Baboons

Does anyone have an idea as to why baboons can co-exist with
humans? Seems like they occupy almost the same ecological
nitch and would directly compete with humans for food. If
our species wiped out all our ancestor species, why not
baboons too?

Pat

Just because the baboon is the most terrestrial of all
monkeys I wouldn't state they occupy almost the same
ecological niche as us. Baboons are only found in Africa.
Our ancestor species were probably more of a threat in terms
of competition (higher intelligence than a baboon) and that
is why they were wiped out by [censored] Sapiens (if one accepts
this theory). In contrast, baboons didn't possess higher
intelligence as evidenced by "sophiticated" tool making i.e.
weapons such as axes, spears and traps. Baboons may have
learned to stay away from foraging/hunting humans. I try to
stay away from them as much as possible.

Michael Ragland

Michael Ragland wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

intelligence as evidenced by "sophiticated" tool making
i.e. weapons such as axes, spears and traps. Baboons may
have learned to stay away from foraging/hunting humans. I
try to stay away from them as much as possible.

Humans or baboons?

m

--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen,
few in pursuit of the goal." - Friedrich Nietzsche

annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.netOpen ↗ is what I'm into
nowadays. Humans may write to me at this address: zenguy
at shaw dot ca

"Pat Loughlin" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have an idea as to why baboons can co-exist
with > humans? Seems like they occupy almost the same
ecological nitch and would directly compete with humans
for food. If our species wiped out all our ancestor
species, why not baboons too?

This leads to the "resource partitioning" theory. A lot of
ecologists believe that no two species can occupy the same
niche for more than a short period. There are certainly
examples of competitive displacement. Perhaps the best known
(in Britian) is the invasion of red squirrel habitats by the
grey squirrel. However plants seem to form an exception. If
you look at a not too-intensively managed lawn you will see
lots of grasses, not all of the same species, and then
within the grass a few dandelions and daisies. All the
plants seem to be competing for essentially the same
resources of soil and light.

I don't know enough about baboon ecology to give a good
answer, but there might be some situations in which a smaller-
bodied primate is at an advantage. Or it could be that
you've found another exception to the resource
partitioning theory.

Humans in general. Another great statement of Stephen
Hawking is when he comments that [as an experiment] little
green men would have been probably better.

Michael Ragland

Michael Ragland wrote: <snip> intelligence as evidenced by
"sophiticated" tool making i.e. weapons such as axes, spears
and traps. Baboons may have learned to stay away from
foraging/hunting humans. I try to stay away from them as
much as possible. Humans or baboons? m
--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have
chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." - Friedrich Nietzsche
annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.netOpen ↗ is what I'm into
nowadays. Humans may write to me at this address: zenguy
at shaw dot ca

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".

Michael Ragland wrote: <snip> intelligence as evidenced by
"sophiticated" tool making i.e. weapons such as axes, spears
and traps. Baboons may have learned to stay away from
foraging/hunting humans. I try to stay away from them as
much as possible.

Humans or baboons? m

The only baboons near where I live are at the zoo. I haven't
visited the zoo in ages and the baboons are enclosed.

MR

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".

Michael Ragland said:

Humans in general. Another great statement of Stephen
Hawking is when he comments that [as an experiment] little
green men would have been probably better.

Interesting. I notice that you like to engage in this form
of discourse, i.e. newsgroup messages, with us humans.

m

--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen,
few in pursuit of the goal." - Friedrich Nietzsche

annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.netOpen ↗ is what I'm into
nowadays. Humans may write to me at this address: zenguy
at shaw dot ca

Michael Ragland wrote: Humans in general. Another great
statement of Stephen Hawking is when he comments that
[as an experiment] little green men would have been
probably better.

Interesting. I notice that you like to engage in this form
of discourse,
i.e. newsgroup messages, with us humans. m

--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have
chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." - Friedrich Nietzsche
annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.netOpen ↗ is what I'm into
nowadays. Humans may write to me at this address: zenguy
at shaw dot ca

One can limit contact with people and yet still retain a
strong link to them. Afterall. I am a human whether I LIKE
IT OR NOT.

Michael Ragland

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".

This thread has made me want to know more about baboon
evolution. I think I remember a mention of giant plio- or
pleistocene baboons, maybe? Were there spieces of forest
baboon, like the Drill and Mandrill, that inhabited East
Africa prior to 2.5 mya and the spread of savanna type
habitats? It seems to me almost certain that such
primarily terrestial and omnivorous species would have had
an overlaping resource base with similar sized
australopiths. It might be possible to see how a niche
partitioning could work post 2.5 mya. _Paranthropus_ would
specialize on large tubers, that could be dug with hands
and not much modified tools, then pulverized with rocks,
and masticated in powerful jaws. Savanna species of
_Papio_ would specialize on small tubers and occasional
insects and meat. _Homo_ would use sharp stone edges and
sharpened sticks to dig out insects and small mammals,
deshell tortoises,etc., and eventually with increasing
size scavange (or make) larger kills.

It is easy to suppose that hominids would have an advantage
over baboons by way of superior intelligence. However,
baboons are likely to have had an advantage by way of higher
fertility. To take a not very analogous example, there have
been far more coyotes killed over the last 300 years than
wolves. But only the alpha female of a wolf pack breeds
every year, almost every adult female coyote breeds every
year. This is one important reason there are so many coyotes
compared with so few wolves. I don't know what the spacing
of births in chimpanzees is compared with baboons. However,
I suspect that the chimpanzee juvenile period, when parental
oversight is still needed, is longer, and hence births are
more widely spaced. I also suspected that birth spacing in
australopiths was similar to spacing in chimpanzees.

[email hidden] (Andrew Melka) wrote in news:caide8$2que$1
@darwin.ediacara.org:

Quoted message said:

It is easy to suppose that hominids would have an
advantage over baboons by way of superior
intelligence. However, baboons are likely to have
had an advantage by way of higher fertility. To take
a not very analogous example, there have been far
more coyotes killed over the last 300 years than
wolves. But only the alpha female of a wolf pack
breeds every year, almost every adult female coyote
breeds every year. This is one important reason
there are so many coyotes compared with so few
wolves. I don't know what the spacing of births in
chimpanzees is compared with baboons. However, I
suspect that the chimpanzee juvenile period, when
parental oversight is still needed, is longer, and
hence births are more widely spaced. I also
suspected that birth spacing in australopiths was
similar to spacing in chimpanzees.

But remember that the advantage of coyotes over wolves is
only after the appearance of farming technology and the
subsequent high human population density. Before that time,
wolves dominated in arboreal ecosystems while coyotes only
dominated in desert and range ecosystems. So fertility
alone is not the answer. I am also not so sure that
superior intelligence alone would give an advantage to
early hominids.

Yours,

Bill Morse