WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - D - THE LEOPARD (Panthera pardus)
|
Australopithicus ( several species ), normally stood less than 5 feet tall ( 1.52 m ) and probably weighed less than 100 pounds ( 45.36 kg ). I feel sure that a pack of wild dogs or a clan of hyenas could easily make a kill. I question if their habitat was as open as the grasslands of Africa are today.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
 (11-05-2016, 06:27 PM)parvez Wrote: @Ngala, please say Which group of leopards are the biggest, Assam and terai or Persian or Srilankan leopards? I assume that assam and terai leopards must be bigger and stockier like other animals too from this region. Correct me if i am wrong. Are srilankan and persian leopards proven to be the biggest? As i wrote in a other thread, it's difficult "proclaim a winner". The subspecies present in the northern regions of India, in Nepal and Bhutan are considered Indian leopards (P. pardus fusca).  (11-06-2016, 01:14 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Australopithicus ( several species ), normally stood less than 5 feet tall ( 1.52 m ) and probably weighed less than 100 pounds ( 45.36 kg ). I feel sure that a pack of wild dogs or a clan of hyenas could easily make a kill. I question if their habitat was as open as the grasslands of Africa are today.I've been to oldupai gorge, if their habitat was similar to how it is now, there was vast grass lands that wouuld of been there, but also rolling hills and mountains as well. There also was a massive volcano present during their time and the other hominids that came after. (11-05-2016, 06:39 PM)The brotherbear Wrote:They most likely didn't have weapons per say but they did use tools, even sharp rocks for carving meat off bone. From what we were told, it isn't tools that truly created our evolutionary boom (intelligence) but the control of fire. The cooking of meat allowed us to bring out the nutrients unobtainable in raw meat which created an increase in brain size throughout the evolutions of man. It also allowed us to stay in one place and build civilizations. (Allegedly)(11-05-2016, 06:30 PM)parvez Wrote:(11-05-2016, 05:00 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Two or three years ago, I watched a nature documentary about leopards. This particular program showed leopards of various locations of Africa and Asia. When speaking of the leopards of the tropical African Congo region, the statement was made that of all the creatures of the jungle, the only animal that a leopard fears is the chimpanzee. They went on to say that a troop of chimps can remove a leopard from their territory.
I feel that we are discussing this topic at the wrong place perhaps. But then, we are talking about the late Pliocene - early Pleistocene leopards prey here. Australopithicus did not likely use fire. I believe that honor began with Homo erectus. The Australopithicus 'people' might have thrown objects such as sticks and rocks. But, even this was probably clumsy by modern standards. They were probably more of a prey species than predator, but they had to have had some form of survival strategy.
 (11-06-2016, 04:20 AM)Pckts Wrote:(11-05-2016, 06:39 PM)The brotherbear Wrote:They most likely didn't have weapons per say but they did use tools, even sharp rocks for carving meat off bone. From what we were told, it isn't tools that truly created our evolutionary boom (intelligence) but the control of fire. The cooking of meat allowed us to bring out the nutrients unobtainable in raw meat which created an increase in brain size throughout the evolutions of man. It also allowed us to stay in one place and build civilizations. (Allegedly)(11-05-2016, 06:30 PM)parvez Wrote: Hi brother bear, man must have been solitary at the time he was struggling for survival during evolution. That must be the time many carnivores must have targeted him as the primates including man were weak bodied comparitively. He became social as the time progressed. you seem to be very much updated on present scientific studies. I will contact experts regarding nutrients obtainable in cooked meat are helpful in developing intelligence. I know it helps in easy digestion. But I doubt about intelligence. No hurtings here. In my view, the consumption of cooked meat led to ease the stress on digestive system. It made brain to work less on digestive system than previously it used to work during consumption of raw meat. Hence the stress on brain may be reduced. This may have given more room for brain to develop itself.
You're partially correct @parvez but there are more benefits to eating cooked meat than just for the digestive track, although that is one factor of course.
Here's a couple of nice write ups on it but you can find much more about it I'm sure. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...-72989884/ http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...tudy-finds
Interesting articles. Thanks pckts. But I don't want loose hope on my assumptions. This also means his digestive system became weak comparitively as the time progressed while all other parts remained strong. But in some parts of the world man eats more and more. I do not understand how that much recklessly he can eat. Surely something happened after evolution of modern man with weak digestive system.
(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean @parvez ? I mean the same nutrients get nourished to all parts of body no matter if it is raw meat or cooked one. They are reduced to same end product that is responsible for body building or energy production or is it like for body building raw meat contributes more? If the former is right then only digestive system of man functions lesser than normal. So comparitively it must have become weaker than other parts. Then how can man eat that much voraciously though digestive system became weak during his evolution. Also the stress on brain and heart is reduced. Heart must have pumped the extra blood to brain. Brain also must have had its stress reduced and getting extra blood supply tha when he used to eat raw meat. So it must have slowly developed in size and gradually intelligence should have began.  (11-07-2016, 07:09 AM)parvez Wrote:(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean @parvez ? The digestive system of man is actually quite effective at obtaining the maximum nutrients needed without to re-engage in eating feces like some other animals do. Although other animals don't necessarily need to eat their feces to obtain daily nutrients, it is a plus for them to eat feces to absorb the rest of the nutrients. Our system is designed to absorb all the nutrients in one go. The problem is, though, how did this come about? It is good that you two are postulating possible theories as to why human digestion changed vastly from that of primates, and how this contributed to human mental development, but these are just theories. (11-07-2016, 07:09 AM)parvez Wrote:(11-06-2016, 09:39 PM)Pckts Wrote: What do you mean @parvez ? We get far less nutrients from raw meat compared to cooked meat. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20...ng-counts/
I have contacted experts regarding this. They said the process of aquiring intelligence through cooked meat is just a theory. It may or may not be right. I will post the screenshot once I get onto system. So we are free to discuss this in possible ways.
Interesting debate, but I propose to include leopards. I mean, this thread is about leopards. What about their digestive system? And why their interest in primates? In western parts of Africa, largish monkeys are often hunted. The bigger the better, researchers concluded. Some leopards also hunt bonobos, chimps (adult males apparently included) and gorillas. Why is that? Could we be their ultimate prey? Is this why primates, apart from gorillas, live in trees?
What is known about the situation in Borneo (clouded leopards) and Sumatra (tigers)? The male orang utangs ('forest people') I saw were large and powerful animals. How do they deal with cats on both islands? A few weeks ago, I read a post about an allegedly new chimp (sub)species. If I remember correctly, they were described as 'lion-killer chimps'. No joke. Could they have developed a way to drive leopards out of their territory? Is it really new, or did we miss something? (11-07-2016, 10:49 AM)peter Wrote: Interesting debate, but I propose to include leopards. I mean, this thread is about leopards. What about their digestive system? And why their interest in primates? In western parts of Africa, largish monkeys are often hunted. The bigger the better, researchers concluded. Some leopards also hunt bonobos, chimps (adult males apparently included) and gorillas. Why is that? Could we be their ultimate prey? Is this why primates, apart from gorillas, live in trees? Primates (including humans and large apes) are really easy to target, regardless of size, due to their various physical deficiencies and lack of predation experience. But in a group, they are relentless. By "orangutangs", are they orangutans? There seems to be this internet meme concerning these "orangutangs" as being reddish-haired people known by the natives as "Orang Pendek". Could this be the "orangutangs"? To the final section, the Bili Apes. No, they are proven to be fake: no chimpanzee subspecies goes around to kill or intimidate lions or leopards, and if anything, it is the opposite. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |