The gang discusses two papers that investigate ancient bioherms. The first paper looks at the formation of early Phanerozoic reefs, and the second paper investigates patterns of reef building and collapse in the late Devonian. Meanwhile, James is being advertised to, Amanda plans unique roadtrips, and Curt solicits legal advice.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda Edition):

Today our friends talk about animals that have green friends that make hard bits. These animals that make hard parts are really important today because they make good places for other animals to live. But we don't know all about them and where they first came from and how they first started making hard parts for places to live. So the first paper looks at where these animals that make hard parts for other animals to live in come from. They look at really early animals that make hard parts and show what kinds of places they live in, and also how they stick themselves to the bottom. It looks like different animals got started in different ways, then went out to all sorts of different places and got better at making hard parts for other animals to live in, until that was all they could do.

The second paper talks about a bad time when everything died and how animals that make hard parts for other things to live in all died and tiny things we can't see without making them look big took over from them. At this time there were different animals that made hard parts for other animals to live in that lived together to make big areas of hard parts, but then they all died and never came back. But when we look at the rocks we find that tiny things we can't see without making them look big are all over the place while the animals that make hard bits for other animals to live in all die. This paper talks a lot about rocks, but the important thing is that they think the tiny things we can't see without making them look big might be the kind of thing that takes over all the places when times are bad and everything dies, but that might not be the case.

References:

Zhuravlev, Andrey Yurevich, and Rachel Wood. "On the origin of metazoan reefs." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 293.2068 (2026).

Xinsong, Zhang, et al. "How microbes replaced metazoans in reef ecosystem during the Late Devonian mass extinction: new insights from platform facies in South China." Lethaia 58.4 (2025): 1-22.

The gang discusses two papers about the functional morphology of ancient groups of animals. The first paper is a review of how the life position of rangeomorph ediacaran taxa have been reconstructed, and the second paper conducts an actualistic experiment of Oviraptor nesting strategies. Meanwhile, Curt gets activated, James doesn’t die, and Amanda relishes in details.

Up-Goer Five (James Edition):

The group look at two papers that focus of understanding how things are long dead lived. The first paper talks about strange things that might have either lived standing up or lying down at the bottom of the water which is big and you can not drink. It is hard to tell how these things lived because there are not any around today and so instead we need to look at their form and how they are found in the rock. Most of the things seem to have lived how we thought but one actually was lying down rather than standing up.

The second paper looks at how big angry animals without hair kept their round babies and helped them grow by making a form in the ground like they used and putting round babies in it. They looked at how the round babies did by themselves and how they did with a warm bag on top like their final big form. They decide that they probably had the final big form covering the round babies when they were growing but that they did not do it the same was a things that fly and do not have hair today.

References:

McIlroy, Duncan. "Determining the mode of life of Ediacaran rangeomorphs in deep marine settings of Peri-Gondwanan Avalonia." Assemblage 550.538Ma (2022).

Su, Chun-Yu, et al. "Heat transfer in a realistic clutch reveals a lower efficiency in incubation of oviraptorid dinosaurs than of modern birds." Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 14 (2026): 1351288.

The gang discusses two papers that use quantitative methods to investigate the biomechanical limitations of extinct organisms. The first paper models the range of jumping potential for a non-avian theropod dinosaur, and the other paper tests if an extinct bird could have skimmed the ocean for food. Meanwhile, James imagines a better future, Amanda is to blame, and Curt is heating up.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda Edition):

Today our friends look at two papers that talk about how things do stuff. The first paper looks at how a small one of large animals with thick skin and no hair would jump. It would jump very different than living animals with not thick skin with pieces that come off and have many parts. This is because they have long back parts that would get in the way and so they have to jump different. They could probably jump well, but just very different. The paper has very funny pictures that show this. The paper also has a computer do a pretend living animal with not thick skin with pieces that come off and have many parts, but they do not look at any living animals, just what the computer does.

The second paper looks at very big not living animal with not thick skin with pieces that come off and have many parts, that has not real teeth in its mouth and shows that it could not live like some living animals with not thick skin with pieces that come off and have many parts that have very long faces and the bottom part of their mouth is much longer than the top part. They go over water and use their mouth to eat things that live in water. But the not living animal with not thick skin with pieces that come off and have many parts was too big and too bad at flying to do this kind of living.

References:

Hellyer-Price, Olivia, Chris Venditti, and Stuart Humphries. "The largest extinct volant bird Pelagornis could not meet the energetic demands of skimming." Royal Society Open Science 13.2 (2026).

Charles, James P., Delyle T. Polet, and John R. Hutchinson. "Form–function relationships determining optimal jumping performance in an early bipedal dinosaur." Journal of The Royal Society Interface 23.235 (2026).

The gang discusses two papers that are united by a fin. The first paper uses a computer algorithms to infer the shape of mosasaur tail fins, and the second paper looks at a new species of Spinosaurus with a crest. Meanwhile, James tastes flavor, Amanda tastes drink, and Curt tastes indifference.

Up-Goer Five - SERVER NOT FOUND! HELP!

References:

Song, Yang, and Johan Lindgren. "Convergence in aquatic locomotion: reconstructing mosasaurian (Squamata: Mosasauria) tail fins from osteological correlates and covariation with extant sharks." Paleobiology 52.1 (2026): 121-130.

Sereno, Paul C., et al. "Scimitar-crested Spinosaurus species from the Sahara caps stepwise spinosaurid radiation." Science 391.6787 (2026): eadx5486.

The gang talk about two papers about extraordinary dinosaur fossils and the unique information that can be gleaned from them. The first paper looks at fossil skin data on a Cretaceous iguandodontian, and the second paper uses an exceptionally complete specimen to demonstrate the reality of Nanotyrannus. Meanwhile, James classifies, Amanda imagines T-rex, and Curt brings a unique energy.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers about big angry animals that everyone loves to talk about. The first paper is about the skin of one of these big angry animals. This skin has weird bits on it that are not like the weird bits we see in a lot of other animals that are close to these big angry animals. These bits do not look like the bits that would be used to stay warm or to move into the air. These bits look like they might hurt.
The second paper looks at a lot of stuff from one big angry animal that has been said by people in the past is just a young one of another big angry animal. The paper looks at the parts of this animal, how this animal grew, and a lot of other things to show that, no, this animal is not this other animal. This animal is its own type of animal.

References:

Huang, Jiandong, et al. "Cellular-level preservation of cutaneous spikes in an Early Cretaceous iguanodontian dinosaur." Nature Ecology & Evolution (2026): 1-8.

Zanno, Lindsay E., and James G. Napoli. "Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus coexisted at the close of the Cretaceous." Nature (2025): 1-3.

The gang discuss two papers of odd fossils with exceptional preservation. The first paper looks at some Cambrian vertebrates and shows that soft tissue evidence suggests the presence of two sets of camera eyes (four eyes total), and they interpret the additional set of camera eyes as being a homolog to the modern parietal eye in vertebrates. The second paper uses exceptional preservation of the Rhynie Chert to test hypotheses for the taxonomic placement of the enigmatic Prototaxites and finds evidence that suggests it is not, as previously suggested, a fungus. Meanwhile, James is marooned by weather, Amanda accidentally traumatizes her cat, and Curt imagines the flesh trees.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about things that are weird. The first paper looks at a thing that is part of the big group that we are all a part of but is from a long long time ago and lived in the big blue wet thing. This thing has four eyes. Two of those eyes might be the things that become a part of the brain that is not the eyes today. But this shows that, early on, some of these animals could have had four eyes. This also means some animals we see later could have had parts of these other eyes that we have thought were other things.

The second paper looks at a thing that is weird that people thought was from a group that is not an animal but has some animal like things like eating other things but has walls in the cells. These weird things are from a long time ago and come from a place where the parts were saved from breaking down by glass getting inside the cells. This means you can see lots of cell stuff, and you can also break down the glass to get at some of the cell bits. This paper looks at a lot of this weird thing and they say that it is not part of the group people thought it was from. In fact, it is so weird that it is not like any group we have today. It is maybe something that is not around today that we did not know about.

References:

Loron, Corentin C., et al. "Prototaxites fossils are structurally and chemically distinct from extinct and extant Fungi." Science advances 12.4 (2026): eaec6277.

Lei, Xiangtong, et al. "Four camera-type eyes in the earliest vertebrates from the Cambrian Period." Nature (2026): 1-6.

Listeners, I’m going to level with you. This podcast is cursed. Not because of the content, which is mostly a pretty straight forward discussion about two papers that look into the fossil record of Nimravids (early cats that are not true cats). No, this podcast is cursed because the file refused to be compiled, crashing Audacity 3 times and each time corrupting the save file. The fact that any mp3 file was able to be compiled at all was a minor miracle. I can only assume that this means this podcast data has gained sentience and did not want to be born. I have no control over what happens when this mp3 file gets released into the internet… so anyways enjoy the episode!

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that both look at things we can see in the hard parts of animals that are like cats but are not cats and use those hard parts to figure out what these not cats are doing. These papers looks at different not cats and try and see what types of food they would eat and how they would get that food. Turns out that many of these not cats were doing things that are not the same as the cats we have today.

References:

Castellanos, Miguel. "Hunting types in North American Eocene–Oligocene carnivores and implications for the ‘cat-gap’." Journal of Mammalian Evolution 32.2 (2025): 25.

Jiangzuo, Qigao, et al. "A new ecomorph of Nimravidae, and the early macrocarnivorous niche exploration in Carnivora." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 292.2059 (2025).

The gang discusses two papers that use fragmentary fossils of animals to investigate the origins of major groups. The first paper describes an Early Ordovician eurypterid, and the second paper looks at mosaic evolutionary patterns in an early squamate. Meanwhile, James has bird opinions, Curt delights in not knowing, and Amanda will definitely be on time.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that are using broken bits of things to learn a lot about animals from a long time ago. Both of these papers are looking at old animals that may give us new looks at how big groups of animals changed over time. These animals may be some of the first animals in these groups, or at least let us know what kinds of things those early animals could have been doing. The first paper looks at a group of animals that lived in the big blue wet thing a long time ago and are part of a group that today has animals that make homes that they use to catch food. The new parts this paper finds shows that this group may have come around a lot earlier than we thought. The second paper looks at parts from an animal that is in a group that is cold and has hard skin, some with legs and some without legs. These parts show that the early animals in this group had a lot of changes going on in their hard parts, maybe they changed more early on then they do today.

References:

Benson, Roger BJ, et al. "Mosaic anatomy in an early fossil squamate." Nature (2025): 1-7.

Van Roy, Peter, Jared C. Richards, and Javier Ortega-Hernández. "Early Ordovician sea scorpions from Morocco suggest Cambrian origins and main diversification of Eurypterida." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 292.2058 (2025).

The crew of CS Perry were offered the perfect deal, a quick stop at an abandoned spaceport to grab some mothballed tech and they'd be set for life. What could possibly go wrong?

"Lightless Dawn" from Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

The gang discusses two papers that are about dinosaurs, and that is all that connects them! The first paper investigates community structure during the Cretaceous, and the second paper describes a well preserved “mummy” of a duck-billed dinosaur. Meanwhile, Amanda is doing well (really she is now), Curt makes an awkward segue, and James has not seen Tremors.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers about big angry animals from a long time ago. The first paper looks at how many types of big angry animals were in a place before something bad happened and all the big angry animals died. Lots of people have said that the big angry animals might have been in trouble before the bad thing happen, and lots of other people say that they were probably not in trouble but we just don't have a lot of places that have the big angry animals in them for us to look and see what is happening at that time. This paper looks at a place and shows that it was during the time we want to see and that the types of animals in a place were a lot like the types of animals in a place before, so that means that it does not look like these big angry animals were having a bad time before the bad thing happened.

The second paper looks at soft parts of a big angry animal that was dried out so that you can see skin and other bits under the skin. This lets the people find out what the feet look like for this animal, and other bits about how it moved.

References:

Flynn, Andrew G., et al. "Late-surviving New Mexican dinosaurs illuminate high end-Cretaceous diversity and provinciality." Science 390.6771 (2025): 400-404.

Sereno, Paul C., et al. "Duck-billed dinosaur fleshy midline and hooves reveal terrestrial clay-template “mummification”." Science (2025).

The gang discusses two papers that have very little in common with each except for the word “stem”. The first paper uses birth death models to simulate the fossil record in order investigate if neutral models can produce patterns similar to the “crown”/“stem” evolutionary dynamics that have been observed in real data. The second paper investigates stem mandibulate fossils to investigate the timing of major key innovations in the evolutionary history of this arthropod group. Meanwhile, Amanda decides, James bullies, and Curt explains.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that have very little to do with each other, other than the fact that they have one of the same words in them. The first paper looks at the ways in which animals change over time and how they make more of each other and how the ways things live and die can make it look like there are some groups that do better than others. The paper shows that some of this is something we should see even if it is just because of how things make more things and the fact that we care more about the things that live today than the things that do not live today.

The second paper looks at how animals that have many parts that repeat make their arms and legs. This paper looks at very very old animals from groups that are not around today but maybe could be close to those groups. The group of animals today that this group is close to has a lot of things that all of them share, like that they make mouths from a lot of arms, and also they have things on the front they use to feel things, and that they are three parts. This paper is using these old animals that are close to this group to try and see which things today in this group appeared first, and which things may have taken some time before they appeared.

References:

Budd, Graham E., and Richard P. Mann. "The dynamics of stem and crown groups." Science Advances 6.8 (2020): eaaz1626.

Liu, Yao, et al. "A tiny Cambrian stem-mandibulate reveals independent evolution of limb tagmatization and specialization in early euarthropods." Scientific Reports 15.1 (2025): 19115.

The gang discusses two papers that investigate injuries in fossil bones. The first paper tests hypotheses about the causes of facial injuries in herrarasaurids, and the second paper tests if inferred hunting strategies map onto injury patterns in predators from the La Brea Tar Pits. Meanwhile, Curt provides some hypotheses, Amanda gets spiritual, and James is photogenic.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at why animals from a long time ago got hurt. The first paper looks at some very old and angry animals with no hair that all got hurt in the face. They try to see why these animals got hurt in the face. They look at all the ways that they could have got hurt in the face and find that it was probably other animals just like them that they lived with that probably hurt them in the face.

The second paper looks at two groups of animals that eat other animals. One group of animals is man's best friend, and the other group of animals is from a group that does not care if man lives or dies. Since these two groups of animals are old and from a long time ago we don't know really what they ate but we use other things to come up with thoughts on how they could eat. We look to animals today that are like these animals and think that maybe these old animals ate the same way. But, trying to eat other animals is hard and can get you hurt, and you can get hurt in a lot of the same ways if you jump or run. This paper looks at how they got hurt to see if this fits with how we think they would eat. Turns out that the ways they were hurt makes sense if they ate way we think they ate, with man's best friend running and man's not best friend running.

References:

Garcia, Mauricio S., Ricardo N. Martínez, and Rodrigo T. Müller. "Craniofacial lesions in the earliest predatory dinosaurs indicate intraspecific agonistic behaviour at the dawn of the dinosaur era." The Science of Nature 112.2 (2025): 1-12.

Brown, Caitlin, et al. "Skeletal trauma reflects hunting behaviour in extinct sabre-tooth cats and dire wolves." Nature Ecology & Evolution 1.5 (2017): 0131.

The gang discusses two papers that use taphonomic experiments to test hypotheses about the paleo-environmental conditions of the Crato Formation. Meanwhile, Amanda has her daily requirements, James longs for the rack, Curt launched a new podcast concept, and no one on this podcast can keep to a topic for longer than five minutes.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at rocks that come from the same place. This place is a spot where you get a lot of soft things from animals in the rocks which would usually not be able to be in the rocks because they would get broken up and lost. These two papers look at the types of animals we see in these rocks to see if that can tell us about the place where these animals with very soft parts were able to be saved. The first paper looks at small animals with many legs that stick their food with points on their mouth. When these animals die their legs are pulled under them. But in these rocks, the legs are not like that. The people who wrote this paper took some of these animals and put them in water and also water with stuff in it that you put on food and makes food good to eat. They found that the animals in the water with the stuff that makes food good had legs that look like looked like the rocks. This would mean that these animals were in water that had this stuff in it.

The second paper looks at other small animals with soft things. These animals need to live in water and would not do well if the water had the stuff in it that the other paper said it did. Some people have said that maybe this means the animals got put in here and did not live in here. So the people who wrote this paper took dead animals and shook them to make it like they were moved to see what happened. They found that they could not have been moved because they break up easy when you try to move them. This means that the water must have had some times when it was just water and some times when the water had lots of stuff in it that makes food good.

References:

Downen, Matt R., Paul A. Selden, and Stephen T. Hasiotis. "Spider leg flexure as an indicator for estimating salinity in lacustrine paleoenvironments." Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 445 (2016): 115-123.

Storari, Arianny P., et al. "Taphonomy of aquatic insects from the Crato Formation Lagerstätte (Aptian, Lower Cretaceous) under an actualistic look." Plos one 20.9 (2025): e0331656.

The gang discusses two papers that provide nuanced information to test when key innovations in vertebrate evolution occurred. The first paper looks at unique semi-terrestrial trace fossils in the early Devonian in order to determine the trace maker, and the second paper looks at fossils that could provide information about the origins of teeth. Meanwhile, Curt has theme park ambitions, James provides Amanda with new anxieties, and Amanda leaves it all to chance.

Up-Goer Five (James Edition):

The group talk about two papers that are looking at the earliest time things have been seen in the rocks. The first paper looks at some tracks in the rock left by animals with no legs that live in the water but can gasp air. We have looked at tracks from the same place before where the animals stuck their faces into the ground. The new tracks come in two forms. The first is where the animal took a rest and its bits that it uses to move in the water stuck in the ground. The other track is where it had to come out of the water and moved around on land. It used its head to pull it along as it moved. The track made by this is the same as tracks made by the same type of animal that still lives today. This is the oldest case of this type of animal moving on land and shows that animals with hard parts inside them began to move onto land in lots of different ways.

The other paper looks at the supposed earliest time we find teeth growing on skin. This is interesting because there are several ideas about why the teeth began to grow on the skin, so when it first started could help tell which of these reasons is true. The skin teeth bit has been considered the same as an animal with no legs that lived in the water that was found in younger rocks from a different place, but when studied up close it does not look like the thing it is named as. By using lights to look inside the rock and seeing whether it looks the same as skin teeth on living animals it is shown that the old skin teeth are not skin teeth at all but actually are parts of the skin of a different animal with no hard parts inside that has legs that move in many places.

References:

Haridy, Yara, et al. "The origin of vertebrate teeth and evolution of sensory exoskeletons." Nature (2025): 1-6.

Szrek, P., et al. "Traces of dipnoan fish document the earliest adaptations of vertebrates to move on land." Scientific Reports 15.1 (2025): 28808.

Falkingham, Peter L., and Angela M. Horner. "Trackways produced by lungfish during terrestrial locomotion." Scientific Reports 6.1 (2016): 33734.

The gang discusses two papers that deal with fossil brains. The first paper looks at a fossil arthropod from the Cambrian and uses neurological characters to determine its phylogenetic placement. The second paper looks at a synapsid braincase and tries to infer why this one species has lost its parietal eye when other members of the species have he eye. Meanwhile, Curt invents some new sponsors, Amanda has plans for James, and James discusses some personal growth.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition)

The friends talk about two papers that look at very old brains in animals that are long gone. The first paper is the brain of animal from a very long time ago that would grow by taking off its skin when it needs to get bigger and is made of many small bits stuck together. This animal was really weird for a long time, but the people who wrote this paper found one of them that had its brains still in it. They looked at the brains and they looked at the brains of other animals from the past and animals around today and they saw that this brain looked a lot like the brains of a group around today that some of the animals make things to catch food and live in out of their bottom. So the people who wrote the paper say this could mean that is maybe a very very very old animal from that group or close to it.

The second paper looks at the hard bits that hold the brain in for an animal that is close to the animals today that have hair and are warm. This animal may not have had hair and may not have been warm, but what the people who wrote the paper are looking at is the spaces in the hard bits that hold the brain. In animals that do not have hair and are cold, there is a space at the top of the head for an eye that can see light and dark. In animals that are warm, they lose this eye. The old animal they are looking at has some animals in the group that have that eye who live in cold places. The animal they are looking at does not have this eye, and so the question is why? They look at everything and they think that it is because the animal without the eye lives in places that are always warm and where day and night don't change that much. This would mean they would not need this light dark eye as much.

References:

Strausfeld, Nicholas J., David R. Andrew, and Frank Hirth. "Cambrian origin of the arachnid brain." Current Biology 35.15 (2025): 3777-3785.

Benoit, Julien, and Jaganmoy Jodder. "The palaeoneurology of a new specimen of the Middle Triassic dicynodont synapsid Kombuisia frerensis." Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 70.2 (2025): 369-374.

The gang discusses two papers about skin preservation in fossil tetrapods. The first paper describes skin impressions from a Permian synapsid, and the second paper identifies feather-like structures in an early Triassic diapsid. Meanwhile, James considers the horse, Amanda shames extinct animals, and Curt quotes “philosophy”.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda Edition):

Today our friends talk about things that are sort of close to things with hair but not that close to things with hair. They are closer to things with hair than to things with dry skin with no hair or long many-part skin things. Anyway for a long time we did not know what the skin of the animals that are sort of close to things with hair looked like. Did they have dry skin with no hair like the things today? Or did they maybe have hair? We didn't know, but now we have found marks in the ground that show that they had dry skin with no hair, but it looks different than the animals with dry skin and no hair today. So hair comes around after the dry skin with no hair does.

Then our friends talk about a very weird little animal that is sort of somewhere close to animals with dry skin and no hair, but it has these really weird things that come off of its back that look kind of like the many-part skin things on the most flying animals that are around today. But it's really not the same many-part skin things, because all the parts are not really same. And also there is only one of them and not one on each side. So it might be that many-part skin things come earlier than people thought they might have.

References:

Marchetti, Lorenzo, et al. "Early Permian synapsid impressions illuminate the origin of epidermal scales and aggregation behavior." Current Biology 35.11 (2025): 2752-2759.

Spiekman, Stephan NF, et al. "Triassic diapsid shows early diversification of skin appendages in reptiles." Nature (2025): 1-7.

The gang ends “Wet Hot Archosaur Summer” with the final podcast recorded from our undisclosed location in the woods. For this podcast, we indulge Amanda by talking about birds and trace fossils. The first paper looks at the remains of nesting sites that date back to the Cretaceous, and the second paper investigates sources of error in estimates of avian maximum speeds from trace fossils. Meanwhile, Amanda has a message for the bears, James proposes an alliance with the crows, and Curt does an “homage”.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talks about two papers that will make one of them very happy because they are all about the ways that animals that fly can make marks on the ground to let us know about how they move. The first paper looks at where these animals that fly will make their home. This paper shows that animals that fly have been found in this cold place near the top of the world for a really long time. This place would not have been as cold as it is today, but would have been dark for half the year. Some of the animals they find in this area look like they would have moved in when things were good and left when things got bad. This is something we see animals that fly do today in the top of the world as well.

The second paper looks at how we try and use how these animals make marks on the ground to see how fast they would move. The paper shows that the way we were doing it in the past kind of worked, but also didn't work. This is because when these animals that can fly move, they do not move in the same way as other animals all the time. And so the way that these things walk is important if we want to try and understand more about how fast they could move from the marks on the ground.

References:

Wilson, Lauren N., et al. "Arctic bird nesting traces back to the Cretaceous." Science 388.6750 (2025): 974-978.

Prescott, Tash L., et al. "Speed from fossil trackways: calculations not validated by extant birds on compliant substrates." Biology Letters 21.6 (2025): 20250191.

The gang is all back together in one place again as they unite in an undisclosed cabin in the woods to record the last two podcasts for Wet Hot Archosaur Summer. For this episode, the gang talks about herbivorous pterosaurs and wadding T-rex. Meanwhile, James experiences relative sobriety, Curt welcomes everyone to the Great Northern, Amanda is fueled by spite, and we all get completely off track.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends are together for the first time in a long time and so they have a lot of fun together and sometimes they talk about a paper or two. The first paper that they sort of talk about is about big angry animals that fly and are no longer around. This paper looks at one group of these big angry animals and finds that they have bits and pieces of things that are found in green things that make their own food from the sun. They do a lot of things to make sure that these bits are found inside these animals and they use this to say that this one group of big angry animals probably ate these green things.

The second paper looks at how big angry animals moved and how fast they could move in air or in water. This is because some big angry animals that are in all of the movies are said to maybe not be as fast as the things they would eat. This paper says maybe they chased food into water where they would be faster. The friends point out that other animals today do not have to be faster than the animals they eat, but sure... go off.

References:

Blanco, R. Ernesto. "Tyrannosaurus rex runs again: a theoretical analysis of the hypothesis that full-grown large theropods had a locomotory advantage to hunt in a shallow-water environment." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 198.1 (2023): 202-219.

Jiang, Shunxing, et al. "First occurrence of phytoliths in pterosaurs-evidence for herbivory." Science bulletin (2025): S2095-9273.

Wet Hot Archosaur Summer continues as the gang discusses two papers that look at the evolution and biogeography of early archosaurs. Specifically, one paper describes new material from an early dinosaur group, and the other paper looks at the niche preferences of early pterosaurs and their closest sister group, the lagerpetids. Also, James tries out a new flavor, Curt likes consistency, and Amanda provides some ASMR.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers about the early types of animals that would give us lots of different types of big angry animals like the big ones that everyone thinks of and the ones that can fly. The first paper looks at one of these early animals which we don't know much about because there is not a lot of it left. This paper talks about some new stuff that was found which helps us better know what this animals is. We first thought that maybe it was one of the earliest animals, but this paper says that it may be more like some of the big animals that we talk about all the time because they are in big movies like the one that came out this year.

The second paper looks at two groups of animals that are close to each other, one of them can fly and one that does not fly. These two groups were around at the same time. This paper looks to see where they lived and what types of places they wanted to live in. They find that these two groups did live sort of the same place, but places where the things that fly would like to live were also places that the other group that did not fly did not like to live as much. The other thing they find is that, even though the group that did not fly was not as long lived as the group that did fly, during the time they are looking at it lived in a lot of places and did very well. A big bad thing happened at the end of this time that is probably why this group went away and the group that could fly was able to do better.

References:

Müller, Rodrigo Temp. "A new “silesaurid” from the oldest dinosauromorph-bearing beds of South America provides insights into the early evolution of bird-line archosaurs." Gondwana Research 137 (2025): 13-28.

Foffa, Davide, et al. "Climate drivers and palaeobiogeography of lagerpetids and early pterosaurs." Nature Ecology & Evolution (2025): 1-14.

The gang discusses two papers about the ecology of sauropods. The first paper investigates the biomechanics of the Plateosaurus tail, and the second paper looks at direct evidence of sauropod diet from gut contents. Meanwhile, James “makes it interesting”, Amanda may have recorded on the wrong microphone, Curt makes a bold rebrand, and everyone vaguely remembers “Denver: The Last Dinosaur”.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at animals with along necks from a long time ago that kids love and were in a movie where one of them called Little Foot went to a great low place between big places. The first paper looks at one of the oldest groups of animals with long necks that had really long things coming out of their bottoms. Some animals use these long things to match how heavy and long their necks are, but some use these long things to hit other animals. Since this group did not have a lot of things to hit other animals that may try to eat them, it would make sense that maybe they used their long things off their bottom to do it. They look at other animals from today and the past to see if this animal could use its long thing from its bottom to hit other animals. And they find that it could.

The second paper looks at what one of these long neck animals would eat. They find some parts of one of these animals that died when it was eating, and the bits that it ate were still in its body when it died. They find bits and pieces of things that can make their own food, and they also find that the animal was not very good at breaking up its food in its mouth.

References:

Poropat, Stephen F., et al. "Fossilized gut contents elucidate the feeding habits of sauropod dinosaurs." Current Biology 35.11 (2025): 2597-2613.

Filek, Thomas, et al. "Tail of defence: an almost complete tail skeleton of Plateosaurus (Sauropodomorpha, Late Triassic) reveals possible defence strategies." Royal Society Open Science 12.5 (2025): 250325.

The gang continues “Wet Hot Archosaur Summer” with a discussion about pterosaur trace fossils. The first paper tests a method for assigning pterosaur traces to potential trace makers, and the second paper is a case study of actually assigning traces to a species. Meanwhile, Amanda herds cats (figuratively and literally), James can only accomplish three things, Curt keeps it light, and everyone upholds their “journalistic integrity”.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at the marks that animals leave on the ground. These marks are made by animals that fly from a long time ago and are no longer around today. The first paper is asking if we can look at these marks and try to better figure out what kinds of these animals could have made those marks. They do a lot of work to look at the marks and some parts of these animals that we have that are really good in order to see if there are parts of the animal that would also be the same as these marks, and then they use numbers like how long these parts are on the marks and the animal parts are to try and see if we can put the marks into groups of animals. They find that maybe we can, and that there are some places where it might be best to see how well this works.

The second paper is one of those places where we can go see if this thing the first paper did works. They have these marks and there are two different types of marks. This place also has parts from two different groups of these animals, and those animals are in the same beds so they can be pretty sure that the animals were in the same spot as the marks at around the same time. They look at the numbers and how these marks look and they are able to point to each of these marks and say which of the two animals they have would have made those marks.

References:

Smyth, Robert SH, et al. "Identifying pterosaur trackmakers provides critical insights into mid-Mesozoic ground invasion." Current Biology 35.10 (2025): 2337-2353.

Li, Yang, et al. "First deciphering of large pterosaur footprints and their trackmaker in the Junggar Basin, China." Cretaceous Research 167 (2025): 106036.

Wet Hot Archosaur Summer continues as the gang discusses two papers about crocodylomorph evolution. The first paper looks at the impact mass extinctions had on disparity within the group, and the second paper uses new phylogenetic data to revise our understanding of size trends and biogeography of crocodylomorphs during the Cenozoic. Meanwhile, Curt invents a measurement, James invents a new way of eating, and Amanda invents a new phobia for herself.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at big angry animals that you should never smile at, again! This time they are looking at very old big angry animals you should never smile at. The first paper looks at how different these animals were in the past and looks at how different they are today. A lot of people think that the big angry animals today are not as different than they were in the past and that this might be weird. The paper finds that these big angry animals have been more different in the past, but that the animals today are not so much the same as each other in a weird way. There were times in the past where these animals were as different from each other as we see today, and they even got more different again after that.

The second paper looks at a new way of thinking about two animals from the past that were really big and you really should not smile at. These animals were thought to be part of this one group that is not as big today and also would be really weird because these some of these animals in the past are found across the big blue wet thing and we do not think that they can move across that big blue wet thing because of the stuff that is in the big blue wet thing that is not water that makes your food good. This paper shows that these big animals are probably not in that group, and so they use this to see what this means about where this one group of animals was living and how they got smaller.

References:

Melstrom, Keegan M., et al. "For a while, crocodile: crocodylomorph resilience to mass extinctions." Palaeontology 68.2 (2025): e70005.

Walter, Jules D., et al. "Expanded phylogeny elucidates Deinosuchus relationships, crocodylian osmoregulation and body-size evolution." Communications Biology 8.1 (2025): 611.

The gang kicks off a summer of archosaurs by talking about crocodyliforms. The first paper describes an early Cenozoic large notosuchian, and the second paper investigates how cryptic species impacts divergence times within the clade. Meanwhile, Curt diagnoses a problem, James tries to “help”, and Amanda does not care.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at animals that today most of the time live in water and grab food from the edge of the water and you should never smile at. The first paper a really big one of these animals that lived a long time ago. This animal was found after a really big rock hit the ground and killed most of the big animals. This big animal shows that some of the animals that you should never smile at were able to live through the big rock hitting.

The second paper looks at animals you should never smile at today and finds that there are some animals that look the same but are not actually the same animals. This paper uses these animals that look the same but are different and finds that they have been different for a long time. This means that if we want to try and make sure that these animals are safe, we can not just say that animals that look the same are going to do the same things when things change.

References:

Bravo, Gonzalo Gabriel, et al. "A new notosuchian crocodyliform from the Early Palaeocene of Patagonia and the survival of a large-bodied terrestrial lineage across the K–Pg mass extinction." Proceedings B 292.2043 (2025): 20241980.

Darlim, Gustavo, and Sebastian Höhna. "The effects of cryptic diversity on diversification dynamics analyses in Crocodylia." Proceedings B 292.2043 (2025): 20250091.

The gang tries to discuss two papers that look at the evolutionary impacts of the K-Pg mass extinction. Specifically, they look at one paper that estimates sampling probability throughout the late Cretaceous to determine if record bias influences our understanding of the extinction, and another paper that looks at species area relationships to investigate ecological shifts in response to the event. However, the gang gets completely lost and sidetracked throughout. They starting talking about the papers around 18 minutes in… and very quickly lose track again. It’s going to be one of those podcasts.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends do a real bad job of talking about two papers that look at what happened when a big rock fell from the sky a long time ago. The first paper looks at the rocks we have from that time and tries to see how well we know what was happening and what was going on with the animals that were around at that time. Given the rocks we have, how sure are we that we know where animals were and how many of those things were around. It turns out that just before the big rock hit, we do not have a good idea of what things were around and where they were.

The second paper looks at how the places where things were living in the past changed before and after the big rock hit. The idea is that some animals may have done well because they could go to all of the places when things get bad because they do well when things go bad. This paper says that this is not happening and that there is way more going on with these groups that were doing well after the big rock hit.

References:

Close, Roger Adam, and Bouwe Rutger Reijenga. "Tetrapod species–area relationships across the Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122.13 (2025): e2419052122.

Dean, Christopher D., et al. "The structure of the end-Cretaceous dinosaur fossil record in North America." Current Biology (2025).

The gang discusses two papers that look at the evolutionary impact of shifts in habitat occupation. The first paper looks at a clade of sharks moving into the depths, and the second paper investigates habitat shifts in mammals across the Cretaceous and Paleogene. Meanwhile, Amanda has some opinions, James is doing much better, and Curt is easy to amuse.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look into how animals change when they move from one type of place to another. The first paper looks at animals with big teeth that has soft parts inside and live in the water. One group of these animals is found in really deep water today, but in the past they were found in water that is not deep. This paper looks at when this move into the deep happened, and what it happened along with.

The second paper looks at parts of animals that have hair and how these parts have changed over time. These parts are used for moving around and so they can let us know how these animals were moving in the past. This paper shows that before a really bad thing happened, a lot of these animals were moving in the trees, but after that big thing happened these animals were moving in a lot more different ways with more on the ground.

References:

Marion, Alexis FP, Fabien L. Condamine, and Guillaume Guinot. "Bioluminescence and repeated deep-sea colonization shaped the diversification and body size evolution of squaliform sharks." Proceedings B 292.2042 (2025): 20242932.

Janis, Christine M., et al. "Down to earth: therian mammals became more terrestrial towards the end of the Cretaceous." Palaeontology 68.2 (2025): e70004.

The gang discusses two papers that use morphometrics to investigate patterns of selection on bird morphology. The first paper looks at the morphology of feathers, while the second paper looks more broadly at various parts of the avian body. Meanwhile, James breathes new life into a classic, Amanda is passionate about formatting, and Curt exposes “the truth”.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at animals that move in the air. Both of these papers look at how these animals look and try to find out why these animals look the way they do. The first paper looks at the different types of soft things that these animals use to fly and also to stay warm. They look at how these soft things look and how that look has changed over time and between groups. Some of these animals that don't fly have soft things that are different from the ones that do fly, but they way they are different is different with each group that does not fly.

The second paper looks at parts of these animals like their mouths to see how they change between groups. They find that there are lots of things these animals could be doing that most of them are not doing. This makes them say that maybe there is something keeping the animals looking like that because if they change too much in one way it might be really really bad for them.

References:

Sayol, Ferran, et al. "Biophysical constraints on avian adaptation and diversification." BioRxiv (2023): 2023-10.

Saitta, Evan T., et al. "Feather evolution following flight loss in crown group birds: relaxed selection and developmental constraints." Evolution (2025): qpaf020.

The gang discusses two papers that look at preserved skin/external tissues. The first paper shows a unique record of Cambrian molting, and the second paper looks at the first preserved samples of plesiosaur skin. Meanwhile, Amanda commits an "own goal”, Curt shares some old internet fun, and James has opinions about fins.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at skin that is very very very old. The first paper looks at animals from a long time ago that lose their skin when they get too big for it when then grow. They found these parts on the skin that are hard and most of the time there are two but some of them have four, and that these ones that have four are because they are growing new skin under the old skin.

The second paper looks at an animal from a long time ago that breathes air but lives in the water and is close to things today that have harder skin. Other animals like this animal have some skin that we know about, but for this group of animal we did not know a lot about their skin. In the other animals that move into water, their skin gets soft, but this group shows that some of their skin is hard like the animals that are on land. This might be because how these animals live.

References:

Yu, Chiyang, Deng Wang, and Jian Han. "Cambrian palaeoscolecidomorph Cricocosmia caught in the act of moulting." Historical Biology 37.3 (2025): 643-649.

Marx, Miguel, et al. "Skin, scales, and cells in a Jurassic plesiosaur." Current Biology (2025).

The gang discusses two papers that look into the evolution and timing of key morphological innovations within animal groups. The first paper describes possible raptorial appendages in fossil artiopods, and the second paper finds early evidence of modern bird morphologies in the Jurassic. Meanwhile, Amanda gloats, Curt dies, and James eulogizes.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda Edition):

Today our friends look at two papers where one friend can feel better about how they do the work than how other people do the work. One paper is about big face hand animals with many parts to their legs that use their big face hands to maybe grab and eat other animals. It says that maybe these animals with many parts to their legs all got the big face hand parts in different ways that other animals with many parts that also have the big face hand parts.

The other paper is about the animals that do not have hair or hard skin that fly. It says that the animals that do not have hair or hard skin that fly show up earlier than people maybe thought that they did. They are animals that are more like today's animals that do not have hair or hard skin that can fly. One of our friends has said this for a long time and felt good when they saw this paper.

References:

O'Flynn, Robert J., et al. "The early Cambrian Kuamaia lata, an artiopodan euarthropod with a raptorial frontal appendage." Journal of Paleontology (2025): 1-13.

Chen, Runsheng, et al. "Earliest short-tailed bird from the Late Jurassic of China." Nature 638.8050 (2025): 441-448.

The gang discusses two papers that look into the timing of evolution of the “crown group”. The first paper looks at fossil glass sponges, and the second paper looks at the phylogeny of lampreys. Meanwhile, James gives some sound advice, Amanda has ambitious hobby plans, and Curt imagines the perfect media crossover.

Up-Goer Five: (Curt Edition)

The friends talk about two papers that look at groups of animals and try to see when the things that we see today in these groups may have first happened in the past and what we can tell us about why those things might have happened. The first paper looks at a group of animals that are made up of many single parts that can all act on their own and these animals get food out of water in a very simple way. This paper finds some very old animals that look a lot like some groups of these animals we see today. This would mean that this group may have been around a lot longer ago than we think.

The second paper looks at a group of animals that are long without much going on and a round mouth and live in the water. This group has animals that live in different places that have made people ask why. This paper looks at how all of these animals changed over time and uses that to see when the animals that we see today may have first been around. They find that these animals may have first appeared during a time that was really hot, and that might be why the animals are where they are today.

References:

Botting, Joseph P., et al. "Advanced crown‐group Rossellidae (Porifera: Hexactinellida) resembling extant taxa from the Hirnantian (Late Ordovician) Anji Biota." Papers in Palaeontology 11.1 (2025): e70000.

Hughes, Lily C., et al. "Phylogenomic resolution of lampreys reveals the recent evolution of an ancient vertebrate lineage." Proceedings B 292.2038 (2025): 20242101.

The gang celebrates the research of the late Elisabeth Vrba by talking about two of her papers, as well as her research more broadly. And, despite their best efforts, they get easily distracted on tangentially related side discussions.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers from someone who they want to remember the memory of because that person is no longer with us. They talk a lot about this person's work, and some other things that come up as they are talking. The big things these two papers look at are how small things working together can build things that are bigger than themselves, and how those bigger things can be changed by the small things but not in a way where the big things can be known just by looking at the small things. The big things have stuff in them that come up from the way the small things work together to build something bigger than themselves.

References:

Vrba, Elisabeth S. "Macroevolutionary trends: new perspectives on the roles of adaptation and incidental effect." Science 221.4608 (1983): 387-389.

Vrba, Elisabeth S. "Mammals as a key to evolutionary theory." Journal of mammalogy 73.1 (1992): 1-28.

The gang discusses two papers that look at some exceptional soft-tissue preservation during the Silurian. The first paper potentially identifies a unique type of pterobranch, and the second paper looks at some early molluscs. Meanwhile, James has seen some movies, Amanda has a skibidi day, and Curt’s soul dies.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two animals from a long time ago that are only found as soft parts and that makes it hard to find the parts of them that were in the ground a long long time ago. The first paper looks at an animal that is not well known in the past but is close to another animal that is better known. These soft parts are weird and people did not know what they were for a long while. This paper makes the case for this being one of this group of animals that all live in long empty round things together. They also say that this one may have lived moving in the water even though the ones today all sit at the bottom of the water on the ground.

The second paper looks at another group of animals that many today have a hard part on them and some of them turn their body when they grow. The animals that they are looking at do not do these things. They have hair and are long. These are animals are from a group that we think might be close to what the early animals in this group today would have looked like. The friends talk about this paper because they gave the animals funny names.

References:

Briggs, Derek EG, and Nicolás Mongiardino Koch. "A Silurian pseudocolonial pterobranch." Current Biology 33.23 (2023): 5225-5232.

Sutton, Mark D., et al. "New Silurian aculiferan fossils reveal complex early history of Mollusca." Nature (2025): 1-6.

The gang discusses two papers that look at some exceptionally preserved juvenile fossil specimens and the interesting clues these fossils give to the ontogeny of extinct groups. The first paper is the current oldest preserved tadpole, and the second paper is an exceptionally preserved mummified sabre-toothed cat. Meanwhile, Amanda becomes light, James is visited, and Curt is left in the dust and the filth.

Content warning: This episode contains covers some potentially dark material given that these fossils are juveniles. The following time stamps represent some of the more sensitive moments in which the group make morbid jokes about the subject matter.

6 min 3 sec to 6 min 39 secs.

58 min 13 seconds to 58 min 29 secs

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that show some kids from animals groups that are no longer around. These papers are cool because they show how animals from a long time ago changed as they got older. The first paper looks at the kid of an animal group that changes a lot from a thing that moves through water to a thing that jumps on the ground. This kid is somewhere in the middle of jumping and moving through water. This is the oldest of this type of kid we have found so far. The group today is different because they go through this really big change. This paper shows that they were going through this really big change a long long time ago and shows that this change probably happened early on in their time line.

The second paper looks at a kid that is from a group of animals with hair and long teeth. This kid was in ice and so we have a lot of things that we would not get that are soft. This is the first time we have seen the soft parts for this age of this animal and it shows us that lots of things we see in the grown animals were also there when they were kids.

References:

Chuliver, Mariana, et al. "The oldest tadpole reveals evolutionary stability of the anuran life cycle." Nature (2024): 1-5.

Lopatin, A. V., et al. "Mummy of a juvenile sabre-toothed cat Homotherium latidens from the Upper Pleistocene of Siberia." Scientific Reports 14.1 (2024): 28016.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the evolution of photosynthesis in different groups. The first paper looks at what might be the first fossil evidence of thylakoids, and the second paper finds evidence for photosynthesizing symbiotes in Devonian fossil corals. Meanwhile, Amanda is making a lasagna, James has a lot of opinions about lasagna (~10 minutes until we actually get to the paper), and Curt is all about those sponges.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at how some types of living things can make food from the sun. The first paper looks at these very very old things that are very very very small. Inside these things they find very very very small parts of things that are used today by some living things to help make food from the sun. This might be the oldest one of these things that we have ever found, and it makes it so that we can see how things might have gotten better at making food from the sun over time.

The second paper looks at old animals that live in the big blue wet thing that all live close together and make big hard parts that make walls in the water. These old animals are like the ones we see today but they are a group that is not around anymore. Groups today have friends that help make food from the sun for them. This paper looks to see if the old animals had those friends (or friends like them) too. They find that animals today keep some bits of things they do not usually want so that their friends can eat them. This can be seen in the hard parts they make. When they looked at the hard parts of the old group of animals, they saw that they were doing this too. This means that these animals were keeping food for friends just like that animals we see today.

References:

Demoulin, Catherine F., et al. "Oldest thylakoids in fossil cells directly evidence oxygenic photosynthesis." Nature 625.7995 (2024): 529-534.

Jung, Jonathan, et al. "Coral photosymbiosis on Mid-Devonian reefs." Nature (2024): 1-7.

James, Amanda, Curt, and Ants all get together to plan a holiday raccoon heist. What could possibly go wrong?

"Sergio's Magic Dustbin" from Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Check out “Raccoon Sky Pirates” on itch,io https://hecticelectron.itch.io/raccoon-sky-pirates

The gang discusses two papers that look at patterns of mosaic evolution, one paper looking at cat evolution and the other paper looking at bird ecomorphy. Which means the gang talks about Amanda’s two favorite taxonomic groups. Meanwhile, Curt enjoys some realistic bird calls, Amanda remains a threat, and James provides relevant “facts”.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends take a look at how animals change over time and how the parts of the animals might change in different ways at different times. The first paper looks at cats and things that are like cats, and they look at the parts of cats and how they have changed. What they find is that the different parts are changing in different ways across different groups of cats and cat like things.

The second paper looks at the neck of animals that move in the air. The paper is looking to see if the reason why these necks change the way they do are because of how they are trying to get food, which is what people thought might be true but no one has looked to see if it is true. A lot of work is done and it does seem that the necks change in a lot of ways that are different for different groups, but it does seem that a lot of these changes are because of how the animals try and look for food.

References:

Barrett, Paul Z., and Samantha SB Hopkins. "Mosaic evolution underlies feliform morphological disparity." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2028 (2024): 20240756.

Marek, Ryan D., and Ryan N. Felice. "The neck as a keystone structure in avian macroevolution and mosaicism." BMC biology 21.1 (2023): 216.

The gang discusses two papers that look at examples of soft tissue preservation during the Cambrian. The first paper is a deep dive into the sedimentology and paleoenvironment of the Emu Bay Shale. The second paper makes some interesting claims about soft tissue preservation in a marginal marine environment. Meanwhile, James needs some shortcuts, Curt is locked up, and Amanda should be blamed for everything that happened here.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that look at animals from a long long time ago that lived in the water and were soft but were able to be found in rocks. The first paper looks at a place where there are a lot of animals found in rocks but the types of animals are different from other places around the same time. This paper looks at what the place was like at that time and they see that this was a place where a long line of water that you can drink made its way into the big water that you can not drink. The second paper made us all sad.

References:

Naimark, E. B., A. V. Sizov, and V. B. Khubanov. "Kimiltei Is a New Late Cambrian Lagerstätte with the Faunistic Complex of Arthropods (Euthycarcinoidae, Synziphosurina, and Chasmataspidida) in the Irkutsk Region." Doklady Earth Sciences. Vol. 512. No. 1. Moscow: Pleiades Publishing, 2023.

Gaines, Robert R., et al. "The Emu Bay Shale: A unique early Cambrian Lagerstätte from a tectonically active basin." Science advances 10.30 (2024): eadp2650.

The gang discusses two papers that look at two Lagerstätten (fossil localities of exceptional preservation). The first Lagerstätte is a unique complex early Triassic community found near the equator, and the second Lagerstätte is a collection of exceptional trace fossils from the Pennsylvanian. Meanwhile, James is convinced in the existence of a town that doesn’t exist, Amanda takes an unexpected break, and Curt once again needs to be redacted.

Up-Goer Fiver: (Curt Edition)

The friends talk about two papers that look at times when there was a lot of things in the rocks that we do not get in the rocks during most times, and these times can let us know that there were a lot more things were living at this time. The first paper talks about rocks during a time when usually there is not a lot going on because it was just after a time that most things died. Most rocks at this time do not show a lot of things living. These rocks are cool because they are just after the time almost everything died and they show the things that we know lived through that, and that they are all together in a way that looks like the groups of animals we see in rocks way later. The second paper looks at changes in rocks that are because animals move through or on the ground and that gets in the rocks. This area has a lot of these rocks with the bits of animals moving which lets us know a lot about what things were doing on land a long time ago.

References:

Dai, Xu, et al. "A Mesozoic fossil lagerstätte from 250.8 million years ago shows a modern-type marine ecosystem." Science 379.6632 (2023): 567-572.

Knecht, Richard J., et al. "Early Pennsylvanian Lagerstätte reveals a diverse ecosystem on a subhumid, alluvial fan." Nature Communications 15.1 (2024): 7876.

The gang looks at two papers that compare similar structures in unrelated animals to see if there might be evidence of convergence. The first paper compares Spinosaurus to phytosaurs and the second paper compares the hyoid bone of ichthyosaurs and toothed whales. Meanwhile, Curt will try it, James waits for something that never happens, and Amanda has a surprise.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look to see if animals that are not close are the same in ways because of what they do. The first paper looks at too old and dead big angry animals. Both of these animals look like angry animals today that move in water, and so this paper is looking to see if maybe they were both doing the same thing as what we see today. The paper doesn't come to a strong end, but it looks like maybe these things are doing things that maybe are not always the same as the things that live today that they look like.

The second paper looks at two animals that need air but move in the water all the time, one group that is living today and one that has been dead for a very very long time. There is a hard part in them that in the groups that are living today they can use to suck in water to get food to them. People had thought that the old group could have done this too. They looked at this hard part that lets things suck, and they found that the hard part in this old dead group would not let them suck. So these old dead animals would have to get food in a different way than the group living today.

References:

Yun, Chan-gyu. "SPINOSAURS AS PHYTOSAUR MIMICS: A CASE OF CONVERGENT EVOLUTION BETWEEN TWO EXTINCT ARCHOSAURIFORM CLADES." Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 20.1 (2024).

Delsett, Lene Liebe, et al. "Is the hyoid a constraint on innovation? A study in convergence driving feeding in fish-shaped marine tetrapods." Paleobiology 49.4 (2023): 684-699.

The gang discusses two papers that look at convergence (maybe?) in modern arthropods. The first paper looks at plant/ant symbiosis in a genus of ants, and the second paper looks at color patterns in crayfish. Meanwhile, James sees through time, Amanda disappears, and Curt plays on everyone’s worst fears.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The up-goer thing is back and able to be used so we are now happy! The friends look at two papers that look at how animals can look a lot like each other. In this case the animals are really small and made of small hard parts put together. The first paper is looking at some of these small animals that live on trees. These small animals can either live in a lot of trees or just one type of tree. The animals that live on just one type of tree also look a lot like each other. This paper looks at how and why this could be.

The second paper looks at the color of small but angry animals that live along big bits of water. These animals can be lots of colors. They find that different colors appear many times in this group. They look to see if there are any reasons why, and what they find is that maybe color is changing because color is not a big deal for the animals that are living under the ground.

References:

Probst, Rodolfo S., John T. Longino, and Michael G. Branstetter. "Evolutionary déjà vu? A case of convergent evolution in an ant–plant association." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2026 (2024): 20241214.

Graham, Zackary A., and Dylan J. Padilla Perez. "Correlated evolution of conspicuous colouration and burrowing in crayfish." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2026 (2024): 20240632.

Thumbnail photo by Vojtěch Zavadil - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9959681

The gang discusses two papers that look at functional morphology in extinct groups. The first paper looks at tooth replacement patterns in an Ornithischian dinosaur, and the second paper studies the shell articulation of Rafinesquina to unravel a long-standing mystery. Meanwhile, James has questions about taste, Amanda forgets protocol, and Curt indulges in his fixations.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at how animals did things a long time ago. The first paper looks at a group of big angry animals that are liked a lot and make their way into movies. This paper looks at how the teeth of some of these animals would grow over time. This group of big angry animals also does a lot of cool things with their teeth over a long time because they move from eating animals to eating things that do not move and make their own food from the sun. The big angry animals that they look at have lot of these animals from a lot of different ages so they can see how the teeth get changed as they grew up. What they see is that the way that the teeth grow in changes as the animal grows older. They also find that the number of times that new teeth come in has changed many times in this group of animals.

The second paper looks at a group of animals with two hard parts on either side that sits and eats food from the water. This group of animals has really made people confused for a long time because of how the hard parts come together, which could make it so that the animals could not get water inside to eat and would instead get a lot of ground and die. But this group of animals is really good at what it does because it is found all around the world. So how did these things eat? The paper shows that these animals could move their hard parts a lot more than we ever thought. Also, they show that they could move them pretty quick, and could even push out water so quickly that they could maybe move a little bit if they get covered in the ground.

References:

Hu, Jinfeng, et al. "Tooth replacement in the early-diverging neornithischian Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis and implications for dental evolution and herbivorous adaptation in Ornithischia." BMC Ecology and Evolution 24.1 (2024): 46.

Dattilo, Benjamin F., et al. "Paradox lost: wide gape in the Ordovician brachiopod Rafinesquina explains how unattached filter‐feeding strophomenoids thrived on muddy substrates." Palaeontology 67.2 (2024): e12697.

The gang discusses two papers that use new fossils to add insight into the geographic origins of groups. The first paper looks at some fossil freshwater dolphins and the second paper looks at fossil jumping spiders. The gang also uses these two papers to talk about a lot of other things because, despite being short papers, there is a lot of related things to talk about. Meanwhile, James is pretty sure he read the papers, Curt has very uninformed opinions, and Amanda gives everyone a panic attack.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that use old animals to see where animals may have been in the past. The first paper looks at animals with hair that live in the water and have moved into water that you and I can drink. This is a paper about one group of these animals and some bits of an old animal that were found in a place very far away from where these animals are today. This might mean that these animals moved into water than you and I could drink many times over the years and in many places.

The second paper looks at a small animal with many legs and hair that eats other small things. These animals are hard to find parts of in the past, but this paper finds a really nice one in a place that is important for understanding how they got where they are today. This group is found in areas that were close to each other in the past but have moved further away. This old animal being found where it is gives us more ideas about how these animals got to where they are today.

References:

Benites-Palomino, Aldo, et al. "The largest freshwater odontocete: A South Asian river dolphin relative from the proto-Amazonia." Science advances 10.12 (2024): eadk6320.

Richardson, Barry J., Matthew R. McCurry, and Michael Frese. "Description and evolutionary biogeography of the first Miocene jumping spider (Aranaea: Salticidae) from a southern continent." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 200.4 (2024): 1013-1025.

The gang discusses two papers that study ecological changes in the evolutionary history of some charismatic ancient animal groups. The first paper uses geographic data to infer the timing of the evolution of homeothermy in non-avian dinosaur groups, and the second paper looks at the mechanisms by which cats (and cat-like animals) developed saber teeth. Meanwhile, Curt makes some plans for Amanda, James muddles things over, and Amanda could use another.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at how where animals live can change how they look and also maybe how they look can change where they can live. The first paper looks at old big angry animals and where they live to see if they can find when these animals were able to make themselves warm inside. We have other things that make us think that some of these big angry animals may have been able to get warm inside, but that this might have happened a few times in this group. By looking at where these animals were found in the past, they see that there are times when these animals move into places that are colder. They use this to say that these times may be because these animals now being able to make themselves warm inside.

The second paper looks at animals that are cats and cat like animals. Some of these cats and cat like animals have very long teeth. This paper does a lot of things to study how these cats and cat like animals change their heads when they get these big teeth. They find that some of these cat like groups do this in a different way than cats, but also that cats start to change their heads to be a bit more like the cat like things when they get bigger teeth but also not in the same way.

References:

Chiarenza, Alfio Alessandro, et al. "Early Jurassic origin of avian endothermy and thermophysiological diversity in Dinosauria." bioRxiv (2023): 2023-12.

Chatar, Narimane, et al. "Evolutionary patterns of cat-like carnivorans unveil drivers of the sabertooth morphology." Current Biology (2024).

The gang discusses two papers that look into long term trends in body size over time. The first paper looks at body size trends in corals, and the second looks at body size and ecology of terror birds. Meanwhile, James loses a bit of himself, Amanda is bad at transitions, and Curt goes places no one wants to go.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at how big things are and how that changes over time. The first paper looks at tiny animals that live together in a group and share their homes with even smaller living things that help give them food. It turns out that being small makes it good for the smaller things living with them. So this paper wants to see if these animals have been getting smaller over time. Turns out that it is not that easy, and that some of these earlier animals were bigger than today but probably did have even smaller living things with them helping them. But it seems like there is some bit of these animals getting smaller, so maybe these animals have gotten better at building homes for these even smaller living things.

The second paper looks at big angry animals that are close to things that can fly but these big angry animals could not fly. This paper looks to see if these animals lived at the same time and did the same things and were as big as each other, or do we see these animals doing different things at the same time or with one of them being bigger than the other. They find that most of the time, when there are two of these animals living at the same time, they are either doing different things or one of them is much bigger than the other. The paper says this shows that these animals were trying not to fight each other for the same stuff, but the friends have other questions about what could be going on.

References:

LaBarge, Thomas W., Jacob D. Gardner, and Chris L. Organ. "The evolution and ecology of gigantism in terror birds (Aves, Phorusrhacidae)." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2021 (2024): 20240235.

Dimitrijević, Danijela, Nussaïbah B. Raja, and Wolfgang Kiessling. "Corallite sizes of reef corals: decoupling of evolutionary and ecological trends." Paleobiology 50.1 (2024): 43-53.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the shark fossil record. The first paper looks into the completeness of the record, and the second paper discusses the ecological implications of an exceptionally preserved specimen. Meanwhile, James has ideas of what is normal, Curt has a hard out, and Amanda shows her specific history interests.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at animals with lots of soft parts that move through the water and have lots and lots of teeth. The first paper is looking at how well we know these animals in the past, since most of the time we may only know them by their teeth. They do a lot of things to see how much of the animals we have at any time. What they find is that, most of the time, we do not have many parts of these animals. However, there are some times in the past when we do see more parts that are not just teeth, so there might be times in the past that were better and making sure the soft parts were able to stick around and be found later. But most of the time, we really only have teeth or a few other parts, and that this makes these animals different from most other animals that are close to them and that makes sense because the rest of these animals have hard parts where these animals have soft parts.

The second paper looks at one of these animals with soft parts where those soft parts were found today. This is the first time this type of animal has been found with its soft parts. Most of the time, we just find the teeth, which look like they were good at breaking hard things. With the soft parts, we can get an idea of how it would move through the water and if it was slow or fast. We can also find out what its brothers and sisters were. What they find is that the soft parts show that this animal looked like a lot of the animals in this group we see today that are not breaking hard things but are catching fast moving food in the water. This is not something we would think would happen, because today animals that have teeth like the ones this animal had don't need to move very fast to catch their food. This shows that this animal was doing something that we don't see today. This might be because there were lots of animals with hard parts on the outside that were moving in the water really fast at that time, which this one animal would have tried to catch for food.

References:

Schnetz, Lisa, et al. "The skeletal completeness of the Palaeozoic chondrichthyan fossil record." Royal Society Open Science 11.1 (2024): 231451.

Vullo, Romain, et al. "Exceptionally preserved shark fossils from Mexico elucidate the long-standing enigma of the Cretaceous elasmobranch Ptychodus." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2021 (2024): 20240262.

The gang discusses two papers about an interesting locality in South America and the various body fossils and ichnofossils found in this locality. This podcast originally started as a patreon request to podcast about fossil procyonids… but it ended up like this… ooops!

Meanwhile, James has a vocal doppelganger, Amanda deals with being human, Curt deals with scams, and everyone talks way too much about visuals on an audio podcast.

Up-Goer Five: (Curt Edition)

The friends talk about a place that has rocks from a long time ago that give us an idea of the types of animals that were around in the land areas under where the friends are today. The land where our friends are one used to not be touching the land that is under them like it is now. Once these two lands touched, then the animals from each land moved into the other lands. This place is from a time before these two lands had finished touching, so some animals moved over but others had not yet. The first paper looks at some parts of a type of animals that is brother/sister to animals that grab food out of our place we put food that we can not eat anymore. These animals had moved onto the land under the land our friends are on before the two lands had stopped touching. The place where these parts are found is interesting because it seems like it is under water for some time but there are some bits that are not under water. The first paper shows some marks in the ground that are interesting, but the second paper goes in on these marks to show that they are homes and marks from food searches from other animals. These marks show that the animals in this area were doing a lot of things to make homes and look for food under the ground. This shows that even before other animals moved from the other land, animals in this area were doing cool things in the ground.

References:

Soibelzon, Leopoldo H., et al. "First record of fossil procyonid (Mammalia, Carnivora) from Uruguay." Journal of South American Earth Sciences 92 (2019): 368-373.

Varela, Luciano, et al. "Late Miocene mammalian burrows in the Camacho Formation of Uruguay reveal a complex community of ecosystem engineers." Evolving Earth 1 (2023): 100023.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the morphology and ecology of early fishes. The first paper investigates a hypothesis for how the pectoral girdle could have evolved, and the second paper looks at the functional morphology of a Paleozoic jawless fish. Meanwhile, Amanda missed some context, James throws some shade, and Curt is annoyed by AI.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at animals from a long time ago that live in water. The first paper looks at how part of the shoulder in people may have first started as a part of another part of the animal in these animals that lived in water a long long time ago. They find these parts of this animals from a long long time ago that they can use to see how the parts around the head grew. They use this to say that the shoulder parts may have started as a part of the thing these animals use to breath.

The second paper looks at the mouth of a type of animal that lived in water a long long time ago that did not have a hard part in the mouth to move up and down and eat food. They use an animal they found with a lot of parts to see how these animals may have lived and what they could have eaten. They find that this animal could have been picking up food from ground at the bottom of the water or they could have been of taking food out of the water. This shows that even animals without a hard part to move up and down to eat food were finding ways to eat a lot of different things.

References:

Brazeau, Martin D., et al. "Fossil evidence for a pharyngeal origin of the vertebrate pectoral girdle." Nature 623.7987 (2023): 550-554.

Dearden, Richard P., et al. "The three-dimensionally articulated oral apparatus of a Devonian heterostracan sheds light on feeding in Palaeozoic jawless fishes." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2019 (2024): 20232258.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the correlation between climate change and extinction risk in the fossil record. The first paper uses climate modeling to simulate extinction risk during past periods of climate change, and the second paper uses new radiometric age dates to infer diachronous extinction between marine and terrestrial environments during the Permian mass extinction. Meanwhile, James orders food, Curt stirs the pot, and Amanda lives with her choices.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that look at times when a lot of things died. The first paper uses computers and numbers to see how things could die during times when things get real hot or real cold. They look at real times in the past when lots of things die during these cold and hot times, and then they use their computers and numbers to make those things happen in the world of a computer to see if they can find out what may or may not make that happen. They find that lots of things can cause animals to die during these times when things get hot or cold, but how big the space animals live in and how many different types of places these animals can live in are big for knowing if they will or will not die.

The second paper looks at a time in the past when almost everything died. This is a time when it got real hot. Things die on the land and in the water. A lot of what we study is in the water because those things are able to get covered in ground faster than the things that live on the land. But this paper finds some rocks from the land and does some work with the matter that makes up these rocks to see how old the rocks are. These rocks have animals in them that would die because of this big bad time when everything died. But the time that they found was after when everything in the water died. So this could mean that animals may have died first in the water and then died after on the land. This could be because the way the world changes when things get hot is going to be different in the water and on land.

References:

Malanoski, Cooper M., et al. "Climate change is an important predictor of extinction risk on macroevolutionary timescales." Science 383.6687 (2024): 1130-1134.

Wu, Qiong, et al. "The terrestrial end-Permian mass extinction in the paleotropics postdates the marine extinction." Science Advances 10.5 (2024): eadi7284.

The gang talks about two papers that look through existing museum collections to discover some fascinating new discoveries. Meanwhile, Curt may be haunted, James may be losing energy, and Amanda may not be real.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers about new things that found when going through the stuff stored in a big building where you keep things so that people can look at them later. The first paper finds some really cool new small things that live in water that had been found before and put in a big building to keep things, but no one saw that these small things were not the same as the other small things. These small things are part of a group that lives in fast moving water that we usually do not get a lot of them in the ground.

The second paper finds that a thing that was put in a big building a long time ago was actually a lie. This thing is not what everyone thinks it is and the paper looks into what it really is, which is that it is a painting on rock. The paper talks about how it could have ended up this way.

References:

Godunko, Roman J., and Pavel Sroka. "A  new mayfly subfamily sheds light on the early evolution and Pangean  origin of Baetiscidae (Insecta: Ephemeroptera)." Scientific Reports 14.1 (2024): 1599.

Rossi, Valentina, et al. "Forged soft tissues revealed in the oldest fossil reptile from the early Permian of the Alps." Palaeontology 67.1 (2024): e12690.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the fossil frog record. The first paper identifies fossil frogs from Antarctica, and the second paper looks at some exceptional soft-tissue preservation. Meanwhile, James has ideas for expanding the brand, Amanda asks for clarification on an important topic, and Curt makes some executive decisions.

Up-Goer Five (James Edition):

The group looks at two papers that are interested in animals that are wrong and good at jumping and live in the water but some can walk on land and climb trees. The first paper is looking at one from the very cold land in the bottom of the round thing we live on, where we do not find any of them today because it is too cold. The animal is known by two small bits but we can tell what type of jumping thing it is and so we know it is part of a group that is found in two areas that do not touch today, but the place at the bottom of the round thing we live on is between them, so that makes sense! But it is very cold today, so that is strange, but the animal being there and the things we find with it seems to show that is must have been a little hotter then.

The second paper is looking at one of the animals that is good at jumping that is found with lots of round things that become babies in it. This is very cool because the animal is also still soft in places in it that means it was not the most grown it could be and so was making babies when it was still young. There is also a thought that the animal may have died while trying to make babies which is interesting.

References:

Mörs, Thomas, Marcelo Reguero, and  Davit Vasilyan. "First fossil frog from Antarctica: implications for  Eocene high latitude climate conditions and Gondwanan cosmopolitanism of  Australobatrachia." Scientific Reports 10.1 (2020): 5051.

Du, Baoxia, et al. "A cretaceous frog  with eggs from northwestern China provides fossil evidence for sexual  maturity preceding skeletal maturity in anurans." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291.2016 (2024): 20232320.

The gang discusses two papers that investigate evidence of symbiosis in the fossil record. The first paper looks at wormy organisms living inside Cambrian vetulicolians, and the second paper shows potential evidence of hydroids growing in mollusc shells. Meanwhile, Amanda is haunted, James’s computer is totally cooperating, and Curt may or may not have had to stitch this podcast together from other sources.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that look at animals that live inside of other animals. Sometimes these things live inside other things and both of the things do well because of it. Sometimes, these things live inside other things and they cause problems for the thing they live in. These two papers look at the ways we can see old bits of things that used to live in other things and how we can try and figure out why they might have lived inside other things. The first paper looks long animals living inside a weird animal from a long long time ago. These long animals are all in a small part of these animals that looks like where these weird animals would breathe. Many long animals live inside one of these weird animals. The second paper looks at how hard parts of animals grow over things trying to live on them and we can use use the way these things grow to get an idea of what could have been living on them.

References:

Li, Yujing, et al. "Symbiotic fouling of Vetulicola, an early Cambrian nektonic animal." Communications Biology 3.1 (2020): 517.

Wisshak, Max, et al. "Putative hydroid  symbionts recorded by bioclaustrations in fossil molluscan shells: a  revision and reinterpretation of the cecidogenus Rodocanalis." Papers in Palaeontology 9.2 (2023): e1484.

The gang discusses two papers that look at Mesozoic tracks that may or may not have been made by an avian archosaur. Meanwhile, Curt becomes activated, Amanda has to deal with harsh truths, James gets creative with taxon names, and everyone get distracted very quickly. (Editor’s Note: If you want to just “get to the science” skip to 11 minutes in. We hadn’t talked in 2 months and it shows. I just didn’t have the heart to cut all of it)

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that look at foot falls in the ground from a very very long time ago which may or may not be made by animals that can fly through the sky, or may have been made by big angry animals. The problem is that big angry animals and the animals that can fly are very close to each other, and their foot falls can look a lot like each other. The first paper looks at some very old foot falls and some of these foot falls do look like they were made by animals that can fly, but that would be very very strange because it would need a lot of other things to be true if that were true. They say that there was something moving like these animals today that can fly but were probably not those types of animals, but it shows how hard it can be to see if these foot falls were made by these animals that can fly.

The second paper uses numbers to try and see if we can really see if some of these foot falls were made by animals that fly. What they find is that we have used how big these foot falls are as a reason why we think some are from big angry animals and some are from animals that can fly. This is maybe a problem because we know there are small big angry animals, and that today there are some big animals that are from the group that can fly. If you use numbers to take how big they are out of the running, it seem like some of these foot falls could be from big animals part of the group that can fly.

References:

Abrahams, Miengah, and Emese M. Bordy. "The oldest fossil bird-like footprints from the upper Triassic of southern Africa." Plos one 18.11 (2023): e0293021.

Hong, Sung-Yoon, et al. "The discovery  of Wupus agilis in South Korea and a new quantitative analysis of  intermediate ichnospecies between non-avian theropods and birds." Cretaceous Research 155 (2024): 105785.

A cleric, a wizard, and a paladin finally make their way into the center of the woods. What will they find at the end of their journey?

"The Builder", “The Other Side of the Door”, “For Originz” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

A paladin, a wizard, and a cleric continue their trek through a totally normal nature preserve where I am sure nothing bad will happen whatsoever.

"The Builder", “Constancy Part Three” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

A cleric, a wizard, and a paladin prepare for a trip through a dangerous wood. What could go wrong?

"The Builder", “Constancy Part Three” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gang discusses two papers about taphonomy and its influence on our understanding of the fossil record. The first paper looks at how taphonomic processes can blur our understanding of cause and effect, while the second paper looks at the impacts of collector and size biases on our understanding of the ecology of an ancient plant. Meanwhile, James deals with spirits, Curt gets philosophical, and Amanda smartly ignores things.

Up-Goer Five (Curt):

The friends talk about two papers that look at the ways in which the things we know can be changed because of other problems that we do not always know are there to make things look like one thing but actually be another thing. The first paper looks at how not getting things to be saved over time could mean that you might not see the reason something happens until it looks like it is after that thing has happened. The paper uses a time in the past when it got very cold and looks at what could have made this happen. There are lots of talk about the growing of big things that make their own food from the sun on land, but this paper shows that what we can see might not be the real time when big things started really doing well. While it sounds strange, it might be best to look at something that we see in the rocks after the time that it gets cold, since the thing that changed probably changed before we can see it in the rocks.

The second paper looks at another thing that makes its own food from the sun. This old thing could have lived in a lot of different ways and there are lots of people who think one way or another. Some think these things need to burn as part of their life, and some people think that these things would live near water and might get burned only sometimes. The people who wrote this paper looked at how people found these things, if they picked up ones that were big or small, and also went out to find more of these things. What they find is that some of the reasons people have not known how these things lived is because we grab big parts to save but most of the things are found as small parts that have burned. This means that it seems that burning was an important part of the lives of these things.

References:

Blanco‐Moreno, Candela, Hugo  Martín‐Abad, and Ángela D. Buscalioni. "Quantitative plant taphonomy:  the cosmopolitan Mesozoic fern Weichselia reticulata as a case study." Palaeontology 65.6 (2022): e12627.

D'Antonio, Michael P., Daniel E. Ibarra, and C. Kevin Boyce. "The preservation of cause and effect in the rock record." Paleobiology 49.2 (2023): 204-214.

The gang discusses two papers that look at plankton through time. The first paper looks at some Cambrian acritarch fossils and shows that they are likely colonial algae, and the second paper looks at how shifting temperature affected plankton distribution across the Cenozoic. Meanwhile, everyone stays completely on task with the stated goals of this podcast: a detailed (and wrong) discussion on the events of the movie “The Hunt for Red October”. Yes, it is going to be “one of those” podcasts.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at things that live in the water without having to move parts to stay in the water and maybe they are single cells and maybe they are groups of cells. The first paper looks very very old things that live in the water. These old things are so old and hard to figure out that people are not always sure what they are. These things are often thought to be all single cells. This paper shows that some of these things that are very old might be groups of cells that are living together. The way that these cells group together does look like some things that live in the water today that make food from the sun. This paper shows that this type of cell or something like it might have been around a very very long time ago.

The second paper looks at how where things living in the water but not moving and maybe they are single cells and maybe they are groups of cells, could have lived when things got cold in the past. They see that there are changes in the types of these things over time and where the live. They show that the way things are today is because it was getting colder. It also shows that, when things warm up, we might see some big changes in where these things are.

References:

Woodhouse, Adam, et al. "Late Cenozoic cooling restructured global marine plankton communities." Nature 614.7949 (2023): 713-718.

Harvey, Thomas HP. "Colonial green algae in the Cambrian plankton." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290.2009 (2023): 20231882.

The gang discusses two papers that deal with the evolution of tardigrades. The first paper looks at some fossil tardigrades in amber, and the second paper looks to the Cambrian to determine the ancestors of modern tardigrades. Meanwhile, Amanda confuses some details about medication, James has some money making crab solutions, and Curt is somehow the one person trying to keep people on track.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that look at a group of animals that are very very very small and have been seen as cute by a lot of people even though you can not really see them without help. The first paper finds some of these very very small animals in bits that come out of things that grow big and make their own food. These bits get hard when they get covered in ground over a long time and things that get stuck in the stuff can be there. This paper looks at these old very very small animals and tries to see what they could be like. It also talks about how we might not have as good an idea of these animals because they are so small and we do not always look for small things in these kinds of places.

The second paper looks at the older things that might be great great great great mom and dad to the tiny animals today. These animals are much bigger and much much older. This paper shows that lots of things we see in these tiny animals today may have been parts that we see in these older animals. But also, that in order to get so very very very small, these animals may have lost some parts so that they could get that small.

References:

Kihm, Ji-Hoon, et al. "Cambrian lobopodians shed light on the origin of the tardigrade body plan." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120.28 (2023): e2211251120.

Mapalo, Marc A., et al. "A tardigrade in Dominican amber." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 288.1960 (2021): 20211760.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the gut contents and traces of ancient animals. The first paper reconstructs gut traces (or lack thereof) for Ediacarans and then the second paper looks at the detailed gut contents and 3d track of a lichid trilobite. Meanwhile, Amanda’s cat is changing careers, James is feeling “motivated”, and Curt has some house improvement recommendations.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about the insides of different animals from a long long time ago. The first paper looks at animals from a long long time ago that do not look much like things we see today. There is a lot of talk about how these animal would eat and where the food would go when they did eat. This paper looks at the parts that remain and looks over the things that are left behind to see if they can find out what the insides of these things were like. What they find is that the things we think are more like things we see today all have insides where the food goes. The one really strange thing does not and could have had food move into it along its outside.

The second paper looks at a small animal with many parts that makes a hard home. This paper finds the food that it ate in its insides and can use it to see what the insides look like. This is a great way for us to see the insides where the food goes in a group that is not around anymore. Also, the food in the insides lets us know how this animal ate things and the way it ate is strange when we look at things today. This thing ate hard things but it did it in a way that is not like what we see today. Also, this animal may have been getting ready to grow but did not make it.

References:

Kraft, Petr, et al. "Uniquely preserved gut contents illuminate trilobite palaeophysiology." Nature (2023): 1-7.

Bobrovskiy, Ilya, et al. "Guts, gut contents, and feeding strategies of Ediacaran animals." Current Biology 32.24 (2022): 5382-5389.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the provide clues to the modern biogeographic distribution of species, specifically bees and new world monkeys. Meanwhile, Amanda shares something, James finds out about where’s the beef in more ways than one, and Curt invents a band.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at where animals live and how those animals got to those places. The first paper looks at group of small animals that fly and go to things that grow their own food and picks up parts of them when looking for food that helps these things that grow their own food make more of themselves. A long time ago, people had an idea that all of these small animals that fly came from one place and them moved to other places. No one had done a big paper using computers to see if this was true. This paper uses computers and finds that it does seem to be true.

The second paper looks at small animals that move in trees and can not fly but are closer to people than lots of other animals. This group came from across a big blue wet thing. However, lots of people wonder how they got across the big blue wet thing. This paper looks at new parts of these animals and sees that maybe these animals got across the big blue wet thing a lot of times. This might mean that at some times in the past it was easier for some of these small animals to make it across that big blue wet thing.

References:

Almeida, Eduardo AB, et al. "The evolutionary history of bees in time and space." Current biology 33.16 (2023): 3409-3422.

Marivaux, Laurent, et al. "An eosimiid  primate of South Asian affinities in the Paleogene of Western Amazonia  and the origin of New World monkeys." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120.28 (2023): e2301338120.

The gang discusses two papers that look at fossils of the early whale group Basilosauridae. Specially, these papers describe the largest whale recovered from this group, as well as the smallest whale from the group. Meanwhile, Amanda has a lovely home, James has some whale facts, and Curt has some art critiques.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at one group of big animals that breathe air but move in the water that are no longer around today. These papers are looking at different animals within the same group. The cool thing about both of these papers is that they talk about the same thing, but from different ways of looking at it. This is because one of these papers is about the biggest animal that people have found in this group and the other paper is about the smallest animal found in this group. This is a big thing because this is a group that today has gotten really big and the reasons why these groups get big has been something people are really interested in. These papers show that these animals were getting both big and small very early on in the group.

References:

Bianucci, Giovanni, et al. "A heavyweight early whale pushes the boundaries of vertebrate morphology." Nature (2023): 1-6.

Antar, Mohammed S., et al. "A  diminutive new basilosaurid whale reveals the trajectory of the cetacean  life histories during the Eocene." Communications Biology 6.1 (2023): 707.

The gang discusses two papers that look at examples of unusually large animals in the fossil record; one large lacewing larvae and one very large skink. Meanwhile, James is having a great day, Amanda starts a chant, and Curt learns the true meaning of “cool fossil bro”.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers about things that are big for what they are. The first paper is a type of kid of an animal that is small thing that flies when it is grown but does not fly when it is a kid. These animals have a neck when they are kids which some of these animals do not have. This animal has a really long body and a really long neck. They found it in water, so they think this animal would have been a big thing living in the water and eating things that it caught with its long neck.

The second paper looks at another group of animals with cold blood and hard bits on its skin that runs around on four legs. This animal is really big for its group. Parts of this animal were found before, but they were smaller and so they were thought to be something else. This paper finds new parts that show those are parts are from this bigger thing when it was a kid. This big animal is close to another animal that is around today. When this bigger animal died, the smaller animal it is close to came into the same places and seems to have taken its place.

References:

Du, Xuheng, Kecheng Niu, and Tong Bao.  "Giant Jurassic dragon lacewing larvae with lacustrine palaeoecology  represent the oldest fossil record of larval neuropterans." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290.1993 (2023): 20222500.

Thorn, Kailah M., et al. "A giant  armoured skink from Australia expands lizard morphospace and the scope  of the Pleistocene extinctions." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290.2000 (2023): 20230704.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the ecomorphology of Mesozoic swimming reptiles. The first paper investigates swimming strategies in various marine swimming reptile groups, and the second paper looks at changes in the skull of mosasaurs compared to stem whales. Meanwhile, James has a meal, Amanda “makes” animals, and Curt needs more insight.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that look at how big angry animals that move through the water lived a long time ago. The first paper looks at how these big animals moved through the water, because there are many ways that an animal can move through water. They use numbers to look at how these animals look, and they also use some animals from today that move through water to see if the way they look is like the ones from the past. They find that there are some ways that animals look with their bodies that change how they move through the water. This shows a lot of cool things. Some groups start moving through water in one way and over time move to a different way. This shows that there was a lot of different ways these groups of big angry animals were able to move through the water.

The second paper looks at the heads of one group of big angry animals from the past that move through water and also an old group of big animals with hair that move through water that are still around today. The paper wants to see if both of these groups do the same things with their heads since they are both moving into moving through water. They find that a few of the heads kind of look like each other between these two groups, which could be that they were trying to eat the same things. However, most of the time these two groups are not looking the same in the head. This is because these two groups come from different things and so they are not able to change their head in the same way.

References:

Gutarra, Susana, et al. "The locomotor ecomorphology of Mesozoic marine reptiles." Palaeontology 66.2 (2023): e12645.

Bennion, Rebecca F., et al. "Convergence and constraint in the cranial evolution of mosasaurid reptiles and early cetaceans." Paleobiology 49.2 (2023): 215-231.

The gang discusses two papers that study the paleoecology of the Ediacaran fauna. The first paper looks at environmental information that can be gleaned from the microbial mats these organisms lived on, and the second paper studies how different Ediacaran fossils are distributed on this microbial mat. Meanwhile, James is having a week, Curt is unsure about chips, and Amanda is comfortable being very on brand.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends look at two papers that study some very old animals that lived a long long time ago and lived on these beds of tiny tiny tiny animals and not animals. In fact, these two papers are also interested in the beds these things lived on and how they lived on the bed. The first paper looks at these parts of the beds and how you can find them in different beds made of tiny tiny tiny animals and not animals. There are these lines in the beds that are found in some beds but not all of the beds. They think that the way water moves over the beds may cause these lines to form. The other cool thing they find is that the animals are found when there are these lines, and are not found when there are not these lines. This means that the way the water moves might be important for these animals to live.

The second paper looks at how these animals lived in space with each other. Did they want to live close to each other or did they want to be far from each other, or do they not really care? Some earlier papers had said they wanted to be far from each other, which is weird when we look at animals in the big blue wet thing today which want to stay close to each other. So they run a lot of studies on three different animals that can show if they are close to each other because they all need the same thing (and that thing is in small parts around the ground) or if they seem to want to be very close to each other because they either use each other or they can not move far from each other. They show that these animals all show that they are close to each other, but two of the animals are close because they all want something that is in just a few places. One animal shows a really strong need to be close, which could mean that this is something about the animal that makes new babies be closer to the father/mother. This shows we can learn things about how these animals lived and why they lived where they did, even for things that are very very very old.

References:

Boan, Phillip C., et al. "Spatial  distributions of Tribrachidium, Rugoconites, and Obamus from the  Ediacara Member (Rawnsley Quartzite), South Australia." Paleobiology (2023): 1-20.

Tarhan, Lidya G., Mary L. Droser, and  James G. Gehling. "Picking out the warp and weft of the Ediacaran  seafloor: Paleoenvironment and paleoecology of an Ediacara textured  organic surface." Precambrian Research 369 (2022): 106539.

The gang discusses two papers about inferring life habit and ecology from extinct animals. The first paper summarizes the data for ichthyosaur birth to see if they really do preferentially come out tail first, and the second paper investigates a fossil that could complicate the narrative for the origins of a European sabretooth cat group. Meanwhile, James has opinions about browsers, Amanda is camouflaged, Curt needs a drink, and everyone is surprised by a paper for the first time in a long time.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that looks at how animals did things and where they lived in the past. The first paper looks at a group of animals that lived in the water and had their kids inside them. This group used to be on land before they went into the water for all time. Lots of people say that when a group of animals goes from being on land to being on water, they need to change the way the babies come out of them, with the head coming out last so that they do not breathe in water. This paper looks into this to see if this is true. It turns out that lots of things today that used to be on land but are now in the water and have kids inside them usually have the kids come out with the head last. However, this is not always what happens. And, when the kids come out head first it is fine and they do not die and the mom also does not die. When we look at the parts of the dead animals from a long time ago that live in the water, we also see that, even in the groups that everyone says they go out head second, there are some that show they come out head first. It seems like, instead of being a change that is always true, these animals went from being most of the time head first, to being half and half head first, to being most of the time head second but sometimes head first.

The second paper looks at a group of angry animals with hair and long teeth. This group is found all over the world in the past and this paper is looking at one group that is most of the time found in one place but may have also had some groups close to it from other places. This paper names a new type of these animals and says that it is the first of this group, but also the study they do says that it isn't so that is weird. They also do another study to show that this group went through most of its big changes in this new place, but the study they do also seems to say that it is a third different place where a lot of important things happen but they do not talk about it. This paper is weird.

References:

Jiangzuo, Qigao, et al. "Origin of  adaptations to open environments and social behaviour in sabretoothed  cats from the northeastern border of the Tibetan Plateau." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290.1997 (2023): 20230019.

Miedema, Feiko, et al. "Heads or tails  first? Evolution of fetal orientation in ichthyosaurs, with a scrutiny  of the prevailing hypothesis." BMC Ecology and Evolution 23.1 (2023): 1-13.

The gang discusses two papers that look at patterns of niche conservatism or niche evolution in the fossil record. The first paper looks at the pollen records of trees in Portugal to test if changing climate can explain modern tree distributions, and the second paper looks at the impact of Late Devonian extinction pulses/invasions on brachiopod communities. Meanwhile, Curt summarizes the podcast, James has brachiopod facts, and Amanda cannot control her cats.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about two papers that look at where animals live and what they do in the world, and also if that stays the same or changes over time. The first paper looks at tall living things that make their own food and lose a part of themselves every fall. This looks at one place that has just a few of these types of living things but in the past there were different types there. Also, back then it was not as warm and the rain was different. This paper wants to see why the tall living things we have in this part of the world are where they are right now. What they saw was that, some of the changes in the tall things seem to be tall things following where they want to live; when things get warmer or colder they move to follow the change. But some things seem to be moving into places that are very different from where they started, so they are changing what types of places they like to live in.

The second paper looks at animals that live on the bottom of the big blue wet thing and take food out of the water and were found all over the world a long time ago. It looks at a time when a big change killed a lot of living things. This paper looks at how this changed the types of these animals over time. What they find is that, a lot of the animals that die because of the change have another animal from somewhere else doing the same thing move in and take that animal's place. The things that do not die just keep on doing their own thing. It does not look like there is much change in what the animals are doing either from the big change that happened, or from the new animals moving in.

References:

Vieira, Manuel, et al. "Niche  evolution versus niche conservatism and habitat loss determine  persistence and extirpation in late Neogene European Fagaceae." Quaternary Science Reviews 300 (2023): 107896.

Brisson, Sarah K., et al. "Niche conservatism and ecological change during the Late Devonian mass extinction." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290.1996 (2023): 20222524.

The gang discusses two papers that look at some Cambrian problematic fossils and find new clues that allow us to determine what groups they might belong to. One paper finds new evidence that some of these tube fossils in the Cambrian may be cnidarians and the other paper identifies potential gastropod radula in Cambrian rocks with adaptations for grazing. Meanwhile, James is not at all tired, Amanda will totally clean out her garage, and Curt is in the loop about what is going on.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at some things from a long time ago that are very hard to see what is going on with them but these new finds give us a better idea of what they might be. The first paper looks at these long and soft things. We used to think they were long and soft things that live in the ground today. However, this paper finds that there are little arms on one side and that they have these parts that we see in a very different group of animals that instead has one way in that it uses to eat and shit and has lots of these small arms. They show this for one of these types of animals but it could be that a lot of the long soft animals we find that we are not sure about could all be parts of this group.

The second paper looks at these small bits that people find when they take rocks and break them down into bits. These small things look like the mouth parts of animals that are soft and some of them carry their home with them. Not just mouth parts, but mouth parts that can eat green things that make their own food. This could be the first time we see animals that just eat these kinds of green things in the past.

References:

Zhang, Guangxu, et al. "Exceptional  soft tissue preservation reveals a cnidarian affinity for a Cambrian  phosphatic tubicolous enigma." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 289.1986 (2022): 20221623.

Slater, Ben J. "Cambrian ‘sap-sucking’molluscan radulae among small carbonaceous fossils (SCFs)." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290.1995 (2023): 20230257.

The gang discusses two papers that use morphometric studies to investigate patterns of ecomorphy in the fossil record. Specifically, they look at two papers that investigate how morphology in sloths and pterosaurs changes over time, and how well these changes map onto changes in body size and ecological shifts. Meanwhile, Amanda could be dean, Curt has opinions on figures, and James provides butchery advice.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at how things look and how that changes over time, and looks to see if these things are changing because of what they do. The first paper looks at animals with hair and long arms that move very slow. There are not a lot of these animals today, but in the past there was a lot of these animals and they did a lot of other things that we do not see them do today. These animals were also looking different as well. But it seems that the things that look different are closer to each other by being close sisters to each other. They also do find that these animals are also doing different things when they look different.

The second paper looks at angry animals who can fly but are not the animals that can fly today. These animals start small and get big over time. They actually get big a few times. This paper looks at the parts of these animals and shows the many different ways that parts can change to make these animals big or small. It also shows that, when these things get really big is when the group seems to be doing really bad.

References:

Yu, Yilun, Chi Zhang, and Xing Xu. "Complex macroevolution of pterosaurs." Current Biology 33.4 (2023): 770-779.

Casali, Daniel M., et al.  "Morphological disparity and evolutionary rates of cranial and  postcranial characters in sloths (Mammalia, Pilosa, Folivora)." Palaeontology 66.1 (2023): e12639.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the body size of ancient animals. The first paper uses new metrics to estimate the size of the ancient fish Dunkleosteus, and the second paper looks at the various ways that theropod dinosaurs can get big or small. Meanwhile, Amanda is 10 minutes away from being taken to Oz, Curt invents a new adaptation, James figures out perpetual energy, and everyone is forced to record over a conference call.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda Edition):

Today our friends talk about a large animal that lives in water with no legs but a big mouth and moving mouth pieces and a hard outer cover. This big animal was one with a hard part in its back that ate lots of things very early before many other things with hard parts in its back were around that ate other things. People used to think that it got very very very big but this study uses numbers to show that it was actually not as big as people used to think. The numbers are very good and are probably going to be very good for lots of animals that live in water with no legs.

The second paper looks at large angry animals with no hair and big teeth that lived a long time ago, but not as long ago as the large animal that lives in water with no legs and a big mouth and moving mouth pieces. It looks at how the hard pieces of these large angry animals with no hair and big teeth grew to see how they got big or small, because some got very big and some got very small. It turns out that the ones that got big did it in some different ways, and the ones that got small did it in some different ways, which is very cool.

References:

Engelman, Russell K. "A Devonian Fish  Tale: A New Method of Body Length Estimation Suggests Much Smaller Sizes  for Dunkleosteus terrelli (Placodermi: Arthrodira)." Diversity 15.3 (2023): 318.

D'Emic, Michael D., et al.  "Developmental strategies underlying gigantism and miniaturization in  non-avialan theropod dinosaurs." Science 379.6634 (2023): 811-814.

The gang celebrates their 10 year anniversary by talking about two papers on the same topic that are 10 years apart. Both papers take a critical look at how we define the “big five” mass extinctions and what this term means. Meanwhile, everyone waxes philosophical for the last 20 minutes, discussing how things have changed in our lives since we started this weird show. Thanks for listening!

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about two papers that were written ten years from each other. Both papers look at times when a lot of animals died. The first paper is looking at how these times changed the types of animals that were around after the big dying, and it finds that some times that didn't kill as many animals had much bigger changes in the types of animals around than times when a lot more animals died. The second paper continues this idea to ask, why do we look at the big times that we do and is there anything about these times that make the all the same. What do these times mean?

References:

Marshall, Charles R. "Forty years later: The status of the “Big Five” mass extinctions." Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1 (2023): e5.

McGhee Jr, George R., et al. "A new ecological-severity ranking of major Phanerozoic biodiversity crises." Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 370 (2013): 260-270.

The gang discusses two papers about trilobite evolution and morphology. The first paper looks at disparity and taxonomic trends of trilobites across the Devonian, and the second paper looks at the unique tridents of Walliserops. Meanwhile, Amanda makes a choice, James does some unique functional morphology, and Curt critiques tilapia.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

The friends talk about two papers that look at small hard animals that live in the water and some of them can roll into a ball. The first paper looks at how these animals looked over time. They look at whether or not these animals looked more different when there were more different types of these animals around. This is not usually the case, for lot of animals how different the animals in the group look to each other is not just because to there being more types of animals. For this group that some can roll into a ball, it seems like they look a lot more different when there are also a lot of different types of them. So when something kills a lot of them, they also lose what makes them different. After a really bad time for these animals, only one group was left and we saw that they kind of looked the same for a long time until they all died.

The second paper looks at one of these types of animals that had a weird thing on its nose. They try and find out what it could have used this weird thing for because it is very big and it does not move on its own so it probably would not be good for a lot of things. They look at some other animals that have things on their nose they use to fight each other for space and girls. While these animals are very different, they show some ways that this thing on the nose look like these other animals. So maybe they used this thing on their nose to fight each other.

References:

Gishlick, Alan D., and Richard A. Fortey. "Trilobite tridents demonstrate sexual combat at 400 Mya." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120.4 (2023): e2119970120.

Bault, Valentin, Catherine Crônier,  and Claude Monnet. "Coupling of taxonomic diversity and morphological  disparity in Devonian trilobites?." Historical Biology (2023): 1-12.

The gang discusses two papers that look at how species respond to climate change. The first paper uses models to study how bird migration patterns may have changed over the last 800,000 years, and the second paper looks at how blooming times for plants in the UK have changed over the last 300 years. Meanwhile, James and Amanda prepare for a trip (2 months ago), and Curt is left a little confused.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about two papers that look at how living things can change when it gets hotter or colder across the world. The first paper looks at animals that can fly and some of them move around when it gets hot or cold during a year. This paper uses computers to look at how these animals may have changed how they move around during times that were colder and warmer than today. This is part of a bigger story where some people think that these animals moving around during the year is something that might be pretty new, since the last time we warmed up. The computers say that these types of animals were probably still moving around during these colder times, and that there are some cool things about how where theses animals are might have changed how they moved over time, since some places got colder than others.

The second paper looks at green things that make their own food. These green things start to grow and make the things they need to make babies during the warm parts of the year. Some of them use light, but a lot of them use how warm it is to know if it is time to start growing again. For this one part of the world, they have been looking at these green things for almost 300 years. When we look at when these green things start growing, we are seeing them start growing earlier in the year than they did in the past. This is not happening every place in the same way and not to every type of green thing. But all of these changes all show the same idea; that the world is getting warmer and these green things are starting to grow earlier in the year because of it, and places that are getting warmer faster and seeing those green things grow even earlier.

References:

Büntgen, Ulf, et al. "Plants in the UK flower a month earlier under recent warming." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 289.1968 (2022): 20212456.

Somveille, Marius, et al. "Simulation-based reconstruction of global bird migration over the past 50,000 years." Nature communications 11.1 (2020): 801.

The gang discusses two papers that look at live birth in squamates. The first paper is fossil evidence of live birth in an ancient snake species, and the second paper looks at the evolutionary pressures that might drive some lizards towards live birth. Meanwhile, James has advice for reptiles, Curt celebrates a belated “spooky season”, Amanda continues to have extreme face blindness, and we are all haunted by a corrupted PDF.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about animals that have cold blood but also have babies inside of them. The first paper looks at some old animals that have cold blood and no legs that have babies inside of them. These parts of the old animal with babies inside of them might be one of the first times that this has been seen for this group at this time. It raises some interesting questions about how and why these animals that most do not have babies inside of them might change to having babies inside of them. One thought was that maybe this happens when these animals with cold blood have to live in cold places, but this paper is not able to say if that is the case.

The next paper looks at a different group of cold blooded animals that is close to the other one but has legs. In this group, there are some animals that have babies inside and some that do not. The people who worked on the paper looked at all of the things about these animals, from how cold they liked it, how warm they liked it, where they are found, how many babies they had and how big they got, and other things to try and see if having babies inside is something that happens when these animals move into cold. What they found was very cool. Animals with babies inside did like it colder than animals without babies inside. But they found that having babies inside did not match with where these animals lived, and that animals with babies inside could be in warm places, and animals without babies inside could be in colder places. It might make it easier to be in colder places, but it did not look like it was because they were in colder places. This means that having babies inside is part of a bigger thing, like do you want to live fast or do you want to live slow; because animals with babies inside would have less babies than animals without babies inside.

References:

Chuliver, Mariana, Agustín Scanferla, and Krister T. Smith. "Live birth in a 47-million-year-old snake." The Science of Nature 109.6 (2022): 1-5.

Domínguez-Guerrero, Saúl F., et al.  "Exceptional parallelisms characterize the evolutionary transition to  live birth in phrynosomatid lizards." Nature communications 13.1 (2022): 1-12.

After managing a precarious ascent up a magical clockwork limb we rejoin our heroes Bepo the Bard (James), Bix the Druid (Aly), Gregg the Ranger (Curtis) and Kinross the Wizard (Amanda) in the next stage of their journey to bring the roaming fortress to a halt.

"Skye Cuillin", “Mystic Force”, “Malicious”, “Scheming Weasel slower”, “Holiday Weasel”, “Krampus Workshop”, “Sneaky Snitch”, “Magic Escape Room”, “Volatile Reaction”, “Darkling” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gang goes back to their favorite hypothetical deathtrap amusement park, Penguin Deathland. They discuss two papers that look at the taphonomy of penguin fossil deposits and what they can tell us about ancient environments and the processes that can break down bone. Meanwhile, James loves old movie cliches, Amanda upsets the natural order, and Curt enjoys totally real colors.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda):

Today our friends talk about animals with no hair that usually can fly but these can't fly. These are found on an small place surrounded by water that is very cold. These animals lived during the ice age so they are only sort of rock at this time. The first paper looks at numbers of these animals and other stuff all together in one place. The paper shows that there were places where there were baby animals long ago where there aren't any now. It also shows that there were some tiny animals with no rock parts that suck blood that are not on these small places today. But it is possible that some of these tiny animals were brought in later by people.

The second paper looks at how things that are green things and sometimes good to eat not-animals that are living together are hurting the rock parts of these animals with no hair that can usually fly but can't. It turns out that the things that are green things living together with sometimes good to eat not-animals might be very good at hurting the rock parts of these animals, and we can actually see exactly what that looks like and so can tell if we see this in rock parts that would be much much older.

References:

Acosta Hospitaleche, Carolina, et al.  "Taphonomy of two Holocene penguin taphocoenoses in Potter Peninsula,  South Shetland Islands, Antarctica." Historical Biology (2022): 1-18.

García, Renato, Carolina Acosta  Hospitaleche, and Gonzalo Márquez. "Biodeterioration of Antarctic fossil  penguin bones caused by lichens from the Eocene La Meseta Formation." Polar Biology 44.12 (2021): 2243-2254.

The gang discusses two papers from a new locality of early fishes that give a lot of new insights into fish evolution. Meanwhile, Curt loves new Discord features, James shares some fun stories, and Amanda know how best/worst to keep everyone on track.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends look at two papers from a group of papers that just came out about a place where you can get really good parts from very very old things that live in the water and have hard parts on the inside and would be great great great great mom and dad to a lot of things that have hard parts inside and live on land. One paper looks at these animals that do not have a hard part in the place where they eat and looks at how they have really cool ways to move through water that gives us ideas about how these things that help move through water have changed over time. The other paper looks at a lot of different types of these animals that live in water and shows that they were doing a lot of different things very early on.

References:

Zhu, You-an, et al. "The oldest complete jawed vertebrates from the early Silurian of China." Nature 609.7929 (2022): 954-958.

Gai, Zhikun, et al. "Galeaspid anatomy and the origin of vertebrate paired appendages." Nature 609.7929 (2022): 959-963.

The gang discusses two papers that look at two papers that discuss the origin and evolution of a sessile filter feeding life habit. The first paper discusses how a new tommotiid fossil helps us better understand lophophorate evolution, and the second paper looks at the genetic pathways that barnacles and molluscs use to generate their shells. Meanwhile, James makes a sound, Amanda gets a surprise, and Curt shares totally real facts.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends look at how animals that make hard parts and do not do much moving around first started. The first looks at one type of animal that could be the start of one of these groups of animals that do not move much. These early animals are usually hard to find because they have parts that do not stick around for along time. However, this animal that was found had a lot of soft parts that showed what these animals would have looked like. It seems that these animals started out as being able to move a lot more, even though the animals that would come later would stop moving.

The second paper looks at two other groups of animals that make hard parts and do not move. It looks at how these animals make their hard parts. Even though these two groups are not close to each other, they both use a lot of the same ways of making their hard parts, with things that are not the same making sense because of how these animals need to stick to other things.

References:

Guo, Jin, et al. "A Cambrian tommotiid preserving soft tissues reveals the metameric ancestry of lophophorates." Current Biology (2022).

Yuan, Jianbo, et al. "Convergent  evolution of barnacles and molluscs sheds lights in origin and  diversification of calcareous shell and sessile lifestyle." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 289.1982 (2022): 20221535.

James, Curt, Carlie, and Brendan talk about the 2022 Geological Society of America Meeting in Denver.

The gang talks about two papers that look at evidence of parental care in the fossil record, in early synapsids and in insects. Meanwhile, Amanda is going to have an island, Curt is trying not to die, and James has some unique alternative interpretations to explain these fossils.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about two papers that look at moms and dads from a long long time ago. Not all animals have moms and dads that stick around or do anything to keep the babies from not getting dead. The first paper looks at a group of animals that looks like some animals today and is part of a group that is close to the group that has hair. This paper looks at some hard parts from these animals that were in a thing made by pulling up the ground so you can live there under the ground. There is a big one and a small one. The big one looks like it was holding the small one when the place under the ground fell in and covered them. The other thing about this paper is that the small one looks like a lot of other animals we have found from this group, which could mean that most of our animals we have named from this group could be kids.

The second paper looks at a type of small animal with hard parts on the outside and many legs that lives in water and can go deep in the water but takes in air to live. This animal is old but looks a lot like the ones we still have around today. Some of these animals have a leg that looks different from the others, and this leg has a whole lot of small balls that hold babies in them on it. So some of these animals carry the babies with them until they are ready to leave the small balls. This is different from how the animals like these ones that we have today handle their babies.

References:

Fu, Yanzhe, et al. "The earliest known brood care in insects." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 289.1978 (2022): 20220447.

Maddin, Hillary C., Arjan Mann, and  Brian Hebert. "Varanopid from the Carboniferous of Nova Scotia reveals  evidence of parental care in amniotes." Nature Ecology & Evolution 4.1 (2020): 50-56.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the complicated path tetrapods took to getting on land. The first paper looks at a more derived stem tetrapod that went back into the water, and the second paper uses trace fossils to investigate the foodweb of a community dominated by some early tetrapods. Meanwhile, Amanda has a friend over, James knows how to be silent, and Curt teaches everyone that things continue to exist even when we don’t see them.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about two animals that are great great great great great great father and mother to all of the animals that are on the land. But these animals did not all make their way on to the land in a simple way. The first paper looks at an animal that looks like it went back into water. This animal has all of the parts that you need to live well in the water, even though it also has parts from animals that would be on the land, or at least spending some time on the land. This means that the way on to the land has a lot more steps forward and back than we like to think.

The second paper looks at the places these animals were living in and tries to use the parts that are around and how they were hurt to see what may have been eating what. People have thought that these animals went on to the land to get away from things that might have been eating them. This paper shows that those animals might have been the things that were eating other animals. It seems like being one of these animals that lives in the water was a pretty good way to live.

References:

Robin, Ninon, et al. "Vertebrate  predation in the Late Devonian evidenced by bite traces and  regurgitations: implications within an early tetrapod freshwater  ecosystem." Papers in Palaeontology 8.4 (2022): e1460.

Stewart, Thomas A., et al. "A new elpistostegalian from the Late Devonian of the Canadian Arctic." Nature 608.7923 (2022): 563-568.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the evolutionary changes occurring in early synapsids. The first paper suggests that some synapsids may have evolved a mammal-like walking gate and respiration earlier than we expected, and the other paper uses the inner ear of synapsids to infer body temperature. Meanwhile, James is adapting to a new environment, Amanda drinks some “tea”, and Curt gives acronym advice.

Up-Goer Five (Curt Edition):

Our friends talk about two papers that look at animals which are not the animals today with hair and warm blood but are part of the group that is brother and sister to those animals. These animals were around a long long time ago. These papers show that some of the things we see in animals with hair and warm blood today also happened in some of these other animals too. The first paper looks at a hard part inside the chest of these other animals. Most of these other animals have a hard part that is very different from the one we see in the animals with hair and warm blood. However, on group of these other animals seems to have a hard part that looks a lot like the ones we see today in animals with hair. This hard part is important for how we breathe and also how we move. This means that this group may have walked and breathed like the animals who have hair today, even though animals with hair got this hard part much later.

The second paper looks at the ear to see how warm the blood is for these other animals that are not animals with hair but are part of the group. This paper uses the water stuff in the ear to try and figure out how warm these animals would be. They look at the ear for a lot of dead animals from this group, as well as animals around today that we can see how warm they are. When they use what they find today on the very old dead animals, they see that there is a point in the past of these animals where they start to really get warm. This is still earlier in the group than our animals we have around today with hair that are warm.

References:

Bendel, Eva-Maria, et al. "The  earliest segmental sternum in a Permian synapsid and its implications  for the evolution of mammalian locomotion and ventilation." Scientific Reports 12.1 (2022): 1-9.

Araújo, Ricardo, et al. "Inner ear biomechanics reveals a Late Triassic origin for mammalian endothermy." Nature (2022): 1-6.

The gang discusses two papers that look at the ecological impacts of major extinction events. The first paper looks at the ecological stability of marine communities before and after two mass extinction events, the late Ordovician and the end Permian. The second paper simulates an extinction event on modern bird populations to determine if this would most strongly impact functional diversity or phylogenetic diversity. Meanwhile, Amanda learns about something new to worry about, James shares dubious life advice, and Curt questions movie curses.

Up-Goer Five (Amanda Edition):

Today our friends look at two papers about things dying. The first paper wants to know if having more things that do all the same stuff will help keep the world better when everything else is dying. They look at an early time and then a later time that everyone knows is very, very, very bad. The earlier time is thought to be the second-most bad time for taking out things that do different things. But the paper shows that since, in that earlier time, there are more things doing the same thing, it's actually not so bad as the later time, when there are not so many things doing the same thing. More things are doing different things, so that the dying is worse.

The second paper is looking at animals that fly and don't have hair or hard skin. This paper is saying that some animals that fly and don't have hair or hard skin are dying more. However, these animals are not like brothers and sisters to each other, instead, they look like each other. This paper finds that animals that fly that do not have hair or hard skins that live in some places will start to look like each other more and more because some of the animals die out. That means that the remaining animals that fly but do not have hair or hard skin will be more like each other, and it means that things in these places might get bad, because there will be only a few things left that do one or two things.

References:

Dick, Daniel G., et al. "Does functional redundancy determine the ecological severity of a mass extinction event?." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 289.1979 (2022): 20220440.

Hughes, Emma C., David P. Edwards, and  Gavin H. Thomas. "The homogenization of avian morphological and  phylogenetic diversity under the global extinction crisis." Current Biology (2022).