Why the fossil record may be misleading when explaining mass extinctions

a ff z
Image credit: Tarique Sani

Paleontologists are able to determine when a species went extinct based on its last appearance in the fossil record. Any variations in the fossil record had been assumed to be down to either random chance, or the incompleteness of that record.

However, previous computer models have suggested that this might not be the case, and that a species’ ecological preference – what kind of habitat it prospers in – could affect their placement in the fossil record, not because they died off, but because climatic change had altered their environment.

To put this to the test, researchers from the Florida Museum of Natural History, writing in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, analyzed 130-foot (39.6-meter) deep cores drilled in Po Plain, which is a large river valley that runs into the Adriatic Sea off the east coast of Italy. The scientists, led by Michal Kowalewski and Rafal Nawrot, searched for mollusks.

Because the various species of mollusk have not gone extinct yet, their fossils should be found in the uppermost layers of the cores, where they would have been recently deposited. However, they were instead found to be more widely spread throughout the cores, giving the impression that there had been multiple mass extinctions over time.

This was incorrect; those species of sea life still exist in the Adriatic today, but what has changed is their local environment.

Read full, original post: Does the fossil record tell the true story about mass extinctions?

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Jun-11-2026-01_15_03-PM
Selective Pressure, Selective Silence
ChatGPT Image Jun 3, 2026, 03_14_43 PM
Viewpoint: How Earthjustice became the poster child for the abuse of special interest activist funding
ChatGPT Image Jun 3, 2026, 03_54_37 PM
Viewpoint: “Turn on, tune in, drop out”—Kennedy embraces the Timothy Leary psychedelic revolution
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
drug look like ozempic
Six key health insights from taking weight-loss drugs
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-13-2026-11_51_39-AM
Viewpoint: COVID lab leak? Misguided backers of the lab leak theory refused to give up
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
Screenshot-2026-06-14-at-9.53.54-AM
Is the World Cup a perfect storm for the spread of infectious diseases?
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.