Why have extreme canines evolved in Old World monkeys?
(writing in progress)
Old World monkeys (baboons, geladas, guenons, colobuses, langurs, macaques, mangabeys, talapoins, etc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey.) show extreme specialisation of the canine teeth.
(Please see the fourth comment below.)
The mandrill (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/43533-Mandrillus-sphinx) is a particularly spectacular example (https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/comments/lg5mn3/yawning_mandrill_showing_why_hes_not_to_be_fucked/ and https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1024270445-mandrill-mandrillux-sphinx-yawning and https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1024270421-mandrill-mandrillux-sphinx-yawning).
Note the extremely specialised lower premolar ‘whetting-stone’ for the upper canines, on the mandible (https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/A4LMK3O4YAMOKG8V and https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/934210586/mandrill-baboon-monkey-skull-replica and https://carnefx.com/shop/mandrill-baboon-monkey-skull-replica/).
What are the reasons for this?
There are basically three different categories of function that could explain the evolution of the extreme canine dentition in Old World monkeys. These are
- defence against predators,
- the killing of prey, and
- intraspecific sparring.
The extreme development of the canines in Old World monkeys makes little sense as the result of natural selective pressure for defence against predators. This is because the females lack the defence; the extremely developed canine dentition is restricted to adult males. There is no coherent logic whereby these defences would show such extreme sexual dimorphism if they were mainly an anti-predator adaptation.
This is not to deny that the canines might be used in deterring or fighting off attacks by Carnivora; it is just to point out that this cannot have been the main evolutionary reason, because any pressure strong enough to shape the males’ canines to such an extreme degree would, logically, also have acted on the females’ canines.
At this point, many readers may be thinking ‘everyone knows that in baboons and other Old World monkeys the adult males take on the role of defending the whole group from predators.’ However, does this sexual skew really make sense?
Moving on to the second possible function:
The extreme development of the canines makes little sense as the result of natural selective pressure for the monkeys’ own predatory habits.
Most monkeys do kill other animals for food, and in the case of baboons this extends to infant gazelles. However, most animals caught do not need to be killed immediately, and in fact monkeys usually eat their prey alive rather than attempting to kill it first. And the monkeys’ jaws and incisors are strong enough that the canines are not needed for butchering the carcases.
I have yet to hear, for example, of an adult male baboon butchering an impala neonate’s carcase by means of the shearing mechanism of the canines. Furthermore, females should be as keen to eat meat as the males are, and they lack specialised teeth for butchering, let alone cleanly killing the prey.
Put differently:
Given the predominant omnivory of monkeys, it makes little sense that these animals have canines rivalling or exceeding those of like-size Carnivora. And it makes even less sense that such canines should be restricted to the males, given that males seldom share their kills with females or juveniles.
Moving on to the third possible function:
Nobody doubts that baboons and other Old World monkeys do indeed use their extremely-developed canines in intraspecific rivalry among males. However, it is something different to assume that this has been the main evolutionary reason for the development of these teeth.
The good all-round naturalist Bill Hamilton III, who loved to work in the Okavango and elsewhere in Africa, and who studied the chacma baboon specifically, told me over the phone in 1989 (seven years before his death) that he had come to the conclusion that the evolution of canines in baboons was all about male-male rivalry. However, I did not record his explanation in my handwritten notes and I gather he never published this view with his reasons. So it remains just an opinion, albeit from a credible researcher.
Most mammals that have elaborate or extreme weaponry, restricted to males, use that weaponry not only to hurt rivals but also to fence/spar/practise. Most horn-like structures in ungulates are used to spar rather than to kill. In those cases where the horns really are purpose-built for impaling (as in e.g. rupicaprins and bushbucks), the skin in appropriate parts of the anatomy is correspondingly thickened into a kind of shield.
As far as I know, male baboons ‘spar’ with their teeth in an ambivalent way (deftly avoiding bites rather than clashing teeth). Although serious rivals do puncture, rip and impale each other’s faces and forequarters there is no thickened skin in these locations. Instead baboons seem simply to heal rapidly from their wounds.
But my main point w.r.t. to the evolution of such extremely dangerous weapons for mere rivalry is as follows.
It seems unnecessary for the weapons to be quite so murderous-looking, even if their main purpose is to show off macho. The males could be unarmed except in the sense of wrestling powerfully. There are various arrangements in the animal world for contests of the male hierarchy, and mating rights. The canines and their whetting-stone lower premolars seem like ‘overkill’ for mere rivalry among males, and I cannot see any advantage in having them so extremely designed that they really are among the most dangerous-looking weapons of any large mammal in the mammal communities in which baboons, in particular, reside.
Even if one argues that males somehow ‘need’ such extreme weaponry for their macho posturings, the associated risks for females should ensure some limitation by natural selection. It is serious enough that mature males of baboons are double the body mass of females, and throw their weight about in a hooliganish way. Adding such murderous weapons to the bluster seems excessive.
Could the explanation invoke a combination of all three factors? Possibly.
If readers remain unconvinced that there is anything anomalous about the extreme evolution of canine teeth in Old World monkeys, I can add particular observations in each of the categories I outlined above, namely defence against predators, the killing of prey, and intraspecific sparring:
In the case of defence against predators:
The island of Sulawesi is on the far side of Wallace’s Line, beyond the natural ranges of any felid or canid. So the seven spp. of macaques restricted to this island have relatively few predators, and could be expected to relax any anti-predators defences typical of congeners on the southeast Asian mainland. Instead, the crested macaque (Macaca nigra, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/43457-Macaca-nigra) at least, and probably all of the other six spp. as well, have extremely well-developed canines in males, as seen in photos of fang-baring expressions (http://www.shahrogersphotography.com/detail/29383.html and https://www.dreamstime.com/yawning-celebes-crested-macaque-macaca-nigra-tangkoko-national-park-north-sulawesi-indonesia-yawning-laughing-celebes-image103164247 and https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-celebes-crested-macaque-open-mouth-and-shows-his-fangs-crested-black-macaque-sulawesi-crested-macaque-or-the-black-ape-natural-habitat-sulawesi-island-indonesia/272647303).
This suggests that the development of the canines has little to do with anti-predation.
In the case of the killing of prey:
The gelada (Theropithecus gelada, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/43530-Theropithecus-gelada) coexists in places with domestic livestock, particularly the domestic goat (Capra hircus, https://www.shepherdsongfarm.com/our-cause/night-shelters-traditional-sheep-housing/ and https://www.alamy.com/white-goats-grazing-on-the-hillside-simien-mountains-national-park-ethiopia-image339228088.html?imageid=3B89A2FC-E557-4FF7-9123-F45D6414155B&p=266810&pn=1&searchId=e8f5d43729ed5f6426bfeb2a65c7a508&searchtype=0).
If the canines were for killing prey, this situation should be conducive to males of the gelada killing the goat at least occasionally. After all, the masculine canines of the gelada are as large as those of the leopard, and kept sharper. It should be possible for males of the gelada to pounce on an adult individual of the domestic goat and kill it outright for food. Given that the gelada eats mainly greens, this species could be expected to be particularly ‘meat-hungry’. However, I have not heard of any such use of the canines for predation in this monkey.
In the case of intraspecific sparring:
As I explained indirectly above, the usual pattern in most mammals and birds is for males of sexually dimorphic species to possess organs somewhere in a blurry zone between armament and ornament. At one end of the spectrum is e.g. the peacock’s tail, which is purely macho-ornamental because it cannot be used as a weapon. At the other end of the spectrum is e.g. the horns of bushbucks, which are purely macho-armamental because they are not ornamental but are designed functionally for stabbing.
In the case of the gelada, the male is certainly ornamented in having a cape of long hair and an emblazonment on its chest (https://www.facebook.com/earthunreal/photos/a.246085523008107/897297337886919/?type=3 and https://www.dreamstime.com/gelada-baboon-male-portrait-simien-mountains-national-park-north-ethiopia-gelada-baboon-male-simien-mountains-ethiopia-image156334611 and https://www.flickr.com/photos/lindadevolder/5400974286 and https://www.rockjumperbirding.com/the-geladas-of-ethiopia-by-adam-riley/).
So, it is easy to visualise a situation in which these adornments would be enough to signify macho, and any physical struggle would involve the sheer strength of the animal and the loudness of its calls, together perhaps with biting by means of the strong incisors. It is hard to see why the gelada ‘bothers’ to have such extreme canines as armaments for male rivalry as well – particularly because females of this species have the same ‘lip-flipping display’ (https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/comments/atyems/male_gelada_baboon_giving_a_threat_display/ and https://pixels.com/featured/threat-display-of-a-male-gelada-baboon-tony-camacho.html?product=iphone-case-cover&phoneCaseType=iphonexs) of the front teeth regardless of the fact that their canines are short and unimpressive (https://imgur.com/gallery/NDKYv).
Perhaps a clue to the real reasons can be found in the show-off yawn of mature males - which is really a way of passively threatening all in view with their long, sharp canines. Many cercopithecid monkeys, including many macaques, perform this display. (There seems to be nothing analogous with the angry fang-baring so familiar in the wolf and the domestic dog in either baboons or the Japanese macaque.)
The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/43458-Macaca-fuscata) is the only wild primate on this archipelago, and is a species familiar in many photos. What I have noticed is that this species differs to a surprising degree in its facial expressions from the chacma baboon (Papio ursinus, https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/57556-Papio-ursinus).
The Japanese macaque is smaller than the chacma baboon; the adult female of the former is about half the body mass of the adult female of the latter. However, the two species are broadly similar in their mainly terrestrial habits and their occurrence at the extremes of the environmental range for wild primates (chacma baboon is the most southerly wild primate and Japanese macaque is the most northerly).
The following is recommended reading: http://www.livescience.com/1498-americans-japanese-read-faces-differently.html.
I have yet to find a single photo convincingly showing mature males of the Japanese macaque fang-baring in the way seen in males of baboons. There are a few photos on the Web of mature males of the Japanese macaque showing the canines, but all seem to be innocent cases of yawning in boredom and relaxation.
Even when males of the Japanese macaque do show the canines in an emotional way, this seems to be
- associated with fear rather than anger, and
- accompanied by a social vocalisation.
The main difference I have found between the two spp. of monkeys is that male baboons use the yawn assertively and confidently, as a passive threat, whereas males of the Japanese macaque do not seem to do so. This is consistent, to some degree, with the fact that neither body mass nor canine size is as extremely different from that of the female in this macaque as in baboons.
One possible evolutionary reason for this difference is that the Japanese macaque, being restricted to islands, had relatively little pressure from predators. An extremely odd biogeographical fact about the Japanese archipelago is that there was not a single species of felid on any of the larger islands, and this applies not only to big cats but even to small cats.
Papio ursinus adult male, sinister yawning as display of weaponry:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/LbccUVbSRd8/SVVdMW3Xp1I/AAAAAAAADxw/tEpjS-f2VCM/s400/Chacma+Baboon+1.JPG
Papio ursinus adult female, innocent yawning in boredom:
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/chacma-baboon-picture-id159015682
Macaca fuscata, showing that sexual dimorphism is far less than in Papio ursinus:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Macaca_fuscata_male_and_female,_Iwatayama,_20081019.jpg
Macaca fuscata, adult male yawning in boredom/relaxation:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3133/3155084581_ea7907df3a_z.jpg?zz=1
Macaca fuscata, adult male yawning in boredom/relaxation:
https://toraninjapan.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/img_5447.jpg
Macaca fuscata, adult male yawning in boredom/relaxation:
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/sb10069579a-001-japanese-macaque-in-hot-spring-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=n6SjgRHExVfoo4Tnly7wvfaamXikwNLx%2FpyRIEA7xg8jNwzNPJzpPZyvTvZKaTugCHymUWs3C4zSP%2Fl%2BFmFCVg%3D%3D
Macaca fuscata, adult male yawning in boredom/relaxation:
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/1x6771757/close-up-of-two-japanese-macaques-macaca-fuscata.jpg
Macaca fuscata, adult male opening mouth in what I interpret to be a fear-grimace, accompanied by the appropriate vocalisation (probably of appeasement or distress):
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/EAGCXE/a-male-japanese-macaque-snow-monkey-bares-his-teeth-EAGCXE.jpg
Macaca fuscata, ditto:
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/d421b60790544e26be99e21f44277a9b/a-male-japanese-macaque-snow-monkey-bares-his-teeth-eagcxc.jpg
Macaca fuscata, ditto but in this case apparently an adolescent rather than mature male:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AB84X3/japanese-macaque-snow-monkey-macaca-fuscata-shouting-displaying-his-AB84X3.jpg
Macaca fuscata, ditto:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/APNE16/japanese-macaque-snow-monkey-macaca-fuscata-shouting-displaying-his-APNE16.jpg
Macaca fuscata, ditto:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AB84X6/japanese-macaque-snow-monkey-macaca-fuscata-leaning-forward-shouting-AB84X6.jpg
Macaca fuscata, showing once again the canines of the adult male but once again probably not an angry expression but rather a fearful or appeasing one, i.e. a fear-grimace:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5535/10339069904_cfca603e50_m.jpg
Macaca fuscata, adult female yawning in boredom/relaxation:
http://cache.diomedia.com/230h/01/AB/FV/01AB-FVF2.jpg
Macaca fuscata, adult female fear-grimacing accompanied by appropriate vocalisation:
http://medias.photodeck.com/2f24b304-c599-11df-a40a-00270e09af22/JW_013110_2432_xgaplus.jpg
Macaca fuscata, ditto:
https://josephmallozzi.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/1294.jpg
Macaca fuscata, ditto:
http://natureinstock.com/stockphoto/187-92095/Japanese-Macaque-Macaca-fuscata-showing-teeth-in-hot-spring-90318.jpg
(writing in progress)
Usá ArgentiNat con app iNaturalist
Comentarios
Males of baboons sometimes defend themselves from others of the same sex by snatching an infant and using it as a kind of emotionally blackmailing shield.
If it were true that these extreme teeth (even by the standards of Carnivora) evolved in response to selective pressure for paternal defence of offspring, then how can selective pressure have produced a simultaneous evolution of the males risking the safety of their offspring by using them as shields against the very same terrible canines.
Using infants selfishly as personal shields is ‘anti-defence’ because it goes out of everyone’s way to risk the safety of the offspring, with the added irony that it is the very same – supposedly so extremely anti-predator – weapons that threaten to bite an infant when used thus as a shield.
As far as I know, all the monogamous mammals, in which there is true paternal care, lack sexually dimorphic weaponry. Humans belong only marginally to this category, because we are neither particularly monogamous in terms of reproduction nor particularly paternally caring. However, we do not have particularly well-developed bodily weaponry in men compared with women.
I cannot understand how anti-predatory natural selection could possibly work only on the male’s canines, leaving the mother’s canines unaffected, unless there is a simultaneous psychological programming of extremely sexually dimorphic parental instinct, in which the male is psychologically primed to react with extreme anger and righteousness to any attack on any infant and any implication of threat to any infant. That is not the case in baboons. There is some ‘altruism’ by males in defence of offspring, but not more than that shown by mothers. More importantly, it is inconceivable to me that if males evolved such extreme paternal protectiveness they would threaten the very same offspring with the very same weapons – the male canines.
Where biologists have been ‘fooled’ is in thinking that, just because these horribly sharp canines are so lethal to our human minds, they are qualitatively different from e.g. the antlers of a moose, which certainly are large weapons, but seem ornate rather than deadly. I think this is a trick of perception. I am starting to think that there is no real difference between antlers and baboon canines – both can be deadly, but both are usually deployed in such a way as to convey a ritual of rivalry rather than lethal contestation. Deer spar and show off with their rather lethally-inept antlers, and baboons play mind-games with their canines but with a mindset of extreme reluctance to use these teeth lethally. The canines only look terribly dangerous, but the male baboon actually does not like to use them harmfully. When he nips a female in a hooliganish way, he uses his humiliating and painful but otherwise harmless incisors. When he confronts predators, he barks and postures and threatens, but seldom acts serious about inflicting the harm that his canines theoretically could inflict. The canines are partly for show – albeit from the human perspective extremely convincing show. And because these teeth have evolved, in baboons, for what is essentially the intraspecific agenda of male rivalry, it is not surprising that the same males use infants – at the infants’ risk – for the same agenda of male rivalry.
Consider warthogs (Phacochoerus spp.), which coexist widely with baboons.
As in baboons, warthogs possess terrible canine teeth which they tend not to use for foraging. The design of the canines is different from that in baboons. However, once again, there is an ever-sharpening mechanism which means that the canines are good at slicing (as opposed to merely puncturing). And as in baboons this whetting mechanism depends on wear between the upper and lower teeth. Warthogs certainly deploy their canines for anti-predator defence, and photos and videos certainly suggest that fully mature males of warthogs are, on a one-to-one basis, a match for at least females of the leopard, which have about the same body mass or less. So, the canines of warthogs are no trivial matter, and they help to explain how this short-legged and small-eyed ungulate, which lacks endurance, survives in predator-rich Africa.
However, the crucial difference between warthogs and baboons is that, in warthogs, both sexes are about equally armed. The upper canines of female are much shorter than those of males, but the distal half of the masculine canine in warthogs is for show more than fighting anyway, being more analogous with a bovid horn than with the teeth of baboons. It is the proximal part of the upper canine, together with the whole lower canine, that present a weapon capable of lacerating an opponent deeply and perhaps mangling even cartilage.
So, there are at least two crucial differences between warthogs and baboons w.r.t. the canines. Firstly, the fact that females are equipped with dangerous canines, which they certainly do not use for foraging (at least in the case of the lower canine, which is the active one of the pair, the reverse of the case in baboons). I thus infer that the main reason for the evolution of these teeth is anti-predation. As far as I know, male warthogs never slice each other with their canines in rivalry; the approach to sparring/fighting among males is mutual battering with the massive head, and perhaps fencing with the bluntish tips of the upper canines. Secondly, the upper canines of warthogs, essentially ‘macho adornment’ along the lines of antlers or horns, are not sharp enough at the tips to be a real threat to predators. As far as I know, no warthog ever ‘impales’ an opponent with the tips of its upper canines (or even its lower canines), partly because in the case of the awkwardly curved upper teeth these tips are relatively blunt.
Warthogs show us what it would have looked like if it were true that the sharp canines of baboons had evolved mainly for anti-predation: the females would possess these weapons as well. And, if the canines in males doubled as weapons for macho rivalry, then this secondary function could have been accomplished without such terrible risk - using a blunter form of sparring or mutual striking as a contest of skill.
Lycaon pictus often kills the common warthog (Phacochoerus africanus). In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vXQZ1kRUZQ one can clearly see that a single adult of the common warthog is capable of standing off an entire group of L. pictus. This is testimony to the risks posed by the teeth of the suid. Another illustration of this balance-of-power can be seen in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekgdlSMHivo . However, in various clips, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QofZ8i0DMhQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWWk8DIwEi0/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr23LJI8YII and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uzs--XMb_M, one can see that juveniles in particular of the common warthog are frequently eaten by L. pictus. It is clear that the mother has little ability to punish this predator for its killing of the warthog’s offspring.
This indicates that there is something surprising about the nonchalance of the chacma baboon when faced by a group of L. pictus. Something that sprang to mind for me when watching adult females of the common warthog in these clips is how long the upper canines are in full maturity even in the females of this species of suid. It strikes me that this is another case of idle weaponry, because I do not know of females of warthogs fighting each other with their canines. Furthermore, I do not really see how having such long, curved upper canines helps females of warthogs to defend themselves against predators.
@beartracker
Most photos of the upper canines of adult males of baboons show a groove on the anterior surface of the canine. I do not know whether this groove is ‘built-in’, i.e. present as the tooth erupts, or created by wear against the tip of the lower canine. Both possibilities are plausible. Regardless of the origin of this groove, it seems significant w.r.t. infection.
The groove is deep enough to harbour bacteria, which means that the bite of a baboon is likely to be particularly infective, i.e. the wound is probably more likely to go septic that if the whole surface of the canine were smooth.
The following shows the chacma baboon, but I think that all baboons are similar in this respect. In this view, there is no clue as to the origin of the groove other than the fact that the groove reaches the gum line, suggesting that it is intrinsic, i.e. that the groove is ‘programmed’ in the growth from the jawbone.
Papio ursinus griseipes adult male:
https://www.alamy.com/chacma-baboon-in-the-wild-mouth-wide-open-exposing-its-long-dangerous-looking-teeth-cape-town-south-africa-image248525531.html
However, the following shows how, when the mouth is partly closed, the tip of the lower canine seems to wear this groove in the upper canine. If this is true, then I see for the first time that the upper canine of baboons is ‘honed’ against not one but two teeth in the lower jaw, possibly depending on slight changes in angle of movement of the jaws (i.e. on purpose). The posterior edge is honed against the lower premolar to produce a blade, whereas the anterior edge may be ‘anti-honed’ (i.e. given a groove) by the lower canine. Both features add to the power of the canines as weapons: these teeth can of course puncture, but they can also slice and – as we see here – infect at the same time.
Papio ursinus adult male:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-chacma-baboon-papio-ursinus-baring-its-teeth-to-show-aggression-kruger-33324091.html
The following show that, when the mouth is fully closed, the tip of the lower canine does indeed reach past the gum-line. This could account for the fact that the groove on the upper canine reaches all the way to the visible base of the tooth.
http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Chacma/chacma_m_ant.htm and
https://twitter.com/anacarolina_art/status/1349410432877006864
The upper canines of the males of cercopithecid monkeys, epitomised by baboons, drills and the gelada, are unique in the animal world in being honed by other teeth in two ways and for two different purposes. These honing mechanisms are absent, remarkably, in any carnivorous mammal; and what is as remarkable is that, although cercopithecid monkeys do sometimes eat mammals as prey, the canines do not seem to be used for this. One honing mechanism is against the long cusp of a lower premolar, which keeps the whole posterior edge of the upper canine sharp and ensures that the upper canine constitutes a combination of pick and knife, i.e. is dagger-like rather than either spike-like or sword-like. The other honing mechanism is against the tip of the lower canine, which wears a groove along the anterior of the upper canine and ensures that bacteria accumulate on the canine. The result is that the upper canines of the males of cercopithecid monkeys are extremely long relative to body size, extremely sharp at both tip and posterior edge, and considerably complicated as organs of infection/inoculation. And what is most remarkable of all is that these unique teeth have evolved mainly for intraspecific, as opposed to anti-predator, deployment.
The following (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjM9UKHvL4g and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4vpD_yg7Y and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qsas0mmt2E and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ZnoQIoyhA) show that mature males of the chacma baboon in Kruger National Park do not necessarily feel threatened by the African hunting dog (Lycaon pictus). The canid seems as nervous as the baboon. (However, also see https://www.livescience.com/64712-painted-wolves-hunt-baboons.html and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6438371/Baboons-torn-pieces-eaten-pack-wild-dogs-time.html.)
The presence of even one mature male individual of the chacma baboon seems to deter them from attacking vulnerable females or juveniles. It strikes me that the stalemate thus achieved is similar to that between Crocuta crocuta and Panthera leo in competition for a kill. All it takes is the arrival of a single mature male lion to change the odds radically. Although the numbers go the other way in these video clips, with far more individuals of the chacma baboon than the canid present in these groups, I get the impression that the number of adult males present is less important than the presence of at least one mature male baboon.
The African hunting dog hunts in groups, and has a body mass of about 25 kg. Panthera pardus hunts solitarily, and can be as small as 30 kg - but is taken seriously by baboons everywhere, as far as I know. Of course, a difference is that the leopard, by climbing, can perhaps escape retaliation more easily than the African hunting dog could; and the leopard can hunt at night whereas the canid does not. However, on the other hand, the canid has its numbers on its side, and we know that there can be a real contest between the African hunting dog and C. crocuta, despite the fact that the latter weighs more than twice as much as the former. So, overall I am surprised, given how terrified baboons tend to be of the leopard and how angrily the males respond to the appearance of this felid, that these groups of the African hunting dog seem to elicit hardly more of a reaction from the chacma baboon than mild irritation.
If the masculine canines of baboons did indeed evolve mainly for social, intraspecific reasons rather than anti-predation, the corollary anti-predator effect is surprisingly great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSajdKFcQ2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_UdW2JXR_E
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/wild-dogs-painted-wolves-eat-baboons-photos-news
Agregar un comentario