The title's kind of confusing bait; the actual interest seems to be:
> The new findings are an important expansion of the kinds of data that can be extracted from skulls and hairs from the past, the researchers said.
> "Now we know that we can reconstruct complete mitochondrial genomes from single hair fragments from lions that are more than 100 years old," de Flamingh said.
i.e. they had the skulls along with the written record of the attack and their shooting, other fauna in the area, etc. and so were able to do the novel hair analysis and then verify it against that.
That cavity looks really painful. It’s crazy to think of all the ailments wild animals just have to deal with their whole lives (if it’s not something that’s going to kill them quickly).
Where exactly do you think we lie on the food chain? Some say our trophic level is similar to pigs or anchovies since we're omnivores. Others say we're obviously at the top due to our intelligence.
I ask this question not as a way to debate jargon, but rather to think about our primeval place amongst other animals. Where do our survival instincts kick in? Why is my son always trying to play-flee from me?
It's all situational- any predator will eat another one when it has the advantage.
No animal comes close to equaling humans as predators at the top of our game as hunters- e.g. young healthy adults working together as a team with well made weapons, a coordinated strategy, local knowledge, and hard won experience. But as this article shows, there are plenty of situations where these advantages don't apply.
For the most part, predators generally dislike trying to eat each other unless all other options are exhausted, as it is much safer and easier to go after things that have less of a chance of turning the tables on you. I am a freediver that dives mostly in a place with a lot of white sharks, and contrary to popular stereotypes, they're actually quite afraid of, and keep their distance from humans. Rare attacks seem to occur when there is some situation that visually confuses them, and they mistake us for one of their common prey animals.
One of the more disturbing things I've observed about lion predation is that they will eat their prey while it is still alive, they don't always bother killing it first. There's videos of predations on other animals youtube, I wouldn't recommend watching them if you are squeamish.
A lot of predators will do this because they want to get those calories in their bellies fast, before some other creatures come and chase them off. They'll often eat certain organs first because of their high nutrient content. If the prey is dead or alive doesn't matter so long as it can't injure them or run off.
If that’s disturbing, see African wild dogs and hyenas.
That said, I think the majority of prey is killed before consumed (say >65%). Big cats are used to suffocating or biting necks. It’s rather clean, compared to other animals even bears. There is an unlucky percentage, but the general rule is probably killing the prey first. The examples that I mentioned is because dogs and hyenas aren’t powerful enough to kill big prey like big cats. The hunt seems very brutal, but the duration of suffering might be limited: the whole prey is fully consumed within minutes. The prey is exhausted initially, hyenas then tear it apart from areas around intestine or below that. Massive shock and bleeding.
There's a myth floating around among certain "crunchy hippie" types that predation in nature is relatively humane and usually results in a quick kill. That myth could be dispelled easily by watching just about any wildlife video of course. Life survives because of its tremendous capacity to endure suffering beyond imagination. Life goes on in spite of nature. "Mother nature" is cruel and uncaring. Our survival is all but guaranteed, but our ability to avoid horror and misery hangs in a tenuous balance that we had best strive to preserve.
Watching a video doesn't tell you what's going on internally. Here's how Dr. Livingstone describes being attacked by a lion:
"Growling horribly close to my ear, he shook me as a terrier dog does a rat. The shock produced a stupor similar to that which seems to be felt by a mouse after the first shake of the cat. It caused a sort of dreaminess, in which there was no sense of pain nor feeling of terror, though quite conscious of all that was happening."
I'm not guaranteeing you'll have similar results in every attack by a predator, but just because soemthing looks horrifying doesn't necessarily mean it'll be experienced as such
Yes, if you're lucky you'll pass out or go into shock or dissociate. But you might not get lucky.
I also wasn't focused only on predators. Actually being shaken around and ripped apart by a lion is probably not the worst way to go. You could die of a skin infection being attacked by maggots, or thirst, or drowning, or be picked at by scavengers while you are in the process of dying from something else. There are lots of ways to suffer on your way out.
Moreover, there are lots of ways to suffer tremendously and not die for a very long time, remaining fully conscious and aware of your suffering the whole time.
That is his memory of the event, something very different than the actual event. Being eaten by a predator is, evolutionarily, the most horrible thing that can happen.
Yes, of course, a report of an event is a different thing from the event itself, but do you have more reason to suspect this report than an average one? It seems the difference between pain and a surprising lack of pain would be a salient feature of an experience, which we would normally take to be well-remembered.
And I don't know why you bring in what is bad "evolutionarily". I was talking about how an animal undergoing the experience would feel it. Evolution is an explanation for why we see the diversity that we do in living things, but it doesn't confer an evaluation about what is better or worse. Evolution is fine with you being eaten by a predator, as long as, on the average, you've done enough reproducing first.
Groups can be defined both by people's intrinsic properties that they can't change (e.g. sex, race, age, sexuality, heritage) and their beliefs which they can definitely change (opinions, philosophy, religion).
Different big cats typically kill in different ways. Tigers bite the neck/throat, Jaguars bite through skull. Lions are more pack hunters and overpower/tire their prey, then I guess start eating it as soon as it is down.
When the prey is dangerous and could cause them injuries, like a buffalo or a giraffe, the lions will first suffocate it to death, which may take 10 minutes or more, but as soon as the prey is no longer a threat, they will start eating it, dead or alive.
For their biggest preys, like adult buffaloes or giraffes, lions are not powerful enough to break their necks or spines, their only killing method is suffocation.
Breaking the spines is a method much more typical for bears, e.g. when killing cattle.
On the other hand, hyenas and wild dogs kill big prey by evisceration, which is gruesome, but actually faster than suffocation.
I have been a member of /r/natureismetal and I can tell you without a doubt that most prey are eaten alive. Even baboons and chimps eat their prey alive.
> The HPP seafood meat extraction process involves pressure levels around 3,000 – 4,200 bar (44.1 – 60.3 kpsi) and holding times between 45 – 90 s. Shucking with seawater (4 – 25 °C) improves flavor as high pressure infuses salt into the lobster meat. HPP shucking should occur with live lobsters
What I've read over the years is that when a submarine implodes from external pressure, the implosion happens SO fast that the human occupants are never aware of it. [0]
That sounds to me like the one time I was ever under general anesthesia: One instant I was chatting with the medical staff as they were putting me under, the next instant I opened my eyes and saw my wife standing over me in the recovery room.
All right, apparently I worded that badly. The evidence presented in the article is limited to two carcasses from 1898. So the headline should be parsed as "these two specific 19th century lions preyed on humans and giraffes". And my comment should be parsed as "what we know from this evidence is limited to two specific lion carcasses from 1898".
Fortunately, for most carnivores it is difficult to assess whether they are capable of attacking a human or not, so they typically are even more afraid of humans than humans are afraid of them.
Therefore a very small fraction of the carnivores that are capable of attacking a human will actually do it, even when hungry.
In general, all animals in the regions where humans existed had an exaggerate fear of humans in comparison with their fear of any other animals. Only in the regions not yet reached by humans, like various islands, the animals did not fear humans at their first arrival, so both easy hunting for humans and attacks from carnivores were more likely.
Nowadays, when most humans are no longer hunters, this has changed and there are many regions where the animals have become accustomed with human presence, which may also increase the likelihood of a carnivore attempting an attack when there is no other food.
> In general, all animals in the regions where humans existed had an exaggerate fear of humans
Not African animals, humans didn't really tame the land there like they did in other areas. You see this with hippos etc, they aren't afraid of humans yet. Bet they will be in a few centuries.
My cats understand I can (somehow) control their automatic feeder from my phone and when hungry pester me until I pull out my phone and run over as soon as they see the reflection of the splash screen from the feeder app on my face.
They physically defeated the previous few feeders. Unable to do so with this one, they've doubled down on social engineering.
Giraffes are a difficult prey, so not many lions attempt to hunt them.
For those who do this, it is a team action. Many lionesses are necessary to tire the giraffe and reduce its possibilities of movement. After the lionesses have tired the giraffe, a big male lion is required to kill it, by jumping on giraffe's back, then biting and holding its throat, to suffocate it.
Lions use the same method for all big and dangerous prey.
Smaller prey is hunted only by the lionesses, but big prey like buffaloes, giraffes or baby elephants is first harassed by the lionesses and later, when tired enough, it is killed by the male through suffocation.
You can’t typically jump on a giraffe! That’s part of reason they became giraffes!
A common technique is breaking a leg to put down the giraffe. Dangerous, but could be done if it’s at a location that the giraffe cannot kick with the other leg, particularly when exhausted.
So, after DNA analysis, scientists discover than man-eating lions were eating humans! Who'd have guessed!
I grew up reading books about man eating lions/tigers and the men who hunted them like Jim Corbett. The bad teeth of the lion shown seems typical - they normally only prey on humans as a last resort when they are old/weak, but are creatures of habit and will continue once started.
> So, after DNA analysis, scientists discover than man-eating lions were eating humans! Who'd have guessed!
The point seems to be developing novel analysis, not so much interest in what these particular lions ate, which was documented anyway. I wrote a bit longer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41850781
It's so cool to see humans be hunted. Fear of the monster outside, makes humans care for each other more. Now everything is safer, and we fight between ourselves.
> The authors go on to give a lengthy explanation of why they did not study the ancestry of that person.
> I will say (politely) that imo the explanation is not very convincing.
> So who's hair is it?
> * I can't see any obvious mention of a Jewish person working in the construction site, but maybe.
> * Maybe it was a non-Jewish European, among those very few carrying the haplogroup.
> * But I think it's most likely just contamination from a lab person
(To be clear - the lion is real and definitely did eat humans. The DNA finding is just suspicious.)
Edit: I don't like to appeal to authority but this is one of the world's leading statistical geneticists, if you downvote instinctively, look deep and investigate your priors.
