Slide Show: View some modern-day penguin species" data-pin-do="buttonBookmark">
Slide Show: View some modern-day penguin species
Image: Flickr/¡WOUW!
Today's penguins represent 60 million years of evolution that produced what are arguably the strangest birds of all time. In the November issue of Scientific American, paleontologists Ewan Fordyce of the University of Otago in New Zealand and Daniel Ksepka of North Carolina State University in Raleigh describe recent fossil discoveries that have, at last, allowed scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary history of these endearing creatures—spanning their origin from a flying ancestor to their spread across the Southern Hemisphere into some of the most forbidding environments on Earth. The slide show below highlights a representative sample of modern penguin species. As varied as they are, modern-day penguins represent but a fraction of the group's past diversity.
» View a slide show of some modern-day penguin species.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentAaaww..cute!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrangest birds of all time? Give me a break. Terror birds, hesperornithids, and mancallids (Miocene penguin ecologues from California; close relatives of the alcids) are all at least as cool.
Penguin facts that are not mentioned: Emperor penguins' wings are strong enough to snap human fibulae. Chinstrap penguins eat krill (like whales). Humbolt penguins nest up to a mile away from the ocean, in the driest place on Earth (the Atacama desert, where it hasn't rained for over 400 years).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Today's penguins represent 60 million years of evolution...[R]ecent fossil discoveries...have, at last, allowed scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary history of these endearing creatures..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the fossil evidence reveal what the penguin was before it "evolved"?
They evolved from petrels, or possibly (if the taxonomic minutiae ever get resolved) a proto-petrel, Bill. Please stop trolling here, as you only show your breathtaking willful ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should be thanking me for the opportunities my "trolling" provides you to expose my breathtaking willful ignorance to the internet world.
Re: "They evolved from petrels, or...a proto-petrel..."
Is that what the fossil evidence reveals?
Thank you for revealing your ignorance, Bill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the fossil, anatomical, DNA, and behavioral evidence points to an ancestor similar to today's diving-petrels.
Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Thank you for revealing your ignorance..."
You're most welcome. See how easy that was?
Since it's my wish to focus on a single issue at a time (please keep my ignorance in mind), here's a general observation on fossils from geologist David B. Kitts:
"Paleontologists often claim that fossils tell us something. But fossils, by themselves, tell us nothing; not even that they are fossils...[P]aleontologists encounter objects which do not resemble the parts of any living plant or animal and yet conclude that they are fossils. There is no structural feature which serves to distinguish fossils from entities of every other kind."
[1974. PALEONTOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. EVOLUTION, September, p.458]
You are a pathetic quote miner. Do you want me to call David Marjanovich over here? You will regret provoling him, I can assure you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, you are convincing no one with your trolling and baseless fringe views. The mere fact that you are a creationist and geocentrist makes you unqualified to criticize scientific theories.
oh i see, they are evolved from flying birds to a weird birds and took habitat in harsh environment. Here is an idea lets use penguin's underwater swim techniques for our underwater marine because of its efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "You are a pathetic quote miner."
Gee! you've promoted me; until now you've only accused me of being a quote miner.
Why don't you provide some evidence that refutes the quote?
I don't need to refute it because quote mining (like what you just did) is taking a quote that refutes your position out of context and trying to twist it backwards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, do you want me to call Marjanovich over here? You'll regret it, I assure you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, you do not have the authority to attempt to refute scientific theories, because you are a creationist and geocentrist. Holding these irrational fringe views disqualifies you from rational debates.
Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Dr. Marjanovich will provide evidence from the scientific literature to refute the challenge posed by Dr. Kitts, it’ll be a distinct improvement over that which has been offered thus far.
Really? Really?!?!?! Wow, you haven't even read any of his rebuttals, have you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you have a degree in biology and geology (from a college other than Liberty University), and when you have a veritable library of paleontology books, articles, and textbooks, then you may challenge the established findings of science. However, you will need a huge amount of evidence to convince anyone, and that evidence does not exist.
Furthermore, as I have said before, your fringe views are based on an old pile of ancient Israeli political propaganda and a socialist manifesto by a radical social reformer. While I find Jesus's socialist teachings interesting, nothing in that book convinces me (or, in fact, other scientists), that what we have found through trial, error, and rigorous standards of proof is incorrect.
Lastly, who the hell is David B. Kitts? Is he the crank who got quoted in the Daily Telegraph recently saying that dinosaurs must have been aquatic because their tails were too big?
"""There is no structural feature which serves to distinguish fossils from entities of every other kind.""""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely incorrect. Given the numerous failed attempts to fake fossils over the years, this one doesn't even need a citation to disprove.
Fossils are easily distinguishable from the surrounding soft sedimentary rocks in which they are found by their hardness, cohesiveness, and texture. They have recognizable shapes (at least, shapes that can be recognized by an experienced person), and show no signs of crystalline growth. Also, vertebrate fossils show growth rings, especially on larger bones.
Trace fossils, such as footprints and imprints of soft-bodied animals, are recognized primarily by shape. Usually, however, some mineralized body elements remain, allowing easier identification.
Now do you understand why I'm annoyed with you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Wow, you haven't even read any of his rebuttals, have you?"
Please give me an example of one of his rebuttals that hasn't been read.
Re: "...who...is David B. Kitts?"
DAVID B. KITTS, METAGEOLOGIST, 1923–2010, KENNETH L. TAYLOR Professor Emeritus, History of Science The University of Oklahoma
http://cas.ou.edu/Websites/oucas/images/hsci/Eloge-DBK%282011%29.pdf
Re: "...[Y]our fringe views are based on an old pile of ancient Israeli political propaganda..."
"My view (at least in this case) is really not my view:
[1974. PALEONTOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. EVOLUTION, September, p.458]
Re: "Absolutely incorrect."
It's a shame Prof. Kitts isn't alive to defend himself.
Re: "...this one doesn't even need a citation to disprove."
That's one way to escape having to provide evidence to support your position.
Re: “Now do you understand why I'm annoyed with you?”
There’s never been any doubt in my mind why you’re annoyed with me. You’re simply displaying a sour-grapes response to my “quote mining” because the quotes used in my comments are no more than occasional honesty on the part of published evolutionists. As regards quote mining, here’s one result of having taken your advice to determine what the phrase means:
"Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint. [1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution."
[1] If you're good, you can also pretend your fellow loonies said nice things rather than nasty things.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining
By this definition, you are unjustified in accusing me of being a “quote miner.” Why? You are unable to provide a single example of a quote taken out of context in any of my comments. You are unable to provide a single example of a claim on my part that any of those quoted agree with me. It would not serve my purpose to quote those who agree with me.
"""There’s never been any doubt in my mind why you’re annoyed with me. You’re simply displaying a sour-grapes response to my “quote mining” because the quotes used in my comments are no more than occasional honesty on the part of published evolutionists. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the f*ck is wrong with you? Are you living in a fantasy world where the hypothesis of a divine being is testable? You are a quote miner of the worst sort; there is a rather good article on people like you on Wikipedia.
"""As regards quote mining, here’s one result of having taken your advice to determine what the phrase means:
"Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint. [1] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.""""
That last sentence is EXACTLY what you're doing.
"""[1] If you're good, you can also pretend your fellow loonies said nice things rather than nasty things.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining"""
Did you just call me a loony? Seriously? OK, Mr. Leaf, if you want to call Mr. Grass green...
"""By this definition, you are unjustified in accusing me of being a “quote miner.” """
YOU ARE A LYING WEASEL. the quote that you just posted DISPROVES THAT SENTENCE ENTIRELY, AND YET YOU PERSIST!!!
"""Why? You are unable to provide a single example of a quote taken out of context in any of my comments. You are unable to provide a single example of a claim on my part that any of those quoted agree with me. It would not serve my purpose to quote those who agree with me."""
Really? You must quote people who agree with you on the topic at hand, or you're quote mining. **** off, and learn some basic principles of scientific thought.
Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "Are you living in a fantasy world where the hypothesis of a divine being is testable?"
THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS
1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that
they are inexcusable.
[Catholic Bible. (c) 2000. Douay Rheims translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software.]
Re: "That last sentence is EXACTLY what you're doing."
Please provide the EVIDENCE to back up the charge.
Re: "Did you just call me a loony?"
Please reread the definition of "quote miner" carefully; you'll notice that the statement is part of the online text. It was quoted in full to take away the ability of anyone to accuse me of "failing to quote the very next sentence."
Re: "YOU ARE A LYING WEASEL."
Please provide the EVIDENCE to back up the charge.
Re: "You must quote people who agree with you..."
Please point out any evolutionist quoted in my comments who agrees with me.
"""THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that
they are inexcusable.
[Catholic Bible. (c) 2000. Douay Rheims translation. Murray, KY: A production of Catholic Software.]"""
The bible is a biased source. You must select a scientific, peer-reviewed paper from after about 1800 that shows a clear, repeatable method for testing the existence of a god/goddess.
"""Re: "That last sentence is EXACTLY what you're doing."
Please provide the EVIDENCE to back up the charge."""
You provide me with the evidence yourself. Anyone with half a brain who reads your comments can see your lying and quote mining ways.
"""Re: "Did you just call me a loony?"
Please reread the definition of "quote miner" carefully; you'll notice that the statement is part of the online text. It was quoted in full to take away the ability of anyone to accuse me of "failing to quote the very next sentence.""""
OK. The quote still proves that you are a quote miner, though.
"""Re: "YOU ARE A LYING WEASEL."
Please provide the EVIDENCE to back up the charge."""
Again, you provide anyone with a pair of eyes the evidence to prove that. Also, it's hilarious to see a creationist asking for evidence, given that the only piece of evidence that you guys have is a pile of ancient rags.
"""Re: "You must quote people who agree with you..."
Please point out any evolutionist quoted in my comments who agrees with me."""
You MUST quote people who agree with you, or you are quote mining. Also, only peer-reviewed articles are quotable. Interviews are iffy at best. Letters and email are private, and hence off-limits.
Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for providing the requested evidence.
So you admit that you're a liar, Billy boy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this