A tiny scampering creature -- it's how all us mammals got our start

Image courtesy of Carl Buell

An artist's rendering of the hypothetical placental ancestor, a small, insect-eating animal with a long, furry tail. The research team reconstructed the anatomy of the animal by mapping traits onto the evolutionary tree most strongly supported by the combined phenomic (physical traits you can see) and genomic data and comparing the features in placental mammals with those seen in their closest relatives.

By Charles Choi
LiveScience

A tiny, furry-tailed creature is the most complete picture yet as to what the ancestor of mice, elephants, lions, tigers, bears, whales, bats and humans once looked like, researchers say.

These new findings also suggest this forerunner of most mammals appeared shortly after the catastrophe that ended the age of dinosaurs, scientists added.

"Species like rodents and primates did not share the Earth with nonavian dinosaurs, but arose from a common ancestor — a small, insect-eating, scampering animal — shortly after the dinosaurs' demise," said researcher Maureen O'Leary at Stony Brook University in New York.

The study was so thorough that the team, made up of 23 scientists from around the world, was able to speculate on the appearance of this hypothetical ancestor inside and out, from its brain and inner ear bones to its ovaries and even what its sperm may have looked like (it sported a head and tail like modern-day sperm cells do).

The largest living branch of the mammalian family tree holds the placentals — mammals that keep fetuses alive with placentas, as opposed to marsupials such as kangaroos, which raise offspring in pouches, or monotremes such as platypuses, which develop fetuses in eggs. [See Images of the Furry Mammal Ancestor and Descendants]

"There are over 5,100 living placental species and they exhibit enormous diversity," said researcher Nancy Simmons at the American Museum of Natural History.

The roots of placentals
Much remains controversial about the origins of placentals, such as when they arose and how they diversified. Fossil evidence suggests they evolved after the end-Cretaceous mass extinction event about 65 million years ago that ended the age of dinosaurs; and the "explosive model" based off this data proposes that placental lineages emerged and diversified to fill niches left vacant after this catastrophe. However, genetics research suggests placental lineages were actually far older, hinting their diversification was linked to the breakup of the continents before the end of the Cretaceous period.

"In the field of mammal research, there had been a big divide between people working with DNA and others working on morphology," said researcher John Wible at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

To uncover the roots of the placental family tree and help resolve the decades-old debate as to when placentals evolved, an international team of researchers took part in a six-year research collaboration called Assembling the Tree of Life. The project adopted two distinct approaches to evolutionary studies — molecular data, which examines DNA, and morphological data, which looks at anatomical features such as bone length, types of teeth and the presence of stripes in the fur. [Animal Codes: 10 Coolest Genome Sequences]

The molecular team gathered DNA sequences of living animals while the morphology team analyzed the anatomy of both living and extinct mammals. The molecular team was limited largely to living mammals because researchers currently cannot extract genetic material from fossils more than 30,000 years old, so morphological data was key when it came to exploring more ancient branches of the mammal family tree.

"Discovering the tree of life is like piecing together a crime scene — it is a story that happened in the past that you can't repeat," O'Leary said. "Just like with a crime scene, the new tools of DNA add important information, but so do other physical clues like a body or, in the scientific realm, fossils and anatomy. Combining all the evidence produces the most informed reconstruction of a past event."

Mammal morphology bank
When it comes to studying morphology, a dataset of 500 anatomical characteristics, or "characters," is often considered large. However, for this new project, the researchers generated a groundbreaking 4,500 characters using a cloud-based and publicly accessible database called MorphoBank.

"We couldn't have accomplished this without MorphoBank," said researcher Michelle Spaulding at Carnegie Museum of Natural History. "This website allowed members of the team, spread all over the globe, to work simultaneously."

Combining both DNA and morphological datasets led to an unprecedented amount of information for each of the 83 mammals they investigated.

"It's not that we hadn't combined morphology with DNA before," Spaulding said. "This time, we ratcheted up the amount of morphological detail phenomenally, providing a larger anatomical base for the study as compared with DNA than is typical."

What our ancestor looked like
From all this data from living and extinct mammals, the scientists extrapolated the appearance of the most recent common ancestor of all placental mammals.

"We have all these placentals alive today, from elephants to shrews, from things that fly to things that swim," Spaulding said. "What could the common ancestor of these things that are so different possibly look like?"

The scientists then worked with an artist to illustrate this ancestor. In addition to a furry tail, the researchers suggest the four-legged creature likely ate insects, weighed from 6 grams (about the weight of some shrews) up to 245 grams — less than half a pound — and was more adapted for general scampering than built for more specialized forms of movement, such as swinging from trees. Also, its cerebral cortex — the part of the brain linked to higher mental processes — was probably convoluted, folds linked with greater brain activity, the researchers found.

"That's the power of 4,500 characters," Wible said. "We looked at all aspects of mammalian anatomy, from the skull and skeleton, to the teeth, to internal organs, to muscles and even fur patterns. Using the new family tree of mammals in tandem with this anatomical data, we were able to reconstruct what this common placental ancestor may have looked like." [Meet the Mammal Ancestor (Infographic)]

Their research also suggested placental mammals appeared after the end of the age of dinosaurs, with the original ancestor developing about 200,000 to 400,000 years after the event.

"This is about 36 million years later than the prediction based on purely genetic data," said researcher Marcelo Weksler at Brazil's National Museum at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

This supports the notion that the mass extinction was a critical event in mammalian evolutionary history. "The diversification of placental mammals was not tied to the breakup of continents from a supercontinent, Gondwana," O'Leary told LiveScience.

The discrepancy between these findings and past research that looked only at genes is the result of the way genetic studies "assign a rate of change to genes through time," O'Leary explained. "A weakness of that approach is that it involves many assumptions about rates of gene change through time."

In the future, "I will continue looking for key fossils from the Late Mesozoic and Early Paleogene that help us contribute even more to this family tree," O'Leary said. "I have been working in Africa to make such discoveries with projects in Mali and Senegal. I plan to continue trying to make fossil discoveries that expand the placental mammal family tree."

The scientists detail their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook  and  Google+.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Discuss this post

Lies! All lies from the pit of hell!

---U.S. Rep. Paul Broun

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 4:26 PM EST

Kind of fascinating that a entire genus could arise from a single species. Makes you wonder what's out there that might replace us. I'd put my money on cats - we are already breeding them for intelligence, and they already have the ability to grasp things. We are putting dogs under the same evolutionary pressure, but they can't grasp stuff. On the other hand, it might be something like racoons?

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 4:28 PM EST

Do placental mammals appear to have arisen more than once? That is do they form two or more separate groups? If so are the primates an outlier from everything else? Do they appear to have arisen from marsupials or monotremes? The thing in the picture looks like an insectivore.

    Reply#3 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 4:50 PM EST

    The core notion in Darwin is that all of life is related through common descent, in other words share a common ancestor. So if all extant placental mammals share a common ancestor, no they did not emerge more than once.

    Primates are believed to hve developed from a tree shrew like common ancestor and were in fact insectivores.

      #3.1 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 6:04 PM EST

      I wonder what the driving force was to make an animal switch from egg laying to live birth. Perhaps it was an adaptation to promote survival. You don't just wake up one day and say I'm going to stop laying eggs today and give live birth. Unless maybe live birth has been present since organisms became complex.

      @BearZZZ...perhaps they did emerge more than once but died out.

        #3.2 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 7:26 PM EST

        This thing invented the placenta, patented it, and the rest is history.

          #3.3 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 12:08 AM EST
          Reply

          Mom!

            Reply#4 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 6:16 PM EST

            This article is very confusing because it seems to be using"mammal" interchangeably with "placental mammal." Mammals had been around for over 150 million years before this first placental arose.

              Reply#5 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 8:16 PM EST

              I agree that the article is confusing. Also, previous fossil evidence and DNA studies indicate that the first placentals (perhaps more correctly, the first mammals on the line to modern placentals) evolved in the Jurassic. Certainly there is a question as to whether the numerous placental species which survived the K-T event went on to then evolve into all the species seen today or whether only one (lucky) species of the numerous placental survivors evolved into all the present day placental species. I think that is what the article was getting at. That all of today's placental mammals came from just one early Paleocene placental species and all the rest became extinct. This study's results are on the same lines as another one in a letter to Nature in 2007. Link

                #5.1 - Thu Feb 7, 2013 9:26 PM EST
                Reply

                such idiots. No self respecting scientist believes or can prove such a thing. It's easier to believe that God created man than to think random acts of collision of molecules created everything.

                  Reply#6 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:23 AM EST

                  We're not talking about a collision of molecules; we are talking abuot the evolution of placental mammals - which was obviously NOT random.

                  • 1 vote
                  #6.1 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 6:12 PM EST
                  Reply

                  why is there no evolution happening still?

                    Reply#7 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:25 AM EST

                    There is evolution happening every day. The problem is that it is extremely slow and therefor hard to see unless you're looking for it. We are talking about 65 million years between this creature and modern humans. Homo Sapiens have only been around for something like 200,000 years.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.1 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:37 AM EST

                    why is there no evolution happening still?

                    Why don't you capitalize the first words of your sentences? Life is full of mystery

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.2 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:59 AM EST

                    "why is there no evolution happening still?"

                    Evolution is happening just as fast as it always has - which is not very fast at all.

                      #7.3 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 6:11 PM EST

                      If you were standing on the outside of time looking in you could se evolution happening but since you are a mortal and only live on average to approximately 70 years it is impossible for you to see something that makes small changes over millions of years happen in your lifetime.

                      One thing I have noticed about evolution is those who don't believe in it are themselves not evolving.

                      • 1 vote
                      #7.4 - Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:51 AM EST
                      Reply

                      How do you feel, when you are told, it took 50 millions to be who you are today? Soon we will end the evolutionary stage of life and enter the "Alteration of Man" in about 150 years from now.

                      Imagine who or what we will be in another million or 10 million years.......

                        Reply#8 - Fri Feb 8, 2013 9:01 PM EST

                        There is evolution happening every day. The problem is that it is extremely slow and therefor hard to see unless you're looking for it. We are talking about 65 million years between this creature and modern humans. Homo Sapiens have only been around for something like 200,000 years.

                        Makes you wonder why monkeys are still around huh?

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#9 - Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:54 PM EST

                        No not at all, monkeys are still around for the same reason we are still around, we both evolved seperately from a similare ancestor. "WE" did not evolve the the monkey you see at the zoo.

                        I know that it is hard for you to understand since you can't see it happening, all you need is a little bit of faith.

                          #9.1 - Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:56 AM EST
                          Reply
                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.