More things in heaven and earth
Evidence comes that the polar oceans, once thought to be relatively barren, are teeming with an “astonishing richness of marine life.” Many thousands of species found to be living in the water at each pole include many that have never been seen before.
Sound familiar? Remember when they first found those incredible life forms in hot vents, back in 1970? It seems that life, once begun, can adapt to extreme environments far better than we had previously thought possible. Its nature is to fill every available niche—and the definition of “available” is continually expanding.
One of the many puzzles the new data presents is that, at least on preliminary observation, many of the species near North and South Poles seem to be the same. So how did they get from one to the other? Ah, sweet mystery of life!
[NOTE: The title of this post comes from a line uttered by Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.]
“So how did they get from one to the other?”
They took the A Train.
Nature never ceases to amaze me. And what else will not amaze me is how the Climechanglings (formerly the Glormings) and the greenies will try to use this information about new species to their advantage. I will however say that whenever anyone says (like the Climechanglings) “the science is
decided !!” – it never really is. Nature always has it’s surprises.
“seem to be the same”; have to do a DNA test. I bet they evolved seperatly.
I’ve noticed the same thing with trees. When you go to similar climates around the world the trees look similar (leaf size, characteristics, et cetera) even though they’re not closely related.
I’d bet some might have a common ancestor but they developed independently on both sides.
Most likely came about from ice ages that made the entire ocean similar to what we now consider polar conditions. Just a thought.
I live in Nevada, having relocated here from the east coast five and a half years ago. Since moving here, I’ve become fascinated by the desert of the Great Basin and the huge variety of things that manage to live in what so many consider barren and bland territory. One of the things that frustrates me is that so many of the natives in my corner of the state don’t realize how many undiscovered gems (and I don’t mean the gold!) this state holds. Instead, they allow their views of nature and natural beauty to be confined mainly by the greener areas to the west in California.
Not a wonder, of course. Animal life requires oxigen, and polar waters are especially rich of it. It better dissolves in cold water than in warm, and also its concentrations are critically dependent on water purity: organic waiste consumes oxigen, and less of it left for animals to breath. This is especially important for crustaceans, comprising lower levels of food chains. These lower tiers define owerall productivity of any ecosystem, so from the very basic assumptions of ecology higher productivity of polar waters directly follows.
Steve, you are right. Most paleoecologists assume just this. Paleoecology is a new science, not mature yet, and consists mostly of unproven hypotheses. But this hypothesis about bipolarity of many species areals as a relict of ice ages is now dominant.
Steve’s hypothesis is certainly plausible. Another possibility is convergent evolution among once wide-ranging species; they separated as the geography changed but developed similar traits independently as they adapted to colder waters.
The wing is the classic example of this; it arose independently in insects, birds, mammals, and pterodactyls.
It’s like Jeff Goldblum’s character said in Jurassic Park: “Life finds a way.” Check out the icefish; you will be amazed.
I, on the other hand, find myself unable to adapt to anything.