have discovered a complete mammalian fossil that includes a transitional
middle ear, which consists of three bones that paleontologists have been
searching for over 150 years.
study leader and curator in the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum
of Natural History, along with Wang Yuanqing and Li Chuankui, both from the
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences in Beijing, have found the first complete mammalian fossil
that includes the transitional middle ear.
are defined as a class of air-breathing vertebrate animals that share
characteristics like hair and mammary glands in mothers with young. They also
share three middle ear bones called the malleus, incus and ectotympanic. Two of
these bones are found in the joint of the lower jaw in reptiles, and
researchers believe that an evolutionary shift from lizards to mammals
separated the quadrate and articular plus prearticular bones from the posterior
lower jaw, and they became associated with hearing as the malleus and the
fossils show early mammals with reptilian jaw joints and reductions in these bones for both chewing and hearing
while other early mammalian fossils have ossified cartilage still connected to
the groove on their lower jaws. But none of these fossils had the middle ear
bones, and more evidence was needed to confirm this early transition and the
mysteries of the mammalian middle ear.
have been looking for this specimen for over 150 years since noticing a
puzzling groove on the lower jaw of some early mammals," said Meng.
"Now we have cartilage with ear bones attached, the first clear
paleontological evidence showing relationships between the lower jaw and middle
The new fossil, which is called Liaoconodon hui, is
a medium-sized mammal measuring 35.7 cm long. It dates from the Mesozoic (about
125 to 122 million years) and was named after the fossil beds in Liaoning,
China, which is where it was discovered. It was also named after Yaoming Hu,
who was a graduate of the American Museum of Natural History's doctoral program
and passed away recently.
Liaoconodon hui is complete, and shows researchers that the
incus and malleus are detached from the lower jaw in order to create part of the middle ear. According to the study, the incus
and the malleus "remain linked to the jaw by the ossified Meckel's
cartilage that rests in the groove on the lower jaw," and the eardrum was
stabilized with this cartilage as support.
we did not know the detailed morphology of how the bones of the middle ear
detached, or the purpose of the ossified cartilage," said Meng. "Liaoconodon
hui changes previous interpretations because we now know the detailed
morphology of the transitional mammals and can propose that the ossified
cartilage is a stabilizer."
study also found that the middle ear "probably" evolved twice in monotremes,
marsupials and placentals. This was determined by features associated with the
groove on the lower jaw and other bones, including the presence of ossified
This study was published in Nature.
quote: Another childish pissing match about the theory of evolution
quote: that has nothing to do with technology in 3…2…1…-Suntan
quote: DailyTech is the leading source of news, research and discussion for current and upcoming issues concerning science and technology.
quote: Another childish pissing match about the theory of evolution, brought on by yet another flame-bait article
quote: ten·u·ouslacking a sound basis, as reasoning; unsubstantiated
quote: What’s next, you’ll print a highbrow article about how humans used to have spiny penises…?
quote: The whole point of that article was that humans evolved to not have spiny penises. Any ancestor of humans which had a spiny penis was just that, an ancestor, not a human.
quote: Sure pal…
quote: Take whatever high road you’d like. Every week there is another article thrown up with some tenuous connection to the theory of evolution in hopes that it sparks endless bickering about evolution vs. religion that runs hundreds of posts long.
quote: The gaps are filling in. Isn't that worth covering?
quote: Why is it so hard to believe in an endless, timeless universe? Why do you feel compelled to believe in an endless timeless God with all the knowledge to create such a universe? Is that not just adding an additional and absolutely unprovable/illogically theorized complex layer on top of what we already see as truth? The universe exists. We both take that as fact. God exists, you rely on "belief, faith, emotion" and you take that as fact.
quote: this fossil fills one of the gaps in,
quote: Mammals evolved from something, why cant it be from a reptile?
quote: Isn't it possible that two species can have the same type of ear bones WITHOUT being related to each other? Is there any other evidence besides the ear bones that we're looking at a distant relative here?
quote: How can you believe in evolution, yet deny macroevolution?
quote: Quite easily. I don't. Our thoughts shape the universe, do they not? It always matters what we think.
quote: This is still a very health debate on macro evolution in scientific circles, so please don't pretend that I'm some wacko claiming the Earth is flat.
quote: If you believe that thinking beings created modern humans by shaping the universe
quote: If you actually read the article you would know that the discovery documents support of your theory of gradual change.
quote: I believe in micro evolution. That a species can adapt etc etc, you know the deal.I do NOT believe that frogs can become dogs, or dogs can become man. I do not believe in macro evolution. Also this crackpot theory about how all the dinosaurs "evolved" into birds and one of those birds became a primate and that primate became, eventually, man....I mean, give me a break. You really buy that crap?
quote: I'm not religious and I DO believe in Evolution.However I do not believe in this kind of macro-evolutionist crap. Sorry but lizards don't eventually become men through a long series of changes
quote: I find it funny how people complain about research into evolution and the news coverage thereof, when often in the same breath they go on to complain about the supposed "lack of evidence" (fossils, etc.) supporting evolution.
quote: Feel free to spin that buster…
quote: My issue isn’t with evolution. My issue is with Dailytech half-heartedly cutting/pasting someone else’s article about a specific topic of evolution in an effort to get people here to argue about it.
quote: And predictably a lot of responses to the effect of "if it's science then it's irrefutable" or "if you argue against this then you are by definition a religious nut job even if you didn't make any references to such beliefs".Hard to believe this type of crap response comes from the editor though.
quote: you argue against this then you are by definition a religious nut job even if you didn't make any references to such beliefs".
quote: Look, Tiffany wrote about a scientific study. If you can't handle scientific research because your particular religious beliefs compel you to disavow science, that is not our fault.
quote: I thought Tiffany did a GREAT job writing this up. The facts were just presented, period. No bias and fl@me baiting. No stupid Jason Mick history hour where the evolution vs. religion issue gets rehashed for the upteenth time. If you had wrote it, we could expect a paragraph or two dedicated solely to saying "EAT THIS RELIGIOUS ID1OTS!!".