Rendered at 15:59:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
conductr 8 hours ago [-]
If you watch predator behavior, they will always go for an easy kill. The tar pit provides those opportunities. Also, if these opportunities are routine enough and occur in a hyper local area, it’s hardly even hunting they become more like scavengers patrolling the area and perhaps defending it from competition.
That said, it seems more likely to me cats near the tar pits just held the territory and became inbred from that. You can see similar patterns today around a junk yard. There will be feral dogs or cats that are living off the trash. They protect it from outsiders and inbreed.
That’s if inbred is even the explanation. I think it’s also possible that weak or deformed cats may just prefer this site more than healthy cats as they are hungry enough to take the risk. So the population bias is inherently there through attendance. If cats are getting stuck in tar so frequently, it’s likely they knew going near it was risky. Healthy cats would hunt elsewhere and avoid the risk.
asdff 36 minutes ago [-]
Tar pits are full of remains of many types of predators, not just saber tooth cats, after all.
litoE 15 hours ago [-]
Wouldn't it make sense to assume that as the size of the population decreases, perhaps for external factors such as climate change, you are going to see more and more inbreeding?
chrisco255 16 hours ago [-]
I think the study makes a giant presumptive leap to assume inbreeding was the cause of the higher-than-modern-human incidences of spinal tumors. It's irresponsible to assert this to be true instead of one of several possible explanations.
icegreentea2 16 hours ago [-]
The study and the summary do not "assume" that the cause was inbreeding. They both assert that inbreeding could be a cause.
The article says "The team suspects these deformities and tumors indicate a lengthy history of inbreeding".
The paper abstract says "possibly because of an accumulation of expressed deleterious alleles that caused disturbances in developmental processes".
It's perfectly ok for scientists to write down and publish their speculation, as long as it's suffiently clear. I think it's quite clear in this case.
dimes 15 hours ago [-]
An assertion without conclusive evidence is an assumption.
mythrwy 12 hours ago [-]
They are not asserting a fact. They are asserting a possibility. Asserting a possibility is not an assumption.
14 hours ago [-]
Retr0id 16 hours ago [-]
Seems like there's also a sampling bias, where the less able-bodied animals are more likely to get trapped in tar for scientists to study.
webdoodle 13 hours ago [-]
Yep. For instance it could be from higher cosmic ray penetration into the earth during the last geomagnetic excursion.
NL807 14 hours ago [-]
I was always puzzled how these cats actually fed. These sabre toots seem to get in the way of feeding and chewing.
HarHarVeryFunny 4 hours ago [-]
There's a video on YouTube by a paleontologist giving his own theory for why sabre-tooth cats had these teeth which would be more hindrance then help in the kind of use most people imagine for them. Fossils show they couldn't open their jaws wide enough to use these teeth in stabbing fashion, except on something very thin.
The theory is that the sabre-tooths evolved to specialize in feeding on long-necked camelids (camel family) and the teeth evolved to let them deliver a fatal slicing bite to the neck. The sabre-tooths teeth fit neatly between the neck vertebra of a camelid, and have serated edges to let them slice through the tissue - the teeth are made for slicing, not stabbing (edit: as much as specialized stabbing).
Being so specialized they likely went extinct when their prey did (for whatever reason).
im3w1l 4 hours ago [-]
Serrated knives are for back and forth sawing, not slicing. Would the same go for a serrated tooth?
HarHarVeryFunny 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, but if you imagine the dynamics, the cat chomps down on the prey's neck (which unlike anywhere else is narrow enough that it can open it's jaws wide enough to stab through) and just the natural struggle would let the serrations do their work. The cat wouldn't need to cut all the way through the neck - as soon as the arteries are cut then the prey will weaken and bleed out, which seems to be a fairly common MO among some predators.
t-3 11 hours ago [-]
Cats don't really chew much anyway. If sabre-tooths have a rough tongue like other cats, they can probably scour flesh off bones with that with little need to work over the meat with their teeth.
NL807 9 hours ago [-]
>Cats don't really chew much anyway.
Is that actually true? If you observe domestic cats feeding, they chew a lot. Small fragments at a time and chew the crap out of it. Whether that's also true for big cats, i don't know.
branon 4 hours ago [-]
My cats rarely chew, either dry or wet food, even treats they inhale and swallow without chewing. If I want them to chew, I have to give them meat trimmings or something large enough that they can't swallow it without chewing.
They seem smart enough not to choke on larger pieces of meat but it's still weird to me that they don't chew dry food.
Hugsbox 4 hours ago [-]
They chew kibble, but they don't really encounter food in the wild that's anything like kibble. If you give them wet food, you'll notice they practically inhale it.
saalweachter 4 hours ago [-]
I was recently told this by my vet when my cat needed some teeth removed -- there was no real impact on the cat's life because they don't really chew their food.
t-3 8 hours ago [-]
My cats only chew hard things like kibble, but never chew their wet food, and if given meat or fish, they tear and swallow without chewing.
piva00 8 hours ago [-]
My cat almost doesn't chew at all, she's only fed wet food which she swallows in chunks and the rare prey she catches outdoors is teared and swallowed in chunks as well.
tempfile 6 hours ago [-]
If you let your cat outside, please put a bell or something on them. The average cat hunts far more than they eat, and generally destroy local bird populations.
bookofjoe 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
zarflax 13 hours ago [-]
I know I'd certainly be discouraged from feeding if I got the sabre toots.
thaumasiotes 13 hours ago [-]
> These sabre toots seem to get in the way of feeding and chewing.
Why? They don't stop the mouth from closing. Presumably they don't stop it from opening either.
Compare walruses, elephants, and pigs.
NL807 8 hours ago [-]
>They don't stop the mouth from closing. Presumably they don't stop it from opening either.
That much is obvious. The question is how they get around sabre tooth without being a major obstruction to bite pieces of meat off.
As for the other animals, Elephants mostly use their trunks to put food in their mouths. Pigs, their teeth are not that huge comparatively speaking and less of an obstruction, plus the have a very long snouts. Walruses, I have no idea how they manage to feed either.
otherme123 7 hours ago [-]
> The question is how they get around sabre tooth without being a major obstruction to bite pieces of meat off.
Canines are their hunting knives, where they need to penetrate deeply and then hold the piece in place until it is disabled. Canines are unable to chew properly, as they don't have a counterpart that works as the anvil, they just perforate. Also, the structure analysis show that canines would shatter if used to chew bones, so they where reserved to bite the neck or the belly while hunting.
It is speculated that the Sabre Tooth tigers (500 kg/1000 pounds) could take down a 3000 kg/6000 pound) megahervibore, that probably had a skin and fat as thick as a modern elephant. They needed those canines to kill those preys.
dudefeliciano 8 hours ago [-]
> Walruses, I have no idea how they manage to feed either.
they blow air on the sea floor to dislodge clams, use their whiskers to locate them and and then suck them out of their shell. I did not know walruses survive mostly on clams before today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WZSBlCcVA
King-Aaron 12 hours ago [-]
> Compare walruses, elephants, and pigs.
Three animals that are well known for their apex predator hunting prowess
thaumasiotes 12 hours ago [-]
Was the question more about ability to hunt, or ability to chew?
King-Aaron 12 hours ago [-]
It goes hand-in-hand when you're comparing these kinds of animals.
9 hours ago [-]
Animats 18 hours ago [-]
Another predator that went through a genetic choke point. Cheetahs did, too.[1]
Cheetahs survived, but they are so similar genetically that they get the same illnesses, and skin grafts between unrelated cheetahs are not rejected.
That said, it seems more likely to me cats near the tar pits just held the territory and became inbred from that. You can see similar patterns today around a junk yard. There will be feral dogs or cats that are living off the trash. They protect it from outsiders and inbreed.
That’s if inbred is even the explanation. I think it’s also possible that weak or deformed cats may just prefer this site more than healthy cats as they are hungry enough to take the risk. So the population bias is inherently there through attendance. If cats are getting stuck in tar so frequently, it’s likely they knew going near it was risky. Healthy cats would hunt elsewhere and avoid the risk.
The article says "The team suspects these deformities and tumors indicate a lengthy history of inbreeding".
The paper abstract says "possibly because of an accumulation of expressed deleterious alleles that caused disturbances in developmental processes".
It's perfectly ok for scientists to write down and publish their speculation, as long as it's suffiently clear. I think it's quite clear in this case.
The theory is that the sabre-tooths evolved to specialize in feeding on long-necked camelids (camel family) and the teeth evolved to let them deliver a fatal slicing bite to the neck. The sabre-tooths teeth fit neatly between the neck vertebra of a camelid, and have serated edges to let them slice through the tissue - the teeth are made for slicing, not stabbing (edit: as much as specialized stabbing).
Being so specialized they likely went extinct when their prey did (for whatever reason).
Is that actually true? If you observe domestic cats feeding, they chew a lot. Small fragments at a time and chew the crap out of it. Whether that's also true for big cats, i don't know.
They seem smart enough not to choke on larger pieces of meat but it's still weird to me that they don't chew dry food.
Why? They don't stop the mouth from closing. Presumably they don't stop it from opening either.
Compare walruses, elephants, and pigs.
That much is obvious. The question is how they get around sabre tooth without being a major obstruction to bite pieces of meat off.
As for the other animals, Elephants mostly use their trunks to put food in their mouths. Pigs, their teeth are not that huge comparatively speaking and less of an obstruction, plus the have a very long snouts. Walruses, I have no idea how they manage to feed either.
If you watch a video/picture of a lion eating or look closely to your cat, you'll notice they chew straight with their molars: https://media.istockphoto.com/id/176047661/photo/lion-chewin...
Canines are their hunting knives, where they need to penetrate deeply and then hold the piece in place until it is disabled. Canines are unable to chew properly, as they don't have a counterpart that works as the anvil, they just perforate. Also, the structure analysis show that canines would shatter if used to chew bones, so they where reserved to bite the neck or the belly while hunting.
It is speculated that the Sabre Tooth tigers (500 kg/1000 pounds) could take down a 3000 kg/6000 pound) megahervibore, that probably had a skin and fat as thick as a modern elephant. They needed those canines to kill those preys.
they blow air on the sea floor to dislodge clams, use their whiskers to locate them and and then suck them out of their shell. I did not know walruses survive mostly on clams before today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WZSBlCcVA
Three animals that are well known for their apex predator hunting prowess
[1] https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/108/6/671/3836924