Page 1 of 1
Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:23 am
by uniface
They explained the pitfalls and conundrums of having a large fossil on your property. If it's a particularly primo specimen, it might be worth something, but there's no way to tell until someone digs it out, and the universities and museums best qualified to do the digging can't afford to turn a shovel unless they know they can keep what they find.
????????????
From The Detroit News:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100503 ... z0ncvL9fYx
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 5:59 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Then how about this snippet:
Beld says the Columbian mammoth who's surrendering his parts was probably in his late 40s. Oddly enough, that first tooth wasn't his. That fact and the presence of some primitive Paleo-Indian tools have prompted a theory -- the 10-ton mammoth was killed elsewhere and dragged to a pond used for butchering and cold storage.
A "10-ton mammoth"? That would be world news as mammoths were anywhere between 2 and 6 tonnes max max.
So much for expert paleontologist's commentary – or editorial embellishment.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 3:03 am
by Digit
Sorry RS, it says it's a Columbian mammoth, they are reputed to have attained such weights.
Which raises the question as to how they moved it?
Roy.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:04 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Digit wrote:Sorry RS, it says it's a Columbian mammoth, they are reputed to have attained such weights.
I know Wikipedia says that is the estimate but I have a hard time envisaging a land animal
twice the size of a
big adult African bull elephant of today.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:28 am
by Digit
That's why I said 'reputed' RS.
Roy.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:26 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Digit wrote:That's why I said 'reputed' RS.
Yeah, just like Obama was 'reputed' to be the messiah that would solve everything, while in reality he's simply continued Bush' religious right wing policies. I.o.w.: 'reputed' is bullshit.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:40 am
by Digit
Well they were rather large.
Roy.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 10:21 am
by uniface
I have a hard time envisaging a land animal twice the size of a big adult African bull elephant of today.
I have an even harder time trying to envision them dragging it to where it was found from somewhere else
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:25 am
by Minimalist
Rokcet Scientist wrote:Digit wrote:Sorry RS, it says it's a Columbian mammoth, they are reputed to have attained such weights.
I know Wikipedia says that is the estimate but I have a hard time envisaging a land animal
twice the size of a
big adult African bull elephant of today.
What about a sauropod?
http://www.6000years.org/graphics/sauropods.jpg
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:32 am
by Digit
Ladieees and genelmen! I wish to announce that Digit and Uniface are in agreement!!!!
Roy.
Re: Morris the Mammoth
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:50 am
by Rokcet Scientist
Minimalist wrote:Rokcet Scientist wrote:Digit wrote:Sorry RS, it says it's a Columbian mammoth, they are reputed to have attained such weights.
I know Wikipedia says that is the estimate but I have a hard time envisaging a land animal
twice the size of a
big adult African bull elephant of today.
What about a sauropod?
http://www.6000years.org/graphics/sauropods.jpg
You're right. I should have said "I have a hard time envisaging a land
mammal twice the size of a
big adult African bull elephant of today".
Sauropods could attain weights of up to 60 tons. Today's Blue Fin Whales however can exceed 100 tons.
