I think there's plenty more discoveries like this to happen. So much we just take for given that we don't even think about it until someone asks the right question. We also have millions of years of biology that are barely explored because all we have is fossils from the hard parts and some extremely rare impressions of soft parts.<br>For example: We have zero direct evidence that ammonites had tentacles.<br>Zilch.<br>Not a single fossil or impression of their tentacles or how their soft body parts looked at all.<br>The only reason we think they had tentacles is because we can see a progression of shells into an internal shell like cuttlefish's, and a separate lineage that we can sorta trace to nautiluses.<br>But we're still to find a fossil that decidedly proves they had tentacles, and even then we'd still have the mystery of when and how did those tentacles evolve.<br>Someone might have found rocks with those exact impressions and just thought it's a neat pattern, brought it home, only for their spouse to throw it away because they thought it was just a rock of no value, or used it to decorate their backyard.<br><br>I think there's still countless discoveries like this out there waiting. Staring us in the face while we're completely oblivious to it until someone realizes what they mean and happens upon it.,(reply>), It reminds me of some of the stories I've read on some blog reposted to some other site- stuff like the weird circle of bricks in old houses that <b>still existed in modern houses in the area</b> (it's for chicken herding), and unidentified bone implements that turned out to still be in use in modern professions and *still made out of bone*.,(reply>), Interesting fact on the evidence of tentacle-less ammonites, or lack of evidence of tentacled ones!  <br><br>So, I always have to ask myself is; “Am I looking for what I expect to find, and does that inform, or corrupt, my search criteria, and more so, my observations and interpretations of what I experience?”