Large Ocean Fossil Discovered in Nevada Could Hold Key To Aquatic Evolution (cbsnews.com) 31
An 8-foot-long skull discovered in the Augusta Mountains of Nevada is the largest fossil ever found from its time. The research team believes that the remarkable discovery could provide insight into how modern whales developed, and how to preserve their presence in our oceans. From a report: The fossil -- a newly discovered species of ichthyosaur, a type of large aquatic reptile -- dates to about 246 million years ago. The newly-named cymbospondylus youngorum is, according to the research team, the largest animal found from that time period, both in the sea and on land. It currently holds the title of the first giant animal to ever inhabit Earth. The well-preserved skull was excavated along with part of the creature's backbone, shoulder and forefin. At more than 55 feet long, the ichthyosaur was estimated to be the size of a large sperm whale, according to the study released Thursday by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County. The ichthyosaur has an elongated snout and conical teeth, leading researchers to believe it ate squid and fish. It also could have hunted smaller marine reptiles and younger members of its species.
Artist rendering?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Clicked to see the artist rendering of what it would look like... left disappointed.
But found it here:
http://www.sci-news.com/paleon... [sci-news.com]
Merry Christmas (Score:1)
Let us not forgot the true meaning of this most holy day, the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Re: Merry Christmas (Score:1)
Let us not forgot the true meaning of this Fvcketh thee offeth. Verily.
How accurate is that chronology? (Score:2)
This doesn't sound right; a large, aquatic animal dated to 246MA? That would only allow only 6 million years for it to evolve/develop from, essentially, scratch, since the Permian Extinction is generally dated at 252MA.
I'd be a lot more willing to accept that the beastie died in, or shortly before, the Permian Extinction, which killed off 80% of all life on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Science REQUIRES questions. Question EVERYTHING. Eventually, the answers to all the questions will begin to all point to the same answer, but the process of asking the questions is STILL required.
Fauxci isn't a scientist; he's a believer in "scientism".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science REQUIRES questions. Question EVERYTHING. Eventually, the answers to all the questions will begin to all point to the same answer, but the process of asking the questions is STILL required.
The real secret is to ask the right questions then listen to the answers so that your next question will be even better.
You also have to accept that some people know more than you do.
Re:How accurate is that chronology? (Score:5, Informative)
This doesn't sound right; a large, aquatic animal dated to 246MA? That would only allow only 6 million years for it to evolve/develop from, essentially, scratch, since the Permian Extinction is generally dated at 252MA.
I'd be a lot more willing to accept that the beastie died in, or shortly before, the Permian Extinction, which killed off 80% of all life on the planet.
Didn't read the article, did ya?
Paleontologists believe the ichthyosaurs grew exponentially within several million years, and that their growth was due in part to a massive increase in its prey, which included ammonoids and eel-like conodonts. These species' populations boomed after a mass extinction called the end-Permian Extinction.
"That's one way this study stands out, as it allowed us to explore and gain some additional insight into body size evolution within these groups of marine tetrapods," said Dr. Jorge Velez-Juarbe, an associate curator of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
The cymbospondylus youngorum is "a testament to the resilience of life in the oceans after the worst mass extinction in Earth's history," he added.
Re:How accurate is that chronology? (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't read the article, did ya?
This is slashot. Be happy he/she read enough of the title enough to post a response related to evolution ...
Humans evolved in 2 million years (Score:3)
That would only allow only 6 million years for it to evolve/develop from, essentially, scratch...
Saying that it is impossible for a completely and significantly different species to evolve in under 6 million years is a bit rich given that you are a member of what is clearly an incredibly unique species that evolved about 2 million years ago and whose present form has only been around for about 360,000 years.
Re: Humans evolved in 2 million years (Score:2)
Physically we're different, but we still all act like chimps. We've all thought about how nice it would to be to swinging from tree to tree instead of walking.
My dog thinks we're all crazy for eating so much fruit when there is beef jerky available. I share apples and pears with my dog and she is disgusted by such monkey food. She would much rather eat the liver out of a rodent, maybe slurp the eyes out of the socket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How accurate is that chronology? (Score:3)
Immediately after a mass extinction is when one could expect rapid evolution while ecologies rebuild and niches are filled.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only allow only 6 million years for it to evolve/develop from, essentially, scratch, since the Permian Extinction is generally dated at 252MA. :P
Strange, that is exactly what is written in the article. Give or take a few million years I have the impression you are off a few 100 million years
I'd be a lot more willing to accept that the beastie died in, or shortly before, the Permian Extinction, which killed off 80% of all life on the planet.
But according to the data: it evolved after the Permian E
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be a lot more willing to accept that the beastie died in, or shortly before, the Permian Extinction
Wait, FreeBSD is still alive, netcraft confirms it
Re: (Score:2)
Honey-glazed rat onna stick.
Quite a fish tail (Score:1)
Re: Quite a fish tail (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The scientific paper is not freely available (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf5787) but the abstract indicates that the skull is 2m. A round number like that is likely to be an approximation. Accurate sizes can be found in the Supplementary Material that is freely provided with the scientific paper (see the table, page 18).
The skull length is given at 1890 mm (6.2 feet).
The lower jaw length is given at 1970 mm (6.46 feet).
One could wonder how the skull can be smaller than one of its parts. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Also it is perfectly possible for the lower jaw (mandible plus several other bones) to be complete, but the rest of the skull to be missing some parts, particularly from the tip of the "nose" ("rostrum" in terms of bone names ; "snout" if you're relating it to mammals you're familia
Opposite view (Score:2)