![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why is this article tagged as cryptozoology? Do fossil species belong with mermaids and bigfoot? I think not. Any thoughts? Dmccabe 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any information on the other species of Elasmotherium?-- Mr Fink 03:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've compared it to the arabic (original) text found in arabic wikisource and its quite accurate (i think the translation isn't PD yet so its hard to find full english text online). However I want to point out that Ibn fadlan then say (immediately after the text cited here ends) "ذكر بعض أهل البلد أنه الكركدن." which means "some of the locals said it was a rhinoceros."
So he might be just describing a rhino (which seems to me that he knew the name but never saw one) not an Elasmotherium.
Just my 2 cents. -- Histolo2 ( talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I had no other choice than to remove this subsection. It is taken mostly word for word from the Noskova source and is a clear case of plagiarism. The picture should come off as well because it is not E. caucasicum but an imaginary composite. If you read Noskova's material, you see that the "steppe hypothesis" has never been questioned, right from the beginning. He throws in this minor suggestion by Borissjak based on one questionable suggestion concerning diet. Those Russians like to stick together. He does not even believe it himself. His whole presentation of the development of E. from China contradicts the "riparian" view. The vast grasslands of Eurasia were not primarily riparian. He is just being nice to Borissjak. I don't see any reason at all for a section such as this with a fake picture and a fake name. I'm going to put the few facts in it in the description above. Whoever larded it up with requests for references could see that something is wrong but apparently did not discover the plagiarism. Please, don't plagiarize. Anyone can look up Noskova on the Internet. Do we really want WP to be another hack site cluttering up the network? Spend your time doing the research work, don't waste it on hack-up work. Thanks. Dave ( talk) 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Morphological peculiarities of elasmotherians have generated two main hypotheses concerning their appearance and the character of their habitat. The first, most widely accepted view citation needed which was also described above, portrays them as large woolly animals with a large forehead horn that thrived on an open steppe. Fossils of the horn, however, have not been found. The other view citation needed assigns elasmotherians to riparian biotopes. It is probable that elasmotherians dwelt in both riparian and steppe biotope citation needed. The riparian biotope is suggested by dental and skull morphology. The combination of such characteristics as the absence of canines and strongly developed lateral processes of the atlas implies lateral movements of the head, presumably for grasping grass. The hypsodont dentition indicates presence of mineral grains in the food. Such food could be obtained by pulling out dense plants from the moist soil. These conditions are typical for riparian biotopes. On the other hand, a steppe biotope is indicated by their rather long and slender limbs, which would have served well for creatures grazing over vast areas.
Nice going, buddy. I was prepared become excited and revert your changes. What is more, my reader would not read the Chinese, so I thought, what is this person trying to pull? Finally I got the Chinese fonts loaded and read the English part of the source. All right, we are dropping the Chinese species; however, some mention of them as past authoritative species should be in. I have a few comments, two major. Let's do the major ones first. As I pointed out in the article, the situation changes frequently, which means that the later sources supersede the earlier. My Russian sources are very good and they are dated 2008, 2009, 2010. Unfortunately they do not tell us clearly that the Chinese ones were merged. Fine, they may have thought it was obvious. However, they are pretty clear about chaprovicum and your source is only 2005. I want to put chaprovicum back in and unless you give me a good reason why not will do it.
My second point is, my whole write up was based on a Chinese origin and two Chinese species. I thought it was rather strange that Sinotherium was most like some species in India, but who am I to question. I need to go over that now and alter, possibly rewrite, based on this new information you have so cleverly ferreted out.
For the minor points, I agree with your other changes, such as moving up the description. Now, one more thing. I hate to lecture you as you clearly do not like it, but your reference specifications are not according to Doyle, or the regulations, or whatever you want to call the things. Help files. Policies. You hould be using "cite web" and "cite journal" and "cite book" and templates like that. Of course I do not need to remind you that you can look them up by search parameters such as "template:cite web" You already know all that stuff. Ipresume you did not use the proper templates because you were in a hurry. As I rewrite I may assist you in that.
I'm starting the working week now so I have things to do here and can't spend all my time on WP. Again thanks for locating that source with information taken for granted by later sources. We'll fix this thing yet. Dave ( talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)I changed this reference to one more accessible, more professional, and I am sure just as good. The above reference does not have a page number and is not on line. In fact it is inaccessible in either Google or Amazon. The title is less than professional and leads me to think the book is a long essay rather than a scientific work. I could go through the long process of questioning and tagging this reference but it hardly seems worth the trouble when so many good ones are readily available. I would like to get on and nominate this article as good. Dave ( talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This link goes to the wrong place. The article linked does not even mention unicorns. I find on the Internet that there are many Zhi characters. We have to get the right one; moreover, the Zhi unicorn is one of a number of Chinese unicorns, not all of them Elasmotherium-like at all. So, I will have to rewrite parts of that section to provide sufficient referenced detail to make sense. We're lookin for representations and reports that could be Elasmotherium and not all unicorns are that. Dave ( talk) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now. The description seems pretty much in deficit of verification. I don't know where it came from and the editor is not telling us. Highly suspect is the phrase "on average." How would the editor know what the average is? Has some study been done on all the fossils to determine the average statistics? That is what we would need to be scientific. Moreover, would that average apply to all 3 species? I'm looking at some reconstructions. The figures given in the WP article do not match any of those. Who says that the feet enabled it to run like a horse? I've seen the long legs used as a basis for saying that it was a runner. Someone else says it was a marsh animal and the splayed feet kept it from sinking in. So, you guessed it, this will have to be rewritten. If anyone knows the source of these "average" numbers, let us know. Otherwise I will have to wing it from the sources available to me. I don't think we should be highly paleontological as the public will not understand that. We will have to translate the paleontological lingo, I think. Dave ( talk) 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, hello. What's the difference between large and thick? I presume it is length. I have not researched the horn yet so officially I would not know. Was it thick or thin? Well since I have not yet checked it out I have nothing better to offer (yet). I have cursorily seen a thin-horn theory. I will be checking out concepts of the horn. We may have to qualify the language. This is just a heads-up. Sorry to move so slowly - but carefully, I hope. Dave ( talk) 14:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to give up on the 2 meters. No one seems to have any idea where it comes from. A small number of sources give 2 meters, such as Stephen Jay Gould. None of the technical articles to which I can get access tell us how to estimate the size of the horn. The two meters is not early. It does not appear in 19th century works at all. It seems to be associated with reconstructions. Nor are there any other estimates or formulae for ascertaining the size of the horn. Now, we can find a reference, such as Gould, who says, 2 meters. I for one cannot find any explanation of this number. My tendency therefore is to abandon the 2 meters. It seems to be either that or use one of the sources who parrot it, perhaps even Gould. What do you think? I've tried to put the thinking behind the reconstruction in as much as possible, but this one shows no sign of having any thought behind it. It is just a number plucked out of the air. There might well be a correlation somewhere with some factor or other. It is so obscure as not to appear on the Internet, which seems strange, as you can get all the detailed measurements of the leg bones, the skull, the horn boss, the dimensions of the teeth in mm. So, let us know if you would like to parrot the 2 m or just let the length go and be happy with "large," which is what everyone else says. Dave ( talk) 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elasmotherium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
This passage appears in the "Possible historical witnesses" section:
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)It's been on the page for at least as far back as 2011, but it sounds quite bizarre. Can someone confirm that this is not old vandalism? Daß Wölf 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This section seems to have very little to do with rhinos or their evolution. I think it should be split to it's own page or put on the grasslands page. I'm moving it here in full and replacing it with something more material to rhinos, rather than grass. Chris Porter ( talk) 19:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Evolution of grassland
C3 plant metabolism was chronologically first. It requires large amounts of water (which is lost through transpiration), moderate temperatures and moderate sunlight. About 95% of plants are C3. In places where the water supply is minimal, the temperature is too high, or the sunlight too bright, C3 plants cannot thrive, but C4 metabolism evolved at multiple locations convergently within the same families by a slight alteration of the metabolic process. It requires a fraction of the water, and thrives in warmer environments and bright sunlight. C4 plants spread where C3 plants must decline. About 5% of the Earth's plants are C4, far less than for grasses, for which the number is 46%.
The grass of grasslands belongs predominantly to the Poaceae family, also called the "true grasses". Species can be divided into "warm season grasses", which use C4, and "cool season grasses", which use C3. The evolution of grasses preceded the evolution of grasslands, which were created by the spreading of grasses from the forest onto the plains in the Miocene. These initial grasslands were C3, which happen to be more nutritious than C4 species.[58]
The evolution of Rhinocerotidae and Equidae in the Miocene grasslands proceeded along parallel lines from similar causes. Diminutive, cursorial, browsing, brachydont species expanded their ranges from the Oligocene forests into the nutritious C3 Miocene grasslands and there over the millions of years of the Miocene evolved diverse and flourishing populations on the ample food supply, gradually increasing in size.[59] Some of these species exploited the grazing niche. Hispanotherium, Chilotherium and Teleoceras "show a clear tendency to hypsodonty, and a grazing feeding adaptation has usually been attributed to them".
By the late Miocene, C4 metabolism was well established on the plains. In place of the prehistoric C3 grasslands (which are no longer extant) was the savanna, today's subtropical mixture of grasses and sedges. The deciding factors in this turn of evolution were a documented increase in temperature and aridity over the period. Faced with scant nutrition from browsing, the smaller Rhinocerotidae and Equidae declined in diversity, the gate in that direction, so to speak, now being closed.[60]
The evolutionary response in the Pliocene was in the direction of bulk-feeding. Massive grazers, such as Elasmotherium, maximally hypsodont, moved across vast ranges consuming C4 grass in bulk. While the horses and other more nearly modern grazers could rely on galloping for mobility in any circumstance, there is a question as to what degree the brachypodial giants can be said to be "cursorial". Elephants, for example, must keep one foot on the ground, where true gallopers are entirely off it for brief intervals. The horns and impenetrable body armour insured that the giants would not be required to gallop away from any predator. At least until the arrival of man, they were, as the legends relate, lords of the savanna.
Looking at the "Possible historical witnesses" section, this entire section appears to be a result of editor WP:SYNTH. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not one of these references appears to mention Elasmotherium, the subject of this article. I'm removing this section. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
They are typically known as Siberian Unicorns. We should mention it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 ( talk) 12:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I've put it in there based on the sources used in the main article which calls them that. It's rather strange to refute scientific fact that we rely on in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 ( talk) 23:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, *I* did *NOT* include the sources. They were already in the article, and have been there for 2 years. You guys are refuting me simply because I've only recently added to this, ignoring the fact that you have relied on these references for 2 years...
Recently added an image of Elasmotherium Sibiricum to Description section. It was removed because it was deemed that there are enough images and so added nothing, in further communication a suggestion was made to discuss here and to see whether ‘consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.’
The reason for posting a new image is that the current images (specifically Restoration of E. Sibiricum) have scientific inaccuracies.
The shape of the nose is based on the black rhino (which lives in the bush and so has a pointy nose that helps it pull leaves off branches) whereas the Elasmotherium Sibericum lived on open grasslands and would have had a flat nose.. In the proposed illustration it’s nose is based on its closest living relative the white rhino that lives in a more similar habitat...
In addition, I also have concerns about the kink in the neck in the illustration of E.Sibiricum - this does not reflect what you’d expect from the skeletal structure.
Further, they do not depict the extent of the woolliness of the Elasmotherium, which most experts believe it would have had (ie similar to its contemporary the woolly mammoth and as suggested in the existing text ‘generally based on the woolliness exemplified in contemporary megafauna such as mammoths and the woolly rhino.’)
Obviously this animal is extinct and there is disagreement amongst experts about exactly what it would look like. However, some things are known (eg would not have had a black rhino pointy nose as it couldn’t lift its head high enough to feed off bushes..)..
I have spoken to Professor Adrian Lister Merit Researcher at the National History Museum specifically about what it would have looked like (he’s the academic who did the carbon dating on the Elasmotherium Sibiricum and proved it went extinct much more recently than previously believed) and we discussed inaccuracies in many illustrations and frustrations with those - when asked his belief was that the posted image (now removed) was closer to what the Elasmotherium Sibiricum would have looked like, given latest scientific thinking.
I have not removed any illustrations, some I find historically interesting, etc.. however, if people are concerned that this makes too many images, it maybe worth reconsidering the illustration of ‘Restoration of E. sibiricum’ . It looks like a quick alteration to a black rhino illustration ie
1. wrong shaped nose
2. the added height at the shoulder and neck looks like an afterthought and is not consistent with what you’d expect from actual skeletal structure of an E.Sibiricum
3. the way the hair has been drawn has no resemblance to that of a woolly mammoth (nor a woolly rhino) and it is pretty well accepted that E Sibiricum would have had that kind of coat
Please let me know what you think. Personally I’m fascinated by the Elasmotherium Sibiricum so find the impossibilities in the illustration frustrating. I have not commented on illustrations of the other chronospicies of Elasmotherium - as I’ve not studied them in depth. London Art Critique ( talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why is this article tagged as cryptozoology? Do fossil species belong with mermaids and bigfoot? I think not. Any thoughts? Dmccabe 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any information on the other species of Elasmotherium?-- Mr Fink 03:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've compared it to the arabic (original) text found in arabic wikisource and its quite accurate (i think the translation isn't PD yet so its hard to find full english text online). However I want to point out that Ibn fadlan then say (immediately after the text cited here ends) "ذكر بعض أهل البلد أنه الكركدن." which means "some of the locals said it was a rhinoceros."
So he might be just describing a rhino (which seems to me that he knew the name but never saw one) not an Elasmotherium.
Just my 2 cents. -- Histolo2 ( talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I had no other choice than to remove this subsection. It is taken mostly word for word from the Noskova source and is a clear case of plagiarism. The picture should come off as well because it is not E. caucasicum but an imaginary composite. If you read Noskova's material, you see that the "steppe hypothesis" has never been questioned, right from the beginning. He throws in this minor suggestion by Borissjak based on one questionable suggestion concerning diet. Those Russians like to stick together. He does not even believe it himself. His whole presentation of the development of E. from China contradicts the "riparian" view. The vast grasslands of Eurasia were not primarily riparian. He is just being nice to Borissjak. I don't see any reason at all for a section such as this with a fake picture and a fake name. I'm going to put the few facts in it in the description above. Whoever larded it up with requests for references could see that something is wrong but apparently did not discover the plagiarism. Please, don't plagiarize. Anyone can look up Noskova on the Internet. Do we really want WP to be another hack site cluttering up the network? Spend your time doing the research work, don't waste it on hack-up work. Thanks. Dave ( talk) 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Morphological peculiarities of elasmotherians have generated two main hypotheses concerning their appearance and the character of their habitat. The first, most widely accepted view citation needed which was also described above, portrays them as large woolly animals with a large forehead horn that thrived on an open steppe. Fossils of the horn, however, have not been found. The other view citation needed assigns elasmotherians to riparian biotopes. It is probable that elasmotherians dwelt in both riparian and steppe biotope citation needed. The riparian biotope is suggested by dental and skull morphology. The combination of such characteristics as the absence of canines and strongly developed lateral processes of the atlas implies lateral movements of the head, presumably for grasping grass. The hypsodont dentition indicates presence of mineral grains in the food. Such food could be obtained by pulling out dense plants from the moist soil. These conditions are typical for riparian biotopes. On the other hand, a steppe biotope is indicated by their rather long and slender limbs, which would have served well for creatures grazing over vast areas.
Nice going, buddy. I was prepared become excited and revert your changes. What is more, my reader would not read the Chinese, so I thought, what is this person trying to pull? Finally I got the Chinese fonts loaded and read the English part of the source. All right, we are dropping the Chinese species; however, some mention of them as past authoritative species should be in. I have a few comments, two major. Let's do the major ones first. As I pointed out in the article, the situation changes frequently, which means that the later sources supersede the earlier. My Russian sources are very good and they are dated 2008, 2009, 2010. Unfortunately they do not tell us clearly that the Chinese ones were merged. Fine, they may have thought it was obvious. However, they are pretty clear about chaprovicum and your source is only 2005. I want to put chaprovicum back in and unless you give me a good reason why not will do it.
My second point is, my whole write up was based on a Chinese origin and two Chinese species. I thought it was rather strange that Sinotherium was most like some species in India, but who am I to question. I need to go over that now and alter, possibly rewrite, based on this new information you have so cleverly ferreted out.
For the minor points, I agree with your other changes, such as moving up the description. Now, one more thing. I hate to lecture you as you clearly do not like it, but your reference specifications are not according to Doyle, or the regulations, or whatever you want to call the things. Help files. Policies. You hould be using "cite web" and "cite journal" and "cite book" and templates like that. Of course I do not need to remind you that you can look them up by search parameters such as "template:cite web" You already know all that stuff. Ipresume you did not use the proper templates because you were in a hurry. As I rewrite I may assist you in that.
I'm starting the working week now so I have things to do here and can't spend all my time on WP. Again thanks for locating that source with information taken for granted by later sources. We'll fix this thing yet. Dave ( talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)I changed this reference to one more accessible, more professional, and I am sure just as good. The above reference does not have a page number and is not on line. In fact it is inaccessible in either Google or Amazon. The title is less than professional and leads me to think the book is a long essay rather than a scientific work. I could go through the long process of questioning and tagging this reference but it hardly seems worth the trouble when so many good ones are readily available. I would like to get on and nominate this article as good. Dave ( talk) 13:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This link goes to the wrong place. The article linked does not even mention unicorns. I find on the Internet that there are many Zhi characters. We have to get the right one; moreover, the Zhi unicorn is one of a number of Chinese unicorns, not all of them Elasmotherium-like at all. So, I will have to rewrite parts of that section to provide sufficient referenced detail to make sense. We're lookin for representations and reports that could be Elasmotherium and not all unicorns are that. Dave ( talk) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now. The description seems pretty much in deficit of verification. I don't know where it came from and the editor is not telling us. Highly suspect is the phrase "on average." How would the editor know what the average is? Has some study been done on all the fossils to determine the average statistics? That is what we would need to be scientific. Moreover, would that average apply to all 3 species? I'm looking at some reconstructions. The figures given in the WP article do not match any of those. Who says that the feet enabled it to run like a horse? I've seen the long legs used as a basis for saying that it was a runner. Someone else says it was a marsh animal and the splayed feet kept it from sinking in. So, you guessed it, this will have to be rewritten. If anyone knows the source of these "average" numbers, let us know. Otherwise I will have to wing it from the sources available to me. I don't think we should be highly paleontological as the public will not understand that. We will have to translate the paleontological lingo, I think. Dave ( talk) 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, hello. What's the difference between large and thick? I presume it is length. I have not researched the horn yet so officially I would not know. Was it thick or thin? Well since I have not yet checked it out I have nothing better to offer (yet). I have cursorily seen a thin-horn theory. I will be checking out concepts of the horn. We may have to qualify the language. This is just a heads-up. Sorry to move so slowly - but carefully, I hope. Dave ( talk) 14:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to give up on the 2 meters. No one seems to have any idea where it comes from. A small number of sources give 2 meters, such as Stephen Jay Gould. None of the technical articles to which I can get access tell us how to estimate the size of the horn. The two meters is not early. It does not appear in 19th century works at all. It seems to be associated with reconstructions. Nor are there any other estimates or formulae for ascertaining the size of the horn. Now, we can find a reference, such as Gould, who says, 2 meters. I for one cannot find any explanation of this number. My tendency therefore is to abandon the 2 meters. It seems to be either that or use one of the sources who parrot it, perhaps even Gould. What do you think? I've tried to put the thinking behind the reconstruction in as much as possible, but this one shows no sign of having any thought behind it. It is just a number plucked out of the air. There might well be a correlation somewhere with some factor or other. It is so obscure as not to appear on the Internet, which seems strange, as you can get all the detailed measurements of the leg bones, the skull, the horn boss, the dimensions of the teeth in mm. So, let us know if you would like to parrot the 2 m or just let the length go and be happy with "large," which is what everyone else says. Dave ( talk) 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elasmotherium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
This passage appears in the "Possible historical witnesses" section:
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)It's been on the page for at least as far back as 2011, but it sounds quite bizarre. Can someone confirm that this is not old vandalism? Daß Wölf 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This section seems to have very little to do with rhinos or their evolution. I think it should be split to it's own page or put on the grasslands page. I'm moving it here in full and replacing it with something more material to rhinos, rather than grass. Chris Porter ( talk) 19:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Evolution of grassland
C3 plant metabolism was chronologically first. It requires large amounts of water (which is lost through transpiration), moderate temperatures and moderate sunlight. About 95% of plants are C3. In places where the water supply is minimal, the temperature is too high, or the sunlight too bright, C3 plants cannot thrive, but C4 metabolism evolved at multiple locations convergently within the same families by a slight alteration of the metabolic process. It requires a fraction of the water, and thrives in warmer environments and bright sunlight. C4 plants spread where C3 plants must decline. About 5% of the Earth's plants are C4, far less than for grasses, for which the number is 46%.
The grass of grasslands belongs predominantly to the Poaceae family, also called the "true grasses". Species can be divided into "warm season grasses", which use C4, and "cool season grasses", which use C3. The evolution of grasses preceded the evolution of grasslands, which were created by the spreading of grasses from the forest onto the plains in the Miocene. These initial grasslands were C3, which happen to be more nutritious than C4 species.[58]
The evolution of Rhinocerotidae and Equidae in the Miocene grasslands proceeded along parallel lines from similar causes. Diminutive, cursorial, browsing, brachydont species expanded their ranges from the Oligocene forests into the nutritious C3 Miocene grasslands and there over the millions of years of the Miocene evolved diverse and flourishing populations on the ample food supply, gradually increasing in size.[59] Some of these species exploited the grazing niche. Hispanotherium, Chilotherium and Teleoceras "show a clear tendency to hypsodonty, and a grazing feeding adaptation has usually been attributed to them".
By the late Miocene, C4 metabolism was well established on the plains. In place of the prehistoric C3 grasslands (which are no longer extant) was the savanna, today's subtropical mixture of grasses and sedges. The deciding factors in this turn of evolution were a documented increase in temperature and aridity over the period. Faced with scant nutrition from browsing, the smaller Rhinocerotidae and Equidae declined in diversity, the gate in that direction, so to speak, now being closed.[60]
The evolutionary response in the Pliocene was in the direction of bulk-feeding. Massive grazers, such as Elasmotherium, maximally hypsodont, moved across vast ranges consuming C4 grass in bulk. While the horses and other more nearly modern grazers could rely on galloping for mobility in any circumstance, there is a question as to what degree the brachypodial giants can be said to be "cursorial". Elephants, for example, must keep one foot on the ground, where true gallopers are entirely off it for brief intervals. The horns and impenetrable body armour insured that the giants would not be required to gallop away from any predator. At least until the arrival of man, they were, as the legends relate, lords of the savanna.
Looking at the "Possible historical witnesses" section, this entire section appears to be a result of editor WP:SYNTH. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not one of these references appears to mention Elasmotherium, the subject of this article. I'm removing this section. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
They are typically known as Siberian Unicorns. We should mention it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 ( talk) 12:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I've put it in there based on the sources used in the main article which calls them that. It's rather strange to refute scientific fact that we rely on in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 ( talk) 23:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, *I* did *NOT* include the sources. They were already in the article, and have been there for 2 years. You guys are refuting me simply because I've only recently added to this, ignoring the fact that you have relied on these references for 2 years...
Recently added an image of Elasmotherium Sibiricum to Description section. It was removed because it was deemed that there are enough images and so added nothing, in further communication a suggestion was made to discuss here and to see whether ‘consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.’
The reason for posting a new image is that the current images (specifically Restoration of E. Sibiricum) have scientific inaccuracies.
The shape of the nose is based on the black rhino (which lives in the bush and so has a pointy nose that helps it pull leaves off branches) whereas the Elasmotherium Sibericum lived on open grasslands and would have had a flat nose.. In the proposed illustration it’s nose is based on its closest living relative the white rhino that lives in a more similar habitat...
In addition, I also have concerns about the kink in the neck in the illustration of E.Sibiricum - this does not reflect what you’d expect from the skeletal structure.
Further, they do not depict the extent of the woolliness of the Elasmotherium, which most experts believe it would have had (ie similar to its contemporary the woolly mammoth and as suggested in the existing text ‘generally based on the woolliness exemplified in contemporary megafauna such as mammoths and the woolly rhino.’)
Obviously this animal is extinct and there is disagreement amongst experts about exactly what it would look like. However, some things are known (eg would not have had a black rhino pointy nose as it couldn’t lift its head high enough to feed off bushes..)..
I have spoken to Professor Adrian Lister Merit Researcher at the National History Museum specifically about what it would have looked like (he’s the academic who did the carbon dating on the Elasmotherium Sibiricum and proved it went extinct much more recently than previously believed) and we discussed inaccuracies in many illustrations and frustrations with those - when asked his belief was that the posted image (now removed) was closer to what the Elasmotherium Sibiricum would have looked like, given latest scientific thinking.
I have not removed any illustrations, some I find historically interesting, etc.. however, if people are concerned that this makes too many images, it maybe worth reconsidering the illustration of ‘Restoration of E. sibiricum’ . It looks like a quick alteration to a black rhino illustration ie
1. wrong shaped nose
2. the added height at the shoulder and neck looks like an afterthought and is not consistent with what you’d expect from actual skeletal structure of an E.Sibiricum
3. the way the hair has been drawn has no resemblance to that of a woolly mammoth (nor a woolly rhino) and it is pretty well accepted that E Sibiricum would have had that kind of coat
Please let me know what you think. Personally I’m fascinated by the Elasmotherium Sibiricum so find the impossibilities in the illustration frustrating. I have not commented on illustrations of the other chronospicies of Elasmotherium - as I’ve not studied them in depth. London Art Critique ( talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)