Massive Baculum in Dire wolves .. A reason for it?

arcticwolf69

Citizen of Zooville
What Penis bones might tell us about Dire wolf behavior

Dire wolves are one of those creatures from the past that has captured the public imagination. They are conventionally dreamed of as being massive wolves, and Hollywood has created fictional ones the size of horses.

The truth of the matter is they were only slightly larger than the largest of modern North American wolves.

We know that they were closely related to modern wolves, but their exact position in the wolf family tree is still a bit contested. The two species are close enough in appearance that it often takes a specialist to figure out whether one is looking at the skeletal remains dire or modern wolf the measurement of the skull features and limb proportions.

One feature, though, that is diagnostic of the dire wolf is its robust and “perky” baculum.

5a761160a030d_direwolfandwolfcomparison.png.ac027968c5e11f7481d6861fab0064b1.png


If you don’t know what a baculum is, that’s because you’re human. In virtually ever other species, the males have a “penis bone” or os penis. Where I grew up in West Virginia, it was not unusual for men to wear a raccoon’s baculum as talisman of both one’s virility and redneck bona fides.

The dire wolf is one of those ancient animals for which we have a lot of skeletal remains to examine. In the famous La Brea Tar Pits, where the remains of over a million Pleistocene creatures have been found, dire wolves are the most common species to have been recovered.

The tar pits were a death trap for all sort of large herbivorous mammals, and when they became stuck in the natural asphalt tar, they were easy pickings for scavengers. Dire wolves came to the tar pits to eat, but many, many of them died. Over 200,000 of them have been taken out of the site.

With such a big sample of dire wolf skeletal remains, paleontologists have been able to figure out quite a bit about their growth patterns, but of particular interest are the bacula of the male dire wolves. They are not shaped like the bacula of any existent canid. They are curved and robust, and when compared to modern wolves of the roughly the same size, they are 44 percent longer.

That is a unusual find, and it suggests something about dire wolf behavior that isn’t true of modern wolves.

Modern wolves generally reproduce through a mated pair. In most wolf packs living in most situations in the wild, only a single pair in a pack gets to mate and produce pups. Other wolves in the pack might mate, but their pups will either be killed or abandoned.

This doesn’t happen every time. If there is abundant prey, these young females are sometimes allowed to raise their pups alongside their mother’s litter.

But in most cases, they don’t get to raise pups.

Modern wolves spend a lot of energy making sure that the mated pair, who are usually parents of the other wolves in the pack, get to mate and get to mate with each other. The other females in the pack might become pregnant, but they will be attacked if they try to mate with the main breeding male. The only way they ever get pregnant is by wandering interlopers who haven’t yet formed a pair bond with a female.

During the mating season is when young wolves typically leave their parents’ pack. They typically don’t have any mating opportunities, and the constant bickering wears on them.

The big and strangely shaped bacula of dire wolves suggests they might not have been quite like modern wolves. These bacula are suggestive that dire wolves were “better endowed” than modern wolves, and larger genitalia is usually associated with a less physically competitive reproductive strategy.

This phenomenon is well-known in primates. Generally, if a monkey or ape has bigger testes or penis, there is going to be less physical confrontation when it comes to mating.

The competition for well-endowed monkeys is how much semen a male can produce and how far up in the female he can penetrate it. If you can produce more semen and get it deeper into the female’s reproductive tract, then you’re more likely to pass on your genes.

In less-endowed species, there is much more physical confrontation to get one’s genes passed on.

My guess is that this applied to dire wolves. They may not have even had a proper pair-bonding system, and a dire wolf bitch may have mated with many partners in much the same way female domestic dogs do. The male dire wolves may have had very little competition for mating. They just mated and got along with each other.

It would have been an asset in a dire wolf pack for males to have gotten along with each other. More peace in a dire wolf pack means that more wolves remain in the pack for a longer period of time, and that means they would have had larger packs that would have been much more capable at hunting large prey. They also would have been better able to run off short-faced bears from their kills and to compete with Smilodons and American lions.

It’s likely that the intense competition between huge carnivorans during the dire wolf’s reign forced them into a more cooperative breeding and pack structure.

Again, no scientist has ever seen a dire wolf or observed their pack behavior, but they had this weird adaptation that sort of points to a more peaceful pack existence than exists in the modern species.

My guess is that dire wolves traveled in massive swarms, much like those seen in dholes of today. They were ruthless scavengers and dogged hunters.

When mating time came, they bred like village dogs. Males would bunch up around a bitch in heat and each would mate with her. There would be no pair bond between the male and female.

The competition was in the semen and the implantation thereof.


Would really like a discussion on this.

What are your thoughts?

Why, were dire wolves more massive hung then the grey wolves that also existed during this same time period?

How fucking big was a dire wolf hung in real life. It seems they had a real "Bitch Splitter" They average 44% longer and 200+% thicker. It boggles the mind from a zoo stand point.






Tags: None
 
What Penis bones might tell us about Dire wolf behavior


The big and strangely shaped bacula of dire wolves suggests they might not have been quite like modern wolves. These bacula are suggestive that dire wolves were “better endowed” than modern wolves, and larger genitalia is usually associated with a less physically competitive reproductive strategy.

That "usually" has some large assumptions behind it. Consider horses. They have a very physically competitive breeding strategy and a very, very large genitalia. The reason is their nomadic nature. Newborn horses have to stand and walk to keep up with the herd within minutes. An isolated, weak horse has almost no life expectancy.

So I'll go along with a nomadic lifestyle for the Dire Wolf. The lack of a den would imply fewer, more developed young and larger young require a larger vagina which requires a larger penis. Correlations would be a larger pelvis and longer gestation.
 
Interesting info on the wide range of sizes. I'm wondering if it's an age-related thing, with the largest being from larger, more mature wolves ? Given, that I suspect..most of these were recovered from the tar pits, could it be that a large percentage of the individuals trapped and preserved were more younger. less experienced wolves ? Do you know if anyone has done a study of the sizes recovered, percentage-wise ?
Also..could it be we're making assumptions about Dire Wolves? Maybe we're letting our knowledge of modern wolves pack dynamics colour our conclusions regarding Dire Wolves ? Maybe Dire-wolves had a far more solitary life style ? Only associating with others during the breeding season ? Back in the last ice age there was more large prey around..dire wolves may not have needed a pack to be successful hunters ? Once the mass die-off of Mega fauna after the end of the last ice age..it was the modern-day wolves pack-hunting life style that enabled them to survive where the Dire-wolves died out ? Also..it's be interesting to know if Dire-wolves were close-enough genetically to interbreed with modern wolves and produce fertile offspring ?
 
Tiny nitpick here...

In virtually ever other species, the males have a “penis bone” or os penis.

You make it sound like almost any other species has a baculum, which isn't entirely true.

Mammals having a penile bone (in males) and a clitoral bone (in females) include various eutherians, which include:
Primates, although not in lorises, humans, spider monkeys, and woolly monkeys.
Also in Rodentia (rodents), though not in the related order Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares, etc.)
Als in Eulipotyphla (insectivores, including shrews and hedgehogs)
Also in Carnivora (including members of many well-known families, such as ursids (bears), canids (dogs), pinnipeds (walruses, seals, sea lions), procyonids (raccoons etc.), mustelids (otters, weasels, skunks and others).
The baculum is usually longer in the Canoidea than in the Feloidea, although fossas have long bacula and giant pandas have short bacula.
Also in Chiroptera (bats).

However, it is absent in humans, ungulates (hoofed mammals), elephants, monotremes (platypus, echidna), marsupials, lagomorphs, hyenas, sirenians and cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), among others.

So not virtually every other species has them. Some have them, some don't.

Apart from that, you are quite right with most points, although I'd like to point out, that big testes usually aren't linked with less but instead with more competition, as small testes produce a smaller amount of semen and are more likely to be found in animals, who keep a fixed or small number of partners, while large testicles are usually found in more promiscuous species who frequently switch partners. Although that leads to the more monogamous species to defend their partners better from the advances of other same sex members of their species, which is probably what you meant by well endowed species having less physical confrontation, still, less confrontation means more competition, since there are many males aiming for the same females.

Apart from this, yeah, they seem to have been well hung, more so than modern wolves, but another important point is the relation between their genital size to their body size. Proportions are important. If they were overall larger than regular wolves, the bigger genitals might make sense and would be in relation to their body size quite average. If they were almost the same size their junk would be way more impressive. Now, while they are known to be the biggest known canines to have ever existed, their shape and proportions were thought to be similar to the two species of modern North American wolves: the Yukon wolf and the Northwestern wolf. With that in mind one can be sure that they were way better endowed than regular wolves, even proportionally, so yeah, they would have packed even more impressive junk. And on top of that they are thought to have lived in monogamous pairs, which wouldn't require larger testicles at all, so their penis would look even more impressive in relation to them. Truely a sight missed by the canine-lovers out there.
 
Very interesting and something I had never thought about until now. Shame none exist today.
Not to mention, what color were they, thinking that since they was mostly in the plains type areas, likely tan or brindle to blend in with the tall grasses their prey were eating. Also i think they were likely short furred. Making it easier to see that big heavy swinging package.
 
Back
Top