Another evolutionary wonder.
- Thread starter Bushwhacker
- Start date
Interesting.
First the spider, now this. What i would like to know, is how long said species have been in this form. Is it a case of they have been like this a long time, just not noticed or discovered or are they new evoloutions?
First the spider, now this. What i would like to know, is how long said species have been in this form. Is it a case of they have been like this a long time, just not noticed or discovered or are they new evoloutions?
Mmmm I'd call it a rat tailed shrew. Unusual, but not a speckled hen lol
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
It is indeed a fascinating discovery BUT!!!! I'm curious WHY they are attempting to classify it as a rodent considering that "gnawing" is part of the very definition? I suspect further study will result in a different classification.
Lifted directly from the dictionary: "Any of various mammals of the order Rodentia, such as a mouse, rat, squirrel, or beaver, characterized by large incisors adapted for gnawing or nibbling."
Lifted directly from the dictionary: "Any of various mammals of the order Rodentia, such as a mouse, rat, squirrel, or beaver, characterized by large incisors adapted for gnawing or nibbling."
Hmm - not sure how this works in terms of evolution. Having the molars must have been detrimental to survival/breeding so that trait was bred out of the gene pool.
Rat tailed shrew or shrew faced rat....only DNA tests will tell.
Usually missing teeth are a sign of 'primitive-ness' (if there is such a word ) in evolutionary terms rather than a leap forward, anteaters & pangolins are prime examples.
I wonder if the journalist that wrote the article has any in depth knowledge of either wildlife or evolution.
Usually missing teeth are a sign of 'primitive-ness' (if there is such a word ) in evolutionary terms rather than a leap forward, anteaters & pangolins are prime examples.
I wonder if the journalist that wrote the article has any in depth knowledge of either wildlife or evolution.
Not necessarily detrimental. Just less successful than not having molars - energy saved not making molars means more reproductive tissue, perhaps?
Similar threads
