leptonosoma

Nov 30 2008, 01:31 AM

I've had dogs (well-fed dogs in fact) that also killed rats and birds, and partially eaten them. There really is nothing a cat can do that a dog cannot in terms of survival.

And I believe dogs will dominate over cats the same way dinosaurs dominated over mammals. That's why no mammals got larger than rats during the days when dinosaurs ruled.

leptonosoma

 

Maybe so, but I doubt if dinosaurs were still around there would be mammals as big as elephants or even predators as big as bears. The reason I always compare mammals to dinosaurs is because dinosaurs were very successful. If they hadn't got unlucky, they would probably still be around today in the former forms.

leptonosoma

 

As for why Caniformes are called Caniformes I think it was just early scientists latinizing the families of animals that are dog-like, as many species of caniformes are very dog-like in form. But then using your logic, I would say too let's change the name Feliformes to Viverriformes, because felines are not the crown family for that group either. And besides that, Viverrines make up the bigger family.

Quote:

 

I don't understand where your insistence on dog domination over cats come from, but oh well. In island environments large dogs will not be able to radiate as easily and will be largely restricted by size limits. Cats will radiate much more easily, especially since small prey like birds and rodents are of much higher concentration and large prey (things large dogs would require) are scarce or would become scarce. Any sheep and goats wouldn't remain very large for very long, considering constrictions from the rainforest habitats and the scarcity of grains and other plants preferable to ruminants.

leptonosoma

Nov 30 2008, 02:22 AM

As for why felines evolved larger than wild canines, I can only say I think it's because with felines, they started off big in their evolution, and they downsized. The true felines have not been around for very long, so my guess is that is why we still have large felines even today though we also have smaller species.

JohnFaa

Nov 30 2008, 03:33 AM

Not really; felines are MORE RECENT than canines. The oldest dog ancestor was from the late Eocene at the very least, while felines made their first appearence in the late Oligocene or early Miocene; dogs had a huge amount of time for developing very big forms (and yet, they never did). Dogs, as a whole, are an early branch of the Caniformia clade (in fact, I think it shouldn't be named "Caniformia", because the Canidae family aren't its crown group; the crown group of Caniformia probably is Mustelidae), which also included the "dog-bears" and several early canines; however, since the Miocene the modern canines are the only living members of that group.

Also, comparing the hypothetical future situation between dogs and cats with that of early mammals and dinosaurs isn't very usefull, specially considering that some mammal groups weren't little insectivores; some were badger sized predators, others were otter-like swimmers, and there's even evidence of a group of flying mammals prior to the appearence of bats, though only the primitive Volaticotherium (which was still a glider) has been found with a complete skeleton. Therefore, even if dinosaurs never became extinct, I suspect mammals would have produced large forms.

I think cats have a bigger chance of surviving in island ecosystems, though I personaly believe birds of prey will be dominant again in Hawa'ii