Comments
d3gaia t1_j0w444x wrote
> “Analysis of existing fossil material suggests earliest mammal lineages arose in Gondwanaland, the Southern supercontinent that includes what is now Australia.”
Really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?
I’m with you in that science headlines need to be more accurate but outside of dedicated scientific journals, I’m not sure a headline like the one you’ve suggested would get many clicks
amp1212 t1_j0w6jhy wrote
>I’m with you in that science headlines need to be more accurate but outside of dedicated scientific journals, I’m not sure a headline like the one you’ve suggested would get many clicks
I agree that it may be hard to write headlines, but it is really irritating - and scientifically misleading - to write about "Australia", when what is meant is Gondwanaland.
They are not at all the same things, even though a bit of what once was Gondwanaland is now Australia.
. . . and note that the original journal reference was "The Gondwanan Origin of Tribosphenida (Mammalia)." - which was correct. Or one could have parsed this "The ancient origins of mammals in Gondwanaland" -- the problem with the title as it was written for Australian Geographic was that it was a bit of Down under click boosting, completely understandable - but nonetheless inaccurate.
HobgoblinKhanate t1_j0wdkre wrote
Godwanaland included Africa and South America right? Are they literally calling this whole place Australia?
amp1212 t1_j0wfce8 wrote
>Godwanaland included Africa and South America right? Are they literally calling this whole place Australia?
Yes, but with the "they" being the journalists at Australian Geographic, not the authors of the original scientific publication. So you can blame it on them; the original authors don't make that mistake.
Its why I make myself a pest here to call out crap pop science writing, which so often takes a good and carefully written finding, and then makes it worse.
To be fair, because people love imagining long ago landscapes, there's a lot of confusion about "the place where we find fossils now" - and "the place where these animals lived, at the time they were laid down"
MogFluffyDevilCat t1_j0ygakz wrote
Good. We need less clickbait
noweezernoworld t1_j0vofqp wrote
>Gondwanaland
My god, as a king gizzard fan I had no idea this was a real thing
amp1212 t1_j0wejh9 wrote
>My god, as a king gizzard fan I had no idea this was a real thing
They're actually from down under, so yeah it makes sense. Aussies do grow up hearing more about Gondwana than Americans do, very generally, because as this post began with, present day Australia has a Gondwanan legacy.
And King Gizzard are generally scientifically and intellectually curious . . . their lyrics are filled with clever bits of scientific and mathematical lacuna, viz "Tetrachromacy" and clever lines like "I am everyone and every zero."
Maldevinine t1_j0wdx1h wrote
Shame on you for not realising that the naming of their albums was meaningful.
Like the lyrics to 'Rattlesnake'
jimboiow t1_j0v98jr wrote
It was jolly good of them to keep the most poisonous ones to themselves.
guynamedjames t1_j0vfcsx wrote
Venomous. Poisonous means eating it gets you sick. Venomous means they can inject poison into you (through their teeth, or stingers, or a barb on only a single toe of one back foot of only the males - thanks platypus). Small but important difference
tornpentacle t1_j0voyww wrote
I'm fairly certain most venomous critters are poisonous if eaten, but we could probably defer to the historical dietary habits of the Aborigines to learn more about that.
LoveHateEveryone t1_j0wgxul wrote
It actually seems pretty rare for an animal to be both poisonous and venomous. Obviously you’re not going to want to eat the part that contains the venom.
CandidInsurance7415 t1_j0yq5aa wrote
> Obviously you’re not going to want to eat the part that contains the venom.
Mithradates has joined the chat.
echocharlieone t1_j0w2gav wrote
Which venomous Australian mammals? There's only the platypus, which is shy and harmless to humans.
[deleted] t1_j0whhbn wrote
[removed]
mrmalort69 t1_j0x4pff wrote
Australia is the one of the hardcore Servers. It gets untested updates and mods, if it’s not your cup of tea, I believe users got rid of all the snakes in an island in the European server
elpajaroquemamais t1_j0vl5sc wrote
Makes sense. That’s where the monotremes still are.
gringo-tico t1_j0wmclx wrote
"The hypothesis we are presenting is that [marsupials and placentals] originated in Gondwana and then dispersed to the northern hemisphere about 120 million years ago.”
It's still a hypothesis, but it'll be interesting to see if it becomes more than that eventually.
AutoModerator t1_j0v8a1v wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Shaggy_One t1_j0w0x1s wrote
Makes sense. Everything else about the place seems cruel and unusual. The starting point for mammals as we know them just fits too well.
echocharlieone t1_j0w2pbb wrote
Which Australian mammal in particular are you afraid of?
Shaggy_One t1_j0wbfwm wrote
Humans, obviously.
TinfoilTobaggan t1_j0w6eki wrote
Rebel Wilson
bee_administrator t1_j0ywqbb wrote
Camels are pretty evil.
Sheep can be grumpy little sods too.
MaNGoCHRiS94 t1_j0yanuk wrote
All you people assume that Australias wild life is super dangerous. Whn in reality we have no native predators, except maybe the wedgetailed eagle. Which wouldn't choose to attack humans.
We don't have to worry about bears, big cats, or any other prey stalking animal. Just got to check your shoes, and watch where you walk. Yoi know with all the snakes and spiders.
l397flake t1_j0w4qc4 wrote
Just curious, long ago around the time in question, there were probably herds of these animals running around. Maybe even similar ones in all continents. How many of each have to be found in the same area to assume that that area was where they ONLY lived
pulsarmine t1_j0wkezn wrote
It's important to note that "Australia" in this case refers to Gondwanaland. This was the Southern supercontinent that includes what is now Australia.
[deleted] t1_j0w50an wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wanf9 wrote
[removed]
criticalpwnage t1_j0x65u1 wrote
Does this mean that we are all Australian?
kehaarcab t1_j0z46yo wrote
This explains why Australia has such a plethora of critters that are experts at killing mammals without breaking a sweat.
OldTimeyMedicine t1_j0w5l56 wrote
And all modern animal-related phobias
imdfantom t1_j0xvlvq wrote
We are probably from everywhere.
Ie we probably have ancestors that lived on almost every part of the globe
GoldBreakr t1_j0xg5in wrote
You mean all mammals came from prison?
amp1212 t1_j0vbxej wrote
The relevant scientific paper this article is based on is
Flannery, Timothy F., et al. "The Gondwanan Origin of Tribosphenida (Mammalia)." Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology (2022): 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03115518.2022.2132288
Abstract
>A review of the Southern Hemisphere Mesozoic tribosphenic mammal fossil record supports the hypothesis that Tribosphenida arose in the Southern Hemisphere during the Early Jurassic, around 50 million years prior to the clade’s reliably dated first appearance in the Northern Hemisphere. Mesozoic Southern Hemisphere tribosphenic mammals are known from Australia, Madagascar, South America and the Indian subcontinent, and are classified into three families: Bishopidae (fam. nov.), Ausktribosphenidae and Henosferidae. These are stem therians, and considerable morphological evolution occurred within the lineage between the Jurassic and late Early Cretaceous. Important dental modifications include a graduated transition between premolars and molars, development of molar wear facets V and VI, loss of facets for postdentary bones, reduction in the Meckelian groove and development of a true dentary angle. Previous classifications of Southern Hemisphere tribosphenic mammals are ambiguous because information from the upper dentition has been lacking. Upper molars attributed to the late Early Cretaceous (Albian) Southern Hemisphere group Bishopidae fam. nov. are now known to possess a prominent protocone and stylar cusp C. We thus consider bishopids to be the sister group to Theria.
There are a lot of contingencies in this analysis. "Discovery identifies Australia as birthplace of all modern mammals" - is arguable. There's no real "discovery" here, in the sense of "we found some new fossil that changes a key understanding"; rather its a new analysis of mostly existing paleontological material.
The Australian Geographic article states
>"People had looked at these scattered bits and pieces of information previously but never in a comprehensive way to see if they revealed any sort of pattern."
So the question is "is this new analysis persuasive?"
A major work of analysis doesn't win over scientific consensus "because we said so" - we shall, no doubt, see a good deal of other perspectives before too long. So a more careful headline editor, might have written
Discovery identifies Australia as birthplace of all modern mammals"Analysis of existing fossil material suggests earliest mammal lineages arose in Gondwanaland, the Southern supercontinent that includes what is now Australia."