New Look at Fossil of 'Lemur Without a Nose'

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

A seven million-year-old South American fossil from a species known as Arrhinolemur scalabrinii -- which translates literally to "Scalabrini's lemur without a nose" -- has long been a curiosity because there is only one specimen in existence and it is unlike most other primates.


Identifying what a fossil is can be difficut work. They are very old and beat up, and often are only a part of the animal actually being represented. From this paleontologists work to recreate a model of the actual creature. however today’s news that the fossilized primate Arrhinolemur scalabrinii -- “Scalbrini’s lemur without a nose” — is not a noseless lemur; nor a primate; nor a mammal. It is in fact, a fish.



Link to story

Science is great that if most often finds and corrects it mistakes but I found this one case most amusing

but wait what if this idenitification is wrong too!
edit on 7/10/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Looks like a rock to me.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


Yep a rock, that is what a fossil is so you get an A for identification!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Hanslune,this is a very interesting find.
Thank you for sharing it.

I would only hope that others would see this also.

Peace,
K



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by phroziac
 


Yep a rock, that is what a fossil is so you get an A for identification!

Lol....you know what i meant. And if this was in a pic on mars, everyone would say ah thats not a fossil its just a rock.

Id hang it on my wall though. Its definitely a fossil...of god knows what. I dont see a fish or a lemur



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by phroziac
 


Yep a rock, that is what a fossil is so you get an A for identification!

Lol....you know what i meant. And if this was in a pic on mars, everyone would say ah thats not a fossil its just a rock.

Id hang it on my wall though. Its definitely a fossil...of god knows what. I dont see a fish or a lemur


Yeah I was making a cute remark at your expense!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
You did, however, forget to note that it was identified in 1858.

That's significant... there's a lot of old fossil material that's incorrectly labeled (because they found just one bone and invented a species for it or lumped it with bones of different things. A lot of discoveries have been made by going through old collections and checking the labels.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Oh yes so correct, it was for that task I was being trained for, so long ago, to relook old collections and publish the notes of those who had died before the task was completed.

There was a case awhile ago of a guy who was working on early fish with legs and he described them incorrectly





top topics
 
5

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum