The Prehistoric Proboscidean Thread- Elephants, mammoths, mastodonts etc

Given that all they have found is one leg bone and some teeth, I wonder could it simply be an infant that they found and not a fully grown dwarf mammoth.

All the same imagine one of them on your plate dripping with gravy and mushy peas.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/07/wooly-mammoth-skeleton-found-in-france/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2446532/Prehistoric-elephant-giant-spoonbill-instead-trunk-built-scythe-used-cut-food.html

http://news.yahoo.com/mom-son-wooly-mammoth-tusks-22-years-apart-145006402.html

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0207-mammoth-could-be-brought-back-to-life-in-siberian-reserve/

You must have checked a long time ago- all sorts of animals from fruit flies to horses, cattle, wolves and even an extinct kind of ibex have been cloned by now- although it is true that very few of them have lived long (usually they have health issues).

I don´t know if the size of the animal is a factor.

From Geologyin.com

The first discovery, made just before Thanksgiving, was of a 3-foot section of tusk fragments, as well as fragments of a mastodon tooth, found at a depth of 15 feet at the Wilshire and La Brea excavation site, said Metro spokesman Dave Sotero.

Late afternoon Monday, a paleontological monitor hired to look out for bones and fossils came across a partial skull and tusks, believed to belong to an ancient elephant, Sotero said. The second discovery was made within about 10 feet of the first.

Seems the area has loads of bones in it, mainly because of;

Over the millenniums, petroleum from once-massive underground oil fields oozed to the surface, forming bogs that trapped and killed unwary animals and then preserved their skeletons.

I wonder what else will be dug up?

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/male-woolly-mammoths-often-fell-natural-traps-05400.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212160905.htm

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/scientists-discover-unique-carcass-of-extinct-pygmy-woolly-mammoth-on-island-off-siberian-coast/

Amazing photos of a rare female "supertusker", that is, an elephant with enormous tusks reminiscent of their prehistoric forefathers. There are between 20 and 30 supertuskers left in the entire planet and since the gene pool is decreasing and the elephants are being killed before they reach their full growth potential, it is unlikely we'll see many of them in the future.

At least this one died of old age:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-elephants-pictured-last-time-14123164







Not paleontology, but at this rate...

Also, interesting to compare these recent supertuskers to the tusk champions among extinct proboscideans:

Anancus



Mammut ("Zygolophodon"?) borsoni





Columbian mammoth:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-mammoth-problem-emerges-in-siberia-11562763878

Rubecula wrote: »

one thing I never understood was the relationship between African elephants, Indian elephants, Mammoths and Masterdons they have all lived at the same time.

Mammoths are part of the Elephantidae family, like today's African and Indian elephants, and so they can be considered true elephants, just a different genus (Mammuthus). Within Elephantidae, Mammuthus are believed to be closer to Indian elephants (Elephas) than to either of the African elephants.

African elephants were once thought to be one single species (Loxodonta africana), with the forest elephants being a subspecies (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), distinguished by smaller size, rounder ears, straighter tusks, etc. But genetic analysis have proven not only that it is a different species, but also that the forest elephant is more closely related to extinct elephant species such as Palaeoloxodon, the so called "straight-tusked elephant" that lived across Eurasia during the Pliocene and early to mid Pleistocene, and which includes the largest elephant species known thus far, P. namadicus, which may actually be the largest land mammal ever to have existed (even bigger than Indricotherium/Paraceratherium).

This means that the classification of modern elephants is in serious need of a revamp. Maybe the forest elephant will eventually be renamed Palaeoloxodon cyclotis, or maybe it will get a genus name of its own? This would make Loxodonta africana, the savannah or bush African elephant, the only living species of Loxodonta. As I understand it, the idea is that the Palaeoloxodon-type elephants were once the dominant group in Africa as well as Eurasia, but at some point they went into decline and were largely replaced by the Loxodonta, with the only survivor of the Palaeoloxodon linneage being the forest elephant.



As for mastodonts, they belong to a different family within Proboscidea, the Mammutidae, and so even though they share a common ancestor with elephants, they are not true elephants themselves.



Mastodonts were, generally speaking,more massively built than mammoths or elephants. They are usually considered to be more primitive than elephantids, with pointed crowns to their molars, relatively shorter legs, and apparently covered on fur. The best known species would be the American mastodont (Mammut americanum/pacificus).





It should be noted that some authors use "mastodon" or "mastodont" to refer only to members of the Mammutidae, but others may use the name in a broader sense, to include other extinct proboscideans such as the gomphotheres; these are another, older family (Gomphotheriidae), very diverse during the Miocene and Pliocene and often had four tusks, with longer lower jaws than elephants and lower, more heavy set bodies.



Gomphotheriidae is believed to have given rise to the mastodont (Mammutidae) and elephant (Elephantidae) families, but they weren´t completely replaced, as a few gomphotheres managed to hang on until the end of the Pleistocene/early Holocene in the Americas, so at some point you would've had mammoths, mastodonts (mammutids) and gomphotheres all existing at the same time.