National Geographic

Breaking the Link – Darwinius revealed as ancestor of nothing

Cast your mind back to June, when a stunning fossil animal called Darwinius (alternatively Ida or “The Link”) was unveiled to the world to tremendous pomp and circumstance. Hyperbolic ads declared the day of Ida’s discovery as the most important for 47 million years. A press release promised that she would “change everything”, headlines proclaimed her a “missing link in evolution” and the scientists behind the discovery billed her as “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor“.

Darwinius.jpgAnd according to a new study, none of that is true. Mere months later, Erik Seiffert from Stony Brook University has done a comprehensive analysis of the bones of 117 primates, both living and extinct, which throws Ida’s supposed direct line of ancestry to humans into serious doubt.

Central to this new work is a new fossil called Afradapis, a member of the same group of extinct primates – the adapids – that Darwinius belonged to. The two were closely related but separated by around 10 million years. Like its more famous cousin, Afradapsis‘s jaw and teeth contain features that are similar to those of  anthropoids – monkeys, apes and humans. But far from being a sign of direct ancestry, Seiffert thinks that these features represent convergent evolution – the two groups evolved them independently.

His team compared and contrasted 360 features in the bones of over 117 living and extinct primates. Among them were 24 adapids, including Darwinius, Afradapis and eight other that had not been previously analysed. This comprehensive set of data revealed the group’s family tree, charting their relationships using their overall anatomy as a guide.And it clearly shows that adapids (and Ida among them) were more closely related to modern lemurs than to anthropoids (monkeys, apes and humans). The two groups sit on a different branches of the evolutionary tree.

The analysis also reveals that even though the adapids were a successful and widespread group, they left no living descendants. For all the hype, Ida turns out to be the ancestor of bugger all.

New evidence

To those who followed the criticisms of the Darwinius hype, this volte face shouldn’t come as a surprise. The the paper describing the fossil was criticised for juggling the structure of the primate family tree to shift Ida’s branch closer to ours. To recap, there are three groups vying for position as the ancestors of the anthropoids: the bizarre, large-eyed tarsiers, the related and extinct omomyids, and the equally extinct adapids. The general consensus places the first two groups closest to us; Ida’s discoverers think the adapids should be there instead.

To support that view, they looked at 30 traits that might help to settle the question and noted whether Ida had them or not, and concluded that placed the adapids next to the anthropoids on the basis of this single species. That approach seems positively minimalist compared to the one that Seiffert took, which included 12 times as many anatomical features and 117 times as many animals!

Seiffert’s tree places the tarsiers and omomyids as the closest relatives of the anthropoids – this is the so-called haplorrhine group. The adapids, however, are part of the strepsirrhine dynasty, the group that includes lemurs, lorises and bushbabies. This is the sort of analysis that was sorely lacking in the Darwinius paper.

Primate-family-tree.jpg

There is no doubt that Ida is a beautiful fossil, but Seiffert questions its worth in understanding the evolution of primates. Not only was she a growing youngster, but most of her bones have been crushed or distorted in ways that obscure important body parts. Much was made of the fact that Ida lacked a toothcomb (a set of flattened, forward-facing incisors) and a grooming claw (a special ankle bone). These are two features that modern lemurs possess and modern anthropoids don’t – their absence in Darwinius was presented as evidence of a close tie to anthropoids but not lemurs. But Seiffert thinks that these body parts – the ankle and teeth – have been damaged enough that analysing them is difficult.

Afradapsis, ironically, poses no such problems. While most of its skeleton has yet to be recovered, its teeth and jaws are in excellent condition. Like those of Darwinius and some other adapids, these teeth bear a suite of features typically found in living and extinct anthropoids. The joint between the two jawbones is fused and the part of the jaw containing the teeth is deep, as is the crater in the jawbone where the chewing muscles attach. The main cusp of its upper molars – the hypocone – is very large. It’s missing the second premolar, but the third has become bigger with an edge that sharpens its matching canine.

But this doesn’t mean that Afradapis is an ancestor, or even a close relative, of the anthropoids. For a start, the most primitive fossil anthropoids, such as Biretia and Proteopithecus, lack these traits. If adapids were their ancestors, the early anthropoids must have jettisoned these adaptations, only to re-evolve them at a later stage. The more plausible explanation, and certainly the one Seiffert subscribes to, is that both groups evolved independently, and happened to converge on the same adaptations.

The price of hype

The arrival of a paper like this was almost inevitable given the interest that Ida stirred up. Obviously, Seiffert’s analysis isn’t the final word on the subject (although his study looks more convincing to me) and I’m sure that there will be a healthy debate for days to come. But what of the public impact?

Jorn Hurum, one of the key ringleaders in the Ida circus, famously said, “Any pop band is doing the same. We have to start thinking the same way in science.” The key differences, of course, are that pop music is impossible to analyse objectively and its quality depends on personal taste. The same cannot be said of scientific truth, and that changes the extent to which you can use marketing tactics to promote a discovery.

 Hurum and his colleagues have played a dangerous game – they may claim to have been marketing science but they were, in fact, marketing their opinions and ones that may not stand the test of time. It’s debate by media, and it’s fantastically dangerous.

Consider the fact that for all the interest that the new paper will undoubtedly instigate, there will still be a book, website and documentary out there firmly enshrining the increasingly dubious view that Ida is our direct ancestor. Consider also that contradicting that view now makes the scientific establishment look like buffoons, given all the publicity and to-do a few months back. When John Hurum makes grandiose statements, he gains in the eyes of the public. When those statements are later shown to be dodgy, it’s science as a whole that takes a beating.  

It’s also worth noting how the different publishers handled the two papers. This time, Nature made the paper available to reporters several days ahead of its publication, giving us time to analyse the paper, prepare our stories and, if necessary, contact experts for their views. The situation with the original Darwinius paper couldn’t have been more different.

As Mark Henderson notes, select journalists were allowed to see the paper at a specific location and under non-disclosure contracts that prevented them from seeking further opinions. PLoS ONE admitted to rushing the publication of the paper in time for John Hurum’s press conference, and indeed, it became publicly available mere minutes before said conference kick-started a blitzkrieg of media attention. In rushing the publication of the paper, the journal allowed itself to be held hostage to hype and actively hindered science writers who were trying to do their job responsibly.

Update: Already up on the Times blog is an excellent interview with Seiffert. Brian Switek has his typically thorough take on the new paper too.

Reference: Nature doi:10.1038/nature08429

More on Ida: Darwinius changes everything

There are 13 Comments. Add Yours.

  1. Zach Miller
    October 21, 2009

    /facepalm

  2. David Marjanović
    October 21, 2009

    John Hurum

    Jørn Hurum. Norwegian form of “George”.
    But, as I said previously, shame on him anyway.

  3. cromercrox
    October 21, 2009

    Afradapis is a nice name. ‘Twere such things left to me, I’d have called it Schadenfreudia.

  4. Greg Laden
    October 21, 2009

    There is no doubt that the Ida hype was overdone, especially the way the paper itself was handled (which I find very embarrassing on a personal level, having been a strong supporter of PLoS). However, ultimately, the same problems that plague Ida with respect to her role as an “ancestor” will likely plague anything from early primate history. Primate evolution has involved too few non-labile changes in morphology to be sufficiently certain of the polarity of an relationship among traits to make these conclusions.
    Fortunately it does not really matter that we know which monkey sits on which branch. Just don’t walk under the branch.

  5. Prashanth
    October 21, 2009

    Very well written account.
    Ida is a good example of ‘branding’ science like cola. What was being said in the blogs has finally been said in a paper. A pity though that the authors had to wash Ida’s dirty linen in Nature, more so when the linen was pushed by PLOS. :|

  6. kalox
    October 21, 2009

    And of course creationists are jumping all over this as example of how science got it wrong, rather than seeing how self correction based on evidence works

  7. Diane G.
    October 21, 2009

    Extremely important analysis of “the price of hype,” Ed. Thank you!
    LOL @ Greg.

  8. Lilian Nattel
    October 21, 2009

    Thank you for the explanation and beautifully said.

  9. Nathan Myers
    October 21, 2009

    Isn’t this bound to be true of any fossil anybody finds? “Close” to an ancestor is all any fossil could reasonably be declared, and “close” is a relative term, provoking the question “closer than what?”. Clearly Ida was close enough for Hurum, but not, evidently, for you. Do you have an objective criterion for how close a fossil would have to be to ancestral to be noteworthy on that basis?

  10. Ed Yong
    October 21, 2009

    #2 – thanks David. If I’m going to slate the guy, I should probably get his name right.
    #9 – The problem is not that Hurum and I/others are making different subjective defintions of “closeness” based on the same data. The problem is that Hurum placed Darwinius in a completely different part of the primate family tree based on a shaky analysis, while (and this is the really important bit) vastly overhyping his opinion to the public.

  11. Jim Thomerson
    October 22, 2009

    Seiffert’s tree has several interesting characteristics. First it is a clear and unambiguous hypothesis of phylogenetic relatioship. The kind of hypothesis easiest to test. The ancestors, the lines leading up to branching nodes, are all hypothetical. No known form is designated as an ancestor. There is no consideration of nor concern for “missing links”. These are the characteristics of cldistic analysis, which is how most modern systematists do it if they have enough material to work with.

  12. me
    October 23, 2009

    The creationists would have managed to find fault irrespective of how this story played out. Denialists do their thing, we do our thing. If you’re charged with coming up with a flu vaccine, the last thing that should concern you is how the vaxers might react? Just trust they’ll be irrational, and go about your business.
    Our jobs aren’t to come up with the final incontrovertible answer for our studies before publishing, but to throw our work out there in reasonably digestible bits to see if it lands on fertile soil, and go to the next question.

  13. Craig Gosling
    October 28, 2010

    The key to successful science is healthy debate which we have here. Authors and journals propose; peers and critics analyse and correct as needed. Isn’t science wonderful? It works.

Add Your Comments

All fields required.

Related Posts