Traviscounty Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 http://www.livescience.com/animals/090312-...-evolution.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommabetts Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Nice read, thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I just can't imagine finding a fossil like that!! Really nice picture and article. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleoRon Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Unfortunately, a single specimen only tells us about an individual, not an entire species. I'll believe the slower growth theory when it can be verified with specimens from several different geographical regions. If a non-human studied the remains of a single human such as a Mbenga or Bambuti it might determine that all humans were much smaller than we truly are, and if the remains of someone with gigantism were examined it would "prove" the opposite. It is necessary to sample more than one source to draw reasonable conclusions about an entire species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl O'Cles Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Unfortunately, a single specimen only tells us about an individual, not an entire species. I'll believe the slower growth theory when it can be verified with specimens from several different geographical regions. If a non-human studied the remains of a single human such as a Mbenga or Bambuti it might determine that all humans were much smaller than we truly are, and if the remains of someone with gigantism were examined it would "prove" the opposite. It is necessary to sample more than one source to draw reasonable conclusions about an entire species. I agree that more specimens like this would be needed to say for sure they grew slower, I would actually think the exact opposite. I have never seen a 3" modern great white tooth but i have seen a snarge load of 3" fossil great whites and 3" mako's their ancestors. So is it prudent to suggest that sharks of this species from earlier in time aged slower? Going by this would mean that they would have had to have lived considerably longer in order for the teeth to grow to such a massive size in comparison to modern sharks. I just don't think there is enough evidence here to make such a statement but then again the only facts i have are from this little article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalodon1 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Wasn't this complete Great White jaw in Dr Gordon Hubbel's collection for a long time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl O'Cles Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Wasn't this complete Great White jaw in Dr Gordon Hubbel's collection for a long time? I believe it is still in his collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boesse Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 No, the specimen is now in the University of Florida collections (FLMNH?) It has a UF cat. #. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now