Biologists have long drawn the animal family tree with a hazy base, unsure which creature first split from the common ancestor that gave rise to everything from jellyfish to humans. Now, a new genomic analysis is sharpening that picture, pointing to a surprising candidate for the earliest branch and reframing how complex traits evolved. The finding arrives alongside fresh fossil work that hints at other lost offshoots of life, together reshaping how I think about the deep past.
By tracing ancient genes and pairing them with enigmatic fossils, researchers are not just rearranging textbook diagrams, they are exposing how fragile our assumptions have been. The emerging view suggests that the first animal line may have been more alien than familiar, and that the tree of life has sprouted and pruned entire branches that left almost no trace.
The fierce battle at the root of the animal tree
For more than a century, most biologists treated sponges as the obvious starting point for animals, a simple body plan that seemed to precede muscles, nerves and organized tissues. That tidy story began to unravel when genomic tools improved and some datasets hinted that comb jellies, with their shimmering rows of cilia and nervous systems, might actually sit closer to the base. The clash between these two scenarios, sometimes framed as a sponge versus comb jelly duel, has become one of the most persistent arguments in evolutionary biology, as researchers weigh anatomical simplicity against molecular signals from early-branching lineages and ask Which animals truly came first.
When I look at the evidence, I see why the debate has been so stubborn. Sponges lack muscles and nervous systems, which intuitively makes them feel primitive, yet comb jellies show genetic quirks that suggest they diverged before sponges acquired their stripped-down architecture. Earlier work summarized by evolutionary biologists noted that, Until 2008, the sponge-first model dominated, only for later analyses to propose that the comb jelly lineage might instead be the earliest animal branch. That reversal forced scientists to reconsider whether complexity can be lost as easily as it is gained, and whether our sense of “simple” is biased by modern forms.
Scientists say they have found the first animal branch
The latest work goes beyond tallying gene sequences and instead tracks where clusters of genes sit on chromosomes, a feature that can preserve ancient patterns even when individual sequences mutate. By comparing these genomic neighborhoods in sponges and comb jellies with those in other animals, the research team identified a configuration that points to comb jellies as the first group to split from the common ancestor of all animals. In other words, the earliest branch appears to be a comb jelly lineage, not the sponge line that many of us grew up seeing at the base of the tree, a conclusion that the Scientists behind the study argue is robust across multiple gene families.
To reach that point, the team did not just sequence more DNA, they mapped the placements of specific groups of genes in comb jellies and sponges and then compared those patterns with other animals and non-animal relatives. That chromosome-level context, described in detail in a separate analysis of In order to reconstruct the earliest split, suggests that the comb jelly arrangement preserves more ancestral features. When I weigh that structural evidence alongside earlier sequence-based hints, the case for comb jellies as the first animal offshoot looks increasingly persuasive, even if some researchers remain cautious about declaring the debate fully settled.
What a comb jelly first branch would mean for evolution
If comb jellies really did diverge before sponges, the implications ripple through almost every story we tell about animal evolution. A comb jelly first branch implies that nervous systems, muscles and other complex traits either evolved once and were later lost in sponges, or arose independently in different lineages, a scenario that would make convergence far more common than many textbooks suggest. That possibility is already being explored in work that revisits early animal genomes and developmental pathways, including analyses that compare early branching animals to pinpoint when key gene networks appeared.
From my perspective, the most striking consequence is how it reframes “simplicity” as a derived condition rather than a default starting point. If the first animal branch was a comb jelly, then sponges might represent a lineage that shed features over time, adapting to a filter-feeding lifestyle that no longer required nerves or muscles. That idea fits with broader genomic work that tracks how gene families expand and contract, as described in comparative studies of comb jellies and sponges that highlight unexpected losses and innovations. It also nudges me to think of evolution less as a ladder toward complexity and more as a tangle of experiments, some of which simplify as they specialize.
Fossil hints of other lost branches of life
While genomic data are clarifying the base of the animal tree, the fossil record is revealing that entire branches of life have come and gone, leaving only cryptic traces. One striking example is a This Mysterious 407-Million-Year specimen that researchers interpret as an early type of fungus, a clue that fungal evolution also sprouted side branches that do not fit neatly into modern groups. That fossil, described as a Previously Unknown Branch, underscores how much of Earth’s biological history is missing from living lineages, preserved only in rock.
Another case involves Prototaxites, towering organisms that reached eight meters in height and lived roughly 400 million years ago, long before forests took over the land. According to the authors who reexamined these fossils, According to their analysis, Prototaxites represents a lost, fully extinct branch of the tree of life that dominated terrestrial ecosystems before the first trees appeared. When I place these fossils alongside the comb jelly result, I see a consistent message: the tree of life is not just a story of gradual branching toward the present, it is also a record of entire lineages that flourished and vanished, leaving us with only hints of their true diversity.
Rewriting deep time, from ancient animals to mammal ancestors
Clarifying the first animal branch also feeds into a broader effort to time major evolutionary milestones more precisely, including the origins of mammals. Work on early synapsids, for example, has used similar phylogenetic tools to show that key mammal traits emerged earlier than once assumed. One study of the small predator Thrinaxodon, a mammal ancestor, concluded that features associated with warm-bloodedness and more advanced jaw mechanics were already present, suggesting that mammal-like physiology was evolving much earlier than traditional timelines indicated.
When I connect that work to the comb jelly finding, a pattern emerges in how scientists are revising deep time. Genomes, fossils and new analytical methods are converging to show that many evolutionary innovations, from animal nervous systems to mammalian traits, appeared in bursts and sometimes in parallel across different branches. The broader genomic survey that identified the first animal branch, detailed in a report on first branch candidates, fits into this trend of using large comparative datasets to redraw the earliest splits. As more lineages are sampled and more enigmatic fossils like the Million Year Old Fossil May Represent case are reinterpreted, I expect the base of the tree of life to look less like a single trunk and more like a braided delta of experiments, some of which left descendants and others that exist only as faint imprints in stone.
More from Morning Overview