Paleontologists Are Trying to Understand Why the Fossil Record Is Mostly Males(atlasobscura.com)
atlasobscura.com
Paleontologists Are Trying to Understand Why the Fossil Record Is Mostly Males
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/fossil-record-prefers-males
122 comments
"Is there anything good about men?"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8765372-is-there-anythin...
Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YHdl4FXYpU
Lecture text: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Is-There-Any...
Therein you'll find this argument applied to humans, as well. It's fairly informative and rigorous (mostly). Good read, even if you disagree with the whole premise.
> "I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8765372-is-there-anythin...
Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YHdl4FXYpU
Lecture text: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Is-There-Any...
Therein you'll find this argument applied to humans, as well. It's fairly informative and rigorous (mostly). Good read, even if you disagree with the whole premise.
> "I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause."
Misogyny!
But seriously. This is common behavior among competitive animals.
Male Lions have to seek out a new pride.
Don’t even begin to talk about birds who the male or the species need to do all kinds of expensive preening.
Male Monkeys commonly get thrown out of the troop.
Males (including human males) generally have a completely and substantially different life than females.
That’s why I laugh at the common modern trope that we are the same.
Animals are just more honest about it.
But seriously. This is common behavior among competitive animals.
Male Lions have to seek out a new pride.
Don’t even begin to talk about birds who the male or the species need to do all kinds of expensive preening.
Male Monkeys commonly get thrown out of the troop.
Males (including human males) generally have a completely and substantially different life than females.
That’s why I laugh at the common modern trope that we are the same.
Animals are just more honest about it.
I’m not seeing how this relates to why fossils would more often be males. Can you expand?
Nature creates superfluous number of males (since one male ususally has most of females, like in a pride of lions, or a sultan's harem). Therefore those unattached males, who are still too young and inexperienced to fight the old ones, wander around 'seeking their fortune', usually leading to their quick demise in all sorts of places.
> Nature creates superfluous number of males
A rather astounding statement. Selective pressure should result a ratio appropriate for a given species of plant or animal. It’s not my field, but I haven’t seen any literature suggesting any such thing, nor do I know of any country full of sultans.
A rather astounding statement. Selective pressure should result a ratio appropriate for a given species of plant or animal. It’s not my field, but I haven’t seen any literature suggesting any such thing, nor do I know of any country full of sultans.
> > Nature creates superfluous number of males
> A rather astounding statement. Selective pressure should result a ratio appropriate for a given species of plant or animal. It’s not my field, but I haven’t seen any literature suggesting any such thing, nor do I know of any country full of sultans.
This is not actually true. The math works out that there is usually an even ratio between males and females, and that this is even the case in tournament species (where one male is able to mate with multiple females.) The thing to understand is that in this hypothetical, it wouldn't be a country full of sultans, but a country full of would-be sultans. A very different proposition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
> A rather astounding statement. Selective pressure should result a ratio appropriate for a given species of plant or animal. It’s not my field, but I haven’t seen any literature suggesting any such thing, nor do I know of any country full of sultans.
This is not actually true. The math works out that there is usually an even ratio between males and females, and that this is even the case in tournament species (where one male is able to mate with multiple females.) The thing to understand is that in this hypothetical, it wouldn't be a country full of sultans, but a country full of would-be sultans. A very different proposition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
Interesting. Technically it doesn’t contradict my statement, as 1:1 must be some sort of Panglossian survival ratio :-). But of course you twigged that that wasn’t what I was thinking at all at all, which is what makes your comment so interesting.
But it takes a lot of effort to make offspring, so none of them would be of a “surplus” sex. I must say that I’m surprised that the 1:1 ratio survives in schooling or herding species in which a large proportion perish. I suppose it’s insurance against an unfortunate loss of all males. There’s probably an interesting maths PhD in there someplace.
But it takes a lot of effort to make offspring, so none of them would be of a “surplus” sex. I must say that I’m surprised that the 1:1 ratio survives in schooling or herding species in which a large proportion perish. I suppose it’s insurance against an unfortunate loss of all males. There’s probably an interesting maths PhD in there someplace.
E.g. most chickens (about 2/3) that come out of their egg are male. But a flock only allows maybe 1 adult male for every 5 females, with the surplus murdered by other chickens. So almost all male chickens are superfluous in that sense. It is still selective pressure which makes chickens have 'too many' males, because apparently those chickens/flocks have created more of themselves.
Same for lions, btw, although I don't know about their sex' birthrates.
Same for lions, btw, although I don't know about their sex' birthrates.
Birth sex ratio of chickens is naturally 1:1.
You can do weird things with temperature to affect those birth rates, but the ratio will not reach as high as 2:1 as far as I know.
You can do weird things with temperature to affect those birth rates, but the ratio will not reach as high as 2:1 as far as I know.
> Same for lions, btw, although I don't know about their sex' birthrates.
If you don't know the rate how can you say it's true?
By definition there is some sort of distribution of male/female cubs and there is presumably some sort of distribution of pack sizes. But apart from the victorian-inspired documentaries that talk about juvenile male ronins being chased from the pack I don't really know the dynamics, and I doubt anyone but a specialized community does. Where I live in Palo Alto the distribution of lone mountain lions that show up in town seems, anecdotally, to be predominantly female.
Humans are a good example: slightly more males are born but within the range of about 20-50 years of age, the sex ratio is 1:1. Humans have been basically* monogamous throughout recorded history and for whatever reasons that might be it would select for this birth ratio wouldn't it.
* Sure, there are plenty (well, a few percent) of kids whose father is not the male in a given hetero "couple" but it's the couple phenomenon itself that matters here.
If you don't know the rate how can you say it's true?
By definition there is some sort of distribution of male/female cubs and there is presumably some sort of distribution of pack sizes. But apart from the victorian-inspired documentaries that talk about juvenile male ronins being chased from the pack I don't really know the dynamics, and I doubt anyone but a specialized community does. Where I live in Palo Alto the distribution of lone mountain lions that show up in town seems, anecdotally, to be predominantly female.
Humans are a good example: slightly more males are born but within the range of about 20-50 years of age, the sex ratio is 1:1. Humans have been basically* monogamous throughout recorded history and for whatever reasons that might be it would select for this birth ratio wouldn't it.
* Sure, there are plenty (well, a few percent) of kids whose father is not the male in a given hetero "couple" but it's the couple phenomenon itself that matters here.
[deleted]
I was careless in my phrasing. What I should have said was that only a fraction of the males in a generation are necessary for fathering the next generation, and that all the other males can be diverted to other tasks or simply left to fend for themselves.
Superfluous is roughly synonymous with 'unnecessary' and that seems to be the confusion here.
Extra males are unnecessary. They exist, but could easily not exist and that wouldn't present major issues for the species
Extra males are unnecessary. They exist, but could easily not exist and that wouldn't present major issues for the species
Yes, thank you. I was sloppy with my phrasing. The idea is that it takes only a small number of males to procreate the next generation, so the rest of the males are a kind of surplus that can be diverted, to fighting for example.
...Why does it matter whether the demise was quick or slow, with the group or apart from it? They still leave the same number of bones, don't they?
I would imagine because the male bones would then be more scattered, whereas female bones more concentrated, giving you a better chance to come upon a male's bones. Not sure the speed of demise is relevant.
If my kids scatter toys all of the living room, I'm much more likely to step on one or more of them, then if they were in a neat pile (speaking from experience).
If my kids scatter toys all of the living room, I'm much more likely to step on one or more of them, then if they were in a neat pile (speaking from experience).
That does not seem a reasonable exploration - all it means that we'd find female bones more rarely but when we do find them, there would be a whole cluster of them, recovering many specimens at once - it's not like paleontologists stop with "ah, we took one set of bones from here, we'll leave the rest lying around); so the total amount should still be the same.
Fair enough. Could be the size of the area, lack of resources, and bad luck until suddenly a jackpot?
For all I know, maybe the bones at camp are used to make soup… /shrug
For all I know, maybe the bones at camp are used to make soup… /shrug
The environmental conditions that are good for the formation of fossils are not the sort of conditions that are good for living a long and peaceful life. Outcast males are the ones more likely to be wandering around in those sorts of places.
An animal dying suddenly in a landslide would be more likely to leave a fossil than one who has been killed and eaten.
Fossilization is really rare and the conditions that enable fossilization usually involve being quickly buried under something.
> “They were more likely to do silly things, like die in tar pits,” Gower says.
> That’s why I laugh at the common modern trope that we are the same.
The ‘modern trope’ holds true in corporate environments, at least among the engineers, PMs and customer success agents I work with.
Obviously your average man has higher bone density and muscle mass and inability to bear children, but this only really affects activities outside of the workplace.
That said, aside from drinking more beer and working out more, my lifestyle is pretty much the same as my partner’s.
The ‘modern trope’ holds true in corporate environments, at least among the engineers, PMs and customer success agents I work with.
Obviously your average man has higher bone density and muscle mass and inability to bear children, but this only really affects activities outside of the workplace.
That said, aside from drinking more beer and working out more, my lifestyle is pretty much the same as my partner’s.
Disagree. Males and females are different and it's important to talk about it.
Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males.
Males and females are interested in different types of work. And if we are being honest, you can find things that the average member of one gender is better at than the other. This also shows it's head in the work place.
Generalizations made about females and males are concerning the averages. On average, it's easier for a male to gain muscle mass. On average, women do better socially.
Humans are uniquely adaptable so we can become better at things through practice. This does not alter the fact that people have different starting points for any skill set.
Ignoring the differences does more harm than good.
Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males.
Males and females are interested in different types of work. And if we are being honest, you can find things that the average member of one gender is better at than the other. This also shows it's head in the work place.
Generalizations made about females and males are concerning the averages. On average, it's easier for a male to gain muscle mass. On average, women do better socially.
Humans are uniquely adaptable so we can become better at things through practice. This does not alter the fact that people have different starting points for any skill set.
Ignoring the differences does more harm than good.
> Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males
Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club?
I also refer you to the observed effects of testosterone in financial markets (riskier trades, bubbles) which are typically seen as pathological.
Personally I’m not extremely competitive but do suffer from the ‘testosterone-overdose’ fairly regularly which usually involves impulsivity and rashness.
Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club?
I also refer you to the observed effects of testosterone in financial markets (riskier trades, bubbles) which are typically seen as pathological.
Personally I’m not extremely competitive but do suffer from the ‘testosterone-overdose’ fairly regularly which usually involves impulsivity and rashness.
> Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club?
If we aim for meritocracy, then yes it's definitely an issue. The most competitive males tend to have lots of negative personality traits (e.g. low empathy). That is to say: It's very often not the smartest/most creative people that make it to the top. It's the most cutthroat.
If we aim for meritocracy, then yes it's definitely an issue. The most competitive males tend to have lots of negative personality traits (e.g. low empathy). That is to say: It's very often not the smartest/most creative people that make it to the top. It's the most cutthroat.
It's the same reason that most multi-billionaires share similar traits, those without those traits often bail out when they're comfortably multi-millionaires and so never have a chance to get to the very top.
This is only true if you presuppose that being cut throat isn't a merit.
An attribute being distasteful doesn't mean that attribute doesn't make the holder better adjusted to some environments.
An attribute being distasteful doesn't mean that attribute doesn't make the holder better adjusted to some environments.
Right - I guess my point is that competitiveness in of itself is not useful. Competitiveness is really just motivation/drive. It's important and necessary and we can use it to reach our goals. But competitiveness for competitiveness-sake leads to bad things. Other people are harmed along the way, shareholders don't make as much money as they could, etc.
It's a merit for the fewest number of people. Not to get all socialism on this. Cutthroat certainly moved advancement forward by leaps and bounds (industrialization, Dot Com, etc.) but it comes with an awful lot of drawbacks at the same time (Pollution, Taking disproportionate advantage of the workforce, making evil decisions because 'it's cheaper to pay the family of the deceased than it is to fix the problem')
Hahaha, no it does not. I joined my current place of work a little bit before another new hire, an attractive blonde woman. Nobody gave a fuck about me, I had to walk around and actively introduce myself and try to make friends, whereas she had a literal stream of dudes visiting her office the first week.
I made a joke about this once to her and she rolled her eyes and said it was really annoying, but it did help her get up to speed very quickly on the whose-who and what their roles were. To this day her network is much bigger than mine.
I guess you could argue that this happened because she's hot and not because she's a woman or something like that. My point is corporate environments are nowhere near equalizing.
I made a joke about this once to her and she rolled her eyes and said it was really annoying, but it did help her get up to speed very quickly on the whose-who and what their roles were. To this day her network is much bigger than mine.
I guess you could argue that this happened because she's hot and not because she's a woman or something like that. My point is corporate environments are nowhere near equalizing.
I think a situation like this can be similar to the kind/nice distinction.
Your hot coworker may never get the respect (or have the chance to earn it) because people only seek them out for their surface level traits and work-irrelevant things like having access to attractive women.
The behaviour is not hard to reign in either: I work with a few very attractive women with whom I have great chemistry and could probably lure into long conversations and yes, build subtle sexual tension.
However, it’s way more mutually beneficial that our relationship is based around their competence in engineering, or HR, or sales. As you pointed out, the easy route for many men is to baby or pester such women, which can even kill a company if it gets too pathological.
I’ve even seen well meaning male personalities at work cut off or talk over the more soft spoken (and IMO smarter) women. I actively try to fight that tendency when I can- without being imposing- and see surprise/appreciation when I do so.
Your hot coworker may never get the respect (or have the chance to earn it) because people only seek them out for their surface level traits and work-irrelevant things like having access to attractive women.
The behaviour is not hard to reign in either: I work with a few very attractive women with whom I have great chemistry and could probably lure into long conversations and yes, build subtle sexual tension.
However, it’s way more mutually beneficial that our relationship is based around their competence in engineering, or HR, or sales. As you pointed out, the easy route for many men is to baby or pester such women, which can even kill a company if it gets too pathological.
I’ve even seen well meaning male personalities at work cut off or talk over the more soft spoken (and IMO smarter) women. I actively try to fight that tendency when I can- without being imposing- and see surprise/appreciation when I do so.
Here's the real life flip-side from someone I know very well. She was propositioned by her creepy, married supply chain manager. Didn't report to HR. When layoffs came around her name was pulled most likely because her creepy manager was embarrassed. Other insecure women in the office viewed her as a threat and tried to silence or embarrass her. Oh yeah, she also got an award from the supply chain VP for a perfect year of all on time deliveries (which never happens), but was still laid off...
You have defined yourself and your group as a distinctly small and specialized subset of humans. Largely one that does not represent humans en masse
To suggest modern human life is governed by the same constraints as a troop of monkeys is ludicrous. Of course we're not the same, but to think we should leave it at that and never try to bridge the gap and fix injustices that might arise from it is weird.
We are governed by the same constraints.
We just think we are above all animals in that respect. We are not.
Of course no one wants injustices. Duh.
But when in the name of curing injustices you deny the biological imperatives — a-la todays modern social justice warriors. This is when the problems and conflicts start.
We just think we are above all animals in that respect. We are not.
Of course no one wants injustices. Duh.
But when in the name of curing injustices you deny the biological imperatives — a-la todays modern social justice warriors. This is when the problems and conflicts start.
Please expand on one example of constraints that apply to troops of monkeys and modern day humans.
War.
Literal war.
Monkeys go to WAR. Regularly.
We're monkeys with jobs and computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
We're monkeys with jobs and computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
I don't mean to be pedantic, but we're not monkeys. We're apes, and so are chimpanzees. As you linked to, communities of apes and gorillas (as well as monkeys) do fight other communities. But it's not so clear if this constitutes war. For instance, the "war" you linked to lasted for 4 years and consisted of 6 deaths.
"This “us” vs “them” outlook is also mirrored in human behavior. While the Gombe Chimpanzee War isn’t exactly identical to human war, it is strikingly similar in brutality and allegiance to a tribe." https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/a-brief-histor...
"Animal groups do compete over resources, sometimes in an organized way, but “war” implies something more formal, Dan Dembiec, supervisor of mammals at the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens" https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/160130-an...
"This “us” vs “them” outlook is also mirrored in human behavior. While the Gombe Chimpanzee War isn’t exactly identical to human war, it is strikingly similar in brutality and allegiance to a tribe." https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/a-brief-histor...
"Animal groups do compete over resources, sometimes in an organized way, but “war” implies something more formal, Dan Dembiec, supervisor of mammals at the Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens" https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/160130-an...
> Please expand on one example of constraints that apply to troops of monkeys and modern day humans.
Both monkeys and humans require oxygen to breathe. That is, as you requested, one example of a constraint which applies to both. Perhaps you'd care to move the goalposts a bit?
Both monkeys and humans require oxygen to breathe. That is, as you requested, one example of a constraint which applies to both. Perhaps you'd care to move the goalposts a bit?
Why?
You’re not paying me to do so. Instead you would be looking to attack my examples.
Instead go and google how monkey troupes operate and look at the analogies in human society.
I did it, so surely you can too!
You’re not paying me to do so. Instead you would be looking to attack my examples.
Instead go and google how monkey troupes operate and look at the analogies in human society.
I did it, so surely you can too!
I see. Many thanks
Honestly, it's pretty pathetic that multiple people respond to your post with legitimate examples, and you completely ignore them, instead only responding here. Whatever it takes to protect your fragile little worldview, I guess.
I replied to the original comment that triggered my comment, and after seeing him expecting payment for a quality reply and another saying oxygen is a common constraint I felt the effort wasn't worth it. Your passive aggressive jab at the supposed fragility of my worldview serves as confirmation.
Ugh. I don't want your money and would not take it.
Normally, people want an answer so they can just attack it. So why bother.
I'm sorry if it came across as me wanting your money.
Normally, people want an answer so they can just attack it. So why bother.
I'm sorry if it came across as me wanting your money.
Competition for finite resources
You appear to be reasoning only using mammals.
While it isn’t stated in the headline, the article focuses primarily on large North American mammals.
[deleted]
[deleted]
wrong thread
> They figured it was more probable that young male mammoths were much more likely to travel solo, away from the wisdom and protection of matriarchal herds, similar to the way elephant societies function today.
Anecdotally, when I went hiking in Yellowstone two years ago down a long nature trail through the woods, I was surprised to see a large male bison trodding alone in the opposite direction down the trail, towards me. I slowly backed up towards the tree line just to give him some space to pass, but I was rather surprised to see a herd animal by himself in such a vast park like Yellowstone with such a big population of bison.
I assume that this behavior in males is probably essential. It's risky for a herd animal to travel alone. However if a male is successful in migrating to another herd, and earning his way in, it improves the cross-pollination of dna. Also, males in the animal kingdom regularly push each other out to secure local dominance over local females. Many are therefore forced to leave as well.
Anecdotally, when I went hiking in Yellowstone two years ago down a long nature trail through the woods, I was surprised to see a large male bison trodding alone in the opposite direction down the trail, towards me. I slowly backed up towards the tree line just to give him some space to pass, but I was rather surprised to see a herd animal by himself in such a vast park like Yellowstone with such a big population of bison.
I assume that this behavior in males is probably essential. It's risky for a herd animal to travel alone. However if a male is successful in migrating to another herd, and earning his way in, it improves the cross-pollination of dna. Also, males in the animal kingdom regularly push each other out to secure local dominance over local females. Many are therefore forced to leave as well.
Looks like this as male wanders more, increasing the chance of getting into unusual places which provides better preservation conditions. Also, fossils are usually trapped in some place.
"This has less to do with misogyny"
WTF?
The arbitrary, common and accepted bigotry of women in 2022 is beyond pale.
Even arbitrary deaths of animals, must be due to:
"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women."
Thankfully the author Sabrina Imbler, was able to realize that it wasn't mostly misogyny, but something else.
I mean, misogyny being a key component, obviously? Because everything is?
I read that as a tongue-in-cheek bit at first but after reading it several times, I don't think it is.
How can any academic maintain any kind of credibility with this kind of rubbish?
Why would anyone read past the first paragraph where an academic literally used a term denoting 'hatred of women' to be a possible reasoning of animal behaviour?
I can't wait for someone to try this on me so I can enjoy early retirement after a nice, giant lawsuit.
WTF?
The arbitrary, common and accepted bigotry of women in 2022 is beyond pale.
Even arbitrary deaths of animals, must be due to:
"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women."
Thankfully the author Sabrina Imbler, was able to realize that it wasn't mostly misogyny, but something else.
I mean, misogyny being a key component, obviously? Because everything is?
I read that as a tongue-in-cheek bit at first but after reading it several times, I don't think it is.
How can any academic maintain any kind of credibility with this kind of rubbish?
Why would anyone read past the first paragraph where an academic literally used a term denoting 'hatred of women' to be a possible reasoning of animal behaviour?
I can't wait for someone to try this on me so I can enjoy early retirement after a nice, giant lawsuit.
Now I'm imagining a group of misogynistic bison standing around a female telling her that the paleontologists won't even find your bones.
I don't understand the joke, what does that have to do with the very clear misandry on display by the author?
In a word, lysenkoism. Academic sciences are so corrupt at this point that if you don't pay tribute to the narrative your career is dead.
I see what you are saying, but I suggest the manner in which the author placed the words indicates it's probably just normative and an expression of her worldview than any kind of obsequiousness to a movement. It looks like it's something 'just written' in the moment as opposed to an academic concept. More vanguard that follower.
More likely a situation where an editor who saw the obvious inappropriate implication, would be fearful to call it out given the risk of being perceived as 'being on the wrong side'.
This is pernicious language, it needs to stop, I doubt people realize how damaging it is to their own cause and how they're probably losing more 'allies' than otherwise.
More likely a situation where an editor who saw the obvious inappropriate implication, would be fearful to call it out given the risk of being perceived as 'being on the wrong side'.
This is pernicious language, it needs to stop, I doubt people realize how damaging it is to their own cause and how they're probably losing more 'allies' than otherwise.
why the fossil record is mostly males
Because it can be, that's why. Population bottleneck is female reproduction. You can impregnate X females with X males, or 0.5X males, or 0.25X males. Wiping out males has a much lower effect on the future population of a group than wiping out females, so over time a group that loses a lot of males is better off than a group that loses a lot of females, and has more members to die and become fossils.
Because it can be, that's why. Population bottleneck is female reproduction. You can impregnate X females with X males, or 0.5X males, or 0.25X males. Wiping out males has a much lower effect on the future population of a group than wiping out females, so over time a group that loses a lot of males is better off than a group that loses a lot of females, and has more members to die and become fossils.
Such statistical arguments ignore one important fact: every dinosaur died. All of them. So the difference is not so much whether they died or how important it was. The only pertinent issue is how they died and why that might change the statistics on fossilization.
Every *non-avian dinosaur died.
Most birds alive today will not be in 20 years.
This can explain why males die younger. It doesn't mean that more males than females die.
An animal that makes it to old age to get picked off by whatever predators follow the herd or keel over from disease is going to become food for something else, not a fossil.
When has the population of females ever been 4x the population of males?
After war time, this wouldn't be surprising. All the males in a tribe can easily get wiped out in one or two engagements, leaving only females and children.
In Russia after WW2 the ratio of female:male was 4:3
Imagine what that ratio would have been after a war in olden times.
In Russia after WW2 the ratio of female:male was 4:3
Imagine what that ratio would have been after a war in olden times.
I'm not saying it has. I'm saying that a small number of males can impregnate a large number of females.
Not even close to 4x but in post-WWII Russia there were 1.21 females for every male.
Perhaps it has more to do with risk profile and group dynamics?
Easy. "Here, hold my beer"
“I’m Johnny Knoxmammoth, and this is Tar Pit Challenge”
I think we should always have at least one joke thread, if nothing to lighten to mood!
I think when you here, hold my beer to death, most of those situations are ones where you wouldn't expect fossil preservation of the remains, unless the La Brea Tar Pits are involved.
Fossilized jackasses.
Seems most likely to be that males literally die off the beaten path because of their wandering. Females and males who die in heavily trafficked areas will have their carcass picked clean and then their bones ground to dust simply from foot traffic.
Lots of possible explanations. My mind initially went to small sample size, etc, but it looks like even assuming a 50% sex ratio (which, isn't quite right for bison, there are slightly fewer males than females) the probability of this result is around 0.26%, which is possible since there are a lot of fossil researchers out there and this is the type of result that would get press over a result that came to a more expected conclusion, but still. It's less likely than I initially would have expected.
If I had to guess I would have to assume it's something in the nature of how bison die. Say from male-on-male competition far from predators that may break the bones to digest the bone marrow. Or it's possible that predators prefer preying on females because it's relatively more safe than males.
Or it could just be the small sample size, of course.
If I had to guess I would have to assume it's something in the nature of how bison die. Say from male-on-male competition far from predators that may break the bones to digest the bone marrow. Or it's possible that predators prefer preying on females because it's relatively more safe than males.
Or it could just be the small sample size, of course.
Well, I am about as far from an expert as a 1 year old baby.
But if I had to guess, I would say Osteoporosis, since my understanding is, that tends to hit Females worse than Males.
But if I had to guess, I would say Osteoporosis, since my understanding is, that tends to hit Females worse than Males.
There are so many things we don't know, and the vast expanse of time and limited sample size might cause a real gap in our knowledge here, as well.
So, what about the collection method itself; if only 5% of the ancient DNA was usable for this analysis, perhaps it could be because that DNA lies protected within the sex with the largest, strongest, thickest bones?
So, what about the collection method itself; if only 5% of the ancient DNA was usable for this analysis, perhaps it could be because that DNA lies protected within the sex with the largest, strongest, thickest bones?
It does seem like some sort of survivorship basis, either before death or after (heh - after death sounds like an oxymoron). Females have more fat (?) and might float better in a flood keeping them clear of the burial material longer. Maybe females are just more adept to dig themselves out of the burial material to live another day, or more like you say the physical or material matter somehow is better preserved after burial.
Fossil bison and mammoths.
They mention it extends to most mammals later in the article.
Obviously, the reason is that the female gender is, evolutionarily speaking, a relatively recent development, as anyone can see females are far more evolutionarily advanced than males, more intelligent, better looking, etc. And the population trends predict males will become extinct within a few hundred generations.
Can't tell if this is satire. What a world
Don't males have denser bones? Random thought (probably a stupid one), but maybe they are more likely to last?
Yeah I was talking about this story with my mom over easter, she's old, she worked as a nurse all her life before retirement and her response was very simple, females get brittle bones with age. They might use more kalcium or whatever is required to make bones strong. So their bones are less likely to last, or less likely to preserve DNA.
While males have more of those materials required to make the bones and their DNA last.
While males have more of those materials required to make the bones and their DNA last.
Maybe its a classification error. Most fossiles are fragments of arbitrary bone. Male? Female? It's a reach.
All creatures die eventually, so it's not like significantly more males than females died due to behavioral differences.
As someone with zero experience in these areas, I'd posit that females get osteoporosis, and so their remains deteriorate moreso than males do.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
As someone with zero experience in these areas, I'd posit that females get osteoporosis, and so their remains deteriorate moreso than males do.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Do the females float better, possibly preventing them to be buried quickly?
My first thought was males tend to have higher bone density.
It says only 5% had usable DNA to test. Maybe male DNA just holds up better over that kind of timespan so the bias is in how much of it is usable.
The study linked discusses this posibility. They think their data does not support this hypothesis.
This is the relevant quote from the discussion section of the article: “ Perhaps the simplest explanation in the subfossil datasets is a taphonomic artifact, where male bones in sexually dimorphic species such as bison are larger or denser and more likely to be better preserved or identified as likely to contain DNA. If this was the case, male bias might be expected to correlate with factors associated with postmortem DNA preservation, such as sample age, average DNA fragment length, and cytosine deamination rate. Greater bone density might also be expected to inhibit microbial intrusion, and thus increase the proportion of endogenous DNA (host species vs. microbial DNA). However, no such trends were observed here (Table 2), and it is reasonable to conclude that DNA preservation is equal between the sexes.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903275116
This is the relevant quote from the discussion section of the article: “ Perhaps the simplest explanation in the subfossil datasets is a taphonomic artifact, where male bones in sexually dimorphic species such as bison are larger or denser and more likely to be better preserved or identified as likely to contain DNA. If this was the case, male bias might be expected to correlate with factors associated with postmortem DNA preservation, such as sample age, average DNA fragment length, and cytosine deamination rate. Greater bone density might also be expected to inhibit microbial intrusion, and thus increase the proportion of endogenous DNA (host species vs. microbial DNA). However, no such trends were observed here (Table 2), and it is reasonable to conclude that DNA preservation is equal between the sexes.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903275116
Why would male DNA hold up better when the only difference is the sex chromosomes. They are chemically made from the same material.
I think that's unnecessarily dismissive. Males do tend to have higher bone density among other things. Such things could contribute to the DNA being better preserved. I think it's a perfectly valid question in our layman conversation, even though it's certainly something the researchers of this field have already thought about.
I wasn't being dismissive, just inquisitive. Are denser bones able to preserve DNA better from decay? We don't typically need DNA to be able to tell the sex of a fossil skeleton, the size and shape of the fossils alone give that away. Perhaps it is the case that the bones themselves survive better as fossils as a result of the added density. But then, I'm also curious about the conditions necessary for a fossil to be preserved at all, as the vast majority of dead creatures gets reabsorbed indistinguishably back into the soil.
In mammals. In reptiles and fish it's typically the female that's larger.
Maybe because they are more likely to die younger—and the younger, stronger body preserves better?
No idea, just saying it's a possible explanation along with all their other guesses.
I don't get the urge for when a community has been stumped studying something for multiple years and you've just heard about it 5 minutes ago to chime in and ask "I wonder if they've thought of this yet?".
Like, how likely do you really think it is that the reason they haven't figured it out is because it simply never occurred to them to investigate your reason?
Like, how likely do you really think it is that the reason they haven't figured it out is because it simply never occurred to them to investigate your reason?
> I don't get the urge
I don’t get what you don’t get. Engaging one’s brain is the best way to understand the shape of a problem.
And yes, that involves asking “basic” questions.
This ciding you do here assumes bad faith from the person asking the question. Some people ask questions because they want to know the answer, not to demonstrate how much better they are than a whole field or whatever you are assuming here.
> Like, how likely do you really think it is that the reason they haven't figured it out
Who cares how likely is it? Are we only allowed to ask questions which have not been studied before?
If it has been studied before: great! It is much more likely one can just read answers in their paper.
I don’t get what you don’t get. Engaging one’s brain is the best way to understand the shape of a problem.
And yes, that involves asking “basic” questions.
This ciding you do here assumes bad faith from the person asking the question. Some people ask questions because they want to know the answer, not to demonstrate how much better they are than a whole field or whatever you are assuming here.
> Like, how likely do you really think it is that the reason they haven't figured it out
Who cares how likely is it? Are we only allowed to ask questions which have not been studied before?
If it has been studied before: great! It is much more likely one can just read answers in their paper.
> "I wonder if they've thought of this yet?"
The comment doesn't say that.
> never occurred to them to investigate your reason?
The comment doesn't say that.
The comment doesn't say that.
> never occurred to them to investigate your reason?
The comment doesn't say that.
Not sure on that..
I've been in a tech meeting with 10 devs (about 150 years exp) trying to solve a problem for days. The founder of the company (a non dev, but smart guy) walked in at one point and said. What if we just did X instead. We all collectively slapped our heads and tada solved it.
I've been in a tech meeting with 10 devs (about 150 years exp) trying to solve a problem for days. The founder of the company (a non dev, but smart guy) walked in at one point and said. What if we just did X instead. We all collectively slapped our heads and tada solved it.
It seems quite possible for someone with a different background might have an insight missed by hundreds of people with very similar academic backgrounds.
In particular when the test population is so different from the expected living population and experts have no explanation, some kind of non-linear thinking is likely going to be needed.
In particular when the test population is so different from the expected living population and experts have no explanation, some kind of non-linear thinking is likely going to be needed.
Someone's gotta guess. A fresh pair of eyes can bring insight.
That's what you have students for.
Group think is real, I have definitely entered consulting gigs in a new topic and asked questions that haven’t been asked before by a group working on something for a long time…
[deleted]
Interesting to see that the whole "Why men die younger?" debate should just be "Why males die younger?" instead. Does the testosterone turn us into reckless idiots?
No. Testosterone makes us take risks for breeding opportunity. This chemical value proposition is still in place today and visible in most places where humans gather.
It's one of those things that we don't want to talk about but has been and will be true for the immediate future till some other trait better for the species becomes more attractive.
Until that time we are stuck with t and risk taking.
It's one of those things that we don't want to talk about but has been and will be true for the immediate future till some other trait better for the species becomes more attractive.
Until that time we are stuck with t and risk taking.
The modern attitude that risk taking is by default bad or at least of questionable value is not that old and will probably die out before risk taking behavior does. The latter is common across species and millions of years. The former is a new development and may just be a blip.
I also believe that risk taking is a valuable behavioural trait. I do think that we (humans) will one day come to accept the biological reality of behaviour and physical traits and not mask them under social delusions.
doesn't osteoporosis hit females harder?
Here is another hypothesis, maybe humans preferred to hunt males to preserve progeny they can hunt next season. And bones processed and kept by humans might have a higher chance of not being completely destroyed by natural forces.
This leads to a higher fraction of male fossils because the preservation of remains is a very unlikely event requiring unusual conditions.
"These male mammoths—young, reckless, foolhardy—were just more likely to get into some kind of trouble and die, from getting stuck in a pit to running afoul of hunting humans. Luckily for paleontologists, some of these death sites—bogs, crevices, lakes—are pretty good at preserving remains. 'They were more likely to do silly things, like die in tar pits,' Gower says."