Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Prehistoric Proboscidean Thread- Elephants, mammoths, mastodonts etc

  • 12-05-2012 1:20am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭


    Under 4 feet tall. Awesome! :D
    Not wolly, but still a very cool find.
    "When most people think of mammoths, they think of woolly mammoths," Herridge said. "We think this dwarf was more adapted to warmer environments, more in appearance like modern African or Asian elephants, with a sparse covering of hair, although they would have had curvy tusks like all mammoths."

    Mammuthus creticusis the first evidence for extreme island dwarfism in mammoths. It would have been comparable in size to the smallest dwarf elephant known, the extinct species Palaeoloxodon falconeri from Sicily and Malta, which stood only about 3 feet 5 inches (1.04 m) high at the shoulder and weighed only approximately 525 lbs. (238 kg).

    The fossils suggest this dwarf mammoth was descended from one of the first mammoth species to arrive in Europe from Africa, Mammuthus rumanus or Mammuthus meridionalis. As such, the researchers suggest dwarf mammoths may have evolved much earlier than previously thought — as far back as 3.5 million years ago.

    Full article here.

    Leshyk-dwarfmammoth3.jpg
    Image by Victor Leshyk

    Nice mowhawk though..


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Speaking of warmth-adapted mammoths, am I the only one who wonders how many of them had maybe large ears like African elephants? They are always depicted with small Indian elephant-like ears. There is any way to actually know if they had small or large ears from the bones alone?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    I want one. I envisage us riding off into the sunset together.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I want one. I envisage us riding off into the sunset together.

    You mean you riding the mammoth, the mammoth riding you, or you and the mammoth riding a horse? Cuz if it's the latter I would hate to be the horse XD


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    We'd be strolling side by side, holding hands/trunks. It would be beautiful.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    As long as it didn´t sneeze...


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭TheBegotten


    Coolest forum ever. Imagine if they survived and we had mammoth farms and petting zoos. It would give a new meaning to "mammoth burgers."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Coolest forum ever. Imagine if they survived and we had mammoth farms and petting zoos. It would give a new meaning to "mammoth burgers."

    Eating them would probably be taboo in the western world as well as illegal, considering how elephants are finally being recognized as emotionally complex, intelligent beings. (Mammoths being a kind of elephant, it is to be assumed that they would be the same...)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Nasty :O


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Coolest forum ever.

    No arguments here :cool:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Ok, not a "mammoth mine", but at least five mammoths found IN a mine:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/mammoth-mine-prehistoric-beasts-serbian-mine_n_1611860.html

    slide_233873_1119750_free.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Are mammoths social animals? If so might be cruel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Yes, they were social animals, like living elephants.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Ok. So this can't work.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Are mammoths social animals? If so might be cruel.
    Just use elephants as foster parents until you can clone some more


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    That's pretty badass.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    I am sure I saw this elsewhere too but I can't remember where or when. Thanks for posting Adam.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭manjosh


    Last time i checked cloning of little animal like rat for example hasn't been that succesful. How do they plan on going around something as large as a mammoth.
    "thinking cap on" you just can't stop loving sciences.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    This is a peculiar site. 16 sq km is quite small for a wildlife reserve expected to hold large animals; say an area of just 4Km by 4km.
    On the other hand they have literally fenced it in with fenceposts, like a farm, so that is a lot of fencing. But some of the introduced deer have already jumped the fence and gone AWOL. Chunky animals like bison, musk ox (and mammoth) would walk through it.
    Only the horses seem to remain there. Maybe the intention is for this area to be just the nucleus, and only to fence in the horses while the ecosystem changes from tundra to steppe. Then introduce the larger animals and allow them to roam freely in a larger unfenced area.
    http://www.pleistocenepark.ru/en/


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 9,300 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    Would comparative studies suggest free range requirements? Elephants?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I think African savannah elephants are more nomadic than territorial, but according to this African forest elephants roam about within a territory of up to 2000 square Km (772 sq miles)
    So I would guess that mammoths formerly had the run of vast areas of the northern latitudes, almost unhindered by barriers.

    I suspect that the owners of this park would prefer to keep their animals within a smallish area, for viewing purposes, even if that requires some supplementary feeding of the animals. In other words, something in between a theme park and a wildlife reserve. I suppose the clue is in the name.
    A sequel to Jurassic Park? :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    recedite wrote: »
    A sequel to Jurassic Park? :)
    ... what could possibly go wrong :)


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 9,300 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    recedite wrote: »
    A sequel to Jurassic Park? :)
    Film released yesterday. Imagine? :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,304 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    The study found that the prehistoric straight-tusked elephant Palaeoloxodon, often grouped with Asian elephants, is actually more closely related to African forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis) than to Elephas. Also, the African forest elephant is closer to the prehistoric one than to the African bush elephant. This means the genus may be invalid, with Palaeoloxodon species being actually LoxodontaPalaeoloxodon includes the Asian species P. namadicus, which may be the largest land mammal ever to have existed. 
    https://elifesciences.org/articles/25413
    default.jpg
    I always thought African forest elephants looked pretty prehistoric...

    African_Forest_Elephant.jpg
    Forest-elephant.jpg
    1-Forest-ele.jpg
    10617e4ede2b50b8e77413f5285b16bc.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Gomphotheres being the animals that eventually gave rise to elephants.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180517102353.htm
    068b4cf31d0cb59457d86f3c8e9a49a0.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    It has long fascinated me how the use of bone for tools in hominids is so relatively recent an innovation. Neandertals seemed to be the first known to do it, but they reserved the material for leather finishers(or building material). At least using the material in a novel way. Hominids have used bone on occasion, but usually by treating it not unlike a source of stone and just copied the stone tools in bone. Given the myriad "pre made" shapes you get with bone, horn and ivory it seems so obvious to us it would make for a great addition to the tool inventory. Even odder when you consider humans have used wood for at least 500,000 years so knew how to shape that.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    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

    0_PAY-HUGE-TUSK-ELEPHANT-QUEEN.jpg

    0_PAY-HUGE-TUSK-ELEPHANT-QUEEN.jpg

    0_PAY-HUGE-TUSK-ELEPHANT-QUEEN.jpg

    Not paleontology, but at this rate...

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

    Anancus

    1280px-Anancus_arvernensis_-_Las_Higueruelas%2C_Ciudad_Real%2C_Spain_-_Museo_Ciudad_Real.JPG

    Mammut ("Zygolophodon"?) borsoni

    Mammut_borsoni_from_Milia.jpg

    d9994da7943c824d4626373609f31337.png

    Columbian mammoth:

    Columbian_mammoth.JPG

    wp_20161115_14_25_12_pro.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    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.

    image_4935e-Elephant-Family-Tree.jpg

    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.

    probosclineagesm.jpg

    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).

    fxdcsum43sokzycn3pxh.jpg

    latest?cb=20121018063501&path-prefix=es

    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.

    huff_gomph.jpg

    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.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    At least 14 woolly mammoth skeletons have been uncovered in Mexico in traps built by humans about 15,000 years ago, according to the BBC.
    The two pits in Tultepec north of Mexico City are the first mammoth traps to be discovered, officials say.

    Early hunters may have herded the elephant-sized mammals into the traps using torches and branches.

    The recent discovery of more than 800 mammoth bones could change our understanding of how early humans hunted the enormous animals.

    Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) says more traps could be uncovered in the area north of Mexico City.

    Archaeologists thought early humans only killed mammoths if the animals were trapped or hurt.

    However, INAH's discovery of the human-built traps could mean such hunts were planned.

    _109563904_mediaitem109563903.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Not that deep (170cm) but I suppose enough to confine the animals while hunters used thrusting or throwing spears from relative safety, and at the right height to do damage to vital organs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Very interesting discovery!

    If the traps were so close to each other (with apparently several more nearby yet to be excavated), I suppose it was not uncommon for the hunters to capture several mammoths at once; they would just have to drive the herd in the direction of the traps. Maybe it's not surprising they went extinct in a relatively short time... :(

    mamuts-trampa-2.jpg


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Neandertals on the island of Jersey appear to have done similar, though being lazy/more laid back :) they did use a natural cliff.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Neandertals on the island of Jersey appear to have done similar, though being lazy/more laid back :) they did use a natural cliff.

    Surely if there had been cliffs nearby, the sapiens too would've prefered to skip the digging? I know I would have :B

    Also, despite what the press is saying, it appears that the remains likely do not belong to woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), but to Columbian mammoths (Mammuthus columbii); primigenius having never ranged so far south as far as we know.

    Columbian mammoths were bigger and taller than woolly mammoths, and less hairy. Seen here with a mastodont (background)

    images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTyMJtT-0fJ1aT2Xokxpy0uBJ0gzTklgo1_i3PddQOzT0YtKS4E


  • Advertisement
Advertisement