Question: Why was it thought that ctenophores were a poor diet for other animals?

Answer: their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water

<hl> Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. <hl> It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought <hl> their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water <hl> made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

question: Why was it thought that ctenophores were a poor diet for other animals?, context: Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.


Question: What is the oncorhynchus also called?

Answer: chum salmon

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. <hl> Detailed investigation of chum salmon , Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. <hl> Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of <hl> chum salmon <hl>, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

Detailed investigation of <hl> chum salmon <hl> , Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around.

question: What is the oncorhynchus also called?, context: Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.


Question: What do beroids typically eat?

Answer: ctenophores

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. <hl> It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. <hl> Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of <hl> ctenophores <hl> in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

question: What do beroids typically eat?, context: Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.


Question: Where have herbivorous fishes been seen feeding on gelatinous zooplankton?

Answer: the Red Sea

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. <hl> This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea . <hl> The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in <hl> the Red Sea <hl>. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in <hl> the Red Sea <hl> .

question: Where have herbivorous fishes been seen feeding on gelatinous zooplankton?, context: Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.


Question: Turtles and jellyfish can eat large quantities of what?

Answer: ctenophores,

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. <hl> Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. <hl> Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of <hl> ctenophores, <hl> and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.

question: Turtles and jellyfish can eat large quantities of what?, context: Ctenophores used to be regarded as "dead ends" in marine food chains because it was thought their low ratio of organic matter to salt and water made them a poor diet for other animals. It is also often difficult to identify the remains of ctenophores in the guts of possible predators, although the combs sometimes remain intact long enough to provide a clue. Detailed investigation of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, showed that these fish digest ctenophores 20 times as fast as an equal weight of shrimps, and that ctenophores can provide a good diet if there are enough of them around. Beroids prey mainly on other ctenophores. Some jellyfish and turtles eat large quantities of ctenophores, and jellyfish may temporarily wipe out ctenophore populations. Since ctenophores and jellyfish often have large seasonal variations in population, most fish that prey on them are generalists, and may have a greater effect on populations than the specialist jelly-eaters. This is underlined by an observation of herbivorous fishes deliberately feeding on gelatinous zooplankton during blooms in the Red Sea. The larvae of some sea anemones are parasites on ctenophores, as are the larvae of some flatworms that parasitize fish when they reach adulthood.


Question: What is blamed for causing the sharp drop in fish catches in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?

Answer: ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi

<hl> On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. <hl> Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic <hl> ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi <hl> was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

question: What is blamed for causing the sharp drop in fish catches in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?, context: On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.


Question: How was the ctenophore mnemiopsis leidyi introduced into The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?

Answer: via the ballast tanks of ships

<hl> On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships , and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. <hl> Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov <hl> via the ballast tanks of ships <hl>, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov <hl> via the ballast tanks of ships <hl> , and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish.

question: How was the ctenophore mnemiopsis leidyi introduced into The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?, context: On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.


Question: How was the population of mnemiopsis in The black Sea and the Sea of Azov brought under control?

Answer: by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata,

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. <hl> Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. <hl> However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control <hl> by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, <hl> and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

question: How was the population of mnemiopsis in The black Sea and the Sea of Azov brought under control?, context: On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.


Question: When was ctenophore mnemiopsis leidyi introduced into The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?

Answer: in the late 1980s

<hl> On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. <hl> Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

On the other hand, <hl> in the late 1980s <hl> the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

question: When was ctenophore mnemiopsis leidyi introduced into The Black Sea and the Sea of Azov?, context: On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.


Question: How does cooling of the local environment affect the mnemiopsis?

Answer: significantly slowed the animal's metabolism

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. <hl> Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism . <hl> However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which <hl> significantly slowed the animal's metabolism <hl>. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.

Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which <hl> significantly slowed the animal's metabolism <hl> .

question: How does cooling of the local environment affect the mnemiopsis?, context: On the other hand, in the late 1980s the Western Atlantic ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi was accidentally introduced into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov via the ballast tanks of ships, and has been blamed for causing sharp drops in fish catches by eating both fish larvae and small crustaceans that would otherwise feed the adult fish. Mnemiopsis is well equipped to invade new territories (although this was not predicted until after it so successfully colonized the Black Sea), as it can breed very rapidly and tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and salinities. The impact was increased by chronic overfishing, and by eutrophication that gave the entire ecosystem a short-term boost, causing the Mnemiopsis population to increase even faster than normal – and above all by the absence of efficient predators on these introduced ctenophores. Mnemiopsis populations in those areas were eventually brought under control by the accidental introduction of the Mnemiopsis-eating North American ctenophore Beroe ovata, and by a cooling of the local climate from 1991 to 1993, which significantly slowed the animal's metabolism. However the abundance of plankton in the area seems unlikely to be restored to pre-Mnemiopsis levels.


Question: Why are ctenophores extremely rare as fossils?

Answer: Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies

<hl> Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies , ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. <hl> Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

<hl> Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies <hl>, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

<hl> Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies <hl> , ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue.

question: Why are ctenophores extremely rare as fossils?, context: Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.


Question: Ediacaran eoandromeda can be regarded to represent what?

Answer: comb jelly.

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. <hl> The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly. <hl>

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a <hl> comb jelly. <hl>

question: Ediacaran eoandromeda can be regarded to represent what?, context: Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.


Question: What was the period called that was 505 million years ago?

Answer: Cambrian period.

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. <hl> Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid- Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. <hl> They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-<hl> Cambrian period. <hl> All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid- <hl> Cambrian period. <hl> All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species.

question: What was the period called that was 505 million years ago?, context: Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.


Question: How many species were found in the Burgess Shale?

Answer: Three additional putative species

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. <hl> Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. <hl> All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. <hl> Three additional putative species <hl> were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

question: How many species were found in the Burgess Shale?, context: Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.


Question: What did the fossils found in the Burgess Shale lack?

Answer: lacked tentacles

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. <hl> All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. <hl> They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently <hl> lacked tentacles <hl> but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.

question: What did the fossils found in the Burgess Shale lack?, context: Because of their soft, gelatinous bodies, ctenophores are extremely rare as fossils, and fossils that have been interpreted as ctenophores have been found only in lagerstätten, places where the environment was exceptionally suited to preservation of soft tissue. Until the mid-1990s only two specimens good enough for analysis were known, both members of the crown group, from the early Devonian (Emsian) period. Three additional putative species were then found in the Burgess Shale and other Canadian rocks of similar age, about 505 million years ago in the mid-Cambrian period. All three apparently lacked tentacles but had between 24 and 80 comb rows, far more than the 8 typical of living species. They also appear to have had internal organ-like structures unlike anything found in living ctenophores. One of the fossil species first reported in 1996 had a large mouth, apparently surrounded by a folded edge that may have been muscular. Evidence from China a year later suggests that such ctenophores were widespread in the Cambrian, but perhaps very different from modern species – for example one fossil's comb-rows were mounted on prominent vanes. The Ediacaran Eoandromeda could putatively represent a comb jelly.


Question: How old were the fossils found in China?

Answer: 515 million years

<hl> The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. <hl> De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about <hl> 515 million years <hl> ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

question: How old were the fossils found in China?, context: The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.


Question: What type of fossils were found in China?

Answer: Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris

<hl> The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris , from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. <hl> De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early <hl> Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris <hl>, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early <hl> Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris <hl> , from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period.

question: What type of fossils were found in China?, context: The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.


Question: Which genus is considered the "aunt" of ctenophores?

Answer: Stromatoveris

<hl> The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris , from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. <hl> De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil <hl> Stromatoveris <hl>, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil <hl> Stromatoveris <hl> , from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period.

question: Which genus is considered the "aunt" of ctenophores?, context: The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.


Question: Stromatoveris is similair to which genus?

Answer: Vendobionta

<hl> The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. <hl> De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to <hl> Vendobionta <hl> of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

question: Stromatoveris is similair to which genus?, context: The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.


Question: Vendobionta lived during which period?

Answer: Ediacaran period

<hl> The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period . <hl> De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding <hl> Ediacaran period <hl>. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.

The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding <hl> Ediacaran period <hl> .

question: Vendobionta lived during which period?, context: The early Cambrian sessile frond-like fossil Stromatoveris, from China's Chengjiang lagerstätte and dated to about 515 million years ago, is very similar to Vendobionta of the preceding Ediacaran period. De-Gan Shu, Simon Conway Morris et al. found on its branches what they considered rows of cilia, used for filter feeding. They suggested that Stromatoveris was an evolutionary "aunt" of ctenophores, and that ctenophores originated from sessile animals whose descendants became swimmers and changed the cilia from a feeding mechanism to a propulsion system.


Question: Recent studies believe that ctenophores are the sister lineage to what?

Answer: all other animals

The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. <hl> Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals . <hl> This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.

The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to <hl> all other animals <hl>. This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.

Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to <hl> all other animals <hl> .

question: Recent studies believe that ctenophores are the sister lineage to what?, context: The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals. This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.


Question: What do some researchers believe is the earliest-diverging animal phylum is?

Answer: Porifera

The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals. <hl> This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera ) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. <hl> However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.

The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals. This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., <hl> Porifera <hl>) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.

This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., <hl> Porifera <hl> ) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage.

question: What do some researchers believe is the earliest-diverging animal phylum is?, context: The relationship of ctenophores to the rest of Metazoa is very important to our understanding of the early evolution of animals and the origin of multicellularity. It has been the focus of debate for many years. Ctenophores have been purported to be the sister lineage to the Bilateria, sister to the Cnidaria, sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria, and sister to all other animal phyla. A series of studies that looked at the presence and absence of members of gene families and signalling pathways (e.g., homeoboxes, nuclear receptors, the Wnt signaling pathway, and sodium channels) showed evidence congruent with the latter two scenarios, that ctenophores are either sister to Cnidaria, Placozoa and Bilateria or sister to all other animal phyla. Several more recent studies comparing complete sequenced genomes of ctenophores with other sequenced animal genomes have also supported ctenophores as the sister lineage to all other animals. This position would suggest that neural and muscle cell types were either lost in major animal lineages (e.g., Porifera) or that they evolved independently in the ctenophore lineage. However, other researchers have argued that the placement of Ctenophora as sister to all other animals is a statistical anomaly caused by the high rate of evolution in ctenophore genomes, and that Porifera (sponges) is the earliest-diverging animal phylum instead. Ctenophores and sponges are also the only known animal phyla that lack any true hox genes.


Question: Which genus of ctenophores does not have cydipped-like larvae?

Answer: beroids

<hl> Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. <hl> Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.

Since all modern ctenophores except the <hl> beroids <hl> have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.

question: Which genus of ctenophores does not have cydipped-like larvae?, context: Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.


Question: A molecular phylogeny analysis confirmed that cydippid are not what?

Answer: monophyletic

Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. <hl> Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic , in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. <hl> Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.

Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not <hl> monophyletic <hl>, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.

Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not <hl> monophyletic <hl> , in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid.

question: A molecular phylogeny analysis confirmed that cydippid are not what?, context: Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.


Question: When was the Cretaceous-Paleogen extinction occur?

Answer: 65.5 million years ago

Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. <hl> This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. <hl> When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.

Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event <hl> 65.5 million years ago <hl> while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.

question: When was the Cretaceous-Paleogen extinction occur?, context: Since all modern ctenophores except the beroids have cydippid-like larvae, it has widely been assumed that their last common ancestor also resembled cydippids, having an egg-shaped body and a pair of retractable tentacles. Richard Harbison's purely morphological analysis in 1985 concluded that the cydippids are not monophyletic, in other words do not contain all and only the descendants of a single common ancestor that was itself a cydippid. Instead he found that various cydippid families were more similar to members of other ctenophore orders than to other cydippids. He also suggested that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was either cydippid-like or beroid-like. A molecular phylogeny analysis in 2001, using 26 species, including 4 recently discovered ones, confirmed that the cydippids are not monophyletic and concluded that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was cydippid-like. It also found that the genetic differences between these species were very small – so small that the relationships between the Lobata, Cestida and Thalassocalycida remained uncertain. This suggests that the last common ancestor of modern ctenophores was relatively recent, and perhaps was lucky enough to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65.5 million years ago while other lineages perished. When the analysis was broadened to include representatives of other phyla, it concluded that cnidarians are probably more closely related to bilaterians than either group is to ctenophores but that this diagnosis is uncertain.