I found a seashell in the middle of the desert
github.com387 points by Hawzen 3 days ago
387 points by Hawzen 3 days ago
https://shell.hawzen.me/
One thing that will have thrown the author off the trail is that he is holding a fossil of the organic parts of the snail and that is essentially a cast of the animal, not the shell. They are known as Steinkerns (stonecore). The insides get replaced by minerals, which harden, the shell dissolves, then the only fossil remaining is a mould of the inside of what used to be the shell. So on a fundamental level, the headline is wrong. He did not find any sort of shell... I've been told by a friend -- a wierd thing -- in many places you can dig a hole and it will fill with water. And at some point in the future fish will be swimming in it. Splitting hairs in bad faith is not constructive to the points being made here. True, but I actually had no idea that it was the soft parts rather than the hard parts that had been fossilized. (I haven’t verified it yet.) Either way, it didn’t read like a bad faith interpretation/comment. It wasn't written to be one. If the author went to the trouble of making a 3D space filled with many shells, knowing the actual shell was most likely a different shape would be something they would probably want to know, so the position of their fossil could be placed more accurately in the graphed space. No, a layperson doing a bunch of math but barking up the wrong tree theory-wise is actually super instructive for this forum of autodidacts. And I say that as one of the autodidacts. "He swam at my feet,
Powerful arms in broad strokes
Sweeping the sand.
So I asked this man,
What seas do you swim?
And to this he answered,
'I have seen shells and the like
On this desert floor,
So I swim this land's memory
Thus honouring its past,'
Is the journey far, queried I.
'I cannot say,' he replied,
'For I shall drown long before
I am done.'" ― Steven Erikson, Deadhouse Gates I have quite an early memory of being on the somewhat remote property in Australia that my mother grew up on (Central NSW, near Condobolin). My Uncle, who then ran the property, walked over to a rock, whacks it with a hammer or similar, shows me a bit of a trilobite (which are totally different to our sort of bytes). He did this a bunch of times. I still have the rocks. No amazing full horizontal cross-sections, but it certainly got my very young mind excited. There were fossils RIGHT THERE from before there were dinosaurs! Oh, and that central Australia used to be an Ocean! These clear demos to young kids, or adults, are great, and the many other examples here in the comments are a testament to that (Vienna? wtf!). Cool find and a very interesting analysis! There's a lot more to morphology than just the shape of the shell, and indeed the shape can sometimes be misleading, in that very different species can have somewhat similar shells, and different individuals of the same species can have quite different shell shapes. You've got a gasteropod, so it would be good to pay special attention to the peristome and siphonal canal (based on the bio classes I took in the area, I'm no expert) but of course there's lots of features that could be helpful in an identification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropod_shell#Parts_of_the_s... is a good list, and maybe you've already done this but you would want to find a dichotomous key of gasteropod families native to the area to narrow it down. Good luck in figuring out your shell! I'm a little confused about how significant of information can be derived from a 2d projection of the shell. This sort of mathematical modeling looks like phrenology. Using PCA on 3d shapes is a proven method for identification. It's nothing like phrenology aside from both involving morphology. Former actually works, latter does not. (I upvoted, seems a little weird that you were downvoted) So, I spent a little time looking up "Principal Component Analysis" and yeah, this method works well with these forms, and my comment comparing it to phrenology was definitely more out of ignorance! I was most surprised that you could flatten a 3d structure down to 2d and not lose so much information that it would cause a very high rate of error. Someone else was skeptical enough to do a study as a critique on it, only to have it retracted. (funny in light of this post) St. Stephens cathedral in Vienna was built with sandstone that contains seashells. It's hundreds of kilometers away from the shore, but ~15 million years ago the area where it stands now was a seabed. The stones are not from the exact location where it was built, but from close by. The quarry where the stones came from hundreds of years ago is still active, and you can find tons of fossils there. It's practically impossible to get a piece of rock from there without visible seashells. Almost any surface on earth was once under the water. You can find sea shells and various sea deposits high on some 8000m peaks or 1000kms inland. Everybody who cares at least slightly knows this, and I am pretty sure author knows this too, he could have spared us the initial hyperbole. Analysis itself is good but not everything needs to read like dramatic novel. Not Vienna or Europe, but N. America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway It’s a very common occurrence. It’s fascination to find maritime fossils far away from the shore, but also very common. Was the land lower, the seas higher, or some combination, way back when? Land lower - Alps and Carpathians hadn't formed yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratethys and its predecessor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethys_Ocean I would wager that the land was lower than the sea back then. Ha! Indeed. If all the ice melted it would raise the oceans by something like 230 feet, so modern Vienna would still be above water at 495 – 1778 ft elevation. Although some estimates suggest Earth loses 20 - 30 cubic kilometres of water to space annually. Plus whatever water is bound up in mineralisation annually. 450 million cubic kilometres of water lost over a 15 million year period would lower ocean by something like … a bit? The total volume of water on Earth is presently estimated to be around the 1.386 billion cubic kilometre mark. The volume of a sphere increases to the cube of its radius … carry the 1 … nup, that’s to hard for me. Beach front property in Vienna, at a guess? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-... https://www.ewash.org/how-much-water-disappears-from-earth-e... https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/the-water-c... Thank you for a great write up. Concise, to the point and really interesting. It would be nice if your local detractors noticed your steely insistence on remarking where you are coming from. I think it would be superb if some ... experts ... in most spaces learned about the beauty of brevity. Herodotus did it first, and even speculated that that region must have been covered by water at some point. Herodotus wouldn’t have written it quite the same — no Jupyter notebook for example,
Jupiter being a Roman term; the nearest equivalent for the Ancient Greeks was Zeus. I've got some 'shells' from the deserts near Siwa Oasis. Quite a cool feeling walking on top of what used to be the floor of the Tethys Ocean, especially when everything around you is just rock and sand without a drop of water in sight. Cool write up, a little weird that you were surprised to find it in the first place though. yea, finding shells all over was one of those things I was taught in elementry school. We even had a field trip to some place to find them along with geography lessons on the various layers of the area "If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone." John McPhee from the wonderful Annals of the former world I also recommend a quick search for "whale skeleton mountaintop". The mythology of dragons probably came from a find like that. I really love that book and also couldn’t help but think about it while reading this. I found an article about finding a seashell in the middle of the desert on GitHub... More seriously, I wonder if there's anything inside. Somewhat reminds me of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coso_artifact I found a sea shell in a visit to Latamber in Pakistan (NWFP): https://www.flickr.com/photos/hendry/73369720/ Gemini says "As the crow flies (Straight-line distance): Approximately 900 to 920 kilometers (roughly 560 to 570 miles) directly north of the coast at Karachi" Maybe a nitpick but Latamber is not directly north of Karachi and it's about 1000 kilometers away (the closest coast is 950 km but not in Karachi). It's easy to see and to measure on a map. Maybe some geology buffs can correct me, but as I understand it there has been three periods with ocean on top of the crust we call Pakistan today. The Proto-Tethys, Paleo-Tethys, and Tethys Ocean. Many hundreds of millions of years of being ocean. Because of the Indian subcontinent colliding with the Eurasian plate there's a wide variety of origins for the surface geology in that region. An incredibly detailed and descriptive map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/1964_Pak... Are you sure that's a fossil and not just a rook that happens to look kinda like a snail's shell? Why would you write a lot of software to find the closest match (which doesn't even seem that good) if you could also ask a subject expert? I guess you could even just post a photo to some subreddit with people who could tell you what it is... Also: "it shouldn't be here; the nearest coastline is Dammam's, 500 km away." - are people really that ignorant about plate tectonics and sea fossils in mountains? I think that sentence was more to show why it had to be a fossil in the first place and not just an ordinary seashell you'd pick up on the beach. He is losing a lot of information in that normalization pipeline (whole shell reduced/feature engineered into nothing but an outline). A CNN or something similar would be better and he can maybe get a better depth map of the mouth shape. She sells seashells in the Sahara was my first association, but then the article clearly states that we're talking about a different desert. The analysis is nice, flashy, and wrong. Several weak assumptions here leading to hallucinate an obviously wrong result. Taxonomy IS a science. Just use the wide corpse of knowledge that has been built for the last 229 years, where the class Gastropoda was created. First wrong assumption. This is a seashell. This probably is a seashell, yes. But fresh water snails have also shells; and savannas can have a lot of lagoons before eventually turning into deserts. If you train your model only using zebras, your model will happily conclude than an hippo is a sort of non stripped obese zebra. More points for though 1) The model use incomplete data. The data used to train the model is based in 7800 species alive. After wikipedia, Gastropoda have more than 75000 species alive, plus 15000 fossil species known. (We can assume safely that this is a snail, but remember that some cephalopods also have coiled shells). 2) The model use spurious data. All clams and Tusk shells must be removed (because we want to classify a snail). This means that the number of snails available to train the model is much lower than 7800. Including non-snails just gives us a false confidence in the strength of our model. 3) The model covers only one couple traits in this species, but this particular traits can vary within members of the same species. Taxonomy uses thousands of traits to classify a mollusc and some are particularly fastididious. Dozens of items only to describe the shell. Often the soft parts are needed (Is the penis shaped like a club? this genus, shaped like a whip? this other one; the penis in your sample is contracted because you didn't put to sleep the animal first with mint crystals, though luck, we'll never know). 4) The model is based in extant alive species, but we want to identify a fossil. Alive species have non-distorted shells. Fossils often lose their shape by the weight of sediments and compression. Only the thickest shells would keep its real height/wide proportions. 5) The model ignores important details. The species found in the desert has a very evident shell groove at the top of the spire, that the targeted species does not have. This alone, tells a newbie taxonomist that the result is wrong. And to end this, 6) the model ignores all knowledge about the species and its habitat Sphincterochila candidissima is a western Mediterranean species. It lives from Spain to Libia. The fossil is from Saudi Arabia. Awesome, someone finally found one of the seashells I drop for entertainment when I go for a ride across the desert I found may under 12feet in desert of Thar, India. It was River or flood deposited according to my research. Looks like ampullospira, documented in Saudi Arabia. Age (middle-upper Jurassic) and actual location also match. I found a seashell in the middle of the forest in (well inland) Mississippi. That was an interesting find, and lead me to learn that much of the continental US used to be covered in a sea, I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway This means the shell was dozens of millions of years old, and may be the oldest thing I’ve ever held, except maybe some rocks. It's interesting that saying the Earth is more than 10,000 years old is not haram in Saudi Arabia. I thought it would be, since they are so religious, but it turns out the Koran doesn't make any claims about the age of the Earth, so you are free to say that the Earth is billions of years old and not be accused of blasphemy. I mean, even in countries with extremely high levels of Christianity, such as Romania, you won't be accused of blasphemy for just... agreeing with science. Both Christianity and Islam are pretty similar after all, so hopefully that is not too surprising. I can't think of a country where you even might be accused of blasphemy, though I'll admit I am not very familiar with the topic. Even with AI, to try to replicate this on my own would take me a really long time, maybe impossible. Despite the use of AI,it would be a huge undertaking , such as having to come up with the blueprint and procedure for classifying the shells, setting up all of the environments, setting up repository, understanding the math, writing it up, coding the tool, etc. This should allay fears that AI will render people jobless or automate everything. land snails ? In the middle of a desert? At this time of the year? ... At this time of the day? ... In this part of the country? ... Localized entirely within your kitchen? Snails have shells too. Just saying freshwater lakes have shellfish too, so it doesn't automatically mean that place was a sea. [flagged] Because the repo includes the tool authored for, and discussed in, the "blog"? The tool is on his own website https://shell.hawzen.me/ Ok and now where is the source code for the tool? In the repository? https://github.com/Hawzen/I-found-a-seashell-in-the-middle-o... Not saying its a good idea, but blogging on github has been a thing for much over a decade by now. [flagged] Among a strong field, this is the single most depressing comment I’ve ever read on Hacker News. Several grim components but it’s the “I don’t understand why” which seals the deal. how is it depressing? that seems a tad strong. Maybe disappointment is the correct feeling Why? Calling a reasonable thing grim without any follow-up isn’t the hallmark of a good comment either. It is not remotely reasonable to ask "but why didn't he feed it to ChatGPT?". It is pretty silly to assume that ChatGPT should always be consulted. It's a good starting place. As an analogy imagine someone wanted to look up the definition of a word. If someone wanted to know the definition and they went out and crawled the entire internet, built an LLM, and then asked it for the definition you would wonder why they didn't check an existing dictionary first. I wouldn't consider it silly at all to always check a dictionary or existing LLM first when you want to know the definition of a word. Wanting to know the definition of a word is not an original problem. Similarly wanting to know what's in an image is not a new problem either. I understand this is more about the process than the result, but note that: a) his result is completely wrong, he identifies a living land snail as the 100+MYa fossil; b) a conversation with Claude helps with some decent knowledge and provides a few possible candidates, that can be then double checked. c) Claude could have talked the author out of trying to identify a Jurassic fossil against a database of living species. I trust a proper solution (even though I can be certain how accurate it is), which compares to a known dataset much more than just giving it an AI. For identifying current living species it is probably fine but this is something to nice for an AI to be trustable. Also this path is much more fun and you learn sonething along the way! but, from my understanding what the author was really wanting was an adventure and to learn new things. he gained so much more than just learning what type of shell it is Who says the whole analysis isn’t AI inspired? No one. I'm pointing out there are existing AI models that can do this that the author could have tried before investing all the work to build his own. > investing all the work to build his own. I don't think you understand why the author did this on a fundamental level. Sometimes it isn't explicitly about getting the outcome directly, it's about putting in the work to understand how you get there. The article says that the author wanted to have an analysis done, but ruled out the option of a human doing it. He did not rule out using a multimodal LLM. It's possible that he just is unaware that multimodal LLMs are capable of doing an analysis. Considering the approach wasn't mentioned in the article one can guess that the author just didn't know it was possible. But there is no way to know for sure. The AI would confidently give him the wrong answer, since it has no way to provide the correct answer, and doesn't know its own limitations. (Or however you wish to describe "hallucinations", which is about as accurate as my description ;)) And he would think he has the right answer, perhaps write up an essay about his findings, which later AI bots will read and learn from, propgating the mistake... The AI would confidently give him the wrong answer There is irony here that does not sleep. Wait, the author identified the shell as "Sphincterochila candidissima". Which is a living species of air-breathing land snail, a terrestrial pulmonate gastropod mollusk. Completely off. Is this example of vector search not "AI" enough? GenAI is the new AI, now, unfortunately. PapersWithCode died for this. [flagged] Non-tech-related stories frequently make the front page here too. It just so happens that this site has a lot of coders because, err, it's literally Hacker News. [flagged] Huh? Plenty of places have geology where the rocks were formed under ancient oceans and are full of sea fossils. Maybe. But I don’t see anything in this piece that says that it’s a fossil, rather than something that resembles this person’s idea of a fossil. It doesn’t look like a fossil to me. It looks like a piece of rock that’s been bashed about a bit. And given the whole premise of the piece is “this should not be here!” I don’t really understand the point you’re making. The author says it’s a strange find in that area - so either they have a valid point or they don’t. I don’t know if it’s a fossil. It doesn’t look like a fossil to me. I’m not a fossil expert. The only way to tell if it is a fossil is to do some analysis on the actual specimen before writing screeds about what it might or might not be based on visual similarity. It says right there it’s a seashell hard as a rock. Guess why, Sherlock. No it doesn’t. It says “ I found a fully solid rock that eerily resembles a seashell”. Well, it's your words against his. You're not much of an expert by your own account in other comments. It's irrelevant if it's from a correct geological period, it's a rock hard seashell. Go and read up the definition of "fossil". To be clear, you are looking at the photographs in the linked article, and asserting that you think it's not a fossil? It's visibly very clearly a fossilized sea shell. You are being a useless pedant about the author's choice of verbiage. Author points out themselves, in the second paragraph, that its not a strange find. The strangeness of the find is his personal experience. Not that its a strange find geologically. I agree it's not a strange find. Because fossils. But then what was the big deal about finding it? Remember, the same author says "I found a seashell in the middle of the desert!" "shouldn't be here" and "coastline 500 miles" And then the author takes a massive leap from “I found a fully solid rock that eerily resembles a seashell” to doing an analysis that treats it as though it actually is a fossil. And that analysis finds out that the shell the assumed fossil most resembles is completely out of period. If we're going to rate annoying takes on the internet, "some guy who knows nothing about a topic being snarky because AI was involved" is far worse than somebody doing something with AI. Guy? And I think you’re arguing yourself into a hole here. What makes you think I know nothing about the topic? I have donated - at their request - three fossils to national museums. But I’m not an expert by any stretch. It’s obvious you’re not an expert at the topic because we can all read the original article and then read your posts in this thread… I’m really not sure what you mean. Did you actually read the article? There is nothing in there that confirms this is a fossil. One moment the author says “I found a fully solid rock that eerily resembles a seashell” and the next minute they treat it as though it is a fossil but their analysis shows that the shell the piece of rock most resembles is from a completely different geological period. Who cares? What if it isn't? What are the consequences? It's still an interesting post. A number of people in this thread arguing with me in a remarkably personal way apparently care quite a lot. And I guess you must care at least a little bit given you’ve made the effort to comment.
My_Name - 8 hours ago
m463 - 2 hours ago
rf15 - 7 hours ago
TheTaytay - 7 hours ago
My_Name - 5 hours ago
Ericson2314 - an hour ago
throwaway5765 - 6 hours ago
Quarrel - 8 hours ago
purplehat_ - 19 hours ago
altcognito - 18 hours ago
drzaiusx11 - 18 hours ago
altcognito - 16 hours ago
andix - 17 hours ago
kakacik - 4 hours ago
PaulDavisThe1st - 12 hours ago
andix - 4 hours ago
thrownthatway - 16 hours ago
mkl - 9 hours ago
Crunchified - 14 hours ago
thrownthatway - 11 hours ago
gerdesj - 17 hours ago
helterskelter - 18 hours ago
LeonB - 10 hours ago
gaiagraphia - 4 hours ago
Suppafly - 16 hours ago
socalgal2 - 10 hours ago
brennanpeterson - 15 hours ago
roenxi - 11 hours ago
ughitsaaron - 4 hours ago
userbinator - 8 hours ago
hendry - 19 hours ago
seszett - 11 hours ago
tokai - 19 hours ago
colechristensen - 19 hours ago
HiPhish - 17 hours ago
iSnow - 7 hours ago
xg15 - 7 hours ago
hawtads - 10 hours ago
Cockbrand - 20 hours ago
pvaldes - 8 hours ago
pvaldes - 7 hours ago
pvaldes - 7 hours ago
danieldrehmer - 12 hours ago
motyar - 12 hours ago
throw310822 - 19 hours ago
LadyCailin - 7 hours ago
TheMagicHorsey - 17 hours ago
regenschutz - 11 hours ago
paulpauper - 18 hours ago
muenalan - 20 hours ago
cluckindan - 18 hours ago
emigre - 7 hours ago
d--b - 19 hours ago
bouncycastle - 15 hours ago
markdown - 20 hours ago
mik3y - 20 hours ago
markdown - 20 hours ago
MattRix - 18 hours ago
murderfs - 18 hours ago
tokai - 19 hours ago
charcircuit - 20 hours ago
tomstuart - 20 hours ago
paulpauper - 18 hours ago
orf - 19 hours ago
bigstrat2003 - 16 hours ago
charcircuit - 15 hours ago
throw310822 - 13 hours ago
Azantys - 20 hours ago
ry-grah - 20 hours ago
saaaaaam - 19 hours ago
charcircuit - 15 hours ago
fzeroracer - 11 hours ago
charcircuit - 3 hours ago
sam_goody - 20 hours ago
CamperBob2 - 19 hours ago
throw310822 - 18 hours ago
sublinear - 19 hours ago
addandsubtract - 19 hours ago
paradoxyl - 19 hours ago
regenschutz - 11 hours ago
saaaaaam - 19 hours ago
colechristensen - 19 hours ago
saaaaaam - 19 hours ago
throw1234567891 - 17 hours ago
saaaaaam - 16 hours ago
throw1234567891 - 16 hours ago
margalabargala - 16 hours ago
tokai - 18 hours ago
oh_my_goodness - 17 hours ago
saaaaaam - 16 hours ago
colechristensen - 19 hours ago
saaaaaam - 19 hours ago
MattRix - 18 hours ago
saaaaaam - 16 hours ago
colechristensen - 6 hours ago
saaaaaam - an hour ago
