A Real-Life “Big, Bad Wolf”

22 06 2007

Mexican Wolf
A Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), the most genetically-distinct subspecies of Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C.

One of the most famous stories in the history of paleontology is of how William Buckland, the noted 19th century geologist, determined that a pack of hyenas once inhabited Kirkdale Cave in Yorkshire, England by observing the markings living hyenas made on bones at the zoo. While the science of taphonomy would not fully emerge until the next century, it became clear that fossil bones could tell us about scavengers and predators as well as the preserved prey. It’s no surprise that hyenas especially would “make their mark” on so many bones, the extant Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta being well known for its jaw strength and ability to crack bone (which provides mothers with extra calcium for milk, and these hyenas nurse their young for a relatively long period of time as pups are not weaned until they are a year older or more). Now, a new study of various wolf remains reveals a Pleistocene predator distinct from the Grey Wolves in Yellowstone or anywhere else in North America. The abstract of the new Current Biology paper “Megafaunal Extinctions and the Disappearance of a Specialized Wolf Ecomorph” by Leonard, et al. states;

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is one of the few large predators to survive the Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. Nevertheless, wolves disappeared from northern North America in the Late Pleistocene, suggesting they were affected by factors that eliminated other species. Using skeletal material collected from Pleistocene permafrost deposits of eastern Beringia, we present a comprehensive analysis of an extinct vertebrate by exploring genetic (mtDNA), morphologic, and isotopic (d 13C, d 15N) data to reveal the evolutionary relationships, as well as diet and feeding behavior, of ancient wolves. Remarkably, the Late Pleistocene wolves are genetically unique and morphologically distinct. None of the 16 mtDNA haplotypes recovered from a sample of 20 Pleistocene eastern-Beringian wolves was shared with any modern wolf, and instead they appear most closely related to Late Pleistocene wolves of Eurasia. Moreover, skull
shape, tooth wear, and isotopic data suggest that eastern-Beringian wolves were specialized hunters and scavengers of extinct megafauna. Thus, a previously unrecognized, uniquely adapted, and genetically distinct wolf ecomorph suffered extinction in the Late Pleistocene, along with other megafauna. Consequently, the survival of the species in North America depended on the presence of more generalized forms elsewhere.

Unfortunately there are no photographs or illustrations of the skulls studied to reach these conclusions, but as with other mammals the condition and placement of the teeth is absolutely key. This extinct group of wolves had a much higher amount of tooth wear and fracture than modern wolves (or even other groups of extinct carnivores like Dire Wolves and Saber-Toothed Cats), as well as having a skull shape that would have granted them greater bite forces. These wolves also seem to have had a relatively deep (I assume we’re talking from top to bottom) jaws, characteristic of bone-crackers like hyenas and living wolves that take down large prey. This wolf was not particularly larger than wolves currently living in Alaska or fossil wolves from the La Brea Tar Pits, but the construction of its skull and tooth wear make it apparent that it certainly was an effective predator and scavenger.

The evolution of these wolves is also covered in the paper, and it seems that the bone-crushing wolves and extant wolves share a common ancestor that came from Europe or elsewhere in the Old World, the genetic tests showing that the “new” wolves were not the ancestors of modern Grey Wolves. Instead, it seems that the more robust wolves to the north were middle-weights as far as carnivore ecology (Dire Wolves being larger, Coyotes being smaller), and when Dire Wolves became extinct the Grey Wolves began to become adapted to taking larger prey and cracking bones. The authors of the paper suggest that being an overspecialized “hypercarnivore” may have ultimately done the wolf in, its more generalized southern cousins better able to adapt to changing conditions at the end of the Pleistocene. I’m not particularly sure about this argument, but I’m not expert enough to prove it incorrect either.

In any event, I hope more researchers dive into the mountains of fossil remains languishing in museums all over the world; I almost have to wonder if there are just as many species waiting in dusty cabinets as there are still waiting in the rock.



4 responses

22 06 2007
Zach Miller

Hypercarnivory is a dangerous occupation, because if whatever prey you’re adapted to killing goes into a decline, you follow right along with it. Look at saber-tooth cats–they actually didn’t last very long, and it’s because those giant canines evolved for a very specific purpose. What that purpose was is still an area of contention (personally, I like the “slicing the jugular” hypothesis), but it’s clear that, in the long run, Smilodon and his cousins were doomed to fail in an ever-changing ecosystem.

Oddly enough, hyperherbivory is rarely a problem. It is when you consider something like a panda, whose entire life revolves around a single species of plant (bamboo) or the koala, who also eats only one kind of plant. But generally, herbivores who are the most successful simply develop dentition and guts that allow them to eat a wide variety of plant material. So the “hyperherbivores” of, say, the Cretaceous (hadrosaurs and ceratopsians) did extremely well. The more specialized stegosaurs went under pretty quickly, and ankylosaurs, although they did survive to the K/T, were never as diverse as cerapods and tended to live in places where cerapod diversity wasn’t all that high.

There’s probably a highland/lowland factor to that. Otherwise, Ankylosaurus was directly competing with Anatotitan, and we both know who’d win that food fight.

Anyway, hypercarnivory rarely works in the long-term.

22 06 2007

Thanks again for your input Zach. I don’t doubt that being too-specialized as a carnivore can be a problem, but I don’t know if the variety of wolf discussed in the paper was as specialized as saber-toothed cats (or even cats in general, being that they are essentially entirely carnivorous). What would have kept these wolves from exploiting the same resources as their southern cousins? While there are differences between the wolves, it’s hard for me to believe that the more “robust” variety couldn’t still be something of an omnivore if need be, so I’m wondering if the evidence for a Pleistocene meteor/comet impact will come into play here. Even barring that, I wonder why the ancestors of extant wolf populations survived while those in the north did not, so things may be more complicated than they seem.

I may have to check up on this as well, but while Pandas are specialists they can digest other kinds of food (and if I remember correctly even sometimes eat meat or other plants to a small degree in the wild). Still, this has more to do with the digestive tract and the amount of food resources the animals could reach than dentition alone. In the case of ceratopsians, stegosaurs, and ankylosaurs, they were all ornithiscians with their heads close to the ground and therefore had only a limited amount of resources they could reach, while hadrosaurs would have had a much wider browsing range. I would fully expect animals that they able to eat any plant material from the ground on up to a reasonable level to do better in the long run than those restricted to cropping low-level plants and little else.

Still, I agree that hypercarnivores don’t seem to last too long in the long run because they so depend on prey in a given area; if they prey disappears and they can’t move to new hunting grounds or obtain enough food where they’re at, they will die out.

21 05 2008
john smith

kill your own wolf for 26 50 whats with that to take a life you can never give back is not worth any amount of money

21 05 2008
britney johnson

to be honest with you, i dont know what to say about killing your own wolf? and making people pay for it. like honestly if you get a bunch of money for people killing wolves. how dumb are you? thats stupid. your killing nature, you dont need to be doing that. because what if one day you kill a wrong wolf, female or male. and then they become extinct? to be honest, have you ever thought of that? no i didnt think so. your rude. leave animals alone dummy. grow up. and open your eyes to the world around you. are you heartless or something? seriously. GET A LIFE YOU DUMMY. act your age, not some dumb immature person. goodbye 🙂

now whos trying to scam money now ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: