At the start of the twenty-first century ‘bear dogs’ began making frequent appearances in popular media about extinct mammals, particularly predatory ones. Usually the bear dog in question is Amphicyon, the type species of the Amphicyonidae group of mammals, which has some of the physically largest attributable remains. However while Amphicyon was the first genus named, it was but one of many bear dog genera that are known to have existed. The bear dogs, also known as amphicyonids, came in all sizes from across Eurasia, Africa and North America, and as a group were one of the most successful kinds of mammals of all time.
Are the bear dog amphicyonids
bears or dogs?
The
short answer is neither. Amphicyonids were similar to primitive dogs
in body proportions, while having a much heavier build similar to
that of a bear. Most (possibly all) amphicyonids are also thought
to have been plantigrade rather than digitigrade like modern dogs.
For those not familiar with these terms, amphicyonids walked with
the foot bones flat against the ground (similar to bears) so that
the full foot is in contact with the ground while in modern dogs the
bones are off the ground and serve as an extension to the length of the
leg, which means that modern dogs essentially walk on their toes.
Classification
Where
and how amphicyonids are related to other mammals continues to spark
debate amongst palaeontologists which is why the precise answer can
vary depending upon which palaeontologists you ask. The first easy
step in locating amphicyonids is to place them within the Carnivora,
a group that contains all of today’s meat eating placental mammals,
and is thought to have had its origins from small mammals like Miacis
back in the Eocene epoch. From here amphicyonids are always placed
within the Caniformia (dog-like) group of carnivorans which
includes everything that is non-cat-like (feliformia) such as
dogs, bears, seals (pinnipeds), etc.
At
their inclusion in the Caniformia, the classification of amphicyonids
becomes muddled depending upon source. Some palaeontologists treat
the amphicyonids as belonging to their own group within the
Caniformia. However many palaeontologists consider amphicyonids to
belong within another subgroup of the Caniformia called the Arctoidea.
When used, this sees amphicyonids treated as being more closely
related to bears and more distinct from dogs. In time it may be
possible to establish a more universally distinct classification for
the Amphicyonidae and how animals within it are related to others of
the time. This would not just be a case of new bear dog discoveries
however, but remains of other kinds of Eocene and Oligocene era
mammals, possibly including types that we do not yet know about.
With
mammals of the Amphicyonidae being loosely called ‘bear dogs’,
they can sometimes be confused with the Hemicyonidae which are called
‘dog bears’. Members of the Hemicyonidae (such as Hemicyon,
the type genus of the group) are considered to be closely related to
bears while displaying canine characteristics. When these two groups
are mentioned in the same context as one another it would be very
simple to make a mistake in the order of the words for incorrect
information to be passed, but this is a good example of why animal
groups are given binomial names (Amphicyonidae, Hemicyonidae,
etc.) so that such confusion can be avoided.
Sometimes
smaller sub groups of amphicyonids are created to help clarify
studies. One example is the haplocyonine bear dogs which usually
comprises Haplocyon,
Haplocyonoides
and Haplocyonopsis
on the basis
of their similarity to one another. While such terms can help clarify
discussion of different genera, they may not be in universal use by
all researchers and so the genera can also be referred to by their
larger groups (amphicyonine or amphicyonid for example).
Rise and fall of the bear dogs
Some
of the oldest bear dog remains belong to Daphoenus
and are dated to as
far back as 40.4 to 37.2 million years ago, something that
places them in the Bartonian period of the Eocene epoch. This is in
contrast to the common statement that amphicyonid bear dogs originated
in Asia since the daphoenine bear dogs like Daphoenus
appear to have
been exclusive to North America. A little later in the Priabonian
period of the Eocene and you get the first amphicyonine bear dogs
(those that belong to the Amphicyoninae) such as Cynodictis
and
Guangxicyon
appearing in Eurasia. From the end of the Eocene and into
the Oligocene bear dogs continued to diversify and spread out and
become more common. Not only were both the Daphoninae and
Temnocyoninae groups of bear dog well established in North America
during the Oligocene period, but they were joined by the first
Eurasian bear dogs of the Amphicyoninae, such as Ysengrinia
in the
Rupelian stage.
During
the Oligocene period however most of the known bear dog genera have
been estimated to be well below one hundred kilograms in weight, with
some such as Drassonax
and Paradaphoenus
being estimated to be even
below two kilograms in weight. For modern comparisons, the North
American raccoon (Procyon lotor) can weigh
between three and half
to nine kilograms, while the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
can weigh
from just over two to fourteen kilograms (though rare individuals may
be heavier). Why the early bear dogs seem to have been restricted
to such small sizes is actually quite simple to understand when you
consider that they were not the only predators on the landscape.
The
creodont mammals had evolved much earlier, and some such as
Sarkastodon
and certain species of Hyaenodon
were already in the apex
predator slots of the ecosystems. Wolf-like mesonychids (mammals
similar to Mesonyx)
were also abundantly active during the Eocene to
Oligocene eras. Further competition would have also come from the
nimravids,
one of the groups of mammals that are also known as the
‘false sabre-toothed cats’ which also had their origins in the late
Eocene. To further add to this mix you have the entelodonts
that may
have actively killed animals as well as challenged other predators for
their kills. With so many predators already filling the top predator
niches, the early bear dogs would have had a difficult time joining
and displacing them from their position, and so adapted to fill and
hunt in the predatory niches that the top predators simply could not
fill. This would see the earlier bear dogs hunting small animals that
were both too quick and offered too little sustenance for the larger
predators to expend their energy on. They are also likely to have
also supplemented their hunting by scavenging the left over remains of
the larger kills of predators, but this would also be risky since
the larger predators were easily capable of killing smaller bear dogs
with little effort.
Time
however was ultimately on the side of the bear dogs since the Oligocene
period was a time of gradual climatic change which would force a shift
in the types of ecosystems and the animals that lived in them. The
Eocene period started as a warm tropical period which saw lush forests
covering most of the planet, but cooling during the latter half began
to cause a decrease in the coverage of the tropical forests. This
development that started in the Eocene would accelerate in the
Oligocene with tropical forests becoming equatorially restricted,
leaving increasingly large open areas in their wake. These areas
began to be filled with grasses which during the later Miocene period
would develop into vast grassy plains.
Many
of the herbivorous mammals such as primitive horses like Mesohippus
were still browsers of vegetation rather than grazers of grass and this
meant that predators could approach and lurk in the undergrowth without
being seen by their prey. It would then be a simple matter of the
predator waiting for its target to come close enough for an ambush,
quickly bursting out from cover and hitting their victim before it
knew what was happening. However the on-going loss of much of the
forests brought three problems for these predators. One is that they
no longer had the cover to approach virtually unseen, something that
meant that they would now have to wait for their prey to come to them
rather than actively hunt it out. Second is that the browsing
herbivores now had to cover more ground to find suitable plants to
eat. This saw a drive towards more energy efficient locomotion which
was simply achieved by evolving longer legs so that they could cover
more ground with each step. A secondary side benefit from this of
course is that they could now also run much faster than their
ancestors, so when they spotted a nearby predator (something that
was getting easier for them to do), they had a much easier time
escaping them since the older predators were adapting for running short
distances in an ambush, not long high speed pursuit over open
ground. Third is that towards the Miocene more and more herbivores
made the switch to eating grass instead of browsing upon vegetation,
which meant that the numbers of herbivores presenting themselves as
targets gradually became less and less.
As
the older predator forms began to face harder times in the Oligocene,
the bear dogs actually found themselves at an advantage especially the
amphicyonine bear dogs that had the physical proportions to match the
new herbivores for speed as well as retain the striking power to
effectively take them down. With this predatory niche open the bear
dogs quickly adapted to fill it and with the start of the Miocene
period, the larger genera such as Amphicyon and Pseudocyon
had
appeared while the creodonts were but a shadow of their former
success. The Miocene also brought a severe reduction in the number of
nimravid genera, but these seem to have been largely replaced by the
barbourofelids,
another group of cat-like mammals that were once
largely classed to be the same as the nimravids. Some such as
Barbourofelis
grew large enough to challenge some bear dogs, though
it was still not as large as some of the largest species such as
Amphicyon ingens. The entelodonts also survived
for a time into the
Miocene by becoming even larger as evidenced by the appearance of
largest entelodont genera such as Daeodon
and Paraentelodon.
The
Miocene period was not the end of the changes however; it was simply
another chapter in the on-going shift towards a cooler dryer planet.
As types of animals evolve you often see a shift towards some of the
species becoming larger and more specialised, something that is
driven by the success of previous adaptations tempered by competition
with other forms. In predators large size allows them to hunt larger
prey as well as dominate other predators so that they could not
challenge them. The problem is that while this secures short term
survival, long term continuance of the species is always in doubt
because these specialisations rely upon only a few factors at best.
When these factors change the species is in a position where it must
adapt or die. This happened to the creodonts (which actually
managed to survive in very limited numbers until the later stages of
the Miocene) the mesonychids, entelodonts, nimravids and
barbourofelids. It would also happen to the amphicyonids.
The
most commonly depicted bear dogs are the larger ones of the Miocene
era such as Amphicyon ingens (though Pseudocyon
may actually have
been a bit larger). However, Miocene era bear dogs continued to
come in a variety of sizes with some such as Ictiocyon being estimated
to be less than one and a half kilograms in weight (similar to their
Oligocene era relatives). As a group the amphicyonids seem to have
filled every single predatory niche, but when broken down into
specific genera and species they come across as being quite specialised
for different roles. For example, the small Ictiocyon
was probably
a very efficient hunter of small rodent-like mammals, but it was
beyond tackling large horses like Hipparion.
Amphicyon was easily
capable of taking down chalicotheres like Chalicotherium,
but smaller
animals simply wouldn’t do, even if Amphicyon
managed to catch a
small two kilogram animal, it would need to eat more than just one a
day to keep its huge body going.
Towards
the end of the Miocene and start of the Pliocene periods, all new
groups of mammalian carnivores began to appear, and one of the
significant things about these appearances is that they included the
more direct ancestors to most of the mammalian predators that we know
today. Many of these forms which included the ancestors to modern
wolves and dogs as well as true cats of the Felidae all developed
further refined bodies more suited to open environments such as plains
and steppe. The main factor for the rise and success of these new
mammals however does not just seem to have been a case of continued
physical refinement, but the establishment of higher levels of
intelligence (something that a tens of million years earlier had
actually helped amphicyonids dominate many of the older mammal
types).
Study
of bear dog skulls leads to the reconstruction and study of the
brain in terms of overall size and development. The results of brain
studies for bear dogs is that in terms on mental development they were
below the level that modern day predators are at. Caution should be
used before declaring bear dogs to be stupid however; it’s just that
most of their brain development seems to be orientated more towards
senses such as smell and vision rather than higher level processes such
as problem solving. What this means is that bear dogs were very
capable of processing information from their surrounding environment,
but they were more reliant upon physical ability than mental
processing. This means that the bar dog thought process probably went
along the lines of find prey, approach prey, catch, prey, kill
prey and eat prey.
Other
predatory mammals will of course operate to an identical thought
process, but the newer predators were beginning to elaborate on
this. Modern day dogs and some species of cat have considerably more
developed brains than those attributed to older mammal types. One
benefit of this development is a greater level of social interaction to
the point that some types of animal form groups that hunt as a single
unit. The exact point of when mammals began to hunt in packs is next
to impossible to determine with certainty, but fossil evidence
concerning wolves and even the sabre-toothed cat Smilodon
combined with
modern studies of living predators has concluded that mammals were pack
hunting at least as far back as the Pleistocene. If these traits can
be carried back to their ancestors in the Pliocene then we see a world
where the numbers of older solitary predators were dwindling in the
face of pack hunting mammals.
At
the moment there is no definitive evidence that proves pack hunting in
bear dogs. In fact most depictions of amphicyonids hunting in groups
are actually based upon the link between the more common name of bear
dog with actual modern dog behaviour. As it has already been stated
at the top of this article bear dogs were not dogs. They were related
to a certain degree, but they were still separate. A lack of fossil
evidence combined with an underdeveloped brain when compared to modern
mammalian predators leads to the conclusion that amphicyonids were
probably solitary animals for most of their lives.
Another
factor in the demise of the bear dogs would be continually changing
prey species. Horses in the early Miocene were still very primitive
in development, but by the end of the Miocene they had become one of
the fastest animal groups. Other mammals continued to develop speed
and agility as well as possibly strategy (for example, a pack of
modern wolves will deliberately spook a herd to run in order to tire
the weaker individuals), while some began to grow bigger and more
solid to the point that even a bear dog like Amphicyon
would have had
difficulty in tackling them. The new predators however had the
intelligence to adapt their behaviour to meet these new challenges,
but the bear dogs as powerful as they had been were now relics of an
older age. Surely enough by the end of the Miocene the bear dogs
found themselves obsolete in a changing world with most bear dog genera
gone by the end of the Miocene. The only possible exception to this
is Arctamphicyon
which seems to have lasted slightly longer till the
early Pliocene.
Relict populations?
There
are often claims that supposedly extinct animals may yet still survive
in the farthest and least explored regions of the planet. Indeed new
species of animals still continue to be discovered and described and
some of these creatures have existed in folklore long before they were
officially recognised by science.
In
North West Canada, and even some connecting parts of the United
States there have been reports of a large wolf-like animal, but
powerfully built similar to a bear, particularly the fore quarters
where the legs are longer than the rear as well as a broad head much
wider than a wolf and with a coat of long white fur. These features
all correspond with the physical traits of the larger bear dogs
(although we can’t be certain about the colour) as well as the
description of a creature in Native American folklore called the
Waheela. Back in the twentieth century the cryptozoologist Ivan T.
Sanderson drew this very conclusion that stories of the Waheela may in
fact be accounts of a relict population of bear-dogs (although
confusingly he additionally referred to Canis
dirus, better known as
the dire wolf for his theory, and this was a true wolf not a bear
dog).
The
Waheela is a creature of legend yet one that many people have claimed
to have seen even in modern times. Additionally there seems to be a
concentration of reports of the Waheela that come from the Nahanni
Valley, a place that is also known by the more grisly name of the
‘Headless Valley’ due to the discoveries of the bodies of people
that were missing their heads. Stories from people who claim to have
seen the Waheela are usually fairly consistent although it could be
argued that the story of the Waheela is becoming more popular in the
mainstream and that more people now know what to say, or are led to a
specific conclusion because of this whereas otherwise they might not
have said Waheela. The story and description of the Waheela is also
similar to other creatures of legend called the Shunka Warakin and the
Amarok, so it seems that these different stories may all be
describing the same creatures.
Although
the story is good, it is currently impossible to establish if the
Waheela is a late surviving bear dog, or even if it exists at all
because so far it is only legend. No body or part of has ever been
presented for scientific study, and there is no definitive video or
photographic evidence of a living Waheela in its natural habitat.
This does not completely discount the idea that a still unknown large
mammal might be roaming around the wilds of Canada given there
remoteness and lack of people to witness something, which is why the
chance of something being found is viable, if slim.
The
idea that Waheela are surviving bear dogs is a little harder to
swallow, but suggesting that a legendary cryptid is a relict of a
prehistoric creature is not unknown. Bigfoot (also known as
Sasquatch among other names) has been suggested to be a relict
population of the giant ape Gigantopithecus.
One obvious problem is
that here there is a gap of several million years in the fossil record
from where the oldest Gigantopithecus remains are
dated and modern
times. Another serious problem is that Gigantopithecus
is so far only
known from Asia and fossils have never been found in North America for
any time. However only the gap in the fossil record is applicable to
the Waheela/bear dog theory since bear dogs, particularly the remains
of large ones like Amphicyon are well documented in
North America.
Most of the last of the bear dog remains in North America are dated to
the end of the Miocene period (with some Asian genera such as
Arctamphicyon suggesting an early Pliocene
disappearance for the last
of the group). This leaves a gap of some five million years between
the end of the Miocene and modern times where no bear dogs are
currently known.
Five
million years is a long time for an animal to disappear, and usually
it’s the case that animals don’t come back, but there are precedents
where supposedly long extinct animals have been discovered to still be
alive. The most world famous example of this is the discovery of
living coelacanths.
This group of fish first appear as fossils from
as far back as four hundred million years ago and continue until about
sixty-five million years ago. Science had them down as long extinct
until 1938 when a fishing trawler caught a bizarre looking fish off
the coast of south-east Africa which was later identified as a
coelacanth. Since this time not only have more coelacanths been
caught, they have also been filmed in their natural habitats by
divers. In this case we have proof that just because an animal has
not been scientifically described or documented it can still exist,
we just never knew until we began to develop behaviour and technology
that caused us to stumble upon it.
As
stated above there is currently no definitive proof that the Waheela
exists, but for a moment let’s assume that it does. Stories and
reports about it say that it is a solitary creature. It’s unlikely to
be a misidentified polar bear since most reports are several hundred
miles south from their known range. The precedent for an animal to
disappear in terms of fossils to later be discovered alive has been
established. Bear dogs were once widespread across North America.
For
a genus of bear dog to survive for at least five million years past the
point where they are believed to have become extinct they would have
had to of found a way to adapt and survive in a world where new
predators such as early dogs, wolves, bears and felids were
replacing them. Direct competition is out of the question, as can
be established by the mass disappearance of bear dog genera towards the
end of the Miocene. It’s not impossible that a genus may have
steadily moved north out of the range of most of the other large
predators. Also by being solitary there would not be so much pressure
upon finding enough food to keep a large pack going. This however
would still be a long shot, especially when you consider that even if
a bear dog managed to cope with all these new predators, it would
also need to survive an on-going series of glaciations (although this
might explain the white coat) as well as the mass-extinction of the
North American megafauna at the end of the Pleistocene.
A
more mundane explanation for the existence of the Waheela may actually
come from a story concerning the Amarok. One creature identified as
an Amarok was killed only to be later found to have been an unusually
large wolf. This begs the questions that could Waheela merely be
mutant grey wolves that have perhaps been shunned from their packs
because of their gigantism? A larger wolf would require more food
which would mean less for the rest of the pack, endangering the packs
continued survival. This principal is also seen as why the more
powerfully built dire wolf went extinct towards the end of the
Pleistocene while the more gracile grey wolf (Canis lupus)
survived.
The right
genetic mix to produce a larger than normal wolf might also carry a
colour mutation or perhaps even a form of albinism which produces the
white coat.
The
problem with all of the above is that it remains only speculation,
and the more specific the speculation the less likely it could be as
the odds for it happening increase.
Adilophontes
(Daphoeninae) |
Haplocyonopsis
(Amphicyoninae) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |