Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Golden Age Of Gaia
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

World’s Oldest Creature was 507…But Scientists Killed It

Sunday, November 17, 2013 1:58
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

 Ming the Mollusc was 507 when he died, according to new research Photo: HANDOUT


Ming the Mollusc was 507 when he died, according to new research Photo: HANDOUT

By Claire Duffin, The Telegraph, UK – November 13, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/kya7l72

When scientists inadvertently killed what turned out to be the world’s oldest living creature, it was bad enough.

Now, their mistake has been compounded after further research found it was even older – at 507 years.

The ocean quahog – a type of deep-sea clam – was dredged alive from the bottom of the North Atlantic near Iceland in 2006 by researchers. They then put it in a freezer, as is normal practice, unaware of its age.

It was only when it was taken to a laboratory that scientists from Bangor University studied it and concluded it was 400 years old.

The discovery made it into the Guinness Book of World Records however by this time, it was too late for Ming the Mollusc – named after the Chinese dynasty on the throne when its life began.

Now, after examining the ocean quahog more closely, using more refined methods, the researchers have found the animal was actually 100 years older than they first thought.

Dr Paul Butler, from the University’s School of Ocean Sciences, said: “We got it wrong the first time and maybe we were a bit hasty publishing our findings back then. But we are absolutely certain that we’ve got the right age now.”

A quahog’s shell grows by a layer every year, in the summer when the water is warmer and food is plentiful. It means that when its shell is cut in half, scientists can count the lines in a similar way trees can be dated by rings in their trunks.

The growth rings can be seen in two places; on the outside of the shell and at the hinge where the two halves meet. The hinge is generally considered by scientists as the best place to count the rings, as it is protected from outside elements.

When researchers originally dated Ming, they counted the rings at the hinge.

However because it was so old, many had become compressed. When they looked again at the outside of the shell, they found more rings.

It means the mollusc was born in 1499 – just seven years after Columbus discovered America and before Henry VIII had even married his first wife, Catherine of Aragon in 1509.

Scientists say they can study the clam’s layers to find out about sea temperatures and water masses from thousands of years ago.

Jan Heinemeier, associate professor at the University of Denmark, who helped date Ming, told Science Nordic: “The fact alone that we got our hands on an animal that’s 507 years old is incredibly fascinating, but the really exciting thing is of course everything we can learn from studying the mollusc.”


]]>

< ![CDATA[

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 3 comments
  • Smashy76

    507 yrs old, is NOT the oldest living creature in existence today. Old 900 years Yoda is….

    But seriously, many many trees are thousands of years old. I can’t remember for sure, but I think I saw a news story regarding a tree that is 100,000′s years old still alive and growing.

    And FYI, it was mankind that ‘murdered’ the ocean clam, not just the Icelandic scientists. I believe that if people stand by while they watch the destruction or murder and do nothing to stop the destruction, they’re a million times worse.

  • They compare clam shell rings to tree rings. Have they analyzed tree rings? I HAVE and saw the study of tree rings is a BAD JOKE. I made a little pamphlet with pictures of rings from 8 elm trees in Sacramento and 25 pine trees by Lake Tahoe and in BOTH cases, there is NO comparison between the trees’ rings so the are NOT USEFUL in studying climate.
    The booklet is “THe Fallacy of Tree Rings” if somebody wants to spend a few dollars to see the TRUTH.

  • oysters anyone? scallops anyone? well aged.

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.