Conodonts, the spiky phosphatic remains(bones and teeth composed of calcium phosphate) of tiny marine animals that probably appeared about 520 million years ago, were once among the most controversial of fossils. Both the nature of the organism to which the remains belonged and the function of the remains were unknown. However, since the 1981 discovery of fossils preserving not just the phosphatic elements but also other remains of the tiny soft-bodied animals (also called conodonts) that bore them,scientists' reconstructions of the animals' anatomy have had important implications for hypotheses concerning the development of the vertebrate skeleton.
The vertebrate skeleton had traditionally been regarded as a defensive development, champions of this view postulating that it was only with the much later evolution of jaws that vertebrates became predators. The first vertebrates, which were soft-bodied, would have been easy prey for numerous invertebrate carnivores, especially if these early vertebrates were sedentary suspension feeders. Thus, traditionalists argued,these animals developed coverings of bony scales or plates, and teeth were secondary features, adapted from the protective bony scales. Indeed, external skeletons of this type are common among the well-known fossils of ostracoderms, jawless vertebrates that existed from approximately 500 to 400 million years ago. However, other paleontologists argued that many of the definitive characteristics of vertebrates, such as paired eyes and muscular and skeletal adaptations for active life, would not have evolved unless the first vertebrates were predatory. Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view, and the earliest vertebrates were predators.
The stiffening not ochord along the back of the body, V-shaped muscle blocks along the sides, and posterior tail fins help to identify conodonts as among the most primitive of vertebrates. The lack of any mineralized structures apart from the elements in the mouth indicates that conodonts were more primitive than the armored jawless fishes such as the ostracoderms. It now appears that the hard parts that first evolved in the mouth of an animal improved its efficiency as a predator, and that aggression rather than protection was the driving force behind the origin of the vertebrate skeleton.
According to the passage, the anatomical evidence provided by the preserved soft bodies of conodonts led scientists to conclude that
conodonts had actually been invertebrate carnivores
conodonts' teeth were adapted from protective bony scales
conodonts were primitive vertebrate suspension feeders
primitive vertebrates with teeth appeared earlier than armored vertebrates
scientists' original observations concerning the phosphatic remains of conodonts were essentially correct
文章大意:
1. Conodonts,最有争议的化石:本质、功能全不知。
However,1981的新发现可以帮助科学家研究脊椎动物骨骼的发展。
2. 脊椎动物的骨骼一度被认为是用来防御的;有下巴才是捕食者的特征;举例,甲青鱼,500到400百万年前出现的没下巴的脊椎动物。
However,其他学者认为一代脊椎动物有符合捕食者的特征。
3. C是比甲青鱼(ostracoderms)更原始。
题目分析:
文章推断题:C的软骨可以帮助科学家得出什么结论?
选项分析:
A选项:C其实是无脊椎的食肉动物:文章明确表示C是脊椎动物。
B选项:C的牙齿是从保护性的骨鳞发展来的:这个观点是有争议的,而根据第三段,这个观点是被削弱的。
C选项:C是原始的有脊椎的悬浮物摄食者:文章最后一句说明C是predator而不是悬浮物摄食者。
D选项:正确。有牙的原始脊椎动物比有甲的脊椎动物出现的早:第三段支持了这个观点。
E选项:科学家对最早的关于含磷酸盐的C的残骸的观察是准确的:科学家最早认为C不是predator,而后面反驳了这个观点,说明早期的观察是不准确的。
太难了罢也。。。。
这篇文章难点在于作者都没有写清楚内容。开篇没有明确文章讨论的中心。
开头的中心是:important implications for hypotheses concerning the development of the vertebrate skeleton. ——脊椎动物骨头的演变
第二段:变成讨论vertebrate向predator的演变。
其中,traditionalists认为:only with the much later evolution of jaws that vertebrates became predators.
古生物学家认为:Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view, and the earliest vertebrates were predators.
第三段结论:It now appears that the hard parts that first evolved in the mouth of an animal improved its efficiency as a predator……
所以这篇文章内容是:从一种海洋生物的conodont(一种remains,一种fossile)引发verbrate skeleton的发展的讨论(开头是这么说的)……然后讨论skeleton(coverings,teeth)与predator的关系,最终结论是一种生物是不是predator根据mouth 的hard parts来去判断。——勉强理解为development
简单整理下文章逻辑吧:
1. 一块有争议的化石在1981年有新发现
2. 这个新发现有可能改变一个关于脊柱动物的进化猜想:列出两个猜想—旧猜想(脊柱动物的进化是因为想保护自己不被捕食,牙齿只是附属产物,举了一个旧猜想的首个脊柱动物的例子,并且有时间-四百到五百万年前)新猜想(脊柱动物最先进化出来是为了更好捕食,牙齿是先进化的标志,而且眼睛的进化也能侧面证实这个点)
3.作者进一步同意新猜想
关于进化问题记得看时间,谁的时间更久远更具有话语权
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
觉得最难的是C选项,需要绕一下。原文是 The first vertebrates, which were soV- bodied, would have been easy prey for numerous invertebrate carnivores, especially if these early vertebrates were sedentary suspension feeders.
第一种观点认为 first vertebrates were sedentary suspension feeders. 就是 vertebrates 吃 suspension。但是 文章第二个结论不同意这个观点,结尾也说了 C是predator,所以C是错误的。
这个C选项感觉跟第三题A一样,因为是出现在第二段traditional观点中的,而且是一个虚拟语气,所以是错的
定位:The lack of any mineralized structures apart from the elements in the mouth indicates that conodonts were more primitive than the armored jawless fishes such as the ostracoderms.
conodonts早于armored jawless
错误原因:没有综合全文看,第一段定位句,scientists' reconstructions of the animals' anatomy have had important implications for hypotheses concerning the development of the vertebrate skeleton. 这句是说软体动物的解刨可以帮助下结论,但是题目问的是结论是什么?所以这个定位的地方只是一个大前提。还要往后找。其他提到的科学家有,traditionalists ,paleontologists,传统主义者有个观点说骨骼先于牙,随后古生物学家就说了没有牙那些东西根本不会进化,所以最新的观点(也就是结论)就是牙要比其他的早。Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view, and the earliest vertebrates were predators.这句才是结论。而最后一段是作为支持这句的。
改:为止==》未知
传统观点认为外骨骼重要,牙齿次要没有说明什么,外骨骼起保护作用,那么c是捕食者
信观点认为,牙齿更原始,它帮助捕食,c是捕食者
c是最原始脊椎动物,所以原始脊椎动物是捕食者
读了几遍,现在感觉全文主题为四个:conodant=最原始脊椎动物/这种结构,牙,外骨骼,捕食者/被捕食者
段一说:c是种有牙&骨遗骸的脊椎动物,属于什么生物体(纲目门)和这些骨的作用(指下文用来保护?捕食)为止,然后1981的发现有新的认识
段二说:1981前传统认为:这些骨有着防御性作用,他们是被捕食者。牙齿相对于外骨骼而言是第二特征(次要)
然后转折1981后的观点:虽然这些外骨骼在无爪脊椎动物化石中很普遍,但除非他们是捕食者,不然眼睛这些捕食特点不会进化出来。这些人认为:牙齿跟外骨骼相比,牙齿更原始,最早的脊椎动物c是捕食者无疑
段三说:c是最早的脊椎动物之一。而除了嘴里它没有其它矿化结构说明c比无爪鱼更原始。所以现在看来动物嘴中更早进化的硬物(说这个牙结构)提高了他们的捕食效率。而进攻性而不是保护性是这些原始脊椎动物进化的原因
rc
先看选项,从选项定位
定位d
题干“led scientists to conclude that”最后一段identify conodonts as among the most primitive of vertebrates.
It now appears that the hard parts that first evolved in the mouth of an animal improved its efficiency as a predator,
定位到第二段最后一句
定位:Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view
但根据文末的It now appears that the hard parts that first evolved in the mouth of an animal improved its efficiency as a predator可知,最新的discovery支持了第二种学者的意见conodonts are predator,BE都是传统观点因此错了。剩下的AC在原文中就有直接细节对应
Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view, and the earliest vertebrates were predators.
选择文章认为正确的观点
这篇文章生词好多?怎么快速定位到D?
太难了......
定位:/Teeth /were more /primitive/ than e/external armor/ according to this view, and/ the earliest vertebrates /were predators.
A 无脊椎动物错 已经identify 它是最原始的脊椎动物了
B 牙齿由外壳进化而来(观点1),错 观点2先有牙齿 再有外壳
C 出现在观点1 错
D 用armor定位
(1)Teeth were more primitive than external armor according to this view, 定位观点2 第二段最后一句
(2) apart from the elements in the mouth indicates that conodonts were more primitive than the armored jawless fishes such as the ostracoderms. 定位结论段中间
E original observations=traditional 观点1是错的
定位第三段 结论支持观点2
解剖学证据anatomical evidence =The stiffening not ochord along the back of the body, V-shaped muscle blocks along the sides, and posterior tail fins help to【identify conodonts as among the most primitive of vertebrates.】
题目的问题就是问文章的结论,E无关文章的两种不同的观点,ABC都说了段二的第一种观点,但是文章最后作者的观点其实是支持第二种观点的,就是V的牙齿证明在armor之前,所以它一开始就是predator。(词汇还不认识)
”lack of any mineralized structures apart from the elements in the mouth indicates that conodonts were more primitive than the armored jawless fishes such as the ostracoderms.“文章的难点在于专业词汇较多,因此理清文章脉络很重要,文章的脉络不算太难,段一提出一个问题,段二提出两种不同的论点进行说明,并给出作者的结论。