Cephalopods can't tolerate fresh water

  • Thread starter Thread starter Norbert Fnord
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Water
AI Thread Summary
Cephalopods, including octopuses and squids, are complex invertebrates that have existed since before the dinosaurs but do not tolerate fresh water, raising questions about their evolutionary adaptations. The discussion explores whether this lack of fresh water tolerance has hindered their ability to evolve into land-dwelling forms. It suggests that the absence of a skeletal system in larger animals like cephalopods would complicate terrestrial movement. The conversation also references Tiktaalik, a significant fossil believed to be a freshwater vertebrate, indicating that freshwater adaptation may have been crucial for the evolution of land animals. The importance of scholarly resources for further exploration of these topics is emphasized, recommending academic journals and books for deeper insights into the colonization of land by animals.
Norbert Fnord
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Cephalopods (octopuses, squids, nautilus, etc.) are among the most complex invertebrates. They have been around since before the dinosaurs. Yet, there are none that tolerate fresh water today - perhaps there never have been (I am aware there is one squid in Chesapeake that lives in brackish water). This leads me to wonder about a few things:
  1. What is it about this class of molluscs that prevents them from exploiting fresh water environments?
  2. Is this why they also have not given rise to any land forms?
  3. Is tolerance of fresh water essential to evolution to living on the land?
  4. Were the predecessors (e.g. tiktaalik) of the first land vertebrates, fresh water animals?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
None are known, that is correct.

Here is a somewhat "layman's version" of why:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/16/3670198.htm
Is this why they also have not given rise to any land forms?
No, any larger animals with no kind of skeletal system would have trouble moving, as an example

Is tolerance of fresh water essential to evolution to living on the land?
Were the predecessors (e.g. tiktaalik) of the first land vertebrates, fresh water animals?

The tiktaalik probably was freshwater -
Narkiewicz, Katarzyna; Narkiewicz, Marek (January 2015). "Middle Devonian invertebrate trace fossils from the marginal marine carbonates of the Zachełmie tetrapod tracksite, Holy Cross Mountains, Poland". Lethaia 48 (1): 10–12. doi:10.1111/let.12083.

They likely had primitive lungs.

Please note your questions are good, very good. But they require a multitude of citations. Or a book. There are journals like Lethaia that often have good articles about fossil environments and how animals adapted to new environments.

Try a University library for:
'The Colonisation of Land: Origins and Adaptations of Terrestrial Animals' by Colin Little
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Norbert Fnord
Thank you - for all of that.
 
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
18K
Replies
14
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
48
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Back
Top