What are
/r/Naturewasmetal's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/Naturewasmetal:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/Naturewasmetal:
SemanticScholar
DeviantArt
AccuWeather
NPR News
The Weather Channel
Product Hunt
HuffPost
Shutterstock
The Pirate Bay
Wikipedia
JustWatch
Google Meet
The most popular reviews in /r/Naturewasmetal:
Are you talking about this?: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dodo-extinct-mauritius-mud_n_1399643
Animals becoming stuck and dying after breaking through the surface crust and sinking into thick, dense mud...but not because they were stupid or "calling in others by crying for help" - but because the island was in the grip of a severe drought, shrinking the lake that was their main source of drinking water and forcing the birds to cross a treacherous expanse of deep silt and mud left around the edges of the shrinking lake.
He did a whole book of paleoart a couple decades ago! An Alphabet of Dinosaurs . My favorite in there is the Oviraptor. When many reconstructions at the time depicted it eating eggs, Barlowe wanted to show some different behavior, painted it munching on a crab.
If you like reading you could check out this book by Chris Stringer, I think it has a different title in the US. He is one of the anthropologists that feature in that video, it is a good read, really easy to get into(if you like reading). It is really fairly balanced and looks at competing theories pretty objectively. It is a good modern look our recent evolution. Pick it up from the library if they have it! https://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivors-Came-Humans-Earth/dp/1250023300
I really like this sort of stuff, to me it is one of the most interesting and epic of journeys.
Screenshotted this image from a kindle edition of this book:
The arts pretty good but I caution using it as a scientific source. I am not an authority of dinosaurs, I'm just a dude with too much time of his hands with a bachelor's degree in unemployment, but I can't help think that this book had a few inaccuracies, stuff like stating a carnotaurus only had a bite force roughly four times greater than a humans, implying that female tyrannosaurus' were larger than males even though I am fairly sure that there is no evidence that was actually the case, and I think a few of the dinosaurs here are bit oversized, like the gigantosaurus. I am fairly certain that the only way one can achieve an 8 ton estimate for gigantosaurus is if you use fragmentary remains and if you are somewhat liberal with your methods. But again, I am just a dude that likes dinosaurs so I could be wrong.
Said that fossils of Goliaths have been found in a fossil site of the Miocene.
Oh, god. His "Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials" is an old favorite. I forgot how much I loved that as a kid. Need to order my own copy now.
Maybe not as in depth as you want but My kids and I really enjoy this book https://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Visual-Encyclopedia-2nd-DK/dp/1465469486. Discusses more than just Triassic just an overall good book.
"Body masses of the giant short-faced bear (Arctodus simus Cope) and the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus Rosenmuller & Heinroth) were calculated with equations based on a long-bone dimensions:body mass proportion ratio in extant carnivores. Despite its more long-limbed, gracile and felid-like anatomy as compared with large extant ursids, large Arctodus specimens considerably exceeded even the largest extant ursids in mass. Large males weighed around 700–800 kg, and on rare occasions may have approached, or even exceeded one tonne."
the cali specimens tended to weigh around 500 kilos according to a skeletal based on a la brea specimen that I'm having a bit of trouble finding but this paper proves the largest arctodus could definitely weigh a tonne. The size difference was likely due to Bergmann's rule.
It was. The remains have been officially designated SK 54, and were found in South Africa.
In 1970 it was determined that the punctures in the skull matched those of an African leopard, using a fossil jaw bone from a leopard found in the same site as the skull.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db9c3ed11958741c9edd2e71bb4e7bd0c01f3db2
Shapiro also has a really good book about de-extinction, called How to Clone a Mammoth, if you want a more in-depth discussion on the topic.
The actual fossil of the ancient leopard attack victim is designated SK 54.
Found in a cave over 50 years ago.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db9c3ed11958741c9edd2e71bb4e7bd0c01f3db2
​
Edit: The fossil was found around 1970, making it 50 years instead of 40.
As far as I can tell only two episodes were made, I made a mini youtube playlist for you with those two episodes plus an older series that is also quite good, it is just a little older grainier video and all that jazz. Also a pirate link to that Quest for Fire movie
​
​
youtube playlist for Apeman Adventures in Human Evolution and BBC Planet of the Apemen
I love Deinonychus! remember there was a gorgeously illustrated book about them in my school library ... I swear I signed it out so many times they should have just given it to me.
https://www.amazon.ca/Deinonychus-Terrible-Claw-Beverly-Halstead/dp/0307137619
I wasn’t saying that it was smarter than it was, only that sharks in general are MUCH smarter than people think, well enough to have a major overlap with cetaceans intelligence (especially considering this is a thing)
It's this one by paleontologist Brian K. from 1970, about the specimen SK 54.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/db9c3ed11958741c9edd2e71bb4e7bd0c01f3db2
https://weather.com/science/nature/news/extinct-animals-making-comeback
There's a few in this list that were rediscovered in 1st world countries.
I seem to remember a bird or vole or something that was discovered in the UK recently too though I can't find it for the life of me.
Given the vast size of the Australian wilderness I could totally believe that some undiscovered holdout of Thylocenes might exist.
Source for fish neutron density?
I’m not the one saying sharks are smarter than cetaceans (probably at around the same level).
Do bear in mind that cetacean intelligence became a popular topic due to the actions of a pseudoscientist, so the entire body of research on this topic may actually be tainted.
https://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353919711/dolphins-adorable-playful-not-as-smart-as-you-might-think
crowdfund $11000 and buy your own
The closest thing to OPs image I could find was (this Shutterstock photo)[https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/japan-dinosaur-exhibition-jul-2009-7621838o] which mentions a 2009 exhibition. Not sure where it would be right now.
Wikipedia page mentions specimens in the Beijing natural history museum which makes sense as the Dino was found in modern day China
Also a specimen maybe in Japan? (Also from checking the captions on the dinosaur's Wikipedia page)
So pretty far for me
In other news, the famous diplodocus from the UK Natural History Museum is currently on a country wide tour and for some reason has turned up in a really low key town next to my own, but I can't go there because of coronavirus. Dafuq
Yes, and as they got into smaller groups, they probably inbred a lot more and had a lot of health problems, contributing to being even less able to adapt. Their technology remained a lot more stagnant for their entire archaeological history than that of Homo Sapiens.
One weird thing is that we didn't really absorb as many into our gene pool. Recent genetic history (I think it's called archaeogenetics or something) is advancing really fast right now and is showing us a lot of cool stuff, like that there were relatively very few breeding events for how long Homo Sapiens and neanderthals coexisted in the same area, and a significant amount of our DNA admixture can be accounted for by a breeding event in the Middle East between the ancestors of all light-skinned people (which is why most East Asian people have Neanderthal DNA too). We also have found several Homo Sapiens with neanderthal DNA, but not many (any?) with the other way around.
Why there are so few breeding events isn't knowable right now, but there are at least 2 possibilities, both of which may be true:
1) Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals weren't attractive to each other and breeding events occurred only during exceptional circumstances.
2) Their offspring weren't fertile, like ligers and mules today. Very rarely, mules are fertile, which may be why we find some traces of admixture. This challenges whether Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals should be considered the same species.
Here's a good book on recent research, and a lot more has been discovered since it came out:
We do have "ground-scraping" trace fossils that probably reflect collective mating rituals among theropods, so there's some basis for it.
Btw, I came across this in Dean Lomax's awesome book on fossilized evidence for behavior.
When sexually aroused, excited or unable to find available members of their own kind, animals mate with members of other species with surprising regularity. Incidents of this sort are probably more common than generally realised, and there is evidence from the modern world that they occur increasingly during times of environmental stress or as populations become reduced or brought together due to changing conditions. When the species concerned are closely related, hybrid babies can be the result: numerous such cases are known from the modern world. However, matings between distantly-related species also occur in the wild. These seem to serve no function other than to relieve the frustration or boredom of at least one of the participants. As unsettling as they may seem, such acts may even be considered to bepart of the animal's play behavior. In one especially celebrated recent case, an apparently frustrated Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella ) copulated with a King penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus ). It is well known that modern elephants are prone to a sort of seasonal sexual madness when they go through a phase of heightened sexual aggression termed musth. While in musth, elephants have been observed trying to forcefully mate with members of different species, such as rhinos.
We combined ideas about interspecies mating events with both the possibility of oversized sexual organs and of a seasonal 'sexual madness'. The result: a bull Stegosaurus trying to mount an innocent Haplocanthosaurus . In order to mate with females bearing a phalanx of dangerous spines and armored plates, we imagined male stegosaurs to have developed some of the largest and most frighteningly dextrous penises of the dinosaur world.
​
Source: All Yesterdays Book by C.M. Kösemen, Darren Naish, and John Conway
the bipedal posture on the younger specimens is based on juvenile sauropod footprints of which only the back feet were preserved. some have speculated this to mean younger sauropods werent obligate quadropeds, the largest apatosaurus specimen in this picture OMNH 1670 is NOT an adult, so apatosaurus could very likely have been a giant among the sauropds
the allosaurus in this chart is not an adult, it's known as big al
all credits goes to the original artist:
https://www.deviantart.com/art/Apatosaurus-ajax-Ontogeny-652105070
tinamous and some other ratites with pennaceous feathers have quill knobs, the bigger ones with semiplumaceous and plumaceous feathers dont.
really hard to find pic of their closeup bones, but i guess this will do
http://pierce.wesleyancollege.edu/faculty/brhoades/woc/birds/birdpics/B002%20emu%20thorax.JPG
>Of course plants and fungi can be...
It is more conventional to focus on large “charismatic megafauna”, but this doesn’t mean it is equitable or useful. I would like to see the same impassioned defense of obscure ant species, otherwise we are holding a double standard.
>Yellowstone Park is a good example of this...
It is an amazing example of what I described, of people taking common wisdom for granted without ever doubting or scrutinizing it. The idea that wolves restored Yellowstone is a complete myth, debunked by scientists. Read here what actual researchers, and not viral unscientific YouTube videos made for kids, have to say about this: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988
This article also describes human impacts, but there are problems with that which I pointed out earlier via an article, and the situation is more complex than that (again, as it almost always is with ecology). Read the publication for more info.
>Because humans killed their...
I am not sure that we disagree about this or that it is relevant
>Thylacines were present...
Yes. So was Thylacoleo. We can both name extinct Australian megafaunal carnivores. Not sure, again, how this is relevant.
The dingo absolutely did not drive them to extinction more than humans did. I don’t know that dingos are present in Tasmania, their last bastion. They were cleared from the vast majority of their range, which was on mainland Oz, by human incursion about 50,000 years ago (dingos arrived about 5,000 years ago).
>South America has actually...
Again, yes. Absolutely. Precisely as I stated; you even quote me and then basically paraphrase my exact quote. I will say that I don’t know if short-faced bears were that carnivorous (the spectacled bear, their surviving relatives, are practically herbivores).
>Of course plants and fungi can be...
It is more conventional to focus on large “charismatic megafauna”, but this doesn’t mean it is equitable or useful. I would like to see the same impassioned defense of obscure ant species, otherwise we are holding a double standard.
>Yellowstone Park is a good example of this...
It is an amazing example of what I described, of people taking common wisdom for granted without ever doubting or scrutinizing it. The idea that wolves restored Yellowstone is a complete myth, debunked by scientists. Read here what actual researchers, and not viral unscientific YouTube videos made for kids, have to say about this: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988
This article also describes human impacts, but there are problems with that which I pointed out earlier via an article, and the situation is more complex than that (again, as it almost always is with ecology). Read the publication for more info.
>Because humans killed their...
I am not sure that we disagree about this or that it is relevant
>Thylacines were present...
Yes. So was Thylacoleo. We can both name extinct Australian megafaunal carnivores. Not sure, again, how this is relevant.
The dingo absolutely did not drive them to extinction more than humans did. I don’t know that dingos are present in Tasmania, their last bastion. They were cleared from the vast majority of their range, which was on mainland Oz, by human incursion about 50,000 years ago (dingos arrived about 5,000 years ago).
>South America has actually...
Again, yes. Absolutely. Precisely as I stated; you even quote me and then basically paraphrase my exact quote. I will say that I don’t know if short-faced bears were that carnivorous (the spectacled bear, their surviving relatives, are practically herbivores).
Here’s a paper involving the Allosaurus coprolite with sliced bone in it:
Edit: also, one more example that shows a tyrannosaurid feeding selectively.
Hone, D.W.E., and Watabe, M. 2010. New information on scavenging and selective feeding behaviour of tyrannosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica.
Oh, no worries! I didn't mean to come off as aggressive, it's just a very common misconception that Neanderthals were less intelligent than us (like the 'cave man' depictions').
I agree that it's unlikely our species will exist for as long as they have, and also that there are definitely other measures of a species' success where you could argue Homosapiens have the advantage. I never knew just how much older they were, but there is a decent amount of distance between us and them on the evolutionary tree so it makes sense.
Neanderthals would beat any Homosapien in a 1v1, but it's funny that it was ultimately their downfall. Their strength didn't necessitate technological invovation like our weakness did for us (but they were also way less social, which probably was a larger factor).
I'll share my favorite video and favorite reading source:
Reading: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (very very fascinating)
Video: Out of the Cradle (This is on Curiosity Stream, which requires a subscription, but there is a free trial).
I'm glad to have met someone else who's interested in the same subject as me. Have a good afternoon :)
Somewhat related, this book just came out: https://www.amazon.com/Escape-Extinction-Eco-Genetic-Novel-Frederic/dp/1734665505/
"As Escape from Extinction opens, the last Neanderthal dies in a cave on the Iberian Peninsula. 30,000 years later, the naturalist Muir O'Brien, hunting deep in the Oregon wilderness, spots a fern believed to be extinct since the end of the last ice age. His discovery leads to a life-changing encounter with the visionary and narcissistic Leo Bonelli, founder of the world's most successful biotech company. Despite misgivings, Muir and his daughter, Lilith, are drawn into Leo's world. When the truth about Leo's strange son, Ned, is revealed by a politically ambitious preacher, the world must grapple with the mystery of Neanderthal extinction and the true basis for human hegemony over the planet. Ned and Lilith, and all who love them, confront a tsunami of ignorance, fear, hatred, and violence.
Escape from Extinction is not science fiction. Scientists wielding new tools for editing DNA now have the power to change the blueprint for humanity, hack evolution, and even create entirely new forms of life. In Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park, the intersection of avarice and scientific hubris gave us man-eating velociraptors. Here, the "monster" is an empathetic and charming teenager, who many nevertheless believe presents the same threat to humanity as Crichton's dinosaurs."
This image is the cover of a 2013 book that can be found on Amazon. The illustration was made by Carl Buell.
Truthfully, I haven't read Prothero's book, but the cover is quite captivating.
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen old paleoart, but the idea was that Sauropods “walked” along the bottoms of lakes and rivers eating soft plants on the bottoms and then used their heads as snorkels just like I said. Again, just like I said, blue whales aren’t breathing underwater, they are breathing on the surface. Water pressure increases exponentially, even though Blue whales are much more massive, it doesn’t matter. I’m not making this up, this is a quit commonly understood biomechanic that was taught to me by my Paleontology professors and pretty awesomely conveyed in this great book that you can buy and educate yourself with. Also, maybe work on your conversations skill my guy.