You may, or may not, have linked to the Science website I noted in my earlier comment. The minute I read the posting on the Science site -- and Anne Gibbon's well written article, I decided I could write something about the hype -- also writing something about the human efforts of primatologists, anthropologists, and even archeologists to legitimize their work as real Science. I did not. I worked on the other science postings here. I wrote a satirical review of the subject in another "primatology realm" report Anne Gibbons did in Feb. 2007, and tried to inject humor and perspective into it by recalling one of Louis Leakey's efforts at communicating with American "students" of the subject, of interpretations of evidence and tools. http://www.xomba.com/primatologists_stunned_imaginations_exceeded_anthropologist_astonished Upon further internet research and available literature perusal, I conclude that "cute" little Ida was/is marketing, and hype. Think of Ida as IDeA for selling the story, but preposterous as a piece of definitive, remarkable linkage to any other extant species that has not already been established by others with other morphological means. (Are the earbones intact?) Ida is well preserved, but is not the "Missing Link" or even anything special as a link. Ida is/was something promoted that the people involved in producing the Discovery raft of "soft science" programs put together for a marketing tool, for advertising, for profit. I suppose they have recovered their investment. One comment (here, above) mentioned "Cats and Dogs, and then it would be interesting," and that made me chuckle. Maybe the commenter did not realize the full scope of life on Earth? The genetic trail, and the morphological trail, links all of us as part of an organic infection of planet Earth. We live off the inorganic resources (rocks, processed), obtain fossil solar energy, mine radioactive isotopes to produce electricity, eat solar energy collectors and their hydrocarbon stores, as well as eating those that eat these green machines (plants) and we eat the animals that eat the plants. And there was a time in our direct line of ancestry when we were mice-like creatures with potential to become saber tooth tigers, dogs, cats, elephants, horses, antelope, cattle, pigs, or even bats, or monkeys, lemurs, and gorillas -- and humans -- and further back, the chance to become reptilian, or fish and frog, or newt and salamander, as well as take wings with feathers and fly the air, seems to have been available. It appears that common genetic material is shared by all mammals, and delving deeper -- by all living things -- so that it indicates that all living things on Earth are a part of the same massive Earth-life "infection." Did Ida leave any genetic material? Nope. Unless she was of reproductive age and had borne young -- she links to nothing living. But she probably had cousins or siblings -- and stuff of them might still be around. What killed her? Bad dates? [like in "Raiders"]

How brief we are in the span of the history of the world aways amazes me. As a student of geology it is incredible to think of all the species that have gone before us and how long life has been on this planet, despite what the 6000 year religious fanatics believe. Join Xomba Get PAID to write Articles Like These Honest Online Income

IMAGE:This image I fattened, and copied from Xomba to this XOMBA comment, and THIS IMAGE,(even fattened a bit) is according to XOMBA a free-use, Wikipedia "commons" image. I think it is ubiquitous on the web by now, but it is only similar to the rendition in Science for Anne Gibbon's article forScienceNOW of 19 May 2009, whose image is Credit: HISTORY/Atlantic Productions. [Note: There ARE differences, the Science image has whiter bones so the bone structure is only more noticeably highlighted, kind of like the Halloween Skeletons white/on black background.] I noted the Gibbon's article and recommend readers view the comments accumulated there-under for some interesting reading from evolutionists and anti-evolutionists alike. . . and I think that site is actively "moderated," though it may get away from the moderators now and then. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/519/1 Okay. If you are going to place this on the front page as a featured kind of article -- why not provide all the normal credits? Including Rachel, Sarah, or Kristen's or your moniker? Or ALL four? As well as a bona fide image credit? For training purposes. I admit I would have difficulty in citing or footnote-ing all the things I use or have ever read and re-formulated in my Xomba Science articles in putting together a 'readable' xombyte. [Albeit, some might claim a bit of my efforts are incomprehensible in any event and totally unreadable, though not all would find them difficult.] Anyway, take a read of the comments on the Science site and you might see similarities to comments on Xomba sometime back for this kind of flame-ant subject. (I have not commented on the Anne Gibbon's Article -- though I have been tempted to do so -- and the Science thread structure is interesting, with small type -- but I think it has been limited to 3500 text characters, since I did comment on another issue -- and also asked why they wanted images but not comprehensive comments, footnotes, and rigor. Interns And to your Interns: Beware of harsh treatment and criticisms from readers here on Xomba. Satire could be well done here and perhaps your skins be thickened. Satire is a feely-sensy-politically-correct-y lost art [Ask Jeremy about satire, and his conception of it.] For example, being sensitive and feely enough as a Xombie not to call really stoooopid people or comments stooopid, even when they ARE really stooopid, will slow reads and reduce some activities here in. From the BB days, good flames are great reading even if the stoopids are on both sides! [usually, but pretension of stooopidity is okay if the point is well made.][i could cite examples, but won't.] A good project would be to write an article on the use of "commons" images in postings, and if you look back at some postings you will find WIKIPEDIA credits down to the original image maker for a complete open reference which helps make a lesser case for internet copyright or plagiarism claims in defense of the publisher or blogger who distributes the image. [It covers your behind. Reduces your liability exposure. Kinda like the Craigslist Legal Shield.] If Antonia Dwells were still active, here -- you would be educated no matter what you wrote! [look her up, read her sharp witted sharp minded sharp tongued writing, and learn of economic verbal elegance.] In conclusion, I look forward to reading more Science-type articles from you, your TEAM, colleagues and collaborators, with credits (and consequent blame or responsibility in name applied to the work) aptly and appropriately assigned as well as even "Commons" image credits associated with the images proffered. Image: Wikipedia Commons, from NASA, one version of Martian Life! Let's Party! Only the studious amongst you, or the self-flagellant, remain.

I read Anne Gibbons report in [i]Science{/i] and was not really going to critique it or give any real comments as a layman or a qualified reviewer or from any primatologist/anthropologist viewpoint -- to the report or the situation. But as a writer, I can add something to Jeremy's(?) report here! And a bit of a critique, plus my hint of primate based humor-humor. Jeremy? I assume. Oh NO it's Nick! Did you read Anne Gibbon's report or one of the others? This is Anne's report. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/519/1 I recommend a visit and if that link does not work since I have a membership, try this: www.sciencemag.org and search the article out in the news or free articles section. The critique? Yeah Nick. It is your cold? I do not think you took the picture, did you? I would like to see the image credit -- is it Wiki or somewhere else or is it yours? In any case, to make this a legit byte you need to cite your image source. You know the rules, hey? Now, I will only say that when I think about it and concentrate on my long missing tail -- I still "feel" a ghostlike echo in my brain of where that tail hooked up . . . and if you think about hooking your tail around something, you will know what I am saying. Really. Think of your tail bone and what it used to be. You can crimp/cramp your muscles and still feel the satisfying connection -- and look the remnants of that connection are still in your brain, but now relegated to just that muscle- tightening function. Come on! just tighten on your tail a bit and hang on. . . Fix the picture credit. [Can't you recall your tail "feel", you know, those muscles. . . you used to use together with others for security. . ?]