Mammal fossil contributes to the adaptation of subspecies to different environments.

[shunyadragon]

This is an interesting article that does report an interesting fossil discovery that contributes to our knowledge of the evolution of mammals, but it is a layman's article that makes a lot of mistakes making unscientific claims concerning the importance of the discovery in terms of what is falsified and demonstrated concerning the advancement of our knowledge of evolution.

Source: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/03/one-of-Darwin's-evolution-theories-finally-proved-by-cambridge-researcher/126575

© Copyright Original Source

The most important flaws are: (!) Nothing is proven in science much less evolution. Evolution is indeed falsified beyond any reasonable doubt based on the current available evidence. (2) I do not believe that this discovery makes a significant contribution to 'Her research could now be used to predict which species conservationists should focus on protecting to stop them becoming endangered or extinct.' (3) The terminology is poor describing the importance of the discovery.

[rogue06]

When you realize that your source has issues it's best to look for others.

Here is the abstract:

Source: Terrestrial habitats decouple the relationship between species and subspecies diversification in mammals

Darwin proposed that lineages with higher diversification rates should evidence this capacity at both the species and subspecies level. This should be the case if subspecific boundaries are evolutionary faultlines along which speciation is generally more likely to occur. This pattern has been described for birds, but remains poorly understood in mammals. To investigate the relationship between species richness (SR) and subspecies richness (SSR), we calculated the strength of the correlation between the two across all mammals. Mammalian taxonomic richness correlates positively, but only very weakly, between the species and subspecies level, deviating from the pattern found in birds. However, when mammals are separated by environmental substrate, the relationship between generic SR and average SSR in non-terrestrial taxa is stronger than that reported for birds (Kendall's tau = 0.31, p < 0.001). By contrast, the correlation in terrestrial taxa alone weakens compared to that for all mammals (Kendall's tau = 0.11, p < 0.001). A significant interaction between environmental substrate and SR in phylogenetic regressions confirms a role for terrestrial habitats in disrupting otherwise linked dynamics of diversification across the taxonomic hierarchy. Further, models including species range size as a predictor show that range size affects SSR more in terrestrial taxa. Taken together, these results suggest that the dynamics of diversification of terrestrial mammals are more affected by physical barriers or ecological heterogeneity within ranges than those of non-terrestrial mammals, at two evolutionary levels. We discuss the implication of these results for the equivalence of avian and mammalian subspecies, their potential role in speciation and the broader question of the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And a few other news reports in the press:

• Phys.org: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher
  
• Sci Tech Daily:
  
• Science Alert: A Crucial Idea Darwin Had on Evolution Was Just Confirmed, 140 Years After His Death
  
• Science Daily: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved

And a press release from St. John's College University of Cambridge

[shunyadragon]

When you realize that your source has issues it's best to look for others.

Here is the abstract:

Source: Terrestrial habitats decouple the relationship between species and subspecies diversification in mammals

Darwin proposed that lineages with higher diversification rates should evidence this capacity at both the species and subspecies level. This should be the case if subspecific boundaries are evolutionary faultlines along which speciation is generally more likely to occur. This pattern has been described for birds, but remains poorly understood in mammals. To investigate the relationship between species richness (SR) and subspecies richness (SSR), we calculated the strength of the correlation between the two across all mammals. Mammalian taxonomic richness correlates positively, but only very weakly, between the species and subspecies level, deviating from the pattern found in birds. However, when mammals are separated by environmental substrate, the relationship between generic SR and average SSR in non-terrestrial taxa is stronger than that reported for birds (Kendall's tau = 0.31, p < 0.001). By contrast, the correlation in terrestrial taxa alone weakens compared to that for all mammals (Kendall's tau = 0.11, p < 0.001). A significant interaction between environmental substrate and SR in phylogenetic regressions confirms a role for terrestrial habitats in disrupting otherwise linked dynamics of diversification across the taxonomic hierarchy. Further, models including species range size as a predictor show that range size affects SSR more in terrestrial taxa. Taken together, these results suggest that the dynamics of diversification of terrestrial mammals are more affected by physical barriers or ecological heterogeneity within ranges than those of non-terrestrial mammals, at two evolutionary levels. We discuss the implication of these results for the equivalence of avian and mammalian subspecies, their potential role in speciation and the broader question of the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And a few other news reports in the press:

• Phys.org: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher
  
• Sci Tech Daily:
  
• Science Alert: A Crucial Idea Darwin Had on Evolution Was Just Confirmed, 140 Years After His Death
  
• Science Daily: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved

And a press release from St. John's College University of Cambridge

Looks like the blind men trying to describe an elephant

[rogue06]

Looks like the blind men trying to describe an elephant

And that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[shunyadragon]

And that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You missed the analogy. i consider many layman science articles written by layman who are blind men trying to describe an elephant. An old Hindu proverb.