Tet Zoo has left the building

i-3920470877e00ad2527b2c0797e09731-conference1 resize.jpg

Farewell my friends: I go on to a better place. Or: conference # 1 is now go, I will be back soon. And no chatting about the above image while I'm away (even though many of you know full well what it's about). Oh, and please remember to assist the Tet Zoo survival fund if you are at all able (see paypal button at extreme lower left). Byeee.

More like this

Oh my god. Two years at ScienceBlogs have passed, and Tet Zoo has now been going for three years. It all started on January 21st 2006 when, for no good reason at all, I started a blog over at blogspot.com. Yes, Tet Zoo is three years old. Time to look back at the past year of operation. For…
Welcome to part II of my musings on the 2010 blogging year. You'll need to have read the first part to make sense of it. The article you're reading now is extraordinarily long and I'd normally break up a piece of this length into two, three or even more separate articles. This year I want to get…
As a famous lady recently said: "I'm back". At last - having just returned from the Peter Wellnhofer Flugsaurier Conference (held at the Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie [BSP] in Munich) - conference season is at an end and I can try to return to normal life. At the risk of spouting…
Today, my friends, is January 21st 2011. Do you know what this means? It means (drumroll)... that Tet Zoo is five years old today. Wow. Five years. With apologies to those who've heard the story before, things started in 2006 over at blogspot, and in 2007 Tet Zoo ver 2 kicked off here on…

I thaught this was the tet zoo.

"Tet Zoo has left the building"

Would you stop doing that?

Some of your readers (e.g. me) are old and decrepit and at risk for heart attack at even the fleeting thought that TetZoo might have gone the way of the dodo (if it really is gone!). I'm prepared to try bribery, because this really is the best blog there is, but every time you afright me with the prospect of TetZoo's demise, it makes my donate button finger go numb! And when considering the size of the bribe, bear in mind I'm just a poor corrupt official.

Have fun, sir.

I look forwards to discussion of the pigeons when you return.
I have only one question: legs evolved from lobe fins, which developed from fins...what did fins arise from?

By Anthony Docimo (not verified) on 16 Aug 2007 #permalink

The drawing on the left is really nice, it's actually just the second life-reconstruction of this species I have ever seen (and the other one was really ugly). The reconstruction of the skull with a long beak is interesting, it makes it looking a bit like a proto-dodo, and not just like a big version of a recent Goura-species.

what did fins arise from?

Folds on the sides of amphioxus. Maybe.

By David Marjanović (not verified) on 17 Aug 2007 #permalink

Don't worry guys, when he joins me in Munich I'll beat him into putting aup a post or two. Sadly thats not for 3 weeks though.....

> "Tet Zoo has left the building"
> Would you stop doing that?

Seconded! And I say that because I would be genuinely disappointed if you really did stop blogging.

And in the fin question....wonders if exist some fossil of a vertebrate with three or more pairs of lateral fins....why the 4-finned fishes(and tetrapods) predominate?

From Edgar:

And in the fin question....wonders if exist some fossil of a vertebrate with three or more pairs of lateral fins....why the 4-finned fishes(and tetrapods) predominate?

Some acanthodians had a series of paired belly fins that look like little serial repeats of the pelvic fins:


Acanthodian fish certainly did have a lot more paired fins than what would be normal (sometimes): go here.

I suppose it is worth mentioning that the coelacanth has bony supports for not only the pectoral and pelvic fins, but for the anal and dorsal fins as well: go here.

I don't think a third central leg would have been useful to early swamp walkers/land explorers. Fish that "walk" (frogfish, mudskippers, that weird epaulette shark) either use 2 or 4 fins, but that is due to the limit to the number of paired fins present. If something with internal lungs tried walking on land with more than 2 pairs using lateral locomotion - I think that could be a mess.

If only Heuvelmans's cetacean centipede was real, sigh...

Cetacean centipede?

By Anthony Docimo (not verified) on 21 Aug 2007 #permalink

Very cool link Nick, i had a fish-gasm ;)

The lung explanation is very good, thanks:)

still lies the question about not-lunged vertebrates, in the water the predominant fish have 4 paired fins, or 2 sometimes, but not more pairs.......

Maybe any more pairs of fins would be redundant in compensating for roll or pitch. Some fast swimming fish have developed paired keels with the same function, but why Acanthodians evolved (and presumably needed) so many fins is beyond me. Tuna, being very fast swimmers, do have "finlets" placed dorsally and ventrally which could be considered paired. There was a Nov. 2005 paper in the Journal of Fish Biology on the subject and their exact function is still uncertain; I'm going to guess the mechanics of Acanthodian fins aren't too well known either. I've heard of robotic fish being built, I wonder what would happen if they tried Acanthodian-style fins...

As for the cetacean centipede, that is a mythological creature/cryptid reportedly resembling a whale but having numerous lateral appendages. One recent booked appeared to show it with actual limbs, but Heuvelmans thought it just had lateral fins. Could a structure similar to an eel's dorsal fin or bichir's finlets (but turned the other way) be plausible on an elongated vertical undulator? Regardless, when I read through the sightings the ones that did have that feature (most alleged reports didn't, oddly) I thought they could plausible be misidentified dolphin/shark pods/schools, sturgeon, and hoaxes. It was my favorite cryptid too, sniff.