Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders. Unless you count flightless birds.
You totally forgot New Zealand's only native land mammal, the bat. There's an amazing video of the native bat running, because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
But, the Haast Eagle was unconfirmed before this? I've been brought up and it's always been a fact to me.
The actual news here is that they co-existed with the Maori - it was previously thought they had died out before the Maori arrived. The existence of the Haast's Eagle was well known and there exist Moa bones with massive gouges from being attacked by these Eagles.
So we knew they existed and we knew that the Maori told stories of and painted pictures of something remarkably similar yet we decided that the Maori knew about it because of all the Maori archeologists? I don't get why it would just be assumed that the stories and paintings were about snuffleupagus
You know, those legends would be easily explained if "dragons" turned out to be some sort of fire-breathing dinosaur, but we're not allowed to entertain notions of dinosaurs coexisting with humans in the time-line of biological evolution.
we're not allowed to entertain notions of dinosaurs coexisting with humans in the time-line of biological evolution.
You can entertain any notion you want. Don't expect anyone to consider your ideas anything more than entertainment until there's some evidence.
As far as the evolutionary time line, it's not a matter of "you're not allowed" so much as "there's a gap of hundreds of millions of years between the youngest known (non-bird) dinosaur fossil and the earliest known primate fossil." Call me when you find a dinosaur fossil from 100k years ago. Until then, I think I'll refrain from subscribing to your newsletter.
It wouldn't be the first time a "long-extinct" creature had been discovered to be not quite so long-extinct as we'd thought.
Have any of these been ones that allegedly terrorized the populace only a few hundred years ago? I'd think something as conspicuous as a dragon would be easier to find evidence for. I thought most of the creatures that were thought to be extinct but weren't tended to have survived somewhere that people didn't frequent, rather than say mainland England.
I had in mind a creature which was slightly less ferocious, and significantly less noticeable, which is probably why it wasn't hunted to extinction.
But that is still a fire-breathing dinosaur in modern times that explains middle-ages dragon myths. A combination of something that there is no evidence of having existed in the last hundred million years, and something that there is no evidence of having existed ever. Hell, as long as this is still strictly in your mind, why not add in that it can turn invisi
What about the horseshoe crab? Aren't there fossil examples of that from the Paleozoic Era, along with other trilobites? And what about the crocodilian arm of the Archosaur family, of which there are several hundred individual species alive today?
What about them? So there are ancient creatures that survive in some form today. Sharks are another example. None of those are dinosaurs, and also unlike dinosaurs there is ample evidence of their survival into modern times.
The Archosaur family, having evolved during the Triassic period, are considered dinosaurs, and half of them are land based without feathers. Trilobites, not so much- they're more related to scorpions and other insects than lizards.
Archosaurs includes dinosaurs and crocodilians, but crocodilians are not dinosaurs. Trilobites aren't even close to dinosaurs.:P
But be that as it may, I'm still not seeing your point. Crocodiles are alive today, so maybe some non-avian dinosaurs are too, but we just haven't found them yet? What? Throw me a bone here.
Which is even farther from dinosaurs than the example of crocodilians given by the other poster.
Seriously, are you trying to show that there are creatures who date back hundreds of millions of years? So what? I know it's possible for a species to have survived that long, it's just that so far as we know dinosaurs aren't among them. Excepting birds of course.
Or is it just that this ancient reptile is from NZ?:)
A combination of something that there is no evidence of having existed in the last hundred million years, and something that there is no evidence of having existed ever.
Careful now. If you start using arguments like that, I might ask you for evidence that "missing links" ever existed. We know they did, right?
Careful now. If you start using arguments like that, I might ask you for evidence that "missing links" ever existed. We know they did, right?
We predicted missing links, and absolutely yes we've found missing links, for an absolutely astounding number of cases in the last ~150 years. Even as the term "missing link" changes to mean the link between the last "missing link" subsequently found, and whatever it was supposed to be linking. Again and again. The gaps in the fossil record are ever-shrinking, and p
I see crocodiles as a subspecies of dinosaur- given when they evolved as a definition of "dinosaur"- during the mid Triassic, much earlier than the Cretaceous era. Thus they are an example of a non-avian dinosaur species that survived the Cretaceous -Tertiary extinction event.
Biologists don't. They consider them a relative of dinosaurs, but they are different for valid biological and phylogenic reasons. Dinosaurs and crocodilians are separate branches of archosaurs. Look it up.
given when they evolved as a definition of "dinosaur"- during the mid Triassic, much earlier than the Cretaceous era.
That's a pretty bad definition. Lots of things, including even more distant reptile relatives of dinosaurs such as Icthyosaurs, evolved during
Unix will self-destruct in five seconds... 4... 3... 2... 1...
so... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
So it wasn't the dingo, after all.
No dingos in NZ.
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not! Not any more -- did you see the size of those Dingo eating birds?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually there is no evidence that there was ever any land animals whatsoever in NZ except for lizards, insects and spiders. Unless you count flightless birds.
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
You totally forgot New Zealand's only native land mammal, the bat. There's an amazing video of the native bat running, because it'd evolved to be flightless like the birds.
But, the Haast Eagle was unconfirmed before this? I've been brought up and it's always been a fact to me.
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
So we knew they existed and we knew that the Maori told stories of and painted pictures of something remarkably similar yet we decided that the Maori knew about it because of all the Maori archeologists? I don't get why it would just be assumed that the stories and paintings were about snuffleupagus
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, those legends would be easily explained if "dragons" turned out to be some sort of fire-breathing dinosaur, but we're not allowed to entertain notions of dinosaurs coexisting with humans in the time-line of biological evolution.
Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)
we're not allowed to entertain notions of dinosaurs coexisting with humans in the time-line of biological evolution.
You can entertain any notion you want. Don't expect anyone to consider your ideas anything more than entertainment until there's some evidence.
As far as the evolutionary time line, it's not a matter of "you're not allowed" so much as "there's a gap of hundreds of millions of years between the youngest known (non-bird) dinosaur fossil and the earliest known primate fossil." Call me when you find a dinosaur fossil from 100k years ago. Until then, I think I'll refrain from subscribing to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldn't be the first time a "long-extinct" creature had been discovered to be not quite so long-extinct as we'd thought.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be the first time a "long-extinct" creature had been discovered to be not quite so long-extinct as we'd thought.
Have any of these been ones that allegedly terrorized the populace only a few hundred years ago? I'd think something as conspicuous as a dragon would be easier to find evidence for. I thought most of the creatures that were thought to be extinct but weren't tended to have survived somewhere that people didn't frequent, rather than say mainland England.
Anyway, it would be hypothetical
Re: (Score:2)
I had in mind a creature which was slightly less ferocious, and significantly less noticeable, which is probably why it wasn't hunted to extinction.
Re: (Score:2)
I had in mind a creature which was slightly less ferocious, and significantly less noticeable, which is probably why it wasn't hunted to extinction.
But that is still a fire-breathing dinosaur in modern times that explains middle-ages dragon myths. A combination of something that there is no evidence of having existed in the last hundred million years, and something that there is no evidence of having existed ever. Hell, as long as this is still strictly in your mind, why not add in that it can turn invisi
Re: (Score:2)
What about the horseshoe crab? Aren't there fossil examples of that from the Paleozoic Era, along with other trilobites? And what about the crocodilian arm of the Archosaur family, of which there are several hundred individual species alive today?
Re: (Score:2)
What about them? So there are ancient creatures that survive in some form today. Sharks are another example. None of those are dinosaurs, and also unlike dinosaurs there is ample evidence of their survival into modern times.
Re: (Score:2)
The Archosaur family, having evolved during the Triassic period, are considered dinosaurs, and half of them are land based without feathers. Trilobites, not so much- they're more related to scorpions and other insects than lizards.
Re: (Score:2)
Archosaurs includes dinosaurs and crocodilians, but crocodilians are not dinosaurs. Trilobites aren't even close to dinosaurs. :P
But be that as it may, I'm still not seeing your point. Crocodiles are alive today, so maybe some non-avian dinosaurs are too, but we just haven't found them yet? What? Throw me a bone here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is even farther from dinosaurs than the example of crocodilians given by the other poster.
Seriously, are you trying to show that there are creatures who date back hundreds of millions of years? So what? I know it's possible for a species to have survived that long, it's just that so far as we know dinosaurs aren't among them. Excepting birds of course.
Or is it just that this ancient reptile is from NZ? :)
Re: (Score:2)
A combination of something that there is no evidence of having existed in the last hundred million years, and something that there is no evidence of having existed ever.
Careful now. If you start using arguments like that, I might ask you for evidence that "missing links" ever existed. We know they did, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Careful now. If you start using arguments like that, I might ask you for evidence that "missing links" ever existed. We know they did, right?
We predicted missing links, and absolutely yes we've found missing links, for an absolutely astounding number of cases in the last ~150 years. Even as the term "missing link" changes to mean the link between the last "missing link" subsequently found, and whatever it was supposed to be linking. Again and again. The gaps in the fossil record are ever-shrinking, and p
Re: (Score:2)
I see crocodiles as a subspecies of dinosaur- given when they evolved as a definition of "dinosaur"- during the mid Triassic, much earlier than the Cretaceous era. Thus they are an example of a non-avian dinosaur species that survived the Cretaceous -Tertiary extinction event.
Re: (Score:2)
I see crocodiles as a subspecies of dinosaur
Biologists don't. They consider them a relative of dinosaurs, but they are different for valid biological and phylogenic reasons. Dinosaurs and crocodilians are separate branches of archosaurs. Look it up.
given when they evolved as a definition of "dinosaur"- during the mid Triassic, much earlier than the Cretaceous era.
That's a pretty bad definition. Lots of things, including even more distant reptile relatives of dinosaurs such as Icthyosaurs, evolved during