Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rat-Squirrel Not Extinct After All (Scientists off 11 Million years)
The AP via Yahoo! News ^ | March 9, 2006 | Lauran Neergaard

Posted on 03/09/2006 2:46:21 PM PST by new yorker 77

It has the face of a rat and the tail of a skinny squirrel — and scientists say this creature discovered living in central Laos is pretty special: It's a species believed to have been extinct for 11 million years.

The long-whiskered rodent made international headlines last spring when biologists declared they'd discovered a brand new species, nicknamed the Laotian rock rat.

It turns out the little guy isn't new after all, but a rare kind of survivor: a member of a family until now known only from fossils.

Nor is it a rat. This species, called Diatomyidae, looks more like small squirrels or tree shrews, said paleontologist Mary Dawson of Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Dawson, with colleagues in France and China, report the creature's new identity in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

The resemblance is "absolutely striking," Dawson said. As soon as her team spotted reports about the rodent's discovery, "we thought, 'My goodness, this is not a new family. We've known it from the fossil record.'"

They set out to prove that through meticulous comparisons between the bones of today's specimens and fossils found in China and elsewhere in Asia.

To reappear after 11 million years is more exciting than if the rodent really had been a new species, said George Schaller, a naturalist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which unveiled the creature's existence last year. Indeed, such reappearances are so rare that paleontologists dub them "the Lazarus effect."

"It shows you it's well worth looking around in this world, still, to see what's out there," Schaller said.

The nocturnal rodent lives in Laotian forests largely unexplored by outsiders, because of the geographic remoteness and history of political turmoil.

Schaller calls the area "an absolute wonderland," because biologists who have ventured in have found unique animals, like a type of wild ox called the saola, barking deer, and never-before-seen bats. Dawson describes it as a prehistoric zoo, teeming with information about past and present biodiversity.

All the attention to the ancient rodent will be "wonderful for conservation," Schaller said. "This way, Laos will be proud of that region for all these new animals, which will help conservation in that some of the forests, I hope, will be preserved."

Locals call the rodent kha-nyou. Scientists haven't yet a bagged a breathing one, only the bodies of those recently caught by hunters or for sale at meat markets, where researchers with the New York-based conservation society first spotted the creature.

Now the challenge is to trap some live ones, and calculate how many still exist to tell whether the species is endangered, Dawson said.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allsquirrelsarerats; bloodbath; squirrelarmy; squirrels
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-242 next last
To: Virginia-American
"It is?"

The extinction of this family of rodents was a central theme in all my biology classes, from grammar school all the way to college. I don't know what kind of backwater education YOU received.


:)
221 posted on 03/10/2006 5:26:46 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Yeah, in Virginia we tend to fixate on the 'possum.


222 posted on 03/10/2006 5:46:10 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
"when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested"

Wow, that really instills confidence in evolution theory! (sarc)

Radiocarbon dating is only good back to about 50,000. Most of evolution relies on other forms of radiometric dating.

In general these methods are quite accurate, but as always, you need to exercise care in sample selection and avoid contamination. Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing.

223 posted on 03/10/2006 5:53:45 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I'm not saying it is, but if you read the abstract from the actual Science article, it only says that the discovered species is a surviving member of the thought to have been extinct FAMILY, not that it is the same SPECIES as one from 11 million years ago. There is nothing that says this SPECIES has been around for 11 million years.<<

Thanks for the link. What you say is extremely telling. We have a live example of a fossil, but we cannot determine it's species, just family.

The locals are toasting 'em on a stick, have been for years, biologists wouldn't go there, even though that was it's habitat but were willing to claim extinction.

I would also make the wild guess that if you looked in the area that this tasty morsel was found, you might find some fossils of it. It is common enough to be food.

I don't expect biologists to prove a negative. I do expect them to look first.

DK

But of course I fully expect this spicy little number to be declared a different species than the bones, something catchy like "Laonastes aenigmamus"...oops those pesky scientists did it already.


224 posted on 03/10/2006 6:23:24 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; dixiechick2000

It took you half an hour to come up with that?

Could be because I don't hang on line, waiting for replies. It must be sad to be that lonely.<<

But you do perfessor. I've had you so hopping mad, you whined to the mods I was stalking you. You said an incredibly dumb thing, I called you on it, and you defended the position to the point of idiocy.

Arrogance has a few drawbacks, and egos your size hate being proven wrong, even on a minor point.

Epistemology is not important in science.

LOL.

That'll keep you up tonight.

DK

DC 2000

Bullies are always insecure, and never want you to pierce their veil of bravado. I wonder if he will be able to wait three hours before replying?


225 posted on 03/10/2006 6:37:18 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested"

"Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing."

OK, if you say so.

Credibility.


226 posted on 03/10/2006 6:44:37 PM PST by Reddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
"Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing."

OK, if you say so.

Credibility.

You challenge my credibility in dating? I have done hundreds of radiocarbon dates, and have been studying the field for many years. And your expertise is... ?

The reason I say that an occasional wrong date doesn't mean a thing is that these things sometimes happen. There are always slight chances of sample contamination, collection mistakes, or even (rare) laboratory mix-ups. Anytime humans are involved there is the potential for error.

What we do when this happens is run more dates, to see if it can be repeated or if it is an isolated occurrence. On a site I am currently working on there was a gap between the two oldest dates of about 1200 years. That made me question the accuracy of that older date, so I submitted some more samples and got one right in between the two oldest ones. This gives that old date a lot more confidence.

By the way, this site has 18 radiocarbon dates currently, with 9 more being processed. That will be a total of 27 dates. This lets us establish the regularities of the occupation, identify any breaks in the occupation, and identify any problem dates.

Credibility? Yes, I think I have some.

Your turn.

227 posted on 03/10/2006 7:00:10 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
"We have a live example of a fossil, but we cannot determine it's species, just family."

No. I am saying that the species alive today is not one of the species of this family alive 11 million years ago. If you look at what the scientists are saying, there is no indication from them that this is an 11 million year old SPECIES; it's the FAMILY that is at least 11 million years old. It was not expected that a member of this family would still be alive. At least one apparently is. It's a taxonomic footnote. Nothing more.

"But of course I fully expect this spicy little number to be declared a different species than the bones, something catchy like "Laonastes aenigmamus"...oops those pesky scientists did it already."

Yes, they named it Laonastes aenigmamus and it was thought it was part of a new family of rodents, but they were mistaken. It is the last known survivor of the family Diatomyidae. The scientists who originally named it thought it was an example of a new family. Then it was examined by other scientists and compared to the fossil record and it was determined that it was actually a member of Diatomyidae (which the sloppy AP/Yahoo News writer erroneously called it's species name).
228 posted on 03/10/2006 8:12:01 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight

Thank you, DN. ;o)

It will be interesting to see what
the answer to your question will be.


229 posted on 03/10/2006 9:15:41 PM PST by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
Because for a large lizard to survive unchanged for millions of years where it is extinct everywhere else, there would have to be a warm climate (much warmer than the norm) and a large food supply. That's unlikely on some undiscovered island. I think dinosaurs exist. They are called alligators, chickens, and pigeons now.
230 posted on 03/10/2006 10:07:55 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

This rat was in Laos. It has been cooked up for supper for generations. Many large habitat areas are not being studied by naturalists rigorously. It's a tough job, no doubt. But they are to busy talking about evolution, rather than studying it.

DK


231 posted on 03/10/2006 11:03:11 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"They are called scientists."

Yes. But they have been known to have been as wrong as they have been right.

I am not trying to argue this case. I was just having fun with the idea that (according to scientists) rats were here before us. I don't follow this, but that doesn't matter.

Rats are pretty smart, ya know???????

I fought one over a bag of chips, and I had a knife, but he had a semi-auto. (sarcasm : )

Seriously, the rats were stealing various crackers from the tavern I was working in.

In the back room, below the flooring, we found the rats had stacked the crackers up in piles, unwrapped, BY TYPE.

I kid you not.


232 posted on 03/11/2006 3:13:39 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (and miles to go before I sleep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The niche didn't change for 11 million years?

There are several areas that haven’t changed much in 11 million years – that’s not a long time in geologic terms.
233 posted on 03/11/2006 4:18:41 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
"when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested" Wow, that really instills confidence in evolution theory! (sarc)

SIGH Well it definately doesnt instill condifence in creationism and "a young earth" :) Besides only in those cases when the dating is IN ERROR is the true age older. Most datings really are good.\

If you know of a better way to date, why don't you write about it in nature?
234 posted on 03/11/2006 4:49:05 AM PST by S0122017
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
In the back room, below the flooring, we found the rats had stacked the crackers up in piles, unwrapped, BY TYPE.

I have always had kind of a zoo when it comes to animals. So when I got to college and lived in the dorms, I wanted to get a pet, but I was restricted to small animals that could live in a small tank. I went to the pet store and started checking out the rats they had for sale. There was one off by itself that said "trained pet rat" on the tank. I asked what it was trained to do, and no one seemed to know. I bought her for $6.

Well, she was a smart little bug. I found first off that she was trained to ride around in the sleeve of her owner. Freaked me out when she bolted up my sleeve, but I got used to it. She would ride in my sleeve everywhere and poke her nose out. Also, if you let her run around, she would only use the bathroom on a piece of newspaper in the corner of the room. Litter trained. She would also clean up the trash. I came back to the room, and she had found every crumb and stray scrap of paper and had moved it to the corner of the room by the trash can. The carpet was basically spotless. I had her as a pet for 4 years, and she was one of the best pets I've ever had.
235 posted on 03/11/2006 9:28:17 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
Evos claim a species became extinct ll million years ago, then Ooops! there it is. It has happened time and time again. IMO, it's a credibility issue, another nail in the coffin of evolution.

(Shrug) Science is self-correcting. Up until this species was re-discovered, all the evidence supported the claim that it went extinct 11 million years ago. We now know that it didn't.

Certainly interesting, but wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the TOE is correct.

236 posted on 03/13/2006 7:05:34 AM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Anyone can quote the Bible to prove anything.

Prove it.

LOL

237 posted on 03/13/2006 5:33:31 PM PST by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: WKB; Right Wing Professor
Can you please cite me the chapter and verse where Our Lord says that rejecting evolution is a requirment for spiritual rebirth?
238 posted on 03/15/2006 9:28:16 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Can you please cite me the chapter and verse where Our Lord says that rejecting evolution is a requirement for spiritual rebirth?


John 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

Then:
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created....

Because God The Father and God The Son were here BEFORE the creation of the world, I see no wiggle room for
"little wiggly things" on their own for no apparent rhyme or reason to have been the beginning of life forms.
Rejection of evolution is not a requirement for salvation
but salvation is a rejection of evolution.
239 posted on 03/16/2006 1:11:03 AM PST by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: metmom; RunningWolf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593422/posts?page=239#239


240 posted on 03/16/2006 1:12:23 AM PST by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-242 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson