See the Best of r/science 2022 Winners!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Findings in title quoted from the linked summary^1 and peer-reviewed journal article.^2

From the linked summary^1 released 16 Jan. 2023 by the U.K.’s Natural History Museum:

>Fighting for mates may be a behaviour that dates back over 400 million years.

>A unique specimen suggests that male Walliserops trilobites fought each other using trident-like structures to win the opportunity to mate with females.

>Co-author Professor Richard Fortey OBE FRS, who is a Scientific Associate at the Museum, says, “The extraordinary Devonian trilobite Walliserops carried a unique, giant trident on its head, the purpose of which has long been a mystery.”

>“We now believe that it was used for jousting between males striving for dominance. The evolution of sexually motivated competition in animals is hundreds of millions of years older than we thought.”

> 

>The researchers analysed the shape of the Walliserops tridents and compared them to the weapons of beetles to try and understand how they might have been used. They found the trident shape was most similar to beetles that try to tip over their opponents with shovel-like weapons.

>When the trilobites were alive 400 million years ago, it is believed they used their tridents to prod at each other before attempting to get underneath their rival and turn them over.

>While any trilobites that did get flipped were not necessarily stuck, the amount of time it could have taken to right themselves would have allowed victorious males the opportunity to mate with females.

>The trilobite at the centre of this study stands out from many other Walliserops specimens held in museums because of its unique trident.

>Instead of having three points, or tines, it is the only known individual to have grown four. The tines are all broadly equivalent in size and there is no sign of injury, which suggests it was born with four as a result of genetic mutation.

>Even more important than the four-tined trident itself is the fact that the specimen is fully grown. By making it to adulthood, it shows that the feature that makes it different from other trilobites didn't have a significant impact on its chances of survival.

^1 Unique trilobite trident could be the oldest evidence of male sexual combat, 16 Jan. 2023, https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/january/unique-trilobite-trident-could-be-oldest-evidence-male-sexual-combat.html

^2 Gishlick A. and Fortey R. Trilobite tridents demonstrate sexual combat at 400 Mya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023. 120 (4) e2119970120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119970120

The entire hypothesis is based around an individual with 4 spikes making it to adulthood.... since the malformed trident didnt impede survival it must be used in combat? at first glance, these look like they would also work great at disturbing mud in front of themselves while foraging...

How does their intercourse look like? Did they experience any reward similar to orgasm during mating with females?

Eagerly awaiting your forthcoming peer-reviewed paper where you refute their in-depth analysis that the shape is most similar to modern day beetles that use their horns for jousting. No doubt your I-looked-at-this-for-2-seconds pet theory will put these so-called trilobite "experts" who "dedicate their lives to studying this type of thing" to shame.

[removed]

[removed]

>hazpat

>The entire hypothesis is based around an individual with 4 spikes making it to adulthood.... since the malformed trident didnt impede survival it must be used in combat? at first glance, these look like they would also work great at disturbing mud in front of themselves while foraging...

From the linked summary^1 released by U.K.’s Natural History Museum:

>This suggests that a role in feeding or digging is unlikely, because the changes the fourth tine causes to the overall shape of the trident would have made it more difficult to use for these purposes, limiting the individual's chance of survival.

^1 Unique trilobite trident could be the oldest evidence of male sexual combat, Ashworth J., 16 Jan. 2023.

Not what I thought they meant when I first read “sexual combat”

Yes, but we all know that the Retiarius usually loses.

This is fun timing on this news.

I’m just finishing up Fortey’s book on trilobites.

Fascinating little critters.

Toxic masculinity is baked into the universe I guess

These tridents face down. Similar to elephant or boar tusks. They may be used in combat but they appear to be perfectly located to stir up mud as there primary purpose.

Beetle horns usually face out and up more like rhinos because there primary use is different.

That paragraph is based on looking at the trident. Same as my opinion. The quad trident looks like it would work just as fine to stir sediment. Visually nothing indicates it would be less effective than 3 for sifting or fighting

Like I said I'm sure you know better than these scientists who study trilobites for a living and I'm looking forward to your peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports your theory.

It's funny how you expect a redditor to provide peer reviewed opinions to counter what the authors refer to as speculation.

The significance of the paper is literally that it shows strong evidence that the horns were not for foraging/feeding in mud:

> A unique teratological specimen of Walliserops trifurcatus showing four, rather than three tines, is inconsistent with possible hypotheses connecting the trident to feeding techniques and suggests a sexually selected function. Malformations in a variety of living organisms support this conclusion. Morphometric comparisons to similar structures used for intraspecific combat in dynastine beetles show that the trident occupies a comparable shape space consistent with the hypothesis that it was a sexual combat weapon, the oldest reported example of its kind.

Have you ever written a scientific paper, or do you know any scientists? Do you think they just sit around and spout out random ideas that don't stand up to 2 seconds of idle speculation from laypeople? Because that seems to be the assumption inherent in your very confident assertion that these scientists are wrong based on your "first glance".

Are you an author on this? You sound offended that a person can use the same visual comparison techniques as the authors and come up with a different speculation. Each time you redundantly quote the article, it is a section that uses visual assessment to say the structures on these aquatic creatures "looks like" what land creatures use in combat.

In your opinion once an article is published it can't be incorrect and nobody should question it? Jenny McCarthy vibes on that.

The thing I find offensive is the arrogance and disrespect for science in general to think that your non-expert, non-peer reviewed opinion that is specifically and methodically refuted in great detail by actual experts who wrote an actual peer-reviewed paper holds any weight. It's like telling an astronomer that they're wrong about the earth orbiting the sun because to you it looks like the sun is going around the earth.

You realize they say multiple times they need more evidence to support their hypothesis right?. They aren't even sure if the species exhibits sexual dimorphism. You seem hyper invested in these authors initial untested hypothesis, you also seem to keep assuming this article has to be true because of peer review... it's literally a hypothesis open for discussion

It’s a good question. I believe it’s extremely hard to tell things like that from fossil records.

[removed]