| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
| Future Evolution of New World Monkeys | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 15 2010, 01:11 PM (1,954 Views) | |
| irbaboon | Jun 15 2010, 01:11 PM Post #1 |
|
Adolescent
|
Suppose though, that humanity dies out pretty soon and pretty quickly in a way that dosen't effect other primates (I don't care how or why) How would the New World Monkeys do? Would any adapt to life on the ground? Would any develop human level intelligence? Would the Owl Monkey become even further adapted to a nocturnal lifestyle? Would the marmoset develop more formidable claws for defensive or maybe predatory purposes? |
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Ammonite | Jun 19 2010, 02:01 AM Post #31 |
Adolescent
|
That post in the other online board that I mentioned can be found here. My username there is Cerne. The member who posted the thread originally wanted apes but I suggested he use monkeys instead. Read the thread and you will see why.
I would imagine they would become slightly larger than the normative size is for platyrhines, with exceptions to spider monkeys and howler monkeys. They would be gracile but more muscular, probably brown instead of black or white, and would probably be able to see in lower levels of sunlight. They may even become nocturnal. Or atleast crepuscular, because that is when sight for most other diurnal monkeys would start to diminish. Smell might evolve a bit more too. The most prominent morphological adaptation would probably be the jaws and teeth. The skulls would be just a bit more prognathic so that the monkey would be able to fit more of its mouth into a bite, but not too prognathic as to lose the advantage of stereoscopic vision that monkeys have. The jaws would also need to be strong enough to hold onto prey because the hands will be required for locomotion in the trees. Finally, the tail might lose a lot of its prehensile qualities and serve more as a balancing appendage. The monkey will not need to brachiate as much, but it will need something to help with balance and coordination as it runs through the treetops. In light of this prediction, I would have to say the most likely candidate for a carnivorous platyrhine monkey would have to be in the Cebidae family. So Capuchins could very well become more carnivorous. They are omnivorous, have just about the right physiology, and have already shown behaviour that could turn them toward becoming more carnivorous. A runner up would have to be the owl monkeys in family Aotidae because they are nocturnal and are also omnivores. They also have the right sort of physiology but they aren't as social. Atelids and pitheciids are almost completely herbivorous and have a more ungainly physiology adapted more toward brachiation and/or scrambling around in the lower branches. They are too clumsy for the most part so adapting toward a more agile-suited physiology might be more of a stretch for them. One they wouldn't need to make if they remained herbivorous. And members of Callitrichidae - marmosets and tamarins - are too small. They could increase in size but it would be likely that some other omnivorous monkey, like those species in Cebidae, would beat them to it.
They don't need tools to become more carnivorous. Tools wouldn't even help them because they would preoccupy the monkey's hands and make it more difficult to run among the branches fast enough to catch prey. Tools arose among the hominines because they were living in the savannahs of Africa where they didn't need to climb trees. Whatever evolutionary trend freed hominine hands for carring - and later making - tools had acted first for something else. Then, once the hands were already free, hominines could begin carrying things around with them. This most likely becan with babies but then it spread to other things, like heavy rocks that they could throw at their enemies. Arboreal primates need full use of their hands because they need to be able to grab branches and tree trunks while they are running through the canopy. Carrying things like tools would only slow them down. Besides, they don't need tools to catch prey. The increased prognathism that I mentioned in my response to irbaboon's post would allow them to use their jaws more efficiently toward catching and killing prey. Their hands would also be useful to some extent, but only once the monkey had caught whatever it was chasing. They wouldn't help very much while the monkey was still chasing its prey because the monkey would still be using its hands for running after the animal. That is why they would be using their jaws, and that is why their jaws would evolve toward increased prognathism. IMHO I really don't know why using tools has to be the epitome of a carnivorous predatory species. Predatory carnivores that are alive today are much too specialized in their physiology to even be capable of making tools, and any evolution toward that capability will hinder their chances of catching and killing prey with what they already have. You need a generalist physiology to encourage the production of tools toward any purpose, and generalist physiologies don't make good natural hunters. Besides which, humans aren't even carnivores. And we didn't start out as hunters either. We started out as opportunistic omnivores that occasionally killed and ate small animals like rodents and rabbits. Then we moved on to scavenging the remains of large predator kills when the environment was too dry to rely on leafy vegetables and root vegetables. then we began to hunt our own animals, and that only began in the late Pliocene. Before that, we were considerably lower on the food chain than we are now. In fact, man has never been the top predator in Africa until the arrival of Europeans some thousands of years later. Indigenous people still compete with lions, leopards and hyaenas, and on many occasions these animals still win. People had only moved up to the top of their environment's food chain after they moved out of Africa into Eurasia, and their advantage at first was more likely to be the fact that none of the apex predators in Eurasia and the Americas had evolved alongside humans, rather than the notion that humans had tools with them. Lions and leopards still aren't afraid of humans, even when we do have guns. Nor are tigers for that matter, but their species arose in Asia. Anyway, it still doesn't make any sense to me why, whenever suggestions are made toward making an animal more carnivorous, you see or hear the mention of tools. The advent of tools should be thought of as an adaptation toward an opportunist and generalist lifestyle for omnivore rather than something to aid a specialized carnivore. But that is just my oppinion. It will be interesting to see how someone else manages to make tool-using carnivorous monkeys work. |
|
|
|
| irbaboon | Jun 20 2010, 09:48 AM Post #32 |
|
Adolescent
|
Wow Ammonite, that was fantastic! |
|
|
|
| Ammonite | Jun 21 2010, 06:23 PM Post #33 |
|
Adolescent
|
Thanks  Seems more like a severe case of Asperger's Syndrome to me, though 
|
|
|
|
| irbaboon | Jun 21 2010, 08:22 PM Post #34 |
|
Adolescent
|
Do you think the slow moving sloths would be completely wiped out by your predator monkeys or would they develop some defensive adaptations? Do you see the capuchin descended predators adapting to life on land or even the pampas? Would they be able to compete with the other predators of the area? (Cats,dogs,bears) or would these others have to go extinct before the hunting monkeys survived? |
|
|
|
| Ammonite | Jun 22 2010, 02:00 AM Post #35 |
|
Adolescent
|
Sloths might die out if no defensive adaptation was developed by that time, but it may still be possible for some form of defense mechanism to evolve. As they are right now, sloth metabolisms are much too slow to allow any adaptation toward increased speed or agility without a major change in diet. A larger size won't help much because it would only make them slower and easier to pick off so one possible answer might be to decrease their size so that their metabolism isn't stretched out as much. In other animal groups like rodents and dogs, the smaller the size, the more energetic the animal is. This is because smaller bodies require less energy per cubic unit of body mass to use for the same basic processes that are apparent in larger animals. Processes like metabolism, blood circulation and movement. They also lose more heat and have more voracious appetites to make up for the lost energy, which consequently raises their activity level. The same type of food that gave a larger animal a suitable metabolism might give a smaller animal more energy. If the animal was eating something high in sugar life fruit, or high in fat like insects, a decrease in size would kick their metabolism into overdrive. Sloths are strictly folivorous so there is not going to be as big an increase in metabolism with a relative decrease in size but it may still be good enough to make them faster in the trees. You could also change their diet slightly to include fruit and flower nectar which should make them more active. Sloths today have tiny symbiotic cyanobacteria living in their fur. These cyanobacteria give the sloth's fur a green tint which helps to hide them in the trees, presumably because the cyanobacteria are photosynthetic and therefore reflect the same green colour that is reflected by plants. It may be possible for the cyanobacteria in larger sloth species to become toxic or produce toxic chemicals to ward off predators like the carnivorous capuchins.
I could see carnivorous pack-hunting monkeys becoming more terrestrial and evolving toward life in environments like the South American pampas. In fact, it may even be possible for the monkeys to outcompete these other predators once they move into such environments. As it stands right now, what prevents monkeys like capuchins from becoming more predatory and raising their position in the current food chain - or more appropriately, food web - is tighter competition with other monkeys and other smaller carnivores like coatis, ocelots, margays, jaguarundis and bush dogs. Rainforest environments tend to favour diversity so certain niches get filled up fast by many different species instead of just one. If you want your capuchins to become more predatory, you are going to need to get rid of your other small rainforest predators. Which may be a problem because some of them, like coatis, are generalists and hence are very adaptable. Therefore I suggest you get rid of your rainforest cats and cat-like animals like the jaguarundi, which are exclusively carnivorous and largely arboreal, to make way for your similarily carnivorous arboreal monkeys. The coatis may try to take this niche but right now they are more terrestrial than arboreal so monkeys have a head start. Once the arboreal carnivore niche has been taken up by monkeys, you can then move them quite easily into other more terrestrial environments like the pampas without worrying about other carnivores outcompeting them. There are not very many medium- to large-sized carnivores in the South American pampas and those that do live there do not pose very much of a threat to an upcoming carnivorous mammal. I am even surprised that there aren't any large carnivores other than pumas living in the pampas. Compare that to the savannahs of Africa which has lions, leopards, cheetahs, hyaenas, wild dogs, and numerous smaller carnivorous species. There has been substantial camera footage of baboons taking on leopards and cheetahs, and they are still primarily herbivores. Imagine what a carnivorous primate like that could do! I imagine carnivorous platyrhine monkeys on the pampas showing a very similar physiology to baboons and geladas but living in smaller, more tight-knit groups that encourage more cooperation between males. Consequently I suspect they would be more monogamous than baboons are. Probably more similar in organization to a wolf pack. There are lots of directions you can go toward from here. Maybe these carnivorous platyrhine monkeys diversify and take over the carnivore niche on the pampas? I could see that happening. Try looking into baboon group organization and use of habitat if you want a good analogy to where you are going with your monkeys. Also try macacques and langurs in Asia for more ideas. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · Evolutionary Continuum · Next Topic » |
7:37 PM Jul 13