Content uploaded by Julian Kerbis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julian Kerbis on Mar 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Science of ‘ManEating*’ Among Lions Panthera leo With a Reconstruction of the Natural History of the ‘Man-Eaters of Tsavo’
... We didn't verify deamination patterns for all prey species because of limited DNA sequence data and/or the lack of a characterized reference genome. The ancient DNA results were analyzed in complement with microscopically identified hairs (see next section; O.M., unpublished data 10,15 ). ...
... We compiled a list of potential prey species mitogenomes through complementary approaches that included metagenomic profiling of hair, microscopy of hair (O. Mwebi, personal communication), 10,15 and historical accounts of species ranges ( Figure S3; Table S2). Metagenomic classification resulted in 27 potential species, and microscopy analysis yielded 16 potential species ( Figure S3; Table S3; STAR Methods). ...
... In addition to factors like limited prey availability, dental injury in lions has been suggested as a driver for prey-switching to humans and their domestic animals. 10 Our study indicates that the Tsavo lions' diet included both grazers (e.g., zebra) and browsers (e.g., giraffe), with at least one lion (FMNH 23970) preying on humans (hair 4). Preyswitching can be further investigated through the genomic analysis of stratigraphic layers of hair in the tooth cavities, with hair from the bottom of the cavity representing initial prey captured earlier in life, and hair at the surface of the cavity representing more recent prey. ...
... Humans and their relatives in the family Hominidae have a long history of being eaten by species that have evolved to do precisely that (Brain 1980(Brain , 1981Corbett 1944;Domínguez-Rodrigo 1999;Hart 2002;Hart and Sussman 2008;Kerbis Peterhans 1990;Kerbis Peterhans and Gnoske 2001;Kruuk 2002;Patterson 1996;Payne 1983;Treves and Naughton-Treves 1999;Wroe et al. 2005). This trophic relationship also applies to our extant relatives among the Hominoidea (Boesch 1991;Fay et al. 1995;Galdikas 1978;Kerbis Peterhans et al. 1993) and other large primates (Hart 2002;Pickering and Carlson 2004;Simons 1966). ...
... Multiple studies comparing the results of a range of carnivores and large mammal prey (Becker and Reed 1993;Behrensmeyer 1991;Brain 1981;Carson et al. 2000;Domínguez-Rodrigo 1999;Faith and Behrensmeyer 2006;Haglund 1997a;Harding and Wolf 2006;Haynes 1980a,b;Hill 1980Hill , 1989Hill and Behrensmeyer 1984;Pobiner 2007;Pobiner et al. 2020;Pokines and Kerbis Peterhans 2007), including those which specifically address large carnivore consumption of humans or other large primates (Galdikas 1978;Haglund 1997a;Haglund et al. 1988Haglund et al. , 1989Hart and Sussman 2008;Horwitz and Smith 1988;Kerbis Peterhans et al. 1993;Kerbis Peterhans and Gnoske 2001;Merbs 1997;Milner and Smith 1989;Morton and Lord 2006;Pickering and Carlson 2004), indicate that once consumption has begun, the weaker, or less dense, elements have a much poorer chance of survival and are often consumed entirely. In general, stronger elements equate with long bone diaphyses and mandibular bodies, with the other elements of the human body more easily consumed/fragmented due to their less dense construction (especially the cranium, Left to right: 6 min of gnawing, 12, 18, and 24 min. ...
Gnawing from animal species is a common alteration to human bones and comes under frequent forensic analysis in order to separate these effects from human-caused trauma and to understand the context and postdepositional history of a set of remains. This chapter examines the motivations for (predation, defleshing, fat extraction, incisor sharpening, etc.) and mechanisms of bone gnawing, the typical sequences of body part consumption and long bone destruction, and defines tooth mark types and other bone damage, including pits, scores/striations, punctures, furrows, edge wear, crenellation, peeling, scalloping, and gastric corrosion. This chapter also examines bone dispersal by carnivores and how this common behavior impacts subsequent scene dimensions and searching methods; reconcentration of bones by some species into dens; and distinguishing among size class of carnivores that created tooth marks. The modifications by rodents gnawing on wet or dry bone are also examined, along with modifications made by pigs, other large ungulates (osteophagia), and humans. The overall patterns of skeletal modification by taxon are also examined.
... The "infirmity hypothesis" suggests that age, injury, or illness makes lions more likely to attack humans. Lion attacks on humans are thought to be caused by dental problems, according to studies in Kenya (Peterhans & Gnoske, 2001) and Tanzania (Baldus, 2006). However, Patterson et al. (2003) argue that this hypothesis tends to be attributed post hoc based on anecdotal evidence. ...
Adopting a scoping review method, we examined peer‐reviewed academic papers published about human–lion conflict (HLC) (including coexistence) and identified knowledge gaps. We searched papers published between January 1981 and December 2023 using academic databases, with the key terms African lion, human–lion conflict, human–lion coexistence, and human–lion interaction. This produced 485 records, reduced to 137 after using additional criteria. Ninety‐eight papers were focused on lions in Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. Ten pan‐African studies were identified in our review. Our inductive analysis identified four themes related to HLC: attitudes and perceptions toward lions, causes of HLC, consequences of HLC, and mitigating HLC. Some limitations identified in systematic reviews of human–wildlife conflict have been addressed in recent years, such as broadening the geographical scale of research. However, some knowledge gaps remain, including a lack of assessment of mitigation strategies and studies on climate changes impact on human–lion conflict. Addressing the knowledge gaps highlighted in this review will require diversifying the disciplinary composition of the research teams and increasing researcher reflexivity.
... The primary offender is the tiger, whose populations regularly intersect with densely populated areas of humans (Nepal and Weber, 1995b;Sukumar, 1991). Attacks by lions on humans are reported in Africa (Yamazaki and Bwalya, 1999), Kenya (Patterson, 1907;Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson 2001), Tanzania where humans are found to be part of their natural prey base (Peterhans and Gnoske, 2001;Patterson et al. 2003 andBaldus 2006) and Gir National Park, India (Saberwal et al., 1994). Instances of leopard attacking and killing humans inside (Kala and Kothari, 2013;Kumar et al., 2015;Sidhu et al., 2017;Zehra et al., 2022) and outside (Nabi et al., 2009;Athreya et al., 2014;Govind and Jayson, 2021) the protected areas have been widely documented. ...
... Using field-derived metabolic figures and estimating the portion of each victim the lions could consume before sunrise, we concluded that the number of victims was roughly 35 (not 135); the first man-eater ate most of those. The revised toll is far closer to available historical records of human loss at Tsavo (Hill, 1949;Kerbis Peterhans & Gnoske, 2002). The observed asymmetry in feeding by the two man-eaters is often noted in long-term field studies of lion dyads, particularly involving smaller prey that can easily be monopolized. ...
One of the best‐known exhibits at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History features the man‐eating lions of Tsavo. Over a period of nine months in 1898, this pair of lions systematically hunted, killed and consumed railroad workers engaged in building a bridge over the Tsavo River in East Africa. The lions were eventually killed by an engineer, J. H. Patterson, who afterwards wrote a best‐selling book about the episode. His dramatic story has been retold in countless articles, books, and motion pictures, each more sensational and gory than the last. What parts are true? Fortunately, the lions' skins and skulls offer an independent and verifiable chronicle of events that actually transpired. These two specimens effectively re‐wrote their own history through the scientific research sparked by their notoriety, reminding us that the collections of natural history museums hold almost limitless potential to illuminate the world around us and its history.
... The primary offender is the tiger, whose populations regularly intersect with densely populated areas of humans (Nepal and Weber, 1995b;Sukumar, 1991). Attacks by lions on humans are reported in Africa (Yamazaki and Bwalya, 1999), Kenya (Patterson, 1907;Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson 2001), Tanzania where humans are found to be part of their natural prey base (Peterhans and Gnoske, 2001;Patterson et al. 2003 andBaldus 2006) and Gir National Park, India (Saberwal et al., 1994). Instances of leopard attacking and killing humans inside (Kala and Kothari, 2013;Kumar et al., 2015;Sidhu et al., 2017;Zehra et al., 2022) and outside (Nabi et al., 2009;Athreya et al., 2014;Govind and Jayson, 2021) the protected areas have been widely documented. ...
The big cats are of paramount importance for the sustenance of ecosystems and their interaction with humans is critical for their conservation. Coexistence and tolerance of the people involved will be crucial in the conservation of these cats in the growing human-dominated landscapes. The literature review on humans and big cats' conflicts and their coexistence indicates socio-economic factors are the main driving forces in shaping human attitudes toward these cats. In contrast to the mainstream view, conflict frequency does not directly affect the tolerance capacity of stakeholders; instead, coalitions of many factors like livelihood status, religious and cultural beliefs and government intervention are involved. The review provides an evaluation of the prevalent mitigation measures and other principles that govern human-big cats conflict and sheds light on the potential of coexistence as a pro-conservation strategy.
How did our distant ancestors defend themselves from lethal African predators after they moved from the trees to the ground and started sleeping in the open?
Strangely, this important question of human evolutionary history has been largely ignored by scholars. For Charles Darwin, humans did not need to defend themselves from predators, as they evolved via sexual selection in a predator-free environment; For Raymond Dart human ancestors were ruthless killers and cannibals, the apex predators of their entire environment, so the need for a defense from predators seemed irrelevant; Charles Brain proposed that, on the contrary, our ancestors were weak prey species, vulnerable to a large number of predators in Africa. Contemporary scholars mostly argue over two paradigms: (1) our ancestors were big game hunter-gatherers (partly modified Dart’s “Killer Ape” hypothesis), and (2) our ancestors were fearless aggressive scavengers (this idea was developed within the “new archaeology” paradigm of the 1980s, but the questions like how our ancestors managed to take kill away from powerful African predators and sleep on the ground at night, still remain open).
On June 23-26, 2023, an international muti-disciplinary conference “Defense Strategies in Early Human Evolution” took place at the Jim Corbett International Research Centre at the Grigol Robakidze University, Tbilisi, Georgia. The conference brought together behavioural ecologists, primatologists, biologists, cognitivists, philosophers, evolutionary musicologists, and conservationists, who were discussing various issues of this vast topic. The book that you hold in your hands is the result of this meeting.
Esparza et al. 2022 20 E l jaguar (Panthera onca) y el puma (Puma concolor) son los felinos más grandes de América y el tercero y cuarto, a nivel mundial. Su dieta es estrictamente carnívora, pero muy variada. Requieren presas grandes como venados y pecaríes (también conocidos como jabalíes) y en algunos ecosistemas, como selvas lluviosas, el consumo de aves y mamíferos de menor tamaño aumenta. Ambos felinos son más activos durante la noche, amanecer y atardecer, no les gusta tanto el día. Los jaguares han sido parte de la historia de los pueblos americanos desde antes de la conquista. Los gobernantes mayas tomaban su nombre (balam, en lengua maya) como símbolo de poder y los aztecas asignaban el estatus de "caballeros jaguar" a guerreros elite que infundían temor a sus adversarios. Los jaguares y pumas siguen siendo usados como emblemas por su inteligencia, fuerza y estrategia. En México, hay diferentes equipos de futbol que los utilizan como su emblema, por ejemplo, los Pumas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), los Leones Negros de la Universidad de Guadalajara (UdeG), los Tigres de Nuevo León de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL) y el desaparecido Jaguares de Chiapas. Por un lado, seguimos admirando a estos grandes depredadores y por otro, les tememos. Una de las razones de nuestro temor es porque forman parte del grupo de los grandes depredadores: tigre (Panthera tigris), león (Panthera leo), leopardo (Panthera pardus), jaguar (Panthera onca) y el puma (Puma concolor) con la capacidad de atacar a presas que pesan más que ellos. En comunidades humanas que cohabitan con jaguares (en especial comunidades rurales) suelen existir historias de personas desaparecidas o atacadas por un jaguar, en algunas historias se cuenta que se encontraron solamente rastros de ropa y la desaparición de la persona se le atribuye al jaguar, como la historia de unos músicos desaparecidos cerca del rancho "Corralitos", ellos se dirigían a tocar a la comunidad de Casimiro Castillo ubicada en la Reserva de Biosfera Sierra de Manantlán, Jalisco, México, pero nunca llegaron a su destino. La realidad es que en la mayoría de los relatos donde culpabilizan al jaguar o al puma de ataques humanos, no hay evidencia concreta de lo que sucedió. Las actitudes negativas del colectivo, derivadas de creencias erróneas, han propiciado e incrementado el temor hacia los jaguares y pumas desconociendo su función ecológica dentro de los ecosistemas y los beneficios para las mismas comunidades. Es común que estas creencias se hereden a los niños o más jóvenes fomentando estas interacciones negativas entre depredadores y comunidades. Ejemplo de lo anterior, es que algunas personas temen que un jaguar o puma los pueda atacar y matar cuando van caminando por la selva o el bosque. Desafortunadamente, estas ideas son reforzadas por los medios de comunicación con información exagerada o errática. La pregunta que debemos hacer es ¿Realmente los jaguares y pumas son devoradores de humanos? ¿Los humanos forman parte de las presas de jaguares y pumas? La evidencia indica que no. No existen registros con sustento robusto, que revelen que los jaguares o pumas en vida silvestre se dediquen sistemáticamente a depredar humanos para alimentarse. No obstante, se han registrado ataques, que en muy pocos casos han sido fatales entre los felinos y humanos en condiciones muy definidas donde un (i) jaguar o puma heridos se defiende ante cazadores humanos y sus perros, atacándolos. (ii) En situaciones donde los jaguares o pumas se encuentran en celo y los humanos se acercan demasiado, por ejemplo, un caso en el que un jaguar macho realizó un ataque simulado para asustar a un hermano de la coautora, sin llegar a lastimarlo. (iii) En etapas de crianza, las madres jaguar y pumas con cachorros pequeños reaccionan de forma agresiva ante la presencia humana. (iv) Cuando un jaguar o puma cerca de su presa en el momento que está comiendo suelen reaccionar a la defensiva. (v) Los jaguares silvestres que suelen ser atraídos con carne o pescado para facilitar su observación, hace que los felinos se habitúen al humano y lo puedan asociar con alimento. Es una práctica altamente contraproducente que ha sido prohibida legalmente en países donde el jaguar es una especie emblemática para el turismo. Los jaguares y pumas son vistos como una amenaza para muchas personas que viven en dónde estos felinos habitan, pero ¿realmente los jaguares y pumas ven a los humanos como una presa?
Management strategies to reduce human-carnivore conflict are most effective when accepted by local communities. Previous studies have suggested that the acceptance depends on emotions toward carnivores, the cultural importance of carnivores, and livestock depredation, and that it may vary depending on the types of strategies and carnivores involved. However, no study so far considered these factors simultaneously to compare their influence on the acceptance of management strategies. We quantified the predictive potential of these factors on the acceptance of three management strategies frequently applied to mitigate human-carnivore conflict: no action, relocation, and lethal control. We interviewed 100 members of the Maasai community in Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania. We used structured, closed questionnaires and focused on the three large carnivores involved in the most depredation regionally: spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), lions (Panthera leo), and leopards (Panthera pardus). We found that the majority of respondents accepted no action and rejected relocation and lethal control for all three carnivores. The acceptance of the management strategies was strongly influenced by the emotion joy and by the cultural importance of carnivores, and the effects of joy and cultural importance were stronger than the effect of livestock depredation. We conclude that authorities should evaluate the emotions and cultural importance that local communities associate with carnivores when seeking to gain acceptance of management strategies and account for differences between species. Finally, we recommend that future human-carnivore coexistence studies should consider the socio-psychology of local communities and be done longitudinally to detect shifts in cultural, emotional, and ecological factors over time.
The large felid carnivores are among the most endangered, and the most challenging, species to conserve on this increasingly human-dominated planet. In modern times, large felid carnivores were widely distributed in the continents of Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Unfortunately, global human expansion, loss of prey species, hunting and poaching, and retaliatory killings after livestock predation have greatly reduced and fragmented their original ranges and decimated their populations. In this chapter, large felid carnivore characteristics, usual habitats, ecology, and predatory behaviors are reviewed. Changes in great cat distribution, changes in wild prey populations resulting in a shift to increased livestock predation, and the resulting human-felid conflicts are discussed. Preservation of remaining wild large felid carnivore populations has become a global conservation priority as populations have plummeted over the last century. Current approaches to better understand and conserve these apex keystone predators and to maintain ecosystem integrity are discussed. Current strategies and policies to ameliorate and resolve the intricate and difficult problems of predator-human conflict are examined. The complex issues of “problem carnivores” and “man-eaters” are discussed. Finally, recommendations on creative, fluid, and scientifically sound strategies that might be employed to address these conflicts in a manner acceptable to all key stakeholders are discussed.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.