Ancient species discovered in Barrier Reef depths

[demoleft]

Source: afp

AFP - Australian scientists have discovered bizarre prehistoric sea life hundreds of kilometres below the Great Barrier Reef, in an unprecedented mission to document species under threat from ocean warming.

Ancient sharks, giant oil fish, swarms of crustaceans and a primitive shell-dwelling squid species called the Nautilus were among the astonishing life captured by remote controlled cameras at Osprey Reef.

Lead researcher Justin Marshall Thursday said his team had also found several unidentified fish species, including "prehistoric six-gilled sharks" using special low-light sensitive cameras which were custom designed to trawl the ocean floor, 1,400 metres (4,593 feet) below sea level.

"Some of the creatures that we've seen we were sort of expecting, some of them we weren't expecting, and some of them we haven't identified yet," said Marshall, from the University of Queensland.

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20100715-ancient-species-discovered-barrier-reef-depths

---

wonderful.

[WinkyDink]

1. But of course, there could be no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster.

I think there are many more species under the various waters!

The UK Daily Mail just had a story on other deep-sea creatures discovered.

[Marthe48]

3. new technology might help discover

I was thinking if the Loch Ness Monster is in the lake, why not check the sediment for unknown DNA? Nessie would have to excrete, there is DNA in poop, and so by extension, in sediment. And History Channel could make a documentary of the study! And yes, I have way too much time on my hands!

[Raschel]

20. I think that there could be a Loch Ness.

[Zorra]

2. Wow. Thanks for posting this. nt

[demoleft]

29. you're welcome n/t

[Orrex]

4. "Hundreds of kilometres below the Great Barrier Reef?"

Wouldn't that put them somewhere in the mantle?

[demoleft]

27. indeed: "1,400m below sea level at Osprey Reef" - from the original UQ release:

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=21545

[happygoluckytoyou]

5. sarah will need to get a sub to kill these.... or at least one good oil spill

SO TELL ME AGAIN HOW MY RETURNING PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS IS SAVING THE EARTH....

AND HOW MANY DO I NEED TO RETURN TO MAKE UP FOR THE BP FUCKUP

[NBachers]

21. OK SO DON'T BOTHER RETURNING PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS AND ALWAYS USE CAPS LOCK!

[Soylent Brice]

6. pics

[Solly Mack]

8. Thanks!

:loveya:

[LiberalEsto]

11. That first image is Cheney's "heart", right?

And it's about life size?

[Soylent Brice]

16. no, this is...

right click, properties, to see what it is if you can't guess...

[alfredo]

22. Palin's soul

[formercia]

13. Another pic:

[Soylent Brice]

14. damn it. just seeing the dreaded red x. n/t

[No Elephants]

24. LOL!

[Solly Mack]

7. K&R

Cool!

[MineralMan]

9. Hundreds of kilometers? How are they doing that?

Bogus story. Besides, the Nautilus isn't a rare critter at all.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. I caught that goof, too

About the "hundreds of kilometers", that is. Living in semi-solid rock would be quite a trick.

If it's any consolation, I once saw a local paper describe some pre-Clovis Native American finds as being "tens of millions of years" old. Which is certainly pre-Clovis.

I'm sure they found some interesting stuff, but since most journalists have woefully inadequate science skills, how is the reading public supposed to know?

--d!

[Swagman]

17. souded odd didn't it?

[Po_d Mainiac]

30. There's a dig site 15 minutes from here

There's a real nice kiosk with the caption

Pre-historic Native Americans" :wtf:

[Tansy_Gold]

10. "The Tale of the Fourth Stranger" by Anthony Coburn

A favorite story from my youth, lost but never forgotten these 50+ years. Found again just this past week-end. How appropriate.


Tansy Gold

[pruple]

15. K&R

Thanks for posting, very interesting

[Bossy Monkey]

18. Better link with "hundreds of metres" rather than kilometres (Telegraph, of all people)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7891737/Scientists-discover-prehistoric-fish-under-Great-Barrier-Reef.html
They still have the nautilus as a rare squid, though. Ah well.

[liam_laddie]

19. AFP, source of OP's post,

needs to get their proofreaders up to snuff. Of course it should read "several hundred METERS," not "kilometres." :spank:

And if the creatures are living today, why are they termed "prehistoric?" :shrug:

[demoleft]

28. right. "1,400m below sea level at Osprey Reef"...

from the original source:

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=21545

:)

[bushmeister0]

23. My favorite quote

"One of the things that we're trying to do by looking at the life in the deep sea is discover what's there in the first place, before we wipe it out."

BP is on the job, don't you worry.

[No Elephants]

25. Limbaugh says "What's all the fuss? They're as natural as spilling oil."

[demoleft]

26. UPDATE: a link to the original UQ publication and to dr. justin marshall profile:

the research: http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=21545

dr marshall profile: http://www.uq.edu.au/research/index.html?page=4173

[Soylent Brice]

31. thank you!