Mammals moving between the Americas stopped over in Mexico 5%

By Bethany Brookshire6%

7/30/2026, 12:09:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Burden of Proof, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 217 faulty-reasoning hits from 662 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 12.2% and a BS Rank of 5% (28,529 of 29,795 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the article peer group.

In the Miocene, 10 million years ago, the Central American Seaway separated North and South America, leaving the southern continent in what scientists call “splendid isolation.” 
Afterward, mammals surged across the land bridge in both directions. 
But the species trade wasn’t equal. 
Today, more than half of the 217 mammal genera present in South America have origins in North America. 
Only four genera in South America can be traced to the north. 
The key to the North American mammals’ success could be an extensive vacation. 
Over several million years, northern mammals moved into the low-lying “holding pen” of what is now the southern United States, Mexico and part of Central America, diversifying and adapting to the climate before the Isthmus of Panama arose, researchers report July 30 in Science. 
Scientists have focused on ancient Mexico as a spot where mammals moving from South to North America adapted to new conditions over evolutionary time, says Jack Tseng, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. 
Before the Isthmus of Panama joined the two continents, warm Central America and Mexico would have been the first stops north for animals coming across the sea from South America. 
Fossils of ancient sloths from Mexico, for example, indicate that after they arrived from South America 9 million years ago, they “stayed for a while  before they continued their journey further north” into the colder latitudes of the U.S. and Canada, Tseng says. 
Tseng and his colleagues wondered if the holding pen might have been bidirectional, allowing animals from the north a warm ecosystem in which to diversify and adapt before heading south. 
The scientists pulled together a fossil library of mammals from Mexico, nearly doubling the known mammal fossil record for the area. 
This wasn’t the result of digging up double the fossils, Tseng says. 
Instead, the team collected Spanish-language papers, papers from smaller journals and samples from a museum in central Mexico. 
Tseng and his colleagues showed that both Mexico and South America saw an explosion of mammal diversity between 10 million and 7 million years ago, before the two continents were connected. 
But the Mexican mammal diversity hit a much higher peak—nearly double that of South America. 
As mammals in Mexico and Central America were diversifying, new ones were arriving from North America. 
This created a mammalian cage match as a high diversity of species competed for limited resources. 
During the period afterward, the climate also began to dry out, creating a tougher environment to adapt to. 
“North American mammal faunas have essentially gone through the test time and time again,” Tseng says. 
In contrast, South American mammalian diversity was declining at the time. 
“Those mammals have been isolated since the extinction of the dinosaurs,” Tseng says. 
On their side of the sea, the climate also remained tropical and wet, leaving the mammals less well-equipped for dry environments. 
As North and South America began to link up, culminating with the final formation of the Isthmus of Panama 2.8 million years ago, North American mammals flooded into the south in pulses, armed with adaptations like larger body size and tolerance to dry environments from their time in Mexico and Central America. 
Canids, camelids, felids, raccoons and other mammals charged into South America and diversified. 
The idea of Mexico and Central America as an adaptation hotspot is “a hypothesis [that] was established in the literature for plants and animals moving from South America to North America,” says Jenny McGuire, a paleoecologist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, who wrote an article that accompanied the paper. 
“This paper flips that hypothesis and considers the opposite direction.” 
The results “allow us to rewrite the timeline of an intercontinental migration,” says Alberto Boscaini, a paleontologist at the University of Buenos Aires. 
But that doesn’t mean, he notes, that northern mammals were somehow “biologically superior.” 
Instead “they acquired preadaptations that became useful during a moment of profound tectonic change.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 2.3%Science News: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.3%Science News: 2.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 2.4%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Bethany Brookshire: 3.4%Science News: 3.1%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.4%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.9%Science News: 3.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.4%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.4%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Bethany Brookshire: 2.6%Science News: 3.5%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 2.8%Science News: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.4%Bethany Brookshire: 0.7%Science News: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion2.4%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.2%Bethany Brookshire: 3.4%Science News: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.2%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.8%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.4%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.0%Bethany Brookshire: 1.7%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.9%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.3%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 1.2%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bethany Brookshire: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

662 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers34%attributed speech440writer words
Selected voice

Jenny McGuire

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words23% of attributed speech32% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.