E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A 36 million-year-old fossil found in Peru suggests that the feathers of ancient giant penguins followed a different color scheme — and may not have been as hardy as they are today.
Instead of sporting the classic tuxedo look of modern penguins, the fossil species known as Inkayacu paracasensis ("Water King of Paracas" in the Quechua language) had reddish brown and gray feathers, paleontologists report in a research paper published online today by the journal Science. The creature was nearly 5 feet tall, which outdoes the height of today's largest living penguin, the Emperor.
"Before this fossil, we had no idea about the feathers, colors and flipper shapes of ancient penguins," lead author Julia Clarke, a paleontologist at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a news release. "We had questions, and this was our first chance to start answering them."
The fossil was discovered by a Peruvian student, Ali Altamirano, in the Paracas National Reserve on the Peruvian coast south of Lima. When the researchers noticed that there was scaly soft tissue preserved on an exposed foot, they nicknamed the specimen "Pedro," after a sleazy, scaly character from a Colombian soap opera.
The fossil preserved not only the shapes of Pedro's flippers and the feathers, but also the fine patterns of color-producing nanostructures known as melanosomes. Those patterns could be compared with a vast database of melanosome structures for living birds. The comparisons are what led Clarke and her colleagues to conclude that Pedro's color scheme was gray and red, because melanosomes with those colors matched the fossilized structures best.
The shapes of the feathers and the flippers were very similar to what is seen in penguins today. But the patterns of the fossilized melanosomes had less in common with today's penguins and more in common with other types of aquatic birds. Modern-day penguins have giant melanosomes that are broader than the ones that were found in the giant penguin fossil. In fact, today's penguins have bigger melanosomes than the ones found in all the other living bird species that were surveyed. What's more, a modern penguin's melanosomes are grouped into clusters like bunches of grapes.
This information led the researchers to put together the evolutionary story of how the penguin changed its feathers.
They theorize that penguins initially adapted to their aquatic environment by developing strong, streamlined feathers that were stacked on top of each other to create stiff, narrow flippers. Then, long after Pedro bit the dust, the melanosomes took on larger sizes and a clustered arrangement. But why would the melanosomes change?
It turns out that the coloring agent contained in the melanosomes, melanin, makes the feathers more resistant to wear and fracturing. Birds with bigger melanosomes would find it easier to keep their feathers in shape during those long, hard days of swimming.
The color change itself might have been a side effect of the shift in melanosome structure, or it might have had more to do with a protective response to relatively recent predators as leopard seals. Maybe gray and red made the penguin stand out too much, compared with the more austere black-and-white scheme.
"Insights into the color of extinct organisms can reveal clues to their ecology and behavior," said Yale University's Jakob Vinther, one of the research paper's co-authors. "But most of all, I think it is simply just cool to get a look at the color of a remarkable extinct organism, such as a giant fossil penguin."
Update for 4 p.m. ET: As you can imagine, a lot of people are talking (and writing) about this story. Over at LiveScience, Stephanie Pappas quotes Gerald Mayr, a paleornithologist at the Senckenberg Museum of Natural History, as saying that the action of hydrodynamic forces on feathers may not totally explain why penguins evolved to have bigger melanosomes. He pointed out that a penguin's white feathers containe no melanosomes and yet would be subject to the same forces as the black ones. "The main question certainly is, if not due to hydrodynamic forces, why do penguins have such strange melanosomes?" he said.
Ker Than's piece for National Geographic explains the modern penguin's camouflage: A swimming predator looking up from below would see the bird's white belly blending in with the sky, while the bird's black back would blend in with the dark watery depths when viewed from above. At Not Exactly Rocket Science, Ed Yong puts the Water King in context alongside other ancient penguins discovered in Paracas Park. Yong also links in turn to March of the Fossil Penguins, a blog which would have to be the definitive source on this subject. The blog's author? None other than Daniel Ksepka, one of the co-authors of the Science paper.
More about penguins:
- Earth's penguins are skating on thin ice
- Penguin die-off worries scientists
- King penguin knighted by Norway
- Gay penguin pair raises chick
In addition to Clark, Altamirano, Vinther and Ksepka, the authors of "Fossil Evidence for Evolution of the Shape and Color of Penguin Feathers" include Rodolfo Salas-Gismondi, Matthew Shawkey, Liliana D'Alba, Thomas DeVries and Patrice Baby. The paper will appear later in Science's print edition. The National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation provided funding for the research.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up via Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
A 5 foot tall penguin. About the same height as Danny Devito that played the Penguin in the Batman movie.
Cool news. There is so much that we don't know about our planet and its inhabitants. Theories could still change as new findings show up.
http://www.quotes-safari.com/
Considering the update with Gerald mayrs' and Ker Thans' Quote and the prehistoric time frame these animals lived in. i would theorize that a different chemical Composition in the atmosphere at the time, from Volcanoes and such, caused the sky to have a reddish appearance during the prime hunting hours (Likely in the evening as fish come up from the depths to eat) for these penguins and the sky reflecting off of the ocean surface made it look greyish in turn so the camouflage was as effective then as it is in todays penguins. They changed colors as the sky did and got smaller ,as oxygen in the atmosphere reduced, and divided and evolved into todays species.
Laced presents an interesting and plausible hypothesis for the color change into todays largely blac k and white species, but is there evidence that this fossil is in the lineage to modern penguins. I am not a paleontologist but know that there are quite a few fossil penguins known, so it would be interesting to hear from a paleo-ornithologist about the fossil lines.
And yet some people will still dispute the facts of evolution. Alas.
We dont dispute micro-evolution,which this article is about,adaptation. Its still a penguin very similar to todays.
j-son
The hilarious thing is that the creationists who have now conceded they must accept "micro-evolution," seem unaware that macro-evolution isn't really any different; it just takes longer. Accepting one IS accepting the other.
Jock - Creationists have never had a problem with speciation, which the term "micro-evolution" describes. Conceded? You really don't believe that creationists think that God created all the dog varieties that we have today, do you? This is a perfect example of speciation carried out to its built-in limits. You get poodles and chihuahuas as well as great danes and st. bernards. But they're all dogs.
You need to understand that macro-evolution requires the acquisition of new structures and functions, which require new genetic information. There is no source for this new genetic information. Mutations just won't accomplish this feat. Show me an example of mutations adding information content to the genome.
Androloma - they found scaly soft tissue on an exposed foot and it is dated at 36 million years old? Noone questions the evolutionary dating game? Reminds me of the recent blood cells and connective tissue finds in T-rex and other therapod dinosaurs dated to the Jurassic. No way these could have been that old and still have soft and/or elastic tissue in place.
The "fact of evolution" as you state is a farce. Evolutionists don't even have one rational explanation for the supposed evolution of feathers from scales. It is a figment of their imagination.
There are actually several rational hypotheses for the evolution of feathers.
And no, nobody questions the basic laws of physics that underlie modern dating methods.
It amazes me how people can be so blind as to deny obvious scientific FACTS such as evolution. They are so caught up in the narrow world view of their religion that they refuse to acknowledg the TRUTH. "Don't confuse me with the facts. I already have my beliefs." Oh, and by the way, there is no such word as "noone." Have a pleasant day.
I guess we all can have typos from time to time, like your word "acknowledg" ? :-)
Just saying the "fact" of evolution does not in any way validate it. It is a theory that is so plastic it will mold itself into any body of evidence to prop itself up.
Example: Evolutionary theory predicts that there should be a tremendous amount of gradations of features and life forms with slow change over time (in fact, the fossil record should be filled with transitions). Fact: Life forms in the fossil record suddenly appear fully formed and functional and every bit as advanced as those found today! Does that stop the theory? No. They explain it away as "punctuated equilibrium", whatever that means.
Greg: "Life forms in the fossil record suddenly appear fully formed and functional and every bit as advanced as those found today!"
The first part of that statement would be true under any scenario, creationist or evolutionist (all life forms are "fully formed and functional," or they wouldn'r be "life forms"). The second part of the statement is absolutely false; even laughable.
"No. They explain it away as "punctuated equilibrium", whatever that means."
If you don't know what it means, then how can you be so sure it is wrong? Punctuated equilibrium only claims that evolutionary rates change. It is not really all that profound or even controversial.
You don't think the life forms in the Cambrian were advanced? Give me examples, please, and show how they are "primitive" when compared to similar creatures of today.
Of course I know what it means - I have read all about it. It is just funny, that's all. Another silly fancy word to explain away evidence that flies in the face of what Darwinian evolutionary theory predicted. And yes, it is controversial (of course, not with people who a priori accept the "fact" of evolution!).
So Greg,you're saying god created T-Rex?And what about the Chinese fossils showing dinosaurs that have definite feathers?
Greg, I suggest that you look up Archaeopteryx... you might learn something (feather on a dinosaur). Oh yeah, and check out the hip structure of velociraptors as well. You will find their pelvic bone is flipped in the same pattern as a bird. Quit reading the bible and start looking to science. You might eventually learn something.
JAM - Archaeopteryx was a bird, not a dinosaur. What gave you the impression it was a dinosaur? The media? How about a world experts on birds, Dr. Alan Feduccia:
Evidence uncovered on this fossil shows that it was indeed a bird. Like the pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis, which demonstrates that it had the very unique avian lung design. And the brain case was definitely that of a bird.
Greg - First of all, Alan Feduccia is increasingly isolated among paleontologists with his insistence that birds evolved from earlier reptiles than dinosaurs. The evidence for the similarity between birds and later theropods is increasingly obvious. He may be right about Archaeopteryx though. It is indeed a bird, but probably not even on the same evolutionary line as modern birds.
Feathers, smeathers. I want smoked penquin breast for Thanksgiving this year!
"How the Penguin Changed Its Feathers" sounds like a good children's story. Maybe my wife can write it.
Laced: Good idea but 35 milion years isn't logn enough for that kind of fudnamental change in the sky, atmosphere, etc. It's more parsimonious to tace these to simple ecological and evolutionary fatcors.
Greg: Archaeopteryx has the sekleton of a coeurosaur. Sayign it's "just a bird" because it's classed within Aves is a meaningless word game. And the fossil reocrd is full fo trnasiitonal froms. The early eohippdi types are obviously a differnt "kind" from mdoern hroses and donkeys, and there is whole line of transitional forms between them, and a huge forest of other equids around them who lived inv arious environments. But every time anew from is identifed, you Creationists say "That's just another fully formed species, where are the transitional forms to and from it?" I guess anythign which seems to support Biblical ltieralism is not-a-lie by definiton even if it doesn't correspond to facts.
Here's a fact; God's Word doesn't need your verbal con games to survive. It is a rock, all on its own.
Bobkat - Your example of Eohippus being the precursor to the modern horses has already been debunked. There is no horse evolutionary sequence. The Eohippus was originally named the Hyracotherium because it showed marked resemblance to the hyrax or modern day cony (kind of like rabbits). More than a dozen family trees showing horse evolution have been proposed - it is based on guesswork with the assumption that evolution must have happened.
One thing is for sure - the evolutionary artists who keep coming up with these amazing illustrations showing evolutionary succession will be kept gainfully employed for some time to come!
Nice try, but I haven't mentioned scripture in this discussion. Evidence, please?
Sorry, but no such debunking has ever occurred. It's a simple, obsrvational fact that the equids are related, and that the eohippid types, Hyracotherium being only one (and discovered very early inthe history of paleontology, so he was working with much less data) were the earliest.
The only thing that has been debunked is the idea that the five-toed ancestral types came into existence for the sole prpose of producing modern one=hoofed types; rather, equids are large, varied family, each with its own role ine past ecologies.
And maybe Supermans cape was green not blue. Why does one fish have vertical black and white stripes and another horizontal. What was the advantage of a plant becomming an apple as opposed to an orange. The fish wanted to leave the ocean so it grew legs. Man has been wanting to fly for a long time- no feathers yet. Choose to believe what you want but lets not suppose that your so called evidence is indisputable!!!!
"The fish wanted to leave the ocean so it grew legs." -- You don't really believe that's what evolutionary science claims do you? If you don't even understand the science, how can you dismiss it so easily?
Another thing most creationists forget or are unaware of is this: the fossil record is much more akin to a series of photos than to a movie playing from the beginning of time. There are a very specific set of circumstances that are required to make a fossil, otherwise we would be finding millions of fossils of T rex, for example. The chances a given species will be fossilized are small so many species which would exist between your 'instantly fully formed' species may not have ever been fossilized, hence no fossil record. Another fallacy about evolution is to assume all things evolved for a purpose. It is natural selection so a coat color or five fingers or whatever may not have given an evolutionary advantage but it offered no DISadvantage so it remained in the species. Saying something is not true or wrong because you don't understand it is the height of ignorance. Besides, who says both can't be true?