wolf or bear?
a skull was found in Russia. they say it had been in the permafrost 40,000 years.
they say it's the skull of a wolf. a really big wolf. a modern Gray Wolf skull is 9-11" long, and this skull is 16" long which, if it's a wolf, would suggest perhaps 200+ pounds.
here's a picture of the teeth
and here's a CT scan of the rest of the dentition, jaw and skull.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7128105/Giant-head-wolf-severed-body-40-000-years-ago-unearthed.html
I don't think it's a wolf. it's too big.
the biggest known wolves, Dire Wolves, were about 15 pounds bigger than the modern Gray Wolf, had bigger teeth and stronger jaws, and that's it. nothing close to a 16" skull. other things to consider are that they lived in North America from 125,000 to 10,000 years ago so Dire Wolves were around at that time, but not in Russia.
I might guess it's some sort of ancestor of a bear. I mean, there are a lot of features that look an awful lot like a wolf, but 16" is just too big.
what do you think.
they say it's the skull of a wolf. a really big wolf. a modern Gray Wolf skull is 9-11" long, and this skull is 16" long which, if it's a wolf, would suggest perhaps 200+ pounds.
here's a picture of the teeth
and here's a CT scan of the rest of the dentition, jaw and skull.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7128105/Giant-head-wolf-severed-body-40-000-years-ago-unearthed.html
I don't think it's a wolf. it's too big.
the biggest known wolves, Dire Wolves, were about 15 pounds bigger than the modern Gray Wolf, had bigger teeth and stronger jaws, and that's it. nothing close to a 16" skull. other things to consider are that they lived in North America from 125,000 to 10,000 years ago so Dire Wolves were around at that time, but not in Russia.
I might guess it's some sort of ancestor of a bear. I mean, there are a lot of features that look an awful lot like a wolf, but 16" is just too big.
what do you think.
0
-
Why don't you think it's a wolf?
Scientists are discovering new extinct species all the time. Just because this particular ancestor of a wolf has never been discovered yet until now doesn't mean it never existed...
The scientists say it's a wolf, why can't you accept that Siberia may of had a bigger wolf than the North American direwolf that they just discovered with this specimen.?... and who knows, the ancestors of the direwolf might even be bigger than this one that just not have been found... Yet
I'm sure there will be other extinct animals that have never been discovered yet will be discovered in the future. That's why they go out on expeditions, to see if they can find anything they haven't discovered yet0 -
because it's too frikkin' big!
and I think maybe ancient bear skulls might look similar to wolf skulls. (just a guess)
I'm not dead set on saying "it's not a wolf". they might prove it is, once they get DNA results, or say "yeah we have fossil remains of wolves that big too" (but, the Dire Wolf was supposed to be the biggest...) or ??? or you might change my mind too! tell me how it can't be a bear skull.0 -
bear skull
never mind. no teeth between canines and molars, lack of shearing molars, and wrong snoot. it's not a bear skull.0 -
remingtonoaks wrote:Why don't you think it's a wolf?
Scientists are discovering new extinct species all the time. Just because this particular ancestor of a wolf has never been discovered yet until now doesn't mean it never existed...
The scientists say it's a wolf, why can't you accept that Siberia may of had a bigger wolf than the North American direwolf that they just discovered with this specimen.?... and who knows, the ancestors of the direwolf might even be bigger than this one that just not have been found... Yet
I'm sure there will be other extinct animals that have never been discovered yet will be discovered in the future. That's why they go out on expeditions, to see if they can find anything they haven't discovered yet
Makes sense to me.0 -
radiograph is much more consistent with canid than ursid, but with the fur, I would be less sure. 0 -
I have looked at a lot of wolf pictures. wolf fur is surprisingly similar to bear fur. coloration would make you think different but when you look at black wolves it becomes apparent. 0 -
buschmaster wrote:because it's too frikkin' big!
and I think maybe ancient bear skulls might look similar to wolf skulls. (just a guess)
I'm not dead set on saying "it's not a wolf". they might prove it is, once they get DNA results, or say "yeah we have fossil remains of wolves that big too" (but, the Dire Wolf was supposed to be the biggest...) or ??? or you might change my mind too! tell me how it can't be a bear skull.
Two big doesn't mean anything. To say that, you would have to say that the Giant ground sloth never existed because it's "too freaking big" based on today's sloths that only weigh between 5 lb and 22 lb depending on which species. But the ground sloth which weighed over 4 tons and were over 20 ft tall actually did exist even though it's "too frickin big" compared to today's sloths... so you're reasoning as you would say "because it's too frickin big" has absolutely no merit.
Besides that, scientists say that it is a extinct wolf species... unless of course you know more than what scientists do. Then you can tell me why it's not a wolf. But I don't think you know more than the scientists do
Of course I'm not trying to say that you're not intelligent, because I know you are intelligent. And it is one of the reasons why I like reading stuff you post. So don't take what I'm saying here as an insult to you0 -
Kind a looked like a head of one of those Irish wolf hounds. 0 -
okay, we know that some ancestors of mammals were bigger in the Pleistocene era. mammoth, saber tooth tiger, giant ground sloth, armadillos the size of a Volkswagen, and some remain today such as the hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and bison.
but all those have a fossil record that is well established. why hasn't anyone ever come across fossils of this? should have happened by now.0 -
Squatch???
Mike0 -
buschmaster wrote:okay, we know that some ancestors of mammals were bigger in the Pleistocene era. mammoth, saber tooth tiger, giant ground sloth, armadillos the size of a Volkswagen, and some remain today such as the hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and bison.
but all those have a fossil record that is well established. why hasn't anyone ever come across fossils of this? should have happened by now.
just like the dire wolf is indigenous to North America and is not found in any other part of the world, this wolf is probably indigenous to Siberia. Where they have permafrost, Not a whole lot of digging going on in permafrost to find fossil remains, or for any other reason for that matter. They even build highways and structures on top of permafrost instead of digging... I'm sure there's a lot more extinct animals underneath the permafrost that hasn't been discovered than just this wolf..
Now I realize that all of Siberia is not covered with permafrost, but a big portion of it is...
as I said before, the scientists say it's a wolf...0 -
It was on a TV program pertaining to the search for mammoth DNA in Siberia as Russian scientists are trying to re-create them in order to restore the steppes. They have found ancient remains of a number of animals and this one WAS referred to as a dire wolf. Many kinds of animals were much larger in prehistoric times. Some of you boys ain't keepin' up. 0 -
Saw the same show, it was DNA tested and came back as a Dire Wolfyonson wrote:It was on a TV program pertaining to the search for mammoth DNA in Siberia as Russian scientists are trying to re-create them in order to restore the steppes. They have found ancient remains of a number of animals and this one WAS referred to as a dire wolf. Many kinds of animals were much larger in prehistoric times. Some of you boys ain't keepin' up.0 -
remingtonoaks wrote:buschmaster wrote:okay, we know that some ancestors of mammals were bigger in the Pleistocene era. mammoth, saber tooth tiger, giant ground sloth, armadillos the size of a Volkswagen, and some remain today such as the hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and bison.
but all those have a fossil record that is well established. why hasn't anyone ever come across fossils of this? should have happened by now.
just like the dire wolf is indigenous to North America and is not found in any other part of the world, this wolf is probably indigenous to Siberia. Where they have permafrost, Not a whole lot of digging going on in permafrost to find fossil remains, or for any other reason for that matter. They even build highways and structures on top of permafrost instead of digging... I'm sure there's a lot more extinct animals underneath the permafrost that hasn't been discovered than just this wolf..
Now I realize that all of Siberia is not covered with permafrost, but a big portion of it is...
as I said before, the scientists say it's a wolf...
yep they put roads on permafrost up in Alaska too.
one thing about the permafrost in both Alaska and Siberia, it is thawing. in Alaska it's messing up the roads and house foundations. in Siberia they are indeed finding more and more stuff thawed out and exposed (hence the mammoth hunters such as the ones that found this) so maybe they will find more of these wolves. and other stuff like you said.0 -
buschmaster wrote:remingtonoaks wrote:buschmaster wrote:okay, we know that some ancestors of mammals were bigger in the Pleistocene era. mammoth, saber tooth tiger, giant ground sloth, armadillos the size of a Volkswagen, and some remain today such as the hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and bison.
but all those have a fossil record that is well established. why hasn't anyone ever come across fossils of this? should have happened by now.
just like the dire wolf is indigenous to North America and is not found in any other part of the world, this wolf is probably indigenous to Siberia. Where they have permafrost, Not a whole lot of digging going on in permafrost to find fossil remains, or for any other reason for that matter. They even build highways and structures on top of permafrost instead of digging... I'm sure there's a lot more extinct animals underneath the permafrost that hasn't been discovered than just this wolf..
Now I realize that all of Siberia is not covered with permafrost, but a big portion of it is...
as I said before, the scientists say it's a wolf...
yep they put roads on permafrost up in Alaska too.
one thing about the permafrost in both Alaska and Siberia, it is thawing. in Alaska it's messing up the roads and house foundations. in Siberia they are indeed finding more and more stuff thawed out and exposed (hence the mammoth hunters such as the ones that found this) so maybe they will find more of these wolves. and other stuff like you said.
Yep, and I was thinking about it. And it could just be a dire wolf and not a new species at all. I mean it's only 1/3 bigger then the direwolves of America... it could have had some genetic defects and just grew bigger most of them. Or a might be a new species completely, or the scientists could be wrong and it might be a bear. It'll be fun to see though0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments