• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Tully Monster

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
51,662
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Mods, please feel free to move this to a more suitable thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35821829

Fishy origin of bizarre fossil 'monster'
Scientists say a worm-like fossil with mysterious origins is actually the ancestor of living fish.
The 300 million-year-old animal was found at an Illinois mine in 1958 by fossil collector Francis Tully.
The "Tully monster" has been a puzzle to scientists ever since, and has been likened to worms and molluscs.
US researchers say the fossil is a backboned animal rather than an invertebrate as once thought, based on an analysis of 1,000 museum specimens.

_88796397_reconstruction.jpg

It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen.
 

Attachments

  • TullyMonster-Reconstruction.jpg
    TullyMonster-Reconstruction.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 10
Last edited by a moderator:
As Bill Murray said in Ghostbusters "Well, there's something you don't see every day."
 
'Tully monster' mystery is far from solved, Penn-led group argues

Last year, headlines in The New York Times, The Atlantic, Scientific American and other outlets declared that a decades-old paleontological mystery had been solved. The "Tully monster," an ancient animal that had long defied classification, was in fact a vertebrate, two groups of scientists claimed. Specifically, it seemed to be a type of fish called a lamprey.

The problem with this resolution? According to a group of paleobiologists led by the University of Pennsylvania's Lauren Sallan, it's plain wrong.

"This animal doesn't fit easy classification because it's so weird," said Sallan, an assistant professor in Penn's School of Arts & Sciences' Department of Earth and Environmental Science. "It has these eyes that are on stalks and it has this pincer at the end of a long proboscis and there's even disagreement about which way is up. But the last thing that the Tully monster could be is a fish." ...

FULL STORY: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/uop-mm021717.php
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
The debates over the Tully Monster's taxonomic affiliations continue ...
Scientists Are Arguing About The Messed Up 'Tully Monster' All Over Again

Nobody really knows what a Tully monster is. It's maybe a squid thing. Or like a lamprey. Only it has these weird eye stalks, and a... is that a tentacle or a claw? It's a mouth? Seriously?

Categorising the 300 million year old fossilised remains of Tullimonstrum gregarium was never going to be easy. Just look at it. A recent analysis of eye pigments in animals is doing nothing to settle the argument, either.

A few years ago, researchers analysing the structures and chemical signatures of the Tully monster's eyes concluded its pigments had more in common with those of fish, than of snails or squid.

Researchers from University College Cork in Ireland and Fujita Health University in Japan have now analysed pigments in the eyes of modern cephalopods and several fish species to determine just how much we can rely on chemical signatures of screening pigments to distinguish major categories of the animal kingdom.

The short answer is we can't. Whatever we thought Tully monster was, it isn't now. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-...monster-has-scientists-arguing-all-over-again
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Posts now moved to the Tully Monster thread.
 
And, they have a thousand of them!

That in itself is a marvel!
 
I was exploring the site which comfortably numb obtained the info on new dinos' find's in present day Australia. This critter seems to have the paleontologist completely baffled?
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/what-exactly-was-the-tully-monster
Maybe you'd get that impression from the non-science news source - the SYFY channel. It's the state fossil of Illinois. It's hard to know much from a fossil but "completely baffled" is not correct.
http://isgs.illinois.edu/outreach/geology-resources/illinois-state-fossil-tullimonstrum-gregarium
 
Newly published research, focusing on chemical rather than anatomical remains, has provided evidence strongly suggesting the Tully Monster was in fact a vertebrate. This is not considered a final answer to the Tully Monster's anatomical affiliation(s).
Ancient 'Tully monster' was a vertebrate, not a spineless blob, study claims

There are few ancient creatures as controversial as the Tully monster, a bowling-pin-sized oddity with eyes like a hammerhead that lived about 307 million years ago. Now, after decades of studies, each with a different take on how to define the weird aquatic creature, the Tully monster has been decoded: It's a vertebrate, meaning it had a backbone, a new study finds.

Scientists analyzed the chemical residues left on fossilized remains of the Tully monster (Tullimonstrum gregarium) and compared them with the chemical remnants on other vertebrate and invertebrate fossils from the monster's ancient home in what is now Mazon Creek in northeastern Illinois, said study lead researcher Victoria McCoy, a visiting assistant professor of geosciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

McCoy and her colleagues took a "chemical approach" rather than looking at the Tully monster's fossilized anatomy, which is "kind of like a Rorschach test," McCoy told Live Science. Ever since amateur fossil collector Francis Tully discovered the monster's remains in 1958, researchers looking at the anatomy have interpreted the beast to be all kinds of things, including a vertebrate, an invertebrate, a shell-less snail, a type of worm, a jawless fish and an arthropod, or a member of a group that includes insects, spiders and lobsters. ...

To determine whether the Tully monster was a vertebrate or invertebrate, the team decided to see if its fossils held the remnants of chitin, a long string of sugar molecules which makes up the "harder, crunchier tissues" in the exoskeletons and teeth of invertebrates, or the remnants of proteins that make up the keratin and collagen found in vertebrates, McCoy said. ...

The team looked at 32 different spots on 20 fossils, including three Tully monster specimens and 17 other ancient animals. The results revealed that Tully had a backbone, she said.

"The Tully monsters, all of its tissues that we analyzed, were made up of proteins and none of them were made up of chitin," McCoy said. "So, that is really strong evidence that the Tully monster was, in fact, a vertebrate." ...
FULL STORY: https://www.livescience.com/ancient-tully-monster-vertebrate.html
 
Here are the bibliographic particulars and abstract of the published report ...

Chemical signatures of soft tissues distinguish between vertebrates and invertebrates from the Carboniferous Mazon Creek Lagerstätte of Illinois
Victoria E. McCoy, Jasmina Wiemann, James C. Lamsdell, Christopher D. Whalen, Scott Lidgard, Paul Mayer, Holger Petermann, Derek E. G. Briggs
Geobiology
https://doi.org/10.1111/gbi.12397

Abstract
The chemical composition of fossil soft tissues is a potentially powerful and yet underutilized tool for elucidating the affinity of problematic fossil organisms. In some cases, it has proven difficult to assign a problematic fossil even to the invertebrates or vertebrates (more generally chordates) based on often incompletely preserved morphology alone, and chemical composition may help to resolve such questions. Here, we use in situ Raman microspectroscopy to investigate the chemistry of a diverse array of invertebrate and vertebrate fossils from the Pennsylvanian Mazon Creek Lagerstätte of Illinois, and we generate a ChemoSpace through principal component analysis (PCA) of the in situ Raman spectra. Invertebrate soft tissues characterized by chitin (polysaccharide) fossilization products and vertebrate soft tissues characterized by protein fossilization products plot in completely separate, non‐overlapping regions of the ChemoSpace, demonstrating the utility of certain soft tissue molecular signatures as biomarkers for the original soft tissue composition of fossil organisms. The controversial problematicum Tullimonstrum, known as the Tully Monster, groups with the vertebrates, providing strong evidence of a vertebrate rather than invertebrate affinity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top