Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel

["K and T Dykes" <ktdykes@arcor.de>]

I've been getting to know /Darwinius/ a bit over the last couple of days, 
and I still find it an absolute stunner.  I've been trying to figure out 
why.  Agreed, the paper is rather lightweight when it comes to the 
phylogenetic aspects.  Then again, the priority of the authors lay in the 
description.

The big story can't, regardless of any headlines and comments to the 
contrary, lie in the transitional characters of the genus; a "missing link" 
and all that kind of jazz.  The cited relevant characters are at best 
feather-light and, mostly, actually absentees rather than present 
characters.  The lack of a grooming claw and a toothcomb seem to be no big 
deal, and that absence could have arisen independently a number of times. 
The shape of a single ankle bone is perhaps a bit more substantial, but not 
by all that much.  That aspect would also benefit from much tougher 
examination.

Unfortunately, a side-effect of the "missing link" headlines and hype can 
give the impression that transitional fossils are great rarities.  That's a 
likely conclusion for some non-knowist to come to.  Such a thing gets 
announced, and this triggers an extradinary level of interest and, 
therefore, must be an extraordinary and rare event.  Should anybody be 
planning or pondering some kind of article involving this thing, that 
misimpression could be usefully countered by the mention of far more 
obviously transitional forms long known from the same locality.  Messel has 
already yielded charming mini horses with lots of toes and low-crowned teeth 
for chewing on leaves and grapes.  Compared to those excellent transitional 
specimens, this newling merits nothing more than a small footnote.  If the 
authors are indeed correct with their interpretations, it's but a minor 
statement of the already bleedingly obvious.

I can think of four big stories.
1. This specimen is staggeringly complete.
2. It's stunningly beautiful.
3. It's fascinating to see how much well-founded information the authors 
were able to infer on age, size, lifestyle and that sort of aspect; how much 
life they were able to sensibly breathe into this seriously dead critter.
4. The mass of new information that's now available for future studies, 
including those that will doubtlessly attack the phylogenetic problems.

And a side effect of the publicity splash could also be useful.  Somewhere, 
some innocent by-stander may find themselves seriously soaked with wanting 
to learn more about fossil mammals.  They could have their future gloriously 
blighted by suffering from a wonderful obsession.