Paleobiologist argues that earliest land dwelling amniotes were likely egg layers

August 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: Paleontologists discover fossilized embryos of oldest aquatic reptiles

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

Related Stories

Two new species of fish found able to regenerate a lost fin

February 23, 2012

( -- History has shown that many invertebrates are able to regenerate lost limbs. Rare however, are animals with backbones that are able to do so, and when they do exist, they are usually amphibians or a few species ...

US science group says it's time to start burying plutonium

May 10, 2012

( -- As researchers the world over continue to try to find a way to meet the energy needs of an over populated planet, negative consequences for choices already made continue to pile up. Global warming that appears ...

Recommended for you

World's smallest tape recorder is built from microbes

November 23, 2017

Through a few clever molecular hacks, researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have converted a natural bacterial immune system into a microscopic data recorder, laying the groundwork for a new class of technologies ...

A possible explanation for how germlines are rejuvenated

November 23, 2017

(—A pair of researchers affiliated with the University of California and Calico Life Sciences, has discovered a possible explanation regarding how human germlines are rejuvenated. In their paper published in the ...

1 comment

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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.