Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Many New Species Found Under Antarctica

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the natures-basement dept.

Science 173

gt_mattex writes to tell us The Globe and Mail is reporting that quite a few new species have been found in the ocean beneath the Antarctic ice. From the article: "It is too early to say exactly how many new species were discovered in the Antarctic, many in the Weddell Sea, where ice crushed the ship of Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton in 1915. The scientists saw more strange creatures than familiar ones, says Ron O'Dor, an expert in octopuses and squid from Halifax's Dalhousie University and the chief scientist in charge of producing the first marine life census of the planet by 2010."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In case you didn't know (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17202774)

Ernest Shackelton is Chuck Norris's father.

Let me get in my boat before you start research... (2, Interesting)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202796)

Is this the initial stage of the Second Impact?

Re:Let me get in my boat before you start research (2, Insightful)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203168)

I'm not sure enough people get the NGE allusion

Ha! That's nothing! The Kraken Awake! (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203258)

(John Wyndham's novel still gives me the creeps. That and Day of the Triffids. But as best as I can tell, the survey hasn't turned up any underwater Triffids. Yet.)

Amazing (5, Insightful)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202804)

It's been millenia and we still don't know all the life on our planet. I always look forward to articles like this, they really tell us how little we do know.

Re:Amazing (5, Interesting)

LiquidMind (150126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203084)

i've been thinking about that too, especially about the life that resides at the bottom of our oceans....
how interesting (and suicidal, but bear with me) would it be to somehow drain all the oceans of water just to see what's left over...

Re:Amazing (2, Funny)

HardSide (746961) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203116)

Well if the global warming craze didnt tell you anything, I give it 20 years, and you can see whats really at the bottom of the ocean...

i'm with you (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203246)

take the common wood louse [google.com] , that you can find under any rock in any forest

now, blow it up a thousand fold in size

there you go [google.com] , running around the ocean floor

amazing indeed

Re:i'm with you (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203476)

As someone who raises hermit crabs* [flickr.com] , I can relate. Those things can be insanely creepy when viewed close up. And I’ve always said that the difference between cockroaches and lobsters is merely a question of scale.

*It’s primarily my girlfriend’s project, but still.

Re:i'm with you (1)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203478)

That thing is about a thousand times creepier than I would've imagined from your description. Very interesting creature.

Re:i'm with you (4, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203784)

I knew I'd see some of these. For any slashdotters who want to see a FASCINATING and beautifully produced BBC documentary on this, I recommend episode 2 "The Deep" from their award-winning "The Blue Planet" series. Here's a direct .torrent link.

BBC The Blue Planet: The Deep .torrent [mininova.org]

Re:i'm with you (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204382)

Wow, that's very cool. But what about this giant one-celled organism they talk about in the article. Does anyone know more about that?

Re:Amazing (1)

dhj (110274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203444)

That is an interesting thought. Although I think the result would be an ocean floor stacked deep with bloated carcasses. A fishing boat goes out and cuts a net size cylinder out of the ocean, returning with a huge pile of fish. It doesn't take long (hundreds of yards) for a shrimp boat to haul up a net full of shrimp and crabs from the bottom in the Gulf of Mexico (highly recommend shrimping if you get the chance). If you took a square meter at the surface and condensed all the volume of the rectangular cube going down to the ocean floor into one square meter at the floor the interesting stuff would probably be underneath the stuff we know about. I would rather see the top 2/3rds taken out completely and just drain the last 1/3rd. Although still there has to be huge amounts of unknown species swimming around in those top 2/3rds. Depending on the average density of life in the ocean that last 1/3rd could be problematic too. I wonder what is the average density of ocean life, and how much it's changed in the last 100 years. Also, I call not it on building the tank necessary to hold all that water. :)

--David

Oh! Maybe we could build a machine that zaps all the known species and sends them to the top then scoop them off. Drain out the rest.

Re:Amazing (5, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203468)

Drain the oceans?!? That's ridiculous -- where would they go??? I guess you could find something that sucks really hard, like Digg, put a straw in it, and plop it on the beach.

But it would make much more sense to rapidly evaporate all of them, perhaps with a large scale hairdryer task force and/or a few strategically placed nukes.

Re:Amazing (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204248)

Well, not draining per se but one could hypothetically ignite a sufficiently large thermonuclear device to burn off the atmosphere and oceans. However, that wouldn't leave the desired residue for subsequent study. More effective would probably be a number of space elevators launching the oceans bucket by bucket into space. however, nukes are much faster.

Re:Amazing (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204498)

"But it would make much more sense to rapidly evaporate all of them, perhaps with a large scale hairdryer task force and/or a few strategically placed nukes."

If you cause it to rain here in L.A., I'm going to drive to wherever you live and kick your ass. That is.. assuming I can find a road that leads out of this city.

Re:Amazing (1)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204608)

Drain the oceans?!? That's ridiculous -- where would they go???

Into the basement of the Fat Man's Club of Trenton, New Jersey.

Re:Amazing (2, Interesting)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204430)

It's been millenia and we still don't know all the life on our planet. I always look forward to articles like this, they really tell us how little we do know.

I just finished a Microbiology intro course where the instructor kept stressing that. You think it's amazing how many macroscopic species we are still discovering; that's nothing compared to the unknown species of bacteria that are right under our noses--and that could be quite literal.

It seems that life on Earth, as far as the number of species is concerned, consists of bacteria, beetles, and assorted debris.

(After Asimov: "The Solar System consists of the Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris."

Anyone else worried after reading this? (4, Insightful)

chabotc (22496) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202808)

"A school of fish the size of Manhattan off the New Jersey coast. About 20 million herring were travelling together."

That soon we'll find ways to make ocean life go extinct in those parts which so far relativly are protected from our interferance.. With our normal area's of fishing drying up quickly, how long will it take before we go and do our thing there too ... *sigh*

Re:Anyone else worried after reading this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17202920)

Ummmm...no. No I'm not. Please, think for yourself rather than letting ManBearPig think for you.

Re:Anyone else worried after reading this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17202960)

Hear, hear!

Re:Anyone else worried after reading this? (5, Funny)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202988)

Don't you worry! We will have those scary new species gone in no time!

Worried? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203074)

I for one welcome our exotic new sushi overlords.

Re:Worried? No. (2, Informative)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203406)

You, for one, must have meant sashimi [wikipedia.org] .

that's a bizarre reaction (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203192)

that little nugget of news was reason to find cheer, i think

a colossal school of herring? off new jersey? isn't that good news?

why the despondent reaction to that news item? there are certainly tons of news items to find depressing reactions to about ocean life and man's hungry stomach... but that particular nugget of news is reason to cheer, don't you think?

Re:that's a bizarre reaction (2, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203326)

It's like finding a pocket of air in a sinking ship. The good news is far overshadowed by the bad news.

some people really need to learn (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203350)

to count their blessings

if everything is doom and gloom to you, you soon sap any ability to keep working for improvement in the world

it means you've already given up

in a way, you've betrayed whatever it is you care about

find heart to carry on, or stop talking about the subject matter entirely

but to continue talking about something with pessimism, to continue talking about anything with pessimism, helps no one and nothing, including yourself

so stop talking about it and move on, or change your attitude about life in the ocean

seriously

Re:some people really need to learn (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203466)

"so stop talking about it and move on, or change your attitude about life in the ocean"

I can attest to that.

I used to believe it would be the worst thing in the world. If it was forced upon me, I thought, I would surely die rather than submit to such a harsh and painful existence. How could I eat? How could I breathe? Both would come at significant hardship, all as my skin shrivelled and those few comforts I'd brought from my land-dwelling past rusted away.

Yes, I was someone who, like many, clung to the land desperately.

How silly that attitude seems to me now. The atmosphere is clogged with pollutants, the crops doused with carcinogens, the cities governed by rich men who guide the masses' efforts into their own purses.

This is what changed my attitude about life in the ocean, and that is what, I hope, will help you change yours.

Pointing out negs is responsible but not enough (1)

iendedi (687301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203634)

Some people really need to learn to count their blessings
if everything is doom and gloom to you, you soon sap any ability to keep working for improvement in the world
it means you've already given up
in a way, you've betrayed whatever it is you care about
I agree, for the most part, with what you say here. If you give up, you have betrayed whatever or whoever you care about. One should not give up.

Find heart to carry on, or stop talking about the subject matter entirely
but to continue talking about something with pessimism, to continue talking about anything with pessimism, helps no one and nothing, including yourself
so stop talking about it and move on, or change your attitude about life in the ocean
I think you are being overly harsh here. Should everyone disgusted with environmental abuses hide their voice? Will that accomplish anything? Clearly the answer is "NO". But that is perhaps not enough, I think you are saying. I think you are saying, help with solutions and action, not just your criticisms... Ideally, sure, that is better... but...

The entire human race (or the subset that has some sensibility) needs to scream STOP THE ABUSE - this action in itself is valuable. This man is doing just that and should be commended for it. You are telling him to shut-up or put-up and should re-think that position a bit.

seriously
Seriously

you're conflating two separate subjects (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203694)

i am attacking pessimism, and you act like i am attacking concern

Re:you're conflating two separate subjects (1)

iendedi (687301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204128)

i am attacking pessimism, and you act like i am attacking concern
You attacked pessimism and speaking up. I agreed with you about pessismism.

i didn't attack speaking up (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204338)

read it again

Re:some people really need to learn (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203688)

Dude, WTF are you talking about? I'm highly optimistic about ocean life. What I'm not optimistic about is how people will treat it. Being all sunshine and lollipops about it isn't going to change the actions of others. On the other hand, if I point out the idiocy of others, perhaps they will either change or be forced to change by others.

Re:that's a bizarre reaction (2, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203610)

It isn't such great news if the herring are filling an ecological niche left vacant by the destruction of another species, or are present in large numbers because their natural predators have been wiped out.

Great... (2, Funny)

Durrok (912509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202812)

Here comes the Second Impact. Glad I'm a couple hundred miles inland and not living in Japan...

ANCIENTS (5, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202818)

IT's the ANCIENT outpost

Re:ANCIENTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203260)

I would've been very disappointed if there were an article in ./ with Antarctica in title and not a single joke/reference to Stargate.

Could they be harmful? (-1, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202824)

I hope the researchers will not bring these creature near to any [human] civilization. You see, they could potentially be harmful to us.

I know my call will not be heeded for researchers are inquisitive by nature.

In case it is verified that a human being was harmed by these creatures, we should sue the researchers and those that support them, just like the US does to terrorists and their backers.

Re:Could they be harmful? (1)

Kiba Ruby (1037440) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202868)

Naaah. Since they never probably evolve near humans, they couldn't possibility be harmful. But that is just my uninformed opinion though.

Re:Could they be harmful? (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202998)

Other then that

Seek also the difference between "then" and "than" ;)

Re:Could they be harmful? (2, Informative)

css-hack (1038154) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203016)

Sure they could be harmful. In fact, where two species evolve seperately, it is less likely that they'll be able to coexist peacefully. Just look at the species that have been introduced to Australia.

I think the greater danger here, though, is that humans will disturb or destroy the new-found species or their habitats.

Re:Could they be harmful? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203036)

You've never been to Australia, have you.

Re:Could they be harmful? (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203304)

Everything in Australia is deadly. The spiders are deadly, the snakes are deadly, the crocodiles are deadly, the plants are deadly, the driving in Sydney is definitely deadly, the TV commercials are lethal... I never did find out what happened to those rabbits that escaped from a research facility on a Government-owned island and made it to shore, back in '95. As I recall, they were being used for some research into some lethal pathogen or other. Since there are Australians still alive, I take it that the crisis was brought under control, but that was cutting it a little fine. I guess we can add the Australian Government to things that are lethal, though.

Re:Could they be harmful? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203382)

You're forgetting the vegemite.

Re:Could they be harmful? (2, Funny)

Alicat1194 (970019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203958)

Naah, Vegemite is like 1080, only toxic to non-natives :)

Re:Could they be harmful? (0)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203484)

[Insert Croc Hunter joke here]

Re:Could they be harmful? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204432)

Instead of listing all of the deadly things about Australia, it's much easier to list the non-deadly things:

- some of the sheep

Thanks Terry Pratchett.

Life census of the ocean? (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202834)

So they have about 3 years to catalog all the life in the ocean? ahh hahahhaha

Re:Life census of the ocean? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202956)

So they have about 3 years to catalog all the life in the ocean? ahh hahahhaha

FTA: This is the sixth year of the marine census

You mean you didn't bother to read the article? ahh hahahhaha

Re:Life census of the ocean? (2, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203102)

Actually I already knew how long the study had been taking place. They are attempting to catalog all the life in the oceans when we haven't even cataloged all life in the rain forests, which is a far smaller task. Now when you consider that the surface area (not volume) of the ocean is 75% of the earth, the chances of encountering every creature in the ocean seems ridiculously small, much less the chance that every creature is encountered and properly documented in all of 9 years. The jokes on you.

Re:Life census of the ocean? (2, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203312)

What point are you trying to make, should they give up because their ultimate goal will never be reached?

Re:Life census of the ocean? (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204690)

No they should get rid of the arbitrary final date.

What is he going to do when times up? Is he going to just stop cataloging ocean life?

I doubt it.

Oh, that's easy. (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203362)

You label everything as one or more of "sushi", "chowder" or "probably made into soup somewhere". Saves on physiological and genetic analysis, and it's all that Joe Average is likely to care about. (If the average person gave a rat's about conservation or science, we'd be a thousand years more advanced and ten thousand years wiser.)


Besides, in 15 years or less there won't be enough of a food chain in the oceans to sustain most of the organisms that do still exist and without a gene bank capable of storing that kind of volume of information there's no possibility of either having any usable data OR being able to revive the ecology once conditions have returned to saner levels. Collecting photos is all fine and good, but in not that long a time that is ALL we'll have, unless serious efforts are made to either conserve or genetically catalog.


(And, frankly, I can't see the US Government even getting past the planning stages in a mere 15 years - assuming it even got that far. As they're the only group with the clout and the money to build a center capable of analyzing and storing a few hundred million DNA/mtDNA databases in that kind of timeframe, most of the information currently in the oceans is beyond any possibility of recovery.)

Re:Life census of the ocean? (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203512)

I bet they could pull it off:

*dumps shiploads of biotoxins into ocean*

"No lifeforms present." "Alright, let's hit the green!"

shouldn't it be... (2, Insightful)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202846)

"octopi and squids"? :-)

Re:shouldn't it be... (1)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202882)

Re:shouldn't it be... (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203420)

I personally like octopodes.

Re:shouldn't it be... (2, Informative)

siride (974284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202888)

No. Either "octopuses" or "octopodes".

Re:shouldn't it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203160)

No, it's Octopussies [wikipedia.org] !

Re:shouldn't it be... (5, Informative)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203340)

The word 'pus' is Greek for foot, and the plural in Greek is 'podes', so it would be octopodes -- except the name of the animal is not 'eight-feet', it's 'eight-foot', so it's one 'eight-foot' or 'octopus' and many 'eight-foots' or 'octopuses'.

If it rhymes, it must be true (4, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204400)

In the ocean, wriggling by,

are octopuses, not octopi.

Attr. to Patricia T. O'Conner, as is the quote, "Octopi is for suckers".

Re:shouldn't it be... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203908)

"octopi and squids"? :-) Sorry, still incorrect.
...deers? No... 'deer'

"octopi and squid"

Re:shouldn't it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204224)

"octopi and squids"? :-)

I like to think of them as kalamari!

I get suspicious... (3, Insightful)

clifgriffin (676199) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202854)

I get suspicious whenever a creature purported to have gone extinct X million years ago is discovered alive and well.

It seems to happen with some regularity.

It seems to me, if you find a fossil of an animal you believe to be extinct, you will probably test it with the assumption it is of relatively old age.

I think you probably find what you're looking for.

Anyway, not trying to start a flame war. But that's probably going to happen anyway. ("YOU IGNORANT BASTARD DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW DATING WORKS!!!")

Re:I get suspicious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17202890)

No need for suspicion. Separated habitats. In those known, dead 30 million years ago maybe. With new technology for exploration and charting, maybe locate a new habitat were it survived over that time. This only invalidates extinction of what is found alive in the new habitat, not the dating techniques used to find 30 million years old in example for 30 million year old fossils in previously known habitats.

Re:I get suspicious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203322)

("You IGNORANT BASTARD do you even know HOW DATING WORKS!!!") [edited for lameness filter]

This is Slashdot. Do you really have to ask that question?

Do Octopus dream in octal?? (1)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202896)

Or should that be base 256?

Re:Do Octopus dream in octal?? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203236)

No, they dream in salt water. Now, the salt water might dream in octal, but that's another matter.

The Thing (2, Funny)

Diagoras (859063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202898)

"Somebody in this camp ain't what he appears to be. Right now that may be one or two of us. By spring, it could be all of us."

Needs pictures (4, Funny)

Inverted Intellect (950622) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202902)

The article describes some pretty odd creatures.

I mean, without a picture of that centimeter-in-diameter protozoan, how the hell am I supposed to imagine how it looks like, much less the more important facets of such a discovery... such as how does it taste?

Re:Needs pictures (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203058)

I'm more interested in this one.

A new species of rock lobster in Madagascar that may be the largest in the world. Its body spans half a metre.

what, the yeti lobster didn't do it for you? (4, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203206)

but, anyways, here you go, lotsa pictures [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Needs pictures (1)

Coulson (146956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203302)

Mmmmm, protozoan.

From imdb: [imdb.com]
Tank: Here you go, buddy. Breakfast of Champions.
Mouse: If you close your eyes, it almost feels like you're eating runny eggs.
Apoc: Yeah, or a bowl of snot.
Mouse: Do you know what it really reminds me of? Tasty Wheat. Did you ever eat Tasty Wheat?
Switch: No, but technically, neither did you.

Like chicken. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204076)

Duh.

Re:Needs pictures (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204546)

such as how does it taste?

I'm guessing like a cross between shrimp & monkey brains.

I've given it 20 minutes... (1)

clifgriffin (676199) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202936)

And no one has said it so here goes...

I for one welcome our new, aquatic overlords.

*ducks to avoid tomatoes and beer cans*

I wonder... (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17202986)

how tasty they are.

WEEEE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203008)

See them now before global warming and oceanic acidification make them all extinct.

Sushi, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203122)

I'm Feeling Hungry(tm)!

My god -- it's full of geeks (5, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203148)

In the dark ocean beneath the Antarctic ice, researchers have found scores of species they've never seen before, including strange jellyfish and other gelatinous organisms that thrive without light

My god -- it's full of geeks.

Re:My god -- it's full of geeks (1)

aldo.gs (985038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203470)

I, for one, welcome our new gelatinous basement-dwelling overlords!

Re:My god -- it's full of geeks (1)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203974)

Keep your shoggoths away from me.

Re:My god -- it's full of geeks (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204098)

Pffft. They sound like shoggoths to me.

It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train a shapeless congerie of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter.

My god, what have they awakened?

Re:My god -- it's full of geeks (1)

antic (29198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204582)

Compulsory watching *before* digging around in the Antarctic...

The Thing
Alien vs Predator

What are these people thinking?!

Elder Things? (2, Funny)

bendy (34731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203170)

Yes but have they found any evidence of Elder Things [wikipedia.org] yet? Or at the very least some Shoggoths [wikipedia.org] ?

New...? (4, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203204)

As in just fell out of the tree of evolution?

...bah....

Those critter are most likely checking out the mini-subs and shaking their heads and thinking "Oh, look! A new species!"

Re:New...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203346)

'Newly discovered,' or 'new to us.'

Re:New...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17203434)

It is highly unlikely that these newly discovered species are capable of that level of reasoning.

Cuboids? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203254)

Any large black rectangular structures waiting the for the completion date? ;)

At The Mountains of Madness (1)

harp2812 (891875) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203378)

Next thing ya know, they'll be finding weird 6' starfruit with tentacles...

Re:At The Mountains of Madness (2, Interesting)

bsa3 (200) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203538)

Actually, the parties to the Dresden Agreement of 1931 have sent repeated followup expeditions, but the crawling chaos got them all. And the Russians are deploying shoggoths in attack mode in the Khyber pass... sucks to be in that universe, I gather. (The robot to be slurped is "A Colder War" [infinityplus.co.uk] by Charles Stross [antipope.org] . Highly recommended.)

Hey Great! (2, Funny)

gp310ad (77471) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203380)

A new isle at the fish market!

Re:Hey Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204152)

That's one big ass fish market.

Lake Vostok (2, Interesting)

Timbotronic (717458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17203800)

It'll be interesting to see what they find in Lake Vostok [wikipedia.org] , which is a freshwater lake as big as Lake Ontario and has been sealed under Antarctic ice for up to a million years.

Could be the perfect test for a Cryobot mission to Europa [space.com]

Re:Lake Vostok (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204118)

Before I read closer I thought that's what this was, and was pretty excited.

Any idea when that's scheduled to actually take place?

Re:Lake Vostok (1)

Timbotronic (717458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204304)

Pretty soon. [bbc.co.uk] Possibly even next year. Hopefully the Russians won't proceed until all the contamination risks have been averted.

Most surprising discovery... (0, Flamebait)

tulsaoc3guy (755854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204034)

Latest report: scientists glimpsed body of Jimmy Hoffa... confirmation by Geraldo is pending.

Final Frontier (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204436)

NASA is planning on testing Europa probes on a pocket of liquid ice buried for centuries (millennia?) within Antarctica's ice. If there is an ecosystem inside, we will contaminate it. This research indicates the possibility of such an isolated ecosystem is higher than purely theoretical.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?