Scientists find 'smallest fish'

[Darat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4645708.stm

It's really, really tiny: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/sci_nat_enl_1138180578/img/1.jpg

That means it is just 8 times longer then the diameter of the largest bacteria!

[NeilC]

Wow that is small. B

But ff that was 8x smaller then I'd still see it clearly, but I've never seen a bacteria.

[Darat]

Wow that is small. B

But ff that was 8x smaller then I'd still see it clearly, but I've never seen a bacteria.


See: http://www.microbe.org/microbes/biggest.asp - "Biggest Bacterium"

http://www.microbe.org/art/Tnamibiensis.jpg
T. namibiensis cells (white and clear blobs) next to a fruit fly's head. This is an enlarged photo. The fly's head is actually 1 millimeter in diameter.
Courtesy of Heidi Schultz

[Bone_Vulture]

To keep their size down, the fish have abandoned many of the attributes of adulthood - a characteristic hinted at in their name.

Their brain, for example, lacks bony protection and the females have room to carry just a few eggs.

The males have a little clasp underneath that might help them fertilize eggs individually.

Being so small, the fish can live through even extreme drought, by seeking refuge in the last puddles of the swamp; but they are now threatened by humans.

Micromanaging fish. Fascinating indeed. :)

[Mercutio]

Micromanaging fish. Fascinating indeed. :)
No--managing microfish.

Still fascinating.

[kmortis]

But, is it irreduceably complex?

:bricks:

ETA: Ok, where's the stinking smilie with the guy ducking to avoid getting hit by a brick? GAMNIT, everytime I find a smilie I like, someone removes it. ARRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!

[Jorghnassen]

Smallest fish so far. Such a sampling is bound to have at least 2 kinds of size-bias...

[Belz...]

See: http://www.microbe.org/microbes/biggest.asp - "Biggest Bacterium"

http://www.microbe.org/art/Tnamibiensis.jpg
T. namibiensis cells (white and clear blobs) next to a fruit fly's head. This is an enlarged photo. The fly's head is actually 1 millimeter in diameter.
Courtesy of Heidi Schultz

That's ONE cell ??? Amazing.

[tsg]

Smallest fish so far.

Well, yeah, it's kind of implied.

That and the very first sentence of the article says "the smallest known fish on record".

[Capsid]

That's ONE cell ??? Amazing.

This is one cell!

http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/troptrip3/gallery/Ventricaria-ventricosa.jpg

[Deetee]

Can we please stop hijacking this thread with pictures of things you guys have picked out your nostrils.

[BobK]

When is the fishing season for those fish? I want to get my fishhooks sharpened down to size..

[tsg]

When is the fishing season for those fish? I want to get my fishhooks sharpened down to size..

What would you use for bait? Those things look too small to be bait.

[Dr Adequate]

This is one cell! Could I put in a word for the yolk of an ostrich egg?

[Jorghnassen]

Now we need to find the smallest rice and make the smallest sushi...

[TjW]

The one that got away was even smaller.

[Jyera]

Pardon me for being skeptical.

1. "Researchers have found..."
Comment: Why not a specific name of a person or at least the name of an institution. Science teachers have been known to call themselves scientists. I'm not surprise anyone call themselves a researchers.

2. "scientists write in a journal published by the UK's Royal Society. "
Comment: 2nd hand anecdotal.

3. On the BBC website, When you attempt to enlarge the image of the fish, they show you a smaller fish on an irrelevantly over sized finger.

4. Does it look like a fish ?
Seems more like something picked out of the nose.

5. Instead of photographing it on the finger, why isn't it placed in a container? There is either something fishy about it or it is cruel.
If they want to photography a dead fish, is it not possible to show it's magnified with full feature? And it is hard to place it beside a mm scale of a ruler?

6. It says "Science may have discovered Paedocypris just in time - but many of their miniature relatives may already have been wiped out"
Comment: This claim of many "miniature relatives" being wiped out, seems to be pure imagination.

7. I'm sure if they might be threatened more by a lost of their habitat than by humans. Given their ability to survive in small pools of water, it should be no problem re-populating it else where.

Why all the big fuss? I'd say there is an agenda to save the habitat rather than the fish. If it does exists at all.

More evidence is needed.

Edited to add:
This is not meant to question anyone's sensibility, just cannot help to note the "flaw".
But then again ... :( To be skeptical or not to be skeptical... That is the question.

[fishbob]

This is the fossilized remains of one cell!

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/image.php?u=892&dateline=1134461363

Not the yolk, Dr A. The other part.

[Darat]

Pardon me for being skeptical.

1. "Researchers have found..."
Comment: Why not a specific name of a person or at least the name of an institution. Science teachers have been known to call themselves scientists. I'm not surprise anyone call themselves a researchers.


Journalistic brevity and the BBC style explains this.


2. "scientists write in a journal published by the UK's Royal Society. "
Comment: 2nd hand anecdotal.


The link to the journal is to the side of the article, i.e:

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(jt1wuu2axlmu5iyya22eqe45)/app/home/journal.asp?referrer=parent&backto=homemainpublications,4,7;)


3. On the BBC website, When you attempt to enlarge the image of the fish, they show you a smaller fish on an irrelevantly over sized finger.


Incorrect the picture in the article is a crop of the "enlarged picture".


4. Does it look like a fish ?
Seems more like something picked out of the nose.


And what does a fish look like?

5. Instead of photographing it on the finger, why isn't it placed in a container? There is either something fishy about it or it is cruel.
If they want to photography a dead fish, is it not possible to show it's magnified with full feature? And it is hard to place it beside a mm scale of a ruler?


For a sense of scale a finger provides a better reference then a ruler.


6. It says "Science may have discovered Paedocypris just in time - but many of their miniature relatives may already have been wiped out"
Comment: This claim of many "miniature relatives" being wiped out, seems to be pure imagination.


Read the actual article.



7. I'm sure if they might be threatened more by a lost of their habitat than by humans. Given their ability to survive in small pools of water, it should be no problem re-populating it else where.

Why all the big fuss? I'd say there is an agenda to save the habitat rather than the fish. If it does exists at all.

More evidence is needed.

Edited to add:
This is not meant to question anyone's sensibility, just cannot help to note the "flaw".
But then again ... :( To be skeptical or not to be skeptical... That is the question.


Er which flaws? :D

[Iacchus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4645708.stm

It's really, really tiny:

That means it is just 8 times longer then the diameter of the largest bacteria!Looks about the same size as a baby goldfish.

[Jyera]

"flaws" refers to the 7 points I mentioned.
Which a skeptic would easily be able to pick up, and use them to question the reliability of the article.

Granted the article is published for the public.
But I felt that from a skeptics point of view, the article is not up to standard.

If it is an intentional fraud, it would have been damaging.

I want them to show a real magnified fish.
To know how a new type of fish looks like.
Not something that looks like "gold" mined from a person's nostril.

[Darat]

"flaws" refers to the 7 points I mentioned.
Which a skeptic would easily be able to pick up, and use them to question the reliability of the article.


Which as I showed were not "flaws".


Granted the article is published for the public.
But I felt that from a skeptics point of view, the article is not up to standard.


From a "skeptics point of view" the article was more then up to scratch since it provided references back to the original sources.


If it is an intentional fraud, it would have been damaging.


Damaging for who?

I want them to show a real magnified fish.


They did.


To know how a new type of fish looks like.
Not something that looks like "gold" mined from a person's nostril.

That sounds as if you want them to alter what the fish looks like? That is hardly a skeptical approach!

[veggie doll]

OT but the detail on that guys finger looks eerily similar to mine. :boggled:

[Belz...]

This is one cell!

Really ? What is that ??

I feel like a young child, discovering the world, again. :D

[Capsid]

Really ? What is that ??

I feel like a young child, discovering the world, again. :D

It's a marine algae called Ventricaria ventricosa or commonly called sailor's eyeballs. My wife keeps a marine aquarium (http://www.reefgarden.net/id99.html)and they grow very well in it; a bit too well really.

[Belz...]

It's a marine algae called Ventricaria ventricosa or commonly called sailor's eyeballs. My wife keeps a marine aquarium (http://www.reefgarden.net/id99.html)and they grow very well in it; a bit too well really.

Sooo.... what makes it so big ? I suppose it's not just the cell itself.

[Capsid]

Sooo.... what makes it so big ? I suppose it's not just the cell itself.

It's just a bag of water really and keeps it shape by turgor pressure. If you pop it then it deflates. I'm really not sure how it grows but it is the subject of some research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15221513&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)investigating how it transports water across its membrane (which I didn't follow very well :o ).

[Jyera]

The BBC article is at least not up to my standard.
I'm not saying it isn't true. But I have higher expectation of the way BBC publish their article. I do think highly of BBC Radio, and listen to it while I shun the local radio station. I like BBC produced documentaries too. But this article is poorly done.

The local newspaper did a better job than BBC.
1. They provide a name of the researcher involved.
(At least I now know one researcher by name, and if it is a fraud I know who to look for.)

2. They showed the fishes in a proper posture and angle, you can see clearly where is the fin, eye, mouth, tail. (No imagination needed)

3. They showed numerous such fishes in a small glass tank. Obviously alive.
(Much more convincing than a picture of a single, dead-looking "thing".)

4. They provided a sense of scale, the glass tank of fishes have been photographed with one of the researchers named in the article. (just his head)

5. They nevertheless showed the dubious piece of ???? on the thumb.

6. They mentioned that the ex-champion was a fish measuring 8mm (compared to this one at 7.9mm) This gave good comparison.