Strange Animals Podcast

Further reading:

Faceless Fish and the deep-sea voyages that found it

Long-Lost ‘Faceless’ Fish Shows Up Near Australia

Ipnops:

The faceless cusk [photo taken from the second article linked above]:

A tripod fish:

Show transcript:

Welcome to Strange Animals Podcast. I’m your host, Kate Shaw.

It’s a fish episode! These are also deep-sea fish, and you know how much I love deep-sea animals.

Let’s talk first about some fish in the family Ipnopidae, including one deep-sea fish with the pleasing name of Ipnops. We know of three species of ipnops so far, but there may be more that scientists just haven’t found yet. Some scientists think there’s actually only one species, since all three species look almost identical but just live in different parts of the deep sea.

Ipnops is sometimes called the grideye spiderfish. If you don’t know what it looks like, you may think the word spider in its name is the weird part. It’s not, and in fact I’m not sure where that comes from. It could be that the fish’s transparent fins look kind of like spiderwebs. Other fish in its family are called spiderfish too but are also sometimes called lizardfish. It feels like someone was in a goofy mood when naming these fish and just started saying random animal names.

Ipnops only grows a little over 6 inches long at most, or 16 cm. It’s slender for its size, although its head is wider than its body. Its head is black but the color fades on the body until the tail is light gray.

No, the weird thing about ipnops is its eyes. It doesn’t precisely have eyes, certainly not eyeballs. Instead it just has a thin layer of retinal cells spread across a divot in the top of its head, also called a photosensitive membrane or plate. These plates show up as yellow against the black head. Researchers think the fish can’t see the way we think of seeing, but it can probably sense bioluminescent light. Since it lives at the bottom of the deep sea where little to no light penetrates from the surface, it makes sense that ipnops doesn’t really need eyes.

We still don’t know very much about ipnops or most of its relatives. It eats small crustaceans and all individuals produce both eggs and sperm. Ipnops eggs hatch into tiny larval fish that live near the surface of the ocean and have extremely large ordinary eyeballs. How these eyeballs transform into a retinal membrane is a mystery known only to ipnops.

The family that ipnops belongs to, Ipnopidae, includes many species that are called tripod fish, and tripod fish are very weird too even though they have regular eyeballs, usually tiny ones. There are quite a few tripodfish known, many of them only discovered recently by deep-sea rovers. Most are no larger than ipnops, but some have fins that are much longer than their body.

This is the case for the tripod spiderfish—look, it’s another spiderfish—that lives at the bottom of the deep sea in many parts of the world. It’s been found at a depth of almost 3 miles, or 4,700 meters, which is so deep that it’s also sometimes called the abyssal spiderfish, although that’s also a name given to a different type of tripod fish that’s closely related. It’s big compared to many of its close relations, up to 17 inches long, or 43 cm, but its fins can grow over a yard long, or about a meter. Its tail and pelvic fins have elongated rays that allow it to stand on the bottom of the ocean, and since the bottom of the ocean is usually pretty oozy and muddy, it needs the fins to be really long so it doesn’t end up sinking into the ooze. It also has little pads on the end of the fins that help keep it from sinking. Scientists think the struts that lengthen the rays can be stiffened so that the fish can stand on them for long periods of time, but when the fish needs to swim, it can loosen the struts so they’re flexible.

If you’re not familiar with the word tripod, it means ‘three feet’ or ‘three legs.’ You’ve probably seen one before because that’s the thing that people use to prop up a camera. A camera tripod has three long legs that you can adjust so that your camera sits at just the right height to take good pictures, and it’s sturdy so the camera won’t shake. This is exactly how the tripodfish uses its elongated fins except that it’s not taking pictures. It’s just trying to find food. It stands motionless facing into the current, and spreads its pectoral fins out. It can’t see in the darkness of its deep-sea home, but it feels small fish or crustaceans that come near and stumble into its fins. It uses the pectoral fins to guide the animal toward its mouth, and then it goes chomp with its needle-like teeth.

Like ipnops, the tripodfish produces both eggs and sperm and can fertilize its own eggs if it can’t find a mate. This is important in the deep sea, especially when your main way of finding food is standing completely still for very long periods of time.

Another weird fish isn’t related to the family Ipnopidae. It’s called the faceless cusk or faceless cusk-eel, because its body is shaped sort of like an eel’s. Like ipnops, its body is slender but its head is larger, and in fact quite a lot larger in the case of the faceless cusk. Its head is rounded and bulbous, and the fish looks at first glance like it doesn’t have any of the ordinary sensory organs we expect to find on a face, except for nostrils.

The faceless cusk’s mouth is tiny and is on the underside of its head, with the head actually drooping down so that it hides the mouth. It has eyes, but they’re covered in skin and only visible in small individuals. It has a pale body but black fins and it can grow more than 18 inches long, or over 46 cm.

The faceless cusk is a deep-sea fish and was discovered in 1874. This was when the HMS Challenger expedition brought one up in its dredging nets from a depth of about two and a half miles down, or over 4 km. After that it wasn’t seen again until 1951, when a different scientific expedition collected five individuals.

In 2017, yet another scientific expedition, this one off the eastern coast of Australia, found a weird-looking fish that looked like it didn’t have a proper face. The scientists could tell it was a type of cusk-eel, but not one they’d ever heard of. It wasn’t until one of the expedition members was flipping through an old book about the Challenger expedition that they realized this fish was already known to science.

We know almost nothing about the faceless cusk. We don’t even know what it eats or how it finds its food. It lives near the bottom of the sea where the water is barely above freezing temperature.

The deepest-living fish ever discovered is a different species of cusk-eel. It’s been found living in the Puerto Rico Trench over 5 miles below the ocean’s surface, or 8 km. It’s called Abyssobrotula galatheae and it typically only grows about 6 inches long, or 15 cm. It resembles the faceless cusk in many ways even though they belong to different genera. It has tiny eyes that are covered with skin and probably don’t function, its mouth is also tiny and is underneath its head, and its head is oversized compared to its slender body and droops to hide the mouth. It’s mostly yellowish in color.

We know a little more about Abyssobrotula than we do the faceless cusk. It eats polychaete worms along with small crustaceans, which it finds on the ocean floor. Even though its mouth is quite small, it has lots of pointy teeth that help keep its prey from escaping once it bites down. Because the faceless cusk is so similar, it’s probable that it eats the same type of food.

The great thing about the fish we’ve talked about today is that they’re not especially spectacular. They’re just regular fish doing regular fish things, they just happen to be adapted to the deep sea. Because the deep sea is such an extreme environment in many ways, the fish evolve to look and act very different from the fish we’re used to seeing. If we lived in the deep sea ourselves, we’d probably look at a trout and think it was the weirdest fish we’d ever seen.

Thanks for your support, and thanks for listening!

Further reading:

https://elephantartgallery.com/blogs/meet

Desmond Morris with his favorite Congo painting:

Peter/Pierre Brassau and some of his paintings:

The so-called donkey painting, and I described it wrong in the episode:



Pockets at work:

Show transcript:

Welcome to Strange Animals Podcast. I’m your host, Kate Shaw.

Back in the early days of the podcast I did an episode about animal musicians, which for a long time was my favorite episode. Today let’s visit a similar topic, animals who are visual artists.

Back in the 1950s through the 60s, researchers studying how humans make art studied monkeys and apes who were taught how to use a brush and paints. The studies caught the public’s fancy and it became something of a fad to own a piece of art created by an animal—whether it was a monkey or ape, an elephant, or some other animal.

One of the earliest big name animal artists was a chimpanzee named Congo. Zoologist Desmond Morris, who was studying creativity in apes and humans, and who was also an artist himself, offered Congo a pencil and paper when he was two years old in 1956. Congo enjoyed drawing and especially liked to draw circles. When Morris eventually gave the chimp paints, Congo was even more enthusiastic. But while he was considered a novelty, he only had one art exhibition while he was alive, a 1957 event arranged by Morris. It wasn’t until 2005 that the remaining paintings were exhibited, along with the art of some other apes, and some of them sold for thousands of dollars. A new exhibit appeared in December of 2019 in the Mayor Gallery in London.

One interesting thing is that Morris worked with several apes to see how they drew and painted, but only Congo showed enthusiasm and skill for art. Congo died of tuberculosis in 1964 when he was only ten years old.

Also in 1964, a French avant-garde artist named Pierre Brassau exhibited four of his paintings at an art show in Sweden. No one knew who Brassau was, but his paintings were critically acclaimed—except for one critic who wrote, “Only an ape could have done this.” Ahem, yes. That is correct. The artist turned out to be a West African chimpanzee named Peter who lived in a zoo in Sweden.

The whole thing started with a Swedish journalist who apparently wasn’t much of a fan of modern art. The journalist persuaded a zookeeper to give Peter a canvas, paints, and brush. At first Peter just ate the paint, but eventually he started making marks on the canvas. The journalist ultimately chose four of the paintings and submitted them to the exhibition under the name Pierre Brassau. One of the paintings sold for the equivalent of about $750 today.

But animal artists making modern art isn’t limited to the 1950s and 60s. In 1905 a painting by an unknown artist, J.R. Boronali, went on display in a Parisian salon. It didn’t cause any kind of stir, though, because it was nothing special, until 1910 when word got out that the painting had been made by a donkey. According to the story, an art critic tied a paintbrush to the donkey’s tail and fed the donkey carrots, which made it wag its tail, which dabbed paint on a canvas. I’ve seen the painting, though, and it seems clear that a human artist prepped the canvas by slapping a coat of background paint on it that resembles a red sea and blue sky. There are some dabs and blobs of paint over that in yellow and red, presumably from the donkey. In this case, of course, the donkey wasn’t trying to paint a picture and didn’t even know what was going on behind it, just that it was getting lots of carrots. An avant-garde Russian school of art named itself The Donkey’s Tail in 1912 as a result, though, so that’s pretty neat.

More recently, a capuchin monkey named Pockets has become a big-name artist in the animal world. Pockets was donated to a Canadian animal sanctuary after his owner finally realized that capuchin monkeys are wild animals and don’t actually make very good pets. One of the volunteers at the sanctuary gave Pockets the nickname Warhol because of his white hair, which reminded her of the artist Andy Warhol. That gave her the idea to give Pockets some paints and see what he would do with them.

It turns out that Pockets really likes to paint. In 2011 the sanctuary held an exhibit of his paintings to help raise money, and since then his paintings have been exhibited in art shows around the world. He’s collaborated with a human artist, who basically paints something and then gives the canvas to Pockets to add to it. His art recently appeared on the cover of an album released by a member of Depeche Mode too.

Not all animal artists are apes or monkeys, though. Bini the Bunny stars in a lot of videos where he plays basketball, dances, plays the guitar, and does a lot of other things you would not expect a bunny to do. He also paints. Bini, of course, has been trained to make certain movements, including picking up a paintbrush in his mouth and moving it upward with the paint-covered bristles sometimes touching a canvas, but sometimes not. Bini isn’t choosing what paint colors to use and doesn’t even really look at the canvas while he’s working. He’s cute, but he’s not making art spontaneously the way Pockets and his predecessors do.

Elephants also make art, holding a paintbrush with the tip of the trunk. The most famous elephant artist was named Ruby, an Asian elephant who lived at the Phoenix Zoo in Arizona in the United States, although she was born in Thailand in 1973. When her keepers saw her using a stick to draw in the dirt, they gave her painting supplies to see what she would do with them. Ruby enjoyed painting, choosing her colors carefully, and some of her paintings sold for as much as $25,000. Ruby died from complications of a failed pregnancy in 1998, sadly. So many artists die young.

Sometimes you’ll see videos of elephants painting a picture of an elephant, but these aren’t spontaneously created. The elephant has always been taught to make the same brush strokes, and sometimes the training is cruel. An authentic elephant painting looks abstract, with lines and dots that the elephant places in a shape it finds pleasing, not to resemble something specific. This is the same with ape and monkey artists too.

If you listened to the episode about animal musicians, you will probably remember the Thai Elephant Orchestra. Well, the same conservation center that hosts the elephant orchestra also has some elephant artists. The Elephant Art Gallery sells paintings made by various of the elephants who live in the sanctuary. They’re allowed to choose their own paints and decide if they want to paint at all that day. Elephants who don’t show interest in learning to paint don’t have to try, and instead get to do different activities.

The main difference between human art and art made by non-human animals is that humans naturally create representational art without being taught. Little kids draw wobbly stick people with big smiles and no one has to show them how. Humans can make abstract art, of course, but a skilled abstract artist chooses colors, textures, and patterns carefully to invoke a feeling in the people who look at the finished painting. This is different from a little kid finger-painting who is just having fun making a mess, although of course you can make art with finger paints too. Animals never create representational art spontaneously, and we can’t know if their choice of colors, textures, and patterns is intended to invoke a particular feeling because we can’t ask them. (I mean, we can ask them but they wouldn’t understand the question and we wouldn’t get an answer.) But it does seem obvious that animals who enjoy painting and who make deliberate marks on paper or canvas are taking pleasure from the process of creation. And when you come right down to it, that’s the most important thing about making art.

Finally, you may remember the court case about the monkey selfie from 2014. Nature photographer David Slater was taking pictures in a nature reserve in Indonesia when he stepped away from his camera, which was set up on a tripod. A Celebes crested macaque monkey investigated the camera and ended up taking a number of photos, one of which was a selfie that became almost instantly famous online. Slater tried to claim copyright to get paid for the photograph as it became more and more popular. In August of 2014 the United States Copyright Office decided that the owner of camera equipment can’t claim copyright for a photo taken by an animal. Neither can the owner of an animal who takes a photograph or otherwise produces artwork. Only a human can hold copyright, but if the human doesn’t actually create the art, they don’t get the copyright.

Hey, this would be a great day to make a drawing or a painting! Thanks for your support, and thanks for listening!

Further reading:

Is the Javan tiger Panthera tigris sondaica extant? DNA analysis of a recent hair sample

The Sunda tiger [photo by Alfonsopazphoto – Own workAnimaisFotos, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16029853]:

Show transcript:

Welcome to Strange Animals Podcast. I’m your host, Kate Shaw.

We’re going to learn about a mystery tiger this month, but first we have to learn about the place where it’s supposed to live. Java is a large island that was formed by volcanic activity millions of years ago, and it’s been home to humans and our ancestors for over a million years. Its soil is rich and the climate is tropical, but the island’s ecosystems include tall mountains, savannas, rainforests, and mangrove forests. Naturally, lots and lots of animals live on Java that are found nowhere else in the world. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people live on Java too, which means that many animals and their habitats are threatened by habitat loss and pollution. Many animals have gone extinct in the last few hundred years. That includes the Java tiger.

The Java tiger was small compared to tigers in other areas, although even a small tiger is a big animal. A big male tiger can grow about ten feet long, or 3 meters, and the Java tiger could grow about 8 feet long, or almost two and a half meters. The Java tiger was lightly built, though, and rarely weighed much more than 300 pounds, or about 140 kilograms. Despite its relatively small size, it was extremely strong and had paws as big as the much larger Bengal tiger. It also had lots of thin stripes.

Originally scientists thought the Java tiger was a separate subspecies of tiger, but in 2017 it was reclassified as a population of Sunda tigers that have only been isolated from other populations for around 12,000 years. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t important, though. It showed differences from other Sunda tigers that weren’t yet significant enough to warrant it being a separate subspecies, but which definitely indicated it was on its way to evolving into a separate subspecies.

Unfortunately, the Java tiger’s habitat was largely destroyed to make way for farming and logging, and as a result its usual prey animals became rare or went extinct. People would also poison or shoot any tiger they could. It only survived in a few small nature preserves, but the last tiger footprints were spotted in 1989 and since then, no tigers have been officially seen on Java. A 1999 expedition that set up camera traps in hopes of spotting a few tigers mostly got photos of poachers hunting in what was supposed to be a protected area. The Java tiger was declared extinct.

Rumors persisted that tigers still lived on Java, though. Sometimes I think people claim to see recently extinct animals as a way to feel less guilty about humans having driven an animal to extinction. But in 2019 someone saw a tiger outside a village in western Java and reported the sighting to some local foresters. The foresters investigated and discovered footprints, claw marks, and a single hair on a fence.

The foresters collected the hair carefully and gave it to a team of geologists who were working in the area. The geologists sent it to the West Java Nature Conservation Authority, which sent it for genetic analysis. They also sent some tiger hairs from other types of tigers to compare it to, including hairs from a museum specimen of a tiger killed on Java in 1930.

The hair discovered in 2019 was definitely from a tiger, and its genetic signature most closely matched the genetic signature of the 1930 Java tiger specimen.

This doesn’t 100% mean the Java tiger isn’t extinct, but it does mean that there’s hope that it’s still around.

Java is part of Indonesia these days, and a few days ago as this episode goes live, the Indonesian government announced a plan to search for signs of the tiger, with an expedition getting underway soon to place camera traps. Conservationists are hoping that the tiger is discovered, which will allow it to be protected.

The Sunda tiger is critically endangered, only surviving in the wild on the island of Sumatra, with possibly fewer than 400 of them left alive. Another population of Sunda tigers, the Bali tiger, was declared extinct in the 1940s. A few hundred captive tigers living in zoos around the world show congenital health issues as a result of inbreeding. If the Java tiger is still alive, it could mean the difference between extinction and survival of the entire Sunda tiger subspecies. Fingers crossed that the camera traps reveal a healthy, safe population of tigers on Java!

Thanks for your support, and thanks for listening!

Further reading:

What gives bees their sweet tooth?

Show transcript:

Welcome to Strange Animals Podcast. I’m your host, Kate Shaw.

Right before I left on my trip to Belize a few months ago, my aunt Janice gave me a magazine to read on the plane, the Autumn 2021 copy of LivingBird. It’s about birds and birdwatching. I actually forgot to take it with me and it was in my car the whole time I was gone, but when I got home I took it in to read.

One article caught my eye, titled “Investigating the Sweet Tooth of Songbirds.” Literally the same day that I read that article, I stumbled across another article on ScienceDaily titled “What gives bees their sweet tooth?” And a podcast episode idea was born!

You may have heard that domestic cats can’t taste sweetness, and that’s true. When your pet cat wants to drink the milk in a bowl of sugary cereal, it’s not the sugar they care about because they can’t taste it. Also, milk isn’t good for cats and even if they can’t taste the sugar, it can end up giving them cavities.

The question is, why don’t cats taste sweetness? And what other animals can’t taste it either?

Carnivores like cats don’t need to taste sweet flavors because it’s just not present in meat, which is what carnivores eat. You can test this easily if you put two saucers on the floor for your cat, one with a small amount of unseasoned chicken and a sugar cube in the other. I guarantee you the cat will eat the chicken and play with the sugar cube, which will get sugar all over the floor so maybe don’t do that after all. This is where I share with you, for no reason, that when I was in elementary school I used to eat sugar cubes while pretending I was a horse.

Horses can taste sweet flavors like sugar because they’re herbivores. Herbivores eat plants, and in fact herbivores have a whole lot of taste buds so that they can easily tell what kind of plants they’re eating. Bitter tasting plants might be toxic while sweet ones provide lots of energy. Herbivores are also keenly attuned to the taste of salt since their diet is typically low in salt and they need to seek it out.

Humans are omnivores, and omnivores eat pretty much anything. Like our great ape cousins, we also evolved to eat a lot of fruit. Ripe fruit tastes sweet so we really like our sweet foods. Omnivores like dogs, pigs, and bears also like sweet foods because they’re high in calories and therefore provide a lot of energy.

But how does an animal lose an entire sense of taste? It’s not like all tigers woke up one day and boom, the ability to taste sweetness was gone. It happens gradually as the genes responsible for an animal’s sense of taste mutate over many generations.

Let’s take as our example the bottlenose dolphin. The ancestors of the dolphin and other cetaceans were terrestrial animals related to the ancestors of modern even-toed ungulates like hippos, camels, deer, and pigs, and were probably either herbivores or omnivores. But as the dolphin’s ancestors evolved over millions of years, they shifted to a fully marine lifestyle and a fully carnivorous diet. Over the thousands and thousands of generations, the genes that control the ability to taste sweetness mutated so much that they’re now useless, but since the dolphin doesn’t need to taste sweetness the mutations don’t matter.

In the case of the bottlenose dolphin and other cetaceans, in fact, they also can’t taste bitterness or umami. Umami is what helps you taste the difference between chicken and turkey, steak and pork, tuna and trout. Basically it’s the flavor of meat or savory foods, including cheeses. You can taste the difference between cheddar and Swiss because of the umami receptors in your taste buds, which are determined by genes.

But the dolphin eats nothing but meat! Why would it lose the ability to taste meat? Researchers think it’s because the dolphin swallows fish and other animals whole, without chewing. Cetaceans and other marine carnivores like sea lions that swallow their food whole actually have almost no taste buds at all.

If you’re wondering what happens when an animal that can’t taste sweetness has to adapt to a diet where tasting sweet foods is important, that’s exactly what happened with songbirds. The ancestors of birds lost the ability to taste sweetness millions of years ago when they were dinosaurs. Then, well, you know what happened to the non-avian dinosaurs. Suddenly the ancestors of modern birds had a lot of available ecological niches to take advantage of and they evolved rapidly to fill them. This included small birds who eat berries and nectar.

Genetic studies suggest that the ancestors of songbirds regained the ability to taste sweetness around 30 million years ago in Australia. The same thing happened in hummingbirds at about the same time. In both cases, the genes that control the ability to taste umami evolved to taste sweetness instead—but songbirds and hummingbirds adapted different umami genes. That’s what you call a subtle case of convergent evolution.

Songbirds and hummingbirds adapted to a diet high in sugar because it’s a good source of energy and easily found in flowers. In turn, flowers needed to be pollinated and have their seeds spread around, so they evolved to provide even more sugars in nectar and berries. But birds aren’t the only animals that pollinate flowers and are attracted to nectar. Insects can all detect sweetness. However, bees are exceptionally attuned to sweetness and have two taste neurons instead of one per taste bud.

Insects don’t have taste buds the same way we do, of course. In mammals, reptiles, and birds, taste buds are located on the tongue, in a few parts of the mouth, and at the top of the throat. In insects, taste receptors can be in any number of places. They’re on an insect’s mouthparts but often also on their feet, legs, and antennae.

Some amphibians have taste receptors on the body as well as concentrated in the mouth, and many fish have taste receptors all over their body. Catfish in particular have the most taste buds known, up to 175,000. Humans have about 10,000. Cats only have about 500.

Before you start feeling sorry for your cat for not being able to taste sweet foods and not having a great sense of taste in general, cats have a taste receptor we don’t. It’s the water sense. To us, a nice cold glass of water tastes refreshing but doesn’t really have a flavor. A cat or dog, and many other animals whose diet is mostly meat even if they aren’t specifically carnivores, have the ability to taste water in a way we can’t even imagine. Because meat is high in salt content, having taste buds attuned to water helps the animal drink enough water to process all that salt.

If you gave me the choice, I’d choose sweetness over the ability to taste water. But my cats would probably disagree.

Thanks for your support, and thanks for listening!

Further reading:

https://www.audubon.org/news/like-finding-unicorn-researchers-rediscover-black-naped-pheasant-pigeon-bird

https://www.sci.news/paleontology/confuciusornis-shifan-11528.html

The black-naped pheasant-pigeon:

Confuciusornis:

Show transcript:

We’re going to learn about two birds that have been in the news lately.

The first is the black-naped pheasant-pigeon. The word nape refers to the back of the neck, and this bird does have a black neck. It’s a dark blue-black all over, in fact, with reddish-brown wings, a red bill, red eyes, and long yellow legs. It looks almost identical to the other three species of pheasant-pigeons known, although some scientists think they’re subspecies. Those three are the white-naped, the green-naped, and the grey-naped pheasant-pigeons, and if you’re wondering if the spot of color on the back of the neck is the easiest way to tell these birds apart, you are exactly right. All four species are native to parts of New Guinea or small islands nearby.

Pheasant-pigeons look a lot like pheasants and are about the size of a chicken, although they’re actually pigeons. They live in forests and eat seeds and fruit, and while they can fly they spend almost all of the time on the ground. We don’t know a whole lot about them because they’re so secretive and hard to spot in the wild, although the white-naped and green-naped birds are sometimes kept in zoos. In the case of the black-naped pheasant-pigeon, all scientists knew about it was from two specimens collected in 1882. It hadn’t been seen since…until September of 2022.

A team of scientists visited Fergusson Island off the east coast of Papua New Guinea in September, as part of a worldwide collaboration of scientists called The Search for Lost Birds. This is similar to the Search for Lost Frogs that has been active for over a decade, discovering lots of new amphibians and rediscovering even more. The 2022 search was actually a follow-up to a 2019 expedition that had failed to find the bird, although it did make other discoveries.

In 2022, the team brought more people and equipment, determined to make the best effort possible to find the black-naped pheasant-pigeon. They consulted with local hunters to find the best places to search, and talked to lots of residents to see if anyone had seen one, and spent day after day hiking through forested mountains. For weeks they had no luck. Then, in a remote mountain village, they finally met some people who were familiar with the bird. One man led them to the right part of the forest and they set up camera traps, but at that point they only had a few days left before they had to leave the island.

When they checked the pictures captured by the camera traps, though, they’d found it! Two of the cameras had taken pictures and video of what were definitely black-naped pheasant-pigeons, and since the cameras were several kilometers apart the pictures were probably of different individuals. The black-naped pheasant-pigeon wasn’t extinct, which means it can be protected. Habitat loss, especially from commercial logging, and feral domestic cats are the two main threats to birds in the area.

The other bird we’re going to talk about today hasn’t been seen in even longer: 119 million years, in fact. The article about this fossil was only released a few days ago as this episode goes live. You can check the show notes for links to this article and a good one about the pheasant-pigeon too.

Paleontologists discovered the bird’s fossil remains in northeastern China, in fossil beds that contain incredibly well-preserved animals and plants. The Jiufotang Formation in China dates to the early Cretaceous, between about 122 and 119 million years ago, and researchers think it’s from an area that was once a shallow lake surrounded by forests. Every so often, a nearby volcano would erupt and the resulting ash would fall into the lake, causing anoxic conditions that helped preserve animals that died and sank into the mud at the bottom of the lake. There are lots of fish, pterosaurs, birds, and dinosaurs among the fossils discovered, most of them small but a few quite large. This includes a type of tyrannosaur that probably grew around 33 feet long, or 10 meters. A few early mammals have been discovered too. In one case, the remains of 40 individual birds were found on one big slab of stone, and scientists think an entire flock of birds was killed by a volcanic ashfall or poisonous gases from the volcano.

The newly described fossil we’re talking about today was almost complete and almost completely articulated, preserved with the impression of feathers around its body. The bird has been named Confuciusornis shifan and was a little smaller than a modern crow. It had a toothless beak and a short tail, although it probably had long tail feathers. Other Confuciusornis species have been discovered with the impressions of long tail plumes.

All of the Confuciusornis fossils discovered so far were birds that could fly well but probably nowhere near as well as any bird today. But C. shifan had an adaptation in its wings not seen in any other bird, living or extinct. It had a small extra bone in the wing that acted like a cushion and probably helped the wings withstand the stresses of flight.

The most interesting thing about the different Confuciusornis species is that if we could go back in time and see them when they were alive, they probably wouldn’t have looked unusual to most people, except to bird experts who would instantly freak out. For the most part, they just looked like birds. Some specimens show preserved melanosomes under electron microscopy that indicate the feathers were various colors including white, brown, red, and black. There’s even evidence of a pattern of spots and streaks on some feathers. Their feet were adapted for perching the way many modern songbird feet are. But Confuciusornis wasn’t a direct ancestor of modern birds as far as we know.

Even though we have lots of beautifully preserved Confuciusornis fossils, the fossils can only tell us so much. We have a pretty good idea of what the birds looked like, but we don’t know much about how they lived. One specimen was found with the remains of a tiny fish inside its body, so researchers think the birds may have eaten fish or might have just been omnivores that weren’t picky about what they ate. One specimen was found with an egg beside it that was the right size to have fit through its pelvic opening, but we can’t know for sure if the egg belonged to the bird or was from another bird and just happened to have settled near the dead bird when it fell in the water.

Still, even though we only have fossil remains, that’s much better than having no knowledge of these early birds at all.

Thanks for your support, and thanks for listening!