the "Headline That Caught My Attention or the WTF" thread

Ah Natural Selection...

How Ultra-Black Fish Disappear in the Deepest Seas
Researchers have found fish that absorb more than 99.9 percent of the light that hits their skin.

Alexander Davis admits that he can be a glutton for punishment. He staked part of his Ph.D. on finding some of the world’s best-camouflaged fishes in the ocean’s deepest depths. These animals are so keen on not being found that they’ve evolved the ability to absorb more than 99.9 percent of the light that hits their skin.

To locate and study these so-called ultra-black fishes, Mr. Davis, a biologist at Duke University, said he relied largely on the luck of the draw. “We basically just drop nets and see what we get,” he said. “You never know what you’re going to pull up.”

When he and his colleagues did cash in, they cashed in big. In a paper published Thursday in Current Biology, they report snaring the first documented ultra-black animals in the ocean, and some of the darkest creatures ever found: 16 types of deep-sea fish that are so black, they manifest as permanent silhouettes — light-devouring voids that almost seem to shred the fabric of space-time.

“It’s like looking at a black hole,” Mr. Davis said.

To qualify as ultra-black, a substance has to reflect less than 0.5 percent of the light that hits it. Some birds of paradise manage this, beaming back as little as 0.05 percent, as do certain types of butterflies (0.06 percent) and spiders (0.35 percent). A feat of engineering allowed humans to best them all with synthetic materials, some of which reflect only 0.045 percent of incoming light. (“Black” paper, on the other hand, returns a whopping 10 percent of the light it meets.)

Now, it seems fish may come close to trouncing them all.

One species profiled in the paper, a bioluminescent anglerfish in the genus Oneirodes, reflects as little as 0.044 to 0.051 percent of the deep-sea light it encounters. The other 99.95 percent, Mr. Davis and his colleagues found, gets lost in a labyrinth of light-swallowing pigments until it effectively disappears.

“I’m always arguing with bird people on the internet,” said Kory Evans, a fish biologist at Rice University who wasn’t involved in the study. “I say, ‘I bet these deep-sea fish are as dark as your birds of paradise.’ And then boom, they checked, and that was exactly the case.”

Super-dark skin might seem redundant hundreds or thousands of feet beneath the surface of the sea, where the sun’s rays don’t reach. But thanks to the D.I.Y. light cooked up by bioluminescent creatures, this part of the ocean can actually “sparkle like the sky,” said Prosanta Chakrabarty, a fish biologist at Louisiana State University who wasn’t involved in the study.

Birds, butterflies and spiders tend to use ultra-black for contrast, making vibrant patches of color pop against an extreme backdrop. Some fish may do this, too. But in a world where many deep-sea lurkers use their homemade glow to lure in prey, ultra-black may function more as a disappearing act for swimmers that don’t want to be spotted, Dr. Evans said.

To suss out how deep-sea fishes conjure their cloaks of invisibility, the researchers took skin samples from nine species of ultra-black fish and analyzed them under the microscope.

Like many other animals, including humans, fish pigment their skin with melanin, a light-absorbing compound stored in microscopic compartments called melanosomes. Typically colored fish scatter these pockets of pigment into a sparse, even layer held up by a protein called collagen. Any light that hits the melanin head-on is gobbled up, while light that misses the mark ricochets back toward the viewer.

To maintain their stealth, the researchers found, ultra-black fishes skimp on the collagen. That allows them to pack their melanosomes together like piled grains of rice. When light contacts the clutter, what’s not absorbed is deflected sideways — straight into the path of another ravenous melanosome.

Ultra-black birds, butterflies and spiders do something similar, but perhaps in a less efficient way, said Karen Osborn, a zoologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and an author on the study, which she began in 2014. Rather than using the same structure — melanosomes — to absorb and deflect light, as fish do, these land-living animals embed their melanin in mazes of bumps, boxes or spikes that bounce photons back and forth. What deep-sea fish do “is a much simpler system,” Dr. Osborn said.

That could be a saving grace for creatures that must eke out a living in an environment as harsh and unforgiving as the deep sea, said Anela Choy, a deep-sea researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who wasn’t involved in the study.

Down there, Dr. Choy said, everything “has to do with survival: eating, not being eaten and reproducing yourself.”

Some of the ocean’s deepest dwellers might be even darker than what Mr. Davis and colleagues have dredged up.

“I would not be surprised if we have not yet found the blackest fish in the sea,” Dr. Chakrabarty said.
 
Ah Natural Selection...

How Ultra-Black Fish Disappear in the Deepest Seas
Researchers have found fish that absorb more than 99.9 percent of the light that hits their skin.

Alexander Davis admits that he can be a glutton for punishment. He staked part of his Ph.D. on finding some of the world’s best-camouflaged fishes in the ocean’s deepest depths. These animals are so keen on not being found that they’ve evolved the ability to absorb more than 99.9 percent of the light that hits their skin.

To locate and study these so-called ultra-black fishes, Mr. Davis, a biologist at Duke University, said he relied largely on the luck of the draw. “We basically just drop nets and see what we get,” he said. “You never know what you’re going to pull up.”

When he and his colleagues did cash in, they cashed in big. In a paper published Thursday in Current Biology, they report snaring the first documented ultra-black animals in the ocean, and some of the darkest creatures ever found: 16 types of deep-sea fish that are so black, they manifest as permanent silhouettes — light-devouring voids that almost seem to shred the fabric of space-time.

“It’s like looking at a black hole,” Mr. Davis said.

To qualify as ultra-black, a substance has to reflect less than 0.5 percent of the light that hits it. Some birds of paradise manage this, beaming back as little as 0.05 percent, as do certain types of butterflies (0.06 percent) and spiders (0.35 percent). A feat of engineering allowed humans to best them all with synthetic materials, some of which reflect only 0.045 percent of incoming light. (“Black” paper, on the other hand, returns a whopping 10 percent of the light it meets.)

Now, it seems fish may come close to trouncing them all.

One species profiled in the paper, a bioluminescent anglerfish in the genus Oneirodes, reflects as little as 0.044 to 0.051 percent of the deep-sea light it encounters. The other 99.95 percent, Mr. Davis and his colleagues found, gets lost in a labyrinth of light-swallowing pigments until it effectively disappears.

“I’m always arguing with bird people on the internet,” said Kory Evans, a fish biologist at Rice University who wasn’t involved in the study. “I say, ‘I bet these deep-sea fish are as dark as your birds of paradise.’ And then boom, they checked, and that was exactly the case.”

Super-dark skin might seem redundant hundreds or thousands of feet beneath the surface of the sea, where the sun’s rays don’t reach. But thanks to the D.I.Y. light cooked up by bioluminescent creatures, this part of the ocean can actually “sparkle like the sky,” said Prosanta Chakrabarty, a fish biologist at Louisiana State University who wasn’t involved in the study.

Birds, butterflies and spiders tend to use ultra-black for contrast, making vibrant patches of color pop against an extreme backdrop. Some fish may do this, too. But in a world where many deep-sea lurkers use their homemade glow to lure in prey, ultra-black may function more as a disappearing act for swimmers that don’t want to be spotted, Dr. Evans said.

To suss out how deep-sea fishes conjure their cloaks of invisibility, the researchers took skin samples from nine species of ultra-black fish and analyzed them under the microscope.

Like many other animals, including humans, fish pigment their skin with melanin, a light-absorbing compound stored in microscopic compartments called melanosomes. Typically colored fish scatter these pockets of pigment into a sparse, even layer held up by a protein called collagen. Any light that hits the melanin head-on is gobbled up, while light that misses the mark ricochets back toward the viewer.

To maintain their stealth, the researchers found, ultra-black fishes skimp on the collagen. That allows them to pack their melanosomes together like piled grains of rice. When light contacts the clutter, what’s not absorbed is deflected sideways — straight into the path of another ravenous melanosome.

Ultra-black birds, butterflies and spiders do something similar, but perhaps in a less efficient way, said Karen Osborn, a zoologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and an author on the study, which she began in 2014. Rather than using the same structure — melanosomes — to absorb and deflect light, as fish do, these land-living animals embed their melanin in mazes of bumps, boxes or spikes that bounce photons back and forth. What deep-sea fish do “is a much simpler system,” Dr. Osborn said.

That could be a saving grace for creatures that must eke out a living in an environment as harsh and unforgiving as the deep sea, said Anela Choy, a deep-sea researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who wasn’t involved in the study.

Down there, Dr. Choy said, everything “has to do with survival: eating, not being eaten and reproducing yourself.”

Some of the ocean’s deepest dwellers might be even darker than what Mr. Davis and colleagues have dredged up.

“I would not be surprised if we have not yet found the blackest fish in the sea,” Dr. Chakrabarty said.

saw that yesterday - interesting read
 


An abalone diver who witnessed the horrifying ordeal described how the monster shark grabbed the boy.


'All of a sudden the shark leapt clean out of the water, hit the side of the boat and snapped the rod clean off in the rod holder,' Ben Allen told 9News.


'It grabbed the boy all in the one swipe … and pulled him into the water.'
 


Hungarian researchers accidentally created a hybrid of two "living fossils," the Russian sturgeon and the American paddlefish, according to a new study.

Researchers were trying to produce sturgeon offspring through gynogenesis, a system of asexual production that requires the presence of sperm but not the actual contribution of paternal DNA, according to the study published in the journal Genes. Paddlefish sperm was used on the negative control group when it "unexpectedly" fertilized the sturgeon eggs.

==========================
Why are they doing stuff like this in 2020?
Don't we have enough crap going wrong?
 
till one of 'em drags you off of your boat..........

At least, I get out on the water regularly to provide them the opportunity. I'll take my chances with fish without teeth that feed on the bottom, you have fun with your scorpions...

Sturgeons are primarily benthic feeders, with a diet of shells, crustaceans, and small fish. Exceptionally, both Huso species, the white sturgeon and the pallid sturgeon feed primarily on other fish as adults. They feed by extending their syphon-like mouths to suck food from the benthos.

The jaws of the American paddlefish are distinctly adapted for filter feeding only. They are ram suspension filter feeders with a diet that consists primarily of zooplankton, and occasionally small insects, insect larvae, and small fish.
 
Last edited:
At least, I get out on the water regularly to provide them the opportunity. I'll take my chances with fish without teeth that feed on the bottom, you have fun with your scorpions...

Geez - it was humor - you know - the way 2020's going we'll end up with a Frankienfish - just playing off of John's comment.

And what the hell is your obsession with my lack of fishing anyway?
 
2020's not done with us yet...............

 
Geez - it was humor - you know - the way 2020's going we'll end up with a Frankienfish - just playing off of John's comment.
A winking emoji might have been helpful. Too many here might think you were serious and/or not realize a hybridization of 2 species with a similar dietary regimes wouldn't mean a complete change of diet...

And what the hell is your obsession with my lack of fishing anyway?
The ludicrous nature of your obsession of being a member of a fishing website, which begs the question WHY if you don't fish??
 
A winking emoji might have been helpful. Too many here might think you were serious and/or not realize a hybridization of 2 species with a similar dietary regimes wouldn't mean a complete change of diet...

Do me a favor & keep your snide remarks to yourself - OK?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok gentlemen ....... really?

Larry, I'll be taking you out fishing in the very near future. You can post the reports to re-affirm your membership within this elite group of anglers that call NYAngler home. Dom, I don't think going fishing every day gives you anymore "street cred" for being a member of this site than those that don't get a chance to get out as much as they used to.
 
I feel that it's important to both a website and the website's membership that each member is an active participant or willing learner in the primary intention of a website. Being a full-time Lounge Lizard does not meet that simple requirement. Might as well be a member of sewing bee website if you just participate in the ancillary discussions...

Now that's just plain racist ! If little old ladies from the sewing bee forum want to be members here, they shouldn't be discriminated against.

:unsure:

???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
because I don't have the opportunity to as I've explained to you before - most if not all of shoreline is privately held, there are no party boats - unless you have a boat or know someone with a boat - it ain't happening & why should you care any way?

I will eventually get back into fishing when that opportunity presents itself. Until then - do me a favor & keep your snide remarks to yourself - OK?

OK, in the interest of world peace, I will not make any more snide comments. I do hope you will eventually get fishing again; it's good for the soul.
 
Last edited:
Back to the topic, those dang People From Away...

Buxton police charge 40 people with trespassing in closed park
pressherald.com/2020/07/20/buxton-police-cite-40-people-for-trespassing-in-closed-park/

By Gillian GrahamStaff WriterJuly 20, 2020
Caretakers collected hundreds of cans and bottles left behind by visitors to Pleasant Point Park in Buxton the weekend before last.

Buxton police have charged 40 people with trespassing in a riverfront park that had been closed because of large gatherings, illegal drinking and dangerous behavior.

Town officials closed Pleasant Point Park on Friday after several weeks of increased disregard for park rules and dangerous behavior that included underage drinking and throwing objects at boaters on the Saco River, they said. The gate to the park was locked, “closed” signs were posted and a chain was hung across the parking area, but dozens of people entered the park anyway on Saturday and Sunday, police Chief Troy Cline said.

“In one word: horrible,” Cline said of how the weekend went at the closed park. “It was posted Friday and it was posted very conspicuously. There was no doubt the park was closed.”

Buxton police cited 18 people Saturday for criminal trespass, a misdemeanor. Another 22 people were cited for criminal trespass on Sunday.

Police also cited four girls for possession of liquor by a minor and three adult men for drinking in public. Two people were arrested and charged with refusal to submit to arrest or detention after they ran from officers trying to cite them for trespassing.

Cline said all of the people who were arrested or summonsed were from outside Buxton and came from as far away as New York and Indiana. Written warnings were given to several people who entered the park from the river and appeared to be unaware it was closed, Cline said.

“We did not charge anyone that resides in the town of Buxton because there were no violations by anyone from Buxton. It was all people from away,” Cline said.

The riverside park is a popular gathering spot for people who float down the Saco River and with swimmers who jump into the river from rope swings. People often put floats in upriver, near the intersection of Route 4A and Salmon Falls Road, and float to Pleasant Point Park.

Throughout the weekend, people parked on the roads around the park and along the Saco River, prompting police to have more than 10 cars towed because they were obstructing traffic. Cline said residents cheered police and public works crews as they turned people away from the park and put up barricades to stop drivers from parking on the side of the road.

The issues at the park have stretched the police department, which is short-staffed, said Cline, who worked Saturday night to help deal with people trespassing at the park. The department was assisted by the Maine State Police and the Maine Warden Service.

The decision last week to close the park came shortly after a stretch of especially bad behavior, town officials said. After one weekend, park caretakers cleaned up 336 beer cans and bottles, 92 soda cans, 21 liquor bottles, 15 rubber floats and multiple bags of trash.

The park was closed briefly for a similar “cooling off period” in 2017. But “this time it feels like it’s not working at all,” Cline said.

“Voluntary compliance is a wonderful thing and we encourage folks to simply do that,” Cline said. “Once we figure out how we’re going to reopen the park, we’ll be more than happy to do that.”

Chad E. Poitras, chairman of Buxton’s selectmen, plans to open up a segment of Wednesday night’s board meeting – starting at 7 p.m. at Town Hall – to the public. Poitras hopes Buxton residents will weigh in with solutions that will allow the town to reopen Pleasant Point Park as soon as possible.

“We want the public to be able to enjoy it and have fun at the park,” Poitras said Monday evening in a telephone interview. “But what has happened is, we have this angry group of young people who continue to defy the law and who have gone down to the park and trashed the place. We can’t have a mob of angry people take this away from our citizens.”

Poitras does not know what the solution could be. He’d rather not implement a park permit system because of the cost involved with enforcement and staffing. Hiring more police officers or town workers to patrol the park might be challenging, given the town’s shrinking revenue sources and tight budget.

Poitras is hoping that Buxton residents at Wednesday’s meeting will provide “constructive and reasonable” ideas for reopening Pleasant Point Park.

Something has to be done to prevent what happened last weekend from happening again, Poitras said.
He said Buxton residents don’t feel safe going to the park with such unruly crowds.

“I’m very disappointed that some people seem to have no respect for public property,” Poitras said.
Pleasant Point Park was deeded to the town of Buxton in June 1989. It includes about 65 acres along the Saco River and provides canoe and kayak access, and a place for swimming, hiking and picnicking.

Staff Writer Dennis Hoey contributed to this report.
 
📱 Fish Smarter with the NYAngler App!
Launch Now

Members online

Fishing Reports

Latest articles

Back
Top