More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

C M Edwards · 2004-12-30 16:06:30

Hello All. It's my turn to run around crying "Life! Life on Mars!" :laugh: (Perhaps Errorist can check my facts for me? :;): )

Check out the microscopic images of "Wishstone" captured on Sol 333 and similar images from sol 348 and 352, such as:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … TML]Border between RAT'ed and untouched surface of Wishstone

and other photos of similar rocks taken on sols 348 and 352.

Heres]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20041230a/mera_sol333_mi_target_chisel_enhanced-A353R1_br.jpg]Here's a composite of the RAT working area on Wishstone

The rounded depressions and radial arrangements of the linear features in the RAT'ed area, as well as the fact that the linear features seem more common in the depressions, suggest something akin to brachiopod shell imprints. The depressions in the unabraded surfaces show similar features, including traces of the linear features. A curved depression pattern of varying sizes with a sort of central ridge and shallow depressions on either side is common in the unabraided surfaces. That, too, looks like a shell imprint.

I've made no color images yet, and have no material analysis to show you at this time. I also know that pumice can form features similar to these. However, I've never seen them all together in the same rock.

And I'll be darned if those don't look like brachiopod fossils.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-30 22:22:33

Hi, CM.
I'm always on the lookout for a bit of sensible discussion about potential fossils in Martian rock.

I saw these images a few days ago and was very interested in them because at first glance they looked like they could be fossiliferous. But I couldn't see enough detail to be sure of what I was seeing, so I gave up and moved on - which is what I suspect the guys at NASA have done too.

I wasn't sure what you were trying to tell us so I looked up fossilised brachiopods and found this picture:-

Now I think I know what you were implying with the 'radial lines' suggestion, though I'm still having trouble at this level of resolution.
Another thing which I'm concerned about is the relative scale of these fossils - Mars (if they are fossils) versus Earth. My impression is the proposed Martian brachiopods must be absolutely tiny compared to the terrestrial version and this must mitigate against their being fossils.
Is this not so? ???

Mad Grad Student · 2004-12-31 00:11:25

It took me a while to see what you mean, and I suppose it does kinda sorta maybe look a little bit like a seashell. Isn't it cool how powerful imagination is, that we can see patterns and monsters and life where it's just a random jumble of rocks?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-31 01:33:14

Actually, the more I look at the highest resolution picture of the RAT-ted area, the more it looks like some of the depressions in the rock have something smooth in them.
In fact, it almost looks like someone has smeared putty in the holes; in one case, near the centre of the picture, the 'putty' looks smeared from inside an irregular-shaped hole, up and out of the hole toward the right side of the image. It's not impossible, looking at the picture, to imagine a flatworm crawling out of the depression in the rock - looking rather like this shape:-

By the way, I'm NOT saying I think Mars rocks really have something like flatworms crawling around in them now, or that they contain fossils of long-dead flatworms. And I don't imagine there are demented Martian carpenters going around filling rock vesicles with linseed-oil putty, either(! ). I'm just using these analogies to better describe the shapes I think I can see.

It certainly is an interesting rock and I wish it were possible to examine it in greater detail. But, like so many other things we've seen on Mars, it looks like we'll only ever be able to guess at what we might have missed in some of the rocks inspected so far.

Once again, the situation is crying out for humans on site to get down to the real nitty-gritty of exploration and scientific investigation. For all we know, we may have rolled right past rocks containing perfectly preserved fossils and missed the greatest discovery in history!!
???

C M Edwards · 2004-12-31 08:58:01

Wow! I even get to make the obligatory "I'm smarter than you because..." reprimand! :laugh:

You must be careful not to base your assessment on museum and collection exhibits like the one posted by Shaun, because they are often unusual and not representative. I've seen many hundreds of examples of brachiopod fossils, outside of museums, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a perfectly formed, lone brachiopod fossil like that one (and still have fingers left over).

Most brachiopods form shells when relatively small. Many fossilized brachiopods typically lived in dense colonies, so the typical way to find their fossils is packed and jumbled together. It's not unheard of to find thousands of them in the same hand-sized rock - dozens or hundreds together is typical. Also, it's far more common to find only imprints of their dissolved away shells than complete casts of the animal.

This is a more typical example of a brachiopod fossil than the lone shell shown earlier:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/natural_his … Fossilized Brachiopods

In short, you should not expect to see an entire shell poking out of the rock. That's an exceedingly rare find for someone just strolling along.

Compare the image above to some of Spirit's magnified images, rather than shell casts, and see if you don't get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

ERRORIST · 2004-12-31 15:35:05

One of them looks like a barnical. What made the holes in the rock. They could be worm holes left over from long ago. Too bad we can't see any interconecting tunnels with fossilized critters in them.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-31 17:00:10

Hi again, CM.
Yes, I see your point. Lacking your experience in geology and fossil-hunting, I fell into the trap of pouncing on the first example of a brachiopod picture I found, which wasn't very helpful.

The example you give is much more in keeping with the formation apparent in the Mars rock and makes for a much stronger case.
In fact, I'm surprised (again!) that NASA has made no comment on what may have produced it. Unless they're so much smarter than any of us poor plebs and have dismissed the rock as an uninteresting product of volcanism or some such(?).
???

C M Edwards · 2004-12-31 20:48:14

In fact, I'm surprised (again!) that NASA has made no comment on what may have produced it. Unless they're so much smarter than any of us poor plebs and have dismissed the rock as an uninteresting product of volcanism or some such(?).

They may have no idea what created it. I know I don't.

However, they have taken spectrographic readings of Wishstone, so in theory they know approximately what it's made of. It's entirely possible that it is just an interesting bit of pumice, and its chemical composition would show that.

I don't have that information on tap. Where on-line would I find that X-ray spectrum of Wishstone that Spirit took? The instrument team's website?

Hmmm... I want to know what that thing's made of. I'm betting salts and carbonates. :;):

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-04 00:46:11

Never mind fossil brachiopod impressions in the rock!
You know how crabs create little burrows in sand at the beach and often leave little balls of sand piled up near the entrance? ???

Well, I think Spirit's latest 'microscopic' images have revealed similar tell-tale structures in a sandy-looking rock; evidently the work of small Martian arthropods.
If you look closely at this and (mainly) other photos in the same recent batch from Spirit, you can see the piles of sandballs at the entrances to the burrows and, wait for it, in this one you can even see one of the little 'crabs' or 'spiders' just inside his hidey-hole!

About 1/3rd of the way down from the top of the image, in the largest recess visible in this view of the rock, you can see the little multi-legged beastie, caught on camera.

Of course, some people will insist it's just a trick of the light and shadow but why would you want to believe that sort of explanation when you can have some of David Bowie's "..Spiders from Mars"?!!

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-04 05:19:42

Of course, some people will insist it's just a trick of the light and shadow but why would you want to believe that sort of explanation when you can have some of David Bowie's "..Spiders from Mars"?!!

It's just a trick of the light

Though I can see what you mean, it would be nice to have had two different angles on it.

Graeme

C M Edwards · 2005-01-05 11:53:45

Crabs on Mars! Oh no!

Well, now that we're forewarned, it shouldn't be much of a problem. We'll just have the first crews bring a supply of permethrin shampoo. It'll clear that right up... :;):

ERRORIST · 2005-01-05 14:30:16

I think it may be fossilzed crab crap.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-05 14:31:09

I think it may be fossilzed crab crap. :rant:

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-06 19:57:37

CM:-

Crabs on Mars! Oh no!
Well, now that we're forewarned, it shouldn't be much of a problem. We'll just have the first crews bring a supply of permethrin shampoo. It'll clear that right up...

No no no, CM.
Not that kind of crab!

On a marginally more serious note, I've been wondering about possible metabolic arrangements which would allow a creature such as an arthropod to survive on Mars. This train of thought serves two purposes. First, it enables me to justify my seeing live crabs in Mars pictures ( :;): ), and second, it allows me to conjure up what I think of as interesting scenarios of Mars' past.

To begin with, you have to speculate that Martian life gained a foothold long ago, either as an indigenous process or courtesy of impact transfers from Earth. Then, I suppose, you have to assume the production of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the rise of multi-cellular animal life.
Next comes the atmospheric loss and dessication of Mars, which would have presumably killed off much of the diversity of flora and fauna in a way reminiscent of, though much worse than, Earth's Permian extinction event of 250 million years ago.

What kinds of creatures might have survived? Perhaps armoured ones which were able to burrow and survive the gradually worsening environment. Perhaps very small ones, able to subsist on very little in a nutrient-poor world.
Perhaps small arthropods!!

But how would an oxygen breathing arthropod survive the almost total disappearance of oxygen from the Martian atmosphere?
Is there any way a small crab-like creature, living mainly in damp briny sand and rock crevices, could form some kind of symbiotic relationship with anaerobic bacteria to get oxygen? After all, we humans depend almost entirely on symbiosis with our gut bacteria for the digestion of our food, and it's believed even our energy-producing cellular organelles, called mitochondria, are actually highly modified foreign bacteria assimilated into multi-cellular animals hundreds of millions of years ago.

Do we have any biochemists here who could imagine a broadly similar symbiotic mechanism whereby anaerobes could supply sufficient oxygen to maintain the physiology of small, slow-moving, crab-like creatures on Mars? ???

Just a few thoughts.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-14 06:23:06

Is There Life on Mars? Looking for Rock Solid Evidence

Some interesting images as taken by the rovers.

The one on Curious Mars feature imaged by Spirit took on the look of foliose lichen here on Earth is quite interesting.

reddragon · 2005-02-15 16:22:29

How big is the "spider" image? If that was taken with the microscopic imager it would be one small spider.

As for arthropods on Mars, it seems unlikely that Martian organisms would not easily fit into any terrestrial classification. Most likely they would have evolved along very different lines and would not be very recognizable. Even early in its history Martian environments would have been different enough from terrestrial ones that they would probably have favored different evolutionary adaptations. As Mars lost its atmosphere and surface water, any organisms that survived would have evolved along radically different lines from anything on Earth since they would be dealing with conditions totally different from any terrestrial organisms had to contend with. Looking for things similar to terrestrial life is a start, but if we ever do find life on Mars, at least if it's anything more than prokaryotic cells, I doubt it will look like anything we know. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. There's no reason that Martian organisms couldn't have developed characteristics similar to terrestrial ones; I just don't think it's all that likely.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-15 18:46:37

Hi Reddragon, and welcome to New Mars!

Thanks for the comments on 'my' Martian arthropod. I'm not sure of its exact size but, yes, very small is a fair assessment! (Beware of the term 'microscopic', as used by NASA to describe these small-scale images. They're small, all right, but you won't be seeing any bacteria-sized objects in them.)

I checked Google for a terrestrial comparison and found that Earth's smallest known spider is an orbweb species from Samoa, with a body variously reported as 0.30 to 0.43mm long (between 1/100th and 1/50th of an inch, if you're American.)
I think the Martian spider I discovered, lurking in that rock crevice, would be comparable in size.

As for the likelihood of finding a creature on Mars which resembles terrestrial arachnids, I agree with you that such convergent evolution can't be ruled out - assuming, of course, that any evolution took place on Mars at all!

We have to remember that there are people out there who think my Martian spider is just a trick of the light and shadow. And, while you and I might regard these people as being totally unreasonable, it's just conceivable they may have a point!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-12-30 16:06:30

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#2 2004-12-30 22:22:33

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#3 2004-12-31 00:11:25

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#4 2004-12-31 01:33:14

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#5 2004-12-31 08:58:01

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#6 2004-12-31 15:35:05

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#7 2004-12-31 17:00:10

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#8 2004-12-31 20:48:14

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#9 2005-01-04 00:46:11

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#10 2005-01-04 05:19:42

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#11 2005-01-05 11:53:45

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#12 2005-01-05 14:30:16

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#13 2005-01-05 14:31:09

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#14 2005-01-06 19:57:37

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#15 2005-02-14 06:23:06

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#16 2005-02-15 16:22:29

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

#17 2005-02-15 18:46:37

Re: More fossil-like images from Spirit - Wierd rock looks like brachiopod imprint

Board footer