Antarctic Fauna

I'd be interested to see how evollution has changed the fauna of a green antarctica, especially wih the arrival of humans.

And given the attitudes towards the dying and death, i was reminded of Mesoamerican cultures and their attitudes towards mortality.

I suppose I should apologize for the Chupabacabra, but I think that it can be justified. My thought processes are such that often I come at things from several directions at once. But let me lay it out....

I think its reasonable to assume the rise and domination of low energy or variable energy predators in new or constrained ecologies. If we look to the period immediately following KT, a lot of the first predators on the scene seemed to be snakes, lizards, crocodilians and terror birds, who were only gradually displaced by placental mammalian predators. Under the circumstances, the emergence of Marsupial predators in Australia and South America and their long term domination of these niches is understandable, and we have every reason to assume that this would continue in Antarctica.

Having established Marsupial predators in Antarctica, the question becomes what kind - South America produced hyaena-like and saber-tooth cat type forms. Australia produced cat types - Quolls, wolverine types - Tasmanian devils, canid types - Tasmanian Wolves, and Tiger types - the Marsupial lion. So any and all of these would have been potential models for Antarctica.

But most of these are essentially ambush predators. There are two basic models for predators - ambush and attrition. Jumping out and taking the prey down fast, or wearing the prey down slowly. Most of the known Marsupial predators are ambush types, not attrition. Not a lot of open country long range critters in the list. Antarctica given its seasonality, would probably require, from at least some predators, a long range / open country capacity. They'd have to travel. There's clear niches for attrition predators.

We've got those in the old world - Lions of the Savannah, Wolves of the boreal forest. Not a lot of precedent for Marsupial attrition predators. Basically, the trouble is that Marsupials tend to have slower and more variable metabolism than Placentals. For an ambush predator, no big deal. For the long hauls though, that makes it very tough. A marsupial attrition predator needs to be able to cover a lot of ground cheaply, or to sustain a high or intermittent level of activity over a longer period.

What would they look like in the Antarctic context? Lopers, like wolves. Or hoppers? Kangaroos locomotion is extremely efficient at traversing vast distances. It's the secret to their success. Hopping would be a good mode of travel for a marsupial attrition predator.

And there was already a predatory/carnivorous kangaroo: Propleopus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna#100-1.2C000_kilograms

So, I made the arbitrary, but rather reasonable decision that at least one major marsupial carnivore line would evolve parallel to the Macropods as large hoppers.

From there, the Daggerfoots are inspired fairly directly by the scythe toed dinosaur Deinonychus. If you have great hopping carnivores, most of their muscle and killing strength will be in the legs, so that becomes the logical place for a 'saber' predator to put its weapon.

Of course, that takes up the niche of the Saber Toothed cats, so Antarctica won't evolve direct analogues to them. Still leaves room for other ambush predators like the Marsupial lion and Hyeana, Bear-forms and weasel-forms. Whether they'll show up in any significant sense, I don't know yet.

The Daggerfoots as apex big-game predators left an underlying niche for a smaller, more dog-like/wolf-like version, unimaginatively titled Hopper, which becomes the main Tsalal predator domesticate. Upright stance means grasping claws and forelimbs, more manual dexterity, and likely greater intelligence. So they don't have the same facility as dogs to draw sleighs and haul loads, but they do have other advantages.

So where does the Chupacabra come from? Well, looking at some depictions of the Chupacabra, it struck me that it was a very kangaroo like predator - long tails, powerful hind limbs, hopping, etc. The large eyes and flat face (Gray-alien style facial features), suddenly suggested an arctic or nocturnal adaption

So maybe the Chupacabra was a displaced Antarctic kangaroo predator? I kind of liked that.

The thing with the Chupa is that ecologically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. A large blood sucker (or even internal organ sucker) is a losing proposition biologically. It's leaving way too much fresh meat behind for the effort of its kills - far too little bang for the buck.

Most blood drinkers, from mosquitos to vampire bats, are parasitic predators, and there's a huge size differential between the predator and the prey. When you've got that size differential, a non-lethal predator can afford to go light on meals, because the prey is around to feed again and again.

For something like a Chupa to make any sense, its normal prey would have to be between 10 and 100 times its size on average. So, a dog sized predator, roughly 40 or 50 pounds - you'd get a useable range anywhere between roughly 400 to 5000 pounds or better - basically, lots of megafauna available. So its viable.

It still doesn't make a lot of sense. In a normal ecology, the small vampire predator is still getting very little food bang for its hunting buck. It's not really efficient. Meanwhile, normal 'kill and eat the whole thing' predators, are a lot more efficient, grow larger and ore lethal, and they'll push the vampires right out of the ecology.

About the only situation where you'd see such a vampire thriving in comparison to more total predators is where there's an actual long term advantage to keeping the prey specimen around for potential future feedings.

Such as an impoverished/erratic ecology with regular seasonal bottlenecks? As in green Antarctica. This (possibly Australia) might be the one place where a chupacabra type parasite/predator might be viable. (Of course, Australia lost most of its megafauna.)

So the Chupacabra is re-imagined as a megafauna vampire/parasite/predator. The low efficiencies make sense. Preying on small animals is fatal for them of course, but they weren't principle prey originally.

The stuff about paralytic/narcotic saliva and coagulants is invented and something of a leap. I don't think that there's a lot of history or record for poisonous marsupials. However, as an adaptation, Vampire bats secrete an anti-coagulant. In this situation, the Chupa would have to go in the other direction, it needs to encourage sealing and healing of the wound. And given how dangerous its lifestyle is, it would need to be injecting painkillers or narcotics into its prey in order not to be squashed in reaction to the bite.

This is actually the most arbitrary part of the decision making process - a carefully venomous marsupial. For the Chup to be venomous in isolation is a bit too much of a leap. That's not the sort of development that comes out of nowhere. The Sicaripod line would have to be descended from venemous Marsupials from the start, in order for those traits to be available for the Chupa to be able to adapt and tailor it.

So, given the Chupa is venemous, it's likely that all the Sicaripods to some extent are venemous. Actually, venom is probably an ancestral feature of the Sicaripods, and the trait that allowed their early establishment and domination of predator niches. Their bites were slightly more lethal than competing potential marsupial, bird or reptile predators.

Indeed, a weak venom might have lead the Sicaripods into their hopping lifestyle. A weak venom bite might lead to situations of the prey covering some distance and facing repeated bites before succumbing, which would drive the Sicaripods into developing as attrition rather than ambush predators. Developing as attrition predators would drive adaptation as kangaroo-like hoppers.

Of course, it stands to reason that at least some offshoots of the Sicaripod line, non-hopping cousins, have evolved to be quite venemous. Or have stayed in niches where relatively weak venom is sufficient for their size of prey. Thoughts for later.

As the Sicaripods come into their own as big hopping monsters, or voracious little demons, the poison aspect becomes a relatively insignificant part of their arsenal. Except in the case of the Chupacabra, where its available to be steadily adapted and repurposed.

And of course, applied to human societies in Antarctica, its a double threat. The coagulant properties doubtless have medical and shamanic applications, possibly cooking applications as well. And the non-lethal venom probably appeals to the human drive to alter consciousness by any goofy means possible - think of it as an even more disgusting but viable version of toad licking.

And if there is an illicit fascination with the Chupacabra, for its narcotic possibilities, then there's some likelihood of specimens being exported from Antarctica, and a breeding population eventually establishing itself.

There are some interesting things that shake out from this. One is that there are likely open niches for Marsupial ambush predators. Tiger equivalents, or bears, or lynx, weasels, stuff like that. Whether they'll have much significance to the lives of the Tsalal, or be developed much, is an open question.

The other interesting thing is that the lower range of small predators/omnivores, the equivalents of rats, etc., may be envenomed as a defense mechanism. There might be a lot of small venomous marsupials. A bit unsung advantage of the Devils might be a relative immunity or resistance to other venoms.

Which might mean that cats and rats, a pair of rough, tough universal invader species, might be in for some horrible surprises if they get to Antarctica. Corollary, may be that the marsupial equivalent of rats may actually have a reasonable chance to be invasive species in their own rights, at least in some areas.