[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


dbensen wrote:
>Hey, and aren't lots of 'carnivores' known to eat vegetation for roughage?
>'carnivory' and 'herbivory' are merely different gradations of omnivory.

Yes, like my dogs, who chew on blades of grass when I take them out for
walks. But I'd still call them carnivores, since (left-over food from the
dinner table aside) they are primarily flesh-eaters and secondarily
plant-eaters. Though foxes are catholic in their choice of food.

There was an article a few years ago, in the AMNH's own Natural History, of
(red?) squirrels preying on baby rabbits (shudder). And of course, who can
forget the picture of rats scavenging on just about anything?

Dwight Stewart wrote:
>   I think the terms carnivore and herbivore are meant to convey dominant
>dietary habits.  Chimps ocassionally eat
>termintes, but that hardly makes them omnivores.

Jane Goodall has documented cases of chimps eating antelopes, monkeys, and
even (more shudders) baby chimps, the latter apparently due to fights over
dominance. These make me omnivores, by my account.

Which reminds me, is there a case of baby or juvenile dinosaur skeletons
turning up in the abdominal cavity of an adult? This has been documented in
ichthyosaurs, where some skeletons are those of young awaiting birth and
others apparently those unlucky indivuduals that were eaten.

Raymond Thaddeus C. Ancog
Mines and Geosciences Bureau