Texas road construction unearths ‘colossal' prehistoric remains of ‘big ol' animals'
A recent excavation in Texas yielded some 'colossal creatures,' according to local officials – and archaeologists are hopeful more will be uncovered soon.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) announced the discovery in a recent press release.
Advertisement
In a statement, officials said the excavation took place in Lubbock during the environmental review for Loop 88, a proposed state highway.
During the archaeological survey, diggers uncovered ancient bones dating back to prehistoric times.
The remains belonged to megafauna, which are large mammals.
Chris Ringstaff, a project planner with TxDOT's environmental affairs division, said that megafauna bones '[are] not unusual in the region.'
Advertisement
Ringstaff also noted that at least one giant ground sloth was identified, thanks to its distinctive tooth.
'Whether all the bones are giant ground sloth or there are different animals such as mammoth or mastodon, we're not sure,' he said.
3 Workers conduct a dig in the excavation site on the side of Loop 88 in Lubbock, Texas.
Texas Department of Transportation
'Paleontologists will give us positive identification.'
Advertisement
'We're here to get the road built, but who doesn't love digging up big ol' animals?' Ringstaff added.
TxDOT noted that the Lone Star State is home to many dried-out lakes called playas, which date back to the Ice Age.
'In prehistoric times, animals and humans used playas as water sources and these sites can sometimes contain evidence of human activity,' the press release noted.
3 Officials begin to extract the remains of the megafauna in the site.
Texas Department of Transportation
Advertisement
Archaeologists are still searching for small artifacts. They're also using dating techniques to determine the age of the remains.
If any proof of human settlement is found, the project will be temporarily halted.
'Should the site reveal human activity with megafauna from the Ice Age, it would be [the] first of its kind for a TxDOT project,' the statement said.
Several prehistoric bones are found in the US every year.
3 The fossil skeleton of the giant ground sloth, Megatherium.
Florilegius/Universal Images Gro
Last summer, archaeologists in Iowa unearthed a 13,000-year-old mastodon skull.
Later in 2024, a New York homeowner found a complete mastodon jaw in his Scotchtown backyard.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours 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
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Sloths The Size of Elephants Roamed America, Before Abruptly Vanishing
Massive Megatherium sloths once stood as large as Asian elephants, ripping foliage off treetops with prehensile tongues like today's giraffes. "They looked like grizzly bears but five times larger," says paleontologist Rachel Narducci from the Florida Museum of Natural History. Megatherium were among a dazzling assortment of more than a hundred different sloth species that once roamed the Americas. Their ancient DNA now tells the likely story of why only six sloth species remain. Analyzing the DNA of 403 sloth fossils from museum collections, alongside weight estimates and environmental information, a new study has created a detailed sloth family tree. This 35 million years of evolutionary history revealed these once-diverse animals' sizes matched up neatly with the environmental conditions they experienced. The endearingly dopey mammals we know and love today are so suited to their arboreal environment that they've developed an incredibly strong upper body, have guts designed to hang upside-down, and risk their lives when they descend to poop. "Living sloths are extremely slow and that's because they have a very low metabolic rate," University of Buenos Aires paleontologist Alberto Boscaini told Helen Briggs from the BBC. "This is their strategy to survive." But many ancient species were too heavy for tree branches to bear, and stuck to the ground, like Megatherium and Lestodon. Unlike today's sloths, these species were well suited to moving with agility over the earth and had much faster metabolisms. "Some ground sloths also had little pebble-like osteoderms embedded in their skin," notes Narducci, explaining these rocky bumps were a ground-defense trait they shared with one of their closest relatives, armadillos. There was even an aquatic sloth, Thalassocnus, that survived life on the arid strip between the Andes and Pacific by foraging in the ocean. "They developed adaptations similar to those of manatees," says Narducci. "They had dense ribs to help with buoyancy and longer snouts for eating seagrass." Gigantism evolved several times in sloths and likely contributed to their survival into the Pleistocene ice ages, when they reached their greatest sizes. But about 15,000 years ago many of these species abruptly vanished. "[This] does not track with shifts in palaeotemperature, reinforcing the idea that human impacts played a more prominent role in the extinction of ground sloths than climatic change," the researchers conclude. The bulk that kept giant sloths warm and saved them from local predators made them a target of Earth's most voracious predator: us. Their numbers dropped off massively once humans arrived in North America. In contrast, the sluggish tree-climbers we know today seemed to have had more luck staying out of our reach, at least until more recently. Two of the six species still alive today are now on the IUCN endangered species lists. Boscaini and team's findings echo an increasingly recognized global story: the rapid extinction of megafauna following the arrival of humans – a scenario that's still continuing today. This research was published in Science. This Giant Snail Lays Eggs Out of Its Neck… Yes, Seriously Cephalopods Passed a Cognitive Test Designed For Human Children Study Reveals How Your Cat Remembers Who You Are
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
