Showing posts with label Palaeontology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palaeontology. Show all posts

Sunday, 23 August 2026

Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis: A Rhinoceros from the Pleistocene of Romania.

Three species of Rhinoceros are known from the Middle-to-Late Pleistocene of Romania, the Woolly Rhinoceros, Coelodonta antiquitatis, a cold-adapted species associated with the various glacial phases, the Narrow-nosed rhinoceros, or Steppe Rhinoceros, Stephanorhinus hemitoechus, a species associated with the warmer, interglacial phases, and Merck's Rhinoceros, Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis, a larger species which may have reached as much as three tonnes, making it larger than the White Rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum, the largest extant Rhinoceros species. Merck's Rhinoceros also appears to have favoured warmer phases, and possibly to have been restricted to the Eemian Interglacial (between 130 000 and 150 000 years ago), although specimens have been found from Siberia which apparently lived alongside Woolly Rhinoceroses, suggesting the species may have been longer lived more tolerant of climatic variation than it is generally given credit for.

In a paper published in the North-Western Journal of Zoology on 15 June 2026, Vlad Codrea of the Paleotheriology and Quaternary Geology Laboratory at Babeș-Bolyai University, the Department of Natural Sciences at Mureș County Museum, the Department of Natural History at Țării Crișurilor Museum, and the Emil Racoviță Speleological Institute, and Aurelian Popescu of the Department of Natural Sciences at the Museum of Oltenia Craiova, describe a partial Rhinoceros mandible from Dolj County in southwestern Romania. 

The mandible was discovered by English engineer William Heerlein Lindley, who was working on a water supply system for the city of Craiova, which had undergone a period of rapid expansion during the late nineteenth century, leaving the system of wells which had traditionally provided water for its residents wholly inadequate. It is unclear exactly where Lindley found the mandible, but it probably came from the Upper Terrace of the Jui River Basin, which reaches its greatest width to the east of Craiova, and where Lindley carried out considerable work, channelling water from natural springs into a system of cast-iron pipes to supply the city. The Upper Terrace has also yielded Woolly Mammoth, Mammuthus primigenius, Woolly Rhinoceros, Coelodonta antiquitatis, and Irish Elk, Megaloceros giganteus, fossils, and is considered to be Late Pleistocene in age.

Location of the municipality of Craiova. Codrea & Popescu (2026).

Lindley gave the mandible to Alexandru and Aristia Aman, who had a collection of art, antiquities, and books, which in turn was passed to the Olteniei Museum in Craiova in the 1950s, with the specimen becoming part of that museum's natural history collection.

The specimen is the rear part of the mandible of a large Perissodactyl, with the anterior portion broken off, a broken area on the anterior edge of the coronoid process. This broken area makes it hard to judge the  elevation of the anterior edge of the vertical branch of the mandible. The teeth have also been broken from the jaw, but this is recent damage, probably caused during its excavation.

Right half mandible from the Malu Mare area of Dolj County, Romanina, in (a) lateral buccal view, (b) lateral lingual view, and (c) upper view. Codrea & Popescu (2026).

The damage to the jaw removes many of the diagnostic features used when classifying Perissodactyls, though its large size rules out anything but a large Rhinoceros, while still being too small for the truly enormous Elasmotherium. It also has a nutrient foramina on the ventral side of the symphysis, a feature associated with Merck's Rhinoceros, leading Codrea and Popescu to conclude that it should be assigned to this species.

While the teeth of the specimen are missing, they were clearly all fully erupted, indicating that it was an adult at time of death. It was probably of about average size for a specimen of Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis. The exact age of the specimen is impossible to know, given the circumstances of its discovery. If it does come from the sediments Lindley excavated at Malu Mare when laying his pipeline, then it would be the oldest known Rhinoceros from Romania, as well as having come from deposits which also yielded cold-adapted species such as Woolly Rhinoceros, Woolly Mammoth, and Irish Elk, although it is possible that Lindley discovered it elsewhere, so this cannot be asserted with any confidence.

See also...




Sunday, 12 July 2026

Uragasaurus kalasinensis: A new species of Mamenchisaurid Sauropod from the Late Jurassic of northeastern Thailand.

The Mamenchisaurids were a group of non-Neosauropod Sauropods (i.e. outside the largest grouping of Sauropods) which formed a significant part of the fauna of East Asia during the Middle and Late Jurassic. They can be distinguished by highly pneumatised and elongated cervical vertebrae, as well as procoelous vertebrae on the front part of the caudal spine (procoelous vertebrae have a convex forward disk and a concave rear disk), which were distinctive during the Jurassic, but evolved convergently in several Neosauropod groups during the Cretaceous. 

Most known Mamenchisaurids come from China, and for a long time they were thought to be restricted to that country. However, in 2005 fragmentary remains attributed to the group were recovered from the Middle to Late Jurassic Khlong Min Formation of Krabi Province in southern Thailand. In 2013, further fragmentary remains were found in the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous Phu Kradung Formation of northeastern Thailand, and in 2019 a new species of Mamenchisaurid, Wamweracaudia keranjei, was described on the basis of a partial skeleton from the Late Jurassic Tendaguru Formation of southeastern Tanzania, establishing the presence of the group in Africa.

In a paper published in the journal Scientific Reports on 8 July 2026, Apirut Nilpanapan of the Department of Biology at Mahasarakham University, Sita Manitkoon of the Palaeontological Research and Education Centre and Vertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution Research Unit at Mahasarakham University, Varavudh Suteethorn of the Khon Kaen Geopark Association, and Komsorn Lauprasert also of the Department of Biology and Evolution Research Unit at Mahasarakham University, describe a new species of Mamenchisaurid Sauropod from the Phu Kradung Formation of northeastern Thailand.

The new species is named on the basis of material collected from the Phu Noi Locality, which is in the village of Ban Din Chi in the Kham Muang District of Kalasin Province, in the northeast of Thailand. Here an outcrop of the Phu Kradung Formation has produced one of the most diverse non-marine Vertebrate fossil assemblages in Southeast Asia. The Phu Kradung Formation comprises a series of sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones laid down in a fluvial environment, within a continental basin. 

Locality map and section diagram of Phu Noi Locality. (a) Map of Thailand; (b) location of Phu Noi Locality and the distribution of Phu Kradung Formation, the northeastern region with the outline of Kalasin Province; (c) diagrammatic section of Phu Noi. Nilpanapan et al. (2026).

The precise age of the Phu Kradung Formation is unknown, as it lacks any radiometrically datable horizons. However, regional stratigraphic correlations, Vertebrate assemblages, and detrital zircon data suggest that it is of Late Cretaceous origin, possibly with the uppermost part of the formation extending into the earliest Cretaceous.

The Phu Noi outcrop comprises numerous channel horizons formed within a braided river, rather than horizontal layers extending across the whole site. It has three fossil-bearing horizons. The lowest of these is a grey conglomeratic sandstone laid down in a channel bottom. About 10 m above this, the middle horizon is a brownish-purple and greenish-grey sandy siltstone and mudstone. At the same level as this, but about 400 m to the southwest, the upper horizon is a greyish siltstones within proximal floodplain deposit.

The specimen from which Nilpanpan et al. describe the new species comes from the middle horizon, which is particularly rich in Vertebrate remains, having previously yielded Hybodont Sharks,  Ginglymodian Fish, Lungfish, Eucryptodiran Turtles, Teleosaurid Crocodyliformes, and Neornithischian Dinosaurs, and with Brachyopid Temnospondyl, Rhamphorynchoidea Pterosaur, Tyrannosauroid and Metriacanthosaurid Theropod specimens currently being studied. This faunal assemblage shows a strong affinity to the Late Jurassic and earliest Cretaceous faunas of the Junggar, Turpan, and Sichuan basins of China.

The new species is named Uragasaurus kalasinensis, where 'Uragasaurus' derives from 'Uraga' (उरग) the Sanskrit word for Snake, in reference to the long, serpentine, neck of Sauropod Dinosaurs, plus '-saurus' (σαύρος), the Greek for Lizard, a common suffix in Dinosaur names, and 'kalasinensis' means 'from Kalasin' in reference to the province where the specimen was discovered. 

Uragasaurus kalasinensis is described from a single isolated anterior dorsal vertebra (PRC 460), from the Phu Noi locality, which is housed in the collection of the Palaeontological Research and Education Centre at Mahasarakham University. A number of other Sauropod elements were found close to this specimen in the same level, which Nilpanpan et al. refer to Uragasaurus kalasinensis. However, because these elements cannot be assigned to the same original Animal with 100% confidence, and they do not have overlapping diagnostic features, they are not included in the formal description of the species. This material includes two anterior dorsal neural arches (KS 34-581 & KS 34-586), a left coracoid (KS 34-587), a left fibula (KS 34-588), a middle cervical vertebra (KS 34-602a), a right cervical rib (KS 34-602b), a middle-to-posterior dorsal vertebra (KS 34-692), and a posterior dorsal vertebra (PN 13-23).

Holotype of Uragasaurus kalasinensis (PRC 460) and associated materials in the quarry map. PRC 460 Anterior dorsal vertebra in anterior view (a), KS 34-581 anterior dorsal neural arch in anterior view (b), KS 34-602a middle cervical vertebra in ventral view (c), KS 34-586 anterior dorsal neural arch in anterior view, attached by KS 34-588 fibula (d), KS 34-587 coracoid in lateral view (e), KS 34-602b right cervical rib in lateral view (f). Quarry map showing the spatial distribution of the holotype and associated materials from the Phu Noi Locality (g). PRC 460, representing the new taxon Uragasaurus kalasinensis, is indicated in red. Associated Sauropod elements include KS 34-586, KS 34-587, KS 34-588, and KS 34-602a–b, highlighted in yellow, green, blue, purple, and pink, respectively. The inset shows a close-up of the excavation grid highlighting the relative positions of the holotype and nearby associated materials. Each grid square represents 0.75 × 0.75 m. Nilpanpan et al. (2026).

The anterior dorsal vertebra assigned to Uragasaurus kalasinensis has a prominent, elongated teardrop-shaped pneumatic fossae on the distal portion of the transverse processes, intraprezygapophyseal laminae meeting ventromedially to form a Y-shaped configuration in anterior view, incorporating a single vertical intraprezygapophyseal lamina, and a shallow, subtriangular pleurocoel lacking an internal septum. 

The holotype anterior dorsal vertebra of Uragasaurus kalasinensis (PRC 460) in anterior (a) and posterior (b) views. Digital rendering of the specimen in anterior (c), posterior (d), right lateral (e), left lateral (f), dorsal (g), and ventral (h) views. Asterisk refers to an autapomorphic character. The blue highlight indicates the pneumatic fossa and pleurocoel. Abbreviations: Cpol, centropostzygapophyseal lamina; cprl, centroprezygapophyseal lamina; di, diapophysis; ns, neural  spine; pa, parapophysis; pcdl, posterior centrodiapophyseal lamina; pl, pleurocoel; pnfo, pneumatic  fossa; po, postzygapophysis; podl, postzygodiapophyseal lamina; ppdl, paradiapophyseal lamina; prdl, prezygodiapophyseal lamina; posl, postspinal lamina; prsl, prespinal lamina; spof, spinopostzygapophyseal fossa; spol, spinopostzygapophyseal lamina; sprf, spinoprezygapophyseal fossa; sprl, spinoprezygapophyseal  lamina; stprl, single interprezygapophyseal lamina; tp, transverse process; tpol, intrapostzygapophyseal lamina;  tprl, intraprezygapophyseal lamina. Nilpanpan et al. (2026).

A computed tomography of specimen PRC 460 showed that its centrum has a camellate internal pneumatic structure composed of numerous small, irregular chambers separated by thin bony septa, although it was not possible to accurately measure the dimensions of these cavities due to mineral infilling. This is a structure unique to advanced Mamenchisaurids, which differs from the procamerate internal structure seen in certain Neosauropods and the camerate condition found in Macronarians and Diplodocoids. 

Computed tomography scan of the anterior dorsal vertebra of Uragasaurus kalasinensis (holotype PRC 460). Three￾dimensional reconstructions of the vertebra in anterior view (a) and right lateral view (c). Corresponding computed tomography sections in anterior view (b) and right lateral view (d). The section plane corresponds to the dashed line separating the grey (anterior) and blue (posterior) regions in the 3D reconstructions. White boxes highlight camellate pneumatic cavities within the centrum. Red arrows indicate polygonal camellae within the camellate internal structure of the centrum. Black-and-white arrows indicate anatomical orientation in each panel. Nilpanpan et al. (2026).

Phylogenetic analysis of the taxonomic affinities of Uragasaurus kalasinensis consistently recovered the species as a basal Mamenchisaurid, although its precise placement within this group was hard to determine, which is unsurprising given the limited nature of the material. However, the same analysis consistently found Rhomaleopakhus turpanensis, a species formerly classified as being a member of the Mamenchisauridae, as being outside the group, which Nilpanpan et al. suggest may indicate the need to re-evaluate the taxonomic status of a number of Late Jurassic Asian Sauropods. 

A previous Mamenchisaurid specimen, KS26-4, was described from the Phu Dan Ma locality in 2013. This specimen comprises a nearly complete posterior cervical vertebra and two fragmentary ribs. Since this material did not contain any elements considered reliably diagnostic within the Mamenchisauridae, it was not formally described as a new species. This lack of diagnostic features, combined with a lack of shared elements with the material assigned to Uragasaurus kalasinensis leads Nilpanpan et al. to refrain from assessing whether it belongs to the same species.

Posterior cervical vertebra of Mamenchisaurus sp. from Phu Dan Ma, Kalasin Province,Thailand,Phu Kradung Formation, Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous. Vertebra (SM KS26−4), right rib (SMKS26−2), and left rib (SMKS26−3) in anterior (A; A₂, close−up view of neural spine showing attachment scar for interspinal elastic ligament), left lateral (B), posterior (C), right lateral (D; D₂, close−up view of articular condyle showing a cancellous internal structure), and dorsal (E) views. Suteethorn et al. (2013).

See also...

Thursday, 18 June 2026

An alternative hypothesis on the origin of Hominins and African Apes.

The ancestors of Humans are commonly thought to have evolved on the savannas of Africa, a theory which was originally proposed by Charles Darwin. This original proposition was based upon the fact that our closest ancestors, the African Apes, lived in the forests of Africa, and that our upright walking behaviour seemed like an adaption to open grasslands, rather than any fossil evidence available at the time. This is a plausible hypothesis, and much subsequent palaeoarchaeological evidence uncovered in Africa has appeared to support it. However, a number of recent discoveries have been hard to reconcile with this scenario, leading to the emergence of alternative ideas on Human origins.

There are a number of things about Human anatomy which appear to be inconsistent with an origin on the African Savannas. We have a furless body, a layer of subcutaneous white fat, feet much flatter than other primates, run slowly, and sweat heavily when hot or exercising, leading to the loss of fluids and minerals (our water consumption needs are high compared to other Primates even when not doing this).

For a long time it was hypothesised that knuckle-walking African forest Apes migrated onto the open grasslands, where they evolved into upright Australophithecenes, and subsequently into Humans. Over time, this theory has been modified as we have come to understand more about the environments favoured by Australopithecenes, they are now seen as inhabitants of mosaic woodlands who moved from a partially bipedal lifestyle to an obligate bipedal one to facilitate crossing more open areas, although why this should be the case remains unclear.

Another puzzle is the apparent absence of fossils ascribed to either the genera Pan (Chimpanzees) or Gorilla, despite the long lineage of fossil Human-ancestors dating back into the Pliocene. The genera Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus, have all been classified as Hominins, more closely related to modern Humans than either Pan or Gorilla. This is in contradiction to what would be expected, as genetic studies suggest modern Chimpanzee and Gorilla populations have diverged from large ancestral populations, while Humans apparently descend from a lineage with consistently small population sizes and repeated genetic bottlenecks. It has been suggested that this has come about because the ancestors of Chimpanzees and Gorillas lived in acidic forests, where there is lower potential for remains to become fossilised. However, this environment is more favoured by Orangutans, which do have a fossil record, than it is by Chimpanzees, which do not.

'Mrs Ples' a 2.1 million-year-old skull assigned to the species Australopithecus africanus in the collection of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural HistoryJosé Braga/Didier Descouens/Wikimedia Commons.

In a review article published in the journal Academia Biology on 10 June 2026, Marc Verhaegen of the Anthropology Study Center in Putte, Belgium, Stephen Munro of the National Museum of AustraliaKathelijne Bonne of GondwanaTalks in Madrid, Spain, Frances Mansfield, an independent researcher from Volos in Greece, and Mario Vaneechoutte of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Ghent University, present a new hypothesis on the origins of both Humans and African Apes, in which they argue that the Australopithecenes were not, in fact the ancestors of Humans but rather of modern Gorillas and Chimpanzees. 

Verhaegen et al. not that genomic studies have found that the ancestors of modern Gorillas and Chimpanzees were infected with the Endoretroviruses PtERV1 (CERV1) and PtERV2 (CERV2) between 3 and 4 million years ago (Endoretroviruses are fragments of ancient viral DNA which have been inserted into the hosts genome), but Humans and Asian Apes show no signs of any such infections in their past. Since Humans are not immune to the effects of these Viruses, the most likely explanation is that our ancestors were geographically isolated from the epidemic. It has been suggested that Human ancestors may have moved out of Africa during much of the Miocene Epoch, when the Viruses were circulating, but Verhaegen et al. suggest that a more likely scenario is that they did not arrive in Africa at all until the Early Pleistocene. Few, if any, Animals are thought to have migrated from Africa to Europe during the Pliocene, while a range of European Animals migrated into Africa, driven by the hyper-arid climate that emerged in southern Europe at this time. 

Furthermore, Verhaegen et al. consider that the Australopithecines found in Africa during the Pliocene were not closely related to modern Humans, but rather that their smaller brains, short legs, and long arms indicate that they were related, or even ancestral, to modern African Apes. The evolution of Australopithecenes has often been seen as confusing, as earlier species often have more Human-like traits, seen as 'advanced', while later forms are often more Ape-like, or 'primitive', leading to speculation about undiscovered ghost lineages connecting earlier species to Humans. 

This distinction vanishes if Australopithecines are considered to be the ancestors of African Apes. For example, the Miocene Ardipithecus ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago, had small canine teeth, similar to those seen in modern Humans, whereas the Pliocene Australopithecus africanus had much larger canines, comparable to a modern Ape. Other examples are the Miocene Orrorin tugenensis, which lived about 6 million years ago, had femurs more closely resembling those of Humans that any Pliocene Australopithecene, and the Early Pliocene Australopithecus anamensis, which lived about 4.2 million years ago, had a modified talar trochlea which would have enabled it to swing its leg forward during upright locomotion, something which is absent in subsequent members of the genus. Furthermore, later Austalopithecenes such as the Early Pleistocene Australopithecus sediba, which lived about 1.8 million years ago, appear better adapted to an arboreal lifestyle than earlier members of the group.

A cast of a skull of Ardipithecus ramidus from the Miocene of Ethiopia, in the collection of the Royal Tyrrell MuseumChris Woodrich/Wikimedia Commons.

Other than an early adaptation to bipedalism, Verhaegen et al. see Australopithecenes as consistently more Ape-like than they are Human-like, in particular noting that Australopithecus afarensis appears more Gorilla-like and Australopithecus africanus appears more Chimpanzee-like.

Verhaegen et al. do not see Homo habilis, the smallest and earliest member of the genus Homo, which appeared in the Early Pleistocene, about 2.58 million years ago, to be a true member of the genus Homo, noting that the species shares a small brain, short leg, and long arm morphology with Australopithecenes and Apes, and in particular that the morphology of the enamel–dentine junction in this species is also more Australopithecene-like. The later, but equally small, Homo naledi is also considered to be an Australopithecene. 

In Verhaegen et al.'s view, the last common ancestor of all Australopithecenes, living Apes, and Humans, would have been an upright Miocene Ape, capable of bipedal locomotion, climbing trees, and wading in shallow water. They describe a scenario in which these Apes led a lifestyle they describe as 'aquaborealism', living in forests which were at least seasonally flooded, with a lifestyle which involved wading in waters on the forest floor, climbing trees in a vertical position, and swinging beneath branches (branchiating). From this ancestral state the Hyobatids (Gibbons and Siamangs) evolved into small, fast branchiating Apes living in the tree canopy, Orangutans into larger, slower, branchiating forms, Gorillas and Chimpanzees (separately) into knuckle-walking forms, and Humans into bipedal walkers.

They give two potential scenarios from which modern African Apes could descend from Australopithecenes; either Chimpanzees descended directly from earlier, more gracile Australopithecenes, such as Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus, while Gorillas arose from later, more robust forms such as Paranthropus boisei and Paranthropus robustus, or they went through separate but parallel evolutionary paths, running something like Australopithecus africanus-Paranthropus robustus-Chimpanzees and Australopithecus afarensis-Paranthropus boisei-Gorillas, in response to similar environmental changes.

A skull reconstruction assigned to Paranthropus robustus in the collection of the National Natural History Museum of China. Erlend Bjørtvedt/Wikimedia Commons.

Verhaegen et al. believe that the view of the common ancestor of Apes and Humans as being Ape-like, and Apes therefore as the 'primitive' state, has distorted our view of Hominid evolution for over a century. They argue that while Australopithecenes do have some Human-like traits, these are indicators that Australopithecenes are ancestral to Humans, but rather that they share some traits derived from a mutual common ancestor that frequently adopted an upright bipedal posture as an adaptation to life in flooded forests. 

The analysis presented by Verhaegen et al. suggests two distinct phases of Human evolution associated with wet environments; an initial aquaboreal phase in flooded Miocene forests, followed by a littoral (beach dwelling) phase, which may have involved frequent shallow diving to access food, which probably continued into the Early Pleistocene.

Apes differ from Old World Monkeys in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is their much larger size. This appears likely to have been a trait found in the last common ancestor of all Apes; even the relatively small Hylobatids are thought to have evolved from a larger ancestor, due to their long gestation period, which is unusual in such a small Primate, and is thought to be a hangover from a larger ancestor. Another notable trait is the absence of a tail in Apes. This has become much reduced, and forms a part of the 'pelvic cup'; a modification of the pelvis which helps to support the intestines when in an upright position. There is no comparable tail loss in any other Primate to which this can be compared, but the idea that this was an adaptation to an upright posture while engaged in vertical climbing and branchiating seems reasonable. Furthermore, if these ancestral Apes were spending a lot of time in wading in water, then a tail might have been disadvantageous, prone to heat loss, adding to the friction of the Apes when moving through the water, and prone to infections or attacks by predators. 

Verhaegen et al. note that quadruped Animals returning to the water tend to evolve in one of two ways. Those that use spinal flexation as the main means of propulsion and the tail as the driving organ, such as Whales and Sirenians, tend to lose their hind limbs, whereas those that use their limbs for propulsion, such as Seals, Bears, Penguins, and Hippos, tend to lose their tails. An exception can be seen in Animals such as Otters and Beavers, which use their tails for propulsion but make extensive use of their limbs for foraging and movement on land. Apes, which use their limbs to swim when they enter the water, have lost their tails.

The lumbar spine of Apes is stiffer and further from their dorsal surface than is the case in most Mammals, and their forelimbs (arms) are notably long, adaptations which seems favourable to climbing in an upright position and hanging below branches. They also have wide hips compared to other Primates, and a flatter pelvis, facilitating lateral leg movements, as well as a broader sternum and thorax, which pushes their scapulas into a more dorsal position, facilitating lateral and upward arm movements. 

Fossils of Miocene Apes are often found in what have been interpreted as warm, wet, forest environments, which has led to the suggestion that they may have been aquaborreal in nature, spending their time wading through flooded forests or climbing in the branches above with their arms. Such behaviour is known in extant Apes, for example Gorillas have been observed entering forest swamps to forage for Sedges, Bonobos will wade through water to obtain Waterlilies, and Orangutans have been observed wading in shallow water in Borneo.

Bipedal Gorilla, wading. Female Gorilla with a walking stick, while crossing bipedally an Elephant pool at Mbeli Bai, Republic of Congo. Thomas Breuer & Emma Stokes in Verhaegen et al. (2011).

Verhaegen et al. propose that all modern Apes derived from this initial aquaboreal Miocene Ape, with Gibbons adopting a fast branchiating motion, Orangutans a slower branchiating movement combined with knuckle walking, Gorillas and Chimpanzees separately developing a knuckle walking gait, and the ancestors of Humans going through a distinct litoral (coast dwelling) phase.

A number of lines of evidence have pointed towards Early Pleistocene members of the genus Homo may have engaged in regular wading, swimming, and even diving. Homo erectus has been observed to have a pachyosteoscletotic skeleton (i.e. unusually dense bones), something associated with slow-moving, shallow-diving Tetrapods such as Sireneans, as well as the earliest Whales and Seals. The dense skeleton can help such Animals maintain their position in the water, particularly in saltwater environments (where the body is more buoyant). The occipital bones of Homo erectus are roughly twice as thick as those of comparably sized Apes, making the interpretation of the species as a swift bipedal predator chasing down prey hard to sustain. 

Furthermore, the low positioning of the braincase, receding forehead, absence of a chin, and forward projecting face of Homo eructus appear to be an adaptation to frequent shallow water diving, and possibly floating on their backs. The forward pointing face and paranasal sinuses of Homo eructus may indicate a habit of surfacing nose first, with the nostrils above water and the heavy occipital area at the back of the head beneath the water, something which would have worked well in a back-floating position. The basicranial flexation of modern Humans holds our face in a ventral, forward facing position. In contrast, Homo erectus would have tended to look upwards, in what would be a forward position when swimming or diving (Neanderthals are somewhere between these positions). This has been suggested to be an adaptation to foraging in coastal waters, where the easy availability of coastal food sources would compensate for the lack of stability associated with a bipedal gait on land.

Several skulls of Homo erectus have been shown to have bony growths in the inner ear called aural exotoses (or surfer's ear) which is caused by chronic exposure to cold water. This has also been observed in about half of all Neanderthals. Verhaegen et al. observe that this directly contradicts the frequent claim that there is no direct palaeontological support for the coastal Ape hypothesis.

At the same time, Human-ancestors underwent both an increase in both overall body size, and relative brain size. This is a common adaptation to moving from a terrestrial to an aquatic lifestyle, seen for example in Whales and Dolphins, but is not typical when non-aquatic Mammals increase in size; for example, the largest Apes, Gorillas, do not have relatively large brains. Homo erectus underwent a significant increase in brain size, with later specimens had a brain twice as large as that of an equivalent-sized Ape. This may have benefited from the higher proportion of nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid, folic acid, selenium, taurine, and iodine, in aquatic-derived foods, all of which are needed for brain-growth. Such disproportionate brain growth is not seen in terrestrial carnivores, and therefore seems unlikely in a Hominin chasing prey in open grassland. Notably, Australopithicenes never showed any notable increase in brain size over their two-million-year history. Verhaegen et al. take this as evidence that early Homo did not evolve from such ancestors on the African grasslands, since there seems no good reason that our brains should have started to grow rapidly while remaining in the same environment.

There is also considerable evidence that Homo erectus did consume aquatic foods. Fossils of Homo erectus from Mojokerto on Java were found in association with numerous marine Bivalve shells, while those at Trinil on the same island, were found with the shells of  freshwater Bivalves, such as Pseudodon and Elongaria, including specimens engraved with geometric patterns. Furthermore, palaeoarchaeological remains from the Koobi Fora Formation in the Turkana Basin of northern Kenya have yielded stone tools from a Oldowan technology alongside the remains of aquatic Animals including Fish, Turtles, and even Crocodiles. Early Homo specimens from a variety of locations have dental wear associated with grit and the oral processing of marine Molluscs. Archaic members of the genus Homo are known to have reached Sulawesi by one million years ago, despite this island never being connected to the Eurasian mainland, suggesting an early ability to cross open water.

Pseudodon shell with geometric engravings from the Trinil archaeological site in East Java, dated to about 500 000 years ago. The shell was excavated by Dutch palaeoarchaeologist Eugène Dubois in the 1880s and taken to the Netherlands. It was returned to Indonesia by the Naturalis Biodiversity Center in 2025. Naturalis Biodiversity Center/Wikimedia Commons.

The genus Homo first appeared around the beginning of the Pleistocene, with the first evidence of the consumption of aquatic foodstuffs appearing about two million years ago, across the tropical and temperate regions of the Old World. This has led to the suggestion that Homo was able to spread across this area rapidly by following coasts and rivers, wading and diving for food. There is also increasing evidence for the consumption of aquatic foods by Neanderthals across their range, as well as Modern Humans across the world, and from their earliest appearance. 

Humans differentiate from the standard morphology and physiology of Primates, and indeed terrestrial Mammals in general, in several ways. We have fleshy outward lips, a small oral opening, a closed tooth row, a more globular tongue, a descended larynx, and an external nose that still today some individuals can partially close, using nasal muscles. We also have a distinct 'Cupid's bow' to our upper lips (technically the philtrum) to our upper lips, another feature which some modern individuals can use to close their nasal airway. All of these are adaptations which enable us to regulate breathing and seal our airways better, and which may have been more pronounced in Homo erectus.

Feeding on shellfish would also have required adaptations which required improved abilities to control the sucking and swallowing of food, particularly if this was done in the water. Adaptations which improved fine control over the lips, jaw, tongue, glottis, and larynx, would also have acted as pre-adaptations for the later evolution of speech. Hunting for foodstuffs underwater, particularly if we were doing this blind (by touch alone) is also likely to have improved both our manual dexterity and the sense of touch in our fingers, something also seen in Raccoons and Otters.

In Humans, the connective tissues, tendons, ligaments, and muscles of the human foot are aligned with the hallux to form a longitudinal arch. This is unlike the foot of any other Primate, and is a good adaption to walking, and acts as a shock-absorber when running. However, it is also a particularly good adaptation to swimming, particularly as our feet are relatively larger and more paddle-shaped, and makes us particularly sure-footed on wet or infirm terrain, where other Mammals often struggle. Humans are able to swim using axial undulation, a coordinated wave of motion from trunk to hips to legs, something other Primates are unable to do. Our feet can be seen as a trade-off between something useful for swimming and something useful on land. Notably, we are less efficient runners than most other Mammals, which directly contradicts the idea that we evolved to chase large prey across grasslands.

Notably, Humans have a layer of white fat beneath our skins (the adipose layer) considerably thicker than found in any other Primate, as well as an overall fat content which is also distinctively high. In a healthy male Human, between 12% and 23% of the body mass is fat, while in a female it is between 25% and 35%. In Chimpanzees and Bonobos body fat typically makes up less than 5% of the body mass of males, and less than 8% of the bodymass of females. Thus even the leanest of Humans have a significantly higher proportion of fat than healthy Chimpanzees. This suggests that Humans have undergone a significant ecological shift after our ancestors split from those of Chimpanzees, and one which decoupled the fat content of our bodies from the its use as an energy store. Such a change is again typical of aquatic and semi-aquatic Mammals, where fat has an important role both as an insulator and as a buoyancy aid. Such a layer provides no particular role during activities such as sustained running, and may be disadvantageous, as it can hamper the dissipation of heat.

Verhaegen et al. believe that plate tectonics played an important role in the evolution of Hominoids, Hominids, and Hominins, and in particular the formation of the Red Sea and the African Rift. Until about 30 million years ago (Early Oligocene), Africa and Arabia were a single island continent, separated from Eurasia by the Tethys Ocean. Over time, this continent drifted northward, the Tethys Ocean narrowed, and a series of islands and archipelagos formed between the two continents.

Between about 30 million years ago and about 20 million years ago (during the Oligocene and Early Miocene), an episode of plume volcanism beneath the Afar Triangle led to uplift, basalt volcanism, and the formation of a triple junction rift system. The three branches of this rift would go on to form the Gulf of Aden to the east, the Red Sea to the northwest, and the Ethiopian Rift to the south. At this time Eurasia and Africa-Arabia were still separated, although the Mesopotamian Seaway, which separated Arabia from what would become Mesopotamia and Persia, was becoming increasingly narrow.

Between about 20 million years ago and about 14 million years ago (Early-Middle Miocene) the Mesopotamian Seaway slowly closed, leading to the formation of a connection called the Gomphotherium Landbridge (Gomphotherium being a type of early Elephant that migrated out of Africa across this landbridge), leading to faunal exchange between Africa-Arabia to the south and Eurasia to the north. forming the first wave of the 'Great Old World Biotic Interchange', while the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean became isolated from one-another. This also led to uplift and mountain formation along the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone, and the development of the Dead Sea Transform and Aqaba faults in response to the added tectonic stress. At this time the Red Sea had opened, and was connected to the Mediterranean by by the Gulf of Suez, but a land bridge at Bab-al-Mandeb, connecting Arabia to Africa, separated it from the Gulf of Aden.

Between about 14 million years ago and about six million years ago (Late Miocene), movement on the Dead Sea Transform Fault, combined with the mass of sediments around the Nile Delta, closed off the connection between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean at the Gulf of Suez. Following this, the Red Sea underwent a desiccation crisis, drying up and leaving vast salt deposits, albeit with occasional marine incursions.

Between about 5.9 and 5.33 million years ago (latest Miocene), the Gulf of Gibraltar also closed, cutting off the inflow of water from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean, and triggering the Messinian Salinity Crisis, in which the Mediterranean largely dried up, leaving a vast and inhospitable salt plain. 

After about 5.33 million years ago (Pliocene), the straits of Bab-al-Mandeb opened up allowing the Red Sea to flood from the Gulf of Aden, and the Strait of Gibraltar reopened, allowing the Mediterranean to refill from the Atlantic (the Zanclean Megaflood). Around this time the Gulf of Suez reconnected to the Mediterranean, cutting off Africa from the Red Sea until the beginning of the Pleistocene, when a land bridge formed across the Sinai again.

Simplified tectonic and palaeogeographic evolution of the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Peninsula, with key marine connections between Africa, Arabia, and Eurasia (details of European and Paratethys geographies not given). (1) Before 30 million years ago (until the Rupelian, Oligocene); (2) 30–20 million years ago (Rupelian–Burdigalian); (3) 20–14 million years ago (Burdigalian–Langhian); (4) 14–6 million years ago; (5) From about 5.9 to 5.33 million years ago: the Strait of Gibraltar closed due to plate tectonics; (6) From 5.33 million years ago onwards. Red circle in (2): Afar plume basalt eruptions; brown line in (3): uplifting mountain front at the Bitlis-Zagros Suture Zone; red line in (3) and (4): active Dead Sea Transform Fault; pale orange in (4) and (5): desiccated marine domains; blue arrows in (6): marine gateways and direction of filling of basins. Verhaegen et al. (2026).

Verhaegen et al. suggest two alternative scenarios for the emergence of the first Apes. One scenario sees a group of Early Miocene Primates living in coastal forests and islands along the Mesopotamian Seaway, which gave rise to both the Apes and the Old World Monkeys. The other sees these ancestors living in coastal forests in East Africa, which migrated northward along the Red Sea Rift as it opened, migrating into the Arabian Peninsula and then eventually into Eurasia. This latter scenario is supported by the presence of the possible Ape Morotopithecus in Uganda about 20.6 million years ago, although the exact status of this fossil is unclear.

In either scenario, Early Apes increased in size rapidly after splitting from the Old World Monkeys, at the same time developing a very broad and strong sternum in a broad thorax, a somewhat shorter lumbar spine with only five lower and more centrally placed lumbar vertebrae (indicative of a vertical body posture), an enlarged sacrum equipped with a coccyx in a broad pelvis (cup form, supporting the intestines), external tail loss, relatively longer legs (indicative of wading), and longer arms (indicative of below-branch hanging). These early Apes are thought to have lived in (probably coastal) swamp forests, hanging beneath branches, practising aquarbourism, and developing to an upright bipedal stance. 

These early Apes probably spread along the northern coast of the Tethys Ocean, with different groups splitting off and going their own way, beginning with the Gibbons. Between 22.4 and 16 million years ago the ancestors of the Orangutans had split from those of the African Apes, moving eastward towards the coastal forests of Southeast Asia, while the proto-African Apes colonised forests along the Western Tethys (what would become the Mediterranean). 

There is a surprising absence of Ape or Hominid fossils from the Middle Miocene of Africa (between about 13 and 10 million years ago). At the same time, Eurasia has an abundance of both, particularly in southern Europe and Anatolia, with many forms looking like plausible ancestors for African Apes. Verhaegen et al. cite this as support for the idea that the ancestors of modern Humans and African Apes were not in Africa during this time, but instead in southwestern Eurasia. At this time much of southern Europe was covered by  inland seas, mega-lakes, swamps, and coastal forests, and home to Dryopithecine Apes such as Dryopithecus, Pierolapithecus, Danuvius, and Rudapithecus, which are potentially ancestral to modern Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Humans.

A partial skull of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a Dryopithecine Ape from the Middle Miocene of Spain. Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont.

During the Vallesian Crisis (between about 11.6 and 8.7 million years ago) the climate of southern Europe became much drier and the extensive forests shrank, being replaced by open grasslands. Many of the Apes there died out, while surviving forms, such as Ouranopithecus and Graecopithecus adapted to the new environment by becoming more bipedal, and foraging in mixed woodlands and river valleys. These Apes could potentially be ancestral to later Australopithecenes and African Ape (one Turkish Ape from this period, Anadoluvius turkae, has been suggested as an offshoot from the line which led to Gorillas).

The scenario envisaged by Verhaegen et al. has a group of Dryopithecine Apes taking advantage of the closure of the Mesopotamian Sea, and migrating to the swamp forests surrounding the early Red Sea. The ancestors of Orangutans must have split from these western Apes before 14 million years ago, when the Badenian Transgression would have blocked migration between Europe and East Asia. The lineage which led to Gorillas probably split off next, migrating from Europe, where taxa such as Ouranopithecus remained, while closer ancestors such as Anadoluvius turkae migrated through Anatolia, and on to Africa, where they gave rise to Gorilla-like African Apes such as Chororapithecus and Sahelanthropus, then eventually the East African Australopithecenes and modern Gorillas.

At the same time, Graecopithecus and similar species around the Mediterranean could provide plausible ancestors for Chimpanzees and Humans, explaining the Hominid-like footprints seen at Trachilos on Crete about six millions of years ago (long before the earliest such footprints in Africa). The lineage which led to Humans and Chimpanzees must also have migrated southward, at latest during the onset of the Messinian Salinity Crisis about 5.9 million years ago, which would have made the Mediterranean Basin uninhabitable. The route from Europe into Africa across the Sinai Peninsula would have been cut off during the Zanclean Megaflood (5.33 million years ago), which filled the Mediterranean and over-spilled into the Red Sea, filling that too. The final connection between Arabia and Africa was lost about 5 million years ago, when the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait opened, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

Verhaegen et al. suggest that some of these Apes crossed into Africa before 5 million years ago, giving rise to the Southern African Australopithecines and eventually modern Chimpanzees. Another group remained on the southern shore of Arabia, where they were forced to turn increasingly to the littoral environment for survival, as the land became increasingly arid and hostile.

Around 2.8 million years ago the Earth's climate cooled sharply, leading sealevels to drop abruptly. At this time early Homo migrated from Arabia into Africa and Eurasia, leading to the sudden appearance of Homo erectus across the Old World. 

A reconstruction of the skull of Homo erectus in the collection of the University of Michigan Museum of Natural History. Thomas Roche/Wikimedia Commons.

Under this scenario, the genus Homo is absent from Africa until the Early Pleistocene appearance of Homo erectus/Homo eregastor, with the Pliocene Australopithecines not being ancestral to Modern Humans, but instead relatives of Chimpanzees and Gorillas. This view is broadly in-line with several recent cladistic analyses of Human origins, which suggest African Apes and Humans are derived from Eurasian Apes, and that there were multiple crossings from Eurasia into Africa. 

Verhaegen et al. take the view that East and Southern African Australopitecines largely evolved in parallel, in response to similar ecological pressures. Thus the gracile forms, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus, appeared in the Pliocene, when they were able to live in forest, and in particular swamp forest, environments, whereas the more robust Early Pleistocene forms, Paranthropus boisei and Paranthropus robustus, evolved in response to cooler, drier conditions, although generally sticking close to large bodies of water, such as Papyrus swamps. Eventually the modern African Apes adopted to a life on dry forest floors.

It is possible that the Southern African Australopithecines were more omnivorous, whereas the East African forms adapted to the processing of tougher plant materials, something which is reflected in the diets of modern Chimpanzees and Gorillas. 

This later arrival of Human-ancestors into Africa provides an explanation for the absence of any trace of the Endoretroviruses PtERV1 (CERV1) and PtERV2 (CERV2) in our genomes, while the ancestors of Gorillas and Chimpanzees were affected. The potential littoral phase also explains the many morphological adaptations which set Humans apart from other Apes, as well as behavioural traits such as a fondness for water and sea coasts. 

Verhaegen et al. believe that the earliest members of the genus Homo were shelfish divers, something which would have provided them with the resources for accelerated brain growth, as well as adaptions such as an external nose and pachyosteosclerotic skeleton. As supporting evidence for this, they cite the frequent occurrence of ear exostoses (surfer's ear) in early Homo, as well as tooth wear associated with a shellfish diet, the early arrival of Homo on remote islands such as Flores and Sulawesi, and the co-occurrence of their fossils and tools with shells, and even engraved shells.

See also...

Saturday, 6 June 2026

Bryozoans from the Early Cambrian Cambrian Xiannüdong Formation of Shaanxi Province, China.

Molecular clock studies have suggested that the Phylum Bryozoa, or Moss Animals, first appeared in the Early Cambrian, which is consistent with the appearance of nearly all other Animal phyla at this time. However, for a long time the earliest known fossil Bryozoans came from the Early Ordovician, at which point six of the eight known orders of Bryozoans appear abruptly. Several putative Cambrian Bryozoan fossils, such as PywackiaArchaeotrypa, and Marcusodictyon, were described, but none of these was universally accepted as a Bryozoan. In 2021 a more plausible Brozoan, Protomelission gatehousei, was described from the Early Cambrian of Australia and South China. In this it was possible to identify several Brozoan traits, including monomorphic zooid capsules, modular construction, organic composition, and a simple linear budding growth geometry, leading to the conclusion that this was probably a stem-group Bryozoan.

Protomelission gatehousei from the Cambrian Wirrealpa Limestone, South Australia. (a)–(g) Holotype, SADME 10470. (a) Front side of the colony showing the seven series of zooids. Top box corners indicate the area shown in (f); bottom box corners show the broken-off part in (c). (b) The top broken part of (a). (c) The lower broken part of (a). (d) Oblique lateral view of the bilaminate colony. (e) Enlarged view of (d) showing the staggered budding pattern and the curved basal walls of the two back-to-back layers (arrows and tailed arrows) in the bifoliate colony. (f) Quincuncial arrangement of sub-hexagonal zooids with broken frontal walls. (g) Lateral view of uncovered zooids; note the minute spoon-shaped structure (arrow) at the proximal end of basal wall extending backwards underneath the distal part of the parent zooid. (h), (i) SADME 10470-2. (h) Lateral view of a broken colony, showing the largely broken frontal walls (tailed arrows) and basal walls of opposite layer (arrows). (i) Enlarged view of three adjacent zooids. Note the dome shape of the distal part of frontal wall (tailed arrows), and almost circular orifice of zooid. Abbreviations: B, basal wall; F, frontal wall. Zhang et al. (2021).

However, while Protomelission gatehousei shows enough Bryozoan-like features that most palaeontologists have accepted it to be at least a stem group Bryozoan, the specimens used to describe the species lacked the definitive Bryozoan soft-tissue anatomy and diagnostic skeletal microstructure which would be necessary for complete conformation, leaving the identity of these fossils open to challenge.

In a paper published in the journal Nature on 3 June 2026, Baopeng Song (宋宝鹏) and Zhifei Zhang (张志飞) of the Department of Geology at Northwest UniversityLuke Strotz, also of the Department of Geology at Northwest University and also of the Department of Earth Sciences at Utrecht University, Timothy Topper, again of the Department of Geology at Northwest University, and of the Department of Palaeobiology at the Swedish Museum of Natural HistoryAndrej Ernst of the Institut für Geologie at Universität HamburgZhiliang Zhang of the Department of Geology at Northwest University, and the Institut für Geologie at Universität Hamburg, Mei Luo (罗梅), again of the Department of Geology at Northwest University, Lars Holmer, again of the Department of Geology at Northwest University, and of the Department of Earth Sciences at Uppsala University, Yue Liang (梁悦), Yazhou Hu (胡亚洲), Caibin Zhang (张彩彬), and Yanlong Chen (陈延龙), all of the Department of Geology at Northwest University, and Glenn Brock, once again of the Department of Geology at Northwest University, and of the School of Natural Sciences at Macquarie University, describe new specimens of Protomelission gatehousei from the Early Cambrian Xiannüdong Formation of southern Shaanxi Province, China, as well as a second new species of Bryozoan from the same formation.

Notably, these fossils preserve soft-tissue features in exceptional fidelity, including internal moulds of membranous sacs in the zooid chambers, which allow the unequivocal placement of these taxa within the Phylum Bryozoa. The presence of two separate Bryozoan taxa within these Early Cambrian deposits pushes the origin of the group still earlier, confirming that this group appeared during the Cambrian explosion.

Specimen of Protomelission gatehousei from the Xiannüdong Formation in which the membranous sacs are preserved (ELI DYCX 8-001). (a) Front side of the colony. The outlined area is magnified in (h). (b) Back side of the colony. The outlined area is magnified in (j). (c) Lateral view of the bifoliate colony. (d) Oblique lateral view of the bifoliate colony showing the hollow arched mesotheca (arrow). (e) Partial enlargement of (c) showing the staggered budding pattern. (f), (g) X-ray tomographic microscopy images showing the longitudinal section of the colony and the orifice of autozooids (arrowheads) (f, oblique lateral view; (g) lateral view). (h) Quincuncial arrangement of sub-hexagonal membranous sacs with elliptical orifice. Note the 10-μm gap present between adjacent membranous sacs, indicating the loss of skeletal walls during the taphonomic processes. The outlined area is the membranous sac magnified in (i). (i) Enlarged view of a membranous sac showing the orifice (asterisk), circular fibres (arrow) and longitudinal fibres (arrowhead). These features suggest muscle preservation in the membranous sac. (j) Enlarged view of a zooid. Note that the aperture is coated with secondary phosphate. (k) Enlarged view of a zooid. Note that the secondary phosphate coating of the aperture is partially stripped away. (l), (m) Enlarged view of the membranous sac showing the longitudinal fibres in (l) arrowhead, and circular fibres in (m), arrow. These features suggest muscle preservation in the membranous sac. Scale bars, 500 μm (a)–(d), 50 μm (e), (i)–(k), 200 μm (f), 150 μm (g), 100 μm (h) and 30 μm (l), (m). Song et al. (2026).

These new specimens show Protomelission gatehousei as forming upright colonies with two curved lamellar sheets of zooids back-to-back, with the largest colonies being 1-2 mm in width and about 3 mm high, tapering towards their tip. Each of these lamellae has six-to-eight rows of zooids, with budding originating from a planar mesotheca.

Soft-tissue preservation of Protomelission gatehousei. (a)–(e) ELI DYCX 8-005. (a) Front side of the colony, box corners indicate the area shown in (d). (b) The back side of the colony. (c) Lateral view of the bifoliate colony. (d), (e) Enlarged view of elongated hexagonal zooids. Note the longitudinally neatly arranged cylindrical structures on the both sides of the ridge-like orifice, which are possible secondary coatings of protective shields. (f) Protective shields developed in an extant Cheilostome Bryozoan, Valdemunitella sp. photographed by Dennis Gordon (Wellington). Song et al. (2026).

The new species described is named Dayingomelission hexaclitia, where 'Dayingomelission' means 'honeycomb from Daying' and 'hexaclitia' means 'six slopes' in reference to the sloped, hexagonal apertures of its autozooids. Colonies of Dayingomelission hexaclitia form a sheet-like grown covering the substrate. This sheet is interpreted as having spread by linear branching, with a single row of zooids diverging to form two new rows. Each autozooid is hexagonal and box-like, between 200 µm to 400 µm in diameter, and separated from its neighbours by a double-walled structure. All vertical walls show this double-walled structure, while the basal wall is planar, sometimes showing a slight curvature. 

Specimens of Dayingomelission hexaclitia from the Xiannüdong Formation showing the colony and cystids. (a), (b) ELI ZJBX 10-001 (holotype). (a) Oblique view of the front side of a unilaminate colony form clearly showing the regular hexagonal, compactly arranged, honeycomb-shaped cystids. The outlined area is shown in (b). (b) Hexagonal cystid with vertical wall and ring septa clearly evident (arrow). (c)–(e) ELI ZJBX 10-002. (c) Front side of a unilaminate colony form. The bottom outlined area shows the cystids magnified in (d); whereas the top outline shows the cystids magnified in (e). (d) Enlarged view of adjacent cystids. Note the hexagonal vertical wall (arrow) and the basal exterior wall of cystids (arrowheads). (e) Row bifurcation showing change in zooid width along rows. (f)–(i) ELI ZJBX 3-001. (f) Front side of a unilaminate colony form with styles indenting the zooidal chambers. (g) Oblique view showing hexagonal cystids with styles. (h) Oblique view of colony surface. Note that the styles arise in the endozone and extend through most of exozone. (i) Enlarged view of the vertical wall with planar spherulitic fabric. Scale bars, 500 μm (a), (c), 80 μm (b), 100 μm (d), 200 μm (e), 300 μm (f), (g), 100 μm (h) and 25 μm (i). Song et al. (2026).

Both species have hexagonal zooids with a box-shaped profile and a non-porous phosphatized or silicified skeleton. These are more-or-less uniform in size, and angled at 30-75° to the median lamina or basal exterior wall. They have preserved phosphatized internal structures interpreted as membranous sacks, the outer end of which comprises an elliptical orifice surrounded by an undulating fold. These are made up of densely packed circular and longitudinal fibres interpreted as annular and longitudinal muscles. Longitudinally aligned cylindrical structures, possibly representing protective shields or a broad operculum are present in some specimens. In others sac is attached to the cystid wall in the inner part of the zooid cell.

Membranous sacs preserved in situ in the autozooid cystids of Protomelission gatehousei and Dayingomelission hexaclitia and colonial growth reconstruction of Protomelission gatehousei . (a), (b) Protomelission gatehousei  ELI DYCX 8-016. (a) Front side of a bifoliate colony showing the eight series of zooids. The outlined area is magnified in (b). (b) Enlarged view of a zooid. Note that the membranous sac (arrow) is preserved in the cystid (arrowhead). (c)–(g) Dayingomelission hexaclitia ELI DYCX 8-004. (c) Front side of a unilaminate colony, with ten series of zooids, all with membranous sacs and cystids. The outlined area is magnified in (g). (d) Back side of the colony showing the membranous sacs of the zooids and the gap between the sacs. The outlined area is magnified in (e). (e) Enlarged view showing capsule￾like membranes and gaps. (f) X-ray tomographic microscopy image showing the longitudinal section of zooids with membranous sacs and cystids. (g) Enlarged view highlighting that the membranous sacs (arrow) are captured in the cystids (arrowhead), and the membranous sacs are in contact with the cystids 20 μm from the apertures (ligamentous attachment, asterisks). (h) Three-dimensional reconstruction of a Bryozoan zooid with protruding lophophore. (i) Longitudinal section of reconstructed Bryozoan zooid. Greyish white, cystid; translucent white, membranous sac and tentacles; pink, polypide excluding tentacles. (j) Reconstruction of Protomelission gatehousei , front surface view. Scale bars, 500 μm (a), (c), (d), 40 μm (b), 200 μm (e), (f) and 100 μm (g). Song et al. (2026).

Both Protomelission gatehousei and Dayingomelission hexaclitia show most of the key features associated with Palaeozoic Bryozoans, including  aspects of their colony morphology, their skeletal architecture,  the presence of soft-tissue structures such as membranous sacs, as well as annular and longitudinal musculature. Notably they contain a number of features associated with the Class Stenolaemata, including styles and  a free-walled colony organisation, which would make both species crown-group Brozoans. This makes it more likely that they were biomineralized in life, although it is impossible to determine the initial composition of their skeletons. Brozoans are known to have undergone a number of independent biomineralization events, with a molecular clock analysis indicating that the first of these was likely to have happened in the Early Cambrian. These results also imply that the common ancestor of the organic￾walled Gymnolaemata and the mineralized Stenolaemata probably originated in the early Cambrian (Terreneuvian) or even perhaps in the Ediacaran Period.

Phylogenetic relationships of Bryozoans. A 50% majority-rule consensus phylogenetic tree inferred using morphological characters and Bayesian analysis based on a matrix of 22 taxa and 50 characters. Node values are Bayesian posterior probability support values. Coloured areas indicate the three taxonomic classes that comprise the Bryozoa along with outgroups, with Protomelission and Dayingomelission belonging to Stenolaemata. Song et al. (2026).

The presence of two species of Bryozoan in the Early Cambrian Xiannüdong Formation of Shaanxi Province, as well as one of these species being present in the lower Wirrealpa Limestone of South Australia makes it likely that Bryazoans had already diversified and become widespread in the Early Cambrian. This lends support to the idea that the tentative mineralised Bryomorphs from the Lower Cambrian of Nevada recently described by Pruss et al. (2022) are also Bryozoans, and that Moss Animals were therefore widespread in shallow Cambrian seas, particularly Archaeocyath reef-associated carbonate platform settings. 

See also...