
A Chance Discovery Of A 350 Million-Year-Old Fossil Reveals New Type Of Fish
In 2015, two members of the Blue Beach Fossil Museum in Nova Scotia found a long, curved fossil jaw, bristling with teeth. Sonja Wood, the museum's owner, and Chris Mansky, the museum's curator, found the fossil in a creek after Wood had a hunch.
The fossil they found belonged to a fish that had died 350 million years ago, its bony husk spanning nearly a metre on the lake bed. The large fish had lived in waters thick with rival fish, including giants several times its size. It had hooked teeth at the tip of its long jaw that it would use to trap elusive prey and fangs at the back to pierce it and break it down to eat.
For the last eight years, I have been part of a team under the lead of paleontologist Jason Anderson, who has spent decades researching the Blue Beach area of Nova Scotia, northwest of Halifax, in collaboration with Mansky and other colleagues. Much of this work has been on the tetrapods — the group that includes the first vertebrates to move to land and all their descendants — but my research focuses on what Blue Beach fossils can tell us about how the modern vertebrate world formed.
Birth Of The Modern Vertebrate World
The modern vertebrate world is defined by the dominance of three groups: the cartilaginous fishes or chondrichthyans (including sharks, rays and chimaeras), the lobe-finned fishes or sarcopterygians (including tetrapods and rare lungfishes and coelacanths), and the ray-finned fishes or actinopterygians (including everything from sturgeon to tuna). Only a few jawless fishes round out the picture.
This basic grouping has remained remarkably consistent — at least for the last 350 million years.
Before then, the vertebrate world was a lot more crowded. In the ancient vertebrate world, during the Silurian Period (443.7-419.2 MA) for example, the ancestors of modern vertebrates swam alongside spiny pseudo-sharks (acanthodians), fishy sarcopterygians, placoderms and jawless fishes with bony shells.
Armoured jawless fishes had dwindled by the Late Devonian Period (419.2-358.9 MA), but the rest were still diverse. Actinopterygians were still restricted to a few species with similar body shapes.
By the immediately succeeding early Carboniferous times, everything had changed. The placoderms were gone, the number of species of fishy sarcopterygians and acanthodians had cratered, and actinopterygians and chondrichthyans were flourishing in their place.
The modern vertebrate world was born.
A Sea Change
Blue Beach has helped build our understanding of how this happened. Studies describing its tetrapods and actinopterygians have showed the persistence of Devonian-style forms in the Carboniferous Period.
Whereas the abrupt end-Devonian decline of the placoderms, acanthodians and fishy sarcopterygians can be explained by a mass extinction, it now appears that multiple types of actinopterygians and tetrapods survived to be preserved at Blue Beach. This makes a big difference to the overall story: Devonian-style tetrapods and actinopterygians survive and contribute to the evolution of these groups into the Carboniferous Period.
But significant questions remain for paleontologists. One point of debate revolves around how actinopterygians diversified as the modern vertebrate world was born — whether they explored new ways of feeding or swimming first.
The Blue Beach fossil was actinopterygian, and we wondered what it could tell us about this issue. Comparison was difficult. Two actinopterygians with long jaws and large fangs were known from the preceding Devonian Period (Austelliscus ferox and Tegeolepis clarki), but the newly found jaw had more extreme curvature and the arrangement of its teeth. Its largest fangs are at the back of its jaw, but the largest fangs of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis are at the front.
These differences were significant enough that we created a new genus and species: Sphyragnathus tyche. And, in view of the debate on actinopterygian diversification, we made a prediction: that the differences in anatomy between Sphyragnathus and Devonian actinopterygians represented different adaptations for feeding.
Front Fangs
To test this prediction, we compared Sphyragnathus, Austelliscus and Tegeolepis to living actinopterygians. In modern actinopterygians, the difference in anatomy reflects a difference in function: front-fangs capture prey with their front teeth and grip it with their back teeth, but back-fangs use their back teeth.
Since we couldn't observe the fossil fish in action, we analyzed the stress their teeth would experience if we applied force. The back teeth of Sphyragnathus handled force with low stress, making them suited for a role in piercing prey, but the back teeth of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis turned low forces into significantly higher stress, making them best suited for gripping.
We concluded that Sphyragnathus was the earliest actinopterygian adapted for breaking down prey by piercing, which also matches the broader predictions of the feeding-first hypothesis.
Substantial work remains — only the jaw of Sphyragnathus is preserved, so the 'locomotion-first' hypothesis was untested. But this represents the challenge and promise of paleontology: get enough tantalizing glimpses into the past and you can begin to unfold a history.
As for the actinopterygians, current research indicates that they first diversified in the Devonian Period and shifted into new roles when the modern vertebrate world was born.
(Author: , PhD candidate in Earth Sciences, Carleton University)
(Disclosure Statement: Conrad Daniel Mackenzie Wilson receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Student Assistance Program, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
A Chance Discovery Of A 350 Million-Year-Old Fossil Reveals New Type Of Fish
In 2015, two members of the Blue Beach Fossil Museum in Nova Scotia found a long, curved fossil jaw, bristling with teeth. Sonja Wood, the museum's owner, and Chris Mansky, the museum's curator, found the fossil in a creek after Wood had a hunch. The fossil they found belonged to a fish that had died 350 million years ago, its bony husk spanning nearly a metre on the lake bed. The large fish had lived in waters thick with rival fish, including giants several times its size. It had hooked teeth at the tip of its long jaw that it would use to trap elusive prey and fangs at the back to pierce it and break it down to eat. For the last eight years, I have been part of a team under the lead of paleontologist Jason Anderson, who has spent decades researching the Blue Beach area of Nova Scotia, northwest of Halifax, in collaboration with Mansky and other colleagues. Much of this work has been on the tetrapods — the group that includes the first vertebrates to move to land and all their descendants — but my research focuses on what Blue Beach fossils can tell us about how the modern vertebrate world formed. Birth Of The Modern Vertebrate World The modern vertebrate world is defined by the dominance of three groups: the cartilaginous fishes or chondrichthyans (including sharks, rays and chimaeras), the lobe-finned fishes or sarcopterygians (including tetrapods and rare lungfishes and coelacanths), and the ray-finned fishes or actinopterygians (including everything from sturgeon to tuna). Only a few jawless fishes round out the picture. This basic grouping has remained remarkably consistent — at least for the last 350 million years. Before then, the vertebrate world was a lot more crowded. In the ancient vertebrate world, during the Silurian Period (443.7-419.2 MA) for example, the ancestors of modern vertebrates swam alongside spiny pseudo-sharks (acanthodians), fishy sarcopterygians, placoderms and jawless fishes with bony shells. Armoured jawless fishes had dwindled by the Late Devonian Period (419.2-358.9 MA), but the rest were still diverse. Actinopterygians were still restricted to a few species with similar body shapes. By the immediately succeeding early Carboniferous times, everything had changed. The placoderms were gone, the number of species of fishy sarcopterygians and acanthodians had cratered, and actinopterygians and chondrichthyans were flourishing in their place. The modern vertebrate world was born. A Sea Change Blue Beach has helped build our understanding of how this happened. Studies describing its tetrapods and actinopterygians have showed the persistence of Devonian-style forms in the Carboniferous Period. Whereas the abrupt end-Devonian decline of the placoderms, acanthodians and fishy sarcopterygians can be explained by a mass extinction, it now appears that multiple types of actinopterygians and tetrapods survived to be preserved at Blue Beach. This makes a big difference to the overall story: Devonian-style tetrapods and actinopterygians survive and contribute to the evolution of these groups into the Carboniferous Period. But significant questions remain for paleontologists. One point of debate revolves around how actinopterygians diversified as the modern vertebrate world was born — whether they explored new ways of feeding or swimming first. The Blue Beach fossil was actinopterygian, and we wondered what it could tell us about this issue. Comparison was difficult. Two actinopterygians with long jaws and large fangs were known from the preceding Devonian Period (Austelliscus ferox and Tegeolepis clarki), but the newly found jaw had more extreme curvature and the arrangement of its teeth. Its largest fangs are at the back of its jaw, but the largest fangs of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis are at the front. These differences were significant enough that we created a new genus and species: Sphyragnathus tyche. And, in view of the debate on actinopterygian diversification, we made a prediction: that the differences in anatomy between Sphyragnathus and Devonian actinopterygians represented different adaptations for feeding. Front Fangs To test this prediction, we compared Sphyragnathus, Austelliscus and Tegeolepis to living actinopterygians. In modern actinopterygians, the difference in anatomy reflects a difference in function: front-fangs capture prey with their front teeth and grip it with their back teeth, but back-fangs use their back teeth. Since we couldn't observe the fossil fish in action, we analyzed the stress their teeth would experience if we applied force. The back teeth of Sphyragnathus handled force with low stress, making them suited for a role in piercing prey, but the back teeth of Austelliscus and Tegeolepis turned low forces into significantly higher stress, making them best suited for gripping. We concluded that Sphyragnathus was the earliest actinopterygian adapted for breaking down prey by piercing, which also matches the broader predictions of the feeding-first hypothesis. Substantial work remains — only the jaw of Sphyragnathus is preserved, so the 'locomotion-first' hypothesis was untested. But this represents the challenge and promise of paleontology: get enough tantalizing glimpses into the past and you can begin to unfold a history. As for the actinopterygians, current research indicates that they first diversified in the Devonian Period and shifted into new roles when the modern vertebrate world was born. (Author: , PhD candidate in Earth Sciences, Carleton University) (Disclosure Statement: Conrad Daniel Mackenzie Wilson receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Student Assistance Program, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.)


Hans India
21-06-2025
- Hans India
MIT study warns how ChatGPT weakens critical thinking
A new study from MIT's Media Lab is raising red flags about the impact of generative AI tools like ChatGPT on human cognition—particularly among students. The study suggests that using ChatGPT for academic work may reduce brain activity, diminish creativity, and impair memory formation. The experiment involved 54 participants aged 18 to 39, who were divided into three groups: one using ChatGPT, another using Google Search, and a control group using neither. Each group was asked to write multiple SAT-style essays while wearing EEG devices to measure brain activity across 32 regions. Results showed ChatGPT users exhibited the lowest neural engagement, underperforming across behavioral, linguistic, and cognitive measures. Their essays were also deemed formulaic and lacking originality by English teachers. Alarmingly, as the study progressed over several months, many in the ChatGPT group abandoned active writing altogether, opting instead to copy-paste AI-generated responses with minimal editing. Lead author Nataliya Kosmyna explained her urgency to publish the findings ahead of peer review, saying, 'I'm afraid in 6-8 months some policymaker will propose 'GPT for kindergarten.' That would be absolutely detrimental to developing brains.' In contrast, the group that relied solely on their own brainpower showed stronger neural connectivity in alpha, theta, and delta bands—regions linked with creativity, memory, and semantic processing. These participants felt more ownership over their work and reported higher satisfaction. The Google Search group also demonstrated high engagement and satisfaction, suggesting traditional web research supports more active learning than LLM use. In a follow-up test, participants had to rewrite a previous essay—this time without their original tool. ChatGPT users struggled, barely recalling their previous responses, and showed weaker brain wave activity. In contrast, the brain-only group, now using ChatGPT for the first time, exhibited increased cognitive activity, suggesting that AI can support learning—but only when foundational thinking is already in place. Kosmyna warns that heavy AI use during critical learning phases could impair long-term brain development, particularly in children. Psychiatrist Dr. Zishan Khan echoed this concern: 'Overreliance on LLMs may erode essential neural pathways related to memory, resilience, and deep thinking.' Ironically, the paper itself became a case study in AI misuse. Some users summarized it using ChatGPT, prompting hallucinated facts—like falsely stating the version of ChatGPT used was GPT-4o. Kosmyna had anticipated this and included 'AI traps' in the document to test such behavior. MIT researchers are now expanding their work into programming and software engineering, and early results are even more troubling—suggesting broader implications for industries seeking to automate entry-level tasks. While previous studies have highlighted AI's potential to boost productivity, this research underscores the urgent need for responsible AI use in education, backed by policies that balance efficiency with brain development. OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, the debate on the role of AI in learning continues—with growing calls for regulation, transparency, and digital literacy.


India Today
19-06-2025
- India Today
Is ChatGPT making us dumb? MIT study says students are using their brains less
ChatGPT is making students dumb! Or rather, making them use their brains less. A new study by MIT's Media Lab around the impact on human cognition, particularly among students, found that using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for academic work and learning could actually lower people's critical thinking and cognitive engagement over this study researchers observed 54 participants aged 18 to 39 from the Boston area, and divided them into three groups. Each group of students was then asked to write SAT-style essays using either OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google Search, or no digital assistance at all. During this process, researchers monitored brain activity among users through electroencephalography (EEG), scanning 32 different brain regions to evaluate cognitive engagement during the findings were concerning. The group of students using ChatGPT showed the lowest levels of brain activity. According to the study, these students 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioural levels.' In fact, the study found that over the course of several essays, many ChatGPT users became increasingly passive, often resorting to just copying and pasting text from the AI chatbot's responses rather than refining or reflecting on the content in line with their own thoughts. Meanwhile, the students who worked without any digital tools showed the highest brain activity, particularly in regions associated with creativity, memory, and semantic processing. 'The task was executed, and you could say that it was efficient and convenient,' Nataliya Kosmyna, one of the authors of the research paper. 'But as we show in the paper, you basically didn't integrate any of it into your memory networks.'Long term impact suspectedadvertisementResearchers concluded that while AI can help students' quick productivity, it can also impact long-term learning and brain development. Meanwhile, the essay-writing group that used no tools reported higher levels of satisfaction and ownership over their work. In this group, the EEG readings also showed greater neural connectivity in the alpha, theta, and delta frequency bands, areas that are often linked to deep thinking and creative the group using Google Search showed relatively high levels of brain engagement, suggesting that traditional internet browsing still stimulates active thought processes. The difference further shows how AI users tend to rely entirely on chatbot responses for information instead of thinking critically or using search further understand and measure retention and comprehension, researchers also asked the students to rewrite one of their essays. And this time the tools were swapped. Students who earlier used ChatGPT were now asked to write without assistance, and the group which used their brain were asked to use AI. The results of this swapping further reinforced the earlier findings. The users who had relied on ChatGPT struggled to recall their original essays and showed weak cognitive re-engagement. Meanwhile, the group that had initially written without the online tools showed increased neural activity when using ChatGPT. This finding further confirms that AI tools can be helpful in learning, but only when used after humans complete the foundational thinking themselves.