Identifying the Species of Fish described by John Lawson in 1710 (part 2)

Lawson admitted his list of freshwater fishes left out many species because he had explored the inland regions of the Carolinas during winter, a season when the natives didn’t often fish.  He starts his list with the sturgeon.  During his time the sturgeon was so common that a person could see “several hundreds of them in one day.”  Sadly, the sturgeon is almost extinct in North Carolina today, and there is no breeding population there.  The fish Lawson refers to as a pike is known today as the chain pickerel.  He caught 300 of them one day in his fish trap on the Neuse River.  I believe there is no river in North America today that would yield 300 chain pickerel in one trap within a 24 hour period.  This shows just how depleted America’s rivers are compared to yesteryear.  Some estimate there are 1000 times less fish in our rivers than existed during pre-colonial times.  

Chain pickerel. (Esox niger)  Lawson pulled 300 of these from his fish trap in the Neuse River on one occasion.

The trout Lawson mentions is undoubtedly the brook trout–the only native eastern species.  The fish he called the “English pearch” was actually the yellow perch and it was not the same species as found in England as Lawson mistakenly believed.  Lawson referred to the largemouth bass as a “brown pearch or Welchman” and again it was not the same species as found in England.  The fish he called a “flat or mottled pearch” is known today as the crappie.  Bream or freshwater sunfish were known by Lawson as “round-robins.”

Lawson claimed carp lived in Carolina but he was wrong.  Carp were not introduced to North America until 1831.  Instead, he may have had them confused with a native buffalo fish (Ictiobus bubalus) which does range into the western parts of the Carolinas in places he never vistited.  He does mention the “sucking fish” (suckers) and “cat-fish”, though he was unware that these 2 families of fish include many different species.

The fish Lawson called the “roach,” an English species, was most likely a type of shiner as was the fish he refered to as a “grindal.”  The fish he knew as the “gudgeon” was some type of minnow.  The fish he called a “loach” is the killifish.  He listed the dace, probably the long-nosed (Rhynicthys cataracterae).

Lawson knew alewives as “old-wives.”  The alewife is a type of herring that lives in the ocean and spawns in freshwater lakes and the deep slow bends of rivers.  The Indians used to dry and smoke alewives.  I remember seeing dead alewives littering a beach on Lake Erie, Ohio when I was a kid.  I had always assumed they died from pollution but that’s not the case.  Alewives are not native to the Great Lakes but instead colonized them by swimming through man-made canals.  Predatory fish populations had been devastated by overfishing, pollution, and lamprey colonization.  This allowed the alewife population to explode and during summer heatwaves, alewives would die by the thousands and wash up on the shore.  Incidentally, southerners not familiar with the Great Lakes probably don’t realize these bodies of water have big waves, just like the ocean.

Alewives. (Alosa pseudoharengus)

I’m not sure of the identity of Lawson’s “fountain fish.”  He wrote that they breed in the clear Running Springs and Fountains of Water, where the “clearness thereof makes them difficult to be taken.”  Perhaps, this is the fish known today as the creek chub (Semotilus atrumaculatus).

I can’t figure out what Lawson’s “white Fish” is.  He described them as being 2.5 feet or more long and were found in the “Freshes of the Rivers.”  I doubt he meant the white fish (Coregonus clupeaformis) found today in the Great Lakes.

The fish he called “Barbout” and “Miller’s Thumbs” is the freshwater cod or burbot (Lota lota).  I don’t think he ever saw this fish in person.  Within historical times this species was not known to have occurred south of the Kentucky River, though during the Ice Age it may have lived farther south.

A burbot or freshwater cod (Lota lota).  This species prefers deep cold lakes and during Lawson’s time probably didn’t range farther south than the Kentucky River.

Identifying the Species of Fish Described by John Lawson in 1710 (Part 1)

John Lawson wrote the first American natural history book circa 1710 after settling in North Carolina.  (See:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/john-lawsons-voyage-to-carolina-1700-1711/)  I often consult his work to obtain insight about the early unmodified environments of the southeast.  His chapter on fish is particularly confusing because he uses arcane common names, no longer in usage.  He also mistakenly refers to some species as the same as those found in England.  This is not true of any species.  So I gave myself a little project and attempted to decipher which species he was referring to in each individual description.  I used descriptions typed into search engines and information found from the obscure book referenced below to identify almost all the species he catalogued.  It’s evident that he directly encountered some species, but only knew about others from hearsay.  I now offer the results of my study.

Lawson includes the whales with the fishes.  Like most people living during this time period, he never enjoyed the benefit of a biology class and was unaware that whales are mammals.  He wrote about 4 “sorts” of whales.  He did not know of the many more species that live off the coast of Carolina.  He reports 1 “sperma ceti” whale washed up on Currituck Inlet, and how the local beachcombers “profited” from it.  Apparently, there were people living along the coast then who made a living scavenging shipwrecks and dead whales.  His “sperma ceti” whale is obviously known today as just the sperm whale.  He was also aware of the bottle-nosed whale, a deep sea species that lives in underwater canyons where it feeds upon squid and fish.  Bottle-nosed whales can stay submerged for an astonishing 2 hours.

Bottle-nosed whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus).  Lawson was aware of this deep water species of whale.  He mistakenly classified whales as fish.

Lawson mistakenly refers to killer whales as 2 different species–the thrasher and the crampois.  He claimed bottle-nosed whales always washed ashore minus their tongues which were eaten by “thrashers” and swordfish.  Killer whales will attack and eat other whales but swordfish do not.  Lawson also knew dolphins as “bottle-noses.”

I could not identify 2 other whales Lawson catalogued.  I could find no whale matching the description of a “shovel-nosed” whale, and there is no whale that is 60 feet long but just 3 or 4 feet in diameter.  I assume he was just wrong about the measurements.

I was excited when I read Lawson’s account of porpoises being found in a freshwater lake in North Carolina.  I thought I had come across a unique curiosity.  However, large lakes on the North Carolina coastal plain are Carolina Bays with no outlet to the sea.  And the lake is described as being located in a “great sound” which would mean it was saltwater.  Therefore, I’ve concluded Lawson was mistaken again.  Instead, he may be referring to a bay in Maryland known as Porpoise Bay and the porpoises  it’s named after may have been dolphins.  Porpoises are a cold water species that differ from dolphins by having shorter snouts.  They do range as far south as North Carolina during winter, so it’s possible the place was named based on the correct animal.

Porpoise Pond is located in Assawoman Bay, Maryland.  Is this the body of water where Lawson claimed porpoises lived in freshwater?  I think he wrongly was told this was a freshwater body of water, but it is actually saltwater.

The manta ray was known then as the “divel fish” and still is in some archaic circles.  Lawson recounts a case when a “divel fish” got caught in a sloop’s anchor line and dragged it at least a mile against the tide.  A similar even occurred in 1933 off the coast of New Jersey.

This manta ray with a 20 foot wingspan almost sank a boat.  A Coast Guardsmen shot it 20 times to save the endangered men on board.  Happened off the coast of New Jersey in 1933.

Lawson includes 2 “sorts” of sharks on his list, but he called one a “Paracooda” that I interpet as a misspelling of barracuda which is not even a shark.  He later adds the dogfish to his list and correctly categorizes it as of the “shark kind.”

Many of the species in his catalogue were easy to identify because the names he used are still their common names–Spanish mackerel, mullets, swordfish, shad, stingray, thornback stingray, conger eels, eels, lamprey eels, red drum, black drum, sheepshead, flounder, trouts of saltwater, croaker, toadfish, ocean sunfish, and herring.  Others took just a little deciphering.  His name for menhadden was fat-back, an obscure name little used today.  His description of the “guard” indicates he probably misheard the locals as they referred to this fish as the gar.  Lawson classified the gar as a saltwater fish.  Although gars are common in brackish waters, they are considered a freshwater species. 

Cavallies was a little more difficult to decipher, but I learned this is an archaic term for crevalle jack (Caranx hippo). His bass, or rockfish, is the striped bass, still known as rockfish by many.  The fish he calls a “sea tench” is most likely the tautog (Tautoga onitis).  Boneto is a mispelling of bonita, a type of tuna.  His angelfish includes members of the Pomancanthidae family.

Crevalle jack (Caranx hippos).  Lawson called them Cavallies. He wrote they stayed sweet for twice as long as other fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tautog-a wrasse that lives as far south as South Carolina.

Lawson lists smelts as a fish living in the region, but he probably was referring to a similar-looking fish known as the silverside (Meridia meridia).  Smelts do not live as far south as Carolina.  The fish he calls a “sea bream” is likely a porgy from the Caridae family.  I could not determine what fish he named the “taylor.”

The culinary properties of the fish he catalogued seemed to be the most important attribute in his descriptions.  This is not surprising–his diet mostly consisted of wild animals he could kill and vegetables he could grow.  He praised the good eating qualities of crevalle jacks, mackerel, drums, sea trout, and eels.  He liked sheepshead but wrote that it was no better than many other species of fish, despite its fine reputation.  He thought bluefish among the best of fishes, “full as good meat as salmon.”  Menhaden contained so much natural oil they could be fried directly in a pan without the addition of fat, and Lawson referred to them as “a very sweet food.”  Menhaden comes from the Indian word meaning fertilizer, and today this is the most common use for this species.  Early Settlers liked to eat menhaden as well as to use them to fertilize their crops.

North Carolina is famous for its bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).  Lawson said they were as good meat as salmon.

In my next entry, I’ll decipher Lawson’s descriptions of freshwater fish.

Refererences:

Lawson, John

A New Voyage to Carolina

North Carolina Press 1967

Smith, Hugh

The Fishes of North Carolina

Originally published in 1907, republished by Cornell University in 2009

There May Be 5 Species of Shoal Bass Previously Described as 1

New discoveries await those entering the field of biological research.  Scientists have uncovered volumes of knowledge, yet we still know so little.  Nevertheless, it’s surprising that in Georgia, in the midst of what most would consider an advanced civilization,  there may be as many as 5 distinct species of bass left undescribed by science.  Byron Freeman and other scientists are using anatomical and DNA comparisons to remedy this unlikely gap in ichthylogical classification.

 

Redeye bass.  There may be 5 different species of shoal bass wrongly considered the same species.

Shoal basses; along with largemouth bass, crappies, and sunfish; belong to the Centrarchidae family.  Shoal basses favor rocky stretches of river too warm for trout, yet too cool for largemouth bass, though there is some overlap on both ends.  Dr. Freeman discovered that various specimens of a species of shoal bass, known as the redeye bass (Micropterus coosae), differed strikingly, depending upon which river they came from.  By comparing 20 anatomical characteristics, Dr. Freeman was able to determine that shoal basses from the Coosa, Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Savannah, and Altamaha rivers all differed from each other enough to be considered separate species.  Differences in shoal bass DNA sequencing supports his discovery. The scientific name, Micropterus bartrami, or Bartram’s bass, has been proposed for a species living in the Savannah River.

All of these species share a close evolutionary relationship.  It’s likely the founding population of shoal bass became geographically isolated due to stream capture events when the headwaters of 1 stream eroded backwards and captured the flow of another. For example a tributary of the Savannah River captured a tributary of the Chattahoochee, explaining how speciation occurred between shoal basses from these 2 rivers.  (See:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/tallulah-gorge/) Similar geological events probably explain the evolutionary divergence of other shoal basses.

All of these species hybridize with each other, showing the difference between species is a gray area.  Hybridization via backcrossing is another way new species can originate.  By introducing a species of shoal bass into another species of shoal bass’s range, man may inadvertently create a new species.  However, scientists are concerned that introductions of smallmouth bass into shoal bass habitat will result in the latter’s extinction.

See also: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-evolutionary-history-of-the-black-bass-genus-micropterus-sp/

Reference:

Freeman, Byron; et. al.

“Shoal Basses, a Clade of Cryptic Identity”

Black Bass Symposium 2013

Giant Leopard Moths and Red Wasps are Invading my Property

In some ways insects are more adaptable than large mammals.  Insects are capable of evolving in response to environmental change much more rapidly than large mammals because several generations can reproduce within the timespan of just 1 growing season, while some large mammals take decades to produce a single generation.  The presence of humans has obliterated 70% of North America’s large mammal species, but it hasn’t put a dent in insect populations.  I will never see a mammoth or saber-tooth in my backyard.  However, thousands of interesting species of insects invade my property, and they are active almost year round, though the coldest days of winter relegate most of them to dormancy.  Most of the insects I find on my property are likely the same species that inhabited this space during the Pleistocene.  Insects suffered few known extinctions at the end of the Ice Age but instead experienced shifts in range distributions. (See: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/using-fossil-beetle-assemblages-to-determine-temperature-ranges-during-the-late-pleistocene/).  Climate in my neighborhood (Augusta, Georgia) remained relatively stable during this transition, and the change in insect species composition has probably been minimal since then. Recently, I’ve encountered 2 species of insects that have occupied my homestead space for hundreds of thousands of years.  Maybe, I should change the title of this essay, and call it “humans invading moth and wasp territory.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giant Leopard Moth (Hypercompe scribonia)

This woolly bear caterpillar is the larval stage of the giant leopard moth.

The giant leopard moth (Hypercompe scribonia) is a large species with a wingspan of nearly 3 inches.  It has beautiful teardrop-shaped spots on its wings.  That is the description I googled to help me identify this species.  I found a dead specimen near my wildflower bed but didn’t take a photo. (I ripped off the above photos from google images.) It probably died after depositing fertilized eggs on 1 of the species of flowers growing in my garden.  Their larva are known as woolly bears (as are the larva of many other species of moths), and they feed on a wide variety of plants including but not restricted to violets, mustards, basil, trumpet vines, sunflowers, mulberry, magnolia, and locust.

Red paper wasps (Polistes sp.) nesting between my screen door and side door.  It’s a door we never use, so I let them stay there.  Though manmade, it mimics a hollow tree stump or log in scarce supply in modern young forests.

A nest of red paper wasps (Polistes sp.) lives in the space between my side door and screened-in door.  There’s a hole in the screen, allowing access to this sheltered area.  Before humans built structures, paper wasps built their nests in hollow tree trunks, but there are few den trees in the young 2nd growth forests surrounding modern day suburbia.  I’m letting the wasps live in the doorway because: a) we never use the side door, b) they are not aggressive, unless defending their nest, and c) they are beneficial predators, destroying the kinds of caterpillars that like to eat their way through my garden.  Each cell of the wasp’s nest contains a wasp larva with a paralyzed caterpillar upon which it feeds.

There are 28 species of wasps in the Polistes genus that live in the southeast, and I’m not enough of an expert to identify the exact species to which my housemates belong.  I admire these little monsters–they invented paper millions of years before the 1st humans evolved.

 

 

 

Bulls Scarp

Bulls Scarp is an uneven rocky cliff located approximately 66 miles to the east of the South Carolina coast.  This sloping underwater feature is on the edge of the continental shelf, and it covers about 20 square miles.  Today, Bulls Scarp varies in depth from 42 yards to 220 yards beneath the surface of the sea, depending upon the height of its rocky outcroppings.  But during the last Ice Age between ~24,000 BP-~16,000 BP, it was above sea level because the Laurentide Glacier had advanced over all of eastern Canada, locking up a great quantity of earth’s atmospheric moisture.

Sonar image of Bulls Scarp, about 66 miles east of the South Carolina coast.  This image was taken by researchers from the College of Charleston.  20,000 years ago, this was a rocky location right at sea level and it probably hosted breeding colonies of walruses, seals, and sea birds.  Note how it stuck out into the ocean like a kind of natural pier.

Bulls Scarp fascinates me because it represented an environment that no longer exists anywhere in southeastern North America.  The closest above sea level cliffs today are in Maine.  Scientists from the College of Charleston believe Bulls Scarp would have provided favorable habitat for marine mammals such as seals and walruses.  Fossils of both have been found near Charleston.  (See: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/seals-and-walruses-off-southeastern-north-americas-pleistocene-coast/).  Puffins and other sea birds nested here as well, and oyster reefs attached to rocks would have been abundant.  Researchers think these resources may have attracted paleo-indians.  Bulls Scarp also offered rock shelters, stone for tool-making, and freshwater springs.  Herds of mammoths, bison, horses, and llamas likely wandered all the way to the coast, and Indians following this game may have discovered these seaside cliffs.  Most of the continental shelf that was above sea level during the last Ice Age has been eroded by currents and wave action, destroying potential archaeological sites, but Bulls Scarp may have lag deposits containing fossils and human artifacts because the rocky outcroppings served as an impediment that trapped sediment. Scientists have identified it as a likely site where Clovis artifacts may be found.

Walruses on a rocky shore off the coast of Alaska.  Strange as it may seem, an area off the coast of what today is South Carolina likely had a scene just like this 20,000 years ago.

A great variety of environments existed on the exposed continental shelf between Bulls Scarp and what today is the modern shoreline.  The climate was on average cooler and drier, though not especially cold during winter, thanks to the nearby Gulf Stream.  Lightning-induced wildfires were infrequent while draughts were common.  These climatic conditions favored prairies and scrub oak thickets.  Pine savannahs and river bottomland forests were less common than they are today.  “Sand dune fields” and Carolina bays formed on the northeast side of the braided rivers flowing on the shelf.  Rivers didn’t meander during this time period, but instead were shallow and clogged with sandbars.  Grassy marshes occurred near springs, and cypress swamps were relict habitats on low poorly drained sites.

When the Ice Age ended,  the Laurentide Glacier melted rapidly, and sea levels rose at an astonishing rate—40 yards per year.  Ocean front condos would have been a really bad investment then.  Cypress tree stumps found 19 yards below modern sea level date to 11,500 BP.  The Atlantic Ocean inundated cypress swamps and all the other types of environments mentioned above within a few thousand years.  Modern sea level was reached about 6,000 years ago. 

We can study the ocean floor off the South Atlantic Bight and imagine what it used to be like, but for me it’s not nearly as satisfying as it would be to have actually seen it.  The paleo-indians didn’t enjoy our modern technological wonders, but they did get to see interesting pristine landscapes.

Reference:

Lepper, Brad

“Paleolandscapes of the South Atlantic Bight”

Mammoth Trumpet 29 (3) July 2014

 

 

Using Genetic Engineering to Bring Back Extinct Species

Activist objections to the use of genetically modified organisms are illogical.  Their campaign to have products labeled as containing GMOs is unnecessary and misleading.  There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that GMOs are harmful for human consumption.  The difference in the chemical composition  between a natural organism and a genetically modified one is not significant.  Forcing companies to label products as containing GMOs, unfairly hurts sales because of all the ignoramuses who wrongly perceive these products to be harmful.  A label or name for a product is a critical marketing attribute.  Call a dish cornmeal mush and it’s worth 25 cents; but call it polenta (the exact same thing) and in a fancy restaurant, it’s sold for $25.

Some organic farmers complain about pollen from GMOs drifting onto their fields and contaminating their produce.  Organic produce is another word for “more expensive” produce.  Organic produce is not healthier nor is it superior in quality to any other produce.  In fact it’s often worse.    If we depended on organic produce for all of our food supply, the human race would rapidly starve to death.  The organic produce market is a scam, and I see no reason to shed tears if these crooks can’t have their produce certified as organic.  They’ll just have to sell their fruits and vegetables at regular prices.

It’s a shame anti-science zealots have tarnished GMOs with such a negative perception.  Many developments in this biotechnology are ingenious.  For example scientists learned how to take a gene found in wheat and splice it into American chestnut DNA.   This gene makes an enzyme that destroys the toxin produced by the blight that wiped out chestnut forests in North America (See: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/pleistocene-chestnut-woodlands/). These genetically modified American chestnut trees have greater resistance to the blight than the Chinese chestnuts being used to create resistant hybrids.  There are thousands of genetically modified American chestnut trees growing in New York test plots.  Researchers are seeking regulatory approval to expand the areas where they can plant these new trees.  Permission is expected to be granted soon because they are not asking that the nuts be approved for human consumption.  It’s likely that in a few centuries, the American chestnut will once again become a dominant tree in eastern North America, thanks to genetic modification.

Genetically modified chestnut tree that is resistant to chestnut blight.

Technically, American chestnuts were not extinct.  But genetic engineers are attempting to bring back completely extinct organisms.  A non-profit organization, known as the Revive and Restore Project, has a whole list of candidates for restoration, including passenger pigeons, Carolina parakeets, red Cuban macaws, ivory-billed woodpeckers, imperial woodpeckers, moas, thylacines, Caribbean monk seals, woolly rhinos, and woolly mammoths. (See: http://longnow.org/revive/candidates/)  Currently, they are working on the restoration of the passenger pigeon (See: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/pleistocene-passenger-pigeon-populations/).  Scientists are studying the genome of the band-tailed pigeon–the passenger pigeon’s closest living relative.  And they are studying the genome of the passenger pigeon obtained from the DNA of numerous museum specimens.  They are comparing the genomes of both species and are hoping to convert band-tailed pigeon DNA to passenger pigeon DNA.  Some day, within our lifetimes, passenger pigeons may once again fly in the America woods.  However, I’m doubtful they will be able to successfully re-establish themselves.  In order to survive this species required the existence of very large colonies, and a few dozen birds released back into the wild would probably get eaten by predators within a few weeks.

Band-tailed pigeon.  It’s the closest living relative to the extinct passenger pigeon.  Scientists believe they can re-create the passenger pigeon from the band-tailed pigeon genome.

Scientists speculate the technology needed to bring woolly mammoths back to life is at least 50 years away.  With today’s technology, DNA from a woolly mammoth would have to be implanted in 1000 elephant eggs to have a chance of 1 viable mammoth offspring.  Elephants are too rare to obtain this many eggs.  However, some day scientists should be able to reprogram good quality cells found from mammoth specimens recovered from Siberian permafrost into stem cells that can then be used to clone a mammoth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Woolly mammoth.  I’m afraid we won’t see a live one in our lifetimes.  But maybe our children or grandchildren will.

Arguments against bringing back extinct organisms are nonsensical.  Some say humans shouldn’t play God.  Humans already play God by completely modifying every environment on earth.  Everything man does alters the earth in some way.  Others see a Jurassic Park scenario.  That movie was ridiculous.  A few men with high powered rifles could annihilate an army of dinosaurs in a few minutes.  None of the candidate species pose any threat to man and would only enrich our now impoverished ecosystems.

Southeastern North America was a Hot Spot of Anthropogenic-Caused Megafauna Extinctions

A brand new study published in June supports my longheld conviction that humans are the primary cause of late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions.  This paper, co-authored by Chris Sandom and others, is the first of its kind.  Other studies of late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions examined data on a regional scale but Sandom’s study reviewed global data.  They looked for correlations between extinctions and both climate change and human expansion.  Extinctions were closely correlated with human colonization but little correlation was found between extinctions and climate change, although there was a weak correlation between climate change and extinctions in Eurasia.  The authors of this study identified 177 species of mammals, weighing over 20 pounds, that had become extinct between 132,000 BP-1000 BP.  They disregarded data more recent than 1000 BP because extinctions caused by humans during this time period are an historical fact.  The climate data included rates of change in average annual temperatures and precipitation and temperature and precipitation anomalies between 20,000 BP-the present day.  Data from between 132,000 BP-20,000 BP lend even less support for a correlation between climate change and extinctions.

The researchers found the introduction of humans into new regions was always associated with high rates of extinctions.  In regions such as Africa, Europe, and southern Asia; where humans or archaic humans have long been present, extinctions were lower.  Africa suffered just 18 late Pleistocene extinctions, Europe had 19, and Asia had 38.  However, in regions where mammals evolved without the presence of hominids, extinction rates were high upon the entrance of man.  South America had 62 late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions, North America had 48, and Australia had 26.  Southeastern North America was a hotspot of anthropogenic-caused extinctions and so were southern South America, southern Australia, and western Europe.  Texas had 1 of the highest number of extinct species with 33, while Uruguay suffered the highest rate of extinctions at 78%.  Climate has changed little over the past 20,000 years in southern South America, yet this region suffered the highest rates of extinction of any.

Map showing correlations between human expansion, climate change, and extinctions. In this study megafauna extinctions were correlated with human expansion rather than climate change, and southeastern North America was a hotspot of anthropogenic-caused extinctions.

Some scientists hypothesize that animals living in regions devoid of humans are naive to the threat posed by human hunters.  This supposedly explains why Africa and southern Asia had lower rates of extinctions than other regions.  Animals living there knew to avoid man and to take aggressive action or flee when confronted by people.  Other scientists suggest tropical diseases kept human populations lower in Africa and southern Asia, thus explaining the higher survival rates of large mammals in these regions.  Probably, both explanations are valid, but I think the second is the greater factor.  Animals are smart enough to quickly learn the danger of man.  I’m certain American megafauna didn’t stay naive for more than 1 generation.  Vast areas of Africa and Asia remained uninhabitable for millennia, thanks to such tropical diseases as malaria, and I think this is the better explanation for the greater survival rates of megafauna there.  The abundance of wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (See: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone/) shows just how detrimental the presence of humans is for large wild animals–it’s worse than radiation poisoning.

Southeastern North America had a pleasant temperate climate during the late Pleistocene, and it was blessed with plenty of natural resources.  It’s likely human populations increased more rapidly here than in any other region of the continent.  As the human population increased, large mammal populations decreased here.  I really wish I could have seen Georgia’s natural environment before people ruined it.

Reference:

Sandom, Chris; et. al.

“Global Late Quaternary Megafauna Extinctions Linked to Humans, not Climate Change”

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences June 2014

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1787/20133254.full

Astonishing Cougar Attacks on Bison, Bears, and Humans

Outdoorsmen have often described the cougar (Puma concolor) as a cowardly animal  This accusation of cowardice is unfair and unfounded.  Teddy Roosevelt is one of the more famous outdoorsmen to have described the cougar as a coward, yet he saw cougars on only 2 occasions.  Therefore, Teddy was no cougar expert.  But he was a sadistic hunter who slaughtered thousands of animals, using high-powered rifles from a safe distance while accompanied by packs of dogs and other hunters on horseback.  I can’t understand why the cougar has earned such an inaccurate reputation.  Maybe it is because the cat seeks refuge in trees when pursued by a pack of dogs.  Most unarmed men, if pursued by a pack of dogs, would also climb a tree to escape injury.  It’s understandable that a cougar would choose to avoid getting bitten.

Actually, cougars are the opposite of cowardly–they are 1 of the few solitary predators in the world that regularly attacks prey larger than itself.  Wolves and lions attack larger prey but do so in groups.  Tigers usually outweigh the animals they kill.  But cougars often attack elk and deer that are more than 3 times their size.  In his book, Cougar!, Harold Danz compiled incidents of cougars attacking bears, bison, and the most monstrous animal that ever evolved…Homo sapiens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HazYkCjZI&feature=player_detailpage

Above is a youtube video of a cougar attacking a much larger elk.

Major John Cremony of the U.S. Boundary Commission was hunting cougars near Fort Sumner, New Mexico circa 1850.  Along with his Apache guides, they witnessed a large cougar attack and kill a medium-sized black bear by clawing through to the bruin’s vital organs.  The cougar dragged the bear carcass away and buried it.  An Apache then shot and killed the cougar.

Mynhee Barhydt built a cabin in the Bear Swamp near Saratoga, New York circa 1800.  He saw a black bear discover a cougar’s den.  The bear killed the kittens.  The mother cougar returned and attacked the bear.  During the struggle which lasted an hour, both bear and cougar fell into a ravine and were killed.  Two miners in Idaho witnessed a similar incident when a mother cougar defended her kittens from a grizzly bear.  Both were killed in a fall off a cliff.  Upon close examination, it appeared as if the bear had suffered the more serious injuries during the fight…its belly was “ripped to ribbons.”

Bison weigh almost 10 times more than a cougar, yet there are 2 accounts of cougar attacks on bison.  In western Arkansas John Hunter was weathering a bison stampede by standing behind a tree.  A cougar had caused the stampede when it jumped on the back of a bison.  Hunter saw the “huge panther” chewing on the bison’s neck muscles.  He shot the cougar and eventually killed it with another shot.  Daniel Boone also saw a cougar riding the back of a bison in Kentucky.  He too shot the cougar, possibly saving that particular bison.

Mr. Danz found documented evidence of 33 fatal cougar attacks on humans and 122 nonfatal attacks.  Since this book was published in 1999, there have been an additional 4 fatal attacks.  During the early 1800s before cougars were extirpated from the region, there were several fatal cougar attacks in southeastern North America.  Near Vicksburg, Mississippi, a cougar entered a cabin and killed a man who was sick in bed.  His brother returned from chopping wood and rushed to his defense.  The cougar killed him too.  In northeastern Lousiana, a cougar jumped from a tree and killed an Indian hunting guide.  Near the Georgia/Florida border a slave, a man of “colossal strength,” took a shortcut through the woods to visit a girlfriend on a neighboring plantation.  When he failed to return, the owner thought he had run away, but upon searching, he found him dead along with a cougar that the slave had stabbed several times with a long knife.  Another slave working on a railroad in Mississippi was also killed by a cougar.  A cougar snatched and ate a baby in the big thicket region of east Texas prior to 1906.  A cougar attacked Nathan Bedford Forrest’s mom in 1834.  The horse reared and broke off this nonfatal attack.  The future Civil War General later treed the cat with his dogs and shot it.

 

A cougar attacked this man in Oregon.  His wife fended off the attack with a log.  The cougar walked away calmly.

When a cougar attacks a human, it is viewing that person as food.  In 1991 Scott Lancaster, a high school senior, went for a jog on a track not far from the Arapahoe National Forest in Idaho.  A cougar killed him and ate his heart, liver, kidneys, and face–the same parts the big cat favors from its usual prey, deer.  It may be disconcerting to some, but as far as mother nature is concerned, humans are just part of the food chain.

Indians have lived in North America for at least 15,000 years.  Most of their history is entirely unrecorded.  There is no telling how many of them were killed and eaten by cougars and other large American carnivores.  Nevertheless, humans waged war on all of them and emerged victorious.

See also: https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/cougars-vs-jaguars/ and https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/extinct-pleistocene-ecomorphs-of-the-cougar-puma-concolor-and-the-timber-wolf-canis-lupus/

Reference:

Danz, Harold

Cougar!

Ohio University Press 1999