Paleobiologist argues that earliest land dwelling amniotes were likely egg layers

Aug 17, 2012 by Bob Yirka report

( -- Animals that generate a protective layered environment in which their offspring develop are known as amniotes, regardless of whether they give birth to them or lay them as eggs. This group includes mammals and reptiles. But because of scant archeological evidence, no one really knows whether the first land dwelling amniotes were egg layers or whether they gave birth to their offspring. And while evidence of late has suggested that it might be the latter, paleobiologist Martin Sander from the University of Bonn, argues in a perspective piece in the journal Science, that it’s more likely they were egg layers.

The argument can’t be solved using traditional archeological techniques because , if they were laid hundreds of millions of years ago, would have disappeared long ago, either due to hatching, being eaten or simple biodegradation. No one has found an egg that old. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, Sander argues, suggesting that it’s possible some might have fossilized but have not yet been found, partly because no one has really been looking for them, or because no one really knew what to look for. There’s also the problem of amniotes that lived in water, those would have most likely delivered their babies, rather than laid eggs, because he says, they would have drowned otherwise.

Sander’s arguments come after recent finds of what appear to be pregnant dating back 235 to 280 million years ago, suggesting that perhaps the earliest amniotes actually gave birth to their young since amniotes are believed to have come into existence some 310 million years ago, but Sander notes, they are all water dwellers, which doesn’t tell us anything about land dwellers.

His main argument, which up until recently has been the prevailing view, is that egg laying by the first land dwelling amniotes makes sense because the earliest fossil evidence for other such as fish and amphibians indicate they were all egg layers. The new discoveries he says, don’t apply to land dwellers and thus researchers should not abandon the old views just yet, because there just isn’t enough evidence to do so. Instead he suggests, renewed efforts to find evidence of fossilized eggs should be undertaken, because if one or more were found, the argument would be settled once and for all.

Explore further: Sea star disease strikes peninsula marine centers

More information: Science 17 August 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6096 pp. 806-808 DOI: 10.1126/science.1224301

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Rare Sri Lankan leopards born in French zoo

36 minutes ago

Two rare Sri Lankan leopard cubs have been born in a zoo in northern France, a boost for a sub-species that numbers only about 700 in the wild, the head of the facility said Tuesday.

Japan wraps up Pacific whale hunt

1 hour ago

Japan announced Tuesday that it had wrapped up a whale hunt in the Pacific, the second campaign since the UN's top court ordered Tokyo to halt a separate slaughter in the Antarctic.

Researchers uncover secrets of internal cell fine-tuning

1 hour ago

New research from scientists at the University of Kent has shown for the first time how the structures inside cells are regulated – a breakthrough that could have a major impact on cancer therapy development.

Getting a jump on plant-fungal interactions

1 hour ago

Fungal plant pathogens may need more flexible genomes in order to fully benefit from associating with their hosts. Transposable elements are commonly found with genes involved in symbioses.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2012
Thought-provoking, indeed... However, I have few criticisms to the article: 1st) why using "... traditional archeological techniques..." in an article that has nothing to do with archaeology, but with palaeobiology ??? 2nd) by saying that Amniota consists of mammals and reptiles, you risk to mislead the less cladistically-minded in the audience... In fact, the consensus is that "reptiles" is a paraphyletic grouping as it excludes birds... only few accept a broader "Reptilia" which includes all conventional reptiles AND birds... but I would avoid this... rather, I would say "Amniota, which includes reptiles, birds and mammals".. now, all is clean and clear :)

Otherwise, the article is not badly presented.