Another Excerpt From My Book--casteroides Ohioensis

[MarkGelbart]

Here's another excerpt from my manuscript, Georgia Before People: Land of the saber-tooths, mastodons, vampire bats, and other strange creatures.

Giant Beaver--Casteroides ohioensis

For many years scientists didn't think the giant beaver built dams like its smaller cousin, but exciting new research by Natalia Rybczynski, a Canadian scientist, suggests otherwise. The giant beaver had teeth similar to those of the muskrat which eats succulent aquatic vegetation. This dentition differs from that of the present day beaver which eats mostly woody vegetation, leading scientists to think the giant beaver didn't build dams. However, Dr. Rybczynski examined beaver-cut wood associated with the fossil remains of Dipoides, an extinct beaver more closely related to the giant beaver than the present day species. The wood was part of a dam, and the cut marks on it matched the teeth of Dipoides. If this extinct beaver (which had teeth even less suited for chewing wood than the giant beaver) cut wood and made dams, than it's likely Casteroides was also a dam builder.

Dipoides lived during the Pliocene, the era just before the Pleistocene, from about five million years ago to two million years BP. Although not directly ancestral to the giant beaver, they shared a common ancestor and were much more closely related to each other than to the modern beaver. At the time Dipoides built the dam, most of North America was tropical, but the climate near the arctic circle of Ellsemere Island, which is at present a tundra, was much like that of Yellowstone National Park today. Dr. Rybczynski theorizes the common ancestor of the giant beaver and out extant beaver was an aquatic wood-cutting mammal that evolved the ability to exploit trees and build dams, creating ponds where they could store food, and improve their chances of survival in areas with hard winters (35).

The giant beaver was the largest rodent of all time, growing up to six feet long and weighing as much as four-hundred-fifty pounds. It looked just like the modern day beaver, except it had a narrow tail rather than a broad flat one, and of course, it was much larger. Remains of this bear-sized animal have been recovered in Georgia in Savannah River dredgings and the Brunswick area as well as fossil sites in all four surrounding states. Bjorn Kurten thought they became extinct due to competition with modern day beavers, but this is an illogical conclusion. The two species co-existed for two million years and provided habitat favorable to each other. The giant beaver's large size and big teeth gave the animal ample protection against most predators, allowing them to fight their way back to the safety of water, if necessary. This defensive tactic wouldn't work against spear-wielding, or trap-setting humans, craving delicious beaver flesh which reportedly tastes like goose (36).

Sources from my end notes.

35. Rybczynski, Natalia

"Casteroid Phylogenetics: Implications for the Evolution of Swimming and Tree Exploitation in Beavers."

Journal of Mammalian Evolution 14: 1-35 2007

Rybczynski, Natalia

"Woodcutting Behavior in Beavers (Casteridae: Rodentia) Estimations of Ecological Perfomance in Modern and Fossil Taxon."

Paleobiology 34 (3) 2008 pp. 389-402

36. Arnold, Sam

Eating up the Santa Fe Trail

University Press of Colorado 1990

[Harry Pristis]

I'm sorry, Mark, I take no joy in raining on your parade; but, apparently you don't have anyone else willing to tell you the hard things.

Your writing strikes me as that of a bright 10th or 11th grader. It's apparent that you are not working from an outline (if you were, paragraph 3 would be paragraph 1). An outline will help you immensely to organize and deliver your ideas. Take a basic creative writing class to learn how to do this.

You will also learn to not leave hanging references. What exactly does, At the time Dipoides built the dam, most of North America was tropical, but the climate near the arctic circle of Ellsemere Island, which is at present a tundra, was much like that of Yellowstone National Park today. have to do with anything else you've said?

In these three paragraphs, at least, it is evident that you have bought into two theories by Natalia R. and have disregarded the ideas of earlier workers. That's a mistake for a non-scientist writing broadly about a science topic. You should be taking a more balanced stance, for example, on whether Castoroides was a dam-builder. In fact, you should be wary of taking any stance at all, simply reporting what scientists have speculated. For you to judge a conclusion by Kurten as "illogical" is the height of arrogance.

And speaking of arrogance, there is absolutely no evidence that man hunted Castoroides at all, much less to extinction.

Be careful when paraphrasing the science. Nowhere I can find does it say, [Castoroides] had a narrow tail rather than a broad flat one. What Kurten says is, "The tail was relatively longer and narrower than that of Castor." That's not the same thing. Don't be afraid to paraphrase these sources, but do it accurately.

I think you need to do much more reading of the popular science literature. Read Stephen Jay Gould, Read Kurten's books, read Peter Ward, read Carl Sagan -- these are the popularizers of science whose writing you should emulate. Get into the habit of outlining sections of their work to see how it's done.

[ashcraft]

Your comment on the giant beaver as being the largest rodent of all time is incorrect, it may be the largest North American rodent, but there have been fossilized remains of larger rodents from S. America, a rodent version of a cow, that may have weighed over a ton.

Brent Ashcraft

[micropterus101]

Beavers dont taste like goose. Beavers taste like beavers with a hint of chicken.

[Hawkeye]

Thanks for posting that Mark, I really look forward to the book.

[tracer]

mark - thanks a lot for your submissions here. the material is of interest, and credit is due to the very small percentage of the populace who attempt to bring information and entertainment to others.

[MarkGelbart]

I'm sorry, Mark, I take no joy in raining on your parade; but, apparently you don't have anyone else willing to tell you the hard things.

Your writing strikes me as that of a bright 10th or 11th grader. It's apparent that you are not working from an outline (if you were, paragraph 3 would be paragraph 1). An outline will help you immensely to organize and deliver your ideas. Take a basic creative writing class to learn how to do this.

You will also learn to not leave hanging references. What exactly does, At the time Dipoides built the dam, most of North America was tropical, but the climate near the arctic circle of Ellsemere Island, which is at present a tundra, was much like that of Yellowstone National Park today. have to do with anything else you've said?

In these three paragraphs, at least, it is evident that you have bought into two theories by Natalia R. and have disregarded the ideas of earlier workers. That's a mistake for a non-scientist writing broadly about a science topic. You should be taking a more balanced stance, for example, on whether Castoroides was a dam-builder. In fact, you should be wary of taking any stance at all, simply reporting what scientists have speculated. For you to judge a conclusion by Kurten as "illogical" is the height of arrogance.

And speaking of arrogance, there is absolutely no evidence that man hunted Castoroides at all, much less to extinction.

Be careful when paraphrasing the science. Nowhere I can find does it say, [Castoroides] had a narrow tail rather than a broad flat one. What Kurten says is, "The tail was relatively longer and narrower than that of Castor." That's not the same thing. Don't be afraid to paraphrase these sources, but do it accurately.

I think you need to do much more reading of the popular science literature. Read Stephen Jay Gould, Read Kurten's books, read Peter Ward, read Carl Sagan -- these are the popularizers of science whose writing you should emulate. Get into the habit of outlining sections of their work to see how it's done.

I'm a fourty-seven year old published writer. For you to refer to my writing as being on the tenth grade level is a pointless insult and of no use whatsoever.

You make no convincing case why paragraph 3 should be paragraph 1. I chose to discuss Dr. Rybcynski's study first because I wanted to begin the segment with a bang, and this new study is a bang in my opinion.

Relating the kind of environment Dipoides lived in has everything to do with Dr. Rybcynski's study. She theorizes that beaver dam-building evolved in areas with cold winters. I was making the point that this area of the Arctic Circle had a cold climate during the Pliocene.

I did refer to the other school of thought about whether Casteroides built dams or not. The belief that Casteroides didn't build dams was based on dentition which I mentioned.

Do you actually think men didn't hunt giant beavers when they encountered them? Are you really that illogical? Yes, I know there's no evidence yet of human predation of giant beavers, but consider the amount of fossil material we have. There are only two specimens of giant beaver in the entire state of Georgia. What are the odds that any giant beaver fossils that survived would be ones that men happened have killed?

I'm well aware of this objection to the overkill hypothesis. I explain in great deal in my book why I think this is a ridiculous expectation. The amount of fossil material that survived the ravages of time is small. The odds that any hunted by nomadic humans would have survived is smaller still.

Call me arrogant, but I do interject my opinion in my book. I think it would be boring not to. Beavers and giant beavers co-existed for at least 2 million years. In my opinion it's illogical to believe that one suddenly outcompeted the other. Can you defend Kurten's opinion?, which by the way was based on no thorough study, even though he was an acclaimed scientist. I admire his work and extensively use his references, but on this point and many others he was illogical.

Pictures of giant beavers portray them with narrow tails.

I have read books and articles by all of the authors you mentioned.

[Harry Pristis]

I'm a fourty-seven year old published writer. For you to refer to my writing as being on the tenth grade level is a pointless insult and of no use whatsoever.

<snip>

I'm awfully sorry, Mark . . . . . . . sorry for wasting my time giving you some suggestions for improving your writing. I genuinely thought you were a high school student trying to commit to paper his enthusiasm for fossils.

I did a search and read some of your essays on useless-knowledge.com. The one paleo-oriented essay I found -- on the "American Serengeti" -- had the same literary qualities as your posts here. The essay on why and how to shoplift from Wal-Mart was . . . er . . . different.

Have fun with your hobby of writing iconoclastic essays on the Internet, but don't give up your day job! In the future, I'll try to abstain from "helping" you.

[Hawkeye]

I genuinely thought you were a high school student trying to commit to paper his enthusiasm for fossils.

That's funny Harry, I thought the same thing about you!

Mark, I hope the needless criticism of some does not keep you from continuing to share your writing with us.

[PaleoRon]

The first thing I would like to say is that the following is not an attack, it's my written observation. Try to read it objectively, as an observation.

Unless your target audience is composed of paleontology students and advanced hobbyists, you should consider swapping paragraph one and paragraph three. You may want to start with a bang but unless the majority of your expected readers are well versed in paleontology and are familiar with the specifics of Castoroides ohioensis you will not get the effect you are hoping for.

Here's an example for you.

Captive bred Axolotl, worldwide, are developing past neoteny!

If this were accurate the bang factor would be nuclear. Did it shock you?

Only if you are familiar with the Axolotl.

Putting the bang up front works well with material that is widely known, but not with obscure material. Build your readers' knowledge to a level where they can appreciate the information you are presenting in paragraph one and it will be much more effective as paragraph three. Try to read the three paragraphs (1,2,3 then 3,2,1) as though you were reading them for the first time with little or no knowledge of the paragraph's content, not as the person who wrote them. Most people are unable to perform this exercise but those who can gain a lot of insight into how their work will be perceived. Reading in the order 3,2,1 gives the three paragraphs a much better flow and continuity.

[Harry Pristis]

That's funny Harry, I thought the same thing about you!

Mark, I hope the needless criticism of some does not keep you from continuing to share your writing with us.

There's no accounting for some people's thinking, it seems.

Mark Gelbart doesn't need you to defend him, 'Hawkeye'. Mark is no shrinking violet. He is, in fact, a veteran critic himself -- a critic of everything you can think of from Neil Boortz to Wal-Mart. In on-line essays and letters to the editor and elsewhere, Gelbart has pointed out the foibles and faults of many. He has some interesting ideas, and my criticism only involves his rhetoric and science here.

To Gelbart's credit, he seems to handle criticism well. He must be able to stand up to criticism, because he surely earns it. Long before I encountered his writing, he has been criticized -- lampooned, even -- for his writings. (You weren't REALLY arrested for shoplifting in Wal-Mart, were you, Mark?!)

So, rest easy, 'Hawkeye'. Mark is not bruised and battered, cowering at the bottom of his closet. He's not a wuss.

[Harry Pristis]

The first thing I would like to say is that the following is not an attack, it's my written observation. Try to read it objectively, as an observation.

Unless your target audience is composed of paleontology students and advanced hobbyists, you should consider swapping paragraph one and paragraph three. You may want to start with a bang but unless the majority of your expected readers are well versed in paleontology and are familiar with the specifics of Castoroides ohioensis you will not get the effect you are hoping for.

<snip>

Nicely put . . . gently put, 'PaleoRon'.

Based on the things I've read, I think that Mark Gelbart rather enjoys the clash of ideas (as do I). I don't think (as he's stated) that he's looking to us for literary criticism. But, who knows!

[tracer]

the concept of internet machismo is fairly amusing.

my computer can kick your computer's bytes.

me so brave

[Hawkeye]

All I was pointing out (in an offensive way) is that writing can be critisized without attacking the writer. PaleoRon did a very good job of that in the above paragraph. I'm not specifically defending Mark, I'd just like to see more writing on here by anyone, I just don't want them to feel they will be personally attacked as well a criticized. Sophomoric insults are not necessary and I should have refrained from reiterating yours. For that I appologize.

[MarkGelbart]

There's no accounting for some people's thinking, it seems.

Mark Gelbart doesn't need you to defend him, 'Hawkeye'. Mark is no shrinking violet. He is, in fact, a veteran critic himself -- a critic of everything you can think of from Neil Boortz to Wal-Mart. In on-line essays and letters to the editor and elsewhere, Gelbart has pointed out the foibles and faults of many. He has some interesting ideas, and my criticism only involves his rhetoric and science here.

To Gelbart's credit, he seems to handle criticism well. He must be able to stand up to criticism, because he surely earns it. Long before I encountered his writing, he has been criticized -- lampooned, even -- for his writings. (You weren't REALLY arrested for shoplifting in Wal-Mart, were you, Mark?!)

So, rest easy, 'Hawkeye'. Mark is not bruised and battered, cowering at the bottom of his closet. He's not a wuss.

No, I was never arrested for shoplifting. In fact that article is libelous and if I really tried I could probably get it deleted.

[Harry Pristis]

No, I was never arrested for shoplifting. In fact that article is libelous and if I really tried I could probably get it deleted.

I concluded that the essay was failed satire. I think that the writer wanted to open her piece with a bang, and that bang is what turns up in an Internet search.

It is very difficult to write good satire. Satire is much like walking a tight-wire. You can lean too far toward the reality or you can lean too far toward the hyperbole. Lean far enough in either direction and you fall. Or, at least, you fail to say anything worthwhile.

You are in a tough spot with that item. It is one of the first few hits that comes up on an Internet search. Even if the original essay comes down, it will still show up in a search, won't it? In fact, without reading the full article, the reader won't recognize the story as clumsy satire. Some may never understand that it is satire. In that case, a lampoon turns into a harpoon.

Maybe you can get the web-site to label the essay as "satire" to remove any doubt in readers' minds. I don't know what you could do with the search engines.

[Tracer Jr.]

mark, i enjoyed reading your excerpt and am thankful you shared it with us. i never even knew there WERE giant beavers! keep up the good work