Date: 6 Oct 2008 05:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ionotter.livejournal.com
Apparently that theory is still being debated, but much of the genetic evidence is pointing away from a common primate ancestor in lieu of a megachiropteran ancestor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat#Classification_and_evolution)

The theory was based on morphological traits, rather than genetic markers? But the neural characteristics are very similar to primates, as you mention. What's not mentioned in the Wiki article, but possibly in the cited references, is that evolution doesn't mind duplicating successful traits in non-related species.

Date: 6 Oct 2008 17:13 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jim-lane.livejournal.com
True. (I read the Wiki article, too.) Flying foxes are so incredibly different from what we're familiar with re: "normal" bats, that they really do appear to be an entirely different species of animal, instead of a "kissing cousin" to little brown bats, vampire bats, hog-nosed bats, etc. They're quite intelligent, sociable and, in some situations, quite amusing in their relationship antics with other flying foxes. Sorry, but I just can't "feel warm & fuzzy" about a vampire bat, or any of the other little winged monsters. }|-/

Profile

den: (Default)
den

April 2023

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526 272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 29 January 2026 10:40
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios