A group of scientists have studied the fossil (化石) of an animal, called Kongonaphon kely, which they said is an ancestor of the dinosaurs. The four-legged animal can even fit in man's hand. Scientists say it lived about 237 million years ago in what is now Madagascar, an island country off the east coast of Africa.

The researchers believe the animal came before dinosaurs. The study notes that much remains unknown about the history of dinosaurs and their winged relatives, pterosaurs (翼龙). Scientist Christian Kammerer of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, who led the study, told a news agency that based on the body size suggested by the fossil, “we argue that dinosaurs and pterosaurs evolved from a modest-sized ancestor. " John Flynn, of New York's American Museum of Natural History, was a co-writer of the study. He said the Kongonaphon's teeth showed signs of use in a way that suggested this animal ate insects.

The team examining the fossil also found evidence of soft skin coverings, including feathers. Usually, animals use fur or feathers to hide themselves from enemies or help to hunt for food. To some, fur or feathers even protect them from insect bites. But the researchers said feathers of Kongonaphon would have been especially important in the extreme climate of the early part of the Mesozoic Era (中生代). The days were hot, and the nights cold.

“Some of these things would have been quite cute animals,” said Kammerer on the light side. Looking like a dinosaur that could be held in a person’s cupped hands, it “would probably make a great pet”. Of course, no humans were around when Kongonaphon was wandering in the wild, jumping around with its strong legs and hunting for food Kammerer said.

Somewhere in the highlands of Afghanistan, a hungry fox pounces （猛扑）on a tasty-looking leopard gecko （豹纹 壁虎）.But the lizard has a get — out — of — jail — free card: a separable tail. The dropped part waves in an energetic but uncontrolled way around long enough to distract the fox, allowing the gecko itself to run off and hide.

Leopard geckos are one of a few lizard species that possess this ability, known as autotomy （自切）.The technique is effective, but the tail can account for about a quarter of the lizard's body mass. So how do these animals adapt to losing so much of it that quickly?

When geckos lose their tail, they "take this more sprawled posture （四肢伸开的姿势）"and walk with their limbs spread out farther from their body, says Chapman University biologist Kevin Jagnandan. Most researchers initially assumed this posture was a response to a suddenly shifted center of mass. But when Jagnandan observed leopard geckos with a tail in his laboratory, he realized that they wag it as they walk, suggesting that these movements may be key to the lizards' movements.

To test this assumption, Jagnandan and his team assessed the postures of 10 geckos walking in various conditions: with their tail intact （完整的）；with their tail restricted by a small section of glued-on fishing rod （whose mass can be neglected）; and with their tail self-amputated. These comparisons allowed the researchers to distinguish the effects of lost mass from those of lost tail-wagging on the geckos’ movements.

The lizards with an immobilized tail adopted ways similar to those with no tail, the researchers reported in a study published in Scientific Reports. This result suggests the sprawling walk they adopt after losing their tail is not compensating for the missing mass but rather for the lack of tail-wagging. Jagnandan thinks tail movements help the lizards keep balance and stability as they walk. He suspects that the tails of mammals living in trees, such as cats and monkeys, serve a similar purpose.

Bill Ryerson, a biologist at Saint Anselm College, who was not involved in the study, was surprised by the findings. "We thought we had settled it ——it seemed pretty open-and-shut" that mass was the main factor, he says. The new study challenges this earlier idea in a "beautifully simple" way, Ryerson adds.

Jagnandan hopes that understanding how animals react to missing body parts could ultimately help engineers design robots that can move more efficiently as heavy loads — or even entire limbs --- are added and removed.

On average, we each eat more than 20 kilograms of fish per year. Worldwide, between 1961 and 2016, fish consumption increased faster than meat consumption, and grew twice as fast as the human population. All of these fishy dinners have reduced marine fish stocks to a point where a third of global fish stocks are now classed as "overfished". Fishing also has negative impacts on non-food species in the ecosystem, and pollutes the waters with fishing waste. Temporary fishing bans may help, but what if we banned fishing altogether?

One thing is for sure: the ocean would hopefully become a better place for marine species. Recent years have seen plastic products much less used as the public has woken up to the effects of marine plastics. But few people realize the contribution that fishing makes. Pieces of abandoned fishing tools account for about 10 percent of all marine litter, and according to a 2018 study, 86 percent of the big pieces of plastics floating in the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch". Without fishing, we'd also wipe out emission from fishing boats. One 2014 study claimed that fishing industry was actually highly fuel-consuming, like lobsters, with some boats using 20,000 liters of fuel to catch a single ton.

However, what we must not forget is that our planet is highly dependent on fishing in various ways. Around the world,40 million people earn their living directly from catching wild fish, while another 19 million are employed in relevant industries. A total ban on fishing would make it hard for them to put food in their families' mouths. Moreover, seafood is a major source of protein across Southeast Asia and islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. So while in Europe or the US people could eat more meat or soy products to make up for lost protein, there could be food shortage in communities with little land-based farming.

Though not a realistic choice, a total fishing ban is an interesting thought experiment, which may throw light on how man can get along with marine species. After all, the damage fishing does to the entire ecosystem and the pollution it brings about are becoming so enormous that it's time we did something to change it.