Then our reasons are the same.

I hope so too, but probably for different reasons.

You can say Turkey is 'Muslim' if you clarify you mean it demographically. Calling it ‘Islamic’ is about the state and law. Turkey is constitutionally secular, even if the current government is Islamist-leaning.

A big portion of people who identify as Muslims don't consider themselves religious, and irreligion is rising rapidly, especially among the young generations.

Turkey is not a 'Muslim country'. Although the current regime is conservative and political Islamist, Islam has not been a state religion since 1928, and secularism has been constitutionalised in 1937. The Republic of Turkey is a secular country with a Muslim majority, which is also dwindling today.

The ammonoids that survived the P-T boundary may have depended on plankton groups or dynamics that weren't disrupted in the same way, whereas in K-Pg, the surviving ammonites might not have had that advantage, making it much harder for their populations to hold on. (3/3 🧵)

One possible explanation is that even if seafloor communities stayed stressed for longer after the P-T extinction, the epipelagic zone may have offered a quicker route back for whatever ammonoid lineages made it through, letting them diversify and flourish again. (2/3 🧵)

There's also evidence ammonoids had higher metabolic demands than the nautiloids that survived into the Cenozoic after the boundary. Low and erratic food supplies might have been enough to let them persist for a while longer, but not enough to have let them bounce back. (5/5 🧵)

Adults can still be present while populations decline anyway, because reproduction and juvenile survival are poor. Ammonites had extremely small hatchlings, with early lives closely tied to surface-ocean conditions. If those stay unstable, each generation would be weaker. (4/5 🧵)

After a mass extinction, survivors build a completely different ecosystem network while occupying vacated niches. Because of that, what makes a lineage successful before might not match the post-extinction conditions at all, even if it made it through the boundary. (3/5 🧵)

The paper mentions impact-related acidification of surface waters, local habitat loss tied to a sea-level drop at the top of the Cerithium Limestone, and competition as possibilities, but says the actual final killer remains unclear. I think there wasn't one 'final' killer. (2/5 🧵)

This is great, but is there a reason why you depicted it with one gill slit instead of multiple?