Here's a plausible scenario of the sort that happens to me all the time when my edited science columns are published: I write a brief article, within the stated word limits, about the mammoth skull find. In it, I mention that mammoths are members of the family Elephantidae, which has the characteristic of having 6 sets of teeth: "Elephantidae get through six sets of teeth as they get older and they increase in size as the animals age." I then mention that mammoths are an extinct member of this family, and Asian and African elephants are extant members. We can estimate the age of the mammoth, the extinct member of the family, by looking at the most recently erupted teeth and the amount of wear on them, and comparing these with living elephants. A new find by a Leakey comes across the wire taking six of my column inches. The editor cuts my second and third sentence and edits the first to say 'mammoths' instead of 'Elephantidae.' So, now I am discussing the dentition of extant mammoths. This is an all too common occurrence in science writing (or editing rather) outside of peer reviewed science journals.
In the paleontological sciences there is a standard style of technical writing used when discussing the growth, development or life cycles of extinct organisms. How the BBC posts it today is correct.
Loved the thread as my grandfather was a mammoth hunter, and the title of the thread indicated it was geological or paleontological

