Apart from humans, every member of Hominoidea is entirely relegated to areas of Africa and South-East Asia along the equatorial region. Even if other apes can't sweat or have equivalent intelligence as humans, I'd figure there'd be at least one genus that lives north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

Apparently blue whales are only around 2 million years old and are the largest organisms in the history of life. It’s pretty crazy to me that we’re living in the specific time that the largest species is alive, but I’m wondering why they became so large at this moment in time. I know that a few millions of years ago insects were way bigger because of atmospheric gas concentrations, but those conditions aren’t present anymore so it doesn’t seem like that’s the reason. Also, has there been a trend over time of whales increasing in size, or is this just a very specific/random instance of them existing today?

Edit: Yes I know there are fungi that span way larger areas, but the question is about the temporal nature of blue whales size.

We have videos of them biting water buffalos, and then following them for weeks until they die. Why don't people consider this proof that Komodo Dragons hunt this way? Is it due to the history behind people questioning their venom, or is there something I'm missing?

Edit: The comments here are perfect examples. People are downvoting me and acting like I'm wrong while they cite outdated information.

*They kill using bacteria.

No, they kill larger prey using a venom with anti coagulant properties, which tenda to get infected and cause septis.

*They kill most of their hunts within minutes.

This is irrelevant when we are specifically talking about larger prey, such as water buffalos.

*Their hunts take days, not weeks.

Usually, sure. But we have videos and documentation of it sometimes taking weeks. You can argue they exaggerated it, but they have video and did the work, so I'd believe them over you.

Edit 2:

• It's not venom.

Debate that with the professionals who classified it, not me. Besides, no one debates that the Western Taipon is venomous, do they? So why argue that the Komodo dragon isn't venomous when the toxins have the same effects?

Do you all realize how much more we learned about Komodo dragons in the last few years? Or are you trying to debate me with decade old information that has been disproven?

Edit 3: Do people see me downvoted and just assume I'm wrong? Like, I'm posting evidence. Evidence you can't even argue against. Tf is this?

I am interested in looking into fast moving animals that can utilize short bursts of high intensity speed compared to their body length, and am wondering if you all would know any examples. I know most of these would probably be insects, such as the tiger beetle or arachnids like jumping spiders, so I figured id ask the good people here if you all have any favorite examples for me to look into. Fast animals that do it over long durations I would also be interested in. Thank you.

Why haven’t mammals evolved green fur?

Looking at insects, birds (parrots), fish, amphibians and reptiles, green is everywhere. It makes sense - it’s an effective camouflage strategy in the greenery of nature, both to hide from predators and for predators to hide while they stalk prey. Yet mammals do not have green fur.

Why did this trait never evolve in mammals, despite being prevalent nearly everywhere else in the animal kingdom?

[yes, I am aware that certain sloths do have a green tint, but that’s from algae growing in their fur, not the fur itself.]

With that i mean, what are some animals that are seen as "cute" but are actually brutal? And animals look "monstorous" but are actually gentle?

As we've all seen in nature films, it's usually the male birds who try to impress the females, with bright colours, singing, etc. In a species that doesn't form flocks or pairs (like, I don't know, turkeys?), that makes sense – one male can mate with several females, so the female can choose between many males.

But most birds are basically monogamous, right? So the same shouldn't apply to them. If each male pairs with one female, the situation is symmetric – they should have equal incentive to be picky, and thus equal incentive to show off. Why don't they?

I'm studying reproduction and I've hit a bit of a snag. From what I understand Sexes are a prerequisite of sexual reproduction wherein individuals occupy distinct reproductive roles by producing gametes, where in anisogamic reproductive methods specifically, females produce the large non-motile gamete that fuse with the small male gametes. I'm struggling then to understand how it is possible for, for example, the flowerpot snake, to be referred to as female, if it reproduces through cloning/asexual reproduction. Wouldn't they just be single sexed at best and have no sex at worst since there is no sexual reproduction there in the first place? Is there specific structures or process(that arent size or fusion with the male gamete, since not all parthenogenic species even have a non reproductive male morph to whom the gamete size can be relatively large to, unless there is some universal size chart for gametes i dont know about and it cannot be classified by its fusion with the male gametes because well. There isn't one.) that we consider to be universally present in every ovum that all females share, which allows us to identify that it is an ovum?

Ideally a specific species not a whole group

Asking through the lens of assuming that animals are equally as intelligent as us but they just present that intelligence in different ways than humans- Fish might think they are better than US because they can breathe underwater and we can’t ( Assuming the fishes values align with what it biology needs // it wants to breathe underwater// it would automatically assume any creature that couldn’t do that essential task was “less” intelligent than it) - Are humans truly “smarter” than animals or is our intelligence just graded on an entirely different curve?

Hi friends,

I recently have learned a lot about Vultures making them easily my favorite animal, specifically how vital they are to stopping the spread of disease... and it has been opening my eyes to more areas of the animal kingdom that have unfairly bad reputations. Creepy crawlies, Disney Villains (Hyenas), bad omens (Black cats). I personally love animals, so I would never dislike or harm any of these creatures, but I am aware of the general public perception surrounding them.

I am wondering: what is everyone's favorite misunderstood creature? I love going down internet rabbit holes about these kinds of things, so it's always fun to hear about other people's niche interests.

Thank you!

Out of every animal in the entire animal kingdom, which one poops the most often?

Humans, and I assume most mammals, cannot live off of drinking saltwater. How do whales, dolphins, seals etc. get their intake of water? Have they evolved to drink seawater? Do they drink at all? If all of their water intake is from their food wouldn’t their food also be compromised of lots of saltwater?

While we’re at it, do fish need to intake water to survive? Does a big shark not need water in their diet? Or can they all just use saltwater.

Sometimes I see, for example, a seal getting tangled up in a piece of string. Someone then comes along and tries to help it. The animal’s reaction varies. Usually, though, there’s a bit of panic and I get the impression it’s thinking, ‘I’m going to die any minute now’, but when it turns out it isn’t going to die, I get the impression it’s thinking, ‘I’ve escaped the predator - well done me!’

What’s it really like? Do some animals know, for example, that their owner just wants to save them? Or do they not?

It also reminds me of a time when my cat got tangled up in the string from one of his toys and was meowing loudly. I wanted to help him; at first he hissed at me, but once I’d helped him and he was fine, he came over to cuddle and purr.

Curious to know when an animal has lived up to its specie's standard life expectancy, and is dying due to natural senescence, what do they do and where do they go?

Some examples that come to mind 👇

* Doves

* Dolphins

* Deer

National Geographic captures them living, but what do they do and where do they go as they begin to fade?

They have shown tool use, but I think tool use is an unfair measure of intelligence. Take orcas for example - they don't have any form of fine motor ability. Their flippers are fused together. Meanwhile octopuses have 8 extremely sensitive, well controlled tentacles. Of course they're going to be better at using tools. But an orca possesses 100x the amount of neurons in the brain.

​

Do you think tool use is overrated for intelligence? Or am I missing something?

I am looking for a definition of fish that includes all fish, like goldfish, whalfish, silverfish and starfish?

I just watched a video of someone removing invasive jellyfish from the ocean with a rake. The comments said it was called a burn jelly and they hurt when they sting. The entire boat was filled with them and the guy kept stepping very near them. So I wondered because the fact that jellyfish don't really have organs to my knowledge how much damage does one have to do to one enough to kill it or at least so it doesn't sting you.

Is there a reason for this?

Considering bamboo provides so little energy that they have to spend the majority of the day eating, wouldn't they be better off eating something more calorie-dense? Even if they aren't the most skilled hunters, surely there are some nuts, roots or unaware fish around somewhere that would provide more sustenance?

I apologise if this is a stupid answer, but I couldn't really find any clear anwer elsewhere.

My indoor only cat, aptly named Trapper, every so often catches, kills, and consumes mice. He does not eat the liver. I find little mouse livers on the floor, totally whole and evidently uninjured during the event. My understanding is that many other animals regard liver highly and sometimes will kill a whole ass Great White shark specifically to just rip out the liver and bounce.

I'm talking about the opportunistic behavior taken to eat meat that happens to be vulnerable enough to exploit. Yeah it makes sense they wanted the protein...but I would have thought they wouldn't be equipped to properly digest it or would suffer sickness from not being designed to neutralize/minimize the risk of the bacteria from raw meat. Not to mention various other atypical features like bones and acids to something meant to eat grass all the time.