled the waters: that hippos are descendents of the anthracotheres.

All this was thrown into disarray in 1985 when UC Berkeley's Vincent Sarich, a pioneer of the field of molecular evolution and now a professor emeritus of anthropology, analyzed blood proteins and saw a close relationship between hippos and whales. A subsequent analysis of mitochondrial, nuclear and ribosomal DNA only solidified this relationship.

Though most biologists now agree that whales and hippos are first cousins, they continue to clash over how whales and hippos are related, and where they belong within the even-toed ungulates, the artiodactyls. A major roadblock to linking whales with hippos was the lack of any fossils that appeared intermediate between the two. In fact, it was a bit embarrassing for paleontologists because the claimed link between the two would mean that one of the major radiations of mammals – the one that led to cetaceans, which represent the most successful re-adaptation to life in water – had an origin deeply nested within the artiodactyls, and that morphologists had failed to recognize it.

This new analysis finally brings the fossil evidence into accord with the molecular data, showing that whales and hippos indeed are one another's closest relatives.

"This work provides another important step for the reconciliation between molecular- and morphology-based phylogenies, and indicates new tracks for research on emergence of cetaceans," Boisserie said.

Boisserie became a hippo specialist while digging with Brunet for early human ancestors in the African republic of Chad. Most hominid fossils earlier than about 2 million years ago are found in association with hippo fossils, implying that they lived in the same biotopes and that hippos later became a source of food for our distant ancestors. Hippos first developed in Africa 16 million years ago and exploded in number around 8 million years ago, Boisserie said.

Now a post-doctoral fellow in the Human Evolution Research Center run by integrative biology professor Tim White at UC Berkeley, Boisserie decided to attempt a resolution of the conflict between the molecular data and the fossil record. New whale fossils discovered in Pakistan in 2001, some of which have limb characteristics similar to artiodactyls, drew a more certain link between whales and artiodactyls. Boisserie and his colleagues conducted a phylogenetic analysis of new and previous hippo, whale and anthracothere fossils and were able to argue persuasively that anthracotheres are the missing link between hippos and cetaceans.

While the common ancestor of cetaceans and anthracotheres probably wasn't fully aquatic, it likely lived around water, he said. And while many anthracotheres appear to have been adapted to life in water, all of the youngest fossils of anthracotheres, hippos and cetaceans are aquatic or semi-aquatic.

"Our study is the most complete to date, including lots of different taxa and a lot of new characteristics," Boisserie said. "Our results are very robust and a good alternative to our findings is still to be formulated."

Brunet is associated with the Laboratoire de Géobiologie, Biochronologie et Paléontologie Humaine at the Université de Poitiers and with the Collège de France in Paris. Lihoreau is a post-doctoral fellow in the Département de Paléontologie of the Université de N'Djaména in Chad.

The work was supported in part by the Mission Paléoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne, which is co-directed by Brunet and Patrick Vignaud of the Université de Poitiers, and in part by funds to Boisserie from the Fondation Fyssen, the French Ministère des Affaires Etrangères and the National Science Foundation's Revealing Hominid Origins Initiative, which is co-directed by Tim White and Clark Howell of UC Berkeley.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; evolution; whale
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,541-1,5601,561-1,5801,581-1,600 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
To: Tribune7
I think you had "according to the Bible" somewhere in there.

No.

1,561 posted on 02/10/2005 11:50:04 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1554 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
um, unless i am greatly in error, combustion does NOT convert mass to energy.

You are greatly in error.

1,562 posted on 02/10/2005 11:51:03 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1559 | View Replies]

To: shubi

nice.


1,563 posted on 02/10/2005 11:51:08 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1558 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Here is one source for you to study:(there are many others)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html


1,564 posted on 02/10/2005 11:51:10 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1530 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

indeed?
are you quite certain of that?


1,565 posted on 02/10/2005 11:52:03 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1562 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Looks like seabirds like gulls would be the most likely vectors.


1,566 posted on 02/10/2005 11:55:03 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1544 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

The only thing? I will try to get you some of my analyses.


1,567 posted on 02/10/2005 11:57:09 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1552 | View Replies]

To: shubi

yes, the only thing. that's the only thing I have found in Genesis that, with no need for interpretation, manages to make a concrete statement of fact that could not be derived from the data set available at the time and has been largely corroborated by modern empirical science.

if you have a list of others, please do.

but I am not interested in examples requiring arcane and convoluted abstractions from the text.


1,568 posted on 02/10/2005 12:00:37 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1567 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

I'm not a migratory bird expert, so I don't know if this makes any sense at all, but... Perhaps the ancestors of these birds that perform a transatlantic migration lived during a time in which there was no ocean between N. America and Europe. (These may even have been flying reptilian ancestors). Perhaps the destination of that migration was somehow retained even after the American and European plates separated (not sure how this might have happened, maybe something to do with the magnetic field, height of the sun, etc.) If this happened, then the endpoints of the migration would be programmed instinctively into these birds. Again, I don't know if this makes any sense or not, so I am donning my asbestos suit and await my flaming.


1,569 posted on 02/10/2005 12:01:17 PM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1456 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

What do you think of "let there be light" as the impetus for the Big Bang? That is pretty straight forward.


1,570 posted on 02/10/2005 12:03:14 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1568 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
um, unless i am greatly in error, combustion does NOT convert mass to energy.

E=MC2

Heat is released in nuclear fission due to a change in the binding energy of the nuclei of the particles. Mass is converted to energy.

Now where does that heat come from is a chemical reaction that results in a difference in the energy state of the molecules?

1,571 posted on 02/10/2005 12:04:20 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1565 | View Replies]

To: shubi

"let there be light" and the "Big Bang"

first: I do not buy the BBT.
second: the sun rose and set back when the book was composed, so I don't find the phrase to be needfully indicative of anything other than the author's poetic description of a dawn of creation.


1,572 posted on 02/10/2005 12:05:51 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1570 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
nuclear fission is not combustion. nuclear fission and fusion are processes involving restructuring the nuclei of atoms. combustion is a chemical reaction involving the recombination of electron patterns of combinations of atoms/molecules. last time I checked, E=MC2 did not apply to low-end electron-based chemistry.
1,573 posted on 02/10/2005 12:08:28 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1571 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

huh? I dunno why that got bolded - such was not my intent.


1,574 posted on 02/10/2005 12:09:25 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1573 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
last time I checked, E=MC2 did not apply to low-end electron-based chemistry

Interesting that you would think that the laws of conservation of mass and energy apply to the nucleus but not to the electrons ...

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Smyth/Smyth1.html

1,575 posted on 02/10/2005 12:11:09 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1573 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey; King Prout
um, unless i am greatly in error, combustion does NOT convert mass to energy.

You are greatly in error.

Combustion is a chemical reaction, not a nuclear reaction. In combustion, the bonds in the reactants are broken, and new bonds are formed in the products. There is a net release of energy because the energy released in the bond formation in the products is less than the energy absorbed in the bond breakage in the reactants. There is no conversion of mass into energy.

1,576 posted on 02/10/2005 12:11:36 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1562 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
oh... put a <b> in instead of a <p>
1,577 posted on 02/10/2005 12:12:21 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1574 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
huh? I dunno why that got bolded - such was not my intent.

You mistakenly entered <b> instead of </b>.

1,578 posted on 02/10/2005 12:13:15 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1574 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

close! ;)


1,579 posted on 02/10/2005 12:13:51 PM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1578 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Combustion is a chemical reaction, not a nuclear reaction. In combustion, the bonds in the reactants are broken, and new bonds are formed in the products. There is a net release of energy because the energy released in the bond formation in the products is less than the energy absorbed in the bond breakage in the reactants. There is no conversion of mass into energy.

A common misconception. See my posted link above.

1,580 posted on 02/10/2005 12:14:21 PM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1576 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,541-1,5601,561-1,5801,581-1,600 ... 2,241-2,242 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson