for the place of the horseshoe crab in the tree of evolution, the Latin name of the horseshoe crab I saw in southern Thailand might offer a clue. Carcinoscorpius means ‘crab scorpion’, and that is what these curious creatures are: superficially crab-like relatives of the scorpions. They are the most primitive living examples of a great group of arthropods that includes all living spiders and mites as well as scorpions, and several less familiar kinds of animals. This group is referred to as chelicerates, after those special appendages – chelicerae – located on the head-shield, which they all share in one form or another. All the relatives of the horseshoe crab I have mentioned live on land. But the cradle of life was the sea, and Limulus and its relatives take us back to the far, far distant days when the land surface was barren of larger organisms.
In the darkness along Delaware Bay the scratching percussion of the crabs provides an unmusical accompaniment on an imaginary journey backwards in time: to an era well before mammals and flowering plants; a time before the acme of giant reptiles, long before Tyrannosaurus; backwards again through an extinction event 250,000,000 years ago that wiped nine-tenths of life from the earth; and then back still further, before a time of lush coal forests to a stage in the earth’s history when the land was stark and life was cradled in the sea; a time when a myriad trilobites scuttled in the mud alongside the forebears of the horseshoe crabs. The trundling, heaving, inelegant not-so-crabs along Delaware Bay are messengers from deep geological time.
A palaeontologist would naturally want to track the history of the horseshoe crabs back into the distant past. A few years ago I visited the famous quarries in Bavaria, southern Germany, where the Solnhofen Limestone of Jurassic age, 150 million years old, had been excavated. Great opencast pits scour the gently rolling countryside revealing thin slabs of cream-coloured limestone, where each bed represents the former sediment surface. The limestone provides the perfect fine-grained stone for the manufacture of lithographic printing plates; this is still a popular medium with artists today, but had an even greater use in the past for graphic illustration. The Germans called this kind of rock ‘plattenkalk’, which is an appropriate name because if a fossil turns up it will be laid out on the surface of the slab like a fish on a very flat plate; and some of the fossils are, indeed, those of fishes. The most famous fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone are skeletons belonging to the early bird Archaeopteryx lithographica, complete with feathers, but they are very rare – only one turns up in an average decade. Some other fossils are quite abundant, like those of little sea lilies (Saccocoma). The Solnhofen Limestone is thought to have accumulated in a warm lagoon, or a series of lagoons, not far from a biologically diverse land habitat, but with periodic influxes of waters from the sea. From time to time the lagoon became salty enough from evaporation to poison living organisms, and its deeper parts were depleted in oxygen sufficiently to deter scavengers. The result is the outstanding preservation of delicate animals. When sticky mud was exposed, animals could get trapped upon it, such as delicate flying reptiles or dragonflies. Operating together, these special conditions preserved a huge cross section of Jurassic life. One of these animals is a horseshoe crab called Mesolimulus walchi. It really is remarkably similar to our living Limulus polyphemus. At first glance it looks as if it had just wandered in from Delaware. One has to look hard to notice that its marginal spines are longer than in our living blue-bloods, and there are a few other minor differences. Nobody could doubt that this species, too, trundled through the shallows, nor that it carried its eggs under its head-shield. To that showy new upstart – a feathered bird – it may already have seemed archaic.
Up to this point I have avoided describing the horseshoe crab as a ‘living fossil’. This is not only because I am chary about using a phrase that is a paradox and an oxymoron rolled into one, but also because it is a misleading description. Charles Darwin himself was cautious when he introduced the term in the phrase quoted at the start of this book. Despite what I have just said about Mesolimulus it is not exactly the same as Limulus. Consider everything we have learned about our living horseshoe crab. It is woven deeply into an ecology that is utterly different from that in the Jurassic. Millions of birds of many species depend on the horseshoes’ eggs every year, whereas its old relative was probably irrelevant to the life cycle of what is often called ‘the first bird’. Limulus has adapted to many changes of circumstances: new predators, new climates, and now humankind. It is a winner in the lottery of life, and not just because of its long family tree. ‘Living fossil’ seems to imply a negative judgement somehow, as if the poor old organism was just about tottering along on its last legs, having hardly changed in tune with a changing world, awaiting an inevitable end. A similar misplaced judgemental tone is often applied to dinosaurs. ‘We mustn’t be dinosaurs! We must change with the times!’ is a mantra of commerce. The dinosaurs were actually superbly efficient animals, and their extinction was most likely a combination of external factors (a drastic meteorite impact is favoured by many) that had nothing to do either with their virtues or lack of them. They were animals of the wrong size living in the wrong places at the wrong time. Bad luck! Meanwhile, the living fossils trundled on through the crisis because … well, we will come to that.
Modifications are happening at the genomic level all the time. There really is no such thing as ‘no change’; the very flexibility of the DNA molecule is what has kept natural selection on its toes for thousands of millions of years. Nor is change in DNA necessarily related directly to any change in the appearance of an animal. Many mutations accumulate in the large fraction of the genome that apparently does not do much work in the specification of proteins, or initiating developmental changes, or any of the other vital, active stuff. These mutations might well be irrelevant to the kind of changes in shape or colour that indicate the appearance of new species. A living fossil may indeed have accumulated many changes at the molecular level that have not even been expressed in its surface appearance, which is the phenotype that has to face the world. Fluctuations in gene frequency are the stuff of life, but they don’t map one-to-one on skeletons and limbs, which are the usual stuff of fossils. So a little caution in terminology is wise.
There is also a temptation to think of the living fossil as if it were a true, surviving ancestor. When the coelacanth fish was discovered it was presented in the popular press as ‘old fourlegs’ as if it were just about to march onto land on its stumpy fins as a thoroughgoing tetrapod. Not only does this scenario happen to be wrong, but the likelihood of any such ancestor surviving unchanged to the present day through many millions of years is also exceedingly remote. Time, chance, and competition will see to it that change is inevitable. What can be said without demur is that the ancient survivor and its other living – and more evolutionarily advanced – relatives will have shared a common ancestor, and that the features of the living fossil will be closer to those of that ancestor. The discovery of ancient fossils more or less similar to the survivor will date the appearance of the whole animal group to which they belong, and point up the changes that must have happened through geological time along the subsequent branches of the evolutionary tree. The survivors from the early days carry with them a package of information revealing primitive morphology, development, and biochemistry that can illuminate histories that would otherwise be hidden from us. Fossils never preserve blue blood. The ‘living fossils’ may not be the ancestor, but they are survivors carrying a precious legacy of information from distant days and vanished worlds.
Hence Limulus allows us to understand something about deep branches in evolution. It is far from unique. If every descendant species had simply replaced its predecessor, the history of life would be like one of those patients described by Oliver Sacks who live perpetually in the present day, constantly erasing the memories of yesterday. Fortunately, life is not like that. Deep history is all around us. In the life of the planet, the latest model does not always invalidate the tried-and-tested old creature. Groups of organisms that originated long, long ago, in very different worlds, have been able to evolve and adapt alongside their more recent cousins and second cousins. The story of life is almost as much about accommodation as it is about replacement. To look at a living horseshoe crab is to see a portrait of a distant ancestor repainted by time, but with many of its features still unchanged. This book reflects my interest in living survivors from the geological past and what they can tell us about the course of evolution. I have spent the last few years seeking out animals and plants that have helped to illuminate
