How Dogs Survived Radiation

This was an interesting article I found, and something to think about in a speculative biology project. How dogs survived so long and reproduced in an infected area, like Chernobyl. The dogs did not die of the radiation. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They have survived and thrived, and still do today. Although you won't want one of these dogs in your home, unless you have a death wish. But they offer some great examples of how animals can live in an area infected with radiation. It could even give some insight to how animals can survive cataclysms that might end humanity. So I thought this was a good subject to post here.

To view the article, you can go here https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/pets/chernobyl-s-feral-dogs-offer-clues-to-radiation-s-role-in-evolution/ar-AA1v0yOb?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ACTS&cvid=4d41b9f4b3fd4e1d98192c329b8cac1f&ei=17

Chernobyl's Feral Dogs Offer Clues to Radiation's Role in Evolution

Story by Angela Park

Have you ever thought of how dogs in Chernobyl-infested areas live? Scientists have been studying them for quite some time now, causing new findings and remarkable indifferences compared with other dogs across the radius. Yup, amazing as it sounds, these dogs are a special kind, and it's an opportunity for scientists to discover wildlife's reaction to radiation. If you're up for such, then read along.

On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor, located in Northern Ukraine and parts of the Soviet Union, exploded. It sent a massive plum of radiation into the sky. With that, every human evacuated the area, which is still a case nearly four decades after it happened.

Believe it or not, animals thrive in the absence of humans, which was proven by thousands of feral dogs that roam around the area. They were the descendants of the pets left behind when humans did a speedy evacuation.

Now, as the explosion reaches its 40th anniversary, biologists decided to take a closer look at the animals located inside the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ), whose size can be compared with Yosemite National Park. These biologists investigated how the decades of radiation exposure may have possibly altered these animals' genomes and sped up their evolution.

Animals Under The CEZ

The scientists from the University of South Carolina and the Gnome Research Institute put the plan into action. They began examining the DNA of 302 feral dogs that were found to roam around CEZ. The aim is to understand how radiation has altered their genomes.

Co-author and dog genomics expert Elaine Ostrander provided an eye-opener for readers when she dropped these questions at the New York Times: Is there some kind of mutation that they've acquired that allowed them to breed successfully in the region, and What challenges do they face, now that they coped genetically?

Radiation speeding up natural evolution isn't some new science concept. There is also the practice of purposefully irradiating seeds in outer space to induce an advantageous mutation. Its advantages include a well-worn method for developing crops that are suited for a warming world.

Not only do these scientists focus on dogs, but they've also been exploring other animals that inhabit the area, such as bacteria, rodents, and birds. One study in 2016 found that Eastern tree frogs (Hyla orientalis), which are born green in color, were commonly black in the CEZ. Biologists theorize that frogs may have experienced a beneficial mutation that can only be found in melanin pigments. They help to dissipate and neutralize the surrounding radiation.

The Case of Chernobyl's Wild Dogs

With all that being said, scientists raised the question: Could something similar happen to Chernobyl's wild dogs?

The study found that feral dogs living in and around the Chernobyl Power Plant showed distinct genetic differences from dogs living 10 miles away from the inhabited Chernobyl City. This is one heavy implication that these dogs may have undergone rapid mutation or evolution due to their exposure to radiation. This is the first step in proving the hypothesis.

 The same object that is said to have wiped out life throughout history may also have been the one event that brought life to this planet. Of course, that has been a theory for quite some time now. I used to hear about it back in the 90s. When I was a kid, my ma used to threaten me when she couldn't handle me with "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out!" This theory brings a whole new meaning to that phrase. This article I found this morning believes that an asteroid is responsible for bringing life to Earth. That would mean that we are not originally earthlings. Also that there must be other forms of life out there living their lives on another planet. Maybe more advanced than we are? Who knows?

What could these other forms look like? Could they be creatures with 9 legs and tentacles growing out of their head? Are 9 legs possible in any life form anywhere? I guess that would depend on it's surroundings. The reason we retained the formula of having 4 limbs, a head and tail, is because it works for us. Insects have 6 legs, and arthropods have 8. But their bodies are also close to the ground and the legs are splayed out in a crouched position. Plus most insects have wings and can fly. Most creatures with more than 4 limbs are very close to the ground. I think it's gravity though that plays a role in that.

This is why I believe land-based walking squids would be impossible. They may inherit niches left by fish and take over the waters of the world. But it's unlikely they will walk on land. And even less likely they will swing through trees like monkeys or apes. If they do, they would have to take on a completely different body form. A form where they would not even remotely resemble squids

Anyway, here's the article

Asteroid impact 3 billion years ago sparked early life on Earth

Story by EWS

New geological research suggests that a gigantic asteroid impact over 3 billion years ago, despite creating extreme conditions on our planet, may have created a conducive environment for the flourishing of early bacterial life forms.

Harvard University scientists, led by geologist Nadja Drabon, analyzed rocks from the Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa to reconstruct events from 3.26 billion years ago. Geological evidence points to an asteroid impact known as S2, estimated to be up to 200 times larger than the object that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The powerful collision triggered a tsunami, mixing ocean waters and transferring dust from land to coastal areas. The heat generated by the impact caused the surface layers of the oceans to boil and the atmosphere to heat up. A dense dust cloud rose into the air, blocking sunlight and preventing photosynthesis.

The first traces of bacterial life on Earth didn't last long

Despite these drastic changes, bacterial life not only survived but quickly rebounded. According to Drabon's team analysis, there was a rapid increase in populations of unicellular organisms utilizing iron and phosphorus. Iron was likely moved from the ocean depths to shallower areas, while phosphorus came from both the meteorite and increased land erosion.

"We think of impacts as catastrophic for life. But this research shows that they also provided benefits to life, and particularly in the early stages, they could actually allow it to thrive," believes Drabon, as quoted by the Polish Press Agency.

This short-term shift of the ecosystem towards iron-using bacteria is an important element in understanding the beginnings of life on our planet.

Research conducted in the Barberton Greenstone Belt on the eastern edge of the Kaapvaal craton—considered to be the Earth's original crust from 3.5 to 2.5 billion years ago—revealed evidence of at least eight similar meteorite impacts. The results were published in the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences," and scientists plan to continue their work to further explore the impact of these ancient events on the evolution of life on Earth.

Rules of Biological Taxonomy

 I found this article very interesting. Apparently, taxonomic names can be used more than once. So, a few of the names I had to change before, I changed back. For example, Dolichotragus is back to being called Juncus. It's the name of a reed, but I am also using it for a slender therapedid on my list. It's actually a name I gave the animal back when I first created it in the 1980s. So, I think I should continue using it. Now that I have read this article, I know that it is OK. I'm posting the article here, as I thought this might help anyone creating their own futuristic project. If you want to read the full article, you can also view these rules at this link.

Rules for assigning scientific names have become well codified in order to keep the names internationally unambiguous and understandable. The full set of rules is rather involved, but the most important parts are fairly simple:
Rules for ZoologyBinomens - A genus name is one word. A species name is binomial -- the genus plus a second word. Subspecies have a trinomial name (a "trinomen"). A subgenus is occasionally given in parentheses after the genus, thus:
Bison (Bison) bison bison (Linne 1758) Skinner & Kaisen, 1947 (American bison)Authorship - The author's name and date of publication are typically given after the scientific name. If a name is later changed (e.g., moved to a new genus), The original author is given in parentheses. The names are often abbreviated; in particular, "L." is Linnaeus. Anonymous publication is invalid as of 1950, but was accepted before then.

Buettikoferella Stresemann 1928 (buff-banded grassbird) This name was originally published in an obituary. Stresemann mentioned, in an obituary for Buettikofer, that a bird genus was named after him, but Stresemann realized that Buettikoferia was preoccupied, so he proposed this as a replacement. [Orn. Monatsb. 36: 40,note4]

Description - After 1930, new names must come with a description (or reference to one) telling what the name means.
Megalochelys atlas (Rhodin et al. 2015) (giant Miocene-Pleistocene turtle) The fossil was first named Megalochelys sivalensis by Falconer & Cautley (1837), but that publication was a brief announcement with no description. They gave a complete description in 1844, but changed the name to Colossochelys atlas (because they felt that "Megalochelys" was not sufficiently expressive of the fossil's large size). A nomen nudum, or "naked name", i.e. a name without description, invalidates the species name but not, it turns out, names of genus or higher rank, so Megalochelys stayed, but sivalensis was replaced by atlas. (And Rhodin et al. get credit for first treating it under that combination [Turtles and Tortoises of the World during the Rise and Global Spread of Humanity].)Type specimen - Descriptions should refer to an actual specimen, available for examination in a museum or other collection. There are complicated rules for determining the type if the original is lost or if there was no type specimen with the original description. The taxonomy of types is rather complicated in itself; see A Compendium of Zoological Type Nomenclature: a Reference Source by Neal L. Evenhuis, Bishop Museum Technical Report 41 (2008).

In a 1959 article on Linnaeus, William Stearn wrote, "Linnaeus himself, must stand as the type of his Homo sapiens." Though it was an off-hand comment, it suffices as nomenclatural act, and so Linnaeus, buried beneath Uppsala Cathedral, is the lectotype (a later-selected type specimen) for Homo sapiens. A 1994 publication reported that Robert Bakker proposed to designate Edward Cope as the type, but Bakker never actually published this. Besides, Stearn's designation has priority.
Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Loch Ness monster) This proposed name is not a valid scientific name because there is no type specimen to go with it.
Tanysiptera nympha G.R. Gray, 1840 (red-breasted paradise kingfisher) This name is accepted as valid even though underparts, wings, and rump of the mounted specimen Gray worked from came from at least three other species of birds, "artificially intermingled, to give the appearance of a perfect specimen." There was enough of the head and body to indicate a new species. [Dance, 1975, p. 77]Priority - The oldest valid published name is the one that gets used. Today one need not look back further than the works of Linnaeus, but Linnaeus and his students searched older works for the oldest published names, going back even to Thucydides and Pliny the Elder. Early publication is not invalidated even if there is some error in the original name:
Cryptoclidus (plesiosaur from Oxford Clay) The spelling was intended to be Cryptocleidus (from the Greek for 'hidden clavicle'), but probably from a printing error, it appeared, and now remains, without the 'e'.
Eschscholzia Chamisso, 1820 (California poppy) Named for zoologist Johann Eschscholtz, but the 't' was omitted from the publication.
Haliaeetus Savigny 1809 (bald eagle) This name is a misspelling; the original description had an extra 'e', which must now stay there.
Huernia (African Asclepiadaceae) Named after Justus Heurnius, the first European to collect plants in South Africa, but the "eu" was transposed in publication.
Penstemon (flowering plant) The name derives from "five stamens", so some have called it Pentstemon or Pentastemon, but the shorter name has priority.
Wisteria Nuttall (woody vine) Named for Caspar Wistar, author of America's first anatomy textbook and successor of Thomas Jefferson as head of the American Philosophical Society. But Nuttall misspelled it with an "e", and the name is stuck.
Ambystoma or Amblystoma Tschudi 1838 (mole salamanders) Both names appeared in the original description. Amblystoma ("blunt mouth") was probably intended, but Ambystoma (and the family Ambystomatidae) is the accepted name now. Amblystoma is on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid names, but it still gets quite a bit of use.There are means of overruling priority, if the newer name has come into common use before the priority of the original name is recognized.
Scrotum humanum Brookes 1763 (Megalosaurus) Among the oldest dinosaur bones discovered. So named because the condyles had a testicular shape. Fortunately, the genus will continue to be known as Megalosaurus because that name came into common use before it was discovered that Scrotum was an earlier synonym. [Halstead & Sargent, 1993, Modern Geol. 18:221-4]Sometimes the same name gets reused by people not aware of the original use:
Argus Bohadsch 1761 (gastropod)
Argus Scopoli 1763 (lycaenid)
Argus Scopoli 1777 (satyrid)
Argus Poli 1791 (mollusk)
Argus Temminck 1807 (bird)
Argus Lamarck 1817 (hesperiid)
Argus Boisduval 1832 (lycaenid)
Argus Walckenaer 1836 (arachnid)
Argus Gray 1847 (mollusk)
Argus Gerhard 1850 (lycaenid) Only the original name is valid. Since that name has priority, all the rest are junior homonyms and needed to be renamed.


However, the same name can be used for a plant and an animal. There are hundreds of instances. See hemihomonyms for the long list (though it includes invalid names). The samples given below are those I found before discovering that website.
Adonis L. 1753 (bird's-eye ranuncula) or Adonis Gronow 1854 (fish)
Ammophila (grass or sphecid wasp)
Andromeda L. 1753 (wild rosemary) or Andromeda Gistel 1834 (bupestrid beetle)
Appendicularia DC. (plant) or Appendicularia Fol, 1874 (free-swimming tunicate). It is also the name of the class which the latter is within.
Arenaria L. 1753 (Caryophyllaceae plant) or Arenaria Brisson 1760 (bird)
Aotus (pea or monkey)
Arctophila (grass or syrphid fly)
Aristotelia (tree or moth)
Bartramia (moss or sandpiper)
Bullockia (Rubiaceae or catfish)
Canarium (tropical tree or sea snail)
Cannabis L. (hemp) or Cannabis Blyth 1850 (bird)
Cecropia (tree or moth)
Cereus (cactus or sea anemone)
Chloris (grass or green finch)
Colocasia (taro or tussock moth)
Culcita (tree fern or echinoderm)
Cyanea (Hawaiian bellflower or jellyfish)
Dahlia Cav. (flower) or Dahlia Pagenstecher, 1900 (moth)
Darwinia Rudge 1815 (shrub) or Darwinia Pereyaslawzewa 1892 (flatworm)
Darwiniella Speg. 1888 (fungus) or Darwiniella Anderson 1992 (barnacle). There is also an illigimate name Darwiniella Braas & Luckel, 1982 (orchid)
Dionaea (venus flytrap) or Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (fly)
Diphylleia Michx. 1803 (herbaceous plant) or Diphylleia Massart 1920 (protist)
Donax Lour. (arrowroot relative) or Donax L. (clam)
Dracunculus (herb or roundworm)
Drosophila (fungus, synonym of Typhrasa) or Drosophila (fruit fly)
Dryas (shrub or butterfly) The shrub gave its name to the Older and Younger Dryas geological periods.
Dugesia (composite or flatworm)
Eisenia (brown alga or earthworm)
Erica L. (heath) or Erica Peckham and Peckham 1892 (jumping spider)
Ficus (fig or gastropod)
Girardia S.F.Gray (red alga) or Girardia Ball, 1974 (flatworm)
Hamadryas (buttercup or butterfly)
Hymenolepis (yarrow relative or tapeworm)
Huberia DC. (Melatomataceae) or Huberia Forel, 1890 (ant)
Hystrix (grass or porcupine)
Iris (flower or mantis)
Knightia (Proteaceae plant or fossil fish)
Lactarius (fungus or fish)
Leptonia (toadstool (now usu. a subgenus of Entoloma) or rove beetle)
Lessonia (kelp or tyrant flycatcher)
Linaria Mill. (toadflax) or Linaria Bechstein 1802 (bird)
Liparis Rich. 1818 (orchid) or Liparis Scopoli 1777 (fish)
Lophophora J.M.Coult. (cactus) or Lophophora Möschler, 1890 (moth)
Lucilia Cass. (flower) or Lucilia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (moth)
Mallotus Lour. (spurge) or Mallotus Cuvier, 1829 (fish)
Mauritia (palm or gastropod)
Megaceros (hornwort or Pleistocene deer)
Melanogaster Corda (false truffle) or Melanogaster Rondani, 1857 (hover fly)
Morus (mulberry or gannet)
Myrmecia (alga or ant)
Oenanthe (water celery or bird)
Perilla L. (mint) or Perilla Thorell, 1895 (spider)
Pieris (Japanese andromeda or butterfly)
Ponera Lindl. (orchid) or Ponera Latreille 1804 (ant)
Prosopis (mesquite or solitary bee)
Prunella Linnaeus 1753 (Lamiaceae plant) or Prunella Vieillot 1816 (bird)
Rhamphorhynchus (orchid or pterosaur)
Ricinus (castor bean or bird louse)
Sirindhornia (orchid or moth)
Sphaerostoma (fossil gymnosperm or trematode)
Stenella Syd. (1930) (fungus) or Stenella Gray 1866 (dolphin)
Trichia von Haller 1768 (slime mold) or Trichia Hartmann 1840 (snail)
Verticordia DC. (myrtle) or Verticordia Sowerby 1844) (clam)
Zenkerella (African legume or African rodent)
Zeus Minter & Diam. (1987) (fungus) or Zeus L. (dory)



There are even a few cases of duplicated binomials, where both genus and species get reused in different kingdoms:
Adesmia muricata (Linnaeus, 1758) (beetle) or Adesmia muricata (Jacq.) DC. (legume)
Agathis montana Shestakov, 1932 (wasp) or Agathis montana de Laub. (kauri, a conifer)
Asterina gibbosa (Pennant, 1777) (starfish) or Asterina gibbosa Gaillard (fungus)
Baileya australis (Grote, 1881) (moth) or Baileya australis Rydb. (desert marigold, synonym of B. multiradiata)
Centropogon australis (White, 1790) (waspfish) or Centropogon australis Gleason (bellflower)
Cuspidaria cuspidata (Olivi, 1792) (bivalve) or Cuspidaria cuspidata (M. Bieb.) Takht. (wallflower, a synonym of Erysimum cuspidatum)
Ficus variegata Röding, 1798 (sea snail) or Ficus variegata Blume (fig)
Gaussia princeps (T. Scott, 1894) (copepod) or Gaussia princeps H.Wendl. (palm)
Myrmecia pyriformis Smith, 1858 (ant) or Myrmecia pyriformis J.B.Petersen (green algae)
Orestias elegans Garman, 1895 (pupfish) or Orestias elegans Ridl. (orchid)
Thysanotus gracilis Jeannel, 1949 (ground beetle) or Thysanotus gracilis R.Br. (herb)
Tritonia pallida Stimpson, 1855 (nudibranch) or Tritonia pallida Ker Gawl. (iris)
Words and Letters - The names must be pronouncible words (preferably Latinized), using Latin letters, with no diacritics or punctuation (except hyphens can be used in some circumstances).

Some names stretch the pronouncibility.
Ekgmowechashala (early Miocene North American primate) The name means "small fox-man" in Lakota
Lainodon orueetxebarriai Gheerbrant & Astibia, 1994 (Upper Cretaceous mammal) The 'tx' is pronounced like English 'ch'.
Nqwebasaurus thwazi de Klerk et al. 2000 (Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous South African coelurosaur) It is pronounced: N-(click with tongue)-KWE-bah-SAWR-us. If you are a real stickler for pronunciation, the "nq" is a nasal postalveolar click. Nqweba is the native Bantu name of the place where the dino was found.
Tahuantinsuyoa macantzatza Kullander 1986 (Peruvian cichlid) The genus is a Quechuan name of the Incan empire; this page has a pronunciation.


There are no official rules about how names should be pronounced. Still, many names have right and wrong pronunciations according to conventional usage.
Buddleja L. (shrub) Named after botanist and rector Adam Buddle in an era when 'j' sometimes signified a long 'i' between two vowels. It is pronounced BUD-ul-EYE-uh.
Exceptions - When an otherwise valid name would "disturb stability or universality or cause confusion," the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature may choose another name instead.

There are plenty of other rules; see the ICZN and specifically the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for the complete set.
Rules for BotanyThe rules above are for zoological nomenclature. The rules for botanical nomenclature are similar. Some exceptions are:For valid publication, after Jan. 1, 1935 (1958 for algae, 1996 for fossils), the plant name must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis, or by a reference to one.
Publication of species or lower ranks must, after 1912 (1958 for algae), be accompanied by an illustration showing essential characters, or by a reference to one. After 2001, one such illustration must represent the type specimen.
The authors are given in taxonomic monographs, and if a name is changed, both the original author (in parentheses) and the revising author are named. For example:
Taphrina cerasi (Fuck.) Sad. The fungus Taphrina cerasi was originally described by Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel and later redescribed by Richard Emil Benjamin Sadebeck, so this listing now appears in some catalogs. The prefered citation, though, is Taphrina cerasi (Fuckel) Sadeb.Zoology allows tautonyms (genus and species repeating the same word, e.g. Bufo bufo), and botany does not. Some names come close, though.
Ziziphus zizyphus (L.) H.Karst. (jujube)Zoologists do not like hyphens in names, although a very few have snuck in:
Zygiella x-notata (Clerck 1757) (silver-sided sector spider)
Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus 1758) (comma butterfly)
Xestia c-nigrum (Linnaeus 1758) (the Setaceous Hebrew character (a moth))
Astroscopus y-graecum (Cuvier 1829) (southern stargazer fish)
Somateria mollissima v-nigrum Bonaparte, 1855 (Pacific eider)
Phelsuma v-nigra (Boettger 1913) (gecko)Botany does not encourage hyphens, but allows them more freely:
Johnson-sea-linkia profunda N.J. Eiseman & S.A. Earle, 1983 (seaweed)Rules for botany (at least since 1912) forbid generic names which refer to morphological characters.
The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants goes into great length concerning the messy subject of hybrids. Orchids present enough additional difficulties in this area that they have their own Handbook on Orchid Nomenclature and Registration.
Botany allows names for ranks below subspecies: variety (var.), subvariety (subvar.), form (f.), and subform (subf.). These need not be nested within a subspecies or each other.
Rules for Fungi

Traditionally, fungi have been grouped with plants (even though, as later discovered, they are more closely related to animals). In 2011, this grouping was formalized, with the botanical code (ICBN) renamed the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).

Because fungi often have very different sexual and asexual forms, the same species of fungus could have two different scientific names, one for the sexual form and one for the asexual. This rule, however, has changed (with much gnashing of teeth) as of 2011, because DNA analysis makes it easier to recognize two forms as the same species.
Rules for Bacteria

There is also a separate International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes governed by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP). It has published the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, listing all names valid as of 1 January 1980; it serves as a starting point for adding new names. "(Approved Lists 1980)" may be used in place of an author citation for names on the lists. Other rules particular to prokaryotes are:Names must be published in International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology or International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology to be valid.
Subgenus and subspecies names, when present, are labelled "subgen." and "subsp."
Prokaryote names must avoid existing names of plants and animals. However, there are several exceptions where a bacterial genus shares it name with a plant (or fungus), animal, or both. Here are cases where the name covers three phyla (listing bacterium, animal, plant/fungus in that order).
Gordonia Stackebrandt et al. 1989 or Gordonia Newton, 1893 (Permian synapsid) or Gordonia J.Ellis (Theaceae)
Lawsonia McOrist et al. 1995 or Lawsonia Sharp, 1873 (beetle) or Lawsonia L. (Lythraceae)
Leptonema Hovind-Hougen 1983 or Leptonema Guérin, 1843 (caddisfly) or Leptonema A.Juss (Phyllanthaceae)
Moorella Collins et al. 1994 or Moorella Cameron, 1913 (parasitoid wasp) or Moorella P.Rag.Rao & D.Rao (saprophytic fungus)
Morganella Fulton, 1943 or Morganella Cockerell, 1897 (scale insect) or Morganella Zeller (1948) (puffball)
Rothia Georg and Brown 1967 or Rothia Westwood, 1877 (moth) or Rothia Pers. (legume)
The Code recommends that if a species is named after a person, the person should in some way be connected with it.
A name should be rejected "whose application is likely to lead to accidents endangering health or life or both or of serious economic consequences."

New Changes to Old Names

 Well, I kinda got a burst of inspiration from working on the Australian bush foxes yesterday. So, I've been working on my checklist for Metazoica. I thought it was proper to add the other foxes to the canine family in the Metazoic, because to be honest with you, I don't believe foxes are going anywhere. There's a slight difference. There are 4 genera of foxes, instead of simply using the one that is classified today. I divided the genus Vulpes into 4 separate genera. I'm using not only Vulpes (northern forest foxes), but also Fennecus (for old world desert foxes), Neocyon (for American prairie foxes) and Alopex for the arctic and corsac foxes. Then, of course I added Urocyon, which is a genus currently in use today for the gray foxes.

I also added a few species of my own to these genera. For example, the silver and "cross fox" are separate species in the genus Vulpes. Today, they are simply mutations of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). But, I figure by the time the Metazoic comes around, those varieties will have had enough time to become separate, solid species of their own. So, in the Metazoic, there is not only V. vulpes (or the red fox), there is also V. cinereus (silver fox), V. variegatus (or the canadian variegated fox--known today as the "cross fox"), and V. decassatus (the scandinavian variegated fox). I've seen pictures of cross foxes before. Their markings and colorings seem to be fairly uniform among individuals. So, I think there is some potential for a distinct species in the Metazoic. But instead of calling them "cross foxes", which is basically a pub name for the animals, I call them Variegated foxes because I think it sounds more scientific.

I am also trying to fix a lot of the generic names of my animals as well. Particularly the species I thought up back when I started this project. In those days, the only guide I had to determine scientific names for the animals I came up with was my father's Spanish dictionary. Half of the species, I don't even remember what their names mean. I cannot change the species names, that gets confusing! Which kinda sucks because I have some species named after people I'm not even speaking to anymore! But I made the stupid mistake once of changing a species entire classification, that was the genus and species name. I see it in old texts of my Metazoic checklist, and now I cannot even find it in the newer texts. I don't remember what I changed it from! UGH! Or even if I changed it at all. I MUST have! Because there's a picture of a species of that genus in a book I did back in 2000. So, my frail, zombie-like state that I was in between 1998 and 2000 did not cause the loss of that species. It had to have somehow been lost after 2000.

However, I frequently change generic names. Mostly because my mind is evolving along with today's mammals. My father's little Spanish dictionary is simply not useful anymore for naming species. And then also in those days, I was just learning Latin and Greek, two of the more typical languages used to create scientific names. I wasn't as fully versed in those languages as I am now. Plus, in those days, we didn't have Google. So, coming up with generic names that has anything to do with the animals' appearance or characters was a lot more difficult back in the early days of Metazoica. I cannot discuss the exact changes in generic names I've made, there's simply too many. But you can see them in my next edition of my Metazoic checklist. You can order the next checklist for a mere $21.57 by clicking on the picture in the sidebar⟶⟶ 

Sorry, I will no longer be offering the checklist for free. Google is being a bitch about my storage space and sharing!

Another thing I finally did that I'd been meaning to do now for years! Murognathus. Originally, it was in the Deinognathidae family. But having tweaked it some, I've decided to make it into its own family. Now it is the single genus in the family Murognathidae. Still has 2 species. But being it lives in Batavia (Hawaii) and would have likely descended from a different ancestor than Deinognathus and its kin, I felt it was only proper to finally place it in a family group of it's own. I'm even thinking of completely removing the family from the order of Trelatebrates, and make them more closely related to the cats of Hawaii. Such a thing happens like once in 100 years in classification. It happened with the aye-aye from Madagascar. They were originally believed to be rodents. Then it was realized they are really and truly primates. So, I may be doing the same and completely reclassifying Murognathus. And the cats that took up being wild in Hawaii have to go somewhere. It doesn't look like they are going to become extinct.

I've even been thinking about it carefully, and may someday remove the entire Deinognathoidea from the order of Trelatebrates, though I might keep them closely related, I don't know. But they are very different from other families in the Trelatebrates. They are much more carnivorous and have carnivorian teeth and jaws. Part of what influenced this rethinking is this picture that I got from an AI program when I put in a description of Tamanoa...

If you notice, it looks very catlike. That was just using a few descriptive words. The last thing on my mind was cats and panthers. I remember when I used to get on the Speculative evolution forum, a lot of those people complained because I modeled the Deinognathids from elephant shrews instead of cats. But looking at this image from AI, after putting in a detailed description of what Tamanoa is supposed to look like, I don't know! I kinda like it. I can see this animal running after prey and eating other animals in the Metazoic.

Mystery "Numbats"

 I was surfing the internet yesterday. I was looking for a picture of a particular animal for a project I'd like to somehow work on that has NOTHING to do with Metazoica or speculative biology. I was looking for a picture of a numbat. A numbat, in case you didn't know, is a small marsupial, said to be related to the extinct Tasmanian tiger. It's one of Australia's most beautiful animals, IMO. Well, I've known about numbats long enough to know one when I see one. But what I found was definitely not numbats! Eventually I did find a pic of a numbat, but these pics I found caught my eye and captured my heart and imagination. Apparently, they are AI generated. The coloring was almost reminiscent of a numbat, but the structure of the body and head were very different. The appearance was more like that of a cross between a mongoose and a fox. With a little bit of a squirrel thrown in there.

Well, this gave me a new idea. I do need some more entries for my checklist to finally complete my goal that I was supposed to reach over 20 years ago! But once I get these new animals I've found, I'll finally have over 4000 new species of Metazoic mammals. It'll be beautiful. Although by this time back when I started this project, I thought I would have about 10,000 Metazoic mammal species. Modern mammals are getting way ahead of me here! But in the late 1990s, I got a bit sidetracked for a few years by the death of someone who was my everything. I even decided to commemorate him by naming some of the animals on my checklist after him.

Anyway, I took the family Cynovulpidae and changed it back to the Canidae. Why not? They are remnants of dogs. And this is the newest member of the family. Meet Sylvialopex. It is a small, furry, highly-adorned fox of the Australian woodlands and brushlands that feed on small animals, insects, and sometimes berries. The collective name for these animals is "Australian bush foxes".

S. strigulus; the stripe-mantled bush fox.
Also calling it the "banner-tailed bush fox"

S. varius; the chequered bush fox.

S. tinnicaudatus; the ring-tailed bush fox.

S. verbera; the stripe-faced bush fox.

My thanks, many times over, to whomever came up with these. Sorry but, they're not numbats. But they do make interesting foxes! Here's another one. I decided to revive the Tachyglossidae into the Metazoic. But it only has one genus; Uroechidna. It's twice as big as Zaglossus today, and has a noticeably longer tail, but still feeds on ants and other insects. This was another one I found that was mistakenly labeled a long-beaked echidna.

Uroechidna sp. I currently call it the "Giant echidna".

Both of these genera inhabit the Australian region. But while Sylvialopex is confined to the continental eastern Australian brushland, Uroechidna lives in the Metazoic northern Australia and southern Great Barrier Mountains. Here's another I created myself last night. It was unintentional. I was trying to do a picture through AI of Natopterus, just to see if it can do it. I'm still new to this AI business. I do hope to master it someday. But here is a head-portrait of the newest species of Pteropus for the Metazoic..,

Pteropus rubrifrons; the red-fronted flying fox.

That truly looks like a fox. But since it was originally meant to be a bat, I kept it that way. It's just a new species I thought up.

So, those are the newest animals in our zoo. I hope to come up with some more soon.

One In A Billion

 An amazing event happened now, in 2024, that has only happened twice before in Earth's history. Watch this video for details...

It looks like new life may be emerging. The first time this happened on Earth, it gave us mitochondria. The second time brought plants that get their nutrients from the sunlight. So, I wonder in the next billion years, what lifeforms are going to spring up from this symbiotic merging. Modern scientists already have a name for this new potential of life. They called them "Nitroplasts". Probably because they feed on nitrogen in the air. But either way, scientists are very excited about this event happening right before our eyes. It's a very rare event that truly only happens once every billion years.

To me, this is exciting. The potential for new lifeforms is amazing. And to think, it's happening right now, in my lifetime! Of course I will not be around to see what is made of this, but the thought of what it could turn into is an exciting proposition!

Mammals Ruled The World, Twice!

So, what vertebrates have been the most successful throughout the history of the world? Was it dinosaurs? No. They were around for about 250 million years before they went extinct 65 million years ago. I'd say insects but I don't think they count. LOL! I think it's perhaps the mammals that are the most successful. Why? Because they ruled the land twice. It started in the Permian period. I used to look at mammals as evolutionary losers. Especially after Jurassic Park and what I learned about dinosaurs after becoming fascinated by them in the movie. It was actually reading Dougal Dixon's book that made me a believer in the age of mammals.

In the Permian, we had synapsids. We cannot call them "mammal-like reptiles" anymore, but they were reptiles with mammal-like characteristics. Most people today refer to them as "mammaliformes". Which is a name I originally was going to assign to the mammals of tomorrow because there are a few distinct differences between them and the mammals we are familiar with today. But during the Permian to the late Triassic, these synapsids ruled the Earth. But then the Jurassic came along, and created a hole in the mammals' take over. That was when the dinosaurs became dominant. The mammals had by then become true mammaliformes, like we are familiar with today. But they also got smaller, and stayed more out of the way of the dinosaurs. They still evolved though.

Some changes were made to mammals when the dinosaurs dominated. For one thing, the lifespan of mammals is believed to have gotten shorter due to dinosaurs. I saw an article about this the other day. It's called the Longevity Bottleneck Hypothesis, and you can read about it here The 'longevity bottleneck' hypothesis: Research suggests that dinosaurs may have influenced how human beings age (phys.org) This theory describes how mammals have such short lifespans whereas similar-sized birds (like parrots) live much longer. Those of us who have aging dogs can see plainly how upsetting it is that their lifespan is so short.

Well, since the extinction of dinosaurs, mammals have evolved to fill all niches open in the ecosystem. It may have been slow to start, but it eventually got there. It took 30 million years for mammals to get to the point we are familiar with today. But one thing that all mammals today have in common, they are all living synapsids. The synapsids first dominated in the Permian, took a break during the Mesozoic, and now are back again, more advanced. So, this is why I now say mammals are the most successful vertebrates in the world. They are so good, they ruled the world twice! And I don't think they will be going extinct any time soon. Not even in geological timescale. This is why I created the Metazoic era. The animals that we see as pests today, are just successful enough to survive and create an era of their own.