"A park ranger wandering through a petrified forest in California has unearthed a trove of prehistoric fossils, including a stunningly preserved mastodon skull and the remains of a 400-pound (181 kilograms) monster salmon, SFGate reported." Source: Live Science.
"Paleontologists unearthed dozens of fossil species near the Mokelumne River watershed in the foothills of the Sierra mountains southeast of Sacramento. The fossil site, which dates back roughly 10 million years to the Miocene epoch, is one of the most significant such troves ever discovered in the Golden State."
Comment: It's hard to imagine, but these prehistoric animals lived at a time when there were no humans in the world. Assuming our current picture of evolution is correct, the apes had just started to appear in the Old World at the beginning of the Miocene and the first human ancestors only began to diverge from the ancestors of modern chimpanzees near the end of the epoch. According to researchers, the region where these fossils were discovered was "an oak forest fringed by an ancient ocean" in the Miocene. If you ask me, California would've been a better place to live back then than it is today.
"Millions of modern humans ask themselves the same question every morning while looking in the mirror: Why am I so hairy? As a society, we spend millions of dollars per year on lip waxing, eyebrow threading, laser hair removal, and face and leg shaving, not to mention the cash we hand over to Supercuts or the neighborhood salon. But it turns out we are asking the wrong question—at least according to scientists who study human genetics and evolution. For them, the big mystery is why we are so hairless." Source: Smithsonian Magazine.
Nobody has the slightest idea why humans lost their fur. Of course this question is only a mystery if you assume that humans were actually covered with fur in the first place. Nevertheless, if we did evolve (like the modern apes) from some "fruit-eating, slow-climbing primate that resembled a baby gibbon," then presumably at one time Homo Sapiens or one of its hominin ancestors was just as furry as the gibbons of today.
I don't buy any of the explanations given in the top video. According to the new research described in the Smithsonian article, we may have lost our fur because of a genetic mutation which could also be responsible for baldness:
"A researcher studying the plantar region of rabbits noticed that an inhibitor protein, called Dickkopf 2 or Dkk2, was not present in high levels, giving the team the fist clue that Dkk2 may be fundamental to hair growth. When the team looked at the hairless plantar region of mice, they found that there were high levels of Dkk2, suggesting the protein might keep bits of skin hairless by blocking a signaling pathway called WNT, which is known to control hair growth."
According to this still speculative theory, something happened early in human evolution which led to an increase in Dkk2, which in turn inhibited the growth of hair. It's still unclear, at least to me, why a genetic mutation like this could effect an entire species, but some of these mutations can apparently spread very quickly.
This is the Karni Mata Temple, aka the Temple of Rats, in Rajasthan, India. According to Wikipedia, the Hindu temple to the deity / female warrior sage, Karni Mata, is famous for "the approximately 25,000 black rats that live, and are revered, in the temple. These holy rats are called kabbas, and many people travel great distances to pay their respects. The temple draws visitors from across the country for blessings, as well as curious tourists from around the world." There are also a few white rats living there and they are considered to be "manifestations of Karni Mata herself and her four sons." This apparently makes the white rats ultra-holy.
The videos above show various food offerings made to the rats at the temple. In the top video, one worshiper is shown drinking straight from a bowl of milk set out for the sacred vermin. He claims that this is good for his health even though the milk is full of rat droppings. And this kind of lunatic behavior isn't unusual:
"The rodents move freely within the temple and can be seen eating from a huge metal bowl of milk and grains, placed there daily by devotees." Source: Daily Mail (2014).
"Small children can be seen playing and interacting with the rats - while scores of tourists flock there each day to catch a glimpse of the unique spectacle.
"Many visitors offer sweets and other candy to the vermin. The food nibbled by the rats is also considered holy and is sometimes consumed by a devotee - even if it has been half eaten by rodents."
Hindus believe that humans and animals are related through the cycles of reincarnation. We may have been animals in a previous life and we might end up coming back as animals in our next life, depending on our karma. "Humans and animals are believed to be one family and therefore, humans should treat all living creatures with respect and kindness." (Wikipedia)
Fine. I'm against animal abuse myself but worshiping rats, letting them run wild and sharing their food is flat-out disgusting. This temple is a major health hazard:
"Rats serve as outstanding vectors for transmittance of diseases because they can carry bacteria and viruses in their systems. A number of bacterial diseases are common to rats, and these include Streptococcus pneumoniae[causes pneumonia and meningitis in children and the elderly], Corynebacterium kutsheri,Bacillus piliformis [has been known to cause Tyzzer's disease in humans], Pasteurella pneumotropica, and Streptobacillus moniliformis, to name a few. All of these bacteria are disease causing agents in humans. In some cases, these diseases are incurable." (Wikipedia)
As far as I can tell, rodents are only worshiped in India. It's strange to think that this sacred animal is also responsible for wreaking havoc in the country:
"Twice a century, India is attacked by huge rat armies that devour crops in massive destructive waves and leave people without any food. Scientists long dismissed it as an urban myth...until they discovered that it really happens, and why." Source: Gizmodo (2010).
This is a weird situation. On the one hand, rats are worshiped in India; on the other hand, the country is carrying out pest control measures designed to keep the rat population under control, if not eradicate them altogether. Every fifty years these rat swarms wipe out crops, cause widespread famine and "wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem." (Gizmodo) This periodic disaster is called Mautum and it causes serious problems:
"Mautam (Mizo for 'bamboo death') is a cyclic ecological phenomenon that occurs every 48–50 years in the northeastern Indian states of Mizoram and Manipur, which are 30% covered by wild bamboo forests, as well as Chin State in Myanmar, particularly Hakha, Thantlang, Falam, Paletwa, and Matupi Towships. It begins with a rat population boom, which in turn creates a widespread famine in those areas." (Wikipedia)
As nasty as it is, the Temple of Rats at least serves a religious purpose. In the West some people keep rats as pets and prattle on about how adorable they are. This is also kind of crazy, but at least these people don't eat and drink out of their rats' food bowls. Maybe I'm just being narrow-minded about this, but as far as I'm concerned rats aren't just unhygienic; they're downright evil.
The best sources for reliable information about the true nature of rats can be found in the books of the noted rodent experts, James Herbert and H.P. Lovecraft. The next video, a news clip from 1982, shows the devastation caused by rats in the New York subway system. This is real footage. Some skeptics claim that the rats are just wiener dogs dressed up in rat costumes, but that's ridiculous.
"Woolly mammoths may have walked the landscape at the same time as the earliest humans in what is now New England, according to a new study. Through the radiocarbon dating of a rib fragment from the Mount Holly mammoth from Mount Holly, Vt., the researchers learned that this mammoth existed approximately 12,800 years ago. This date may overlap with the arrival of the first humans in the Northeast, who are thought to have arrived around the same time." Source: Science Daily.
Note: The consensus (up until now, at least) was that the woolly mammoths and other Ice Age megafauna had gone extinct by the time the first people arrived on the east coast of North America. Even if this new research is accurate, however, it sounds like people were starting to arrive in what is now New England around the same time that the mammoths were on the way out:
According to the researchers, "'The Mount Holly mammoth was one of the last known occurring mammoths in the Northeast ... While our findings show that there was a temporal overlap between mammoths and humans, this doesn't necessarily mean that people saw these animals or had anything to do with their death but it raises the possibility now that maybe they did."
Fox hunting in England has a deep history. According to Wikipedia, "many Greek- and Roman- influenced countries have long traditions of hunting with hounds. Hunting with Agassaei hounds was popular in Celtic Britain, even before the Romans arrived, introducing the Castorian and Vulpine hound breeds which they used to hunt. Norman hunting traditions were brought to Britain when William the Conqueror arrived, along with the Gascon and Talbot hounds."
"...it is believed that the custom for a fox to be tracked, chased and often killed by trained hunting hounds (generally those with the keenest sense of smell known as ‘scent hounds’) and followed by the Master of the Foxhounds and his team on foot and horseback, originated from a Norfolk farmer’s attempt to catch a fox using farm dogs in 1534." (Historic UK)
"Hunting of wild mammals in the traditional style is banned by the Hunting Act 2004." (Wikipedia) Oddly, though, the Hunting Act permits the use of dogs to flush out a fox to be shot or killed by a bird of prey. I don't really understand why blowing a fox away with a shotgun or dispatching it with a falcon or hawk is considered to be less brutal than using dogs, but never mind that. The act includes other oddities as well:
"The Act makes it an offence to hunt a mouse with a dog but not a rat, you can legally hunt a rabbit but not a hare. You can flush a fox to guns with two dogs legally but if you use three it's an offence. You can flush a fox to a bird of prey with as many dogs as you like." (Wikipedia)
Video from 2015. Best part occurs at 0:42.
Note: There seems to be some legal ambiguity around the use of birds of prey to kill foxes. According to Wikipedia, "Many experts, such as the Hawk Board, deny that any bird of prey can reasonably be used [whatever that means] in the British countryside to kill a fox which has been flushed by (and is being chased by) a pack of hounds. If this view proves to be correct, then it is unlikely that such a use of dogs is lawful."
Hawks usually prey on smaller animals -- rabbit and squirrels and the like. I don't know if they're capable of killing a full-grown fox, but eagles certainly can.
I'm not sure where these legal exemptions stand as of 2021. Modern fox hunts frequently follow previously laid-out scent trails in order to comply with the law (showing that the hunts are about more than just hunting). In drag tracking, an artificial scent is laid down before the hunt begins, but the dogs sometimes come across the scent of an actual fox with inevitable results. This blurs the line between legal and illegal hunts and can cause all sorts of problems.
I was hardly aware of fox-hunting until recently, but the sight of a pack of trained hunting dogs bounding across the English countryside while the hunters follow on horseback, jumping hedges and stone fences and pausing for refreshments in old rural villages, is incredibly stirring. Maybe it's because I'm half-English and half-Scottish. Who knows? This is an English thing -- a connection to the real England which still survives in the countryside, worlds apart from the decaying multicultural cities of the modern UK.
Traditional fox hunts followed a ritualized pattern:
"A day’s hunting begins with a meet, at which the followers join the hounds, acknowledge the master, and are frequently offered hospitality by one of their number who acts as host for the occasion. On the command of the master, hounds move off to draw (search) the covert, which may be a woodland, a patch of gorse, or a field in which it is suspected that a fox may be hiding. When the fox is found — the fact being signaled by the cry of hounds, notes of the horn, and the shout 'Tally-ho' — the hunt begins and ordinarily proceeds to the stage at which the fox is viewed, a moment signaled by a high-pitched 'Holloa.' Traditionally, if a kill follows, the brush (tail), mask (head), and pads (feet) of the fox may be given as trophies by the master to any followers whom he or she considers to deserve the honour. The body of the fox is then thrown to the hounds." (Encyclopedia Britannica)
There is a sporadic, low-intensity conflict taking place in the English countryside. The fight here isn't really over the welfare of foxes or the culling of pest animals. The hunts are about a lot more than hunting; that's obvious. The protests against fox-hunting are part of the war against traditional culture which has been taking place all over the western world and it warms my heart to see these handwringing sabs get a taste of the crop when they trespass and interfere with the horses.
This magnificent woman wasn't charged, which is only right and proper.
Fox-hunting has been called a "barbaric blood-sport," but the same thing could be said about any form of hunting. Still, these hunts in their traditional form are barbaric:
"The iconic ritual of smearing ceremonial blood on the cheeks of a new member of a clan or society which is depicted in many books and films also has its roots in the sport, whose act of ‘Blooding’ was introduced by King James I in the sixteenth century and involved the Huntsmaster rubbing the blood of the prey onto the cheeks of newly initiated member of the hunt." (Historic UK)
This undercurrent of aristocratic barbarism in fox-hunting is one of the things I like about it. The real England has a deep barbaric streak. It can be seen not only in the violent history of the country, but in everything from the black humor of great English writers like Roald Dahl and Martin Amis to modern comedians like Jimmy Carr and Monty Python. If this spirit dies, it will mean that England no longer exists. Luckily, though, fox-hunting shows no sign of disappearing:
"... despite the ban, hunts have seen an increase in membership and the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) currently represents 176 active foxhound packs in England and Wales and 10 in Scotland." (Historic UK)
"Of the canine breeds mentioned by classical authors, the best known were the swift Laconian (Spartan) and the heavier Molossian, both of which were native to Greece and used by the Romans for hunting (canis venaticus) and to watch over the house and livestock (canis pastoralis). 'Never, with them on guard,' says Virgil, 'need you fear for your stalls a midnight thief, or onslaught of wolves, or Iberian brigands at your back' (Georgics, III.404ff). It is the tawny Spartan and the Molossian, says Horace, who are 'the shepherd's dangerous friends' (Epodes, VI)." Source: University of Chicago.
"The skeletal remains of a 'wild' female horse found buried in a big ancient lake in Utah and thought to date back 16,000 years to the last ice age are actually no older than 340 years old, a new study finds." Source: Live Science.
"The bones, unearthed by landscapers in a Lehi, Utah backyard in 2018, were initially dated to a period that ended roughly 11,700 years ago. But after analyzing the horse's remains, scientists realized that the hoofed beast was actually a domestic horse that lived much more recently."
Follow-up report from 2021. Closed-captions useful.
Comment:This is yet another example of why you shouldn't automatically take archaeology news stories at face value. Note how it took at least two years for the truth to come out. Who knows how many other discoveries won't live up to their initial headlines when somebody finally gets around to looking into them more closely?
"According to a report in The Guardian, an international team of researchers suggests that Neanderthals and other early hominins may have had the ability to hibernate. Juan-Luis Arsuaga of Complutense University of Madrid and Antonis Bartsiokas of Democritus University of Thrace say that lesions on 400,000-year-old Neanderthal fossils recovered from Atapuerca’s Sima de los Huesos cave resemble those seen on the remains of hibernating mammals. Such lesions are caused by disruptions in bone development brought on by limited food and reduced metabolic states." Source: Archaeology.
Comment:The argument here assumes that mammals couldn't have survived the winters in this region at the time. If that's true, however, it seems more likely that early humans would have simply migrated to an area with a more moderate climate where game was available. Needless to say, the idea that they went into hibernation seems like pure speculation and other experts have argued that the lesions in the skeletal remains could have a number of causes.
The suggestion that early hominins could hibernate is original, though. I'll give the researchers that. These days, of course, the concept of human hibernation is mostly used in science fiction to get around the problem of space travel. Being able to hibernate would be useful in other ways, too. Considering the way 2020 played out, I would have gladly gone into hibernation for the whole year if that had been possible.
"New research describes a bizarre 66 million-year-old mammal that provides profound new insights into the evolutionary history of mammals from the southern supercontinent Gondwana - recognized today as Africa, South America, Australia, Antarctica, the Indian subcontinent, and the Arabian Peninsula." Source: Science Daily.
"Named Adalatherium, which, translated from the Malagasy and Greek languages means 'crazy beast,' it is described based on a nearly complete, exquisitely preserved skeleton, the most complete for any mammal yet discovered in the southern hemisphere prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs."
Note: This "crazy beast" was at least two feet long with weird teeth not found in any other mammal. "About the size of a Virginia opossum, Adalatherium was also unusual in that it was very large for its day; most mammals that lived alongside dinosaurs were much smaller, mouse-sized on average." Source: Phys.org (April 2020).
"A global study of ancient dog DNA ... presents evidence that there were different types of dogs more than 11,000 years ago in the period immediately following the Ice Age." Source: Science Daily.
"In their study ... the research team sequenced ancient DNA from 27 dogs, some of which lived up to nearly 11,000 years ago, across Europe, the Near East and Siberia. They found that by this point in history, just after the Ice Age and before any other animal had been domesticated, there were already at least five different types of dog with distinct genetic ancestries."
Interesting detail: In many ways the early history of dogs -- their genetic mixing and diversification into different breeds -- mirrors the processes that were occurring with human beings at the time, but there was one mysterious exception when a single species of dog apparently took over prehistoric Europe, completely wiping out the canine diversity on the continent:
"... there are also cases when human and dog histories do not mirror each other. For example, the loss of diversity that existed in dogs in early Europe was caused by the spread of a single dog ancestry that replaced other populations. This dramatic event is not mirrored in human populations, and it remains to be determined what caused this turnover in European dog ancestry."
Some monster dog like the Hound of the Baskervilles moved into Europe and took over, no doubt. Dogs used to be ferocious hunters and fighters. These days they've devolved (like humans themselves) to the point where they're so lazy they can't even bother to get up when they eat.