Four-Eyed 'Daddy Longlegs' Fossil Discovered

A spider-like arachnid fossil helps explain the evolutionary path of modern harvestmen, often called 'daddy longlegs'

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The ancient ancestors of today's harvestmen, the spider-like arachnids sometimes called "daddy longlegs," had not just one, but two sets of eyes, a newfound fossil reveals.

The recent discovery of this harvestman fossil in eastern France may shed light on the evolution of these arachnids, which can be found on every continent except Antarctica, the researchers said.

Using X-ray techniques, the scientists made images of the 305-million-year-old harvestman fossil. It reveals that the two sets of eyes found on the harvestman species Hastocularis argus were separated, with one set located close to the center of the head, and another on the sides of the head. [Images: 4-Eyed Daddy Longlegs Helps Explain Arachnid Evolution]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


These ancient arachnids were related to spiders, but were not themselves spiders, the researchers said. "Although they have eight legs, harvestmen are not spiders. They are more closely related to another arachnid, the scorpion," study author Russell Garwood, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Today's arachnids, a group of animals that includes not only harvestmen but also spiders and scorpions, can indeed have two sets of eyes, Garwood said. However, modern harvestmen only have one set, located close to the center of the body, he said.

"These findings represent a significant leap in our understanding of the evolution of this group," Garwood said.

The researchers tracked this "lost" set of eyes by examining the genes of modern-day harvestmen embryos, and they found that a remnant of the ancient, additional eye set indeed remains in the modern species' genes.

The skeletons of harvestmen and other organisms that belong to the same group of terrestrial arthropods do not tend to preserve well, making it hard to find their fossils, said study author Prashant Sharma, a postdoctoral researcher at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

"As a result, some fundamental questions in the evolutionary history of these organisms remain unsolved," he said.

The findings are published today (April 10) in the journal Current Biology.

Follow Agata Blaszczak-Boxe on Twitter.FollowLive Science @livescience, Facebook& Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe