Replies

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.

"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).