Squid dominated oceans millions of years ago scientists say
What are Cephalopods?
Cephalopods - a group of marine animals which include squid - have been swimming in our oceans for millions of years. However, not much is known about ancient squid, as they are rarely preserved. This is because they are soft-bodied and don't have hard shells, meaning they rarely turn into fossils.A team of international scientists, led by experts at Hokkaido University in Japan, developed a new advanced technique to scan rocks.This allowed them identify one thousand fossilised cephalopod beaks hidden inside rocks, which dated back to the late Cretaceous period.Among these small beaks were 263 squid specimens, including about 40 different types that had never been seen before.What surprised scientists was how common squids were in ancient oceans. The team found that squid fossils were far greater in number than those of other bony fish and ammonites.
Author of the study, Dr Shin Ikegami, from Hokkaido University explained: "In both number and size, these ancient squids clearly prevailed the seas."Their body sizes were as large as fish and even bigger than the ammonites we found alongside them. "This shows us that squids were thriving as the most abundant swimmers in the ancient ocean," he added.The team hope that their new technique could help us better understand ancient marine ecosystems.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists discover microplastics in SEMEN and female reproductive fluid – and warn they could spark an infertility crisis
From the depths of The Mariana Trench to the summit of Everest, microplastics can now be found almost everywhere on Earth. Now, it turns out even our most intimate moments can't escape their blight. Scientists have discovered microplastics are 'common' in both male and female reproductive fluids. And they warned of the potential implications for reproduction, as egg and sperm quality could be impaired. The team examined follicular fluid – found within the ovaries - from 29 women and the seminal fluid, found within semen, from 22 men. Analysis revealed a range of commonly-used microplastics were present in more than half of the samples. This included microplastics linked to non-stick coatings, polystyrene, plastic containers, wool, insulation and cushioning materials. Lead researcher Dr Emilio Gomez-Sanchez, from the University of Murcia, said: 'Previous studies had already shown that microplastics can be found in various human organs. 'As a result, we weren't entirely surprised to find microplastics in fluids of the human reproductive system, but we were struck by how common they were – found in 69 per cent of the women and 55 per cent of the men we studied.' Microplastics are defined as plastic particles under 5mm in size, and there is evidence that they pose a threat to environmental and public health. While this research did not directly assess how microplastics affect fertility, their detection highlights the need to explore possible implications for human reproductive health, the researchers warned. 'What we know from animal studies is that in the tissues where microplastics accumulate, they can induce inflammation, free radical formation, DNA damage, cellular senescence, and endocrine disruptions,' Dr Gomez-Sanchez added. 'It's possible they could impair egg or sperm quality in humans, but we don't yet have enough evidence to confirm that.' The scientists said the microplastics probably enter the body through ingestion, inhalation and contact with the skin. From there they enter the bloodstream, which then distributes them throughout the body – including to the reproductive organs. They plan to carry out further studies to explore the potential relationship between the presence of microplastics and egg and sperm quality. The findings, published in the journal Human Reproduction, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Commenting on the study Dr Carlos Calhaz-Jorge, Immediate Past Chair of ESHRE, said: 'Environmental factors influencing reproduction are certainly a reality, although not easy to measure objectively. 'The authors of this study found microplastics in over two-thirds of follicular fluids and more than 50 per cent of semen fluids from the studied patients. 'Although the significance of these findings is not yet clear, they should be considered an additional argument in favour of avoiding the generalised use of plastics in our daily lives.' Previous studies have detected microplastics in human breast milk, blood and even brain tissue. And separate research has found high levels in everyday items such as tea bags, baby bottles and chopping boards. Some scientists have urged caution when interpreting the findings of the new study. Dr Stephanie Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Toxicology at Imperial College London, said: 'Without information on the sizes of the microplastic particles observed, it is challenging to interpret how meaningful this data is. 'There is a high potential for samples to become contaminated with microplastic throughout the sampling, laboratory processing, and analysis procedures. 'It is not a surprise that microplastics have been found – they are everywhere, even in the lab – but the data provided do not support that they are there as a result of human exposure as opposed to methodological artefact and must be interpreted with caution at this early stage.' Fay Couceiro, Professor of Environmental Pollution and Head of the Microplastics Research Group at the University of Portsmouth, said: 'The study is very interesting and considering the global reduction in fertility rates, looking at possible causes is very topical and timely. 'As the authors state, finding microplastics is not that surprising as we have found them in lots of other areas of our bodies. 'Presence is also not the same as impact and the authors are clear that while they have found microplastics in the reproductive fluids of both men and women, we still don't know how they are affecting us.' WHAT CAN MICROPLASTICS DO TO THE HUMAN BODY IF THEY END UP IN OUR FOOD SUPPLY? According to an article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, our understanding of the potential human health effects from exposure to microplastics 'constitutes major knowledge gaps.' Humans can be exposed to plastic particles via consumption of seafood and terrestrial food products, drinking water and via the air. However, the level of human exposure, chronic toxic effect concentrations and underlying mechanisms by which microplastics elicit effects are still not well understood enough in order to make a full assessment of the risks to humans. According to Rachel Adams, a senior lecturer in Biomedical Science at Cardiff Metropolitan University, ingesting microplastics could cause a number of potentially harmful effects, such as: Inflammation: when inflammation occurs, the body's white blood cells and the substances they produce protect us from infection. This normally protective immune system can cause damage to tissues. An immune response to anything recognised as 'foreign' to the body: immune responses such as these can cause damage to the body. Becoming carriers for other toxins that enter the body: microplastics generally repel water and will bind to toxins that don't dissolve, so microplastics can bind to compounds containing toxic metals such as mercury, and organic pollutants such as some pesticides and chemicals called dioxins, which are known to causes cancer, as well as reproductive and developmental problems. If these microplastics enter the body, toxins can accumulate in fatty tissues.
Daily Mail
11 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists discover cancer-fighting bacteria that 'soak up' forever chemicals in the body
A family of healthy bacteria may help 'soak up' toxic forever chemicals in the body, warding off their cancerous effects. Forever chemicals, also known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), are toxic chemicals that have been linked cancer, infertility and birth defects. They're named because they don't naturally break down in the environment or the body. Instead, they leech from plastic containers and nonstick cookware into food and build up in vital organs, increasing the risk of organ failure, infertility and some forms of cancer. Researchers at the University of Cambridge took samples of 38 strains of healthy bacteria living in the human gut and put them into lab mice. They found mice carrying human gut bacteria had up to 74 percent more 'forever' chemicals in their stool compared to mice without the bacteria within minutes of exposure. This suggests the toxins latched on to the bacteria as they moved through the digestive tract, leaving the body through the stool. While mountains of research have demonstrated deadly effects of forever chemicals, the new study is one of the first to show they can be taken out of the body instead of accumulating in there forever. And it builds on recent research showing a link between PFAS and the digestive tract. A study published last month, for example, found PFAS latches on to bile acids in the gut and eating fiber can help filter that excess bile out. Dr Kiran Patil, senior study author and toxicologist at the University of Cambridge, said: 'Given the scale of the problem of PFAS "forever chemicals," particularly their effects on human health, it's concerning that so little is being done about removing these from our bodies. 'We found that certain species of human gut bacteria have a remarkably high capacity to soak up PFAS from their environment at a range of concentrations, and store these in clumps inside their cells. 'Due to aggregation of PFAS in these clumps, the bacteria themselves seem protected from the toxic effects.' PFAS are thought to be endocrine-disrupting chemicals, meaning they imitate the body's hormones and interfere with the production of - and response to - natural hormones like estrogen and testosterone. This increases the risk of developing hormone-sensitive cancers like breast and ovarian cancer. The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Microbiology, looked at samples of 38 healthy bacteria in the gut. The researchers measured the effect of bacteria on levels of the forever chemicals perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorooctanoate acid (PFOA). PFOA is considered a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning it causes cancer in animals. PFNA, meanwhile, is a Group 2 carcinogen, suggesting it may cause cancer in animals. Over the course of 24 hours, nine of the tested bacteria reduced exposure to PFNA by 25 to 74 percent and PFOA levels by 23 to 58 percent. For both types of PFAS, Odoribacter splanchnicus lead to the greatest reductions. It's thought to produce the short-chain fatty acid butyrate, which boosts metabolism and immune function. The team believes PFAS latch onto the bacteria and are excreted out of the body through the stool. The researchers are now working on developing probiotic supplements to increase levels of these healthy bacteria in the gut. Dr Indra Roux, study co-author and researcher at the University of Cambridge's MRC Toxicology Unit, said: 'The reality is that PFAS are already in the environment and in our bodies, and we need to try and mitigate their impact on our health now. 'We haven't found a way to destroy PFAS, but our findings open the possibility of developing ways to get them out of our bodies where they do the most harm.'
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Telegraph
Is it still rude to start eating before everyone has been served?
There is a very particular kind of social panic reserved for those served first at a restaurant. The food arrives at the table, the victim in question thanks the waiter, before looking around the table to see – to their horror – that no one else has been served. Suddenly, they find themselves facing one of the greatest British dilemmas of all time: to start or not to start? Last week, the predicament was claimed to have been solved by scientists at City St George's, University of London. A study of 2,000 people discovered that starting to eat before everyone else receives their food is no longer the social faux pas we might think it is. After various tests and interviews, the scientists discovered that a fascinating double standard exists when it comes to our mentality around the crippling conundrum. Though we think it would be deeply inappropriate if we, ourselves, started to eat before others, most of us actually don't mind if someone else tucks in ahead of us. It's a classic British contradiction in which we hold ourselves to higher moral standards than the ones we hold others to. Does this herald a new age, one in which the days of waiting for everyone's food to arrive are long gone? Apparently not, according to the experts. 'There may now be science that suggests it's acceptable to start eating the moment the food is served, but science should not overrule civility,' says etiquette expert William Hanson. 'And the same clause we have with etiquette applies to this research: sometimes one has to break the rules, or in this case the data, to do the most well-mannered thing.' In a scenario where dishes are served at different times at a restaurant, Hanson explains that the responsibility lies with those who have yet to be served, who can then indicate to others that they can start. 'The impetus is on those who have been left without to signal to those who have been served that it is OK to begin while they wait,' he says. 'Although the served diners should start to eat at a glacial pace until the rest of the food arrives.' The idea of waiting for others before beginning to eat is relatively modern, Hanson explains. Before the Victorian era, those at the table didn't wait, mostly because kitchens in large houses were built far away from dining rooms to protect diners in the event of a fire breaking out in the kitchen. 'Thus the etiquette was that once [hot] food was served, you could begin eating it,' explains Hanson. 'As you were served in rank order, with guest of honour first and then host, this was totally acceptable.' The idea of waiting for others was only introduced during the 19th century, he explains, when kitchen safety improved and means of keeping dishes warmer for longer were discovered. Hanson admits that the concept of table manners is a flexible thing, that 'table manners change as life changes,' but maintains that waiting for others before starting to eat is one of a small number of rules upon which the whole of British society is built. 'The key manners that are essential for anyone to follow remain,' he says. 'Wait until everyone has been served before you start eating, try to keep pace with those around you, so you finish at roughly the same time, don't make a noise when eating, and ensure you speak to the person on your left as equally as the person on your right.' Among Telegraph readers who commented under our news story, the response is split into Team Wait and Team Start. 'Manners are not science based, so this is all nonsense,' exclaims one reader going by the name of Thomas Tank, who forms part of Team Wait – the side of the comments who are sticklers for tradition. 'If it is bad manners, by cultural interactive norms, [then] it is.' 'An individual typically feels uncomfortable eating his food on his own, and it's always the talking point round the table. It's bad manners,' agrees reader Ian Richards. On the other side of the comments section is Team Start – those who are less concerned by the Victorian precedent. ' The Royals eat straight away whilst hot. Daft to sit there getting cold until the last is served. Get on with it!' says Tim Parry. 'I like my food piping hot, so if I am served a hot dish first I prefer to start immediately,' agrees fellow reader Jeffrey Hobbs. 'In my experience, dining companions will in any case tell the first person to be served that they should not wait.' JM Evans points out that it depends on the type of food served in the restaurant: if it's a cold salad, he would wait, but if it's a hot meal, the dilemma becomes all the more profound. 'I've had this conversation many times with my wife over the years', he says. 'If I've ordered a salad I probably would wait but I'm sitting there while my food goes cold to wait for someone else's food to then arrive piping hot.' Debrett's traditional etiquette advice states: 'Do not start before everyone has been served.' 'It seems to me the whole purpose of having a meal is ideally you are eating together at the same time,' says Debrett's editor Liz Wyse. 'If you pick up your knife and fork and get around to it as soon as your food arrives, it can look a little greedy. It's good manners to wait until other people have given you permission to start.' But there's more at stake here: Wyse warns that tearing up etiquette rules could be the start of a troubling slippery slope when it comes to how we treat those around us. 'If we start ditching everyday mundane manners, it's a sure step to trouble starting,' she says. 'Just being completely oblivious to the people around you is a dangerous tendency, because the less you are aware of people, the more likely you are to transgress and do things that really harm them.' Ultimately, she explains, table manners are more about the connections you make than the rules themselves. 'I think traditional manners where you are conscious of other people and you wait to be invited to start eating have evolved for a good reason,' she says. 'I don't see there is any necessity for anyone to tuck into their food the minute it hits the place setting.' 'Slowing people down, making people more aware of each other, means that hopefully out of that comes a connection rather than a mechanical process of getting some food inside you.'
