Giant Ground Sloth tooth found during Lubbock road project
The remains of an Ice Age era animal have been unearthed in Lubbock during the ongoing road construction project for Loop 88.
Due to Texas having locations where ancient human activity connected to megafauna, TxDOT decided to take a closer look at the Loop 88 project, according to a news release from the Texas Department of Transportation. The excavation near Loop 88 has already dug up a giant find — the tooth of a Giant Ground Sloth.
'We know we've found Giant Ground Sloth by its distinctive tooth,' said Chris Ringstaff, project planner with TxDOT's environmental affairs division. 'We're here to get the road built. But who doesn't love digging up big ol' animals?'
The remains were found during a TxDOT-contracted archeological survey, with the excavation from Jan. 27, 2025 – Feb. 5, 2025. The bones appeared to be from large, prehistoric animals that were once common in the area during the Pleistocene Epoch. This time period is known as the Ice Age, which ended 11,700 years ago.
"We know we found the giant ground sloth by the distinctive tooth that was discovered," said Jason Britsch, Amarillo Public Information Officer for TxDOT. "Now, whether all the bones are giant ground sloth, or there are some different animals, like mammoth or mastodon, we're not sure yet. But paleontologists will give us positive identification, so tests are still ongoing to see what all is in there. Further information could still be discovered."
TxDOT is in contact with the Museum of Texas Tech, which is assisting in the preparation, housing and identification of the bones.
"Texas has a lot of rich sediments with fossils," said Dr. Aaron Pan, executive director of the Museum of Texas Tech. "It is common to find fossils during building or road constructions in Texas, especially in the metroplex."
This article continues after the gallery.
There are two types of Giant Ground Sloths: the Nothrotheriops shastensis, known as the Shasta Ground Sloth, and the Megalonyx, or Large Clawed Ground Sloth, according to the National Park Service.
Shastas were around 9 feet long and weighed 550 pounds, whereas the Megalonyx were about 10 feet long and weighed 2,200 pounds.
Pan confirmed the sloth was likely a Shasta Ground Sloth. Evidence of these sloths are found throughout the southwest.
Adventure awaits: Lubbock Lake Landmark offers archaeological digs, look into where city started
If evidence of human-megafauna activity is found at the site, it will be a first for a TxDOT project, according to the release.
'If the site involves humans, we have to address road construction impacts under state and federal law,' Ringstaff said. 'If the site has no artifacts and dates to a time well before humans, TxDOT will recommend no further work, and the project can proceed to construction.'
If further excavation is required, it is not expected to impact the Loop 88 project's timeline, according to the release.
"It's still early on in the project phase, to where it will not impact construction," Britsch said. "This portion of it is still several years down the road, so it's not impacting the construction timeline."
Is it legal to own a mammoth tusk? Here's what to know about the once common Texas giant
This isn't the first discovery of an ancient animal in West Texas this year. In March, a mammoth tusk was found on a ranch in far West Texas and is in the care of Sul Ross State University.
'We live in an amazing region that has great discoveries found all the time,' Pan said. 'It's not unusual, but it is always fantastic.'
The Museum of Texas Tech, 3301 4th St., has many of these discoveries on display, from Ice Age Colombian Mammoths to creatures named after Texas Tech (Technosaurus). Attendees could learn more about what ancient creatures once walked, or swam, the area, along with seeing exhibits on anthropology, art, clothing and textiles, history, natural sciences and paleontology.
Behind-the-scenes: Museum of Texas Tech gives behind scenes tour of Paleontology, dinosaurs, Antarctic items
The Museum of Texas Tech is a massive, free-to-visit museum, and is open to all. People can keep up with the museum at depts.ttu.edu/museumttu, Facebook and Instagram.
Alana Edgin writes about business, and occasionally historic discoveries, for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip? Contact her via email at aedgin@lubbockonline.com.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Giant Ground Sloth tooth found during Lubbock Loop 88 project
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools
A recent study published in Nature Communications has found the first-known evidence of human beings manufacturing tools out of whale bones. Throughout 26 rock shelters and caves within northern Spain and southwestern France, researchers found 173 bone specimens, including 83 tools and 90 fragments. An analysis using Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) found that 131 of those specimens were whale bones belonging to sperm whales, gray whales, blue whales, fin whales, and right or bowhead whales.'Our study reveals that the bones came from at least five species of large whales, the oldest of which date to approximately 19,000–20,000 years ago,' lead author Jean-Marc Pétillon said in a press release. 'These represent some of the earliest known evidence of humans using whale remains as tools.' The bones bear little sign of water wear, which means they were likely harvested from animals which had washed up on the shore rather than deep-sea hunting. Many of the tools were dated between 17,500 and 16,000 years ago, though the oldest specimen found dates back 20,000 years. In particular, the bones of sperm whales were found to be particularly popular in fashioning spears and other hunting instruments. Over 40 percent of projectile points and 73 percent of foreshafts analyzed were created from sperm whale bones.'What was more surprising to me, as an archaeologist more accustomed to terrestrial faunas, was that these whale species remained the same despite the great environmental difference between the Late Pleistocene and today,' Pétillon told Popular Science. 'In the same period, continental faunas are very different: the ungulates hunted include reindeer, saiga antelopes, bison, etc., all disappeared from Western Europe today.'Pétillon believes ancient people came from far and wide to scavenge whale bones and other parts when they washed up on shore. With further research, he and his team hope to deduce why tools constructed from whale bone declined so rapidly 16,000 years ago. 'The news of a stranding travels fast first, because it smells a lot [from a] long distance away, so people would concentrate from quite far,' Pétillon told New Scientist. 'So, it might not have been the main driver of people going to the seashore, but when that happened, it probably had an influence on the movement of the people who probably changed their planned pattern of movement to go there.'Archaeolgists Make Surprising Discovery About Ice Age Hunting Tools first appeared on Men's Journal on May 30, 2025
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Yahoo
Tools made of whale bones reveal inventiveness of prehistoric people
By Will Dunham (Reuters) -Artifacts found at archeological sites in France and Spain along the Bay of Biscay shoreline show that humans have been crafting tools from whale bones since more than 20,000 years ago, illustrating anew the resourcefulness of prehistoric people. The tools, primarily hunting implements such as projectile points, were fashioned from the bones of at least five species of large whales, the researchers said. Bones from sperm whales were the most abundant, followed by fin whales, gray whales, right or bowhead whales - two species indistinguishable with the analytical method used in the study - and blue whales. With seafaring capabilities by humans not developing until thousands of years later, the Ice Age hunter-gatherers who made these implements would have been unable to actually hunt whales for their resources in the Bay of Biscay, a gulf of the Atlantic Ocean. "These whales were likely opportunistically acquired from stranded animals or drifted carcasses, rather than actively hunted," said biomolecular archaeologist Krista McGrath of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, co-lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Communications. "The majority of the bones were identified from offshore, deep-water species - such as sperm whale and fin whale - which would have been very difficult to hunt for these prehistoric groups. And there is no evidence from this time period that they had the level of technology that active hunting would have required, like seafaring boats," McGrath said. The 71 whale bone artifacts analyzed by the researchers were found at 27 cave or rock shelter sites. The two oldest ones, both from the bones of fin whales, came from the Spanish Cantabrian sites of Rascaño, dating to about 20,500 years ago, and El Juyo, dating to about 19,800 years ago. The rough age range of the artifacts was from 14,000 years old to more than 20,000 years old, but most were 16,000 to 17,500 years old. The main raw material used to manufacture spear points at the time was antler from reindeer or red deer because it is less brittle and more pliable than land mammal bone. But whale bone offered some advantages, including its large dimensions, with some of the projectile points measuring more than 16 inches (40 cm) long, a size difficult to achieve using antler. "They can be very long and thick, and were probably hafted on spear-style projectiles rather than arrows. They are usually found as fragments, many of which bear fractures related to use, and they were most likely used to hunt the main game animals of the time - reindeer and red deer, horse, bison and ibex," said archaeologist and study co-senior author Jean-Marc Pétillon of the French National Centre for Scientific Research. Bone tools were used by members of the human evolutionary lineage dating back far before our species Homo sapiens emerged more than 300,000 years ago in Africa. The artifacts examined in this study pushed back the oldest-known use of whale bones for toolmaking by 1,000 to 2,000 years. The objects were previously discovered at the various sites and kept in museum collections. The researchers used modern analytical techniques to determine the species from which the bones came and the age of the artifacts. Humans living in this period of prehistory generally were inland hunters, obtaining most of their subsistence needs from the hunting of large hoofed mammals, Pétillon said. The new findings enhance the understanding of their exploitation of seashore resources, Pétillon added. Previous research had shown that Ice Age people gathered seashells, hunted seabirds and fished for marine fishes as a complement to meat from terrestrial animals. "The new findings tell us that these prehistoric groups were likely very well adapted to these coastal environments, and very likely had deep local ecological knowledge and understanding of their coastal habitats," McGrath said. "Whale bones would have been for more than just making tools. There is evidence for their use as fuel as well - the bones contain large amounts of oil - among other things. And the rest of the whale would also certainly have been used – teeth or baleen depending on the species, meat, skin. A single whale provides a lot of resources," McGrath said.
