I found a seashell in the middle of the desert(github.com) |
I found a seashell in the middle of the desert(github.com) |
John McPhee from the wonderful Annals of the former world
There's a lot more to morphology than just the shape of the shell, and indeed the shape can sometimes be misleading, in that very different species can have somewhat similar shells, and different individuals of the same species can have quite different shell shapes. You've got a gasteropod, so it would be good to pay special attention to the peristome and siphonal canal (based on the bio classes I took in the area, I'm no expert) but of course there's lots of features that could be helpful in an identification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropod_shell#Parts_of_the_s... is a good list, and maybe you've already done this but you would want to find a dichotomous key of gasteropod families native to the area to narrow it down. Good luck in figuring out your shell!
It was River or flood deposited according to my research.
The stones are not from the exact location where it was built, but from close by. The quarry where the stones came from hundreds of years ago is still active, and you can find tons of fossils there. It's practically impossible to get a piece of rock from there without visible seashells.
It would be nice if your local detractors noticed your steely insistence on remarking where you are coming from.
I think it would be superb if some ... experts ... in most spaces learned about the beauty of brevity.
Gemini says "As the crow flies (Straight-line distance): Approximately 900 to 920 kilometers (roughly 560 to 570 miles) directly north of the coast at Karachi"
An incredibly detailed and descriptive map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/1964_Pak...
This should allay fears that AI will render people jobless or automate everything.
[;)]
> "if anyone finds my lucky seashell that I lost, could you please return it. I think I lost it near the Alghat desert while I was sledding down a sand dune.
I’m more interested in the giant face carved into the rocks in the second photo. Does this person not realise they’ve discovered a previously unknown sculpture of Yahoo-Wahoo?
And given the whole premise of the piece is “this should not be here!” I don’t really understand the point you’re making. The author says it’s a strange find in that area - so either they have a valid point or they don’t.
I don’t know if it’s a fossil. It doesn’t look like a fossil to me. I’m not a fossil expert. The only way to tell if it is a fossil is to do some analysis on the actual specimen before writing screeds about what it might or might not be based on visual similarity.
And he would think he has the right answer, perhaps write up an essay about his findings, which later AI bots will read and learn from, propgating the mistake...
There is irony here that does not sleep.
I was most surprised that you could flatten a 3d structure down to 2d and not lose so much information that it would cause a very high rate of error. Someone else was skeptical enough to do a study as a critique on it, only to have it retracted. (funny in light of this post)
Wanting to know the definition of a word is not an original problem. Similarly wanting to know what's in an image is not a new problem either.
Remember, the same author says "I found a seashell in the middle of the desert!" "shouldn't be here" and "coastline 500 miles"
And that analysis finds out that the shell the assumed fossil most resembles is completely out of period.
It's visibly very clearly a fossilized sea shell. You are being a useless pedant about the author's choice of verbiage.
And I think you’re arguing yourself into a hole here.
What makes you think I know nothing about the topic? I have donated - at their request - three fossils to national museums.
But I’m not an expert by any stretch.
