Is there a difference between a mammoth and a mastadon?
114526
Mastodons are extinct elephant-like mammals which began to roam the North American continent about 20 million years ago.  The meteorological changes  prehistoric earth underwent spelled the demise of the dinosaur; however, this was advantageous for the mastodon.  During the Pleistocene Epoch (1.5 million - 10,000 years ago), the surface world grew very cold.   Thick sheets of ice covered the ground, and resources became scarce.   Mastodons now were among the largest animals on earth, and fared well, certainly because larger animals are better at competing for the few available resources.   \n\nAlthough mastodons appeared on the scene about 20million years ago, a relative, the mammoth didn't appear until about 1 1/2 million years ago.\n\nBoth the mastodon and the mammoth lived throughout the current United States, many remains have been and are being discovered in the vicinity of the Great Lakes.\n\nThe order in which mastodons belong, and to which elephants also belong, is the order Proboscidea. From this class title comes a reference to the trunk possessed by both the mastodon and the elephant; "pro" meaning before and "boskein" meaning to feed. Of course the trunk is and was used for more than just feeding. Our modern elephant demonstrates the agility and strength of the trunk and proves its significance in day-to-day life.  Diseases that affect the trunk of the modern-day elephant have resulted in sickness and ultimately death for the animal.   In such cases, the magnitude of this unique appendage is evident.\n\nThe now-extinct mastodons were large, but were shorter than modern elephants and sported shorter, thicker legs. The earliest probscideans included some members that were pig to cow-sized, and are a distant relative to the manatee. These relatives were herbivores and lacked tusks.  The heavy, shaggy coats possessed by the ancient mastodons are not visible on our modern version, presumably due to climatic changes in out Earth's history.\n\nAnother notable and enlightening difference between the ancient mastodons and modern elephants is the shape of the teeth. Mammoths’ (now extinct, but not as ancient as the mastodons) and elephants’ teeth are flat with a ridged grinding surface. Mastodon teeth are rounded and pointed for clipping leaves and twigs, for they were primarily forest-dwelling creatures.  Research on the teeth gives clues to the lifestyle, habitat, and feeding habits of the ancient proboscideans.  Unlike the modern elephant, which is reserved to warmer climates, the ancient mastodon occupied a larger area which covered a wide sector of northern continents.  The link between the archaic mastodon and the modern elephant is the woolly mammoth, also an extinct mammal.   \n\nIt seems that the mastodons were the precursors to the bison in early North America in regard to their relationship with human inhabitants. It is believed that the early Indians spear-hunted the mastodons as they later did the easy-to-kill bison. Many recovered mastodon fossils bear evidence that man-made tools were the cause of death and butchery after death is evidenced by tool marks on the bones.  The slow-moving mastodon did not have a natural fear of man and made for an easy target for early hunters.  Some scholars believe in addition to spear-hunting, ancient hunters might have herded a great many of the animals over cliffs.\n\nOther predators of the mastodon (mammoth also) were the Dire Wolf, which is larger than the current wolf, and the famous Saber-toothed cats.\n \n\nMastodons disappeared at the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago.  It is not known exactly what happened to them.  Two theories take center stage; due to climactic changes, the mastodon died out, or primitive hunters hunted them to extinction.  No conclusive proof exists.\n\nIt was believed early in the 20th century that, in the proper environment, mastodons and mammoths still lived.  Of course none were found still living.
71927
The largest brown bear in the world is the Kodiak bear, attaining a weight of 1,600 pounds and ten feet in height as it rears up to fight. Siberian tigers do not weigh 1,000 pounds. They max out around 650 pounds and are 13 feet long including the tail, the body is 9 feet. Neither animal would want to test the strength of the other so any encounter would probably result in a stalement with both animals not wanting to get hurt and moving along. But the bear is a more powerful animal and would beat a tiger in my opinion.
519195
Mammtoths were almost certainly exterminated by human hunters. The fact that they survived until historical times on a number of small islands is proof of that.\n\nWhen animal populations succcumb to climate change the fist populations to die off are the isolated island populations. Thatis because they can not migrate Northwards to colder climates climate. In the case of mammoths we see exactly the opposite occuring, with island populations surviving many thousands of years after the continental populations.\n\nThe fact that it was only on islands without humans that mammoths survived adds further weight to the idea that mammoths were exterminated by humans.
1124443
An elephant has the longest nose in the world.  \nA small elephant has the 2nd longest nose in the world.
87020
There is no difference between them, they are diffrent names for the same animal.\n_____\n\n>>>>>>First, is there such thing as a panther,\n>>>>> separate and distinct from a black leopard?\n\nNo. \n\nLet's set the wayback machine for 500BC, the early Roman Empire. At that time lions and leopards was still quite widespread in Egypt and Libya and was not uncommonly seen in Rome as a guard animal or exotic pet.\n\nBut travellers in those days also told stories of exotic and remarkable beasts like chimaeras, unicorns and rocs. And one of the exotic animals they told stories about was a large spotted cat called a pardus or pantherus. And just like the Rocs and unicorns the parda/panthera never existed. It was entirely made up. It had all sorts of remarkable traits. It could turn invisible. An adult pardus was at least as big as a lion but could shrink down to mimic a housecat so it get into houses and eat people in their sleep. A pardus could breath out a sweet fragrance that would cause its prey to become helpless and could even cause a human who breathed it to spend his life luting other humans off the road to be devoured by the pard.\n\nAnother common property of the Parda/Panthera is that they were all either male or female, and they could only reproduce by breeding with other animals. They mostly reproduced with lions (leo in Latin), giving rise to the hybrid animal know as leo pardus. A name the Romans later contracted to leopard. Early Romans seem to have genuinely believed that the leopard was not a species in its own right but a hybrid of a lion and the mythical panthera/parda.\n\nWhich is why we have all this confusion with the names. Panther applied to a fictitious big cat of unknown character, and a leopard was the offspring of a panther. Over time the names became every more confused and acquired subtly different meaning in the various European languages. \n\nBut in modern English the panther is just a leopard with black hair. They most commonly arise as individuals in a litter of otherwise perfectly normal leopards. Two spotted leopards will just produce black panthers occasionally. And two black panthers that breed will produce mostly spotted young. \n\nThe black hair is just a genetic quirk, it is exactly like red hair in humans. Just as two brown haired people can throw a red haired child, so two spotted leopards can throw black panther. \n\n>>>>Also, why would a melanistic version of a jaguar not be called a black jaguar instead of a black leopard?\n\nBecause South American countries speak Spanish or Portugese, not English. The word 'leopard' has a subtly different meaning in those languages. It is closer to the original Latin meaning of 'exotic big cat'. A black jaguar is rare enough to qualify as a leopard.\n\n>>>>>.... leopards are in Africa\n\nLeopards are the most widespread big cat on the planet. They are found in Africa, but they are also found through the middle east, into the Indian subcontinent and China and through South East Asia all the way to Java. They used to be common.\n\n>>> Makes no sense...\n\nIt makes no sense biologically. It makes perfect sense etymologically. \n\nJust like it makes perfect sense that Americans call a crocodilian alligator (literally meaning 'a lizard') when they have no close biological affinity to lizards. That could really confuse a Spanish speaker. But if you trace the etymology of the word it makes perfect sense.\n\nWords change there meaning over time, and when they hop between languages they often change meaning in very confusing ways.
208899
That is not a good question. A cladogram expresses the ancestor-descendant relationships by means of _branches_, not by means of an ascending or ordered system. Thus, a goldfish would not come "before" a horse, nor a lamprey before a platypus. All the animals in your list do not even belong to a single nested group of taxa.\nThe sparrow is more related to the crocodile, the horse with the human and they in turn with the platypus, but all them, as well as lampreys, frogs, goldfish,  have their own evolutionary histories and their phylogenetic relationships are more complex than that.\nTell that to your teacher!
736281
There was a Man found in the alps who dates back 5000 years. As for mammoths there have been many which have been found fully intact with fur and everything.
895308
The North American bison (Bison bison) can weigh between 300 and 900 kg (about a ton).  And stand up to 1.87 m at the shoulder.\n\nAn adult polar bear (Ursus maritimus) can weigh between 150 and 800 kg.  Large, but not as large as a big male bison.  They average around 475 kg, and about 1.6 m at the shoulder.\n\nA bull moose (Alces alces) can weigh between 360 and 600 kg.  On average, lower in mass than the polar bear.  However because they have long, rangy legs, they can stand 2.3 m at the shoulder, making them taller than either of the previous critters.\n\nThe Kodiak grizzly (the largest variety of brown bear (Ursus arctos)) averages 389 kg for a male, and one specimen was weighed at a whopping 780 kg.  That's a big bear, but doesn't put it in the realm of the bison, or even the record holding polar bears.\n\nHowever, the largest mammal that actually comes up on land in North America is the walrus (Odobenus rosmarus).  An adult male walrus can weigh up to 1700 kg, and up to about 3 m in length (it's hard to measure their shoulder height though).  It's kind of hard to say if the walrus really counts though, since you are already excluding other marine mammals.\n\nGoing back a little ways in time, a mere 10,000 years ago there were numerous larger critters around in North America.  The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus colombi) stood more than 3.5 m at the shoulder, and upwards of 9000 kg!!! (That's about twice the mass of the largest modern African elephants).
105222
Don't think there's such a thing as a komodo rhino. There's a komodo dragon, but it couldn't kill T Rex. Not right away, but if it bit it and ran away, maybe. Their mouth is highly septic.
995369
very little is different - their are more similarities in fact.. both are made of cells and their cells are very similair until you get to DNA structure.. but even that is somewhat similar.. both have hair, give live birth, produce milk for their young (both are mammals). both have vertibrae, ribs, legs, etc.. similar bones just some are longer than others in different parts of their bodies.. both need to eat and both produce waste.. both value their lives equally\n\nthe few differences are one eats meat the other is strictly vegetarian.  Deer have longer limbs for running and eyes widely spaced to see a preditor and set on a longer neck.. Lions have close set eyes designed for locking onto prey, they have claws for catching as opposed to hoofs for running, and stronger forelimbs - build to kill\ndeer - built to run
394902
Yes. In addition to their large evergrowing incisors (the tusks), they have massive molars with a crushing surface that looks like one of those old washing tables. They have 6 upper and 6 lower molariforms on each side, but only 2 of them are functioning at a given time. The others are inside the alveoli in the skull and jaw bone and come out after the first ones get completely worn. They don't have more than those 6 replacements, so when their last molars are worn, they cannot grind food (old elephants in zoos need a special soft diet).\n\nHere's a photograph showing the crushing surface of the molar teeth:\nhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/resources/skulls/loxodonta/l._africana/163809.tooth.jpg/view.html\n\nAnd a frontal view of the skull with the incisors:\nhttp://www.dundee.ac.uk/museum/zoology/bagful/1971A.JPG
755167
This is an excerpt from the referenced website:\n"Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids during our field work in Pakistan in 2000 confirmed their derivation from Artiodactyla (the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.), and showed convincingly that whales did not originate from mesonychid condylarths as Van Valen hypothesized (and we had expected)."\n\nHope this helps.
973984
no.\n\nbut they have been accused of wiping out the North American mastodon, by stampeding them off cliffs and the like.\n\nAnd, by the way. They aren't extinct. So in point of fact, nobody killed them "all."\n\nI have no idea what to make of the rest of the crap in your question.
366636
there are some efforts going on to bring mammoth to life by using its frozen sperm. with an african elephant. as far as cloning goes i dont have any idea.
895356
Elephants because they are stong and can be very agressive. They would use their tusks to stab the polar bear if they don't trample it. Normly, though, most beings just run away at the site of the immense size of an elephant. I'm not saying that the polar bear will run away, but it would probably stand down and be dicouraged.
10054
A wolf is a canine (related to dogs.) A wolverine is a mustelid (related to weasels.)
988056
Nope, not a dead issue at all. The few biologists who take the tale seriously theorize that Big Foot could be a surviving species that existed on earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. Reconstructions based on the numerous fossils of this creature show it to be a good candidate for Big Foot. The ancient creature was named Gigantopithecus. See this website for more info, plus a great picture of what it looked like (about 1/2 way down the page) -------- http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/comp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html&h=402&w=215&sz=11&tbnid=AYXB1v_DV49rHM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=64&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgigantopithecus&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1