Giant tunnels known as "paleoburrows" in South America, some exceeding a meter in diameter and tens of meters long, were likely dug by giant extinct ground sloths (specifically, scelidotheriines and mylodontines). Researchers used a variety of evidence, including claw marks, sediment analysis, and the burrows' size and shape, to rule out other potential excavators such as armadillos or humans. These immense burrows, which represent the largest ichnofossils (trace fossils) on the continent, provide insight into the behavior and ecology of these megafauna and demonstrate a unique adaptation not seen in extant sloths.
A newly published study in the scientific journal Palaeontology meticulously examines a network of enigmatic, large-diameter tunnels crisscrossing various regions of South America, specifically Brazil and Argentina. These extensive subterranean passages, often referred to as "paleoburrows," have long puzzled researchers due to their impressive scale and the uncertainty surrounding their origin. The prevailing hypothesis, until recently, attributed their construction to extinct megafauna, specifically giant ground sloths. This assumption stemmed from the observation that the dimensions of some tunnels seemed consistent with the size of these massive, now-vanished creatures.
However, this recent research challenges that long-held belief. Through a comprehensive analysis encompassing the architecture of the tunnels, the claw marks discovered within them, and a comparative study with known burrows of extant animals, the authors propose a compelling alternative explanation. They posit that these colossal burrows are not the handiwork of giant sloths, but rather the product of another group of ancient South American denizens: large armadillos belonging to the extinct genera Pampatherium and Holmesina.
The study meticulously documents several key lines of evidence to support this claim. Firstly, the researchers highlight the unique morphology of the tunnels, noting distinct features such as elliptical or circular cross-sections, smooth walls and ceilings, and frequent branching patterns. These characteristics, they argue, are more consistent with the burrowing habits of armadillos, which are known to excavate complex subterranean networks, than with the comparatively simpler burrows expected from sloths.
Secondly, the study emphasizes the significance of the claw marks etched into the walls of the paleoburrows. Detailed examination of these markings reveals a recurring pattern of parallel grooves. The researchers meticulously compare these traces to the claw morphology of both giant sloths and large armadillos. Their analysis concludes that the observed grooves bear a striking resemblance to the claw structure of armadillos, particularly the arrangement and number of claws used in digging, rather than the claw marks expected from sloths.
Finally, the researchers draw parallels between the paleoburrows and the documented burrowing behavior of modern armadillos. They highlight the propensity of extant armadillos to create extensive burrow systems with similar architectural features, lending further credence to their hypothesis.
The study ultimately concludes that these intricate networks of tunnels, a testament to the impressive engineering capabilities of ancient fauna, are likely the result of the labors of large, now-extinct armadillos. This revised understanding of the paleoburrows' origin significantly alters our perception of the paleoecological dynamics of prehistoric South America and offers valuable insights into the behavior and habitat utilization of these fascinating extinct creatures. While the mystery surrounding these tunnels is not entirely resolved, this study represents a substantial advancement in our understanding of their creation and provides a strong argument for the role of large armadillos in shaping the subterranean landscape of ancient South America.
Summary of Comments ( 14 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43139209
Hacker News users discuss the implications of Brazil's ban on Rumble, questioning the justification and long-term effectiveness. Some argue that the ban is an overreach of power and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, potentially emboldening other countries to follow suit. Others point out the technical challenges of enforcing such a ban, suggesting that determined users will likely find workarounds through VPNs. The decision's impact on Rumble's user base and revenue is also debated, with some predicting minimal impact while others foresee significant consequences, particularly if other countries adopt similar measures. A few commenters draw parallels to previous bans of platforms like Telegram, noting the limited success and potential for unintended consequences like driving users to less desirable platforms. The overall sentiment expresses concern over censorship and the slippery slope towards further restrictions on online content.
The Hacker News post titled "Brazil justice orders ban of video platform Rumble" (linking to a DW article about the ban) has generated a moderate number of comments, most of which discuss the implications of the ban and the Brazilian legal context surrounding it.
Several commenters express skepticism about the effectiveness of such bans, arguing that determined users will find ways to circumvent them using VPNs or other methods. They suggest that the ban might even increase Rumble's popularity through the Streisand effect.
Some comments focus on the legal reasoning behind the ban, which relates to Rumble's alleged failure to remove disinformation. They debate whether this justification is valid and whether it sets a dangerous precedent for online censorship. Some users question the specific examples of disinformation cited and whether they warrant such a drastic measure.
A few commenters express concern about the broader trend of governments increasingly seeking to control online content and platforms. They see the Rumble ban in Brazil as part of this wider pattern and worry about its implications for free speech.
There's discussion of the political climate in Brazil and how it might be influencing this decision. Some commenters point to other recent instances of online censorship or platform bans in Brazil as evidence of a concerning trend.
Several users question the practicality of enforcing the ban and the technical challenges involved in blocking access to a video platform. They speculate about the methods Brazilian ISPs will use to comply with the order.
Some commenters offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that Rumble might have deliberately chosen not to comply with Brazilian regulations as a business strategy. They argue that fighting the ban in court could generate publicity and attract users who value free speech.
A few comments provide additional context about Rumble's history, its user base, and its relationship with other platforms. They compare the situation to similar bans or legal challenges faced by other social media platforms in different countries.
While there isn't a single overwhelmingly compelling comment that stands out, the collective discussion offers a multifaceted view of the ban, its potential consequences, and the broader context of online censorship and platform regulation.