5 ms·

Earliest forest discovered, scientists say

jmclnx 3y ago
Interesting it was in the UK, I was expecting Australia or Quebec where I think geological finds tend to be much older.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Terrestrial life is young relative to the Earth. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The forest described here is between 358 and 419 million years old, or rather less than one-tenth of Earth's total age. Australian and Canadian shield formations date back as far as 4.4 billion years. That far exceeds any dry-land life, let alone fully-developed forests. <https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/earths-oldest-rocks/ https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/earth...> At best you might find stromatolite beds, remnants of ancient cyanobacteria growing in mats in shallow seas: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite> The formations in which the UK fossils are found were at the time of their formation linked with the ancient Appalachian range, parts of which remain now in north Africa, the eastern US, Spain, France, Britain, Germany, Poland, and Czechia. The Appalachians themselves are older than terrestrial life, which is to say, older than dirt (which is itself comprised of organic matter). There's a river which flows through the Appalachians which is older than the mountains themselves. It is of course named the New River: <https://eos.org/features/the-new-river-gorge-ancient-river-old-mines-new-national-park https://eos.org/features/the-new-river-gorge-ancient-river-o...>
  - sandspar 3y ago
    Apropos of nothing but flowers evolved at about the same time as Tyrannosaurus Rex, so you can imagine a T-Rex walking through a field of wildflowers at sunrise, its legs wet with flowers' dew.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      No evidence of grass before the very tail end of the Cretaceous, either.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      And, as the response to your comment notes, grass evolved only very late in the age of the dinosaurs. When you think of the most prevalent varieties of terrestrial plant life on Earth today, particularly agricultural crops (wheat, rice, maize, all grasses), much of it is very recent evolutionary developments, and of that, vastly further developed by artificial selection and hybridisation by humans. Legumes are also flowering plants, and seem to date back roughly 79--74 mya: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabaceae#Evolution,_phylogeny_and_taxonomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabaceae#Evolution,_phylogeny_...>
  - sriacha 3y ago
    Do you recommend any books on this theme? IE evolution of terrestrial life, geology, etc. Would like to learn more. I've greatly enjoyed 'The Vital Question' by Nick Lane a few years ago.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Not offhand, though Nick Lane's books come highly recommended and are on my own rather expansive reading pile.... David Christian's "Big History" looks at the past through large frame, and includes the concepts of which I'm discussing. Otherwise, I've pieced together my understanding from many sourcesl
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Interesting, but on the wobbly side of science. Trees are usually defined to be something very different from cycads and palms. Today if these were growing, they wouldn't be called trees, and their cluster not called forests. And second, similarly to how 'there's no such thing as a fish', it's been postulated that there's no such thing as a tree. Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. Make of that what you will.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  The "there's no such thing as tree" concept is expanded here: <https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/> This was discussed on HN a few years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646> I think it's fair to argue that the palm forests noted in TFA filled a similar niche to that of current tree-like forests. All taxonomical groupings are ultimately grounded in practical organisational utility for humans.
- tejtm 3y ago
  As a non-biologist, long term I see tree-ness more as a vocation that plants sometimes take up for a while, more like a hobby than a biological imperative.
- akira2501 3y ago
  The title editing on this site is ridiculous. Of all the "social" sites to game I've never understood the instinct as applied to "Hacker News." "World's earliest fossilised forest discovered." Which is the actual title, more accurately describes the claim, and is far less sensationalized.
  - gumby 3y ago
    Sometimes I submit a link and then the site changes the title. The NYT does this a lot.
- jakderrida 3y ago
  > Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. None??
INTPenis 3y ago
.., scientists say. has to be my favorite suffix to any headline.
8A51C 3y ago
Coincidently, they also discovered 'living fossils' amongst the entertainment acts at Butlins Minehead. Some were said to rival the tree fossils in age.
tuatoru 3y ago
Rugose and squamous.

Interesting it was in the UK, I was expecting Australia or Quebec where I think geological finds tend to be much older.

dredmorbius 3y ago
Terrestrial life is young relative to the Earth. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The forest described here is between 358 and 419 million years old, or rather less than one-tenth of Earth's total age. Australian and Canadian shield formations date back as far as 4.4 billion years. That far exceeds any dry-land life, let alone fully-developed forests. <https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/earths-oldest-rocks/ https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/earth...> At best you might find stromatolite beds, remnants of ancient cyanobacteria growing in mats in shallow seas: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite> The formations in which the UK fossils are found were at the time of their formation linked with the ancient Appalachian range, parts of which remain now in north Africa, the eastern US, Spain, France, Britain, Germany, Poland, and Czechia. The Appalachians themselves are older than terrestrial life, which is to say, older than dirt (which is itself comprised of organic matter). There's a river which flows through the Appalachians which is older than the mountains themselves. It is of course named the New River: <https://eos.org/features/the-new-river-gorge-ancient-river-old-mines-new-national-park https://eos.org/features/the-new-river-gorge-ancient-river-o...>
- sandspar 3y ago
  Apropos of nothing but flowers evolved at about the same time as Tyrannosaurus Rex, so you can imagine a T-Rex walking through a field of wildflowers at sunrise, its legs wet with flowers' dew.
  - vundercind 3y ago
    No evidence of grass before the very tail end of the Cretaceous, either.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    And, as the response to your comment notes, grass evolved only very late in the age of the dinosaurs. When you think of the most prevalent varieties of terrestrial plant life on Earth today, particularly agricultural crops (wheat, rice, maize, all grasses), much of it is very recent evolutionary developments, and of that, vastly further developed by artificial selection and hybridisation by humans. Legumes are also flowering plants, and seem to date back roughly 79--74 mya: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabaceae#Evolution,_phylogeny_and_taxonomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabaceae#Evolution,_phylogeny_...>
- sriacha 3y ago
  Do you recommend any books on this theme? IE evolution of terrestrial life, geology, etc. Would like to learn more. I've greatly enjoyed 'The Vital Question' by Nick Lane a few years ago.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Not offhand, though Nick Lane's books come highly recommended and are on my own rather expansive reading pile.... David Christian's "Big History" looks at the past through large frame, and includes the concepts of which I'm discussing. Otherwise, I've pieced together my understanding from many sourcesl

Interesting, but on the wobbly side of science. Trees are usually defined to be something very different from cycads and palms. Today if these were growing, they wouldn't be called trees, and their cluster not called forests. And second, similarly to how 'there's no such thing as a fish', it's been postulated that there's no such thing as a tree. Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. Make of that what you will.

dredmorbius 3y ago
The "there's no such thing as tree" concept is expanded here: <https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/> This was discussed on HN a few years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646> I think it's fair to argue that the palm forests noted in TFA filled a similar niche to that of current tree-like forests. All taxonomical groupings are ultimately grounded in practical organisational utility for humans.
tejtm 3y ago
As a non-biologist, long term I see tree-ness more as a vocation that plants sometimes take up for a while, more like a hobby than a biological imperative.
akira2501 3y ago
The title editing on this site is ridiculous. Of all the "social" sites to game I've never understood the instinct as applied to "Hacker News." "World's earliest fossilised forest discovered." Which is the actual title, more accurately describes the claim, and is far less sensationalized.
- gumby 3y ago
  Sometimes I submit a link and then the site changes the title. The NYT does this a lot.
jakderrida 3y ago
> Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor. None??

INTPenis 3y ago

.., scientists say. has to be my favorite suffix to any headline.

8A51C 3y ago

Coincidently, they also discovered 'living fossils' amongst the entertainment acts at Butlins Minehead. Some were said to rival the tree fossils in age.

tuatoru 3y ago

Rugose and squamous.