JERRY BALDASTY: Good evening.
Hi.
I'm Jerry Baldasty.
I'm the interim provost and
executive vice president.
Welcome to the 40th annual
university faculty lecture.
Every year, the University
of Washington faculty members
select one of their peers to
present this distinguished
lecture.
Over the past four
decades, we've
seen an impressive
list of presenters
give this prestigious lecture--
historians, doctors, artists,
engineers, and many others.
This is the highest
honor the faculty can
give to a member
of their own ranks,
and so this is a very special
evening for all of us.
This year's recipient,
Donald Grayson
has been an
anthropology professor
at the University of
Washington since 1975,
teaching archeology both in
the classroom and in the field.
He's a true leader
in this profession
and has been so for decades.
He's researched and
written extensively
on a variety of sites,
time periods, and subjects,
but he's most recognized for his
research in southwestern France
and the Great Basin of
western North America.
In addition to
this academic work,
there are many
students who can speak
to the impact of his
teaching and mentorship.
Some of these would be
the undergraduates who
enjoyed his classes on the
prehistory of the arid west
and prehistoric extinction, or
they might be among the 22 PhD
students he has mentored
throughout his career,
and he has helped them
find fulfilling employment
across the country.
He's an incisive and
thoughtful leader.
He cares deeply about
discipline and the people
whose lives it touches.
Aside from all of
this, he is also
an engaging, thoughtful
speaker who inspires curiosity
in students and peers alike.
We are so lucky
to have you here.
Please join me in welcoming
our university faculty
lecture professor,
Donald Grayson.
[APPLAUSE]
DONALD GRAYSON: I will try
to live up to part of that.
[LAUGHTER]
The picture on the
bottom of the screen
is a picture of a mammoth being
excavated in the Black Rock
Desert of northwestern
Nevada, the same Black Rock
Desert where the Burning
Man Festival is held.
Almost everybody who
grows up in this country
learns about this
particular animal,
the mammoth, alongside
animals that lived with it.
Saber toothed cat is
an obvious example.
A mastodon is
another possibility.
More recently, if anybody
has seen the movie Ice Age,
you've seen what
I actually think
is someone knows something
about these animals--
are really good, perhaps,
caricatures of these animals--
Manny the mammoth, Diego,
the saber toothed cat, Sid,
the giant ground sloth.
Everybody's heard
of these animals
to one degree or
another if you've
grown up in North America.
That may be all you know.
You may not know when
they became extinct.
You may not know why
they became extinct,
and I will say
now, although we're
going to come to
this later, if you
have heard that
they became extinct
because they were hunted
to death by human hunters,
I would claim that
you still don't
know why they became
extinct, but I
will return to that later.
These extinctions have
been the focus of research
for over 200 years.
In fact, some of these animals,
including the mammoth and one
of the North American
ground sloths,
was critical around
the year 1800
in establishing the fact that
extinction could actually
occur in the first place.
By the 1870s, the great
evolutionary biologist Alfred
Wallace was able to point this
out, what's up on the screen--
that some time in the
recent past the earth
had lost some of its hugest,
fiercest, and strangest
animals.
He marveled at this.
If he were still alive, today
he'd marvel at it even more.
He'd marvel at an
even more because we
know so much more
about these animals
than we did when he was alive,
but he'd also marvel about it
because we still don't
understand any more than he did
why these extinctions occurred.
I'm going to focus on North
American extinctions here.
North America lost
37 genera of mammals
as the ice age came to an end.
When Wallace said that these
were recent disappearances,
in modern terms, he could have
said that these were late ice
age disappearances.
The ice age is
the period of time
that lasted from 2.6
million to 10,000 years ago.
It was characterized by
the alternating advances
and retreats of massive
glaciers on many parts
of the earth's surface.
The extinctions that
I'm going to talk about
were extinctions that
occurred-- oh, I'll
be general about it now--
between roughly 30,000
and 10,000 years ago.
There's only one term that I
have to define besides ice age,
and that's the term
genera that I just used.
Everybody has run across
this term, the term genus.
The plural is genera.
Similar species are lumped
into, grouped into a genus
in biological classification.
Genera are grouped into families
and so on up the hierarchy.
Once having defined
that, I can go back
to what I just said-- that
toward the end of the ice age
North America lost
37 genera of mammals.
It'd be fun to just talk
about North America.
It is fun to just talk
about North America,
but I also want to point
out that it wasn't only
North America where
this was happening.
It was happening in Eurasia,
but more important for us
it was also happening
in South America, where
54 genera of mammals were lost.
Because some of the
North American mammals
were also found in the south
and some of the South American
mammals were also
found in the north,
if you count up the total
number of genera of mammals
that were lost, you get 77.
That is a huge-- that is a huge
part of biological diversity
to have been lost at
the end of the ice age,
and as I said
before, we're still
trying to figure out why
and how that happened.
In addition to
that-- and this is
going to become really
obvious as we go along-- one
thing that characterized
these losses is the fact
that the animals were all big.
Well, all is a bit
of an overstatement.
Three fourths of the
animals that were lost
weighed 100 pounds or more.
We'll see that some small ones
also went out of business,
but we're also going to see
that the overwhelming majority
of these animals were
really, really big.
My goal today is to
spend an hour-- I'm
going to look at my
watch and see when that's
going to be up-- trying to
clarify some of these issues,
and I know that I've
got more to talk about.
I could talk about
this stuff forever.
I teach a whole
course on this stuff.
I know I've got more stuff
to talk about tonight than we
have time to talk about,
and when the hour is up,
I'll just stop.
[LAUGHTER]
As I said, 37 genera of mammals
were lost from North America.
Six of these-- and
we'll see what they are.
Horses are one of them--
live on elsewhere,
but when they became
extinct in North America,
they never appeared
here again unless they
were reintroduced later on.
I'm going to give you a
rundown of all these guys,
and I'm going to start
with the cingulates.
Think armadillo.
Cingulates are animals
with external bony armor.
These are South American
animals, some of which,
just like armadillos,
made it north.
There are two animals
very closely related
to armadillos
called pampatheres.
If you saw one, you'd
immediately think armadillo,
but you'd also
think something else
that I can't repeat here because
of the size of these animals.
This is an armadillo that was
six feet tall, three feet long,
and weighed between
500 and 600 pounds.
I am not, by the way,
making any of this up.
Northern pampatheres
were southern animals.
They made it to
southern North America.
The southern pampathere
about the same size.
There is its shell, but this
is a South American shell.
Southern pampatheres are not as
well known for North America,
but they did make it here.
Then there's this next guy.
Glyptodont-- glyptodonts
are also South American.
These are armadillo-like
in the sense
that they also have
external body armor,
but unlike the armadillos,
this external body armor
is not flexible.
These guys had carapaces
like tortoises.
They also were almost
literally the size
of Volkswagen Bugs, the cars.
Weighed 2,400 pounds--
that carapace was
fused to their inner skeleton.
They hung around water.
These were absolutely
remarkable animals.
I don't know if you can see
that picture on the lower left.
If I start free
associating like this,
we'll never get
through anything,
but if you can see this
picture on the lower left,
I stuck it in here
because I love it.
This is a picture
of a glyptodont that
was a reconstruction
of a glyptodont that
was made in the
1930s for work being
done by famous paleontologist
George Gaylord Simpson.
In the 1930s, it was already
known that some South American
glyptodonts had tails that ended
with mace-like projections,
but in the 1930s,
they had yet to find
the end of the tail of the
North American glyptodont.
So they hid it behind
a bush because they
didn't know what it looked.
[LAUGHTER]
Once it was found,
it was discovered
that its tail ends without
the mace-like projections.
It's simply rounded.
This is its distribution.
Sid the sloth-- the
movie Ice Age amazes me.
I've actually looked on the
web to see if I could find out
who knew enough
about the ice age
to do those reconstructions
because they're really good.
There's a glyptodont in there.
There are South American
animals in there
that North Americans
generally have never heard of.
It's a great movie.
Sid, the ground sloth, is
meant to reflect the fact
that North America
during the late ice age
had four genera of
huge ground sloths.
When we think of sloths, we
think of slow moving, tree
hugging animals that, if they're
fat, may weigh 20 pounds.
That is not the case for the
North American ground sloth,
and the North
American ground sloths
as a whole are smaller than
the ones that went extinct
in South America.
I'll start with a megalonyx,
Jefferson's ground sloth.
Here's a reconstruction done by
a very talented paleoecolgoist
friend of mine, Wally Wolfenden.
We'll be seeing a bunch of
his reconstructions today.
This is a reconstruction
of megalonyx.
Its name means great claw.
It was given that name by
Thomas Jefferson in 1797,
and you can probably see
why he called it that.
He called it that because
of these great claws.
He didn't recognize
it as a sloth.
Not surprising.
This is 1797.
He thought it was a carnivore.
He was wrong about that.
He also didn't realize
that it was extinct.
He argued that if it had once
existed it must still exist,
and as I said before, some
of these animals, including
megalonyx were used to argue
that extinction was real.
When Jefferson was
writing, he did not yet
believe that that
could be the case.
Megalonyx-- widespread in North
America, as you can see here,
coast to coast.
This one-- in my extinctions
class that I teach,
I have an election every year.
Not as fancy as the
one I had this year.
This year's was really fancy.
We had a primary election, and
then we have the final election
to see which of these 37
genera-- one, the students--
I voted, too-- all
of us-- would most
want to see if they
could see one alive.
I voted for glyptodonts.
My students got it wrong, and
they voted for eremotherium.
[LAUGHTER]
Eremotherium had the
height of a giraffe
and the bulk of an elephant.
It is eastern in distribution,
mostly southeastern,
but there's one curious
record from coastal New Jersey
that you can see on this map.
If I had to have
a favorite sloth,
it would be this
one, nothrotheriops.
It is shown here eating the
fruits of the Joshua Tree.
It's shown that way because we
know that it ate those fruits,
and we know that it ate
those fruits for something
I'll talk about in a minute.
This was the smallest
of the ground sloths,
the smallest of the North
American ground sloths.
It was also western
distribution.
By the way, I'll point out that
that odd shaped blob that you
see on the west side of the map
is a region called the Great
Basin.
If we have time tonight, if I
don't free associate too much
and run over time, I'll
talk about the Great
Basin towards the very end.
That's the distribution
of nothrotheriops,
the smallest North
American ground sloth.
We know what it
ate because we have
its turds, if I can say that.
Here is one of them.
Nothrotheriops, the
Shasta ground sloth,
had the friendly
habit of pooping
in caves in the dry
west, in the arid west,
including caves in
the Grand Canyon.
This particular one
comes from Rampart Cave
in the Grand Canyon.
You can pull these things apart.
You can identify-- you
can radiocarbon date them,
and you can identify the
plants that are in them.
As a result, we know a lot
about ground sloth diets.
And just to free associate,
there must be men in here--
and I'm saying men because
this is more common in men
than in women-- men in
here who get kidney stones.
Most kidney stones are
oxalate kidney stones.
I get them, so I'm
familiar with them.
Most of them are
oxalate kidney stones.
Yuccas and agaves are
loaded with oxalates.
When these pieces of dung were
first analyzed in the 1930s,
a botanist and a chemist
combined to do it,
and they discovered
that these things were--
they did the chemical
analysis and discovered
that these things were
also full of oxalates,
and those oxalates are
coming out of the plants
that they were eating.
How ground sloths didn't get
kidney stones is beyond me.
I'd love to know.
This is paramylodon.
This is the fourth
of our ground sloths.
This is the most abundant
ground sloth at Rancho La Brea.
It's part of a family
called the mylodon ground
sloths, all of which are
characterized by the fact
that their skins have little
bony pebbles embedded in them.
In fact, that skin that
you see on the lower right
was found in the late
1800s in southern Chile,
and it led to the possibility of
that ground sloths might still
exist and to an expedition to
find them still on the hoof.
They didn't, but every so often
that possibility reemerges.
Perhaps the argument is they
still exist in the deep Amazon.
In North America,
they were clearly
gone by 10,000 years ago.
That's the distribution
of paramylodon.
We even have paramylodon
footprints from--
and I'm not making this up.
This is going to sound
funny, but it's true.
This dot right here is
the Nevada State prison,
and there were
footprints found there
in the late 1800s that
were thought at first to be
human footprints, and
within a decade or so
were recognized to be mylodon
ground sloth footprints.
They're the only footprints
of a sloth, as far as I know,
that are known
from North America.
The carnivores-- smilodon,
the saber toothed cat,
is one of the iconic
mammals of North America,
along with the mammoth,
but there were seven genera
of carnivores that were lost.
The short faced
skunk-- paleontologists
are really good at giving
common names to animals.
The short faced skunk is
called that because it's
a skunk with a short face.
It's not very well known.
There are only seven sites of
it known from North America.
Cuon, the dhole, is
a hyper carnivore
that is doing OK-- not great,
but OK-- in southern Asia
today.
During the ice age, it
found from northern Spain
all the way across into
Northeastern North America--
pardon me, northwestern
North America.
And then if you
look closely, you'll
see that one site in
Mexico way down here--
every so often somebody
gets it in their mind
that that can't possibly
cuon, and they go look at it,
and sure enough it is.
It has to-- these
were not birds.
It has to have lived
someplace in between.
All the work I did
in the Great Basin--
the site's been known
for a long time.
I always had my
eyes open for cuon.
It's an animal that I would run
across in the paleolithic sites
that we worked on in France.
Nobody's found one in between.
It had to have been there.
Somebody will find
it sooner or later.
Tremarctos, the
Florida cave bear.
Tremarctos still exists.
It's called the Andean bear.
It still exists in the mountains
of western South America.
I believe there's one
in the Seattle zoo.
It's also called
the spectacle bear.
This is a South American bear
with its closest relatives,
and it's distribution
during the late ice age
was South American.
It was closely
related to this guy.
Whoops, wrong button.
This guy, the giant bear.
The giant bear is called
that for a good reason.
The giant bear was the longest
land carnivore of the late ice
age anywhere in the world.
I put 1,500 pounds on
there for its weight,
but there are some whose
weight has been estimated
as high as 2,000 pounds.
People argued for a long time
about what its diet might be.
Argued is the wrong
term-- pondered,
did research on what its diet
might be, and in the end,
we've learned so much about it
that the conclusion is obvious.
This bear ate whatever
the hell it wanted to.
[LAUGHTER]
Widespread-- coast to coast,
and up into the northwest.
Although one thing that we
know is that these records
in the far northwest date to
the 20,000s while ones down here
date to as late as
about 11,000 years ago.
They seem to have become
extinct up here before they
became extinct down there.
The saber toothed cat--
one of animals-- Diego
in the movie Ice Age.
Massive, massive animals
weighing 500 pounds.
Larger than an African
lion with those long sabers
protruding from its mouth.
The sabers had
serrations on both sides
like pinking shears
on both sides.
Narrow, powerful cutting tools.
These animals also had
really powerful front limbs
built in such a way as to
be able to resist twisting
motions from while they
were killing their prey
with their front limbs.
These animals were probably
ambush hunters, lurking
for their prey to walk by.
There are also 2,000 of them
roughly at Rancho La Brea.
That fact suggests that
they were probably social,
as well-- a probably
social pack hunting animal.
There is their distribution.
I should say with all these this
is their known distribution.
Surprises can
always be in store.
Homotherium was
called a scimitar cat.
It also had those
protruding teeth,
but they were smaller than the
protruding teeth of the saber
tooth.
Homotherium was really
widespread in the ice
age Africa all the away across
down into South America.
Homotherium was a long
legged powerful cat,
short tailed-- long legged,
powerful, short tailed cat.
Pretty clearly
ran its prey down.
We know that it
could hunt animals
as big as juvenile manners
because in a cave in Texas
it's been found
associated with its prey.
That's its distribution.
And then there's this
guy, miracinonyx.
This is such a cool animal.
This is a type specimen
from a site excavated
in northern Nevada not far from
Pyramid Lake, Winnemucca Lake
basin.
This is the very skull
that led to the definition
of this genus, miracinonyx.
It's called the
American cheetah,
and it's called the
American cheetah
because this animal is so
similar in so many ways
to African cheetahs
that for a long time
it was thought that they
were really closely related.
Some even thought
that maybe cheetahs
evolved in the Americas,
crossed into Eurasia,
and ended up in Africa.
People who live
in the northwest,
have been in eastern Washington,
eastern Oregon, Nevada,
the Great Plains have probably
seen pronghorn antelope.
Pronghorn are the
largest-- pronghorn
are the fastest herbivores
of North America.
They can reach bursts of
speed of 60 miles an hour.
There's nothing
that can catch them.
There's nothing
that can come close.
Why is this animal, it's
reasonable to wonder,
over engineered?
Why are you able to run 60 miles
an hour when nothing like that
is needed to get away
from your predators?
Well, the guess
is-- and a guess is
all it is-- that the pronghorn
is over engineered for today,
but it wasn't over
engineered for the past,
that pronghorns evolved
with American cheetahs.
And their speed is
accounted for by the fact
that slow pronghorn became
dinner to the cheetah.
Fast ones escaped.
Here's the distribution of
miracinonyx, American cheetah.
It's Western.
The one thing I meant
to say and forgot
is the fact that
fairly recently DNA
has been extracted
from its bones,
and we know that western
cheetahs aren't closely related
to African cheetahs at all.
They are related to our cougars.
They are similar to cheetahs
because their adaptations are
similar, not because they
share a recent common ancestor.
Ah, the giant rodents.
They're so cool.
[LAUGHTER]
Giant beavers were the
size of black bears.
This is true.
They're the size of black bears.
Different people
reconstruct their weights
at different amounts,
but these were beavers
the size of black bears.
Mostly eastern in distribution.
They don't seem to
have been dam builders.
Their teeth don't match
the dam building habits
of modern beavers.
Mostly eastern in distribution,
but a couple of sites
in the far northwest.
And then these guys, capybaras.
Capybaras today are the
world's largest living rodents.
Big males can reach 120 pounds.
They still exist in
Central and South America.
Here's a family group of them.
One of my students in
my extinctions class
pointed out to me-- I didn't
know this a couple years ago--
that they're bred to be pets.
If you Google capybara
plus pet, you'll
come up with totally
cool YouTube videos
of capybaras living as
pets in people's houses.
If you do that, look
closely, and look
at the wood in that house.
There's one YouTube--
[LAUGHTER]
Rodents have
ever-growing incisors.
They need to keep
their teeth worn down.
There's a door in one of the
houses in one of the YouTube
videos that's totally--
almost totally-- destroyed
by chewing capybara, but
they are, to their credit,
totally cute.
[LAUGHTER]
They hang around water
because that's how
they tend to escape predators.
There were capybaras
in the-- they
are southern animals,
South American animals.
Capybaras made it into
southern North America
during the ice age, as did
another genus of capybara--
this one, which was
at least 50% bigger
than the modern capybara.
This is a capybara also
found in South America that
pushed 200 pounds.
Here's our second small animal.
Our first small animal
was the short faced skunk.
Aztlanolagus, the aztlan
rabbit, was about the size
of a pygmy rabbit.
Pygmy rabbits are fairly well
recognized in Washington State
because there was an
isolated population
in eastern Washington
that people are now
working hard to reintroduce
in the Hanford area.
Aztlanolagus gets was
a western rabbits.
It was about the size
of a pygmy rabbit,
but it didn't behave
like pygmy rabbits.
Its post cranial skeleton--
its legs suggested
that its behavior was
more like a jack rabbit,
that it was an efficient runner.
There is its distribution.
What doesn't show on here are
records south of South America.
This animal' is known
deep into Mexico.
Horses-- many people
here probably know
that horses evolved
in North America.
They crossed into Eurasia
over the Bering land bridge.
They also moved
into South America,
where two different
kinds of horses
existed until the
end of the ice age.
They subsequently
became zebras in Africa.
They continued to exist in
Eurasia into-- obviously
they still exist
into historic times,
but they became extinct in
North America about 10,000 years
ago only to be reintroduced
much later by Europeans.
They were all over the place.
Let me point out
that, whenever you
see a picture like this
one, that's showing
an archaeological association.
This is the archaeological
site of Wally's Beach
in southwestern Alberta which
has artifacts associated
with an extinct horse.
I'll come back to that later on.
Tapirs-- tapirs
evolved in Eurasia
and then moved into North
America and into South America.
Don't know how many
species there were.
Maybe as few as two,
maybe as many as four,
but they were found
from coast to coast.
The flat-headed peccary.
What's on the screen
here is an animal
that's known as catagonus.
It was discovered by
scientists in 1975.
When scientists
discovered it, it
was thought to be platygonus,
the flat-headed peccary,
because it looks so much like.
Its skeleton looks
so much like it.
There's no question
that platygonus,
were we to see it on the hoof,
would've looked like this.
This is the Chocoan peccary
from the Argentinian Choco.
I should've said that.
Flat-headed peccaries would've
looked very much like this.
Platygonus was widespread
coast to coast.
There's that one record in the
far Northwest in the American
Arctic.
There's now a second record--
it's not been published--
from the northern Yukon.
It's not been published,
so it's not on here,
but there's no
reason to doubt it.
So a widespread
peccary-- we also know
that this peccary
was a herd animal,
and we know that
because, often when you
find one skeleton of platygonus,
you find a bunch more with it.
That's very different from
the long-nosed peccary.
The long-nosed peccary-- when
you find one long-nosed peccary
skeleton, that's all you find.
This pretty clearly
was a solitary animal.
It was also an animal that you
find primarily in the wooded
east.
Camels-- some of this
is hard to believe.
I've been working with these
animals since graduate school,
and I still find some
of this hard to believe.
I'll start with camelops.
Here's a reconstruction by
Wally Wolfenden of camelops.
If you saw one today
walking down the street,
you'd swear it was a dromedary.
There are some differences.
Its head is a little bit
longer, a little bit skinnier.
Its hump is a little
bit further forward.
It's a little bit taller, but
it looks like a dromedary,
and genetic-- ancient
DNA-- the analysis
of ancient DNA from its
bones, which was just studied,
shows that it's more
closely related to Eurasian
dromedaries than it is
to South American llamas.
It was a western
camel-- quite common.
There have not been many
Pleistocene age, ice age sites
in the Great Basin that
I've worked on that
didn't have camels in them.
This is Wally's Beach again.
Wally's Beach has
artifacts associated
with both horse and camel.
The other two extinct camels
are both lamas and lama size.
Hemiauchenia was widespread.
It was also a herd animal.
We know that, again, because we
have found herds of them dead.
Palaeolama not as widespread.
Southeastern in distribution.
Navohoceros-- this was the
first reconstruction ever
to have been done
of navahoceros.
Wally Wolfenden and
I did this together.
I did the anatomy.
Wally did the hard part,
the part that takes talent.
He drew this.
When I saw this, I
thought it was remarkable,
because this animal is exactly
how I would have pictured this.
This animal is not
all that well known.
It was between a deer
and an elk in size,
but it had the bulk of an elk--
of a very large elk-- and very
simple antlers.
It's called a mountain deer
because its skeletons suggest
that it was a really
nimble climber.
Its skeleton has been compared
to the skeleton of a mountain
sheep.
There's its distribution.
Cervalces-- this is often
called the stag moose.
Found in two very different
places in North America.
Major distribution obviously
in the east around the Great
Lakes, and then a very
isolated distribution
up here in the far northwest.
These animals are
found in habitats
that would be identical to
the habitats in which you
find moose today.
In fact, their post
cranial skeletons
are-- the skeleton
that's not the skull--
are very similar to
the skeletons of moose.
So much so that they can
be very hard to tell apart,
but the antlers are
distinctly different.
Sooner or later-- and
sooner is probably closer--
the genetics of this animal
are going to be known.
And my guess is it's going to
show that these stag moose are
closely related to stag moose,
cervalces, that occurred on
over here in Eurasia, and that
these are genetically distinct.
Nobody's done that work.
So here is a moose-like
animal that was not a moose.
We've all-- many of us
have seen pronghorn.
I can't say we've all
seen them, but many of us
have seen pronghorn.
Pronghorn existed
during the late ice age.
One of the things that makes
pronghorn distinctive is this.
What did I do?
One of the things
that makes prong--
I need three hands--
pronghorns distinctive
is this prong on their horn.
That's why they're
called pronghorn.
Pronghorns have only two horns--
a left one and a right one.
They existed in the late
ice age during the ice age,
but they existed alongside three
other pronghorns, all of which
have four, not two horns.
Capromeryx was the
smallest of them.
Capromeryx would've been
about that tall-- 18 inches
to two feet tall and
weighed about 25 pounds.
The other two were
pronghorn in size.
The difference between the other
two is that, in one of them,
the horns were of equal height.
In the other one, the horns
were of unequal height,
with the front horns
shorter than the hind horns.
Capromeryx--
reasonably well known.
It's an easy animal to
identify, because it
is a tiny little pronghorn.
Western North America--
tetrameryx not as well
known, though you can see a
complete skull on the top right
there with those
shorter front horns.
Stockoceros is better known.
There aren't that
many sites of it,
but some of the sites
that have provided
the remains of
stockoceros have provided
the remains of dozens and dozens
of them-- 50 to 60 individuals.
As a result, the skeleton
is really well known,
and as a result, we know
that these were her animals.
There's no way the
capromeryx, the tiny one,
the diminutive
pronghorn, could've
been a herd animal
for the simple reason
that it would have
been too inviting
a target for a predator.
Capromeryx was probably--
the diminutive pronghorn
was probably an animal that
saved itself by stealth,
and it probably had
protective coloring.
Saiga-- saiga are a
sad story in the sense
of that saiga were doing
poorly for a long time
in historic times.
People launched a major, major
conservation biological effort
to save them.
It was working, and
then just recently they
got really slammed by disease.
It's an awful story.
They still exist in southern
Asia, but during the ice age
their distribution went
from northern Spain
and southern France-- we
find them in the sites
that I used to work on
in southern France--
all away across into
northwestern North America.
Euceratherium-- the shrub ox.
It also had the convenient
habit of pooping
in dry caves in the
arid west, so we know
a good deal about its diet.
We know, for instance,
that it was a browser.
It's also western
and distribution,
and we know from its genetics
that it was really closely
related to the modern musk ox.
Bootherium--
bootherium, for reasons
I'll talk about in a minute,
is called the helmeted musk ox.
You can probably
maybe even see why
up there-- that heavy
mass of bone on its head.
Widespread-- you find in the
far northwest, the Arctic.
You find it from coast to coast.
It was found pretty
much every place
in unglaciated North America,
except the far southwest
and the far southeast.
There's why it's called
the helmeted musk ox.
For a long time, this
animal was divided
into two different
kinds-- the genus symbos
and the genus bootherium.
People began to realize
that, gee, when we find one,
we often find the other.
Maybe there's something going
on here, and what's going on
is that one was the girl,
and one was the boy.
[LAUGHTER]
The girl has horns like the
modern musk ox has horns
with a split down the middle.
The boy has horns that look like
that-- buttressed horns that
are clearly meant to
be used in head butting
battles for male male dominance.
If you look at these horns, you
can see something else here,
and I think this is really cool.
See how these horns
curl outwards--
this is the male-- while
these are curving forwards?
These horns are made
for head butting.
These horns are not.
The head butting was meant
to be just head butting.
You weren't meant to
hurt the other guy.
You were meant to
intimidate the other guy.
These horns curl
outwards so when
these guys head butt neither of
them is getting stuck by horns.
The female horns
point forward perhaps
because that's a more effective
way to ward off predators.
I won't talk-- we're
doing good for time.
That's the kind of thing
you're supposed to say
to yourself and not out loud.
I won't say much
about mixotoxodon.
The toxodonts are
South American animals.
We know from very
recent research
that they're most closely
related to horses and rhinos,
but they are South American.
Prior to the year
2013, we had no idea
they got this far north.
In 2013, Ernie [INAUDIBLE],
a very famous paleontologist,
published the first record for
a toxodont in North America
from eastern Texas.
He told me about this two
years before it was published,
and I thought Ernie, who
is quite old, had lost it.
It just doesn't seem possible,
but there is the tooth.
This is a toxodont.
Ernie will never lose it.
He's right.
This is the only
specimen we have
for this animal
in North America.
The next one down is
in southern Mexico.
Mammoth, mastodon--
everybody's heard of mammoths.
Many of you-- maybe even all of
you-- have heard of mastodons.
I'd be surprised if many of
you who are not in the business
have heard of gompotheres.
Gompotheres were the
South American version
of mammoth and mastodon.
Mammoth and mastodon
did not make it
south of Panama-- the
Isthmus of Panama.
South of there the proboscidean,
the elephant-like animal,
was the gompothere.
That's what its jaw looked like.
Gompotheres are
characterized by the fact
that they have these
really complex cheek teeth.
These are a lot like the
cheek teeth of mastodon,
but they're even more complex
than their cheek teeth.
You can see how big they are.
These were massive,
massive animals.
Gompothere specimens have
been known for North America
for quite some time,
but only recently--
and I mean really recently--
was it realized how long they
lasted in North America.
We now know that from this
site called El Fin de Mundo
that gompotheres
survived in North America
until about 11,550 years ago.
This is called a Clovis point.
It's associated with the two
gompotheres from this site.
Here is the site.
This site was excavated
by Lupita Sanchez--
you see her name here--
and Vance Holiday.
Vance Holiday was the
one who provided me
with these illustrations.
There it is right there.
There they are excavating
that gompothere mandible
that you just saw, and here are
what are called Clovis points.
I'll show you another
picture of these in a minute
because I want to talk
about Clovis for a minute.
Clovis is one of the most
famous archaeological phenomena
in North America.
It's probably fair
to say that Clovis
is one of the most famous
archaeological phenomena
in the world.
Clovis dates to between
11,600 and 10,800 years ago.
It has an artifact that
is totally diagnostic.
When you see it,
you know what it is.
When you see it, you
know how old it is.
When you're an archaeologist
and you find one,
you never forget where you
were when you found it.
They are splendid artifacts.
Like pronghorn, they seem
to be over engineered.
People were importing
raw materials--
gorgeous raw materials
all over the place
to make these
beautiful specimens.
Here is a cast of one that
I'll come back to in a minute.
Clovis sites are
primarily the sites
of the planes and southwest.
When people argue
that the animals we've
been talking about were driven
to extinction by human hunters,
it's Clovis hunters
that they mean.
One of the things that
characterizes Clovis
is the fact that they made
what are called caches.
Nobody knows why they did this.
They're amazing things.
They dug holes in the ground,
left artifacts in them,
and left them there.
I'm mentioning this
one because there's
a famous Clovis cache in eastern
Washington near Wenatchee.
It's called the Richey Roberts
site or the East Wenatchee
Clovis cache.
There are about two dozen of
these known from North America.
The Richey Roberts artifacts
are on the second floor
in the Burke Museum--
not all of them,
but enough of them to
make it worthwhile to go
see them there.
There's also a
great ground sloth
skeleton-- megalonyx
skeleton-- in the Burke Museum
right near the Richey
Roberts artifacts
found when they were
digging SETAC airport.
That one has a
radiocarbon date, as I
recall, of about 12,000
years ago-- the museum one.
Mastodon-- mastodons are
quite different from mammoths.
I will point to
that in a minute,
but mammoths have
these high domed heads.
Mastodons lack that.
These are low, long tank-like
animals whose tusks jutted out
kind of horizontally and whose
teeth were much more complex
than the teeth of mammoth.
Here's their distribution.
There are two archaeological
sites from North America that
have both mastodon and
either Clovis age artifacts,
or Clovis points themselves, or
Clovis dates-- some combination
of those two things.
I put this up here just to
remind me of this amazing fact.
There's a mastodon known from
the Wasatch range of Utah
at 9,800 feet elevation.
People who are
interested in this stuff
may notice that I've
only got two sites here
that I'm willing to accept
as associated with Clovis age
artifacts or Clovis age dates.
What's missing is this site,
the Manis mastodon site.
It is a very famous site
in Washington State.
It's near Sequim, Washington.
It's now on a set aside.
It's being preserved.
The little museum in
Sequim-- you can go
see the mounted skeleton
of the mastodon from there.
Here's the artifact--
wrong thing to say.
Here's the specimen that started
the big deal about mammoths.
Many people think that this is
also a human associated site,
and they think that because
of this particular bone.
This is a head of a rib.
Here are the articular
surfaces where
the rib would have joined
with a vertebra, the backbone.
And here is this
thing that appears
to be sticking out of it.
Many people think that this is
the tip of a bone projectile
point.
This, by the way, is-- I
took this picture in-- I
shouldn't tell you when, but
1977 when this was excavated.
This is the way looked
right after it came out
of the ground.
This is the way it looks today
this is what paper published
in Science in 2011.
This is the location of that
rib and this thing sticking out.
You can see the computerized
x-ray, the CAT scan there.
It looks like a pointy thing.
The argument is that
this is a bone projectile
point sticking into a rib.
I am unconvinced, and
here's why I'm unconvinced,
and I'll just let you read this.
This is a musth
battle, a musth battle
between two male elephants.
Not only do we know that
male elephants do this.
We know that mastodons did it,
because there are mastodons
known from the Great Lakes
area with skeletal damage that
only could have been done as
part of this kind of battle.
That skeletal damage includes
broken, shattered vertebrae.
It is fully possible
that this piece
of bone sticking into
the mammoth's rib
is part of that
animals own skeleton.
Until it's shown
otherwise, I'm not
willing to accept this as
an archaeological object.
Mammoth-- we're almost
done with our tour.
Mammoths-- the second iconic
mammal of the North American
Pleistocene.
People talk about two to
four species of mammoths.
It's now looking
from ancient DNA
that all these guys could
probably interbreed.
These were massive,
massive animals
with massive, massive tusks.
There is that dome
on its head that
was meant to receive
the muscles that
ran back towards
vertebrae, to an old
up this massive, massive tusks.
It looks very different
from a mastodon.
11 sites have been
found that have
associations between Clovis
artifacts and mammoths.
There's no question that
people were hunting mammoth.
I've been talking only about the
genus level here so far-- genus
level extinctions, and I've been
doing that because often it's
so hard to tell what are
properly defined species
is with extinct animals.
For horses, the genetics
suggest that there
may be as few as two species.
There may have been as few
as two species of horses
during the late ice age.
Paleontologists have
defined some of them
10 species, some
of them 20 species.
So nobody disagrees
about the genus.
A horse is a horse, but
there were three well
defined species of animals that
went extinct in North America.
The dire wolf is one of them.
The genus canis still exists in
North America today-- wolves,
for instance, and coyotes, and
humankind's best invention,
the puppy dog.
They all belong
to the same genus.
Dire wolves were widespread.
They had massive, massive
muscle attachments
for the muscles that operate
their killing mechanism,
their chewing mechanism.
They were widespread.
They were clearly social.
There are 2,000 specimens of
saber tooth cats at Rancho la
Brea.
There are more than that of
dire wolves at Rancho la Brea.
When one got stuck in the
tar pits, bunches of them
got stuck at once, suggesting
they were hunting together.
These were pretty
clearly pack hunters.
They were pretty clearly
able to take down animals
as big as bison.
Panthera leo-- this is
still hard to believe,
but it's still true.
There were lions
in North America
during the late ice age.
Lions were extremely
widespread at one time.
The Americas all the
way over into Africa--
the difference about the
extinct American lion
is that it was bigger than
the modern African lion.
The genus still exists
in North America
because jaguars are still found
in southern North America.
And then there's
the mountain goat.
People here know
about mountain goats.
They were introduced into
the Olympic Peninsula,
where you can see them today.
They were mammals of
the northern Cascades
and northern Rocky Mountains.
There was a very separate
species of mountain goat
found in the southwestern
US-- the Great Basin
in the southwestern US-- for
instance, in the Grand Canyon.
We know that it had white
fur because that material has
been found in dry caves
in the Grand Canyon.
It was smaller than the
modern mountain goat,
but it was also a
nimble, agile animal
just as is the
modern mountain goat.
Well, that's my not
so quick rundown.
I have 12 minutes left.
That's my not so quick
rundown of the players,
the late ice age mammals
of North America .
One thing that I have
been kind of avoiding
so far, except to give you a
general notion as to when they
became extinct,
is the chronology,
the timing of their extinction.
Remember, one of the arguments
for the loss of these guys
is that the root cause are
Clovis hunters, that people
entered North America.
The first people
in North America
were Clovis hunters--
and that they
hunted these animals to death.
That means that all
these animals must have
existed during Clovis times.
The problem is that
we can only show
that 17 of these 37
genera of mammals
made it past 12,000 years ago.
We pretty much know
that they were all
gone by 10,000 years
ago because there is not
a single compelling date from
any site in North America that
has these animals much below
10,000, but less than half
of them can be shown to
have coexisted with Clovis.
Some of these animals--
the most recent date
predates 25,000 years ago.
What we can be sure of is
that all of these animals
were around 25,000
or so years ago.
All of them are gone by
roughly 10,000 years ago,
and a lot of them, but not
necessarily all of them,
were going out of existence
between 12 and 10,000 years ago
when Clovis people were around.
The age old question is, why?
The obvious answer
is climate change.
I have published a
ton on this topic.
People always associate me
with the climate change group,
but the truth is
that nobody has made
a coherent compelling
argument that climate
can explain all of this, and I'm
just going to leave it at that.
There is another explanation
that's quite recent
that you may have heard about.
It made the popular media
just as kind of sexy science
often does.
That argument is that a comet
exploded above glacial ice
in the Great Lakes
region of eastern Canada
and caused these extinctions.
That is, the extinctions are due
to an extraterrestrial impact.
In fact, that
argument is not only
that the extinctions were due
to an extraterrestrial impact,
but that the end of
Clovis is to be explained
by an extraterrestrial
impact, as are
a wide range of other
things, including
continent-wide burning
for which there
is no evidence,
massive climate change,
and a bunch of other things.
All I want to do is
show you one slide.
This is the chronology
of the latest dates
for mammoth in the area where
Alaska and Eurasia come closest
together.
It's called Beringia.
Remember, that comet is said to
have exploded 10,900 years ago.
If that's the case,
their argument
is that these extensions
all occurred around
10,900 years ago, but
as you can see here,
our latest date for
Alaska is 11, 500.
There are probably younger ones.
Maybe they made it to
10,900, but our youngest date
for a mammoth in
mainland northern Siberia
is 8,700 years ago.
Saint Paul Island--
5,700 years ago,
and amazingly enough,
the youngest data
Wrangel Island for a mammoth--
and these are really good
dates.
There's over 100 dates
on mammoth from Wrangel--
is 3,700 years ago.
An impact event of
10,900 years ago
which caused all these
extensions doesn't work.
And also remember that this is
one of the reasons I mentioned
South America when I started.
37 genera became extinct
in North America.
54 genera became extinct
in South America,
all the way down to the
tip of Tierra Del Fuego.
It's hard to imagine, even
without the slide I just
showed you, an impact event
explaining all of that.
Well, then there's this.
We may not have time
to get to my avocado.
[LAUGHTER]
There is a really intriguing
relationship between mammoths
and avocados, gompotheres, and
ground sloths, and avocados,
but I promised I
would only go an hour,
and I only have about
eight minutes left.
Human predation is clearly
the most common argument
that you encounter
for these extensions,
that Clovis people did
all of these animals in.
The argument isn't that Clovis
people hunted the carnivores
to death.
The argument is that Clovis
people hunted the herbivores
to death and that because of
that their predators died,
that saber tooth cats,
and scimitar cats,
and American cheetahs
died because people
did in their prey.
I'm no fan of that
argument, and I'm
no fan of that argument for
reasons that I've actually
kind of already mentioned.
Reason number one is this.
We can't even show that
half these animals made it
into Clovis times.
That's reason number one.
Reason number two is this.
There are 37 genera of
mammals that became extinct,
seven of which are carnivores,
30 of which are herbivores.
Of those herbivores,
we can only show
that people were associated
with them in such a way
that they were
probably hunting them.
We can only show that for
five of these animals.
Here are the sites.
We have one site with a camel
in it and a horse in it.
We have one site with
a gompothere in it.
We have two sites
with mastodon in it,
and we have 11 sites with
mammoth, and that's it.
I'm sure I would be
gratified if you remember
the distribution of ground
sloths in North America,
but in case you've
forgotten, if you add them
all up-- all four of them--
they were all over the place.
There's not a single-- not
a single archaeological
association with ground
sloths in North America,
even though they seem
to have been everywhere.
There are other reasons I
don't like these arguments,
but these are the prime ones.
We can't show that people
were hunting these animals,
yet they are said to have
hunted them to death.
We can't show that all these
animals, or even half of them,
coexisted with
people, yet they're
said to have hunted
them to death.
Well, unfortunately, the
conclusion to all this
is that we simply don't know
what caused the extinctions.
The nice thing about
this-- and this
may sound odd-- the nice
thing about this is the fact
that we don't know what caused
the extinctions drives people
nuts, and because
it drives them nuts,
it causes them to learn
more, and more, and more
about these animals.
Are you bored yet?
[LAUGHTER]
It's 8 o'clock.
SPEAKER 1: [INAUDIBLE].
DONALD GRAYSON: Avocado.
[LAUGHTER]
Avocado, OK.
We've all seen
reconstructions like this.
This is the 1972 reconstruction
from the National Geographic.
It doesn't matter that
it's, what, 40 years old?
There are the animals.
We've talked about all of these,
and let me point something out.
I just said that there's
not a single association
between artifacts
and ground sloths
in North America that is
in any way convincing.
Nobody even argues there is one.
There wasn't one in 1972,
but so deep is the assumption
that people caused
these extinctions
that, if you look here,
those are people hunting
a Jefferson's ground sloth.
There is absolutely no
archaeological associations
anywhere between
Jefferson's ground
sloths, megalonyx, and people.
This drives me nuts.
[LAUGHTER]
But this is the view-- I didn't
show this to foam at the mouth.
This is a common view.
Here are some more of them.
These are the reconstructions
that you see of the North
American ice age landscape.
It's got the landscape
teeming with animals.
Until relatively recently,
I kind of pictured
the American past this way.
I let myself think by analogy
with the African plains,
the African Savannah that
North America was just
covered with animals just
like it's shown here.
This, by the way, is from
the Great Basin, an area
that we're going to talk about
in a minute-- high elevation
Great Basin.
And so let me quickly
talk about this.
I think five minutes
is about right.
Let me quickly talk about this.
North America has four
botanically defined deserts.
One of them is the Great
Basin Desert right here.
Three of them are probably
better known-- the Chihuahuan
Desert, the Sonoran Desert.
I think of these two
as Walt Disney deserts.
This has saguaro cactus.
This has Joshua trees.
These are the three warm
deserts of North America.
The cool deserts-- warm
summers, cold winters.
The warm deserts-- hot
summers, warm winters.
Here's what the lower elevations
of the botanical Great Basin
look like-- kind like parts of
eastern Washington-- sagebrush,
and before livestock
were introduced, grasses.
Here's what the Chihuahuan
Desert looks like.
I'm not going to talk
about it anymore.
Loads and loads
of creosote bush.
Here are Joshua trees
in the Mojave Desert--
kind of an iconic plant
of the Mojave desert--
and saguaro trees in
the Sonoran Desert.
These are the warm deserts.
The Great Basin botanical desert
has a diverse late ice age
fauna.
20 genera of animals-- all
of which we've talked about.
Here are their pictures--
are known from there.
It also has a really well
defined archaeological record.
One of the two earliest
sites known from the Americas
is from the Great Basin.
It is from eastern Oregon--
called the Paisley Caves.
It has human fossilized feces.
I said turds before,
but I don't want
to say it again because
I shouldn't have said it.
[LAUGHTER]
Dated to 12,400
years ago from which
human DNA has been extracted--
Native American human DNA.
This is one of the two oldest
sites known from the Americas.
The other is a site called
Monte Verde in southern Chile
that dates to 12,500 years ago.
The earliest diagnostic obvious
artifacts from the Great Basin
are also known from
the Paisley Caves.
They're known from
everywhere, but they're
best dated from
the Paisley Caves,
and date to 11,100 years ago.
These kinds of
artifacts are also
associated with this cool
thing called a crescent.
They're widespread
in the desert west.
We've got a really good
archaeological record
from the Great Basin.
We know that people were
here by 12,400 years ago
and that they were
using points that
looked like this--
artifacts that looked
like this 11,100 years ago.
We also have a good radiocarbon
record for the extinct mammals,
and because of that, we know
that people were in the Great
Basin at the same time as at
least these seven genera of now
extinct ice age mammals.
We know that people were
living in the same places
where those animals live.
That is, they
overlapped in dates
and they overlapped in
habitat, and this made
me wonder a couple of things.
There is no association
between artifacts
and an extinct mammal
whatsoever in the Great Basin.
None.
None that people
even argue about.
There are no kill sites
from the Great Basin.
That made me wonder about how
often people saw these animals.
Were they as common
on the landscape
as this reconstruction-- this
common kind of reconstruction
suggests?
Or where they rare
on the landscape?
Well, that made me
think about an article
that I read a 19-- I
read it before 1982.
Richard Mack and
John Thompson were
botanists at Washington State.
I think Richard
Mack is still there.
They sent me a manuscript
when I was a young puppy
and said, what do
you think of this?
And I read it, and made
some comments on it,
and thought it was
cool, but I just
didn't get how
important it really was.
What they pointed out was
that, unlike the Great Plains--
let me put this differently.
The Great Plains
has grasses that
are adapted to being eaten by
larger herbivores like bison.
The Great Basin doesn't.
This is what they pointed out--
that the Great Basin lacks
widespread grasses
that do well when they
are chewed by large herbivores--
when they're grazed.
That's why when you
go to the Great Basin
today in areas that
have cattle on them
you see hardly any
grasses in the valleys.
They concluded that large
grazers of the sort that we've
been talking about here,
these large herbivores,
were never abundant there.
Well, it only took me
30 years to realize
that maybe this is
worth thinking about,
and what I started
thinking about was
this-- pointy, dangerous
things on tall plants, plants
that my colleague
Connie [? Malark ?]
calls ouchy plants.
Connie is sitting right there.
Anybody who's a gardener,
when you prune your roses,
you come away with stuff
that looks like this.
Well, imagine being
a herbivore trying
to eat one of these things.
So I'm talking about plants
that have spines, thorns,
anything that, if you try to
eat it, it's going to hurt you.
Their function is clear.
They're meant to provide
a mechanical defense
against large herbivores.
Well, guess what?
The warm deserts--
Mojave, and I'm not going
to worry about the Chihuahuan.
The warm deserts of
western North America--
the Mojave and
Sonoran Deserts-- have
over 100 species of these ouchy
plants, these mechanically
defended plants spread across
21 different plant families.
They look like this--
catcclaw acacia--
there's its
distribution-- or this,
or this, or this with these
very pointy, spiky leaves.
These are plants that
have that armament
to keep large mammals
from eating them.
How about the Great Basin?
There's only six species in
six families of these things
in the Great Basin.
Here are three of them
with their distributions.
That's a huge difference.
Over 100 species in
the warm deserts,
only six species in the
Great Basin cool desert?
Somehow you cross a boundary
when you go from here to there,
from mechanically--
from tall plants that
are mechanically-- pardon me.
From the lack of
tall plants that
are mechanically armed
to an abundance of them.
And by tall plants,
by the way, I
mean plants that are
over six feet tall.
Lots of them down here.
Hardly any of them up there.
I am calling that the mechanical
defense line, because that's
what this represents--
a line that
bounds a place where plants
are defending themselves
with mechanical devices.
Obvious question to ask
is, what created this line?
Obvious answer is that it
was created by climate.
After all, we're going
from a cool desert
to a warm desert or vice
versa, and sure enough,
when you look at the
history of these plants,
that does explain some of it.
For instance, yellow
paloverde, parkinsonia,
doesn't reach its northern
edge of its distribution
until about 4,000 years ago.
It had to wait till it warmed
up until it could get that
far north, but that doesn't
account for all of this.
Catclaw acacia with those really
scary things-- catclaw acacia
was in the Grand Canyon 22,000
years ago during the late ice
age.
Joshua tree was at the northern
edge of its distribution
by at least 18,500 years ago.
Climate can't account
for all of this.
What I think does account for it
is the distribution of huge ice
age herbivores, the
animals these plants
were defending
themselves against.
Here are the heights of a
subset of those 100 species.
There's no herbivore today
that can reach up 50 feet
and eat the top of
an acacia plant.
Doesn't happen.
Here are the heights of
the biggest herbivores
in arid western
North America today,
and just to be as
fair as I could,
I include bison on there even
though bison are looking down
to eat and not up.
These animals are
not tall enough
to account for these tall
mechanically defended plants.
The animals that can account
for this are all now extinct.
So my guess is that, as we
move north from down here up
into this area, the
botanical Great Basin,
we move from an area where
these animals were relatively
common to an area where they
may well have been quite rare.
That perfectly
matches the argument
that Mack and
Thompson made in 1982.
Well, when I first
made this argument,
I don't remember if I was
talking to this person
or sent him a manuscript
that talked about this.
None of this is
published, by the way.
He asked me-- this is Dave
Rhodey, a paleobotanist, one
of my own students who's
often done this to me.
He said, don't extinct
herbivores ever look down?
By which he meant, why are you
only looking at tall plants?
Why don't you look at
the short ones, also?
That annoyed me, number one,
because I hadn't thought
of it, because certainly extinct
herbivores would look down,
and number two because
it meant a lot more work,
and I thought I was done.
[LAUGHTER]
So now rather than looking
just at the tall mechanically
defended plants, I looked at
the short mechanically defended
plants, and guess what?
There is no difference in the
distribution of these plants.
Short plants are
mechanically armed as often
in the cool Great
Basin Desert as they
are in the warm
southwestern deserts,
leading me to wonder why climate
would matter to a plant that
was seven feet tall, but not to
a plant that's five feet tall.
The only thing that
can explain this
is the height of the
herbivores and the abundance
of the herbivores that
existed in this area
in the late ice age.
So this is the argument, and
I promise I'm almost done.
I've gone one hour
and two minutes,
but we've reached this.
[LAUGHTER]
I've noticed that I walk down
the ave holding an avocado,
people applaud.
Now maybe I understand why.
There's an avocado.
Avocados are amazing.
These obviously are kind
of domesticated avocados,
but the difference between
wild avocados and this guy
is the pulp of the fruit.
It's not in the seed.
The seeds of a wild
ones are this big.
This is obviously
an avocado seed.
You see a fruit like
this or a seed like this,
the obvious question to ask, if
you're smart enough to ask it--
and I wasn't.
It was Paul Martin and Dan
[? Jensen ?] in the 1980s who
asked it and answered
it-- is here's
a big fruit with a huge seed.
Why?
What could have possibly eaten
this and distributed the seeds
across the landscape?
Well, it's things
like gompotheres,
ground sloth, mammoths.
They're all gone today.
It's called a megafaunal fruit.
Megafaunal fruits
are large fruits.
Here's lots of
characteristics of them--
large fruits with large seeds.
The seeds could pass through
the guts of an animal
and still be able to germinate.
In fact, some of the
seeds of megafaunal fruits
have to pass through
the guts of an animal
to be able to germinate.
That's the avocado story.
When you buy avocados
when you eat guacamole,
think to yourself that
this plant clearly
evolved in the presence of
gompotheres, ground sloths,
and other large things that
were eating it and distributing
its seeds.
Well, there's at least
10 different species
of plants with megafaunal
fruits in the warm deserts
of the southwest.
There is not a single
one in the Great Basin.
That matches the distribution
of mechanically defended plants
and Mack and Thompson's grasses.
Sloth poop.
Shasta ground sloth, sloth poop.
Many people think--
and that includes me--
that the dispersal mechanism
for the large fruits of Joshua
trees-- these fruits are
characterized by the fact that
not only are they
large, but they
don't break open on their own.
They're called indehiscent.
They don't break open
and spread their seeds.
Many people think that
one of the prime seed
spreaders of yucca
trees-- of Joshua trees.
Excuse me-- of Joshua trees
during the late ice age
was the shasta ground sloth.
It would eat those fruits.
It would wander
across the landscape.
It would drop this
someplace else.
Then Joshua trees would emerge.
That, they argue, is why we have
a distribution of Joshua trees
that looks like it's declining.
That is, that the primary
disperser of this planet
is now gone, and as a result,
the plant is in retreat.
And sure enough, the late
Pleistocene distribution
of Joshua trees looks like this.
So that means to me as we
go north in the arid west
we go through an area
where large mammals may not
have been common, but
they were common enough
to lead to those diverse set
of mechanically armed plants
and to plants with
megafaunal fruits
to an area where animals--
large mammals may
have been quite rare.
Well, the other
question to ask is this,
and I'm not going to
answer because I'm done,
but the other question
to ask is this.
Did any place in America
actually look like this?
There was recently a
reconstruction of biomass,
the number of animals on
the landscape in Alaska,
that determined that
Alaska didn't-- not only--
how do I put this?
That a version of Alaska
that looks like this vastly
underestimated what
Alaska looked like.
In fact, we don't know that
for any part of North America.
The next question
to ask in this vein
is just that-- is there any
place in North America that
looked like this?
And as part of that,
the other question
that's going to continue to
be asked is, what in the world
caused the extinction
of all these things?
And with that and an hour and
five minutes after I started,
thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you.
