Talk:Living fossil

New example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5082264.stm <- This has to be added to the examples.

• This was done (but not by me) Pro bug catcher 20:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples

Why does the introduction to the list of examples say that they are informally known as living fossils? The beginning of the article deines what a living fossil is, so these examples should fulfill that definition. If nobody thinks that these examples aren't really living fossils, then I shall remove the word 'informally'.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corp1117 (talk • contribs) 2:00, 4 December 2006

It is not a formally defined or used term in biology. Its use is restricted to the popular press and informal discussions as far as I know (correct me if I'm mistaken). I just made that clear upfront. Vsmith 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a term used in the scientific literature, although it is not formally defined (like most other terms used in macroevolutionary studies, including "adaptive radiation". It may also be commonly used in the popular press, and colloquially, and it may be incorrectly used by creationists, but the term is meaningful in the scientific literature. It does not, however, mean that there is only a "superficial resemblance" between a living species or clade and species known only from fossils. "Superficial" is definitely not a scientific term, and the degree of resemblance is something that can be measured. It may be worth mentioning that the term is often used in the popular press but the article should focus more on the scientific meaning of the termSciMorph (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Vsmith, it's a colloquially used term. Nonetheless, it is easy to see how an encyclopodia user would seek out the meaning. I am wondering how the link to www.living-fossils.com survived, since there ain't no science to be found there. SNP 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(No science there IMO also), but I left it because it may bring up a point : creationists (some at least) use living fossils as evidence for creation.Pro bug catcher 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should do more to emphasize that "living fossil" is not a term used by paleontologists, any more than "missing link." At one point, the article appears to be trying to explain how the terms actually used by scientists can be shoehorned into the category of "living fossils." As the term is not in scientific use, some editing of that portion of the article may be in order. (And with coelocanths, there are differences between the now-living species and the last fossil representatives, indicating that some evolution has occurred.)Digthepast (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is "Paleodictyon" included? Does such an animal exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.212.147 (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "living fossil" is used in the scientific literature, although it is not precisely or formally defined any more than "adaptive radiation" is. I believe that this page used to cite Darwin for the term (he introduced it) and treated the subject as a scientific one. There is a book on the subject . I have seen the term used in recent papers, albeit with quotation marks, such as in . SciMorph (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

SciMorph (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Other animals for inclusion

Sharks and dragonflies? - Zephyris _Talk 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the frilled sharks are in and Epiophlebia is a relict, not really a living fossil "Anisozygoptera" (as was long believed).

A "living fossil" must be a) a "late survivor" of an ancient lineage b) belong to a species-poor group. The Cypriot mouse really stretches it to the point of credibility on both accounts; if that's in, the oxpeckers would certainly qualify (I have deliberately left them out since they are not generally considered living fossils), let alone the Bearded Reedling. I find the latter too interesting to leave out BTW; also added a few other nice birdies. Dysmorodrepanis 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the sand dollar? Fossils look identical to living creatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.13.2 (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Factual Error

Even though Keith Richards is a living fossil, he isn't in this context —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.83.98 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

That's simply Wikipedia:Vandalism. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized organisms

I noticed some articles are not categorized under the Living fossils category. Some of these articles are Cycads, the Frilled shark, the Opossum, the Hoatzin, the Cassowary, the Muskox, Crocodilia, Brachiopods, and Apterygota (Thysanura and Archaeognatha).
--RingManX 05:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed most articles on Wikipedia are not categorized as Living fossils :-) However, if the species you mention can be classified as living fossiles, feel free to justify their being a living fossile in the respective articles, and then add the category to them. Classical geographer 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More seriously, the term "living fossil" is fairly informal and much misused. I'm surprised we have a category for it really. Lazarus taxon, by contrast, has a more concrete definition (a species that disappears from the (known) fossil record only to suddenly reappear in more recent strata after a period of apparent extinction), so would make for a better category. Of course, the basis for living fossils or Lazarus taxa is always provisional, since a new find from intermediate strata can revise this status. Anyway, just me grumbling. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've read of that happening with the Coelacanth and the Takahe, but I didn't know the term was Lazarus taxon. I learned something new. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how to justify those organisms as living fossils. Most of them appear unchanged from their fossil ancestors. Others, like the Hoatzin and the Cassowary, exhibit similar traits to their fossil ancestors. Still, some others appear to be leftover from a prehistoric time period where most other species from that period became extinct. For example, the Muskox is leftover from the ice age. I'm not sure if that is enough to justify them as being living fossils.
--RingManX 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

categorization

Skipping comments on the lack of clarity in the way the article is written, just wondering why the list != Category:Living fossils?JediRogue (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lycopodiophyta

Does this plant qualify Lycopodiophyta?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"However, the term is frequently misinterpreted."

Can someone please Elaborate on this? --Pctopgs (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okapi: A Living Fossil?

Correct me if I'am wrong, but should the Okapi be on the list sence it is also a living fossil acording to some books and websites?

references:

Examples of living fossils - Living-Fossils.com (stroll down a little and you see the okapi)

--User talk:76.242.111.162 (talk) 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a creationist website constitutes a reliable source for biological information. See if you can find this elsewhere. --PLUMBAGO 14:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That was a creationist website?! oops, what a big mistake i made, i'll try to find source that is base on actual science. and i'll update this replay when i find a good non-creationist source.

People shouldn't discriminate...creationist websites are,or can be,just as good as old earth ones? And people should stop insisting it isn't real science. It IS. Interpreting the evidence differently is still science just realizing other interpretations fit better. What should matter is good science,not if it's young or old earth. Ps the people like to say 'it can't be falsified' but you can't falsify Darwin either. No one would have been around then. It's less science based than anyone wants to admit because the real truth scares them. Wikipedia claims non bias but is notorious for refusing to allow full evidence for anything but what it's moderators believe. Try Creation Wiki for the real straight facts.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.120.41 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: [1] hears a good one, will this help?

--User talk:76.242.111.162 (talk) 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sites espousing creationism, geocentrism, flat earthism, and other long-debunked pseudoscience are NOT appropriate for Wikipedia citation. If any worthwhile information IS published on a creationist site (unlikely, unless distorted by quote mining), follow their cite to the primary source, and use that, but make sure it actually says what you think it's saying. And you're not fooling anyone claiming you didn't realise it was creationist rubbish. Keep it off here or you can be banned from editing the article. Trilobright (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Humans living fossil?

i don't belive humans are really living fossils especially since we evolve more rabidly then some other organisms and so ithink who ever added humans to the mammals section of living fossils may have been pulling a joke especially when it was mentioned saying in perences saying at age 65 or older. --Jasonz2z (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Other possible examples

im not certain if the cockroach is listed there but if not it should since they have survived 350 million years on this planet so they should be shown as living fossils and could some species of rhino also be classified as a living fossil such as the indian, javan or sumatran(witch is the only survivor of group of rhinos that included the now exinct wooly rhinoceros)however another relative,the tapir wich are the only surviving group of an ancient family that evolved about 55 million years ago after the exinction of the dinosaurs. also perhaps primitive prime apes such as some types of lemurs (especially nocturnal), loris's, bush baby's and or tarsier and also perhaps some types of ratites such as the cassowary wich do exibit a claw on each second finger and have a thick, spongy, boney crest and the ostrich is also shown 2 have claws on their fingers as juviniles. and another bird known as the Seriema is the closest living relative to the now extinct gignatic and carnivorous terror birds of ancient south america and have one notable and rather unuasual characteristic. the seriemas have an extensible second claw that is raised from the ground and resembles the sickle claw of the ancient/extinct Velociraptors and their relatives. and one of the two species of seriema is shown to have existed prehistirically but this is only known by one fossil of Chunga burmeisteri. however Some of the fossils from the Eocene fauna of the Messel Pit (i.e. Salimia and Idiornis) have also been suggested to be seriemas, though their status remains uncertain. and also the Chevrotain, because In other respects, however, they have primitive features, closer to non-ruminants such as pigs. All species in the family lack horns, but both genders have elongated canine teeth. These are especially prominent in males where they project out on either side of the lower jaw, and are used in fights. Their legs are short and thin, which leave them lacking in agility, but also helps to maintain a smaller profile to aid in running through the dense foliage of their environment. Other pig-like features include the presence of four toes on each foot, the absence of facial scent glands, premolars with sharp crowns, and the form of their sexual behaviour and copulation. --Jasonz2z (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

excuse me

um the picture with the ceolocanth has a false caption under it cause it say and i qhote "The coelacanth was thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago, until a living example was found in 1938." however this statement is false because the ceolocanth was actually rediscovered by a dead specimen being sold in a local, fishermen market so i am forced to change the sentence from a living example to just specimine. --Jasonz2z (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is likely the fish was alive when it was caught. See Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer#Discovery of the coelacanth. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

reverting to previous version

I have restored the old version of this article from September, because it is quite developed and well-written, if not quite high on the sources list. The phrase "living fossil" is colloquial, and informal, thus examples don't require definition. If anything else needs souces, the citation needed tag will suffice, rather than deleting the entire article, as was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.155.125 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific information from the previous version should be restored

This version leaves out information about the meaning of "living fossils" in the scientific literature. The term is not well-defined in the scientific literature, but that is true of many terms that were retained from the old literature. As I mentioned above, "adaptive radiation" is also not a precisely defined term, but it is still widely used in the scientific literature. Just because the term is imprecisely defined and informal within the scientific literature does not mean that it is not a serious scientific subject. Living fossils are sometimes now regarded as the other end of the continuum from adaptive radiations but Simpson, in both Tempo and Mode of Evolution and Major Features of Evolution viewed them as distinctive in mode. Darwin, however, suggested that they might just be relicts of a once highly diverse and disparate group and therefore not special in their mode of origin. It may be that they are a consequence of non-random extinction. One of the ongoing debates is whether evolutionary modes (such as "adaptive radiations" and "living fossils") should be treated as distinctive categories when it is now possible to measure rates of diversification and divergence and the relationship between them. This article largely ignores all the scientific work on living fossils and fails to convey why they are scientifically interesting.SciMorph (talk)

Source

This article maight have something useful. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34927/title/The-Falsity-of-Living-Fossils/

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

hedgehog

Is the hedgehog a living fossil? --Espoo (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sections for removal

New study might point to sharks not needing to be on here.

If this is backed up with other information, this section could be removed or clarified upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt2slow (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why that paper would make sharks living fossils no longer. Quote: "Our findings cast doubt on the traditional view of visceral arch evolution that modern chondrichthyans mirror the ancestral morphotype of jawed vertebrates. Bony fishes and stem chondrichthyans may have more to tell us about our first jawed ancestors than do living sharks." So while that may be true, why would it make sharks ineligible for this list? Stijndon (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

More conservative?

The article says "Pelicans have been virtually unchanged since the Eocene, and are noted to have been even more conservative across the Cenozoic than crocodiles". I'm guessing that "conservative" is not the desired word, but I'm not sure what is. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "The morphology of pelicans has remained virtually unchanged since the Eocene, and is noted to have been even more conserved across the Cenozoic than that of crocodiles"? Unless, of course, the writer is a pelican conservationist getting their defences in order before the Trump administration starts ... --PLUMBAGO 09:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Time for a re-think

I am (was?) preparing to edit further, but am left in doubt. I think something closer to a rewrite is needed. The trouble is that the concept of "living fossil" never was more than a term of convenience that meant different, poorly quantified things in different contexts, but a lot of folks tried to climb in and define it logically and arbitrarily, inevitably came up with inconsistent definitions and criteria, and are playing straw man with either their own or other folks definitions. This way nothing good lies. I could produce a perspective, but if I am to do anything useful and come up with anything woth while, then even the purest common sense would entail some OR, synthesis, and a lot of scrabbling about for citable literature. Meanwhile we sit with an article of limited value. Could anyone offer any helpful or at least comforting noises? JonRichfield (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that something closer to a re-write might help. This article appears to have started in a poor direction and improvements have modified but not always clarified that. There seems a mis-match between the cautions of the start that question validity of the term in the way it is commonly used, and the big list of everyone's favourite 'living fossil' later on. The second half of the article could be deleted with no effect surely? Again I agree with you that "we sit with an article of limited value". You should go for it and try a rewrite. I would favour MUCH shorter; historical origins and misconceptions, modern scientific position. Build from there. -- XCalPab (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

apparent contradiction?

"In the popular literature "living fossil" commonly embodies radical misunderstandings such as that the organism somehow has undergone no significant evolution since fossil times, with practically neither morphological nor molecular evolution, but scientific investigations have repeatedly discredited any such claims."

the article then goes on to say: "In contrast to Lazarus taxa, a living fossil in most senses is a species or lineage that has undergone exceptionally little change throughout a long fossil record, giving the impression that the extant taxon had remained identical through the entire fossil and modern period."

uhh, these statements appear to contradict eachother. in my lectures, the latter is how my professor described living fossils. 'Undergone no significant evolutionary changes' vs. 'undergone exceptionally little change' just leaves me puzzled. clarification/rewriting would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.89.153 (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Living fossil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805092533/http://mytriops.com/articles/triops_intro.stm to http://mytriops.com/articles/triops_intro.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Simpson material

The George Gaylord Simpson notion that "explains" fossil taxa is tautological and should not be introduced into the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Examples list

What an interesting topic. I know little about animal biology, why are mymarommatid wasps, eomeropid scorpionflies mentioned in the same bullet point? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 17:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the closest relatives of the former are all extinct forms known only from amber, and the latter concerns an otherwise entirely extinct family with a single representative very similar to its fossil relatives.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lol, i still don't see why that's a reason to bunch them up in the same bullet point, but as long as it wasn't a mistake, it's fine.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're both insects?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Red algae?

Should red algae (or certain species of red algae) be added to the list of living fossils? The For example, Bangiomorpha is one of the oldest fossils we have found at over a billion years old, and it "strongly resembles" the extant Bangia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Idiospermum australiense

Seems to me that the genus Idiospermum should be included. The sole current species dates back possibly 120 million years. It was assumed to be extinct until discovery a few decades ago. 24.212.253.123 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"All of these were described from fossils before later being found alive"

Ginkgo biloba is included in a list with the above statement, and it seems improbable on the face of it? The Gingko article says the trees have been long, long cultivated in China and that Linnaeus was aware of them (with no reference to him or anyone else having known them from fossils first). The references appended to that sentence appear at first glance all just be about Dinoflagellates. I am not an expert on this topic, but it jumped out to me that some kind of (fossilized?) editing error may be reflected here... NuclearSecrets (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)