"The Story of the Mammals in 25 Discoveries" (Columbia University Press, 2026), author Donald R. Prothero looks at a time when philosophers and early naturalists believed giants roamed the Earth and explores the idea that extinction was heresy.

Many cultures around the world have a mythology that includes legends about gigantic races of humans that lived on Earth in the dark mysterious past. They may have fought against the gods, or they may have been destroyed by floods. These stories were reinforced by the discovery of gigantic bones, much larger than those of any living human, all over the Mediterranean and Europe.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (492-432 BCE) reported gigantic bones from Sicily, supposedly remnants of a race of giants. The Roman historian Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) mentioned fossil ivory in the ground, and according to the Roman historian Suetonius (69- 122 CE), Emperor Augustus owned a collection of large bones that had been found on the island of Capri, near Pompeii. The skulls of elephants, with their huge central opening in front (for the trunk), were thought to be the skulls of the one-eyed cyclops.

In the Middle Ages, these huge bones were again attributed to gigantic humans or other monsters (Genesis 6:4) that were drowned in Noah's flood. Giant tusks from Siberia were thought to be the horns of the mythical unicorn or the tusks of dragons. In some places gigantic teeth or vertebrae of mammoths were revered as relicts of saints. Nearly every possibility was suggested except that they were the bones of extinct elephants.

In the early seventeenth century, some giant bones dug up in a sand pit near Langon in southeastern France were exhibited around France as the remains of the giant Teutons, Germanic tribes that once roamed Gaul and were defeated by the Romans in 101 BCE.

But in 1613 the famous anatomist Riolan attacked the prevailing interpretation, suggesting that they were the bones of an elephant. This generated a raging controversy between physicians and anatomists and the barber-surgeons who called them gigantic human bones. Others thought they were hoaxes or generated by mysterious "plastic forces" (vis plastica in Latin) that percolated through Earth. Still others attacked the anatomists for questioning the biblical account of giants on Earth. The controversies died down in 1618 without being resolved, and for the next two centuries most people continued to interpret new finds as gigantic humans.

The giant bones that kept turning up in the New World were also a source of much mystery and consternation. The Native American tribes usually attributed them to giant monsters fought by their ancestors and incorporated them into their folklore. When these bones were first seen by European settlers, they were thought to be the bones of gigantic humans that roamed the earth in biblical times. Others thought that the giant tasks so revered by the Native Americans were the works of Satan, placed there to tempt the believer.

In 1519, the Spanish explorer and conquistador Hernan Cortez received a bone of a "giant," a gift from the friendly Tlascalan tribe of Mexico during the conquest of the Aztecs. He sent it back to the King of Spain as proof that giants at once lived in the New World. In 1706, the Reverend Cotton Mather of the Massachusetts Bay Colony pronounced them to be "the remains of godless giants drowned in Noah's Flood." He sent some bones to the Royal Society in London to have them certified as evidence of this "wicked giant" because biblical scholars were calculating Adam's height at 123 ft. 9 in.

The Royal Society never pronounced an opinion on these bones, although by that time many members were becoming skeptical of the literal interpretations of Genesis. The stifling effect of religious dogma about giants and Noah's flood was complicated by another idea: the notion of Divine Providence. An omnipotent, benevolent God would never allow any of his creatures to become extinct. As the poet Alexander Pope wrote in An Essay on Man (1734), "who sees with equal eye, as God of all, a hero perish, or a sparrow fall."

The prevailing concept was that of a "great chain of being" that linked the animals to man to the angels to God. Breaking any link in that chain implied the destruction of the whole chain. In the same poem, Pope also wrote: "Where, one step broken, the great scale's destroy'd; From Nature's chain whatever link you strike, Ten or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike."

By the late 1700s, however, it was becoming more and more apparent that many of the recently discovered fossils had no living counterparts. Remote corners of the world were being explored, and although many new and surprising beasts were discovered, clearly the gigantic beasts were not hiding in South America or Africa or the East Indies. Many strange fossils, such as the bones of hippopotami in Paris and London, were clearly related to tropical animals, but it was assumed that these bones had been washed from the tropics during the Great Flood.

The notion of extinction was still blasphemous. The New World soon provided unequivocal evidence that these large bones were not simply gigantic humans. In 1739, Charles le Moyne, the second Baron de Longueil, left Montreal with French and Indian troops to fight the Chickasaw Indians along the Ohio River. Somewhere along the Ohio he found the remains of what appeared to be three elephants. When the war ended in 1740, le Moyne collected the bones and shipped them to New Orleans and ultimately to Paris, where they came to the attention of French naturalists.

In the 1740s and 1750s, English settlers in the region sent more of these bones from Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, off to England and also to Benjamin Franklin in America. Most of the bones (especially the tusks) were clearly like those of elephants and mammoths, but the teeth were puzzling. They were clearly unlike any living elephant, yet they were part of an animal of elephantine size. (We now know that these were specimens of the American mastodon, Mammut americanum.) Franklin speculated that the teeth were reminiscent of a carnivorous animal, although he and others later decided it was a vegetarian.

In 1769, the famous British anatomist William Hunter took the carnivory suggestion seriously and suggested this was not a true elephant but a "pseudelephant" or "American incognitum" (Latin for "unknown") that had independently developed ivory tusks:

"This monster, with the agility and ferocity of a tiger . . . cruel as the bloody panther, swift as the descending eagle, terrible as the angel of night. . . . And if this animal was indeed carnivorous, which I believe cannot be doubted, though we may as philosophers regret it, as men we cannot but thank Heaven that its whole generation is probably extinct."

This very precocious suggestion was still not accepted by naturalists of the time. Nevertheless, remains of the "incognitum" and also of the Siberian mammoth (including frozen carcasses with hair and skin) were turning up again and again. Georges Louis Leclerc, the Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), concluded in his Théorie de la terre in 1749 that although most of the supposedly extinct animals were hiding somewhere in an unknown region, it was likely that the large terrestrial mammals such as the mammoth and "incognitum" had actually perished.

By 1778, Buffon was relating their disappearance to his ideas of violent cataclysms in Earth's early history. During this time the climate was warmer and polar regions had once been tropical, so "elephants" (meaning mammoths) could live in Siberia. This implied a nonbiblical Earth of much greater antiquity. Buffon suggested it was as much as 75,000 to 3,000,000 years old, rather than the 6,000 years demanded by most literalist biblical scholars.

Naturally, such revolutionary ideas were not popular with the theologians in the Sorbonne. Buffon was protected by the king, however, so he was not persecuted for his heresy, although his ideas were not widely accepted either. The fact of extinction was finally proved by one of the greatest scientists of all time, the Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832).

Jean Leopold Frederic Georges Cuvier was an impressive man. Tall of stature, he had a "massive" head crowned by a large mane of hair. One admirer wrote that his head "gave to his entire person an undeniable cachet of majesty and to his face an expression of profound meditation." After his death, scientists weighed his brain and found that it was a massive 1830 grams [4 pounds], more than 400 grams [14 ounces] above average, and 200 grams [7 ounces] heavier than any brain ever measured at that time.

More important, he was one of the most brilliant men of his time, with a command of many subjects, some of which he invented all by himself. Before Cuvier, natural history was a field that resembled stamp collecting, with many amateur naturalists compiling long lists and descriptions of new species without analyzing the similarities in their anatomy. Cuvier almost single-handedly revolutionized natural history by dissecting many different animals and discovering their underlying similarities and differences.

This became the foundation of comparative anatomy, a subject that has been fundamental to biology ever since. Naturalists and explorers sent him their fossil bones, and he was the first to correctly describe many types of extinct animals. Cuvier solved the mystery of the puzzling fossil teeth called the "Great Incognitum" and recognized them as the teeth of the elephant-like mastodons. He also correctly deciphered the huge marine lizards we now know as mosasaurs.

For this reason, he is also considered to be the founder of vertebrate paleontology. Cuvier is most famous for his "law of correlation of parts," wherein he discovered that certain types of anatomical features tend to be associated. If you are a flesh eater, you will have sharp teeth and claws; if you are a plant eater, you will have flat grinding teeth and hooves; and so on. Using this law, paleontologists have been able to reconstruct whole animals from just a few key bones because the other parts of the anatomy are so predictable.

Excerpted from The Story of the Mammals in 25 Discoveries: Amazing Fossils and the People Who Found Them by Donald R. Prothero. Copyright (c) 2026 Donald R. Prothero. Used by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved.

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

'> What medieval people made of fossils before vertebrate paleontology can raise the risk of neurodegenerative disorders such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), so finding an effective treatment for these blows could be useful for warding off debilitating conditions down the line.

The new research, published in the journal Communications Biology, included only lab rats, so there's more work to be done to translate the findings to humans. But the early results hint at a new application for psilocybin — a drug that's already been explored for a range of other conditions, including depression, PTSD and anorexia.

Live Science spoke with study co-author Argel Aguilar-Valles, an associate professor of neuroscience at Carleton University in Ontario, about the new study and how the research might eventually translate to treatments for repetitive head injuries.

Nicoletta Lanese: In this new study you focus on mild head trauma. Why does that minor level of injury still raise concern?

Argel Aguilar-Valles: This work was spearheaded by our collaborator, Dr. Craig Ferris at Northeastern University in Boston. The idea was to focus on the cumulative effect of those milder head hits, or injuries, that happen quite commonly; a lot of children and older adults can have repeated instances of these events of head trauma, and it doesn't necessarily lead to any immediate treatment or hospitalizations because they are considered fairly mild.

But over time, there's evidence that this can lead to cumulative and long-term effects that can affect the health outcomes of these individuals, particularly as we age. It's a risk factor for several forms of dementia. So the idea was to try to model this with a milder version of head injury [in lab rats].

So it's repeated — it's three hits — they're controlled, they're fairly mild. And they produce some alterations in the brain networks that are evident in using either MRI [which looks at the brain's structure] or functional MRI [which analyzes brain activity] analysis.

NL: So these are head impacts that don't come with the symptoms associated with concussions?

AAV: It's always difficult to compare [what a rat is experiencing] to what a human might experience, especially here. One good way to put it is that there's no loss of consciousness ‪—‬ so in those instances where the hits happen but you don't black out.

NL: Is there anything available now to manage and treat these mild impacts?

AAV: Well, as far as I'm aware, there's not really an intervention. I've experienced this secondhand with my children. Sometimes, they will come back from school and then they [the teachers] say, "OK, they had a hit on the head; there's a bump, but they didn't lose consciousness or anything."

Then sometimes, you go to the doctor concerned and typically you're told, "OK, just keep them under observation." If there's no vomiting, nausea, if there was no loss of consciousness, typically they just send you home and say keep an eye. Put some ice on it. Maybe don't overexert yourself in the next few days — and that's about it.

There is no intervention — for instance, if we do this [treatment], it's going to prevent you from developing dementia 50 years down the line. There's obviously nothing like that, particularly when you have repeated instances and the effects are cumulative.

NL: What made psilocybin seem like a potentially promising treatment for head trauma?

AAV: My group specifically has had an interest in testing the ability of molecules collectively known as psychoplastogens. We didn't coin the term, but it basically refers to all of these drugs that produce these brain-plasticity effects [changes in the brain's structure and activity]. These include serotonergic psychedelics [such as psilocybin and LSD, which affect serotonin receptors], and also things like ketamine or even MDMA.

We observe changes in cultured neurons in response to these drugs, in terms of dendritic complexity and increased synaptic spine density [changes in neurons' incoming and outgoing wires]. And in vivo [in live animals], you also observe functional reorganization of networks. All of these drugs have the ability to trigger these mechanisms. They do it through different pharmacological targets, but they all converge on some of these plasticity effects.

There are deficits in this plasticity in psychiatric illnesses, but also, obviously, in neurological disorders and even neurodegenerative disorders, where these plasticity mechanisms are completely nonfunctional.

So, we wanted to test the limit of the ability of these molecules to rescue, or to provide some therapeutic relief, in conditions where you have physical damage or neurodegenerative pathological mechanisms underlying the disorders. We observed — and not only us, but several other labs have also observed — that some of these molecules do seem to provide some level of therapeutic relief. [Editor's note: The current study looked only at physical trauma, but other labs have started to explore psilocybin for neurodegenerative disorders.]

It's still unclear if they're disease-modifying, in the sense they could provide lasting changes that can modify the course of the disorder. But so far, the evidence indicates that they can at least help to ameliorate some of the negative consequences of either neurodegeneration models or physical trauma, like in this case.

NL: Psychedelics have been more thoroughly studied for conditions like depression. In both depression and head trauma, could similar mechanisms explain the drug's potential benefits?

AAV: Some of the cellular effects might be similar. But the underlying condition can look quite different. Even if you think of two cases of depression, they can look very, very different. The drugs are going to be engaging similar mechanisms, but also the context in which these mechanisms are occurring will probably affect the outcome. What is remarkable about these drugs is that they seem to be working in both cases, so they're certainly tackling something that might be common in both situations.

We don't know the limits of these drugs yet. I'm not trying to imply that they don't have limits; what I'm trying to say is that our knowledge is incomplete. We don't know when they will work better than other potential treatment options.

I feel that will come when their clinical use is more widespread and we have a better idea of how they work in the heterogeneous populations that clinicians have in real life. In our animal models, conditions are very, very controlled and homogeneous, so they respond in a certain, similar way, whereas in the clinic, you observe huge disparity [in responses].

NL: Is there reason to think that psilocybin would be more promising than other psychoplastogens?

AAV: I think a lot of the focus on psilocybin has been because it's one of the psychedelics that's been more widely tested both in clinic and preclinical settings.

I'm not a clinician, but one of the reasons why psilocybin is favored over others is the length of the psychedelic trip. It's a few hours. If you go with something like LSD, it will last much longer. While the person is under the influence of the drug and undergoing the trip, there needs to be clinical supervision, so it becomes really challenging logistically to arrange sessions with psychedelics that last a long time.

That's also motivated preclinical research, like ours, to focus on this drug, as opposed to others that may have similar effects. From a potential translational perspective, it might be a safer bet to study this drug.

NL: In clinical trials of psychedelics, scientists often use a very small dose to try to avoid triggering strong hallucinogenic effects. Was that a goal with the rats?

AAV: No, they're probably experiencing something — this is a relatively high dose. A lot of people use 1 milligram of psilocybin per kilogram of body weight. In this case, they were using 3 milligram per kilogram, and it was based on previous imaging studies where they looked at the effects of this drug.

One measure we use is the "head twitch response," which is a behavioral measure that we commonly use in rodent work to test the hallucinogenic potential of a drug. This is a very rapid head movement that occurs in response to the serotonergic psychedelics. It's a behavioral response that correlates with hallucinogenic potential, and not perfectly.

For psilocybin, it's been very well characterized in the sense that it's mediated by the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor [in rodents], which is the same receptor that mediates hallucinations and the psychedelic trip in humans.

NL: What notable changes did you see in the rats in this study?

AAV: The measurements were done nearly three weeks after the injury. It's relatively short if you think of a human, but for a mouse, things happen much faster metabolically and physiologically. There was at least evidence of increased phosphorylation of tau [changes in a specific brain protein tied to Alzheimer's], and that was reversed by the treatment with psilocybin. That was certainly one surprising finding, and it's worth following up, I believe.

But also the hyperconnectivity — the brain's functional connectivity was really dramatically affected in the treated rodents with the head hits. They not only recovered but went to higher levels than the control-group animals.

We don't really know what the meaning of that is, but certainly it's quite remarkable how the networks became hyperconnected. And hopefully that means something positive for the animals. But it was certainly surprising, the level of recovery of that particular measure.

NL: And these effects were seen throughout the brain?

AAV: There were effects in a lot of brain regions — the thalamus, the hippocampus, the basal ganglia, and all different parts of the cortex, etc. One of the things that stands out from this study was the connectivity of dopaminergic nuclei [hubs of dopamine production in the middle of the brain]. Their connectivity is really fundamentally changed by the hits and then by the treatment with psilocybin.

These modulatory regions, the dopaminergic regions, are concentrated in one part of the brain, but they affect overall brain function because they have these widespread connections. So they're really crucial for a lot of functions, and we're seeing effects in these regions — that's really intriguing.

NL: Is it known whether the strength of the psychedelic trip has anything to do with the degree of benefit?

AAV: It is currently a hotly debated topic in the psychedelic field, whether the intensity of the psychedelic experience has anything to do with the beneficial effects or not. You can envision situations like psychological trauma, as opposed to physical trauma, where that trip might be part of the therapeutic mechanisms. It becomes evident in the debriefing sessions after psychedelic treatment, where it seems like in some cases, the psychedelic experience is fundamental.

But these are fairly correlative measures — if the two happen at the same time, it doesn't mean that they are linked together causally. So that's something that is being tested actively. One of the ways is the development of these non-hallucinogenic analogues that seemingly trigger similar plasticity mechanisms as their psychedelic counterparts do [without causing a trip].

I don't think we've had the first clinical trial with these drugs yet. Some of them may have undergone Phase I clinical trials just for safety, but I believe none of them have been tested in Phase II trials yet [in which their effectiveness is explored for specific conditions].

NL: Given this work is in rats, what are the next steps to translate this into a treatment for people?

AAV: Extending the observations, like other groups have done — looking at what happens if you do give this treatment months after the events. It's still unclear to me if, with this model we have, you will have effects months later.

We have some correlative measures that potentially BDNF expression [a gene for brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which helps neurons grow connections] is increased, and also the levels of its receptor, called TrkB. That is a possibility that needs to be further investigated, trying to find out whether these neurotrophic factors are crucial for the effects that we're seeing.

And obviously, the psychedelic trip is still a potential issue. But testing whether these non-hallucinogenic derivatives have the same lasting effects as their hallucinogenic counterparts do — that will be crucial and that can, in some cases, potentially facilitate the translation [into treatments]. Because not every person reacts the same way to these hallucinogenic compounds, and not everybody has the same risks.

NL: I assume the non-psychedelic options might be better for children, for instance?

AAV: We don't know what the consequences [of psychedelic use] are in a developing brain. There's not enough data. That will be obviously a big thing to sort out before recommending the use of these drugs, and maybe some of those non-hallucinogenic derivatives may hold the answer for that — for those cases where you really don't want to induce a full-on psychedelic experience.

There's also schizophrenia and a bunch of other psychiatric diagnoses with psychosis associated with them — from bipolar or psychosis-like events or episodes — where you might not want to apply a serotonergic psychedelic.

NL: Looking ahead to the next five to 10 years, what do you hope to see in the field?

AAV: There's a lot of enthusiasm in the field and a lot of push to try to characterize and understand better these drugs, from a basic perspective or a cellular level up to a brain wave level and then also the psychological effects. So there are a lot of different disciplines implicated in studying these drugs, and I think that's really exciting. That will hopefully lead to a wealth of knowledge about these drugs — not only their effects but also their limitations and their potential risks.

Hopefully we will have a balanced approach as scientists, to be able to really tease apart in which cases it [psychedelic treatment] will be really useful and in which cases the risks outweigh the benefits. That will be crucial to understand.

There's a lot of potential there, but we should proceed with caution.

This interview has been condensed and edited lightly for clarity. This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

'> Could psilocybin treat brain injuries? Neuroscientist explains how psychedelics could fill a gap in head trauma care gravity on a spaceship, akin to the giant rotating ring from Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film "2001: A Space Odyssey."

But is that technology ever coming, or will it remain science fiction?

"There's really no reason it couldn't happen," Torin Clark, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder, told Live Science. "From a technical perspective, this is something that could happen in the very near future."

In fact, artificial gravity has almost made its way to space before. The Centrifuge Accommodation Module was a planned 8.2-foot-wide (2.5 meters) centrifuge for the International Space Station (ISS), but the project was canceled in 2005 for budgetary reasons.

"[Artificial gravity] is one of those things ‪—‬ like all of a sudden, it's super popular, and then all of the scientists at NASA and everybody … have a lot of funding to understand how to actually implement this, and then it just dies," Ana Diaz Artiles, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at Texas A&M University, told Live Science. "And then it comes back, and dies, and comes back. I've been going through a couple of these cycles in the time that I've been doing this."

Besides budgetary concerns, there are questions about how such a solution would be implemented.

"Everybody agrees it's a good thing to do. The problem is that we don't know how to implement it," Diaz Artiles said. "How much gravity do you need? How big does [the device] have to be? How long do you need it to be? And how long do you have to use this? Should we use continuous gravity or a short-radius centrifuge, something where you go in and out?"

Researchers have three main approaches for creating artificial gravity. One is the classic sci-fi idea: a giant ring that rotates passengers' entire living quarters so they live and work under forces similar to Earth's gravity.

"You have a relatively long radius, which means you don't have to spin very fast to create gravity," Diaz Artiles said. "But this is massive. You can't get all the parts up there in the same spacecraft — you need multiple spacecraft and to assemble everything. So, of course, you can see what a big endeavor this is."

A short-radius centrifuge is a more feasible option. It's essentially a tube with a radius of 6 to 10 feet (1.8 to 3 m) that spins to simulate gravity. A passenger sits or stands inside, with their head closest to the center of rotation, so the spin generates the strongest pull down toward their feet.

Instead of allowing passengers to live in artificial gravity, this smaller device would be used in short daily sessions. "It's kind of like an exercise device," Diaz Artiles said. "In the ISS, you have a treadmill, you have this resistive exercise machine, so you go there for 30 minutes to do your exercise, and then you get out."

The final option is for spacecraft to create gravity via linear acceleration. This works in the same way that an accelerating car pushes passengers back into their seats, except the spacecraft would be oriented to push an astronaut's feet into the floor. To slow down, the spacecraft would turn around, firing its thrusters in the opposite direction to decelerate smoothly while maintaining a roughly similar gravity for its occupants.

"But then you need something like an engine that is able to accelerate all the time," Diaz Artiles said. "And propulsion-wise, I think we're not there yet."

Although a short-radius centrifuge is the most feasible approach in terms of both cost and engineering, it does have some drawbacks. For one, its fast spin can induce the Coriolis cross-coupled illusion ‪—‬ a sensation of tilting or tumbling that happens when you tilt your head off-axis while rotating.

This is the effect that causes motion sickness, Clark said.

However, Clark and his team have found that people can build a tolerance to the sensation with training, simply by being in a slowly spinning centrifuge and gradually increasing the speed when they no longer feel the sensation.

"If you very slowly, incrementally increase the spin rate … and do that not just over one session but over multiple sessions across multiple days, as far as we could tell, anyone can be made to incrementally acclimate to the rotating environment [of] up to 20 to 30 rotations per minute," Clark said.

Would artificial gravity prevent harmful effects on the body?

But researchers still don't know how fast the centrifuge would need to rotate, or how long someone needs to spend inside it, to benefit. Long periods in microgravity can lead to bone and muscle loss, loss of aerobic fitness, blood clots, and visual issues from fluid shifts in the eyes. The hope is that artificial gravity could prevent those effects, but exactly how much gravity is necessary remains an open question.

Studies of people on head-down tilt bed rest ‪—‬ the standard research method for simulating spaceflight deconditioning ‪—‬ have found that 30 minutes a day in a centrifuge did prevent some loss of muscle function.

"Thirty minutes a day … maybe is not enough," Clark said. "Maybe an hour or even two hours a day, and maybe at higher G levels, would be beneficial."

But these studies are expensive and time-consuming. "It's very difficult," Diaz Artiles said. "I think people are interested in this concept, but we just don't have a good answer."

In the end, it's not a technological challenge that's keeping artificial gravity from being used in space; it's knowing the best way to employ it and securing the budget for it.

"We know how to do this. As humans, we have done more difficult things," Diaz Artiles said. "We need the money, but we also need to better understand the need."

See how much you know about human exploration into space with our spaceflight quiz!

'> Could we ever create artificial gravity on a spaceship? bicephaly, is a rare developmental disorder that's typically caused by the incomplete splitting of a single embryo during the formation of identical twins. It results in conjoined twins that share one body but have two fully formed, independent heads.

Zak Mertz, CEO of New England Wildlife Centers, which includes the Cape Wildlife Center, said the recently discovered diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) is an uncommon example of bicephaly in turtles. Both genetics and epigenetics ‪—‬ the study of how genes and environment can interact ‪—‬ are thought to play a role in the condition's development.

"Our understanding based on the available research is that bicephaly is caused by both genetic and epigenetic factors," Mertz told Live Science in an email.

"It may have to do with the relatively long lifespan of the turtles, their preference for returning to the same nesting sites, and a limited gene pool due to their conservation status," he said."It may also be influenced by environmental factors, such as the temperature, humidity during incubation, physical characteristics of the nesting sites, or potentially even things the parents are exposed to in the environment."

Having two heads is rare but not unprecedented. According to the center, this is the third bicephalic terrapin found in the area in the past five years, providing another opportunity to learn more about the animals. Other wild animals with bicephaly have been found in recent years, including a two-headed porpoise found off the coast of the Netherlands and a two-headed dolphin that was found on a Turkish beach.

A 2021 study found that rare two-headed and partially duplicated sea turtle embryos and hatchlings showed significant craniofacial and spinal abnormalities and were generally smaller than typical hatchlings. The research found bicephalic turtles faced survival challenges because their abnormal anatomy could impair coordinated movement, feeding, and other functions essential for survival, highlighting the importance of monitoring such deformities as potential indicators of population and environmental health.

Diamondback terrapins are found in brackish marshlands along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. Brackish waters have more salt than fresh water but less salt than seawater, and often occur where the freshwater of a lake or river meets the salty sea. These terrapins are classified as threatened by the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, and their broader conservation status at the federal level is currently under review.

Veterinarians are monitoring the rare terrapin's health closely. "It is fascinating and an area that certainly merits more study," Mertz said. "We are excited to care for these two and learn as much as we can to inform future study in the process."

'> Rare two-headed turtle hatchling discovered on Cape Cod strong El Niño has brought a rare gift to Chile's Atacama Desert: rain. In one of the driest places on Earth, that rare moisture has awakened millions of seeds and bulbs that can remain dormant underground for years, transforming the landscape into a spectacular carpet of color.

Known locally as "desierto florido," or "flowering desert," the phenomenon is one of nature's most remarkable transformations. Patches of purple, pink, white, red and yellow now spread across hillsides and plains that for much of the year appear almost completely lifeless.

"It is a unique phenomenon; there are more than 200 plant species," Jorge Carabantes, head of the Protected Areas Department at the National Forest Corp. (CONAF) in Chile, told The Associated Press. "This is a flowering event that is obviously extraordinary and unusual, very different from other blooms that occur elsewhere on the globe."

Typically, the Atacama gets just 0.6 inches (15 mm) of rain a year. But thanks to the super El Niño, record levels of rain fell between July and August in several Chilean regions, including levels not seen since the 1950s, with some areas receiving more than 7 inches (190 millimeters), Carabantes told the AP.

While this unprecedented precipitation has caused flooding in some areas of Chile, it's created a 6,560-square-mile (17,000 square kilometers) swath of flowering blooms across the Atacama Desert. This is the most extensive desert bloom since 1997, CONAF representatives told the AP.

For photographers and tourists, the landscape is breathtaking, with bright colors contrasted against the dark Atacama mountains and Chile's cloudless skies. But the bloom is fleeting; by the end of the Southern Hemisphere's spring, many of the flowers will disappear, leaving behind seeds and bulbs waiting for the next extraordinary rains.

Here are five photos from Getty Images photographer Javier Torres that showcase the beauty of this rare event.

'> Colorful wildflowers bloom across Chile's Atacama Desert in wake of 'super' El Niño