In the next episode, we’ll talk about a few experiments that have been giving us a hard time,
a recently published co-authored paper,
and the small but steady progress our research has been making lately.

Nagai, Y. et al. (2018). Weaving of biomineralization framework in rotaliid foraminifera: implications for paleoceanographic proxies. Biogeosciences, 15, 6773–6789. doi.org/10.5194/bg-1...

17/17
(End)

References
Tyszka, J., & Topa, P. (2005). State-of-the-art in modelling of foraminiferal shells. Studia Geologica Polonica, 124, 143–156.
Tyszka, J. (2006). Morphospace of foraminiferal shells: results from the moving reference model. Lethaia, 39(1), 1–16. doi.org/10.1080/0024...
16/n

In this sense, foraminiferal morphology is not just a product of geometry,
but an expression of biological strategy, a balance between speed and safety.
15/n

However, it fails to reproduce genera such as genus Lenticulina, which arrange their apertures in ways that lengthen the internal pathways.
Perhaps these species prioritize safety over efficiency. They designing shells that slow the inflow of external materials and potential threats.
14/n

Efficiency or safety - survival strategies encoded in form
The shortest-path model fits well with rotaliid foraminifera, whose spiral forms seem optimized for efficient internal communication.
13/n

When this “shortest-path rule” is applied, the resulting virtual shells reproduce the shapes of many real foraminifera remarkably well.
12/n

This represents the shortest route through which signals and materials can flow inside the cell.

In the model, the position of each new chamber is set so that the LCP to the previous chamber is minimized.
11/n

A model that even considers cellular connectivity
What makes this theory particularly appealing is that it incorporates the ease of connection between successive chambers called the Local Communication Path (LCP).
10/n