Gentle Giants - why?

C

Carcasm

not a Nilometer, a Realometer
Registered Senior Member
It appears that the largest animals on the planet tend to be herbivores, or are simply unaggressive meat-eaters.

What turned me on to this thinking is the fact that the largest fish, the whale shark, is also the least aggressive shark, feeding in a similar way to the blue whale (THE largest animal). The largest land animal is the elephant, an herbivore.

I have a few theories about this, but I'm curious to hear other thinking on this subject. Correct me if my info is off.

I wonder if the giant squid is really the sea monster we assume it is...
 
probably because if you are that big, you would make a poor hunter.
 
Well. For one thing, it's hard work digesting certain plants and it requires a specialized gut that takes up lots of room. Ruminants are well known for prodigious bellies.
Gorillas. Cows. Sloths don't have prodigious bellies, but they have an extremely slow metabolism which I think offsets this trend.

And, as to the 'gentle' aspect. They are gentle because it's not in their interests to be overly active. It takes time and lots and lots of eating to extract the required nutrition from their diet. Every moment spent being aggressive is a moment spent not eating. Which could prove fatal.

Also, consider their metabolism. Many have a slow metabolism which also means that they are not going to be overly aggressive. At least not to animals with faster metabolisms... A sloth fight wold be friggin hilarious...

probably because if you are that big, you would make a poor hunter.
Click to expand...

Which is an interesting thing about the T. Rex. The newer trends in thinking about this ancient animal is that it was actually a carrion feeder rather than a predator.
 
My thoughts are that large carnivores must eat very small creatures (e.g. krill) because such ittie bitties are so numerous that they will not die off, and extinct krill would equal extinct blue whale.

It is clear that large animals are poor hunters, but is this a direct result of their size, or a characteristic formed through evolution? A large and competitive hunter would be too destructive and would kill off the feed it depends on. But way down deep where life is scarce, the giant squid does not, perhaps, have such an opportunity. That is why it is truly what we would call a monster.
 
They got big in the first place because they can eat more that way, and there's less of a threat from predators. The large size helps digestion because they can keep their insides warm more easily, due to the low surface area compared to mass. Since they do not have to avoid predators, and couldn't move very fast even if they wanted to, they are relatively gentle. No need to be aggressive if you don't have to.
 
spidergoat said:
They got big in the first place because they can eat more that way, and there's less of a threat from predators. The large size helps digestion because they can keep their insides warm more easily, due to the low surface area compared to mass. Since they do not have to avoid predators, and couldn't move very fast even if they wanted to, they are relatively gentle. No need to be aggressive if you don't have to.
Click to expand...
Yes. It isn't that large animals tend to be herbivorous. It's that herbivorous animals tend to become larger. In addition to the points you mentioned, size is also an advantage because it allows the herbivore to eat taller and more massive plants. Elephants uproot entire trees.

Many herbivores are vicious fighters when on the defense. Park rangers talk of seeing a pack of ten wolves attack an elderly bison. When they finally bring him down there are only eight left and one is crippled. Sheep and goat ranchers have taken to adding a llama or two to their flock. Llamas are New World camels, understand, with the same nasty temperament. They will stomp a coyote to death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top