That’s an understandable take and the use of the word analogue is the key issue. It also left me stumped for a while, because as you have already pointed out, there are plenty of modern day analogues to Homotherium…
…but that depends on what counts as an analogue in this particular context. Biologically speaking, the word can be used to fit a broad range of criteria. So you could say their modern day analogues are lynxes or snow leopards, and fair enough, that would be a good enough use of the word because these animals do share a lot in common, physically and in their ecological roles too. Large catlike mammal that hunts down larger herbivore mammals in a tundra environment.
But Homotherium had some very specific traits that have no modern day analogues. The large canine teeth is the most obvious. Those large teeth also meant a specialized hunting method and technique for which we have nothing alive today to base it off of. They also had a different body build, with shorter rear limbs, so now your cat looks a bit more like a bear or a hyena in its stance and gait. And if I’m understanding what I’m reading correctly, they also had cardiovascular adaptations for endurance running, and their claws and paws were not as retractable and supple as that of cats.
So yes they were like cats and you can point at living analogues for a lot of these adaptations ( bears, hyenas, cats, any mammal with good cardio, etc) but when you put all that together and add the teeth and the behavior modifications those teeth imply then you have, as a whole, an animal with no current living analogues. Yes, it can sound pedantic but that’s science for you and I think it’s important to remark that the quote is taken directly from the paper published. The journalists loved the buzz emanating from the word “analogue” so much they kept it in the non scientific publications, they didn’t paraphrase, and they didn’t bother explaining exactly what it meant because, well, that’s precisely why they chose to keep the quote.
The problem with biology is that it attracts too many cool people. Especially those marine biologists studding sharks and shit. That’s why taxonomy is one of the refuges for real pedantics and nerds. No danger of running into anybody with a tan in that department.
No, and that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make. That’s not what the quote means. The quote means “For the first time in history we’ve studied the physical appearance (or the cadaveric finding* ) of an animal we have had evidence for decades that was too different from any living animal today”
*"Appearance " might mean physical appearance or the event of finding the corpse, I’m not sure to which of the two they refer. That wasn’t your question though, I just needed to clarify.
That’s an understandable take and the use of the word analogue is the key issue. It also left me stumped for a while, because as you have already pointed out, there are plenty of modern day analogues to Homotherium…
…but that depends on what counts as an analogue in this particular context. Biologically speaking, the word can be used to fit a broad range of criteria. So you could say their modern day analogues are lynxes or snow leopards, and fair enough, that would be a good enough use of the word because these animals do share a lot in common, physically and in their ecological roles too. Large catlike mammal that hunts down larger herbivore mammals in a tundra environment.
But Homotherium had some very specific traits that have no modern day analogues. The large canine teeth is the most obvious. Those large teeth also meant a specialized hunting method and technique for which we have nothing alive today to base it off of. They also had a different body build, with shorter rear limbs, so now your cat looks a bit more like a bear or a hyena in its stance and gait. And if I’m understanding what I’m reading correctly, they also had cardiovascular adaptations for endurance running, and their claws and paws were not as retractable and supple as that of cats.
So yes they were like cats and you can point at living analogues for a lot of these adaptations ( bears, hyenas, cats, any mammal with good cardio, etc) but when you put all that together and add the teeth and the behavior modifications those teeth imply then you have, as a whole, an animal with no current living analogues. Yes, it can sound pedantic but that’s science for you and I think it’s important to remark that the quote is taken directly from the paper published. The journalists loved the buzz emanating from the word “analogue” so much they kept it in the non scientific publications, they didn’t paraphrase, and they didn’t bother explaining exactly what it meant because, well, that’s precisely why they chose to keep the quote.
The problem with biology is that it attracts too many cool people. Especially those marine biologists studding sharks and shit. That’s why taxonomy is one of the refuges for real pedantics and nerds. No danger of running into anybody with a tan in that department.
Maybe you’re onto something, I don’t know. But I’ve surely heard of terrible things people with a tan can do, so I’m not judging.
I’m guessing you meant studying, but studding sharks sounds like a very interesting and difficult job.
But is this cub the first time in history those types of features have been studied? We’ve known about saber-toothed cats for decades.
No, and that’s precisely the point I’m trying to make. That’s not what the quote means. The quote means “For the first time in history we’ve studied the physical appearance (or the cadaveric finding* ) of an animal we have had evidence for decades that was too different from any living animal today”
*"Appearance " might mean physical appearance or the event of finding the corpse, I’m not sure to which of the two they refer. That wasn’t your question though, I just needed to clarify.