|
Post by youcantry on Jul 13, 2015 13:53:53 GMT 10
This is a wonderful news article. I think by "mammoth bones" the author simply means "large bones" because the rest of the dialogue on fauna mentions classically Australian species such as the diprotodon, wombats and similar. However the context of this 1893 article is that Charles Sturt, who trekked the interior of South Australia, described it as so inhospitable that very few ventured far after his early expeditions in the 1840s. The discoveries outlined in this article, of giant fauna, necessitates an explanation for how such fauna could be sustained in such an inhospitable location. There must have been tremendous amounts of flora present. Noting this, and noting also that many of Australia's extinct mega fauna are quite similar to some marsupial species found in South America, early naturalists then begin to speculate on why this should be so. A mega-continent spanning the Pacific Ocean (!) is proposed as the only plausible explanation - present pacific islands being the final outposts of the sinking of such a landmass. Of course, today we conclude Gondwana spanned the Earth where we find present day Antarctica - yet a landmass wrapping around the planet, but in a different direction and now believed to be broken up and drifting at sea; not sunk. Truly an interesting read. trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48521778?searchTerm=large%20marsupial%20species%20thought%20to%20be%20extinct&searchLimits=
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Jul 13, 2015 18:20:19 GMT 10
Lake Frome is where the Diprotodon graveyard is, that right? Probly what he means. For a moment there I thought you might be talking about Mike Archer. He's the palaeontologist who thinks elephants originated in Australia ...
|
|
|
Post by johannes on Jul 22, 2015 20:09:01 GMT 10
There were Stegodons in Wallacea during the Pleistocene, and the ides that they made it to Australia isn't too far-fetched - proboscidans crossed the Thetys and made it from Africa to Laurasia, as did their afrotherian cousins, the Arsinoitheres (Hyaenodonts, too; but their status as Afrotheres is uncertain at best ) - hence it is clear that afrotheres too large to drift can cross the open sea by swimming. On the other hand, the Australian "proboscidans" might have been native Gondwanan animals who evolved elephantine traits by way of convergent evolution - Eocene Antarctica had Astrapotheres www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/94017#/summary , and it still was connected to Australia by a land bridge at the time - or maybe "Mammoth", when used by 19th cenury people, simply meant "large, graviportal, elephantine mammal", and the SA "Mammoths" were simply large marsupials like Diprotodon or Palorchestes?
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Jul 27, 2015 6:02:26 GMT 10
I'm not too keen on the idea - the sea is a highly effective filter. If elephants could swim across the Wallace line to Oz, so could lots other SE Asian fauna. Afaik none did apart from humans and birds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscidea
|
|