I'm really tired of shoddy reporting... "The Pleistocene wolf’s head is 40cm long, so half of the whole body length of a modern wolf which varies from 66 to 86cm. " When reality is that Wolves are...
I'm really tired of shoddy reporting...
"The Pleistocene wolf’s head is 40cm long, so half of the whole body length of a modern wolf which varies from 66 to 86cm. "
When reality is that Wolves are much longer... "On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length".
Subspecies of Canis lupus are not necessarily that large, Arctic Wolves (Canis lupus arctos) for example are much smaller in comparison. If one is using a measurement including tail, and another...
Subspecies of Canis lupus are not necessarily that large, Arctic Wolves (Canis lupus arctos) for example are much smaller in comparison. If one is using a measurement including tail, and another is not, that could be a source of the disparity as well.
Why would you be selective when the article isn't? Also, I just looked back at the article and the image doesn't jive with the statement. The tape measure starts off screen, but the tip of the...
Why would you be selective when the article isn't?
Also, I just looked back at the article and the image doesn't jive with the statement.
The tape measure starts off screen, but the tip of the nose is at about the 8 or 9 cm mark. The head (not counting the obvious neck area), ends at about the 38cm mark. So this head is really only about 30cm. Which compared to even a Steppe Wolf whose head is between 22cm and 27cm, isn't that much larger.
BTW: A Steppe Wolf is considered "a wolf of average size" for the world.
Lets now compare it to the Eurasian Wolf, which is native to the same area this head/neck was found. Adults from Russia measure 105–160 centimetres (41–63 in) in length.
I'm glad you replied so I was more motivated to collect easily accessible information that just shows more how much the author of this article didn't do any credible research.
Principle of Charity. The Washington Post version of this story (with better picture) cites the length of the head to be 15.7 inches long (39.88cm), and the head of a grey wolf to be between...
Why would you be selective when the article isn't?
Principle of Charity.
The Washington Post version of this story (with better picture) cites the length of the head to be 15.7 inches long (39.88cm), and the head of a grey wolf to be between 9.1–11 inches. That's 43–73% larger.
Working with 105–160cm for the length of a wolf, the head ranges 23–28cm and the tail 29–50cm. If we subtract head and tail from length, we get a range of 53–82cm, which is reasonably close to the body length cited in this post. Considering that the Siberian Times is a Russian site commenting on the work of Japanese scientists, it's reasonable to assume that nuance has not been appropriately translated, and our interpretation of their article is affected by this. I don't see a reason to assume journalistic malpractice when a more charitable interpretation is present.
Why did you select a grey wolf? It's not an average sized wolf. Then you compared the purported length, which I show how it can't be that length, you the smallest grey wolf head instead of the...
Why did you select a grey wolf? It's not an average sized wolf.
Then you compared the purported length, which I show how it can't be that length, you the smallest grey wolf head instead of the longest.
Also, when length of an animal is scientifically figured, it's without tail but with head. So your measurement is off.
Look again at the photo. The tape measure starts off to the right of the image. There's a good 8cm - 9cm to the right of the tip of the nose. That's taking into account for the angle. Next, the...
Look again at the photo.
The tape measure starts off to the right of the image. There's a good 8cm - 9cm to the right of the tip of the nose. That's taking into account for the angle.
Next, the head/skull does not go all the way to the far left of the specimen. It stops right about where the color of the fur changes. That part is the neck.
Next, line up where the head actually ends with the tape measure and you're looking at about the 39cm mark.
I get every one uses words 40cm. But open your own eyes and look at the images you insisted on me referencing. As to reference of modern wolfs, even a simple Wikipedia search will give you all...
I get every one uses words 40cm. But open your own eyes and look at the images you insisted on me referencing.
As to reference of modern wolfs, even a simple Wikipedia search will give you all that info.
Almost 3 whole days you two have been going at it now. It's pretty clear neither of you is going to budge from your positions at this point, so why are you both keeping this tedious argument...
Almost 3 whole days you two have been going at it now. It's pretty clear neither of you is going to budge from your positions at this point, so why are you both keeping this tedious argument going? @CALICO too.
Wasn't that the core message of Jurassic Park? Humans playing god results in unforeseeable, unintended consequences. The "dinosaurs eating humans" bit was just one facet of the total system...
Wasn't that the core message of Jurassic Park? Humans playing god results in unforeseeable, unintended consequences. The "dinosaurs eating humans" bit was just one facet of the total system breakdown that occurred. It's been a long time since I read the book but IIRC it emphasizes this a good deal more directly than the movie.
I'm kind of on the fence. I 100% agree your reasoning is valid, but we already do that with pets. It might take a bit longer but the end result is the same. Dogs have no natural predators for...
I'm kind of on the fence.
I 100% agree your reasoning is valid, but we already do that with pets. It might take a bit longer but the end result is the same. Dogs have no natural predators for example, dogs as they exist today are pretty much a human construct. How is that any different? Because the process was slower? Because you don't really notice it on a day to day basis?
I'm really tired of shoddy reporting...
"The Pleistocene wolf’s head is 40cm long, so half of the whole body length of a modern wolf which varies from 66 to 86cm. "
When reality is that Wolves are much longer... "On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length".
Subspecies of Canis lupus are not necessarily that large, Arctic Wolves (Canis lupus arctos) for example are much smaller in comparison. If one is using a measurement including tail, and another is not, that could be a source of the disparity as well.
Why would you be selective when the article isn't?
Also, I just looked back at the article and the image doesn't jive with the statement.
The tape measure starts off screen, but the tip of the nose is at about the 8 or 9 cm mark. The head (not counting the obvious neck area), ends at about the 38cm mark. So this head is really only about 30cm. Which compared to even a Steppe Wolf whose head is between 22cm and 27cm, isn't that much larger.
BTW: A Steppe Wolf is considered "a wolf of average size" for the world.
Lets now compare it to the Eurasian Wolf, which is native to the same area this head/neck was found. Adults from Russia measure 105–160 centimetres (41–63 in) in length.
I'm glad you replied so I was more motivated to collect easily accessible information that just shows more how much the author of this article didn't do any credible research.
Principle of Charity.
The Washington Post version of this story (with better picture) cites the length of the head to be 15.7 inches long (39.88cm), and the head of a grey wolf to be between 9.1–11 inches. That's 43–73% larger.
Working with 105–160cm for the length of a wolf, the head ranges 23–28cm and the tail 29–50cm. If we subtract head and tail from length, we get a range of 53–82cm, which is reasonably close to the body length cited in this post. Considering that the Siberian Times is a Russian site commenting on the work of Japanese scientists, it's reasonable to assume that nuance has not been appropriately translated, and our interpretation of their article is affected by this. I don't see a reason to assume journalistic malpractice when a more charitable interpretation is present.
Why did you select a grey wolf? It's not an average sized wolf.
Then you compared the purported length, which I show how it can't be that length, you the smallest grey wolf head instead of the longest.
Also, when length of an animal is scientifically figured, it's without tail but with head. So your measurement is off.
Look again at the photo.
The tape measure starts off to the right of the image. There's a good 8cm - 9cm to the right of the tip of the nose. That's taking into account for the angle.
Next, the head/skull does not go all the way to the far left of the specimen. It stops right about where the color of the fur changes. That part is the neck.
Next, line up where the head actually ends with the tape measure and you're looking at about the 39cm mark.
39-9=?
Keep proving my point.
Left-side, tip of the nose is at about 2cm.
Right-side, line of fur change is at about 30cm.
30cm - 2cm =???
I get every one uses words 40cm. But open your own eyes and look at the images you insisted on me referencing.
As to reference of modern wolfs, even a simple Wikipedia search will give you all that info.
Almost 3 whole days you two have been going at it now. It's pretty clear neither of you is going to budge from your positions at this point, so why are you both keeping this tedious argument going? @CALICO too.
:) Internet time when people aren't always online, seems a lot more than it really is.
first thing I thought too.
But all the same, I wonder if CRISPR could help bring this thing back to life. That'd be awesome!
Wasn't that the core message of Jurassic Park? Humans playing god results in unforeseeable, unintended consequences. The "dinosaurs eating humans" bit was just one facet of the total system breakdown that occurred. It's been a long time since I read the book but IIRC it emphasizes this a good deal more directly than the movie.
I'm kind of on the fence.
I 100% agree your reasoning is valid, but we already do that with pets. It might take a bit longer but the end result is the same. Dogs have no natural predators for example, dogs as they exist today are pretty much a human construct. How is that any different? Because the process was slower? Because you don't really notice it on a day to day basis?
Totally agree.