Exploring the Distribution of Populations in Eurasia and North America

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreenPrint
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the distribution of populations in Eurasia and North America based on fossil evidence. The smallest numbers in millions of years indicate younger fossils, leading to the conclusion that region Q contains the oldest existing population. The closest related populations are identified as S and T, differing by only 5 million years. Additionally, the data suggests that the area occupied by the original species increased and then decreased over time. Overall, the analysis emphasizes the relationship between fossil age and population distribution.
GreenPrint
Messages
1,186
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




Questions 109-111 refer to the map below of the distribution of several populations on the continents of Eurasia and North America. These populations were derived from a common ancestral species. The area enclosed by a given dotted line represents the distribution of the population and the numbers in millions of years refer to the earliest fossils evidence found within the bounded area. Present populations are found only in the shaded areas.

h t t p : / / i m g 7 0 4 . i m a g e s h a c k . u s / i m g 7 0 4 / 9 0 8 0 / 5 9 4 3 3 5 1 2 . p n g

109. The oldest existing population is found at
(A) Q
(B) R
(C) S
(D) T
(E) U

For this question I am unsure as to what exact it means by "...and the numbers in millions of years refer to the earliest fossil evidence found within the bounded area". Does this mean that the smaller numbers are younger or older. The way I read this section the smaller numbers are younger. Is this correct I don't know. This is more have an issue with English, which I seem to have a hard time understanding what exactly that section meant. If the smaller numbers are older then the answer would be T.

Answer is either Q or T I can't tell which...

110. The two existing populations that are apparently the most closely related are
(A) Q and R
(B) Q and S
(C) Q and T
(D) R and U
(E) S and T

I chose E becasue S and T are the only sections that are right next to each other and only differ in value from millions of years by 5. I feel very confident about this answer but just want to make sure.

111. The data indicate which of the following about the area occupied by the original species?
(A) It increased steadily.
(B) It decreased steadily.
(C) It increased and then decreased.
(D) It decreased and then increased.
(E) it remained relatively stable.

This one was sort of tricky. I want to say C becasue it looks like the section with 30 in it is huge compared to the values with 50 and 5 which lead me to believe that it increased and then decreased...

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



See above thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
109. (A) Region Q contains the oldest fossil recorded for the species (50million years).
110. (E) S and T diverged within the shortest period of time (5million years)
111. (C) A key note in the introduction to the question: Present populations are found only in the shaded areas. If we look at the area the population covers at 30million years for instance, and compare it to present day, we see that today there is less than there was 30million years ago. Now, if we compare 50million years to 30million years we see that the population was less when the species was 50million years old than it was at 30million. Therefore, the population increased then decreased *(C).
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top