Spitting is a behavior that has long puzzled observers of llamas and alpacas. While these South American camelids are known for their gentle and friendly nature, the sudden expulsion of saliva and partially digested food can catch anyone by surprise. Llamas and alpacas, distant relatives of the more famous dromedaries and Bactrian camels, belong to the camelid family.
Camelid Communication
Llamas and alpacas communicate through a variety of visual and non-verbal cues. These cues include body language, ear positioning, and tail movement. By understanding these forms of communication, we can gain insights into their social dynamics and the contexts in which spitting occurs. Spitting in llamas and alpacas serves as a unique form of social signaling.
While spitting can be used as a means of conflict resolution, it also plays a role in asserting dominance or signaling discomfort.
Indigenous to the Andes region of South America, these creatures have played vital roles in the lives of the people living in the high-altitude terrains. Understanding the behavior of llamas and alpacas, including the enigma of spitting, provides valuable insights into the world of these camelid cousins.
Why Do Llamas Spit?
Llamas are herd animals and primarily use spitting to establish a hierarchy within the herd. Triggers for spitting can include food jealousy and competition between individual male llamas.
Simultaneously, spitting serves to defend the herd against potential threats. If a llama does not gain respect by spitting, it kicks. In extreme cases, llamas might even bite, using their large teeth as a defense mechanism. The preceding spitting is both a threat and a first warning.
Most often, fellow llamas fall victim to these wet attacks.
Humans rarely experience this strange reaction. However, if you ever get spit on by a llama, consider it a reprimand or a sign of irritation. For instance, if you stopped feeding the animal prematurely, you might find yourself on the receiving end of a llama’s spray.
Llamas also spit on humans if they feel harassed or mistreated. Additionally, imprinting issues can be a reason for this aggressive behavior, which often occurs in male llamas when they reach sexual maturity. If you get spit on by a llama, it was likely intentional. Llamas can spit with precision, reaching up to five meters.
Llamas and alpacas can spit at humans if they feel threatened, cornered, or provoked. It’s essential to approach them calmly and respectfully to avoid spitting incidents.
Llama Spit: A Healing Liquid
What many people don’t know is that the substance they spit isn’t saliva but stomach juice. This semi-liquid, greenish secretion emits an unpleasant odor. Llamas are ruminants. To extract essential nutrients from grasses and plants, they need to allow the food to pass through their three stomachs. The llama repeatedly regurgitates digested food to chew it again.
Being hit by llama spit is unpleasant but harmless to humans. In contrast, the saliva of poisonous snakes can be deadly. In fact, llama spit contains beneficial substances. Researchers have found that llama saliva has healing properties. The animals’ immune systems produce specific proteins called nanobodies or single-domain antibodies, which can be used to treat inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis.
In some traditional Andean cultures, llama and alpaca wool is used to create textiles. While spitting is not a desirable aspect of their behavior, the wool they produce is highly valued for its quality and use in textiles.
Other Animals That Spit
Spitting is a trait within the llama family. Llamas belong to the camel family, which also includes alpacas and vicuñas. Even desert camels, such as dromedaries and Bactrian camels, are part of this family.
These animals are known for their spitting tendencies. However, unlike large camels, smaller animals rarely spit; they usually have foam around their mouths.
Cobras, archerfish, spiders, walruses, or certain fly species also spit, not only for defense but for distraction, temperature regulation, or feeding purposes.
Like a skilled sculptor, evolution shapes living beings over time, allowing them to better adapt to their environment. This enables living species to conquer all available habitats, even those that appear most hostile to us. Few terrestrial environments are as inhospitable as deserts, whether hot or cold: water and food are scarce, temperature variations are extreme, and dangers abound.
Yet a few animal species make these arid places their home, among them the Bactrian camel.
It’s in the Gobi Desert, Mongolia, that we find the last population of wild Bactrian camels. Covering nearly 1,300,000 square kilometers, one of the world’s largest deserts is known for its significant temperature variations, from 38°C (100°F) during the hottest summer days to -40°C (-40°F) on the coldest winter nights.
In just 24 hours, temperatures can vary by 35 degrees, so the animals living there must demonstrate great endurance and be well adapted to this challenging environment.
Just like its close cousin, the dromedary, the camel is built to withstand the extreme conditions imposed by its environment.
Its light-insulating fur acts as a thermal shield, protecting its skin from direct exposure to the scorching sun in the summer. Thickening in winter, it insulates the animal from the biting cold during freezing nights. The camel can also endure a variation in body temperature from 34°C (93°F) to 41°C (106°F) without any impact on its health. In comparison, a human can barely tolerate an internal temperature variation of over 1°C without showing symptoms (fever, hypothermia).
Extremely Useful Humps
One of the most striking features of the camel is undoubtedly the presence of two humps on its back. Here again, we discover a clever adaptation to help the animal cope with the challenges of its environment.
No, the humps do not contain water! They are, in fact, reserves of fat that the camel uses when deprived of food for extended periods; each hump can weigh up to 23 kilograms (50 pounds).
The metabolic conversion of this fat provides twice as many proteins and carbohydrates as any other energy source. Moreover, for every gram of fat converted, a gram of metabolic water is produced. The secret of its extraordinary adaptability to its harsh environment lies in its water-saving capability.
Bactrian camels and dromedary camels are different species. Bactrian camels have two humps, while dromedary camels have one. Their geographic ranges also differ, with Bactrian camels primarily found in Central Asia and dromedary camels in the Middle East and North Africa.
Saving Water to Survive
The animal can go without water for extended periods without suffering from the effects of dehydration. In fact, it can lose up to 30% of its body weight in water without any consequences. In humans, a loss greater than 12% can be fatal for most people.
Nevertheless, the camel minimizes its water loss to the maximum, never knowing when its next drink will come. Its droppings are very dry, and its urine is highly concentrated compared to other mammals of similar size; it can be twice as salty as seawater.
Additionally, although the animal has sweat glands, it rarely sweats except in extremely hot conditions, allowing it to minimize water loss through evaporation. Its coat insulates its skin from direct heat and reduces the use of this strategy to lower the mammal’s internal temperature.
Remarkably well-adapted, sooner or later, the camel still needs to drink water. Faced with a water source, the animal drinks to its heart’s content, consuming up to a hundred liters in one go.
Domesticated for over 4,500 years, the Bactrian camel has enabled human populations living in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet to obtain food, engage in trade, and travel between isolated communities.
While there are millions of domesticated camels, the wild population now numbers only about a thousand individuals. The camels of the Gobi Desert, devoted companions in a life of extreme conditions, now have more to fear from human activity than from their environment if they are to survive extinction.
You usually think of the Titanic when you hear the word “shipwreck.” The impact of this tragedy was so great that a film was produced to honor it. Did you know, though, that it’s not even the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded? Some of these tragedies have, sadly, slipped into obscurity over time because they were not highlighted enough, despite the importance of the responsibility of remembrance. I have compiled some of history’s worst shipwrecks here. Make yourself at home, for whether they were the consequence of human cruelty or negligence, the reading is not going to be a breeze.
MV Doña Paz
Built in 1963, the MV Doña Paz Paz passenger ferry sank after colliding with the MT Vector on December 20, 1987. Image: Flickr.
The first shipwreck we will talk about is considered the deadliest in peacetime. This is the shocking story of the Doña Paz, where thousands of passengers tragically lost their lives.
What Was Doña Paz?
The Filipin ferry known as “Asia’s Titanic” had done nothing by the book. In other words, this disaster could have been prevented. On December 20, 1987, more than 4,000 passengers departed from the Tacloban port en route to Manila.
The ship’s capacity was only 1,525 passengers and 58 crew members, leaving hundreds of people to find themselves sleeping in the hallways or on the deck. This may sound surprising, but for the Philippines, where overcrowded ships were common, it was not a shocking situation.
How Did the Tragedy Unfold?
Due to the ship’s non-compliance with specifications and its lack of proper communication equipment, we can’t have a precise account of what happened. The events described below are the result of an in-depth investigation into the tragedy, and the time frames are approximate.
On the evening of December 20, 1987, at around 10:00 PM, Doña Paz collided with a petroleum tanker named Vector in the Tablas Strait near Marinduque Island. The collision caused one or two explosions, and the spilled petroleum from Vector caught fire.
The flames spread to all sides of the overcrowded ship filled with people and goods, leading to a full-blown panic. The crew was helpless in providing any assistance or reassurance to the passengers running in every direction, and some even jumped into the water. There was no way to rescue them, and not a single lifeboat had been deployed. The ship’s lack of proper communication equipment also meant that emergency services could not be alerted. It wasn’t until the following morning, approximately 8 hours after the accident, that authorities were informed. By the time they reached the wreckage, another 8 hours had passed, and a horrific death toll had been recorded. Thousands of victims perished in the flames or drowned.
The Death Toll
The aftermath of tragedy.
This horrific maritime disaster received much less attention than the Titanic but resulted in three times as many casualties. Determining the exact number was difficult, especially considering the illegal passengers on board. After extensive investigations, it was estimated that 4,386 people lost their lives. From the Doña Paz, 4,317 passengers and 58 crew members lost their lives and 11 from the Vector. There were 26 survivors: 24 from the ferry and 2 from the tanker.
The cause of death for most victims was either drowning or burning. The majority of the bodies had severe burns, and the sharks in the area ate most of them.
Today, there are still some suspicions about the exact cause of the tragedy. However, what is known is that neither ship met technical specifications, and Vector lacked detection equipment to see the approaching ferry at its bow.
While the victims’ families continued to file charges against Sulpicio Lines for “criminal negligence,” they have yet to achieve a result. The maritime company, now renamed the Philippine Span Asia Carrier Corporation, is still responsible for numerous ship accidents in the last decade.
RMS Lusitania
RMS Lusitania docking. Probably New York, 1907.
The second tragedy on the list is considered a war crime by the United States. In fact, it’s even said that the sinking of the Lusitania was a driving force behind American involvement in World War I against the Germans.
What Was the Lusitania?
In the early 1900s, an increasing number of travelers wanted to make transatlantic journeys. At the time, the British dominated the sea transport market, and the Cunard Line had introduced the Lusitania, one of the largest and fastest ships of its time. This colossal ship operated numerous roundtrips between the Americas and Europe, carrying goods, mail, and passengers.
On May 1, 1915, the ship set sail from New York to Liverpool with 2,165 civilian passengers. Given the Titanic’s sinking three years earlier, most passengers were concerned. However, the crew, who described the ship as unsinkable, quickly reassured them.
How Did the Tragedy Unfold?
First, we need to briefly discuss the situation in Europe in 1915. The British and French had imposed a blockade on Germany at sea, and the Germans responded by declaring unrestricted submarine warfare in British waters.
In this wartime atmosphere, the Lusitania set sail on May 1. However, eight days earlier, the captain had been warned that if he didn’t raise the American flag, the ship risked being sunk by the Germans. But the crew, believing that the enemy would never attack ordinary civilians, didn’t take these threats seriously.
On May 6, Lusitania received a warning call about submarines on its route. To avoid attracting attention, the ship should have been accompanied by escort vessels. However, it was already too late. Walter Schwieger’s U-20 and its crew of 35 men had already spotted the Lusitania near the coast of Ireland.
On May 7, 1915, at around 2:25 PM, the submarine fired a torpedo at the ship, which caused an initial explosion. A second, more potent explosion followed this. Passengers who were having lunch panicked and rushed to the lifeboats, which were either overturned or collided with each other. Some desperate mothers even threw their children into the sea, hoping they might survive.
The ship sank in a terrifyingly fast 18 minutes. When help arrived, most passengers had already been pulled into the depths without a chance to escape, while others had perished from hypothermia.
The toll was horrifying: 1,198 passengers lost their lives, including 128 Americans. The submarine commander, Walter Schwieger, earned the nickname “baby killer” because many children had died in the sinking.
The then-U.S. President Woodrow Wilson accused the Germans of committing a war crime and attempted to seek revenge by joining the Allied Powers. The slogan “Remember the Lusitania” was used even in future submarine warfare. The Germans always claimed that they thought the ship was carrying ammunition, trying to justify their actions. The wreckage of the Lusitania lies at a depth of 90 meters off the coast of Ireland today.
Sultana
Sultana at Helena, Arkansas, on April 26, 1865, the day before her destruction.
The third shipwreck is considered the deadliest accident in American history. You’ve probably never heard of the Sultana. But this story is much more tragic than the Titanic. Unfortunately, this horrifying event has been overshadowed by these two historic events, as it occurred just 13 days after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and during the final weeks of the American Civil War.
What Was the Sultana?
The Sultana was a massive commercial steamship, considered the safest paddlewheeler on the Mississippi. The incident took place right at the end of the American Civil War, just after the Union Army had achieved victory, and most of the prisoners were being sent home to the North via ships.
The American government had promised $5 to various ship captains for each soldier sent home. Captain James Cass Mason of the Sultana saw an opportunity to make a significant profit and loaded the ship with approximately 2,300 people. Most of these passengers were Union soldiers traveling from Ohio to Cairo, Illinois.
The captain likely believed there was nothing to worry about and considered it a good deal for everyone. However, the ship was only designed to carry 376 people, making it dangerously overloaded.
How Did the Tragedy Unfold?
As the Sultana sailed near Memphis, Tennessee, a tragedy occurred on the night of April 27, 1865, around 2:00 AM. One of the Sultana’s four boilers exploded, causing the other two to explode as well. It appears that the steam boiler had not received proper maintenance, and an unrepaired crack led to the ship sinking.
During the explosions, hundreds of passengers fell into the water, and a significant portion of the ship collapsed, resulting in numerous casualties. The remaining crew had no time to escape, as the ship caught fire along with the survivors. Since there were no lifeboats or life jackets on the Sultana, there was no means of escape for the unfortunate crew.
The Death Toll
This tragedy claimed the lives of more than 1,500 people, most of whom perished in the flames. Whether the explosion resulted from inadequate maintenance or the ship’s overload remains uncertain to this day.
MV Wilhelm Gustloff
Wilhelm Gustloff was used as a hospital ship before being converted into an armed military transport. On September 23, 1939, she docked at Danzig. Image: Bild 183-H27992.
The fourth shipwreck on the list was by far the most tragic and deadliest in history. The tragedy of the German ship Wilhelm Gustloff claimed more lives than the Titanic, six times more.
What Was the Wilhelm Gustloff?
Let’s take a look at the background. It was the year 1944, the peak of World War II, and the Russian army was advancing on German soil. Along the way, they were causing a horrific famine by burning Prussian territories and committing rape and murder.
German civilians were frightened and desperately trying to escape. They were surrounded on all sides, and the only escape route was the sea. Adolf Hitler initiated Operation Hannibal to send civilians and soldiers back to their home countries.
Wilhelm Gustloff, nicknamed “Hitler’s Titanic,” appeared to be a carrier of hope when it departed from Gotenhafen. This prestigious Nazi ship left the port on January 30, 1945, bound for Hamburg. Officially, there were 6,050 passengers on board, but unofficially, there were many more. While the exact number remains uncertain, approximately 10,000 refugees crowded onto this ship, symbolizing hope and a sense of being saved.
How Did the Tragedy Unfold?
On the first day, Wilhelm Gustloff sailed cautiously in Baltic waters, aware that the probability of encountering Russian submarines was high. Indeed, several submarines were reported on the first night.
To avoid coastal mines, the ship sailed further out and followed a well-known route. However, in a fatal decision to avoid unexpected collisions, they turned on the navigation lights. This mistake cost the lives of thousands of passengers because it made the ship easily detectable.
By 6:00 PM, it was already too late. The S13 submarine, under the command of Alexander Marinesko, identified the German ship. By 9:00 PM, it had entered firing range and fired four torpedoes that would have deadly consequences due to the lack of armor plating.
Panic prevailed on the ship. Passengers were fleeing in all directions. Many people died in the explosions, and with the water rising at an alarming rate, they had no time to climb to the upper decks. In just a few minutes, the massive ship tilted to the port side, rendering half of the escape chutes unusable.
Because it was colder than usual at that time of the year, people in the water died within minutes. The ship sank in less than an hour.
The Death Toll
In this horrific shipwreck, 9,000 people lost their lives, and 996 people were rescued. It was the deadliest maritime disaster of all time. Alexander Marinesko, the person responsible for this massacre, was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union on May 5, 1990. He is still wrongly seen as a war hero today.
MV Le Joola
Le Joola Ferry in Ziguinchor, Senegal in 1991. Image: Wikimedia.
The last shipwreck on the list is a tragic incident that has unfortunately been largely forgotten in the media. However, Le Joola is one of the deadliest disasters in history, and the cause of this tragedy is human negligence.
What Was Le Joola?
Le Joola was a ferry that connected Dakar to Ziguinchor in Senegal. Due to tensions between Casamance and the rest of Senegal, the Senegal Ministry of Armed Forces seized the ship in 1995.
Due to the neglect of the ministry, the ship’s condition deteriorated. Despite being banned from sailing in 2000, it continued to operate roundtrips. On the fateful day of the tragedy, the vessel was in an extremely bad state. Furthermore, more than 2,000 passengers had boarded the ship, not the recommended 550. On September 26, 2002, this overcrowded and poorly maintained vessel set sail.
How Did the Tragedy Unfold?
The ill-fated day of September 26, 2002, would be etched into the collective memory of the Senegalese people. The boat was navigating in difficult weather conditions with heavy tropical rain and extremely strong winds.
Less than an hour before midnight, a strong wind off the coast of Gambia caused panic, with the crowd trying to get inside. Then there was an electrical failure. Mamadou Dieye, one of the survivors of the shipwreck, said, “We couldn’t see anything on the boat. The screams still echo in my ears.”
The overcrowding caused the ship to capsize in less than ten minutes. Many passengers were trapped and drowned before they could make their way out. The number of life jackets was insufficient, and some passengers tried to cling to the hull of the Joola. The remaining ones drowned while waiting for the rescue team, which arrived almost twelve hours later, at 8 in the morning.
The deadly delay was not only due to the lack of communication equipment on the ship but also because some ministers who were informed of the situation during the night failed to respond.
The tragedy was entirely human-made. The poor condition of the ship, disregard for safety regulations, overcrowding, and the inadequacy of rescue teams resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.
The Death Toll
A total of 1,863 people lost their lives, with 65 survivors. Only 600 bodies could be recovered. The Senegalese people are fighting for the annual remembrance of the incident so that it is not forgotten, but unfortunately, that is all they can do. The families of the victims are angry, and some believe that this tragedy could have been prevented, filing complaints against the Senegalese government for negligence.
The government didn’t even keep its promise to provide aid to the thousands of orphaned children left behind by the shipwreck.
Indricotherium, an enormous herbivorous mammal, lived in Asia.
Resembling rhinos, they lacked horns and had long necks.
Names like Indricotherium, Paraceratherium, and Baluchitherium are often used interchangeably to refer to these animals.
Extinct in the 30–20-million-year-old Middle Oligocene–Early Miocene epochs, Indricotherium (a Latin word from “indrik“—a unicorn-like mythological beast in Russian mythology and from ancient Greek Θηρίον—animal) is a genus of mammals in the family Hyracodontidae. Most indricothere fossils have been unearthed around Asia. Beluchitherium, discovered in the Oligocene of Mongolia, and Aralotherium, discovered in more recent strata in the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan are close relatives of Indricotherium.
The enormous Oligocene animals known as Indricotherium originated in Asia. It was a relative of modern rhinos but was hornless. Its diet consisted mostly of the foliage of towering trees, since it was an herbivore. Indricotherium fossils have been discovered in Central Asia as well.
How Did Indricotherium Look Like?
They resembled rhinoceroses in many ways, including their body forms, long and straight three-toed legs with a substantially expanded middle toe, and a small head on an unusually long neck. However, they did not have horns and had a domed skull instead of a flat one.
The skull of a Indricotherium (or Paraceratherium) transouralicum. 1923.
Size and Weight
The largest ever mammals were the Indricotherium and Beluchitherium, which could grow to be 18 feet (5.5 m) in height at the shoulder and 28 feet (8.5 m) in length. These animals weighed 20 to 25 tons. The length of Indricotherium’s skull was almost 4.6 feet (1.4 m).
The legs were long and huge, much like an elephant’s today. They ate grass and the leaves and branches of bushes and trees. Some of them lived in semiarid or desert environments, while others preferred damper environments like woods or wetlands.
Perhaps the emergence of more specialized big herbivorous animals contributed to the demise of indricotheres (the members of Indricotherium). While giraffes and proboscideans specialized in eating tree branches, short-legged rhinoceroses were better suited to devouring low grassland plants.
Indricotherium, Paraceratherium, and Baluchitherium
Although the species within the genus Indricotherium are well-known, the taxonomy of the genus itself is currently in flux. The first member of the genus Paraceratherium wasn’t named until 1911, when the English paleontologist Clive Forster-Cooper did so. Baluchitherium was another organism he described in 1913. A. A. Borissiak first described the genus Indricotherium in 1915.
Paraceratherium, Baluchitherium, and Indricotherium are all seen as interchangeable terms (Lucas & Sorbus, 1989) and hence equivalent. These names represent different genera within the family Hyracodontidae.
However, there are many who believe the two genera, Indricotherium and Paraceratherium, are distinct. Whatever the case may be, these names all refer to creatures that are around the same size and shape.
Indricotherium transouralicum: Middle to late Oligocene Indricotherium transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922) is the most common and well-studied species among others. Its historical range included what are now parts of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, and northern China.
Paraceratherium orgosensis: The biggest indricothere is Paraceratherium orgosensis (Chiu, 1973). The Xinjiang Uygur area of northwest China is where it was found. Paraceratherium lipidus (Xu and Wang, 1978), Dzungariotherium turfanensis (Chiu, 1973), and Dzungariotherium orgosensis (Chiu, 1973) are all likely to refer to the same species of fossil.
Paraceratherium zhajremensis: The indricothere Paraceratherium zhajremensis (Osborn, 1923) was discovered in the Oligocene of India.
Indricotherium prohorovi: The eastern Kazakh middle and late Miocene are home to the Indricotherium known as Indricotherium prohorovi (Borissiak, 1939).
Paraceratherium bugtiense: The original species of the genus Paraceratherium is found in the middle Miocene of Pakistan and was named by Pilgrim (1908).
Baluchitherium osborni: It is a more recent but etymologically equivalent name (Forster Cooper, 1913) to Paraceratherium bugtiense. It was discovered in Baluchistan’s Chitarwata Formation.
Paraceratherium linxiaense: In the Linxia-Hui Autonomous District of Gansu Province, at the northeastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau, Paraceratherium linxiaense (Tao Deng, 2021) was found in late Oligocene sediments (26.57 million years old). At the time of its description, it was estimated to weigh 24 tons and stand 13 feet (4 m) tall (around 27 feet high at the shoulder).
Indricotherium in the Cultural Realm
Paraceratherium or Indricotherium was the inspiration for the design of the walking battle machines AT-AT used by the Empire in the “Star Wars” film series.
V. A. Obruchev mentions indricothere in his book Plutonia.
The third episode of the British documentary series “Walking with Beasts” is devoted to the indricothere’s early years.
Cynodictis was an extinct carnivorous mammal belonging to the amphicyonid family.
It lived between 37.9 and 28.4 million years ago, during the Late Eocene and Early Oligocene periods.
Cynodictis had a slender, marten-like body, specialized dentition, and was not the progenitor of modern canids.
The extinct carnivorous mammal genus Cynodictis belonged to the amphicyonid family. Its fossils have been found in several parts of Europe and Asia, and Cynodictis is thought to have existed between 37.9 and 28.4 million years ago, during the Late Eocene and Early Oligocene periods.
Cynodictis was first described by Bravard and Pomel in 1850.
How Did Cynodictis Look Like?
Cynodictis teeth.
The closest comparison of Cynodictis would be to a huge, lean marten. Its shoulder height was around 12 inches, and its cranium was about 4 inches in length. It had a large body and small legs; however, they were longer than those of the Miacids from which Cynodictis descended.
Cynodictis was a slender and long-muzzled animal. Its carnassial teeth allowed it to tear off large portions of flesh from dead animals.
The skull of Cynodictis was also stronger than in previous species, and the dentition was more specialized; the final molars were missing, and the cusps were not as sharp as in Miacids, also a marten-like animal.
Cynodictis was not the progenitor of modern canids.
Cynodictis was not the progenitor of modern canids, but its overall morphology suggests it may have served as a forerunner. Because more powerful creodont predators like Hyaenodon and Sarkastodon (a giant wolverine) existed during the same period, the smaller stature of this animal is understandable.
The Daily Life of a Cynodictis
Cynodictis’s proportions made it well suited to life on the grassy plains that were spreading throughout Eurasia at the time. But its tiny legs would have let it avoid bigger predators and build deep holes to hide in while hunting smaller food, just like some similarly sized animals do today.
Where Do You Put Cynodictis?
It is one of the most ancient and primitive European amphicyonids.
Important in the development of carnivorous mammals, Cynodictis is represented in the faunas of Late Eocene Europe (particularly in France, Germany, and England). Cynodictis had a body type and proportions comparable to those of ancient Miacids, but it possessed teeth more like those of canids. (Miacids lived between 65.5 and 33.9 million years ago.)
At first, it was thought that this creature was the ancestor of all dogs and other members of the Canidae family. Cynodictis was one of the oldest members of the amphicyonids (the so-called “beardogs,” long considered to be progenitors of bears), as shown by morphological changes in teeth.
The distinctiveness and separation of this family from other caniforms were later verified by the discovery of Pseudocyonopsis, Ysengrinia, Amphicyon, and Cynelos.
On the other hand, true canids like Prohesperocyon first arose in North America around the same time Cynodictis was at its peak in Europe.
Along with Guangxicyon and the less well-known Brachycyon, Cynodictis is considered one of the most ancient and primitive European amphicyonids. The best-known member of this genus is Cynodictis elegans, which was first discovered in the Late Eocene of France.
Fossil similarities in teeth imply that this species may also be the origin of the subfamily Haplocyoninae (genera Haplocyon, Haplocyonoides, and Haplocyonopsis), which ultimately gave birth to the American temnocyonines (medium-sized amphicyonids).
Modern References
Cynodictis made an appearance in the Walking with Monsters mini-TV series (2005), referred to as “nocturnal predators” and “beardogs”. The nocturnal Cynodictis is captured by an Ambulocetus in the first episode, and a family of Cynodictis emerges in the third episode, cohabitating with an Indricotherium.
The fossils of the extinct Oxyaenodonta mammal Patriofelis (genus Patriofelis) have been discovered in North America, and they existed during the middle Eocene (about 48 to 40 million years ago). Although the resemblances between this predator and a modern jaguar were the consequence of convergent evolution, they were still strikingly similar. Patriofelis was a massive Oxyaenodonta (“sharp hyena”), measuring in at over 100 inches (250 cm) in length (including its tail).
The Discovery of Patriofelis
Patriofelis, the “Father of Cats”.
Joseph Leidy initially defined the genus Patriofelis in 1870 using fossils discovered in Middle Eocene soils in Wyoming; the type species is Patriofelis ulta, which was also discovered in Colorado. Fossils of P. ferox, another well-known species, have been discovered in somewhat older soils in Wyoming and Oregon.
Patriofelis is typical of the Oxyaenodontas (“sharp tooth hyenas”), a widespread group of animals from the Paleocene and Eocene that exhibited extreme carnivory. Among the Oxyaenodonta, Patriofelis was both huge and highly specialized. The smaller Oxyaena, the related Malfelis genus, and the enormous Sarkastodon were its closest relatives.
The Lifestyle of This Animal
Patriofelis ferox by Charles R. Knight.
A Scavenger
Despite its small size, Patriofelis was clearly an effective predator because of its robust set of teeth and smaller skull. Patriofelis must have been an active scavenger, since the skeleton seems to be designed to enable the animal to climb trees, despite this trait being more often associated with predators who feed on carrion. Not built for speed, this predator was better adapted to ambush hunting.
Unique Adaptations
Right hand of Patriofelis.
Since the fossils of Patriofelis have been discovered at river deoposites and flood zones, this may imply that this animal was suited to walking on soft terrain, like riverbanks. Because of its small legs and widely spaced fingers, several researchers have hypothesized that Patriofelis was a strong swimmer. Given Patriofelis’ massive size, it’s hard to believe that this animal ever engaged in burrowing behavior, as suggested by the morphology of its upper arm bone (humerus) and hand.
The cranium of this prehistoric animal was huge, measuring up to 10 inches (25 cm) in length and as big as a lion’s. It also had a short nose. In contrast to other creodonts (“meat teeth”), Patriofelis had some distinct skull features. For starters, it had special ear bones (ossified tympanic bulla) and passages in its skull that were likely linked to its hearing, sensory perception, facial expressions, etc.
The depiction of the Patriofelis.
When we look at its skull, we see large ridges where muscles are attached, showing it had powerful jaw muscles. Its cheekbones were strong, and its lower jaw was sturdy despite being not very long. Interestingly, the teeth of this ancient animal were quite distinct. The upper premolars had sharp internal edges, and their incisors were smaller than their canines. It was also missing its top third molar. Additionally, the upper back teeth were shaped like sharp blades, indicating they likely had a strong bite.
All these features give us clues about Patriofelis as a prehistoric mammal. It probably had a strong bite and might have been really good at hunting. Thanks to its ear bones and facial structures, it had acute senses like a modern felidae.
Patriofelis had a somewhat sturdy skeleton. It had a shorter body and a neck of average length compared to other creodonts. The lumbar vertebrae in Patriofelis connected in a way that resembled how some animals with split hooves, like deer or cows, have their spines arranged.
However, it was on a more complicated scale. A long, muscular tail curled out from the body towards the end.
The lower extremities, and the forelegs of the Patriofelis in particular, were short and powerful. The shoulder blade of Patriofelis had specific features. It had two equal-sized depressions and large protrusions. Additionally, there was a visible bony projection. These shoulder blade characteristics indicate good mobility and advanced hunting techniques for Patriofelis. These features were generally typical among early meat-eating animals.
Patriofelis shared similarities in its upper arm bone with its relative, the Oxyaena (“sharp hyena”), but it had more distinctive traits. Notably, it had a highly developed deltoid crest, which is a bony ridge where powerful shoulder muscles attach. Thus, Patriofelis likely had strong chest and shoulder muscles which makes it powerful as a predator.
Powerful Leg Muscles
As expected, the size of the olecranon (an elbow bone), along with other features, suggests that Patriofelis was exceptionally adept at walking. Its well-adapted limbs and muscles likely allowed it to move efficiently.
Patriofelis also had a unique hip and leg structure. Its femur, the thigh bone, could move freely due to its long ilium (a part of the pelvic bone) which provided a sturdy base for attaching powerful gluteal muscles that are crucial for movement. A bony protrusion on the femur was positioned at a higher angle in Patriofelis which indicates robust leg muscles.
Almost Dull Claws
The limbs of this animal ended in pentadactyl hands and feet, meaning it had five digits on each. This is still a common trait among mammals after millions of years. However, Patriofelis had small and widely spaced toes with slightly blunt nail phalanges, suggesting that its claws weren’t extremely sharp.
These features hint at its ability to walk effectively but it might not have been specialized for climbing or grasping prey with its claws because its claws probably weren’t that sharp.
Andrewsarchus has one of the largest jaws of any land carnivorous mammal known to date.
It has an elongated snout, measuring approximately 20 inches.
This animal was one of the biggest known predatory land mammals, with a length between 150–180 inches, and 2,000 lb of weight.
Extinct huge carnivorous animals known as Andrewsarchus (Andrewsarchus mongoliensis) formerly roamed Central Asia (Inner Mongolia, China) during the Middle Eocene over 41 million years ago. It is known only from a complete skull from Inner Mongolia, where it was discovered in 1923. Originally identified as the largest representative of the Mesonyhids, the systematic position of Andrewsarchus is not clear today, but a close relationship with the cloven-hoofed animals is assumed.
Two Distinctive Features
A depiction of Andrewsarchus.
One distinctive feature of this prehistoric mammal was the elongated snout, which measured a good 20 inches from the position of the first incisor to the posterior molar, while the posterior skull was correspondingly short and had only around 70% of the length of the snout. Another distinctive feature of this mammal is that it has one of the largest jaws of any land carnivorous mammal known to date.
The Andrewsarchus was called a “sheep in wolf clothing” in the BBC program Walking with Beasts due to its proximity to ungulates and its potential predatory nature. In this program, it was reconstructed to look like a giant hyena with hooves. This is based on the assumption that this species was not very agile due to its huge body size and that it fed mainly on slow-moving prey and carcasses.
It belongs to the order Mesonychia and the family Triisodontidae. These creatures are primordial ungulates, meaning they still have their original five- or four-toed limbs with hooves on the ends.
Andrewsarchus is the sole member of its genus.
The Meaning Behind the Naming
The name of this genus comes from the Greek term for “chief,” “leader,” and “regal,” (άρχος or archos) and the surname of the expedition commander, Roy Chapman Andrews. The species name “mongoliensis” for this species honors Inner Mongolia, the location where the fossils were discovered.
Discovery of the Andrewsarchus
A depiction of Andrewsarchus.
In 1924, Henry Osborn wrote a description of Andrewsarchus based on a single, roughly 33-inch-long skull that Roy Chapman Andrews (1884–1960) discovered in Inner Mongolia. An assistant paleontologist named Kan Chuen Pao discovered the skull in the spring of 1923 in the Eocene deposits of the Irdin Manha Formation, which dates back to the late middle Eocene. Also, a sarkastodon bone was found in the same place.
This skull was discovered during the Third Central Asiatic Expedition of the American Museum of Natural History in the Inner Mongolian part of the Gobi Desert. The skull was found by expedition member George Olsen in the Erlian Basin. It was located in the Irdin-Manha Formation, a rock formation with more than 200 inches of grayish-white to grayish-yellow sandstones and sandy gravels, as well as numerous cylindrical calcareous concretions. The formation dates to the Middle Eocene, 46 to 40 million years ago, which gives a clue to the age of Andrewsarchus.
The skull can be inspected right now at New York’s American Museum of Natural History.
Andrewsarchus is one of the biggest known predatory land mammals (the polar bear is now the greatest land predator). The skull measured 32.8 inches in length (the greatest length of a contemporary brown bear’s head is 22 inches) and 22 inches in width at the zygomatic arches. Thus, the skull is about twice the size of an adult grizzly bear.
Reconstructions put the whole length of the Andrewsarchus at about 150 inches; other calculations put it at around 180 inches, including a tail that might be as long as 60 inches. Andrewsarchus might reach up to 63 inches in height at the withers. 2,000 pounds of weight was possible for this big predatory land mammal.
Strong Bites and Enormous Fangs
The animal’s large nose and broad zygomatic arches contributed to its low head. Large canines and incisors were paired with blunt molars. The brain cavity was tiny, as it usually is in most mesonychids. At the same time, the mandibular condyle was placed low, the temporal foramen was broad, and there was a prominent sagittal crest.
In English, all of these point to the existence of a well-developed temporal muscle and a strong bite in Andrewsarchus. If the size of the dental alveoli or the sockets in the jaws is any indication, Henry Osborn’s original description of the species draws attention to the “enormous size” of the fangs of the Andrewsarchus. Since the initial reconstruction of Andrewsarchus relied on a comparison to a smaller mesonychid, Synoplotherium (Dromocyon), it resembled a wolf and had relatively long legs and an extended skull.
The reconstruction was based on the fact that this mammal was long thought to be a close cousin of predators belonging to the group Mesonychidae, which were mostly rebuilt as wolf-like creatures despite having emerged much before the advent of actual wolves.
Long Torso, Small Legs, and a Huge Head
The current conception of Andrewsarchus posits that it had a long torso, small legs, and an extended, disproportionately huge head. In accordance with the nature of the mesonychids for which skeletons are available, the Andrewsarchus is often represented as toe-walking, resting on four toes. It’s possible that, like ancient Mesonychids, it still had five toes on each paw. Similar to other mesonychids, it probably had hooves on each toe. Its limbs ended in split phalanges, similar to those found in condylarth mammals.
Habits and Behaviour of Andrewsarchus
Wide Variety of Foods
The details regarding the daily existence of this prehistoric animal are mostly unknown. The animal’s low sagittal crest and tuberous cheek teeth indicate its ability to eat a wide variety of foods. Its premolar teeth measured 2.3 inches while the biggest molar was 2.6 inches wide.
Additionally, their packed row of teeth could grind through bone. The Andrewsarchus’ large pharynx and fang-like second set of incisors point to its carnivorous diet. The incisors likely improved the animal’s grip on the skin, making it easier to break off chunks of meat.
The structure of the jaw joint enabled this prehistoric animal to extend its mouth widely, exposing the cheek teeth for grabbing huge prey. The muzzles (snouts) of highly specialized predators like this are often shorter, and they have fewer teeth overall than those of generalist predators.
An Adapted Scavenger
Because of its enormous size, the animal was unusual in its movements. The short, somewhat obliquely oriented eyes, the long, narrow face, and the relatively deep nasal depression all suggest that Andrewsarchus may have been an adapted scavenger. Apparently, it could also scare away lesser predators (such as the huge bear-sized Harpagolestes mesonychid) from its prey. Andrewsarchus may also be capable of hunting live prey.
A Semi-Aquatic Animal
Its large head suggests it may have had a semi-aquatic existence and eaten fish (similar to other reptiles that do so, such as crocodiles, gharials, and phytosaurus). The rounded shape of the cheek teeth, however, refutes the theory of a fish-only diet.
One cannot rule out the possibility of Andrewsarchus meeting on the shores, where it gathered up washed-up carrion or possibly hunted small animals. However, present paleontological concepts suggest that the known areas of findings in the Eocene were relatively distant from the seas; therefore, it is plausible that the beast’s habitat was on the seashores.
A diet that included carrion, young, and small animals, as well as scaring away smaller predators from its prey, suggests that Andrewsarchus was an omnivore like contemporary bears. The skull, which is similar in form to the skulls of entelodonts, suggests as much.
Formerly classified with the family Mesonychidae or the family Arctocyonidae, Andrewsarchus is now the only member of its own family, Andrewsarchidae.
The systematic position of Andrewsarchus, a genus of ancient mammals, remains uncertain. Initially thought to be a huge porcupine of the Entelodon genus, it was later considered a mesonychid, related to Mesonyx and Harpalogestes. Mesonychids, extinct ungulates from the Paleogene of North America and Asia, were primarily carnivorous or omnivorous with five-toed limbs.
Modern studies propose the classification of Andrewsarchus in Cetartiodactyla, although their exact placement is debated, either as a stem group or in Cetancodontamorpha.
Andrewsarchus, once in the Triisodontidae family, is now seen as a sister taxon to even-toed ungulates, closely related to entelodonts, whales, hippos, and certain anthracotheres. Only one established species, Andrewsarchus mongoliensis, exists; reports suggest two more species, A. crassum and Paratriisodon henanensis, though the latter’s classification is uncertain.
Fragmentary remains of Andrewsarchus found in China indicate its presence in Dongjun, Hetaoyuan, and Lushi. There is still debate about whether Andrewsarchus crassum is a separate species. In 1959, a piece from the Lushi Formation in Henan Province, China, was used to describe a possible synonym called Paratriisodon.
In Popular Culture
Andrewsarchus in ARK: Survival Evolved (2015).
Walking with Beasts, a 2001 TV series, prominently featured Andrewsarchus, although in its antiquated mesonychid form.
Andrewsarchus is also featured in popular a video game called ARK: Survival Evolved (2015).
Skull discovered in 1930s China, revealing massive size and unique features.
Carnivorous diet, possibly scavenging carrion and hunting prehistoric animals.
During the Eocene, Asia (Mongolia and Inner Mongolia) was home to a genus of predatory animals known as Sarkastodon (“meaty tooth,” from the Greek σαρκάζω – to rip flesh and ὀδούς – tooth), which belong to the family Oxyaenidae of the Creodonts. This is one of the few Asian members of the mostly American family Oxyaenidae.
The Discovery of Sarkastodon
Skull of Sarkastodon mongolensis.
In 1930, the Central Asian Expedition of the American Museum of Natural History uncovered the skull of a Sarkastodon mongoliensis that had been substantially damaged. The discovery was made in the Irdin-Manha Formation, which is located near the town of Iren-Dabasu in China and contains Eocene strata (the skull of the famous Andrewsarchus was also discovered in these levels). A right mandibular branch was discovered in the same age sediments two years before the skull was unearthed in the Ulan-Shireb region (about 100 miles away). There were no bones beyond the skull.
Sarkastodon
In 1938, Walter Granger provided the first description of the Sarkastodon species.
A huge oxyaenid (perhaps a Sarkastodon) molar tooth was discovered in Hetaoyuan, China, in the 1970s. S. henanensis, a species of questionable legitimacy, was described based on this discovery. The discovered tooth has a chance of being from the type species as well.
A Sarkastodon Compared to a Patriofelis
Patriofelis ferox.
Sarkastodon was a typical oxyaenid, with a head shape like that of the famous Patriofelis (“father of cats”) who lived in the middle Eocene Wyoming.
Short, wide, and heavy, with a prominent jaw, characterized the skull of this creature. A Sarkastodon had a short muzzle. Its lower incisors were quite small and tucked in between the molars, making them invisible from the side.
However, the massive canines and the molars could be seen clearly. Its lower incisors were drastically smaller, but the lower premolars were much larger than a Patriofelis, whereas the incisor of the first molar was significantly more developed. When compared to that of Patriofelis, the skull of a Sarkastodon was noticeably shorter.
Sarkastodon
The Appearance and Size of This Animal
The dimensions of the Sarkastodon skull, as determined by Walter Granger, are about 21 inches (53 cm) in length and 15 inches (38 cm) in width (at the cheekbones). Sarkastodon’s body and head length were around 102 inches (260 cm) (excluding the tail length of 67 inches or 170 cm), its pelvis height was 49 inches (125 cm), and its mass was 1300 to 1750 pounds (600–800 kg), making a Sarkastodon about the size of the biggest polar bear today. It measured 10 feet (3 m) in length.
The Sarkastodon has traditionally been portrayed as looking like a giant wolverine or a bear with a long, fluffy tail. This animal was related to Patriofelis; therefore, it probably looked like a big cat with short yet strong legs. It probably didn’t use its paws while hunting. Skull shape suggests that, like other oxyaenids, they had a cat-like snout.
What Did a Sarkastodon Hunt?
It is hypothesized that Patriofelis, Sarkastodon’s closest living cousin, had a strictly predatory lifestyle. Some have speculated that it consumed turtles and crocodiles (in keeping with its presumed semi-aquatic existence).
The snout and teeth of a Sarkastodon were worn down, as if the animal were an active predator, although the skull and teeth of hyenas are otherwise comparable.
It’s possible that this bear-cat, like other ancient carnivores, relied heavily on carrion for sustenance. Prehistoric rhinoceroses, for instance, might have made good dinner for it.
Competitors to the Sarkastodon might have included huge hyaenodons and Andrewsarchus. One counterargument is that Andrewsarchus and Sarkastodon did not share the same environment. The larger Andrewsarchus, for instance, was well-suited to broad plains, while the more arboreal and mountainous Sarkastodon was more suited to forests.
Extinct carnivorous family, potential ancestors of caniforms, lived 37-9 million years ago.
Ambush hunters with explosive speed, adapted for quick pursuits.
Beardogs often specialized in hunting swift, small prey for survival.
The Amphicyonidae, or beardogs, are a family of extinct carnivorous animals. Some evidence suggests that the Amphicyonidae were the ancestors of all caniforms, despite the fact that they are often thought to be closely related to the Ursidae (bears). About 37 to 9 million years ago, between the Upper Eocene and Upper Miocene, they greatly thrived on Earth. The paws of the beardog were designed for quick, explosive bursts of speed; thus, they likely hunted by ambushing their prey. Similar in size to an American black bear, the beardogs dug subterranean dens in which to rear their young. The weight of a beardog could range from 11 to 1,700 pounds.
What Exactly Was a Beardog?
Beardog (Amphicyonidae) artwork.
While the sizes of the beardogs, or Amphicyonidae, were comparable to those of primitive canids, their build was more akin to that of a bear. The majority of these animals walked plantigrade, like bears, with all of their foot bones touching the ground, as opposed to digitigrade, like dogs, whose toe bones simply serve as an extension of the length of the leg, with just the tips touching the ground. However, some paleontologists argue that the Amphicionidae are more closely linked to bears and should be placed in the infraorder Arctoidea rather than the suborder Caniforms (or Caniformia).
Amphicyonids fossils from the genus Simamphicyon are the oldest known, and they date back to the middle of the Eocene, between 40 and 37 million years ago. However, some paleontologists argue that this species should instead be classified as a subfamily within the ancient Miacidae (primitive mammals). Daphoenus (an extinct genus of amphicyonids), whose fossils are dated to the Bartonian (41.2–37.7 Ma) of the Eocene, becomes the earliest representative of the beardogs in this scenario.
The jaw pieces of an Amphicyon frendens beardog. Source.
The widespread belief that Amphicyonidae originated in Asia is called into question by the discovery of their fossils in North America. According to another theory, about 45 million years ago, during the middle Eocene, the first beardogs made their initial appearance in North America. However, these species are believed to be a primitive ancestor rather than the actual Amphicyonidae.
Around 10 million years later, they reached Europe, and another 12 million years later, they expanded to Asia and Africa. Over time, their bodies changed from those of wolves to those of bears, but by the end of the Miocene, they had all but vanished from the face of the earth.
Still, the earliest known Eurasian representatives of the beardogs, Cynodictis (“slender dog marten”) and Guangxicyon (an extinct genus of amphicyonid that was discovered in southern China), belong to the Priabonian (37.7–33.9 Ma) stage of the Eocene (which was the last age).
The beardog subfamily Daphoeninae experienced continuous diversification from the end of the Eocene through the Oligocene, and the first representatives of the subfamily Amphicyoninae, including the genera Ysengrinia and Cynelos, migrated into North America during the Rupelian period (33.9–27.8 million years ago).
Ysengrinia americanus skull. Amphicyonidae subfamily Thaumastocyoninae. (Ghedoghedo, cc by sa 4.0)
The Amphicyonidae family consistently displayed species that weighed around 200 pounds throughout the Oligocene, with the genus Paradaphoenus estimated to weigh around 4 pounds at most.
The existence of more advanced, earlier-evolved predators like the creodonts Sarkastodon or Hyaenodon, who were excellent hunters of mesonychids, and competition from the Nimravids and Entelodons, which were also effective predators, explains why their sizes were so disappointing. Because of this, beardogs developed a niche hunting strategy focused on tiny, fast-moving prey that the larger predators of the period could not catch.
The temperature change that marked the end of the Oligocene and the beginning of the Miocene resulted in the decline of forests, the rise of grasslands, and the subsequent rise of herbivore species more suited to extensive migrations. In the face of prehistoric, huge predators, this aided tiny and swift amphicyonids like Amphicyon, Pseudocyon, and Ictiocyon.
A lower jaw belongs to a species (Pseudocyon sansaniensis) from the Amphicyonidae subfamily Amphicyoninae. (Ghedoghedo, cc by sa 4.0)
In addition to other Old World ungulates and small mammals, the arrival of Amphicyonidae in the Lower Miocene through the natural trans-Beringian route shows a lengthy period of faunal interaction between Asia and North America (23 to 16.5 million years ago).
Between 23.7 and 17.5 million years ago, Daphoenodon and New World temnocyon lived with Old World amphicyonids (Ysengrinia, Amphicyon, Cynelos).
The earliest progenitors of all living carnivore groups appeared between the end of the Miocene and the start of the Pliocene. The ancestors of today’s wolves, foxes, and other Felidae were not only more intelligent but also had specialized organs for life on the plains and steppes.
Research on fossilized skulls and brain casts suggests that early species had a lower level of cognitive development than modern carnivores, with more emphasis placed on the senses of smell and sight than on the part of the brain predisposed to problem solving and the emergence of possible social relationships with other species.
No fossils of beardogs or amphicyonids have been found that would indicate they engaged in pack hunting. It is possible that the extinction of almost all members of the family at the end of the Miocene was predetermined by competition with more effective carnivores and the development of ungulates into quicker and more agile forms. Only Amphicyon seems to have survived until the lower Pliocene in Asia, which is a genus of a beardog subfamily.
Their Evolutionary Scheme
Here is the evolutionary scheme of the beardogs (Amphicyonidae).
Female southern viscachas have four reproductive organs, but only two are used.
Southern viscachas inhabit high-altitude, rocky areas in the Andes Mountains.
They live in colonies of up to eighty individuals, sharing burrows.
The southern viscacha (Lagidium viscacia), also known as the mountain viscacha, is a large (3.3–6.6 lb) rodent-like animal belonging to the family Chinchillidae. They are one of the Andean animals that live in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador. There are about 20 different varieties of this rodent, all of which were initially described during the 18th and 20th centuries. The southern viscacha is one of the four species of mountain viscachas and they appear like a rabbit-chinchilla hybrid.
Southern viscacha (Lagidium viscacia), a species of mountain viscacha. (Cody H., CC BY 2.0)
Except for the dense, coarse hair on the tail, the thick, soft fur on the body of a southern viscacha is between 12 and 18 inches in length. Their fur is various shades of gray, brown, and black throughout Bolivia and Chile. The underbelly of the animal’s fur is often white, yellow, or a very light gray. The tails’ coiled tips may be anywhere from red to black.
For comparison, the northern viscacha’s tail is either reddish-brown or black, whereas the southern viscacha’s tip is black. The back of an Ecuadorian southern viscacha is marked with a black stripe. Their ears are long and hairy, and these animals are anywhere from 2 to 6.6 lb in weight. There is also just one set of mammary glands on the female body.
Their primary natural enemy is the Andean mountain cat.
In recent research, 55 adult individuals were separated into groups based on their place of origin and cranial (skull) measurement. Similarities between the individuals from various parts of southern Argentina, northwest Argentina, western Bolivia, and northern Chile were only mild. The coloration on the outside was quite diverse; however, gray tones were more common in the south of Argentina and yellow tones were more common in the northwest.
High in the Andes Mountains of Peru, the southern viscacha can be found at elevations of 10,000 to 16,500 feet above sea level. They are seen from western Bolivia to the southern tip of Argentina and Chile.
The snow line and the woodland line are the boundaries of this area. The distribution of this mountain viscacha is patchy throughout its range; however, it is often found at the local level.
Their lifespan in captivity reaches 19 years.
Distances of more than 6 miles between populations are not unusual for the southern viscacha. The species lives in the Andes Mountains, between the forest and the snow line, in arid, rocky places with little vegetation, dominated by coarse grasses.
Fortunately, succulent plants are more common in humid environments like those found near water. The unusual habitat of the southern viscacha is a result of its agility on rocky slopes and its tendency to seek refuge in cracks and crannies. Burrows are often set up in cracks and other rocky areas.
Nesting sites are established in deep cracks and narrow stone tunnels on huge boulders or rocky cliffs. Despite the high elevations of their habitat (6 to 10 miles high), the species has been found as low as 2000 feet.
Northern viscachas (L. peruanum), another mountain viscacha, are notable for their wide range of coloration within a single population.
Southern Viscachas consume the tough grasses, lichens, and mosses that make up the habitat’s scant herbaceous cover. They prefer the arid, sparsely vegetated conditions of rocky cliffs, outcrops, and slopes. Colonial in nature, the southern viscacha congregates in small groups and is most active in the early morning and late afternoon. They emerge from their burrows at certain times of the day in order to eat. They do most of their feeding between 3:00 and 6:00 in the evening.
Life in the Colony
Up to eighty individuals may coexist in a southern viscacha colony. Families of two to five individuals share a single burrow within a colony. The creatures aren’t great at digging; therefore, their burrows are in rocky nooks. They are not territorial and seldom display violent behavior.
When mating season arrives, the female evicts the male from the family burrow, and he wanders the colony in search of a new one.
They lounge about on rocks all day, soaking up the sun and grooming their fur. At dusk, individuals return to their burrows after a day of feeding. When startled, the southern viscacha may make short or lengthy hops (more than 6.5 feet high) from one rock to another. They create a high-pitched noise during alerts to warn the colony of danger. That’s why they stay within 230 feet of cover at all times.
At one year of age, both sexes of southern viscachas are able to successfully reproduce. Fetuses spend between 100 and 140 days in a mother’s womb. All mature females become pregnant during the mating season, which runs from October through December. One baby is born at the conclusion of each pregnancy.
Due to the long gestation time and the seasonality of mating, it is quite improbable that a female southern viscacha would conceive again in the same year after giving birth. Young are independent early on and thrive on a diet of plant matter supplemented by their mothers’ milk. While females have four reproductive organs total, only the right ovary and uterine horn are really used.
Are the Species in Danger?
An 1887 illustration.An 1876 illustration.
Damage to or removal of the right ovary would make the left ovary active. For roughly a month, the mother exclusively breastfeeds her young. Humans increase the danger of predation on viscachas since they are hunted for their fur and flesh. The uterine horn population is in danger due to hunting and requires protection. The species has been classified as “Least Concern” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
However, conservation efforts are urgently needed for a newly found population of Lagidium ahuacaense in Ecuador, which may number in the hundreds at most.
Subspecies
Lagidium viscacia viscacia — Molina, 1782
Lagidium viscacia boxi — Thomas, 1921
Lagidium viscacia cuscus — Thomas, 1907
Lagidium viscacia cuvieri — Bennett, 1833
Lagidium viscacia famatinae — Thomas, 1920
Lagidium viscacia lockwoodi — Thomas, 1919
Lagidium viscacia moreni — Thomas, 1897
Lagidium viscacia perlutea — Thomas, 1907
Lagidium viscacia sarae — Thomas & St. Leger, 1926
They are small rodents with bushy tails, diverse fur colors (gray, brown, yellowish-gray).
They inhabit pampas, dig burrows, stay active at night, and have a communal lifestyle.
These animals face threats from Andean cats, foxes, humans; hunted for meat and fur.
Burrowing and closely related to the chinchilla, the viscacha is a cute little rodent native to South America. The majority of their body is a shade of gray or brown, and their tail is really long and bushy. They consume a diverse diet of plant matter and are known to reside in big colonies where members of the same family are kept apart. All viscachas live mainly in the Andes Mountain range from Peru to Argentina, specifically around south-central Brazil, southeast Bolivia, and northern Argentina.
Lagidium and Lagostomus
The first viscacha was described in 1817 by the French zoologist Anselme Desmarest as the Lagostomus maximus, which is still the largest viscacha species ever discovered.
This animal belongs to the family Chinchillidae in the order Rodentia. There are two genera of the viscacha species: Lagidium and Lagostomus. The animals from the lagostomus look more like big rats, while the ones from the lagidium resemble rabbits.
Species
The genus Lagostomus consists of just one Viscacha species:
Plains viscacha (L. maximus),
while the genus Lagidium has four Viscacha species:
Northern viscacha (Lagidium peruanum) on a rock at Machu Picchu, Cusco, Peru. (File, Alex Lee, CC BY 2.0)
A viscacha’s long, bushy tail balances out its short front legs and long back legs. Its large, silky fur can be any shade of gray, brown, or yellowish gray.
An anomaly: Ranchers see the plains viscacha as a nuisance because of its ability to strip grassland used to feed animals. Its black and gray mustache-like facial characteristics set it apart from other viscachas.
The whole length of a viscacha might range from 21 to 30 inches. The length of its tail ranges from 5.3 to 7 in. Males weigh 15.5 lb to 20 lb, while females weigh 8–10 lb. Their rear body is grayish, while they have a striped black and white face. The full-grown version of this rodent is usually between 21 and 26 inches in length and has a long, curly tail like a Shiba Inu dog.
The plains viscacha with black and gray mustache-like facial characteristics. (File, Salix, CC BY-SA 3.0)
It’s Not a Rabbit!
Its enormous ears lead many to believe it belongs to the rabbit family, but in reality, it is a rodent (perhaps even a chinchilla or gerbil, according to others). They look like rabbits with big tails, and they are very agile.
Like guinea pigs, they have four fingers on their front legs and three on their rear legs. Since evening lows can dip below -22°F (-15°C) in their habitat, their fur is quite thick and dense.
Where Does a Viscacha Live?
The pampas (low grasslands) and scrub woodlands are the homes of viscachas. Some of the species live in the Atacama Desert. They are nocturnal animals. They dig subterranean tunnels for their homes and dwell in communities of a dozen to several dozen. At the openings of their burrows, they stack stones, grass, bones, and dung.
They take advantage of the early morning sun by sitting still in it. This behavior is most often seen in reptiles, but it has also been observed in mammals like the ring-tailed lemur. The bigger viscachas have been known to sunbathe next to the smaller viscachas and even share living quarters with them.
Mountain viscacha (Lagidium peruanum). (Photo, Nelson e Mitch, CC BY-SA 3.0)
Viscachas Are Living a Tough Life
They like to make their home in elevated settings, like the rocky mountains. The limited oxygen level makes it difficult to regulate temperatures, and it may become so cold that even salt lakes freeze over, making life very tough for these animals. The warning cries of a viscacha are loud and distinctive.
They rely on their thick fur to keep them warm; keeping it in good condition is a crucial part of their routine. They are able to endure low oxygen levels and colds because of their thick coats and high number of red blood cells. This is also why they rest for long periods of time rather than exert themselves.
They supposedly only move when boulders fall on them, but when they see a foreign living being, they will leap from rock to rock and go underground. As soon as the ground thaws, they go on a hunt for food.
They mostly consume grasses and grass seeds in their diet. Arid regions with sparse grasses make for difficult foraging. Food contains sufficient amounts of water for their needs. Tourists often see viscachas in rocky regions like those around the Machu Picchu ruins.
It’s not uncommon for smaller viscachas to hang onto the backs of their mothers while moving around. These animals have twins with each birth, and their expected lifespan is between 7 and 8 years, which is pretty impressive.
Predators
Andean cats, foxes, pumas, and other carnivores; eagles and other birds of prey; and humans are among their natural predators. However, predators seldom engage in a full-scale chase since they have to invest so much energy to keep up with the viscacha due to the low oxygen level around their habitat.
Puma and boa constrictors are the main examples of predators. The pampas fox, a known juvenile predator, also frequents this species’ den. The female viscachas may be prey for Geoffroy’s cat and the crab-eating foxes.
Due to its widespread range and impressive population, the viscacha faces little threat of extinction. However, there is always a human impact, and the competition from human-introduced cattle is believed to affect these animals.
Plus, the cute viscacha is unfortunately a popular game animal to hunt in the area. They are mostly hunted for their meat and fur. But the economic value of their pelts is lower than that of similar-range animals like the vicuña, due to their fur changing frequently.
The pampas fox lives in the wet grasslands of South America.
The Lycalopex genus is closer to wolves than foxes.
They have a flexible diet, including insects, mammals, and birds.
The pampas fox, or Lycalopex gymnocercusas it is formally known, is a species of canid unique to the wet grasslands of Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and southern Brazil. Sorro (from the Spanish zorro) is another name for this animal. Gotthelf Fischer first described this animal in 1814.
Because of its resemblance to “true foxes” (genus Vulpes), the pampas fox is also a South American fox (genus Lycalopex). Contrary to popular belief, members of the genus Lycalopex are more closely related to canids like wolves and jackals than they are to foxes (Vulpes).
As a medium-sized canid, the pampas fox is only slightly bigger than its close relative, the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous). The fox has many physical characteristics with the culpeo fox (Lycalopex culpaeus), including size and shape, but its nose is broader, its head and neck are covered in red fur, and its muzzle is marked with black.
It has a long face and a strong, high interparietal crest, and its skull is triangular. Their body sizes differ among regions. Adults typically measure between 5 and 18 pounds in weight and 20 and 32 inches in height.
A black stripe runs down the middle of their back and the base of their tail, while the rest of their fur is thick and gray. The crown and sides of their heads have a reddish hue.
Differentiating from the similarly colored culpeo fox, the muzzle is black up to the corners of the mouth. The outside surfaces of the triangular ears are reddish, while the inside surfaces are white. There is graying on the back, shoulders, and sides.
The tail is long (50% of the length of the body) and thick, with a darker end. Light gray to white may be seen on the belly and inner surface of the legs. Laterally, the legs are gray, but the tips are crimson. The underside of the forelimbs is a vibrant red. Northern pampas foxes in this species’ range tend to be more vividly colored. Their hind legs also have 4 toes (without a rudimentary fifth claw on their front legs).
Their Origin in Evolution
Engraving of a pampas fox by J. G. Keulemans, 1890.
The oldest fossil record of the species is reported in the Vorohué Formation in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, dating back to 2.5–1.5 million years ago. Additional fossils are reported in sediments from the Luján Formation in Argentina, dating back 30,000 years.
Five subspecies are currently recognized:
L. g. gymnocercus — G. Fischer, 1814 (north-eastern Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil).
L. g. gracilis — Burmeister, 1861 (western Argentina).
L. g. antiquus — Ameghino, 1889 (central Argentina).
L. g. domeykoanus — Philippi, 1901 (northern Chile.
L. g. maullinicus — Philippi, 1903 (central Chile).
Where Do Pampas Foxes Live?
Northern and central Argentina, Uruguay, eastern Bolivia, Paraguay, and southern Brazil are all home to the pampas fox. The animal is most common in open environments, especially in proximity to farming, although it has also been seen in Chaco forests, dry savannah, marsh, and mountainous woodland settings. Although the pampas fox is most often found at altitudes below 3,300 feet, it has been recorded above 11,000 feet in Puna grassland. The pampas fox is also widespread in a variety of other environments, including ridges, arid scrubland, coastal sand dunes, open woods, and cultivated and pastured land.
The routines of the pampas foxes are typically nocturnal and crepuscular. However, their patterns of behavior vary depending on where they are. The animal is nocturnal when it is isolated from other canids but diurnal when it coexists with the crab-eating fox. As another example, they are awake both day and night in Brazil.
Although they often occur alone, during the mating season they might be seen in couples. Caves, hollow trees, and even the burrows of the viscacha rabbits or armadillos (dasypodidae and chlamyphoridae) are all places they seek sanctuary. Adult pampas foxes, even when caring for young together, often hunt alone, leaving their feces in distinct locations to establish their territory. Latrines and other characteristics of defecation sites are indicative of the use of excrement in intergroup communication.
What Does a Pampas Fox Eat?
The pampas foxes have a more flexible and opportunistic diet than most other canids. They eat native fruits and vegetables, insects, small animals like hares, pampas deer cubs, and mice, and birds from the groups Tinamiformes, Passeriformes, and Columbiformes. Its diet shifts have been linked to human interference in its natural environment and prey availability. This fox sometimes eats dead animals.
Armadillos, opossums, lizards, fish, mollusks, crabs, and scorpions are all examples of bigger prey that they may eat. In Brazil, L. gymnocercus shares several food items with the crab-eating fox; however, the latter is a more frugivorous species. The Geoffroy’s cat (Leopardus geoffroyi) and the pampas cat (Leopardus colocola) may compete with the pampas fox for the same food sources. Domestic dogs and cougars are the main predators of this fox.
Pampas fox with a pampas deer cub. (Peter L Achuff, CC BY 4.0, improved from original)
Potential Threats
The pampas fox is widespread in rural regions and seems to be tolerant of human disturbance. However, the pampas fox is on Appendix II of CITES, despite being classified as “Least Concern” by the IUCN on a worldwide scale.
Paraguay and Uruguay have laws protecting the pampas foxes; however, they also allow for limited hunting. Even though the species is legally protected in Brazil, it is often killed for its fur and subjected to direct persecution, particularly in rural regions. In 1983, it was deemed safe for consumption, and trading was outlawed in Argentina. The species is still being targeted by poachers because its fur is in high demand.
Even in countries where hunting is prohibited, the species is regularly pursued because of accusations that it preys on domestic poultry and sheep. Poisoning, stoning, and shooting are all forms of direct persecution. Since the pampas fox is a versatile predator that seldom targets domestic cattle, there is nothing to worry about in terms of predation. Given the lack of data on their population dynamics in rural habitats, the accumulation of these activities might initiate the potential extinction of this species.
State officials in the Brazilian State of Paraná have issued a red warning for the pampas fox because of threats to its survival, including habitat loss owing to the expansion of monoculture crops like soy and pine, as well as hunting of the animal and its natural prey. Another big threat to natural grasslands is cattle roaming freely.
Dog-Pampas Fox Hybrid
A dog-fox hybrid from a pampas fox and a domestic dog. (Photo, Bruna Szynwelski, CC BY 4.0, enhanced from original).
Two universities in Brazil, the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and the Federal University of Pelotas, made headlines in 2023 when they revealed the discovery of a dog-pampas fox hybrid.
It was discovered at the Veterinary Hospital at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in 2021 after the animal had been injured by a vehicle in the municipality of Vacaria and rescued by the Environmental Patrol.
The researchers have not yet calculated the effect of this first-ever occurrence of a hybrid between a domestic dog and a fox endemic to South America, but they are already suggesting keeping dogs away from protected regions.
