paleontologist William Sanders of the University of Michigan wrote in an email to WIRED. “But recent analysis of tusk wear surfaces show that they were used more as scythes to cut tough vegetation.”
the article suggests they most likely did not look like that, thankfully. Those cartoon like jaws couldn’t work. As the article says, trunks are separate to mouths. There’s a model of one, later in the article, that seems to be closer to what current archaeologists believe they looked like. Still weird though. The problem for archaeologists is, trunks don’t fossilise as well as jaw bones.
morph
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Barry Goldman
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Madagascar_Sky
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •paleontologist William Sanders of the University of Michigan wrote in an email to WIRED. “But recent analysis of tusk wear surfaces show that they were used more as scythes to cut tough vegetation.”
WHAT
mattmaison
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Badger AF (he/him)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •yes, it's me, liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Earthling
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Steve Torrente
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Jim
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Lynda Delph
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Toastie
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •jd 🔆
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •I am John Platybelodon
#Mastodon #JohnMastodon
Susan Lewis
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Indra Raj Pathak
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Robaque
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Sabaah Z Jauhar-Rizvi
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •