TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Amazing Amber Inclusion!
- Thread starter JBL
- Start date
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
Well, chihuahuas are awfully small for mammals...[b said:
That's a good question, though - it's hard to imagine a mire of sap big enough to trap a mammal, even if said mammal is only as big as a large grapefruit. But if you look on that site, they have lizards and stuff too. Trees can get huge, and apparently the higher CO2 levels of the ancient world allowed plants to grow much larger than they do today; I think I read somewhere that there are fossils of certain plants (species that are still around) which are up to six times the size of the largest specimens extant today. The difference in size is attributed dually to the higher temperatures and the greater availablity of CO2 in the prehistoric world.
~Joe
[b said:
Just to let ya know, that was 300-200 million years ago in the Carboniferous Era, when, as you guessed, there was lots of trees growing and producing carbon and charcoal. (I've been watching too much Discovery Channel.) There were giant tree ferns and giant horsetail trees. But this so-called 'dog-head-in-sap' was millions (I think it said like 25 million years ago?) of years later, when there was actually mammals.
I just wanted to clear things up a bit.
-Ben
Weird... I don't know what reason that site would have to lie (maybe it's a practical joke?) but my BS meter is in the red.
First, it looks like it's posing peacefully. Which isn't how most mammals suffocate to death in sap, I think.
Second, I don't think canines have even existed that long, have they?
http://www.provet.co.uk/dogs/evolution%20of%20the%20dog.htm
http://www.lookd.com/dogs/evelution.html
First, it looks like it's posing peacefully. Which isn't how most mammals suffocate to death in sap, I think.
Second, I don't think canines have even existed that long, have they?
http://www.provet.co.uk/dogs/evolution%20of%20the%20dog.htm
http://www.lookd.com/dogs/evelution.html
Uh guys, it is a joke... The last word on the page, in pink, is ficcionés (fiction). The site is serious, but apparently the guy threw in the joke entry as a laugh. Its a photoshop job. Domestic dogs (much less chihuahuas), didn't exist in the carboniferous. 'Mammal' at that time meant a small mouse-sized thing that was not much more advanced than a furry warm-blooded lizard.
Yup! It's a joke. I knew you guys would get it--and fast too! Even without the Spanish word for fiction, it should seem pretty obvious, but believe it or not, members of an amber list serve were seriously discussing whether it was real! BTW, the age of Mexican amber would be closer to 25 million years, which would not be carboniferous. Even so, the mammalian ancestor of dogs would most likely NOT resemble a cute domesticated puppy (thanks for your links endparenthesis).
And you're right, an animal that suffocated in amber would not look like it's ready to lick your face and play fetch! It sure wouldn't have fluffy hair!! Also, if you go to the guy's FAQ a question asks if mammal remains have been found in amber. He answers that feathers, mammal hairs, molars and small bone fragments have been found--not whole dog heads! Another tip should have been that this was supposedly an 80 kg chunk. The largest piece of amber ever found was 75kg and is called sarawak--from Indonesia. If you look at the size of the head relative to the whole specimen, you'll see that it takes up most of the dimension. Now if that were a small dog head, there would be no way the piece could weigh that much because amber is relatively light material.
The other pics on the guy's site are real and are fantastic!
And you're right, an animal that suffocated in amber would not look like it's ready to lick your face and play fetch! It sure wouldn't have fluffy hair!! Also, if you go to the guy's FAQ a question asks if mammal remains have been found in amber. He answers that feathers, mammal hairs, molars and small bone fragments have been found--not whole dog heads! Another tip should have been that this was supposedly an 80 kg chunk. The largest piece of amber ever found was 75kg and is called sarawak--from Indonesia. If you look at the size of the head relative to the whole specimen, you'll see that it takes up most of the dimension. Now if that were a small dog head, there would be no way the piece could weigh that much because amber is relatively light material.
The other pics on the guy's site are real and are fantastic!
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
That struck me too... it does look an awful lot like a portrait. If I die by drowning in a viscous fluid, I hope I look like that.[b said:
As for carboniferous era vs. age of mammals, I have no clue. Phylogeny is not my forté - I always did awful on the clades and eras parts of my biology tests.
~Joe
