Difference between revisions of "Talk:2847: Dendrochronology"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: The bones depicted appear to represent a subset of "generalized vertebrate animal", including arm, leg, and jaw bones in addition to the vertebrae. Humans are cited as prey species, but the bones in this specimen are far too small to be human. If a typical tree ring is 2 mm wide, the 1635 CE ring would have to be 40 mm wide to accommodate a 20 mm diameter human femur with free space, as shown. The ring is ca. 12 mm wide. This tree ate smaller vertebrates. Of course, different tree species likely had different prey ranges, as with carnivorous animals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.220|172.70.206.220]] 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | : The bones depicted appear to represent a subset of "generalized vertebrate animal", including arm, leg, and jaw bones in addition to the vertebrae. Humans are cited as prey species, but the bones in this specimen are far too small to be human. If a typical tree ring is 2 mm wide, the 1635 CE ring would have to be 40 mm wide to accommodate a 20 mm diameter human femur with free space, as shown. The ring is ca. 12 mm wide. This tree ate smaller vertebrates. Of course, different tree species likely had different prey ranges, as with carnivorous animals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.220|172.70.206.220]] 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Yes, that's what he means by "carnivorous", he's claiming that one year this tree was eating humans, those bones are the remains of those humans. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
So this tree was cut down in late 1642? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.182|172.70.42.182]] 13:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | So this tree was cut down in late 1642? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.182|172.70.42.182]] 13:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:01, 29 October 2023
Hello wonderful person. IYKYK
Is the set of bones supposed to signify something? Human perhaps? I see vertebrae. 172.70.46.30 13:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The bones depicted appear to represent a subset of "generalized vertebrate animal", including arm, leg, and jaw bones in addition to the vertebrae. Humans are cited as prey species, but the bones in this specimen are far too small to be human. If a typical tree ring is 2 mm wide, the 1635 CE ring would have to be 40 mm wide to accommodate a 20 mm diameter human femur with free space, as shown. The ring is ca. 12 mm wide. This tree ate smaller vertebrates. Of course, different tree species likely had different prey ranges, as with carnivorous animals. 172.70.206.220 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what he means by "carnivorous", he's claiming that one year this tree was eating humans, those bones are the remains of those humans. :) NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
So this tree was cut down in late 1642? 172.70.42.182 13:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Its year of death was indeed 1642 CE per dendrochronology. As for being cut down ... given the dense layer of calcium phosphate in the sapwood, and the saws available in the mid-1600s, the question "how?" is nontrivial. 172.70.206.220 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
So is the year 1635 a reference to some real event, or just totally random? 162.158.230.26 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it was totally random it would have been 4AD! 141.101.99.5 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- at first I thought maybe the Carrington Event (similar but smaller EM storm as Miyake events), but that was 1859. The only vaguely related thing I saw for 1635 was the first recorded US hurricane... you might say I'm Stumped (and if that's the meta joke here, insert Capt Kirk "Khan!" clip here, with the subtitle "Monroe!") - 172.68.34.39 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
