×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

40-Million-Year-Old 'Walking Whale' Fossil Found In Peru

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the a-long-time-ago dept.

Science 102

minty3 writes "Found in the Ocucaje Desert in southern Peru, the fossils belong to a group called Achaeocetes, or ancient whales, that possess both land and sea-dwelling characteristics. Over time, the ancient land animals adapted to water environments where their legs became fin-like and their bodies began to resemble modern sea mammals like dolphins and whales."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

102 comments

Invertibrate Whales? (5, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about 7 months ago | (#44900687)

They lost their spine and hind legs 5 million years later

I can see why slashdotters don't read the article if the article claims things like whales are invertebrates ;-)

Re:Invertibrate Whales? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901107)

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and a Retard frog sqirrel and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!

Re:Invertibrate Whales? (3, Funny)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 7 months ago | (#44901703)

"They lost their spine"

Seeing their imminent defeat at the hands of the coconut-wielding proto-simians, their landlubbing ancestors lost heart and fled to the sea.

Re:Invertibrate Whales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44908823)

So, they're French? ;p

Re:Invertibrate Whales? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 7 months ago | (#44903231)

I think they meant their Hind legs have been disconnected with their spine.

Re:Invertibrate Whales? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 7 months ago | (#44904609)

Well.. Whales have a vestigial pelvis. Somehow the author, editor, and whoever else they have reviewing news stories failed to recognize the glaring mistake.

Re:Invertibrate Whales? (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about 7 months ago | (#44907857)

This made me Fry face and tab over to Google as well. I now have "since when do whales not have spines" in my search history.

cool (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 7 months ago | (#44900695)

Whales could walk and serpents could talk. No problems whatsoever.

Re:cool (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | about 7 months ago | (#44901497)

Nice try. In hebrew the root of the word for serpent is the same as to lie.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5172&t=KJV [blueletterbible.org]

Yea, hath God said?

Re:cool (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#44902697)

In hebrew the root of the word for serpent is the same as to lie.

Well, I don't see many deceptive snakes in nature...

Now, in English the root of the word Lawyer is the same as oppression.
IMO, accuracy counts when picking predictive fairy tales.

Re:cool (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 7 months ago | (#44904625)

> Well, I don't see many deceptive snakes in nature...

Maybe parent hinted at the fact that snake might refer to a liar instead of a reptile. But no, let's forget that referring to people as animals is commonplace in literature and common talk...

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44910801)

Which would be acceptable in fiction, but some people claim that the bible is more than fiction, even if they also claim that much of it shouldn't be taken literally. How can you believe a single word of this bullshit if it contains talking snakes and other such nonsense? What, I'm supposed to just disregard the completely insane parts but believe that there is a creator for some reason? How can anyone take this garbage seriously?

Re:cool (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 7 months ago | (#44934853)

This seems a weak argument. Genesis IIRC is oral tradition transcribed at some point. Figures of speech symbols rhymes repetitions and others could have been employed. Some time later, a guy would teach using parables.

Besides, the bible is not a proof that needs confutation, believers themselves say that you are free to choose, if a coherent sacred text is a requirement for you to start considering a religion, there are no probs here.

I was wondering (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 7 months ago | (#44900731)

40-Million-Year-Old 'Walking Whale' Fossil Found In Peru

I was wondering what had happened to Cowboy Neil. Glad they found him again.

And in a special election... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900741)

Was elected to the U.S. Senate.

That's Archaeocetes! (4, Informative)

palemantle (1007299) | about 7 months ago | (#44900749)

Archaeocetes = ancient whales. Achaeocetes = typo. Is a basic spell check too much to ask?

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900791)

I think rather than use a spell checker, we should just define 'Achaeocetes' as a new word.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (5, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about 7 months ago | (#44900845)

How many people have Latin spell-checking installed?

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (1)

palemantle (1007299) | about 7 months ago | (#44900977)

Fair enough. That said, I didn't mean a spell-check tool. I don't use those either. I meant a re-read of the contents before posting. In this case, that wouldn't have helped either as the article has gotten the name wrong too.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (3, Insightful)

aBaldrich (1692238) | about 7 months ago | (#44901091)

A classicla latin spell checker would say it's a typo, because this is a new word invented by biologists.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 months ago | (#44901907)

classicla

You conjugated wrong.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#44902799)

classicla

You conjugated wrong.

Easy now, MightyYar, yon spell check be old as thar elusive whale ye hunt.
Ifn ye 40 million years tardy, grants not a right one to accost hapless landlubbers.

Bad Form.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902299)

A classical Latin spell checker would consult an Ancient Greek spell checker to find out that archaios is Greek while ketos/cetus is Greek and Latin as well.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901657)

Let me put it this way: If your first language is any of { english, french, italian, spanish, ... } - you should have an instinctive feel for the spelling of Latin. If not, well, sorry boy-o, but you're a rube.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (3, Informative)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 7 months ago | (#44902507)

Let me put it this way: If your first language is any of { english, french, italian, spanish, ... } - you should have an instinctive feel for the spelling of Latin. If not, well, sorry boy-o, but you're a rube.

Except for two points:

A) English is more Germanic based than Latin based. So we aren't particularly strong in old-time Latin. That's why we actually make up words that have one root in Latin and one in Greek, and can't see the problem.

B) Most of our Latin comes from French, and not the modern form of it at that, but Old French. Old French [wikipedia.org] is itself a bastardized form of Latin, and the native Gaul tongue had some role in it.

So, with these aspects of English being what they are, it's hardly surprising if we see little relation from our modern words to their original form in ancient Rome.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902817)

English is not a Romance language. We dont have the always-hard C, the non-dipthong ea, the long I etc.

You cant expect a native English speaker to have a feel for the spelling of Latin when our pronunciation of many Latin words - especially names - is so completely off.

I mean, we pronounce the name Cicero as if it were spelled Sisero - though the correct pronunciation is more like Keekero.

Or Ceaser we pronounce as Seezer when its really more like Kaiser.

Re: That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44903813)

Is Little Ceasers Pizza wrong?

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44904629)

Let me put it this way: If your first language is any of { english, french, italian, spanish, ... } - you should have an instinctive feel for the spelling of Latin. If not, well, sorry boy-o, but you're a rube.

iph yoo kan onlee thinc ov won weigh too ceppell eh word yu lak image'inashun.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44903095)

It's the main focus of the article. It would be kind of like writing an article about someone and then spelling their name wrong. Automatic spell-checking isn't much of an excuse in this situation either.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900931)

It's misspelled in the article as well as in the summary, so I guess we know that a) at least the submitter can copy and paste accurately, and b) the International Business Times is probably not the best place for accurate science reporting.

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 7 months ago | (#44903575)

So you're telling me there is a chance they might be wrong when they say prehistoric animals lost their spine when evolving into whales, and that I shouldn't necessarily trust them?

Re:That's Archaeocetes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901651)

"Archaeocetes = ancient whales. Achaeocetes = typo. Is a basic spell check too much to ask?"

You're talking about /. here. The bar is set pretty low.

Huge teeth (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900789)

Those teeth suggest that the old whales weren't exactly the "peaceful giants of the sea".

Re:Huge teeth (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 7 months ago | (#44900811)

Now they're just hipsters of the sea, living on a shellfish only diet, spending their entire income on in-app purchases for the latest freemium games. Damn those hipsters whales, ruining gaming for the rest of us....

Re:Huge teeth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900973)

Not all whales live on shellfish. Some have had a shellfish allergy before it became common to have a shellfish allergy.

Re:Huge teeth (4, Informative)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 7 months ago | (#44900823)

Nor are modern whales. Some even eat other species of whales.

Re:Huge teeth (1)

deathlyslow (514135) | about 7 months ago | (#44901625)

Citation please. Why? Let's see. I'm at work posting on /. so I've already spent too much time on the internet. I'm not sure I know the correct search terms. It's just too cool to know that I can use the links to gross out my 13 year old who thinks they are just the cutest little things. TIA

Re:Huge teeth (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901751)

You mean cetacean please. The cetacean he's mentioning is the killer whale. All whales are carnivorous. Other toothed whales eat fish. Baleen whales eat krill and other small marine animals, but they no doubt get a little green in their diet too.

Re:Huge teeth (1)

somersault (912633) | about 7 months ago | (#44901951)

Despite their informal name, "killer whales" are actually dolphins (google it), so they're not "whales eating other whales". They would be "cetaceans eating other cetaceans" though. I don't think any other cetaceans try to eat whales, though there are other toothed whales that can eat other small sea creatures.

Re:Huge teeth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902595)

Despite their informal name, "killer whales" are actually dolphins (google it), so they're not "whales eating other whales". They would be "cetaceans eating other cetaceans" though. I don't think any other cetaceans try to eat whales, though there are other toothed whales that can eat other small sea creatures.

All dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins.

Re:Huge teeth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902719)

Sigh.

You've already been corrected on this previously.

Do you learn nothing?

Killer whales are a whale in the dolphin family. It's not a mutually exclusive thing.

It's one thing being unintentionally ignorant, but when you're intentionally ignorant because you don't like being told your wrong on something then it makes you a really special breed of idiot.

Re:Huge teeth (1)

somersault (912633) | about 7 months ago | (#44902885)

I don't remember being corrected on this before.. (not saying that nobody has tried, but I don't remember it). Perhaps if you'd give some evidence that they are whales rather than just saying they are, I'd change my mental model of the cetacean family.

Re:Huge teeth (2)

quacking duck (607555) | about 7 months ago | (#44903457)

I don't remember being corrected on this before.. (not saying that nobody has tried, but I don't remember it). Perhaps if you'd give some evidence that they are whales rather than just saying they are, I'd change my mental model of the cetacean family.

Killer whale scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Cetacea (all whales)
Suborder: Odontoceti (toothed whales, including dolphins and porpoises)
Family: Delphinidae (oceanic dolphin)
Genus: Orcinus
Species: O. orca

Backup from a non-wiki source:

The word "cetacean" is derived from the Greek word for whale, ketos [...] Living cetaceans are further divided into two suborders: the Odontoceti (toothed whales) and the Mysticeti (baleen whales). [seaworld.org]

In other words, any current species falling under Cetacean is by definition a whale.

So when you say

they're not "whales eating other whales". They would be "cetaceans eating other cetaceans"

You are in fact saying the same thing. In more common language, "whales eating other whales" is entirely correct.

Re:Huge teeth (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 7 months ago | (#44904545)

Sometimes whale specifically means the suborder of mysticeti (baleen whales), and others it includes all cetacea (namely odontoceti or toothed whales, which includes dolphins). I'm no expert, but I would consider toothed whales as whales, which is how I've typically seen it classified.

Re:Huge teeth (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 7 months ago | (#44905941)

"Cetacean" does not mean or imply "Dolphin". Sperm Whales, (for example, the whale in Moby Dick [wikipedia.org] ) are also Ceateans [wikipedia.org] .

I don't really mind someone like the GP getting a smidge sloppy with terminology in the interests of brevity, clarity, or wit. What I do mind is someone leaping all over them over a technicality, when they in fact don't have their details down right either.

Crickey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902947)

When I saw photos, I immediately thought "Holly Darwin, 'twas a mammalian croc!"

WhaleMart (5, Funny)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 7 months ago | (#44900911)

Aren't walking whales quite common at places like Walmart?

Re:WhaleMart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900989)

"Aren't walking whales quite common at places like America?"

There, FTFY.

Re:WhaleMart (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#44902753)

Well, like all successful species, we are spreading to other lands and continents. At least the important, defining, bulging features are. Look about you.

maxi dresses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44900969)

I was wondering what had happened to Cowboy Neil

Today's I am presenting a womens clothes designs online shoppings al very low cost get more detail in this maxi dresses [beautydesires.co.uk]

no no no ! (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 7 months ago | (#44900971)

Satan put those so-called fossils there to confuse us and test our faith. Every intelligent being alive knows the world is only about 6000 years old.

Re:no no no ! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#44902907)

I like this "Satan" guy. Anagram: Santa, who also stashes stuff to test kids faith in their parents... I bet Satan's fun as hell at parties. Now that you mention it, he probably came up with the lampshade trick too.

Re:no no no ! (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 7 months ago | (#44903163)

I bet Satan's fun as hell at parties. Now that you mention it, he probably came up with the lampshade trick too.

Well, if you'd please allow him to introduce himself, you'd find he's a man of wealth and taste!

Re:no no no ! (1)

Monsuco (998964) | about 7 months ago | (#44902929)

Satan put those so-called fossils there to confuse us and test our faith. Every intelligent being alive knows the world is only about 6000 years old.

Strangely, I'm not sure where this whole "6000" years thing comes from. There's no actual Biblical claim about the Earth's age yet a lot of Christians believe the Earth is just a few thousand years old. Most don't, but some do.

Re:no no no ! (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about 7 months ago | (#44905307)

Unfortunately, It comes from the frequent recitations of lineage (and ages) in the Bible. Starting from Jesus, you can walk backwards (with some assumptions, I believe) back to Adam. Filling in maximum ages (upper bound is Methuselah at 969) when they are not provided, gives a Biblically-derived age of the Earth of something around 6000 years. If you believe in a completely literal reading of the Bible, in contrast to the physical evidence, then that is what you might espouse.

For example:

(21) And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: (22) And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and Enoch begat sons and daughters: (23) And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: (24) And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him. (25) And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: (26) And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: (27) And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. (KJV)

New BBC Series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901005)

Can't wait for the new BBC series, "Walking with Whales"

Dodgy Source (3, Informative)

ozbon (99708) | about 7 months ago | (#44901079)

It's probably worth pointing out that the original story is an interview in the Daily Mail ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2423358/Walking-whale-fossil-dating-40M-YEARS-discovered-Peru.html )

That makes it about as trustworthy and reliable as stories on Fox News

Re:Dodgy Source (3, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 7 months ago | (#44901289)

At least that link shows an artist impression of the creatures, which is the only thing most people care about. Thanks for posting. :-)

Re:Dodgy Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901677)

Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:Dodgy Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902303)

Exactly, NBC and CNN included!

Crap site (1)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | about 7 months ago | (#44901283)

Self playing video with sound + Pop-up = CRAP SITE never to be visited again.

Re:Crap site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901591)

Amen. I was foolish enough to click on the link before reading the comments. I see the error of my ways now.

Re:Crap site (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#44901669)

And also a crap browser setup never to be used again.

Re:Crap site (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#44902931)

Tis better to link viewership, or lack thereof, to their choice in advertising than make the problem worse with adblock, fool.

Re:Crap site (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#44903183)

I don't recommend AdBlock, I recommend NoScript and FlashBlock. You can have a good browser setup that doesn't discriminate against all ads.

Re:Crap site (1)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | about 7 months ago | (#44904589)

All NoScript does is force the user to bypass it or tweak it all the time, thereby causing more annoyance than it prevents. Uninstalled it eons ago, upon realizing that it only gives a pretense of safety.

Re:Crap site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44906199)

All NoScript does is force the user to bypass it or tweak it all the time, thereby causing more annoyance than it prevents. Uninstalled it eons ago, upon realizing that it only gives a pretense of safety.

Sigh, don't allow any scripts you don't trust. Very little tweaking required. Willpower may be required to overcome your urge to see the latest crap at the expense of your own security.

The blank page devoid of content and noscript blocking 20 scripts (just to start with - wait till you see the dependent scripts) lets me know straight away that a site isn't worth visiting.

Ad-block would just prolong my misery by actually trying to show the rest of the crap.

Where are the 'feet'? (3, Insightful)

Sam36 (1065410) | about 7 months ago | (#44901545)

Sadly, this 'whale' in the pictures isn't depicted as having any kind of feet.
That is just one problem I have with evolution and science in general. They show me a piece of a bone, tell me all about how it is a transitional fossil, then draw a pretty picture to fill in the missing parts and call it 'evidence'.
There is another word for that, it is called 'comic books'.

Re:Where are the 'feet'? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901647)

+1 The skull looks more like a crocodile than some acient whale transitioning to how they look now. This scientists are nuts, they are so sofocated to find evidence of evolution that they are parcticing science fiction.

Re:Where are the 'feet'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902083)

It's true there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that sea mammals have any links with the land mammals. Well except that they breath with lungs, that even though they look like fishes (sharks are fishes, dolphins are mammals), their skeleton clearly shows that they are very different from fishes and you see what became of their arms and legs, and generally that all their organs are close to other mammals rather than fishes.
I know, I know, God said "You shall not use your brain, it makes your head hurt", but sometimes it comes in handy. (btw my personal favorite quote from God is "You shall not look at the man behind the curtain")

Re:Where are the 'feet'? (1)

cusco (717999) | about 7 months ago | (#44903583)

I take it you haven't spent much time looking at bones beyond the one in your pork chop. There's actually a **LOT** of information there if you know what you're looking at. Take three upper leg front bones, one from a white tailed deer, another from a pronghorn antelope, and the third from a bighorn sheep. Three similar North American animals, you probably wouldn't be able to guess which went to which. A biologist on the other hand would be able to tell at a glance which was optimized for running, which for jumping, and which for climbing, and assign them correctly. With a little background data they could probably also tell you the approximate size, age, and maybe sex of the animal, its state of health at time of death, and what happened to it after death. With the correct equipment they could tell you what time of year it died, perhaps the cause of death, maybe its rank in the herd, and probably the area where it lived.

With a collection of related bones from different time periods it is fairly easy to figure out which animals would have been related to it, and how closely. We have very, very complete records for many animals, such as horses and elephants, that go back millions of years. Complete enough that a single ankle bone of an eohippus is sufficient to definitively establish that species' presence in a particular place and time, or when found in the body cavity of the fossilized remains of a predator to prove that a predator/prey relationship existed between them.

There is a lot you can tell from bones, if you know what you're looking at.

Re:Where are the 'feet'? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 7 months ago | (#44904205)

Almost as important,

If you were to give the bones to 100 independent biologists, they would come to the same (or very similar) conclusions.

And the amazing thing is that evolutionary biologists- given an older example of a species and a later example of a species can (and have) predicted what the bones between those two samples would look like and (this was cool for me) where geographically and in what layer of depth the intermediate specimen would be found.

Independent verification and predictable falsifiable hypothesis.

Re:Where are the 'feet'? (1)

kanweg (771128) | about 7 months ago | (#44905027)

"And the amazing thing is that evolutionary biologists- given an older example of a species and a later example of a species can (and have) predicted what the bones between those two samples would look like and (this was cool for me) where geographically and in what layer of depth the intermediate specimen would be found."

A great example of that it Tiktaalik:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html [uchicago.edu]

Bert

Re: Where are the 'feet'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44905875)

You're kidding me right? You're judging all of evolution because of a few photos in a mediocre (read: one) article?
Condemn the article, not the field of science.
Your generalization is very extreme - makes me wonder if you apply such flippant criteria to all aspects of life.
Mods should be sacked for rating this comment above 0.

seriously is this science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44901801)

so a fossil that actually resembles a crocodile is found, but nobody cares. Wait, no its a Whale that walked on land, now its news worthy. Common man this is crappy science...

Re:seriously is this science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902951)

Common man this is crappy science...

And this is crappy spelling and punctuation. Also, it's a crappy conclusion. You apparently know better than the scientists who actually saw the fossils.

Re:seriously is this science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44905299)

Common man this is crappy science...

Common man wouldn't know science if it... oh, wait, you meant "Come on, man." Sorry, I mistook you for someone who wasn't an illiterate high school dropout. Get your GED, loser. I'm really annoyed at what passes for "writing" from you stupid, illiterate kids.

Nothing new. (1, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 7 months ago | (#44901877)

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoceti [slashdot.org] ">Wikipedia entry for this creature seems to paint a different picture than the article wants to present. This article makes it seem like this evolutionary step in whales is a new thing, but it looks like scientists have known about it for a while. The entry even has images of complete skeletons and a nice illustration.

It's kind of funny to think that animals came out of the water, wandered around a bit and decided they didn't like it so returned to the seas. At least it explains waterborne mammals.

That's nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44902963)

Thousands of 40-Year-Old 'Walking Whales' have been found In Penn.

Little Wooden Boy and the Belly of Love (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 7 months ago | (#44903549)

Reporter: "...as the East Coast, today, was litterally shaken by the return of Blow-Hole, the long-distance leviathan who, ten years ago, baffled the nation when he jumped out of the Pacific Ocean and ran straight across the country."



Reporter: "One week later, Blow-hole plunged into the icy waters of the Atlantic, disappearing without comment. Is he planning a return trip? One thing is certain--No one knows."

These things aren't extinct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44903639)

I know because I slept with one in college. I think it called itself "Sarah".

Artist's Recreation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44908677)

... or it didn't happen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...