Ancient octopus figures include 330 million years, 10 legs, two spellings

It's almost like everything you've been told about octopi is a lie.

Eight legs? Not always. Found in the ocean? Not necessarily. That octopi is the plural of octopus? Not always.

For some of those findings, we can thank scientists, who recently published a report about a 330-million-year-old fossil of an octopus in Montana.

Yes. Three-hundred-thirty million years.

Yes. Montana.

Even stranger than its age is this: the old octopus had 10 limbs, which really qualifies it as a decapus if my memory of prefixes is correct.

Even stranger, the scientists say that each of the 10 limbs had two suckers, giving it 20 total.

So if you're keeping track, this is the oldest fossil found since the Tampa Bay Bucs signed Tom Brady. It's the most suckers in one place since the last cryptocurrency convention.

I jest. Maybe.

Anyway, scientists say the octopus in question lived millions of years before what they previously believed was the oldest octopus – making it kind of the Dick Clark of octopus, to use a 40-year-old joke. While the scientists used some fancy science wizardry to determine the octopus' age (not counting rings, I hope), they were also tipped off to the fact that it was really old when it started complaining about modern music and telling stories about when it cost just a quarter to go to the movies during the Great Depression.

Of course, all of this could have been discovered three decades ago, when the fossil was only 229,999,970 years old. The specimen was discovered in the Bear Gulch limestone formation in Montana and was one of several octopi (more on that word later) donated to the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada in 1988, when the octopus' childhood friend Ronald Reagan was president.

It sat there for years, forgotten and presumably offended that it was called an octopus, despite having 10 limbs.

Then . . . years later . . . scientists noticed the 10 little limbs, encased in limestone.

What's more, the fossilized octopus had the remnants of an ink bag, used presumably to squirt at predators and to sign ancient octopus documents with a quill.

According to an article by The Associated Press, "The creature, a vampyropod, was likely the ancestor of both modern octopuses and vampire squid ..."

There was more information, but I like the idea of ending a sentence with the words "vampire squid," which will haunt your dreams. The AP article also quoted the journal Nature Communications as saying "the 'oldest known definitive' vampyropod was from around 240 million years ago."

That means the Montana octopus (perhaps the first time those words have ever appeared consecutively in print) was around 90 million years before the birth of what was formerly presumed to be the first octopus.

While doing my research (reading the article, using a calculator to subtract 30 from 3 million, thinking of dumb jokes about old things), I also discovered that octopi isn't the only plural for octopus. Many sources say the correct word is octopuses, although Merriam-Webster Dictionary says either one is fine.

So here's what we've learned today:

• Millions of years ago, octopuses had 10 limbs.
• Ronald Reagan was childhood friends with an octopus.
• Octopi and octopuses are both right.
• There's such a thing as a vampire squid.

Good luck thinking about that tonight when you turn out the lights.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Brad's Almanac provides 12 months of weather forecast for area

For more than 200 years, the Farmers' Almanac has received kudos – or at least attention – for its weather forecasts.

This will be better.

For those unfamiliar with it, the Farmers' Almanac has been published annually since 1818 and includes a mixture of information. There are tips for planting your own food, lists of natural remedies, a compendium of odd facts and more. Famously, it includes long-range weather forecasts for the United States by region.

(Farmers' Almanac, by the way, is not to be confused with Farmer's Almanac, which is Daily Republic sports editor Paul Farmer's unparalleled knowledge of local sports history.)

Publishers of the Farmers' Almanac claim its weather forecasts are 80% to 85% accurate. Outsiders say it's closer to 50%.

I can do that, particularly on a smaller level: I can forecast the weather for Fairfield-Suisun for the next 12 months with an accuracy of at least 75%.

Trust me in the same way people trust the Farmers' Almanac. Brad's Almanac (this column) is based on years of scientific observation (from living in the area) and can be relied on while planning activities for the next year. Do you want to plan an outdoor wedding in October? Should you dress warm for Christmas shopping? Will it be hot in August?

Here are the answers, with a month-by-month forecast for each of the next 12 months for Fairfield-Suisun.

May: Warming trends with occasional cooling periods. At least one heatwave. Warning: once you get used to the hot weather, a cold spell will confuse you.

June: Windy. Warm temperatures with several blustery days and nights. As it gets closer to July, residents begin to speculate on the weather for July 4. There will be no consensus on what the weather usually is like on that date.

July: Windy, but warm. At least one hot spell when residents start to wonder whether this summer is hotter than most (it's not).

August: Slightly less wind, still hot, including some extremely hot periods that end with a windy evening followed by a very windy day.

September: Still hot and more questions from residents about whether this is an unusually hot summer. Fire danger increases and experts warn that it could be a bad fire season.

October: Cooling begins, then there is a hot spell that leads to complaints ("is this hotter than usual?") and more worries about fires. When a wildfire hits, Lake Berryessa will be affected for the 100th consecutive fire season.

November: There will be smoke from a large fire somewhere nearby (or far away, but the wind will bring the smoke to Solano County). The weather turns cool and wet on either Nov. 1 (because it's the day after Halloween) or Nov. 6, the first day of standard time. 

December: Cold weather, some rain. Excited kids wonder if it's possible that there will be snow for Christmas (there won't be).

January: The lack of rain for several weeks raise concerns about a drought, but what can you do about it? Cold mornings lead residents to wonder whether this winter is colder than usual (it's not).

February: Dark. Cold. Just dark and cold. Except for one day when it will be 65 degrees and kind of sunny, which only creates a little hope before crushing it.

March: A few warm days – into the low 70s – bring optimism that spring is here. Spring arrives March 21, but it remains cool and residents will begin to wonder if it's colder than usual in March (it's not).

April: A few rainbows and hailstorms, because it's spring. At least one day reaches the 80s, but there are more cold nights than should be. Residents check Brad's Almanac and suspect the accuracy rate on weather predictions is better than 75% (it's not).

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

 

When it comes to passion about superheroes, I'm Absent Man

If you're part of the majority of Americans who lover superheroes (68%, according to a recent Morning Consult poll), get ready to hate me.

If you love Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man (a superhero with a hyphen!), The Flash or Thor, get ready to be angry.

My name is Brad and I don't like superhero movies.

I fact, I don't like superheroes. Never have.

I know. Put down your X-ray vision or whatever Spider-Man (a hyphen!) shoots out of his wrists.

I'll offend you with the next sentence, too: When I was a kid, I presumed only children liked superheroes. I still don't understand why so many adults lose their minds over a movie about a cartoon character.

Is that right? Are all the Marvel and D.C. characters from cartoons? (I had to look up what the companies are. What the universes are.) I genuinely don't know.

The first real superhero movie of my generation was the "Superman" with Christopher Reeve. It was a throwback to a few decades earlier when people the age of my parents went to the local theater and watched superhero movies or cowboy movies while spending a quarter for popcorn. It was charming, although I remember going to that movie in my teens and thinking, "Isn't this kind of a kids' movie?"

I was wrong. Way wrong.

Over the past several decades, the D.C. and Marvel characters have owned the movie world. Every year, there are new superhero movies, featuring characters that I've never heard of. Enough so that I rarely know they're superheroes.

Of course I know Superman and Batman and Spider-Man. I know Wonder Woman (mostly from the TV show starring Lynda Carter). But I'd never heard of these other characters.

I presumed the first Black Panther movie was about Huey P. Newton or Bobby Seale, not a superhero.

I presumed Captain America was about former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach, not a superhero.

Morbius? Doctor Strange? Black Adam? Iron Man?

Those all seem fake.

Apparently, I missed out on a huge cultural trend. I've spent my adulthood scoffing at superhero movies, then seeing them be wildly successful. How did I miss this? As a kid, maybe I was too busy collecting baseball cards or watching "Hogan's Heroes" to read those comic books (at my house, the comic books were mostly "Archie" and "Richie Rich," not superheroes).

But it happens, year after year after year. I hear the excitement for a new superhero movie. "I'm so excited to see the new Fandango Woman and Tricycle Man movie!" people say.

I don't get it. I don't go to superhero movies and don't plan on starting.

However . . . I did find comfort in that Morning Consult poll that showed that more than two-thirds of Americans are superhero fans. Millennials are by far the group most interested in superheroes, whether it's going to movies, buying comic books or dressing up as them. Gen Z is significantly less interested.

So go ahead and enjoy going to the next Asparagus-Man movie or reading the next issue of the comic book about Scrapbooker and the Committee of Pencils. I'll sit it out, along with my Gen Z friends.

Maybe we'll be watching a movie about Hugh Jack-Man, Paul New-Man or  Morgan Free-Man – a joke that reveals how old my cultural views are.

But if that were the case, at least I'd understand the superheroes and their random hyphens.

Not like the new "Pink Lady and the Legion of Grasshoppers" movie.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Baseball season's back, so it's time to finally fix some things

Baseball should be better.

The major leagues return this week after two seasons affected by the Covid-19 pandemic followed by a 99-day lockout that delayed the start of spring training and pushed back opening day by a week.

The lockout was a bad look, but do you know what's worse? Baseball is . . . (looks around) . . . kind of boring.

I've loved the sport for decades, but it's gotten harder to watch over the past 20 years. I can already hear all my baseball-loving friends objecting, but they're wrong and I'm right.

Baseball is boring, even when the Giants are winning 107 games.

Consider two facts:

• There are far fewer hits, as well as fewer balls in play than at any time. The league-wide batting average keeps dropping (last year's was the sixth-lowest in history) while hitters strike out 50% more often than they did 30 years ago. It's not uncommon to play 20 minutes and have only a few balls put in play. That's boring.
• Games are much longer. Forty years ago, the average game took 2 hours, 33 minutes. Last year, the average game took 3 hours, 10 minutes.

Compared to even a few decades ago, there is way less action spread over way more time.

And baseball – unlike other major professional sports – responds to problems by doing nothing. Maybe forming a committee to study the issue.

The NFL changes rules to encourage passing and scoring. The NBA eliminates defenses that slow down the game.

Baseball forms a group to look at how to knock 30 seconds off a game that takes 3 hours, 10 minutes.

Baseball has always been a slow game – a daily sport with a lot of time spent standing around on the field and a lot of relaxing in the stands. But the recent trends (encouraged by advanced statistics) lengthened games and decreased action to the point that it's like watching curling (no offense to Canadians).

Changes are coming. National League teams will use a designated hitter this year after 50 years of it being an American League-only rule. Next year, there will almost assuredly be a pitch clock, forcing pitchers to work faster. There will be bigger bases to encourage base-stealing. There will be some sort of rule banning the infield shift, allowing more hits to go through.

Those are all good, but baseball should go further. The sport needs to speed up – not just to please kids who love video games, but to keep people like me engaged. Three-hour games with 12 total hits are hard to watch day after day.

Major league baseball should learn from the NFL and NBA and keep making changes. A shorter season? Maybe. Move the pitching mound back to encourage hitting? Consider it. Force teams to lose their designated hitter when they pull a starting pitcher in order to encourage leaving that pitcher in? Sure. Bigger bats or harder infield? Maybe.

There are surely unforeseen consequences for every change, but I know this: They're worth considering.

Baseball is still a great game, but if my favorite childhood sport wants to fully capture people like me – and more importantly, gain interest among people under 50 – it needs to change.

The new (potential) rules are a good start.

Keep tweaking the sport. Get more action. Take some risks.

Stop the slide toward curling!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.