Current Events > Radical new fossil scientists claim butterflies are actually older than flowers.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fossils uncovered in Germany show that butterflies and moths may have been around for at least 200 million years -- 70 million years earlier than was previously thought, a new study has found.

According to a report published in the journal Science Advances, researchers examined fossilized wing scales found in northern Germany and dated them to be from the Triassic and Jurassic period. The discovery means that the Lepidoptera -- the order of insects to which butterflies and moths belong -- once lived in the time of the dinosaurs and originated some 70 million years before flowers.

Experts found evidence of proboscis on some of the insects, a long needle-like tube that was thought to have evolved to reach into flowering plants, but -- based on the findings -- may have originally developed for another purpose.

"Our study shows that the groups of moths and butterflies with a tongue evolved independently from flowers, which arose nearly 70 million years later," Bas van de Schootbrugge, a lead researcher in the study

Researchers in the study found that the flying insects fed on sugary nectar droplets from non-flowering plants called "gymnosperms," which were widespread in the Jurassic period. Astonishingly, this method is still used by some winged insects today, van de Schootbrugge said.

"So these moths and butterflies used their tongue to tap into other liquids that were available at the time, namely the sugary nectar produced by conifer-like plants. These Triassic and Jurassic plants used the nectar to capture airborne pollen, as they still do today. Especially in the hot and dry climate at the time, this was a resource that was too good to leave alone," van de Schootbrugge said.

The study could also provide insight into the conservation of butterflies and moths -- some of the most-studied insects -- given the widespread decline in flying insects generally.

Study co-author Timo van Eldijk from Utrecht University in the Netherlands said: "By studying how insects and their evolution were affected by dramatic greenhouse warming at the start of the Jurassic, we hope to provide insight into how insects might respond to the human-induced climate change challenges we face today."

Van de Schootbrugge added: "There is currently a big debate going on about the causes for a sharp decline in the abundance of flying insects ... Many insects were faring well under strong global warming and extreme greenhouse conditions, so it could possibly be related to the rampant use of pesticides."
Due to their make-up, currently butterflies and moths can easily adapt to a variety of different conditions spreading to different continents except Antarctica, which indicates how insects might respond to the global warming and answer questions surrounding Lepidoptera's resilience to extinction throughout the years.

Full Article: http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/11/health/butterflies-older-than-flowers-intl/index.html



Really brings that chicken and the egg thing full circle.

A lotof people say "It can't be the egg because the chicken had to sit on it!" but what if something did sit on it, that wasn't a chicken all along?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Bitch looks nothing like her
---

Maybe but that doesn't change the research
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Really brings that chicken and the egg thing full circle.

A lotof people say "It can't be the egg because the chicken had to sit on it!" but what if something did sit on it, that wasn't a chicken all along?

The egg still came first. Fish used eggs before there were even land animals.
---

A chicken can't be a chicken until it evolved in to the chicken, until then it was the chicken's ancestor. Chicken came first.
---

Dinosaurs are really older than flowers?
---

Garioshi posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Really brings that chicken and the egg thing full circle.

A lotof people say "It can't be the egg because the chicken had to sit on it!" but what if something did sit on it, that wasn't a chicken all along?

The egg still came first. Fish used eggs before there were even land animals.

Not to mention if the person wants to be a smartass and point out the differences between fish and bird eggs, one can just point to the fossil, lizard-like early amniotes that were laying harder shelled eggs. Or if they want to REALLY be a smartass and bitch about the leathery nature of reptile and reptile-like eggs, you could point to the eggs of non-avian theropod dinosaurs as being where "bird" eggs originated.
---

solosnake posted...

Dinosaurs are really older than flowers?

Yep. flowering plants appeared in the Cretaceous, while dinosaurs appeared in the late Triassic. If you pay close attention to programs like Walking with Dinosaurs and Walking with Monsters, you'll notice that grass is absent from the environments that the animals are roaming around in. That's because grass either did not exist at that time, or in the case of the late Cretaceous, was not widespread.
---

Garioshi posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Really brings that chicken and the egg thing full circle.

A lotof people say "It can't be the egg because the chicken had to sit on it!" but what if something did sit on it, that wasn't a chicken all along?

The egg still came first. Fish used eggs before there were even land animals.

I don't think you're following the point
---

Shadowplay posted...

solosnake posted...

Dinosaurs are really older than flowers?

Yep. flowering plants appeared in the Cretaceous, while dinosaurs appeared in the late Triassic. If you pay close attention to programs like Walking with Dinosaurs and Walking with Monsters, you'll notice that grass is absent from the environments that the animals are roaming around in. That's because grass either did not exist at that time, or in the case of the late Cretaceous, was not widespread.

Poor dinos couldn't get high
---