About 100 million years ago, in a coastal forest located in what is today southwestern France, a small mammal skittered up the trunk of a conifer tree. As it did so it lost a few of its hairs, and this minor event would have been entirely unremarkable if two of those hairs had not settled in some tree sap and, in the course of time, become entombed in a piece of amber which has only recently been discovered. As described by scientists Rumain Vullo, Vincent Girard, Dany Azar, and Didier Neraudeau, this rare specimen gives us a clear look at what the hair of mammals was like during the time when dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrates on land.
Exceptionally-preserved fossil mammals with intact soft tissue remnants have been found before, such as a specimen of the 125 million year old cousin of placental mammals Eomaia, but fur trapped in amber provides a higher level of resolution - it is the original biological material. Likewise, even though hairs trapped in amber have previously been discovered, much of it has come from the past 65 million years, so even though we have every reason to assume that all mammals had hair since the time of their origin during the Mesozoic we don't know very much about what that hair was like. The new specimen from France, specimen ARC2-A1-3, helps to fill this hole in our understanding.
According to the team of researchers, the two structures preserved within the amber are certainly hairs and not dinosaur "proto-feathers." The hairs have a scale pattern only seen in the body covering of mammals, but what kind of mammal left these hairs behind? Without an already established sample of fossil mammals with exquisitely-preserved hair samples, it is impossible to tell. In the layer above the one which the amber was recovered the marsupial-relative Arcantiodelphys has been found, while a nearby site of similar age has also yielded a variety of mammal types belonging to Mesozoic mammal groups such as the eutriconodontans, spalacotheroids, dryolestoids, and multituberculates. The hairs could have come from any of these mammals. Nevertheless, the cuticula (or the protective outer layer of a hair formed by overlapping, shingle-like cells) of the hairs is very similar to that of modern mammals, signaling that this feature of mammal hair has been around for a very long time.
Interestingly, though, and contrary to the scenario I posited at the opening of this post, the hairs may not have come from a living mammal. The amber glob containing the hairs also preserved the tough outer shell of a larval fly, and so the researchers hypothesized that the hairs may have come from a dead mammal which was already being used as food source/nursery by flies prior to the amber preservation. If this is correct then it would be a rare look at insect-mammal interactions during the distant past, but since the alternative hypothesis of hairs left by an arboreal mammal cannot be ruled out scientists should take care in drawing inferences from this association.
Vullo, R., Girard, V., Azar, D., & NÃ©raudeau, D. (2010). Mammalian hairs in Early Cretaceous amber Naturwissenschaften DOI: 10.1007/s00114-010-0677-8
- Log in to post comments
I eagerly await someone extracting DNA from the hair and beginning a cloning operation. :P
But seriously, this is really cool. I didn't even realise amber could last a hundred million years, and they've found _hair_ in it? Awesome.
It's amazing where the science bring us. Finally Jurasic Park is not that unreal movie, huh?
Very interesting indeed. For some reason, though, I feel that the hair is from some kind of monotremal sprawling mammal. That stock was probably a lot more common back then than others alive today.
Mammals and mammaliaforms, even cynodonts, are often reconstructed with external earflaps, the penna (or is it pinna?). Any idea whether this is just convention, or is there any evidence on movable external earflaps in fossils?
Gerdien might be interested in this http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/01/pinnae-of-megazostrodon.html slightly dated blog post by Darren that covers exactly that question. Short answer is that the last common ancestor of living mammals likely had them, but outside that group it's pretty much pure speculation, though it is conceivable that there might be some osteological correlates on the bullae or in the middle ear.
I think the paper is not open access?
In case can I ask if:
itâs de facto a hair in organic conservation or, as it often happens in amber, an imprint/cast?
Did the author mention a special affinity to modern mammals(-groups) or only a general resemblance to âmodern mammalsâ.
Amazing. Just amazing.
I like that this fossil find shows interactions between different trophic levels. ;)
David - In this case it is actual organic preservation and not an imprint/cast, and the authors simply state a resemblance to the hair of modern mammals without tying it to a specific group.
salut Ã toute l'Ã©quipe;je suis une Ã©tudiante en master et prÃ©parant un thÃ¨me sur les caractÃ©ristiques des poils des mammifÃ¨res carnivores de Madagascar.pourriez vous m'aider sur quelques donnÃ©es que vous connaissez.
merci de votre cooperation