There's just so many problems with this...
Listen, I don't profess to be an expert in mammoth or mastadon physiology, but I've spent a lot of time in the paleocliamte realm, and at certain universities considered experts in mammoth and mastadon paleontology. And you're right that there's a HUGE scientific 'mystery' surrounding the extinction of the mammoths (really, all the ice-age land mammals), and whether or not it was due to humans or climate. The thing is, most scientists who pay attention do NOT treat the issue as settled. Most (a generalization, sure) scientists would attribute the extinction to some sort of combination of anthropogenic stressors and climate-induced changes in food webs and related physiologic stress.
3,500 years ago as the extinction date? Only for relict populations on isolated islands -- maybe.
Very little about their bodies enabling them to survive in cold environments? Just not true. Their whole set-up, their whole physiology, is a testament to evolution and the adaptation of the mammoth to a cold-weather environment. Mammoth and mastadon ears are TINY. Their feet are like snowshoes. Their hair keeps them warm (prevent them from walking in the snow???). Their tusks provide an excellent tool to scrape snow away and off of plants.
As for the tundra -- maybe you're getting hung up on the tundra idea. Let's presume that much of the mammoth's environment wasn't so much tundra as it was grassland. You ever been to Nebraska in the winter? Plenty for a mammoth to eat. Not even that much snow. And it's COLD. Oh god, the cold. And the wind...
Anyway, my point is this (that Ginenthal nonwithstanding): yes, big scientific unknown. Not settled by any means. LIkely humans and climate (see australia for a good example of human-induced extinctions). Your evidence for mammoth geographic and climatic preferences is highly suspect, if not downright erroneous.
Slashdot Mirror
There's just so many problems with this... Listen, I don't profess to be an expert in mammoth or mastadon physiology, but I've spent a lot of time in the paleocliamte realm, and at certain universities considered experts in mammoth and mastadon paleontology. And you're right that there's a HUGE scientific 'mystery' surrounding the extinction of the mammoths (really, all the ice-age land mammals), and whether or not it was due to humans or climate. The thing is, most scientists who pay attention do NOT treat the issue as settled. Most (a generalization, sure) scientists would attribute the extinction to some sort of combination of anthropogenic stressors and climate-induced changes in food webs and related physiologic stress. 3,500 years ago as the extinction date? Only for relict populations on isolated islands -- maybe. Very little about their bodies enabling them to survive in cold environments? Just not true. Their whole set-up, their whole physiology, is a testament to evolution and the adaptation of the mammoth to a cold-weather environment. Mammoth and mastadon ears are TINY. Their feet are like snowshoes. Their hair keeps them warm (prevent them from walking in the snow???). Their tusks provide an excellent tool to scrape snow away and off of plants. As for the tundra -- maybe you're getting hung up on the tundra idea. Let's presume that much of the mammoth's environment wasn't so much tundra as it was grassland. You ever been to Nebraska in the winter? Plenty for a mammoth to eat. Not even that much snow. And it's COLD. Oh god, the cold. And the wind... Anyway, my point is this (that Ginenthal nonwithstanding): yes, big scientific unknown. Not settled by any means. LIkely humans and climate (see australia for a good example of human-induced extinctions). Your evidence for mammoth geographic and climatic preferences is highly suspect, if not downright erroneous.