Re: FT-Fighters and SG-aliens

G'day Allan,

 >One of the reasons it didn't happen here is
 >that those big predators spent a lot of
 >time eating enough protein to keep
 >their bodies going.

I beg to differ.... one of that main reasons that they fast big cats in 
zoos on a regular basis is because meat is a rich source of food....its 
hunting success not diet portions that take up the time. Even then the
big 
cats actually spend a lot of their time sitting around.

 >Primates, however, had a lot more
 >"spare time". Chimps and other primates have
 >complex social orders and have complex
 >play sessions. They spend considerably
 >less of their time gathering food and
 >eating than most other animals.

Actually its on a par. And the existing evidence shows that by swapping 
from primarily herbivorous to primarily carnivorous diet it allowed the 
early hominids to get rid of one large energy consuming organ (the
majority 
of the intestines) and allowed the development of another one (the
brain) 
and freed up time - herbivores have to eat ALL the time, carnivory and 
scavenging take up a lot less time. It doesn't take as long to digest
meat 
and you get more out of it for smaller portions.

 >One advantage in primates is their
 >digestive system. Humans can, lets face it,
 >eat a lot of different stuff! Cats,
 >however, are almost entirely carnivores.
 >Dogs (wolves) are omnivores, but
 >can't handle the same degree of change in
 >their diet as humans.

Given half a chance dogs are actually as flexible as we are, they just 
can't always collect it for themselves (then again our dog climbs the 
nectarine and plum trees and picks all the raspberries and strawberries 
before we can get to them).

 >The big cats are territorial, which is
 >good considering that high population
 >density is not a good thing in a primate
 >that needs so much food.

That's largely true, though I wouldn't have said it quite that way ;)

 >Canines (wolves, hyenas, foxes) are
 >more social, but don't have the same food
 >requirements,

And they're more successful when they work as a team. Its not so easy to

split the two aspects. Lions are big cats, but their rate of success
goes 
up by orders of magnitude when they work as a pride. Within reason
breeding 
success scales with pack size, the more spare bods off doing something
the 
better the whole.

 >Primates, however, are far more social.

Well the higher primates, I'd hardly call a Bushbaby a real socialite
and 
for that matter Orangs aren't that social either really ;)

 >This social aspect seems
 >to be important, tied with the "free time".

Once again its not that clear cut, its a bit of a chicken and the egg 
problem in many ways. Though in primates there's enough evidence that 
alliances aren't all just for food.

 >In other words, big cats with intelligence
 >would be a nasty critter... but you
 >won't find big cats with intelligence.

Theoretically you could, but they would probably be toned down in many
ways 
with regard to the behaviour expressed (though that can depend on the 
definition of intelligence used).

 >In spite of those claws on the wolf,
 >a human can be pretty nasty. We
 >underestimate the power of the
 >human jaw as we don't use it for fighting.

We also carry a lot more bugs in our saliva.... I know which animal I'd 
rather be bitten by in the long run ;)

Cheers

Beth

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Elizabeth Fulton
c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
GPO Box 1538
HOBART
TASMANIA 7001
AUSTRALIA
Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053