In a world first, a Homotherium/Scimitar-toothed cat mummy has been found in the Siberian permafrost.www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79546-1
>>4907192The Homotherium mummy (A) compared to a lion cub of similar maturity (B)."For the first time in the history of paleontology, the appearance of an extinct mammal that has no analogues in the modern fauna has been studied."
>>4907195He cute.Tippi Hedren, it's time to Jurassic Park this bad boy.
Comparison of the Homotherium skull (A, B) with that of a lion cub (C, D).>>4907198With all the different biotech companies promising de-extinction, you'd hope someone could pull through in the next couple decades.
>>4907200Detail of the Homotherium skull."Radiocarbon dating of the find (based on wool) is 31,808±367 years BP"
>>4907202And someone's art of the cub I've stolen from Xitter. This cub is known as the "Badyarikha mummy". What an incredible find, but I still feel a little sorry for the critter seeing him sleeping there after 30,000 years. Maybe they'll come across an adult specimen someday.
>>4907192Reminder that David Peters (yes, the same David Peters that puts nonsensical shit all over pterosaurs) said that Homotherium was a canine. Yes, really.
He's deranged, but part of me respects how much he triggers the paleontological community by doubling down on his retardation.
>>4907216>>4907231
>>4907195>>4907192Looks like a baby cow
>>4907192>no feathers"Discovery" discarded
>>4907208lil guy died sleeping?
>>4907198There is no modern descendant to fill in the inevitable gaps and unfortunately frogs won't cut it for this one
>>4907422what about walruses?
>>4907216>look it up>article starts with something about bear paraphyly?>check link, he has mongooses in between brown and polar bearsThey produce fully fertile hybrids, surely it’s just contrarianism at this point.
>>4907195That deep jaw is so based
>>4907192how old is the mummy?
>>4907611Stated right in the thread, though.>>4907202
>>4907231>be retard with a degree>academia calls you retard at every turn>"lol triggered"Yes, truly a mastermind of our generation. Take that, smart people!
>>4907202>±367lmao there is no way it's that accurate.
>>4907635David Peters is a retard, but if your conception of being "smart" is just "siding with academic consensus", you might be a retard too.
>>4907195Why did they shave it? To get samples?
>>4907195>the appearance of an extinct mammal that has no analogues in the modern faunawhat did they mean by this
>>4907794They didn't, that's just a very young lion cub they used for comparison
>>4907795Nothing alive takes on a sabertoothed niche
>>4907787>"im only against the smart kids cuz it makes me think im cooler!!!1!"(You)
>>4907645That’s like a 1% margin of error
look at that little homo lol
>>4907192
Just a babby
>>4907192Is he ok?
>>4907959Yeah, I'm saying there's no way it has such a small margin of error. Radiocarbon dating is typically 5+ digits years margin of error.
>>4907192Why didn't they find an adult homotherium mummy instead, so we could see if their teeth are covered or exposed?
>>4908400easier to cover/bury a small thing over a larger thing.also if I had to guess the cause, what's probably sad is that this baby likely died due to its den caving in. Two cave lion cubs were found and its theorized their mother dug out a den to keep them safe in, only for said den to collapse in on itself likely when the mother was away.
>>4908392At least it's really cool to know what color they were
>>4908392>Radiocarbon dating is typically 5+ digits years margin of errorNot when the age of the mummy itself is 5 digits
>>4908428That's the problem. It IS really inaccurate at that level. It only gets worse from there.
>>49083925+ digit margin of error on a 5 digit number?
>>4908550Yeah, as in it's not accurate at all. Why does everyone on here have elementary-school level literacy?
>>4908806well perhaps anon was just giving you the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that you're an idiot who denies the validity of radiocarbon dating
>>4908806>Why does everyone on here have elementary-school level literacy?Anon I don’t think you’re in any position to say this when you think carbon dating something that’s only 30,000 years old is inaccurate and should have a margin of error that’s at minimum 1/3rd of that
>>4907795No direct relatives to compare to. Mammoths and wholly rhinos are all closely related to their relatives from Africa and India. Sabertooths branched from the ancestors of lions and tigers much earlier.
>>4909126>>4907795yeah they arent really related to any modern cats, aside from being in the felidae family. their skeletal structures are pretty different from modern cat species. Aside from the obvious like the dentition, their front limbs were much more robust.
>>4909171The skeleton seems more similar to a bear than a cat. They must have had massive muscles on those arms
>>4909171But could we still use a modern cat mom to clone it?
>>4909211thats like saying your going to turn spoon into a fork because theyre both from spork ancestors, youd have a better chance interbreeding with a chimp or whatever the soviets were trying to do
>>4909220They’re not talking about interbreeding though
>>4909171It's overall anatomy is surprisingly doglike which i guess is what prompted Peters' schizo episode because convergent evolution is not a thing apparently
>>4908894>and should have a margin of error that’s at minimum 1/3rd of that>5 digits
>>4909223WHY IS EVERYONE ON HERE SO FUCKING STUPID
>>4909220Turning a spoon into a fork is easy, you just hammer it flat, cut the scoop into tines and file them into shape then put some curve back in. Turning a fork into a spoon would be much harder.
>>4909340>1/3rd of 30,000 = 10,000Looks like 5 digits to me
