If there were three huge rivers trisecting the Bay Area, the island effect would lead to speciation- populations would be divided, and you'd expect to see an unreasonably high number of endemics. And this is so! I've been fretting about the diversity of crazy rare plants in the Bay for a while.
The best part of the article is that it cribs heavily from a book on Paleobotany that is currently on my nightstand. I now have more reason to feel guilty about not reading it.
No, the best part is that the type specimen for short-faced bears is from Shasta Caverns- an entire skeleton! Oh my goodness, that is an awe-inspiring thing to contemplate.
I bumped into a friend of my parents in a field of poison oak behind a locked gate yesterday. He gave me a list of everything he'd found in the area, starting with a field stripped rifle (a 308, so nothing super scary) wrapped in several garbage bags, a couple of caves, a rare aster, a rare salamander, a feral pig skull, and a terrible allergy to Toxicodendron. Thus, I am inspired to find bear teeth. (I have previously stated that I maintain certain friendships primarily for entertainment value and exposure to truly insane schemes- remind me to do a post on R's first roommate- and I believe this man serves a similar purpose for my father. Except he's pleasant. And most of his schemes involve trail building and waterway restoration.)
Also, I keep bitching about poison oak in the abstract, fact-of-life fashion that occurs in the workplace, and people keep offering sympathy. At work, I'll say "I want to bite this skin and worry at the rash like a dog." and my coworkers respond "I'm so coated in tar I no longer do a spot check before peeing." On Facebook, I make a pleasant reference to Technu showers, and dudes start talking about how they once had oak balls whilst ladies try to sell me on pharmaceuticals.
I want to do a series on "Why I hate your Myers/Briggs personality type", but I think it may be unwise. Thoughts?
5 comments:
Such a series would be amusing, and I would be able to factor it into my evil scheming.
Oh, and this article is very interesting, though it may take me a while to get through.
Knowing how tall a fossil bear was I understand, but how fast it could run? Paleobiomechanics is a very vague field. I've read articles "proving" that T. rex was a waddling scavenger and others "proving" it could reach 45mph. Both studies cited fossil "evidence". I don't doubt the existence of dinosaurs, I doubt we'll ever know what color they were or much of anything about their behavior.
There is no complete T. rex skelington, I think. There are complete short faced bear skeletons, and there are actual bears for us to base our conjectures on.
There is also a sparkling debate whether short faced bears were agile runners or giant lumbering avalanches. I fail to see how the later would get antelope and camel, but I am frightened none the less.
I also find the name 'short faced bear' somewhat amusing. From the description, it's basically a furry doom machine, but the distinguishing characteristic they end up naming it after is a smaller than average face... I mean, they called the wolves dire, after all.
Post a Comment