I'm not sure this question even makes sense

[james_davis_nicoll]

But why are humans so drab compared to, say, birds? Is it just that mammals in general have lousy color vision (although ours is better than average) and that we're descended from animals that wouldn't have been able to make use of a wide variety of fur colors or is it that there's something about fur and hair that inherently limits its palette?

I will admit this ranks lower on my "inherent human features that require fixing" than the vitamin C thing, particularly given the existance of non-toxic dyes.

Comments

[anzhalyumitethe.livejournal.com]

Mammals spent 120 million years being small, nocturnal, and cryptic; this more or less permanently constrained the choice space for mammalian evolution.

You are aware they have been finding largish terrestrial dino eating )at least psittacosaurus eating) mammals, right? And mesozoic aquatic mammals too.

The mammalian story, the whole therapsid story, is a lot more complicated.

[dubiousprospects.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Mesozoic mammals were not, every last one, opportunistic omnivores, small, nocturnal, and cryptic.

The ones we're descended from were, though, and that's generally the way to bet despite recently discovered wider diversity. Placentals were very much a niche branch of the mammal tree until the K/T.

[anzhalyumitethe.livejournal.com]

and quite possibly afterwards too. There have been suggestions that the megafauna of the paleogene wasn't placental.

[dubiousprospects.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Oooh, cool.

Got a link or three? That would be very interesting indeed.

[anzhalyumitethe.livejournal.com]

http://catalogue-of-organisms.blogspot.com/2008/09/life-in-palaeocene-we-dont-need-no.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05634.html

[anzhalyumitethe.livejournal.com]

From Chris' post:

In light of the findings of Wible et al. (2007), we might even doubt whether many of the Palaeocene eutherians even represent placentals. The classification of McKenna and Bell (1997) united many early eutherians such as Cimolestidae, Pantodonta and Taeniodonta (as well as the modern pangolins) into a group called Cimolesta, which was then included in the Ferae with creodonts and Carnivora. While pangolins may indeed be related to carnivorans, Cimolestidae, as referred to above, are not even placentals. What then becomes of the rest of the "Cimolesta"? Are they also stem-eutherians like Cimolestidae, or are they true placentals?

Such questions are not mere curiosities - the answer could have significant effects on our understanding of Palaeocene ecology.

[dubiousprospects.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Thanks!

That's interesting even without a nature subscription. :)