Natural History (13.8 billion years BC – 3.3 million BC)

Got something to say about the past? Say it here!
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6632
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Natural History (13.8 billion years BC – 3.3 million BC)

Post by caltrek »

Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
weatheriscool
Posts: 13694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm

Re: Natural History (13.8 billion years BC – 3.3 million BC)

Post by weatheriscool »

User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6632
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Natural History (13.8 billion years BC – 3.3 million BC)

Post by caltrek »

Illuminating Darwin's 'Abominable Mystery'— Vast DNA Tree of Life for Plants Revealed
April 26, 2024

Introduction:
(Eurekalert) The flowering plant tree of life, much like our own family tree, allows us to understand how different species are related to each other. The tree of life is revealed by comparing DNA sequences between different species to identify changes (mutations) that accumulate over time like a molecular fossil record. Our understanding of the tree of life is rapidly improving due to advances in DNA sequencing technology.

A vast DNA tree of life brings open access DNA sequences of more than 9,500 flowering plants was recently achieved by scientists from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, together with collaborators from the Kunming Institute of Botany (KIB) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and around the globe, this invaluable resource lets us answer key questions about modern plant life and look back in time to its origins. Their study was recently published in Nature.

A key advantage of the approach is that it can be used to sequence a wide range of plant material, old and new, even when the DNA is badly damaged. The vast treasure troves of dried plant material in the world’s herbarium collections, which include nearly 400 million scientific plant specimens, can now be studied genetically.

Using such specimens, the researchers sequenced a sandwort specimen (Arenaria globiflora) collected nearly 200 years ago in Nepal and, despite the poor quality of its DNA, were able to place it in the tree of life. They even analyzed extinct plants, such as the Guadalupe Island olive (Hesperelaea palmeri), which has not been seen alive since 1875. In fact, 511 of the species sequenced are already threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, including three more like Hesperelaea that are already extinct.

Read more of the Eurekalert article here: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1042650

For results of the study as presented in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07324
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
weatheriscool
Posts: 13694
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm

Re: Natural History (13.8 billion years BC – 3.3 million BC)

Post by weatheriscool »

Giant raptor dinosaur had legs taller than you
By Michael Irving
April 29, 2024
Image
The six-foot-tall raptors in the Jurassic Park movies were terrifying enough, but now scientists have described a giant new raptor species whose legs alone were that tall.

Raptors were a diverse group of dinosaurs that more or less looked like the movie monsters, scaled up or down. They had that same basic body shape, a barrely snout full of teeth you wouldn’t want to mess with, and long, slender bird-like legs that ended with that iconic, curved claw on one toe. But ironically, they were probably showier than their Hollywood depictions – it’s believed that most, if not all, raptor species were covered in feathers.

Now, scientists have discovered a previously unknown species of raptor, and it was one of the biggest. They’ve named the species Fujianipus yingliangi, after the Fujian province of China where it was found. This new dinosaur is estimated to have measured 5 m (16.4 ft) long and stood 1.8 m (6 ft) tall at the hip, so of course it was even taller than that. Basically, picture Big Bird armed with a scythed foot and a vicious disposition, and you’re probably not far off.
https://newatlas.com/biology/giant-rapt ... ootprints/
Post Reply