Paleo artists often "shrink wrap" fossilized animal depictions
The T-Rex, Utahraptor, Triceratops—popular depictions of each of these animals shows skin so close to bone that it might be unrealistic
So let's shrink-wrap existing animals🧵
Can you guess what this is?
Preemptive note: All of this artwork is from C.M. Koseman, whose book (which is way more extensive than this thread) and some other material is linked at the end of the thread.
The last animal was a rhinoceros—the thing with the cooling heat sail!
Any idea what this animal is?
That last one might seem to be a dog, but it's actually a horse.
It's not so clear what this graceful beast might be.
The last picture was of a cow.
What about this monster? Its jaws can crush a steel car.
That metal-breaker was a hippopotamus.
This pack-hunting animal has a killer stare and wields a set of five switchblade claws on its forefeet. What might it be?
That was the house cat.
This one's a bit more mysterious, and clearly adapted to be a stealthy predator, right?
If you guessed that was a spider monkey, kudos to you. Future paleontologists might consider it an arboreal variation on humans, its cursorial relatives.
What of this one? It's not clear to future paleontologists if it's quadrupedal or bipedal.
That's the toad, which paleontologists might consider to be a long-legged forest ambler.
Any idea what this one is? Without preserved feathers, guessing might be hard!
If you guessed "Vulture", you're correct. But you probably didn't guess that!
You almost certainly won't guess this one.
That was a species of casque-headed hornbill, and paleontologists might suspect they use the casque for mating rituals. But we don't even know what they do with them in many cases today!
How's about this twofer? Note predator and prey:
If you guessed the "Swan" and the "Tadpole" (mistakenly believed to be a form of fish), then you were right.
What about this cute little predator?
That was an iguana, and due to fur being found on other small vertebrates like rats, it's assumed to have fur too.
Who's this courser?
That was a rabbit, but we wouldn't know it because posture is poorly preserved in fossils!
Now this one is simultaneously reassuring and disheartening. What might it be?
That's a python, and it might be assumed to have feet to support its body, much like the lizards its skeleton resembles. After all, we only have fragmentary remains!
Who's this guy?
That's a manatee. Remember, habitats change. A sea creature might be found in what's now a forested mountain. We might also only have remains like skulls.
This guy has a balloon-like facial sac. What might he be?
That's a bull elephant, and because no other animals have long, muscular appendages, he ends up with a face sac instead of his well-known trunk.
Time to dive underwater.
This one might seem to be a dolphin, but think outside the box.
It's a sperm whale, incorrectly believed to be a hunter of large pray. You know, like sharks.
What's this kelp forest stalker?
Why that's a bowhead whale of course! And as we know from its skeleton's extensible jaws, it must prey on animals as large as itself!
Going back to the land, who are we looking at now?
Because of its complicated nasal sinuses, the baboon might be assumed to have had venom glands and to have been a coursing hunter!
These guys have curved foot claws, sometimes serrated bills, and wings shorter than their legs. They must be vampiric!
But that's not the case, it's just an odd animal. It's a hummingbird, the only animal in its strange niche, and thus a prime candidate for misinterpretation!
Finally, who the hell is this?
That might be the first example of shrink wrapping and distorting the fossil record: the animal proposed to be pre-flood man, or Homo diluvii by Johann Jakob Scheuchzer in 1726
But though he thought he had evidence for the flood, he was describing the fossil of a salamander!
How we think about ancient animals is probably distorted by a tendency to shrink wrap their depictions and a desire to find function in form.
But much of what we observe in animals today, we still can't explain. Skin also drags, and feathers and fur abound (but not universally).
If you want to see more on this subject, I recommend the whole book, which contains many more illustrations and details for all of them.
And if you're interested in speculation about possible futures, C.M. Koseman's All Tomorrows is spectacular. You can see it summarized on YouTube, here:
Koseman isn't the only person to have illustrated this issue either.
This opossum, for example, comes from the HowStuffWorks Tumblr:
There is an error in describing sperm whales in the thread:
The issue is more that they would probably be thought of as behaving like sharks in the far future, but they're actually pretty social and frequently team players.
The idea is to put large, powerful animals like bulls or lions in the ring with several dogs, and the winner lives.
The sport has existed for thousands of years. One of our first records is of Indians showing it to Alexander the Great.
The first record in England comes from 1610 and features King James I requesting the Master of the Beargarden—a bear training facility—to provide him with three dogs to fight a lion.
Two of the dogs died and the last escaped because the lion did not wish to fight and retreated.
For one, there's no supportive pattern of sanctions. For two, you can develop in near-autarky, and before post-WW2, that was comparatively what the most developed countries were dealing with.
I'm not talking fatalities, but bites, because bites are still a bad outcome and any dog who bites should be put down.
If we take the annual risk a dog bites its owner, scale it for pit bulls and Golden Retrievers, and extrapolate 30 years...
How do you calculate this?
Simple.
First, we need estimates of the portion of the U.S. population bitten by dogs per year. Next, to adjust that, we need the portion of those bites that are to owners. So, for overall dogs, we get about 1.5% and roughly ~25% of that.
Then, to obtain lifetime risk figures, we need to pick a length for a 'lifetime'. I picked thirty years because that's what I picked. Sue me. It's about three dog lifetimes.
P(>=1 bite) = 1-(1-p)^t
It's pure probability math. To rescale for the breed, we need estimates of the relative risk of different dog being the perpetrators of bites. We'll use the NYC DOHMH's 2015-22 figures to get the risk for a Golden Retriever (breed = "Retriever" in the dataset) relative to all other dogs, and Lee et al. 2021's figures to get the risk for a pit bull. The results don't change much just using the NYC figures, they just became significantly higher risk for the pit bulls.
To rescale 'p' for b reed, it's just p_{breed} = p_{baseline} \times RR_{breed}.
Then you plug it back into the probability of a bite within thirty years. If you think, say, pit bulls are undercounted for the denominator for their RR, OK! Then let's take that to the limit and say that every 'Black' neighborhood in New York has one, halve the risk noticed for them, and bam, you still get 1-in-5 to 1-in-2.5 owners getting bit in the time they own pit bulls (30 years).
And mind you, bites are not nips. As Ira Glass had to be informed when he was talking about his notorious pit bull, it did not just "nip" two children, it drew blood, and that makes it a bite.
Final method note: the lower-bound for Golden Retriever risk was calculated out as 0.00131%, but that rounded down to 0. Over a typical pet dog lifespan of 10-13 years, an individual Golden Retriever will almost-certainly not bite its owner even once, whereas a given pit that lives 11.5 years will have an 18-33% chance of biting, and if we use the DOHMH RRs, it's much higher. If we use the DOHMH RR and double their population, that still holds.
The very high risk of a bite associated with a pit bull is highly robust and defies the notion that '99.XXXX% won't ever hurt anyone.' The idea that almost no pit bulls are bad is based on total fatality risk and it is a farcical argument on par with claiming that Great White Sharks shouldn't be avoided because they kill so few people.
Frankly, if we throw in non-owner risk, the typical pit bull *will* hurt some human or some animal over a typical pet dog's lifespan. And because pit bulls live a little bit shorter, you can adjust that down, but the result will still directionally hold because they are just that god-awful of a breed.
Final note:
Any dog that attacks a human or another dog that wasn't actively attacking them first should be put down. That is a big part of why this matters. These attacks indicate that the dogs in question must die.