amp1212 t1_j0vbxej wrote
The relevant scientific paper this article is based on is
Flannery, Timothy F., et al. "The Gondwanan Origin of Tribosphenida (Mammalia)." Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology (2022): 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03115518.2022.2132288
Abstract
>A review of the Southern Hemisphere Mesozoic tribosphenic mammal fossil record supports the hypothesis that Tribosphenida arose in the Southern Hemisphere during the Early Jurassic, around 50 million years prior to the clade’s reliably dated first appearance in the Northern Hemisphere. Mesozoic Southern Hemisphere tribosphenic mammals are known from Australia, Madagascar, South America and the Indian subcontinent, and are classified into three families: Bishopidae (fam. nov.), Ausktribosphenidae and Henosferidae. These are stem therians, and considerable morphological evolution occurred within the lineage between the Jurassic and late Early Cretaceous. Important dental modifications include a graduated transition between premolars and molars, development of molar wear facets V and VI, loss of facets for postdentary bones, reduction in the Meckelian groove and development of a true dentary angle. Previous classifications of Southern Hemisphere tribosphenic mammals are ambiguous because information from the upper dentition has been lacking. Upper molars attributed to the late Early Cretaceous (Albian) Southern Hemisphere group Bishopidae fam. nov. are now known to possess a prominent protocone and stylar cusp C. We thus consider bishopids to be the sister group to Theria.
There are a lot of contingencies in this analysis. "Discovery identifies Australia as birthplace of all modern mammals" - is arguable. There's no real "discovery" here, in the sense of "we found some new fossil that changes a key understanding"; rather its a new analysis of mostly existing paleontological material.
The Australian Geographic article states
>"People had looked at these scattered bits and pieces of information previously but never in a comprehensive way to see if they revealed any sort of pattern."
So the question is "is this new analysis persuasive?"
A major work of analysis doesn't win over scientific consensus "because we said so" - we shall, no doubt, see a good deal of other perspectives before too long. So a more careful headline editor, might have written
Discovery identifies Australia as birthplace of all modern mammals
"Analysis of existing fossil material suggests earliest mammal lineages arose in Gondwanaland, the Southern supercontinent that includes what is now Australia."
d3gaia t1_j0w444x wrote
> “Analysis of existing fossil material suggests earliest mammal lineages arose in Gondwanaland, the Southern supercontinent that includes what is now Australia.”
Really rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?
I’m with you in that science headlines need to be more accurate but outside of dedicated scientific journals, I’m not sure a headline like the one you’ve suggested would get many clicks
amp1212 t1_j0w6jhy wrote
>I’m with you in that science headlines need to be more accurate but outside of dedicated scientific journals, I’m not sure a headline like the one you’ve suggested would get many clicks
I agree that it may be hard to write headlines, but it is really irritating - and scientifically misleading - to write about "Australia", when what is meant is Gondwanaland.
They are not at all the same things, even though a bit of what once was Gondwanaland is now Australia.
. . . and note that the original journal reference was "The Gondwanan Origin of Tribosphenida (Mammalia)." - which was correct. Or one could have parsed this "The ancient origins of mammals in Gondwanaland" -- the problem with the title as it was written for Australian Geographic was that it was a bit of Down under click boosting, completely understandable - but nonetheless inaccurate.
HobgoblinKhanate t1_j0wdkre wrote
Godwanaland included Africa and South America right? Are they literally calling this whole place Australia?
amp1212 t1_j0wfce8 wrote
>Godwanaland included Africa and South America right? Are they literally calling this whole place Australia?
Yes, but with the "they" being the journalists at Australian Geographic, not the authors of the original scientific publication. So you can blame it on them; the original authors don't make that mistake.
Its why I make myself a pest here to call out crap pop science writing, which so often takes a good and carefully written finding, and then makes it worse.
To be fair, because people love imagining long ago landscapes, there's a lot of confusion about "the place where we find fossils now" - and "the place where these animals lived, at the time they were laid down"
MogFluffyDevilCat t1_j0ygakz wrote
Good. We need less clickbait
noweezernoworld t1_j0vofqp wrote
>Gondwanaland
My god, as a king gizzard fan I had no idea this was a real thing
amp1212 t1_j0wejh9 wrote
>My god, as a king gizzard fan I had no idea this was a real thing
They're actually from down under, so yeah it makes sense. Aussies do grow up hearing more about Gondwana than Americans do, very generally, because as this post began with, present day Australia has a Gondwanan legacy.
And King Gizzard are generally scientifically and intellectually curious . . . their lyrics are filled with clever bits of scientific and mathematical lacuna, viz "Tetrachromacy" and clever lines like "I am everyone and every zero."
Maldevinine t1_j0wdx1h wrote
Shame on you for not realising that the naming of their albums was meaningful.
Like the lyrics to 'Rattlesnake'
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments