I can't tell if it's just late in the day or if that's a really poorly written article across the board. > Remarkably, this is the first time hormones have bee

I can't tell if it's just late in the day or if that's a really poorly written article across the board. > Remarkably, this is the first time hormones have been seen in the extant or the extinct. Later in the article they say they identified testosterone in modern elephants. Was this done _in response_ to finding it in mammoths? It's the only way the first part of this article makes sense. > Given their close relation to Asian elephants, is it surprising that musth has been discovered? Huh? This is the first mention of Asian elephants in this article. Have they had hormonal markers found in their tusks? If so, back to question #1. > By contrast, they couldn’t test for female hormones to test “for pregnancy, for instance,” because they didn’t have a modern female elephant tusk to compare. This is confusing. Is it because they're looking at Asian elephants (where the females do not have tusks) or because ... other reasons? I realize this is a freelance article, but ... yikes.