Re: Rabbit ears

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:14:46 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Aug 8, 11:47 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:28:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecpho...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:





On Aug 7, 7:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:19:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecpho...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Aug 7, 1:50 am, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"rmj" <gle...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:NaTti.13384$tj6.1485@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why do rabbits have big ears? I assumed that the reason was that big ears
provide greater hearing, but this would seem to be either incorrect or
insufficient as an explanation because the majority of animals do not have
large ears. A large ear certainly should be simple to attain by natural
selection since in every species of animals with ears, some individuals
will have smaller or larger ears than the norm for the species; thus if a
larger ear offers greater hearing acuity then it becomes difficult to
imagine why smaller ears would be selected.

Large ears can help keep the animal cool during periods of strenuous
activity by acting as efficient heat exchangers. Activity often includes
running away from predators, thus enhancing reproductive success if they
avoid getting eaten.

Why do marsh rabbits have such noticeably shorter ears than some other
species?

One doesn't need big ears to hear a predator running through
a marsh. <ker-SPLASH, ker-SPLASH!> ;-)

Or maybe they stay cooler in the wet marsh area so don't need the
bigger ears to dissipate the heat.

Point. I'd thought of that possibility, but ears don't need
to be cupped to dissipate heat. To capture fainter sound,
OTOH...

Probably some of both, in the best traditions of nature.

BTW, one subspecies of marsh rabbit is named after Hugh Hefner...a
fact that those who brought women's breasts into the thread should
appreciate immensely.

Now *that's* a new one on me! Googling found (from my old
stomping grounds in Broward County):

http://www.topix.net/forum/city/fort-myers-fl/TLREVVS61C99HCADJ

Thanks!

Thank you for posting the link to that article.

De nada.

A perfect example of
how conservationism is not to be confused with animal rights. Right-
wingers seem generally incapable of making a distinction. As an
anecdote, one Thanksgiving day I was eating dinner with my mom and dad
and happened to look out the window to see my cat carrying a freshly
killed baby squirrel in his jaws. He was neutered as a kitten and very
well fed. Could it be that well satiated cats kill for the sport of
it? Why did they gain a reputation as mousers? Could they not only be
effective killers of pest rodents (a good purpose) but also native
rodents, lagomorphs, and birds (a negative consequence)? If our pet
cats kill trophies to bring to our doorsteps, what the heck does
anyone think a large feral population is going to do to small animals
(including native reptiles and frogs?) We humans are extremely
ignorant and irresponsible when it comes to bringing non-native flora
and fauna into areas where they can be potentially detrimental. Just
as feral cat populations attest to our love of pets invasive brazilian
pepper trees show what our ornamental aesthetics have wrought on
habitats. We've created one hell of a mess.

The list of introduced invasives is a long one. To be fair,
most of the worst happened long before there was any such
concept as "ecology", but the issues of feral cats and,
probably an order of magnitude worse regarding environmental
destruction, feral pigs are, as you point out, "hot buttons"
for a number of diverse groups. Until most people realize
that there's a real problem it won't be solved.

Feral hogs cause their own set of problems and should be hunted to
extirpation in the US. Oddly enough, I would assume that both animal
rights activists AND hog hunting enthusiasts would diasgree with me on
this one. Not for the same reasons of course.

In their native habitat "Russian" wild pigs were held in
check by large predators, chiefly tigers IIRC. Our native
cats, with the possible exception of the jaguar (which,
again IIRC, was once the main predator of the Russian pig's
little cousin, the javelina), aren't capable of taking on a
300-500lb boar, so only humans serve as a check on their
numbers. Wolves could keep their numbers down, but there
aren't any wolves left in the Appalachian country which is
the wild pigs' main bastion in the US. We've taken on the
role of "top predator" by default after killing off most of
the other large predators over a good chunk of the world,
especially Europe, western Asia and North and South America.
And people who have no concept of an ecological web and
think steaks and chops come from a market, but who consider
themselves "animal protectors" don't help; they make the
problem worse.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Loading