The other 95% is gray mud, no life larger than multi-celled critters.
boo!
Submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/3fba91f5-377b-4d15-b812-d72990a2d971.png
Comments
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ivanovsky@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’s a messed up looking dogfish.
Wofls@feddit.org 1 year ago
It is possible, there are exactly 6 seamonsters missing
Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 year ago
There are nice creatures in the Ocean, like eg. an 55m long toxic Worm (Lineus longissimus). If you know which creature you can find in the Ocean you prefer to make vacation on the mountain
LongLive@lemmy.world 1 year ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinochimaera_pacifica
- I wonder what predators it has.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
And what does it eat? What teeth does it have
kamenlady@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is assessed as having the conservation status of least concern by IUCN. In June 2018, the New Zealand Department of Conservation classified R. pacifica as “not threatened” with the qualifier “data poor” under the New Zealand Threat Classification System.
So, feeding the threat classification system with poor data, makes it classify the specimen as “not threatened”?
Isoprenoid@programming.dev 1 year ago
Yeah, it’s strange to label it as “not threatened” when there is a “data deficient” label available.
It appears that the “data deficient” label is avoided as much as possible:
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Nah it’s more like the population is unknown. It lives deep enough that we rarely encounter them, making it difficult to estimate how many them are
FeatherConstrictor@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Is this another situation like the blobfish, where the photos of it are just what it looks like when the body has been destroyed from the change in pressure but it actually looks underwhelming at the depths it normally lives in?