These are all assuming you are using Newspaper, since even with Correspondent and 9 equipment, 25 lab surveys take around 6 actions on average and aren't great. I'm not going to touch the Moulin dig, since its greater cost is meant to reflect the Stirrup output, and valuating that would require a monograph breakdown.
Caveats
The following caveats exist, to simplify calculations. These artificially depress the value of discoveries, and so can't be used to compare echo to echo with other grinds, but will work to compare different methods of acquiring discoveries and cashing them in.
-
We're assuming that you are either already awash in Fin Bones, Withered Tentacles, and Jet Black Stingers, or will be doing enough cycles that you will soon be, and thus we're discounting actions which accrue them. If you do want to count them, the total is 3-6 Tentacles, 0-3 Stingers, 3 Fin Bones, 1 Plaster Tail, and 100 cryptic clues per 98 surveys.
-
You have the Debonair Paleontologist
-
You are patient enough to wait to draw the Grandmother card for the extra Research on a Morbid Fad
-
You have 100% successes on Expose newspaper options, and can thus be assumed to always meet copy requirements with enough left over to take the 500 rostygold option
-
Whirring Contraptions are sourced from Wilmot's End
-
Strong Backed Labour is gained via Recruit Clay Man Labour and valued at the sale price of the inputs only. It's assumed they are bought in large enough quantities to asymptote out the cost to enter the quarters.
-
All Holy Relic of the Thigh of St Fiacre are used for Holy Mammoths, at a 100% success rate, and are thus valued at penny value + 5 Rumours of the Upper River. We do not model the full mammoth, however, just the actions to affix the thigh and the reward for doing so.
-
Palaeontological Discoveries are pegged at a penny value of 1250 and accounted for at that rate only. This is because attempting to value their secondary attributes is akin to trying to solve the bone market, which just isn't happening in this breakdown. Therefore, all discoveries are significantly undervalued when incorporated into well designed skeletons. Since we're comparing discovery source to discovery source, the effect should be consistent.
-
You have nothing better to do with your time than draw cards at GHR, and will thus be insensitive to opportunity cost for the less card efficient options
-
These grinds are done for infinite cycles, and thus we do not need to account f
I am not against any of the designs in the franchise but in this I'm talking to people who complain about the inaccuracies in the franchise. I think one of the main dinosaurs people complain about is the Raptor designs, personally I love them, but I just want to point out (this goes for every dinosaur design from jurassic park to JP3) they were designed that way because that's what was considered to be accurate back then and from then on they've labelled inaccurate designs as their trademark. The velociraptors were not considered to look like that back in the 1990s but that's what they thought deinonychus looked like so in the film they took a deinonychus and called it a velociraptor because it sounded cooler and too also fit the novel. People complain about the allo design in fallen Kingdom about it being wrinkly, tiny horns, easy to spot bone and pronated wrists but you have to remember those ones were juveniles and they were on an island where food was very hard to get especially as a small juvenile. They also fixed it in battle at big rock and made it look way better. That's all I had to say.
Quick question, I'm trying to get Hinterland Scrips to progress the railway far enough to unlock Ealing Gardens. Almost everything I'm reading is saying to get Scrips by selling skeletons to Constables, but you need Palaeontological Fads 70 to do that? Is the only way too achieve this just...wait? Until I draw the Public Lecture card? And then pray the random Fads change ends up on a 70?
Hi! I am Beatrice Demarchi, a biomolecular archaeologist at the University of Turin, Italy, with a deep interest in palaeo-biogeochemistry and reconstructing the human past. My research focuses on ancient proteins: the way in which they break down over time and the information they can provide, including the age and biological origin of archaeological and palaeontological remains.
My proof: https://twitter.com/eLife/status/1138810692096724993
In a recent eLife paper (ββPalaeoshellomicsβ reveals the use of freshwater mother-of-pearl in prehistoryβ), my colleagues and I reported the discovery that mother-of-pearl from freshwater shells was used by craftsmen in prehistoric Europe, some 6,000 years ago. Using a combined approach, which we named palaeoshellomics, we extracted and analysed proteins from pearl-like ornaments called βdouble-buttonsβ, made between 4200 and 3800 BC and found at archeological sites in Denmark, Germany and Romania. Our results help settle a debate in archeology about the origin of shells used to make double-buttons in prehistoric Europe: while ancient people often crafted ornaments from marine shells, our analysis suggests instead that mother-of-pearl from freshwater shells was valued and used by groups throughout Europe, even those living in coastal areas. You can read more about the findings in a plain-language summary of our eLife paper.
We now hope our palaeoshellomics technique will be used to help identify the origins of shells from other archaeological and palaeontological sites.
Iβm here to answer any questions you have about our study, or about our research more broadly. AMA!
Again, not looking for debate, Iβm interested to learn an alternative point of view to the one I was taught. I have a few separate questions:
-
Do you think the palaeontological evidence has much bearing on evolution? In particular for proponents of ID, if you are persuaded on other grounds that the genetic change required for the past six million years of human evolution is not feasible, would you regard hypothetical good palaeontological evidence as a valid rebuttal?
-
How do you interpret the existing palaeontological evidence? I am particularly looking for (the broad outlines of) an alternative interpretation of what seem to be intermediate stages of bipedalism, cranial capacity, dental morphology, etc?
-
What would a proposed hominid intermediate fossil have to look like (viz. what features would it have to have) for you to consider it valid evidence for evolution?
I'm particularly interested in bones, especially where the calcium is gone and all that's left is essentially rock.
Like every βwhat if the dinosaurs never died out?β Spec-evo project Iβm aware of has been ruined by us figuring out stuff about Dino biology that made their starting premises wrong.
Hello there!
In my country (Slovakia), there are excavations, where also public is welcomed and they can help with excavating. It is usually one day trip to chosen site, usually organized by professional palaeontological researcher when he/she needs new samples for their research. I know one camp, but there might be more, which is usually around four days in August and it is repeated every year. I Are there such excavations in other countries? Is there any website where I can find them?
So, a few weeks ago I read about an important find that had been made in Australia in 1910. an almost intact fossil of a 2.2 metre long amphibian from the middle Triassic, about 235 million years ago called Paracyclotosaurus davidi. It's the only fossil that has been found of its genus in Australia, and the only articulated skeleton of a capitosaur (one of the major groups of Triassic amphibians) that has been found.
The fossil had been found in Sydney in what was originally a brick pit and had since been converted into a park. Apparently, there was a monument to the find in the park, so I decided to see if I could find it. I was... underwhelmed.
You can't see it too well from the photos, but the memorial consists of two concrete balls (one the size of a medicine ball, the other the size of a basketball) with a cast metal representation of the amphibian. There were no other indications of what it was, no explanation, nothing. They're slap bang in the middle of a garden (now overgrown) next to a playground and you wouldn't even notice them if you didn't know they were there.
Perhaps I'm just a geek about this kind of thing, but to me, this is the sort of thing that should be thought of as a big deal. There's very little on the 'net about this find aside from oblique mentions of it. I don't know, maybe I was expecting at least a plaque or something next to the statues to say what they were. It seems like an easy way to perhaps spark a bit of interest in kids for palaeontology, considering the local connection.
Wiki article on paracyclotosaurus Brief video that got me interested in the first place
