Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gene Reveals Mammoth Coat Colour
BBC ^ | 7-6-2006 | Rebecca Morelle

Posted on 07/06/2006 12:43:11 PM PDT by blam

Gene reveals mammoth coat colour

By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News

Woolly mammoths had both dark and light coats

The coat colour of mammoths that roamed the Earth thousands of years ago has been determined by scientists.

Some of the curly tusked animals would have sported dark brown coats, while others had pale ginger or blond hair.

The information was extracted from a 43,000-year-old woolly mammoth bone from Siberia using the latest genetic techniques.

Writing in the journal Science, the researchers said a gene called Mc1r was controlling the beasts' coat colours.

This gene is responsible for hair-colour in some modern mammals, too.

In humans, reduced activity of the Mc1r gene causes red hair, while in dogs, mice and horses it results in yellow hair.

Blond ambition

Using ancient DNA extracted from the excavated mammoth bone, the international team of researchers were able to look at the variations in copies of the Mc1r gene.

Dr Michael Hofreiter, an author on the paper and an evolutionary biologist from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany, said analysis revealed two different versions of the gene were present - a fully active and a partially active version.

The researchers propose that hair coloration in mammoths is likely to have been determined in the same way as in present-day mammals.

This means that mammoths with one copy of the active gene and one of the partially active gene would have had dark coats - most likely dark brown or black.

While mammoths with two copies of the inactive gene would have had paler coats - possibly blond or ginger.

Light-coloured fur camouflages mice on the beaches of Florida

The scientists said they were unsure why different-coloured mammoths existed.

Other research published in the same journal found that beach mice, whose coat colour is also controlled by the Mc1r gene, have varying colours for survival reasons.

The researchers said Florida beach mice were lighter than their mainland cousins because their pale fur helped them to hide from predators in their sand-dune habitat.

But Dr Hofreiter said it was unlikely that mammoths had varied coats for camouflage.

He said: "They were very big - so even a blond mammoth would have been easy to spot."

Woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) were common about 50,000 years ago, during the late Pleistocene epoch.

They were about the size of an Indian elephant, but with shaggy woolly coats and tusks measuring over 4m long.

They are thought to have died out about 4,500 years ago.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; coat; colour; dna; gene; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; mammoth; mammoths; mammothtoldme; mastodon; mastodons; reveals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 07/06/2006 12:43:14 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

GGG Ping?


2 posted on 07/06/2006 12:43:44 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
They are thought to have died out about 4,500 years ago.

Bush's fault...

3 posted on 07/06/2006 12:54:49 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (Freerepublic - The website where "Freepers" is not in the spell checker dictionary...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Woolly mammoths had both dark and light coats

4 posted on 07/06/2006 12:57:19 PM PDT by evets (huh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

From what size predator, would a wooly mammoth have needed to evolve an ability to hide?


5 posted on 07/06/2006 1:02:37 PM PDT by patton (LGOPs = head toward the noise, kill anyone not dressed like you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton

I think early man hunted them, IIRC.


6 posted on 07/06/2006 1:08:22 PM PDT by lesser_satan (EKTHELTHIOR!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patton
From what size predator, would a wooly mammoth have needed to evolve an ability to hide?

From that largest and most voracious of all predators, global cooling. Those with the lighter fur did better at the glacier edge while the darker furred animals roamed in warmer climes. /total conjecture

7 posted on 07/06/2006 1:17:06 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("I'm all in favor of a dignified retirement: Why not try it on Kerry as a pilot program?" M. Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: patton
Ebola's on the small side...

Then there are the animals that attack in packs. Get inside, and under the 12ft+ tusks, and it was probably
vulnerable, especially from *all* sides. I'm thinking hyenas, coyotes, etc.

8 posted on 07/06/2006 1:18:08 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Actually, you amy be onto something. It is no accident that the color of one's skin is inversely proportional to the distance one's ancestors lived from the equator.


9 posted on 07/06/2006 1:19:11 PM PDT by patton (LGOPs = head toward the noise, kill anyone not dressed like you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: patton

"From what size predator, would a wooly mammoth have needed to evolve an ability to hide?

"

Uh, humans and dire wolves and saber-toothed tigers, perhaps. Humans were the most dangerous predator of the wooly mammoth, though.


10 posted on 07/06/2006 1:19:45 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam

Did the light furred ones have to contend with affirmative action programs designed to aid the dark furred?


11 posted on 07/06/2006 1:34:38 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan
I think those savage natives, unfamiliar with conservation practices, killed them all off. Selfish materialistic natives!

/sarcasm off

12 posted on 07/06/2006 1:36:09 PM PDT by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mallardx

Just looking up predators on mammoths on Google, I found an interesting thing. Apparently, there was a report in Siberia in 1918 of a hunter seeing a wooly mammoth. Sounds far-fetched, but Siberia's very large, and was very sparsely populated in 1918. I suppose it could have happened.

These days, it's unlikely that any such isolated mammoth could still survive, given our satellite mapping. But...you just never know. They've only been extinct, supposedly, for a few thousand years now.

Wouldn't that be a treat?


13 posted on 07/06/2006 1:57:07 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

They had cave lions 3 times the size of African lions back then. Some pretty big bears, too.


14 posted on 07/06/2006 2:14:13 PM PDT by Defiant (MSM are holding us hostage. Vote Dems into power, or they will let the terrorists win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

That would be the most amazing biological find of the century. That, or sasquatch/yeti.


15 posted on 07/06/2006 2:21:07 PM PDT by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blam

Wasn't this already known from the frozen carcasses that have been found?


16 posted on 07/06/2006 2:21:51 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
They had cave lions 3 times the size of African lions back then.

Interesting - were these direct ancestors of today's lions or, like saber-toothed "tigers", were they more distantly related members of the cat family that happen to share a name with the modern version?

I'm still not clear on why land mammal sizes seem to have shrunk (cave bear, dire wolf, giant sloth, Imperial mammoth, Baluchitherium to more modest sizes today).
17 posted on 07/06/2006 2:24:24 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
They were real lions, they just got bigger in the northern grasslands, where huge wooley rhinos, mammoths and humongous deer grew big on the abundance of food, and that in turn led to larger predators.

There were lions in Europe into Roman times. In Alexander the Great's time, they used to hunt them. They weren't the huge kind any more, though.

18 posted on 07/06/2006 2:52:41 PM PDT by Defiant (MSM are holding us hostage. Vote Dems into power, or they will let the terrorists win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
I'm still not clear on why land mammal sizes seem to have shrunk (cave bear, dire wolf, giant sloth, Imperial mammoth, Baluchitherium to more modest sizes today).

Because we nasty humans killed them off.

19 posted on 07/06/2006 3:06:46 PM PDT by Doodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blam
GGG Ping?
Definitely, because I can use that joke again...
20 posted on 07/06/2006 8:29:17 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson