3 ms·
I know the title says that this fossil confirms that the species were alive much later than anticipated, but it is not quite clear from the text of the article
by itcrowd 11y ago
I know the title says that this fossil confirms that the species were alive much later than anticipated, but it is not quite clear from the text of the article on Syracuse (or I misread?) that there was an earlier discovery of this species [with the same young age]. Below are the relevant passages from the scientific article.
From the discussion:
> Earlier, a series of the same young radiocarbon dates was obtained by our colleagues from Ekaterinburg
(Kosintsev, 2014) on the bones of elasmotheriums from localities southwest of the West Siberian Plain.
From the conclusion:
> Our study following the data by Kosintsev (2014) confirmed the longer existence of Elasmotherium sibiricum within the territory of the West Siberian Plain.
edit: link to scientific article is in the Syracuse article, or here [pdf warning]: http://thescipub.com/PDF/ajassp.2016.189.199.pdf http://thescipub.com/PDF/ajassp.2016.189.199.pdf
- stephenboyd 11y agoIt was named in 1808, so it must have been discovered before then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium#Discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium#Discovery The news is about the recent finding of a skull in Siberia, which they were able to use to date the species to only 29,000 years ago.
- itcrowd 11y agoSorry, my post might not have been clear enough. What I meant is that (Kosintev, 2014) already dated the species to ~30,000 years old two years ago. This new publication merely confirms that.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]