Genetically Poor Predators (except when it's a squeaky toy)
I was doing dishes this afternoon with the patio door open and the dogs puttering in and out, when I realized it'd been awfully quiet for a while. I went into the backyard to investigate and found Daisy fussing over something in the grass. It was a dead mole, its wet fur plastered to its fat little body on one side. Once Daisy saw that I was just a passive observer, she went back to what she was doing: nibbling at its fur, then pawing at the mole and thrusting at its body with her nose.
Why didn't she eat it? If she was playing with it, why didn't she rip it open and pull out all the innards, like she spends hours doing with her stuffed toys?
So what does that mean for Daisy? Maybe that, as a (very) mixed-breed dog, she's retained the entire predatory sequence...except for "eat"?
But why, then, does she rip apart (essentially, play-eat) her stuffed toys? One answer might lie in the sometimes-bizarre, sometimes-hilarious area of genetic drift. Some genes get passed on kind of accidentally--that is, by chance--not because they help the animal survive or procreate, or do much of anything important. This phenomenon is what causes dogs to spend an inordinately long time scratching a "nest" in a smooth couch cushion before laying down. It would make sense in a pile of leaves, grass, or snow, but what the heck good does it do on the couch? It's just a mostly-useless genetic remnant of a behavior that used to be very important, maybe even life-saving, to dogs (or wolves, or a missing link between them), but nowadays doesn't hurt (or help) dogs' chances for survival.
We're still anxiously awaiting a lot more research in the field of dog behavior. At this point, it's hard to say much for sure. Except rest in peace, Mr. Mole. And Daisy: please don't lick my face for a couple of hours.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home