
Scientists found Zenkerella, one of the most ancient and mysterious mammals - stanleydrew
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/16/scientists-finally-found-zenkerella-the-worlds-most-mysterious-mammal/
======
PeterWhittaker
FTFA: _For context, they 're only about 15 million years younger than the
dinosaurs, and some 35 million years older than the oldest great apes. When
they first arose, Australia was still connected to Antarctica, and the
Himalayas didn't even exist yet._

They've changed _very little over the past 49 million years_.

What I find disturbing is that because we know so little about them, they
merit the lowest categorization on the threat scale, least concern. Again
FTFA, _their habitat is under threat from deforestation and development...
scientists have never seen the animal alive in the wild, they 're not entirely
sure where they live, or how many of them there are left_.

I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what
you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance".

~~~
honkhonkpants
I find it odd that this is the reason you would preserve these habitats.
Humans have the technological capacity to wipe out all remaining forest
habitats within a few decades, and probably will do so unless a wave of
enlightenment comes over everybody. Wild animal populations stand at half what
they were in 1975 and are headed for zero. Why would humanity stop the
destruction for an obscure squirrel?

~~~
restalis
_" Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?"_

Because we didn't filed it yet for extinct species archive. It's about
respecting our bureaucratic procedure, you see?

------
sohkamyung
PeerJ paper on Zenkerella at [1]. I find it irritating that the article says
"in a study published Tuesday in the journal PeerJ..." then never explicitly
links to it.

[1] "Ancient phylogenetic divergence of the enigmatic African rodent
Zenkerella and the origin of anomalurid gliding" [
[https://peerj.com/articles/2320/](https://peerj.com/articles/2320/) ]

------
muninn_
Why didn't they evolve?

~~~
farnsworth
People tend to think that constant evolution is the natural state of the world
becoming "more advanced". But really, evolution will only happen when there's
a reason. This species is related to a bunch of other species that did evolve,
but apparently it represents a group that managed to stay in conditions that
it was already adequately adapted for. Or there was no beneficial direction
available in which it could evolve.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> People tend to think that constant evolution is the natural state of the
> world becoming "more advanced". But really, evolution will only happen when
> there's a reason.

This is fallacious. It's so wrong that it overlooks the term ("genetic drift")
that _specifically describes_ evolution that happens "for no reason". All
species constantly evolve, as noted in nn3's sibling comment to yours. This
one has preserved its skeletal structure, which is an infinitesimal part of
it.

From the heading of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil):

> The term living fossil is sometimes used in the popular literature, as if to
> imply a lack of evolution, and has occasionally also been taken to imply
> very low rates of molecular evolution, but scientific investigations have
> repeatedly discredited claims that these species do not change at all, as
> well as other misconceptions about living fossils.

> Living fossils are not expected to exhibit exceptionally low rates of
> molecular evolution, and some studies have shown that they do not. For
> example, on tadpole shrimp (Triops), one article notes, "Our work shows that
> organisms with conservative body plans are constantly radiating, and
> presumably, adapting to novel conditions.... I would favor retiring the term
> ‘living fossil’ altogether, as it is generally misleading."

