completely preserved ancient horse, 40,000 years old

Started by René, August 14, 2018, 02:35:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

N-drju

This whole land shape itself is very strange. Wonder what else is there.

Should be easy enough to make in TG though... :P
"This year - a factory of semiconductors. Next year - a factory of whole conductors!"

WAS

That's Batagaika Crater. Created by mans greed for wood. The deforested the permafrost region. So the sun is heating up the permafrost, and it's collapsing and thawing. There's an episode of Expedition Unknown where Josh Gate's goes there with that very team in this article searching for Mammoth bones for DNA.

This is fascinating stuff, though it's weird they don't mention the place, or history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batagaika_crater

PabloMack

#3
At only 40,000 years old, this animal would be considered to be a modern horse by phylogenetic standards. Ancient horses are more like 25 million years in age. Often times the word "ancient" is used by archeologists so perhaps the word is appropriate here and the word to be applied to horses that are significantly earlier in their evolutionary past would be called "paleo horses". In any case, the erosional landscape (called "Batagaika Crater" but should be called "Batagaika Badlands") they got it from is really cool. Looks like the beginning stages of a badlands as in South Dakota. Interesting that it is man-made; caused by clear-cutting of forest. Seems like man does far more damage than he does anything else on this planet. Without this damage, though, this find would have gone unnoticed. Thanks for the cool link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batagaika_crater

WAS

#4
In archeological and paleontological terms, ancient is just a term meaning very old. Usually things older than the fall of the Roman Empire and the start of more modern cultures that still exist today. For example, we have ancient species that still exist, such as plants and animals.

In your terms, I think hey mostly would call those evolutionary ancestors. For example, we usually call earlier evolutions "early horse", or better yet, by their actual names, Mesohippus, etc, as they're not true horse.

An ancient horse is just as accurate here, as it is for mummified horses in Ancient Egypt -- only 3,000 - 4,000 years old. Or for example, a extinct form of Gibbon found in a noblewoman's tomb in Ancient China.

In general I think Ancient refers to having been along the lines of human Evolution. Before that is pre-history stuff, and usually with unique terminology, such as relating to an era in time, like paleo to paleolithic.

A way to really mess with it's use is when they apply Ancient to male king bees, as in terms of life-span, 6 months is insane.

N-drju

Quote from: WASasquatch on August 14, 2018, 04:02:01 PM
That's Batagaika Crater. Created by mans greed for wood. The deforested the permafrost region. So the sun is heating up the permafrost, and it's collapsing and thawing.

Wow, I didn't know that WASasquatch. Very interesting. Sad though that it is a man's work.
"This year - a factory of semiconductors. Next year - a factory of whole conductors!"

René

If they were to find a 40,000 year old and well-preserved human, then I think it would be considered to be very old, and also a sensational discovery. From that point of view, I think it is quite an important find. :)

PabloMack

#7
A rule of thumb sited often in biology and paleontology is that the span of a species existence (for vertebrates) is on the order of a million years. So the 40,000 year old horse (only about 4% of a million years) is probably a modern horse in terms of which species it belongs to. But the individual in the article died a long time ago in terms of human civilization. In my experience, any species in Equidae would be called a "horse" by most biologists and paleontologists. That would include Mesohippus, Miohippus and even North American Eohippus (now considered to be congeneric with European Hyracotherium). Archeology is really more of a "social science" than a "natural science" and they march to the beat to a different drum.

René: Yes. Modern people go ape over ancient humans. I once visited Dr. Louis Jacobs at SMU in Dallas. He is president for the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man. I found the name of the institute very homo-centric. I had the same kind of reaction to the title of a book that I have called "Sea Birds of Britain and the World". This inclination for naming is akin to the naming of the "World Series" and the "Miss Universe Pageant". I have to agree with many foreigners that most of my American compatriots have the perception that the earth ends at the shores of the USA.

WAS

#8
Quote from: PabloMack on August 18, 2018, 03:39:54 PM
In my experience, any species in Equidae would be called a "horse" by most biologists and paleontologists. That would include Mesohippus, Miohippus and even North American Eohippus (now considered to be congeneric with European Hyracotherium).

Can you cite this, where early horse is defined as just horse? Cause I have several books and they're pretty clear on using either the species name or "early horse" to let you know it's an early evolution and not true horse. They even use "True Horse" when identifying species with specific fused hooves and morphology, that are older than 1 million years. You can see this terminology on the wiki pages for the species and museum pages. "early horse" "early evolutions of horse" etc, is used with the primary being the species name.

Your generalization would be counter-intuitive to scientific study blurring the lines. It's like calling specific species of human evolution as just Human, aka Homo Sapien. Just like we don't call EEMH, or what we called Cro-Magnon just Humans. Or earlier evolution of Chimpanzee, or what not. Even a Zebra is a Zebra, and not a Horse, or a Mustang, just like a Bonobo is not a Chimpanzee.

This is just a Horse, but an Ancient horse it most certainly is. Especially when you consider the modern horse genome, even "wild horse" (the purest populations aren't pure and contain domesticated horse genes) due to human selective breeding.

PabloMack

#9
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 18, 2018, 08:48:52 PMCan you cite this, where early horse is defined as just horse?

Just "horse" is unqualified and applies to all of Equidae. To be more specific just add an adjective such as "early" or "modern" etc. This same thing goes for cats (Felidae), dogs (Canidae),  bears (Ursidae) etc. I for one don't really care for the term "true horse". I guess it is one of my gripes. At one time the spiny-tailed iguanas of the American tropics (genus Ctenosaura) were called "false iquanas" as opposed to the "true iguanas" of genus "Iguana". I really object to this terminology because no species should be referred to as a "false" anything. It is always a "true" whatever it is. What would you think of yourself being referred to as a "false ape"? I've read plenty of books about paleontology also and I go with the general consensus knowing that many individual paleontologists have their different preferences and ways of doing things. Some authors are really off-the-wall and this is reflected throughout the books they write. But others are sloppy in their language and don't really care to be consistent. Paleontology and even Geology and Biology are pretty inexact sciences. The goal in any science should be to create organization out of chaos.

The state of knowledge and the terminology that is used is always in flux. The 2018 abstracts for the SVP are supposed to be released in three days. Arguably, the SVP has the highest visibility and attendance of world experts (as well as many enthusiasts like me) in the field of vertebrate paleontology of any organization in the world. We will be meeting in Albuquerque in October. My wife and I will be in attendance and we generally try to read all of the abstracts before we go (with a few exceptions such as the ones that apply only to preparators). They will certainly have several papers about prehistoric and possibly even modern horses and I will pay close attention to how the presenters use the word "horse". Just to show you how extreme the terminology for some well-known paleontologists can be you should read "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. He insists that you and I are correctly referred to as "fish". What do you think about that?

WAS

#10
Quote from: PabloMack on August 19, 2018, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 18, 2018, 08:48:52 PMCan you cite this, where early horse is defined as just horse?

Just "horse" is unqualified and applies to all of Equidae. To be more specific just add an adjective such as "early" or "modern" etc. This same thing goes for cats (Felidae), dogs (Canidae),  bears (Ursidae) etc. I for one don't really care for the term "true horse". I guess it is one of my gripes. At one time the spiny-tailed iguanas of the American tropics (genus Ctenosaura) were called "false iquanas" as opposed to the "true iguanas" of genus "Iguana". I really object to this terminology because no species should be referred to as a "false" anything. It is always a "true" whatever it is. What would you think of yourself being referred to as a "false ape"? I've read plenty of books about paleontology also and I go with the general consensus knowing that many individual paleontologists have their different preferences and ways of doing things. Some authors are really off-the-wall and this is reflected throughout the books they write. But others are sloppy in their language and don't really care to be consistent. Paleontology and even Geology and Biology are pretty inexact sciences. The goal in any science should be to create organization out of chaos.

The state of knowledge and the terminology that is used is always in flux. The 2018 abstracts for the SVP are supposed to be released in three days. Arguably, the SVP has the highest visibility and attendance of world experts (as well as many enthusiasts like me) in the field of vertebrate paleontology of any organization in the world. We will be meeting in Albuquerque in October. My wife and I will be in attendance and we generally try to read all of the abstracts before we go (with a few exceptions such as the ones that apply only to preparators). They will certainly have several papers about prehistoric and possibly even modern horses and I will pay close attention to how the presenters use the word "horse". Just to show you how extreme the terminology for some well-known paleontologists can be you should read "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. He insists that you and I are correctly referred to as "fish". What do you think about that?

I'm asking where in academia your methodology is applied. Equidae is the taxonomic "family" for horse, and related animals that are not true horse. Again, in academia they use "early horse" or the specific species name. A horse is a horse of course. Even on the wikipedia page, the make sure you understand: "The term equid refers to any member of this family, including any equine." Not that they are a horse, and specifically notes other related animals in the Equidae family.


PabloMack

#11
"The Rise of Horses: 55 Million Years of Evolution" by Jens Lorenz Franzen talks about all of them as "horses". It's in the title. Otherwise the title should have been "The Rise of True Horses from non-horse Ancestors". Clearly he regards them all as horses. "Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae" by Bruce J. MacFadden also in the title refers to the whole family as "horses" though the book concentrates on just the fossil ones. If you want to use the reference of "true horses", then that is your personal choice. I have already explained to you why I find the reference objectionable. How about the lyrics" "A horse is a horse, of course, of course, even Miohippus is a horse of course...."