Any palaeontologists what to chime in as to whether or not Mammoth ranged that area in times past?
Like the name and logo. Feels like it would fit better up here though.
From ChatGPT:
Quote:
During the Pleistocene Epoch (about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago), the region that includes modern-day Utah was home to various megafauna, including Columbian mammoths. These mammoths were widespread across North America and favored open grasslands, which were common in the area during that time.
Evidence:
Fossil discoveries of mammoths have been made throughout Utah, including near the Great Salt Lake and in areas surrounding Salt Lake City.
The Wendover mammoth site, located west of Salt Lake City, has yielded mammoth remains.
At Thanksgiving Point (in Lehi, just south of Salt Lake City), the Museum of Ancient Life showcases local prehistoric finds, including those of mammoths.
Disagree. There isn't really much myth to the kraken at all. While obviously sea monster sightings have existed since prerecorded history, the kraken myth has it first named as such in the 1700s but described as a massive many-horned fish with the first description popularizing it as a giant octopus attributed to 1753.
But by the mid 1700s, the world was less believing in singular monsters like say Behomoth, Leviathian, Typhon or Jörmungandr and instead would have believed it to be a species if it existed.
Which is why it shows up in Carl Linnaeus' first edition of Systema Naturae and you can find many examples of the plural "krakens" or the singular "a kraken" from the 1700s.
The idea that it is a singular proper name monster seems to be more of a new myth since it replaced Cetus in the 80s Clash of the Titans and then further propagated by things like the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. It also doesn't help that the improper translation of the plural from Norwegian has made Kraken and Krakens both correct plural forms so even the Seattle Kraken could be referring to plural kraken.
But none of this explains why it's a singular Mammoth.
There's a fairly popular theory that the mythical kraken are based on colossal squids.
In extremely cool science news, the first ever footage of a colossal squid in it's natural environment was btw captured in March of this year, and it definitely looks like something from myths. Just imagine seeing this swimming around your boat, possibly 10+ meters long, and with literally the biggest eyes of any known creature ever looking at you.
In some mythology there was only one unique Kraken.
Google AI:
While the myth of the Kraken is often portrayed as a single, unique monster, in reality, it's likely a combination of various stories and observations, possibly inspired by giant squids and octopuses. The legend has evolved over time, and the specific Kraken in popular culture can vary depending on the context.
Last edited by troutman; 05-08-2025 at 01:10 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
The name of your city/state on the road uniforms is a baseball thing. And it should stay that way
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
I'm pretty confident that all the extra large ocean monsters were killed during the hunting for whale oil era. Or when ocean faring humans became predominant. All those stories came from that time. Or the era of Jaques Cartier where they wrote about how easy it was to fish the coastlines of North America, simply toss a bucket in the water and pull up 20 fish.
With the oceans untouched before then, those massive schools of fish would like feed the largest story book monsters I'm the sea.
Wouldn't surprise me if those reports of giant squid and octopus and whales were accurate at the time.
And I bet of we left the seas alone for a few hundred years we'd see those sizes return because of the bountiful food supply.
We humans do know how to ruin a good thing.
Anyways, Mammoth is a cool team name.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
Kraken, Mammoth, Golden Knights are the last 3 teams to join the NHL. They’re roller hockey names.
I usually have a healthy low-key love for underdog/expansion teams. Thank you to the SLC ownership and fans for allowing me to hate your team immediately.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Kraken, Mammoth, Golden Knights are the last 3 teams to join the NHL. They’re roller hockey names.
I usually have a healthy low-key love for underdog/expansion teams. Thank you to the SLC ownership and fans for allowing me to hate your team immediately.
It’s kind of amazing how bad the last three names have been when you put them against the names of virtually every team name in major North American professional sports.
Kraken, Mammoth, Golden Knights are the last 3 teams to join the NHL. They’re roller hockey names.
I usually have a healthy low-key love for underdog/expansion teams. Thank you to the SLC ownership and fans for allowing me to hate your team immediately.
To me the real problem is the lack of courage, Kraken and Mammoth especially look like they're desperately trying to be as unmemorable as possible.
The name itself doesn't matter, it's what you do with it.
Why name yourself after a mythical monster if you don't embrace any of that?
Golden Knights has a mildly more memorable look, but the name is terrible.
But if Utah went with a design that's more like this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icon
...the idea behind the name would actually feel like it means something. That stylized M especially is exactly what you want your sports logo to be: instantly recognizable and something a kid can draw, and this mammoth looks BIG, while that abortion of a logo they went with looks like someone took the Predators logo and tried to make it look like a Mammoth, and now it looks like nothing. If you showed that to someone without context, they would likely struggle to even recognize it as a mammoth.
