The Cute, the Cuddly, and the Colossal

nine-banded armadillo

Contemporary psychologists have been able to figure out why human beings are drawn affectionately to certain animals.  The secret lies primarily in our emotions being easily captured by the round, big-eyed face of a baby, an instinct that has helped the human race protect its fragile offspring and thus endure.  This instinct is also revealed in our hearts' being easily tugged by paintings of big-eyed children, and by dogs bred to look more baby-faced.  That human instinct cannot explain, however, the seeming proclivity of Texans and other southerners to find armadillos cute. Those animals, with their long pointed noises and tiny eyes, have heads the very opposite of human babies.  There is a bit of a mystery here.  Behind armadillos also lies a story about how Darwin unraveled what was once called the "mystery of mysteries."  Namely, how new species evolve.

depction of
ancient armadillo (Glyptodon)

When Charles Darwin was on his groundbreaking trip on the Beagle around South America, he stopped many times to travel inland, studying the life-forms in that foreign land.  Darwin had a keen scientific eye for the similarities and dissimilarities between various species, both living and extinct.  Scientists at that time had been trying to piece together the puzzle of the fossil remains of some colossal species that no longer existed.  Darwin found the fossilized armor-plate of an extinct nine-foot cousin of today's armadillos (which in the U.S. are about one-and-a-half feet long).

Even though most of us today might be repulsed by the idea of eating an armadillo (either because of its possible taste or its cuteness), Darwin and his companions dined on a species of armadillo.  The preparation of that meal would have helped Darwin see the similarities and dissimilarities between the armor-like coverings of existing and extinct species of armadillos.  As he explained later in his autobiographical reflections:  "During the voyage of the Beagle I had been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean formation great fossil animals covered with armour like that on the existing armadillos...."

The relationships between the complex skeletons of existing and colossal extinct species (such as sloths) was challenging even to scientists.  Here is where the simpler armor of armadillos was something Darwin could take advantage of in Origin of Species, writing that a "relationship is manifest, even to the uneducated eye, in the gigantic pieces of armour like those of the [extinct] armadillo found in several parts of la Plata."

Now that Darwin and evolutionary biologists have done so much work on the background of these creatures, we are left with trying to understand ourselves:  Why are people so easily fascinated by armadillos, even finding them cute?  With their hard covering, they do not fit into the category of "soft, cute, and cuddly," which would latch in with our mammalian tactile affection.  Some of our delight in armadillos seems to come from their very oddness.  Also, when one is spotted in the wild, there can be the excitement and fun of trying to chase the small animal as it scurries in the underbrush.  We are just lucky those colossal nine- footers are no longer around!

~~~

Have you ever seen an armadillo or other peculiar-looking animal in the wild?  When?

(The Darwin quotes are, respectively, from

 The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow, © 1958.  p. 118.

and from The Origin of Species [1959] by Charles Darwin.  Chap. 10.)

(The photo of a contemporary armadillo is by Jerry Segraves.

The artwork of extinct armadillo by Pavel Riha is used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.)

Our Life from a Dog’s Life

For several years now, I have been writing biweekly articles for this website knowing full well that I have not devoted an article to one very important topic:  Namely, dogs.  That omission has not been due to any disrespect for the canine race.  Quite to the contrary, it has been because of my great appreciation for all they have given to the human race.  How can any writer do justice to those contributions in only 500 to 600 words?

If I were to write an article worthy of dogs' contributions, I would have to mention that the canine trail stretches back into prehistoric times, where it intersects with early humans, thus keeping today's evolutionary biologists speculating about different scenarios.  I might list the variety of occupations dogs have specialized in:  watchdogs, hunting assistants, bloodhounds, rescue dogs, seeing-eye dogs, visitors to the lonely in hospitals and retirement homes, and plain old house companions.  But if I made such a list, someone would know of yet another role and catch my omission.

Because the articles on this website try to touch upon matters related to reading, any dog-article would need to mention some of the countless occasions on which dog-lovers have set pen to paper.  Would I mention the modern classic by animal behaviorist Konrad Lorenz titled Man Meets Dog?  Or the noteworthy but almost forgotten essays of E. B. White?  Or would I instead mention some more popular fare adaptable into a movie, such as Marley & Me, the humorous adventures of one dog owner?  There's even a book by a Nobel Prize winner, John Steinbeck's light fare Travels with Charley.

I would also need to mention the cartoons that have apparently been inspired by dogs' instinctive love of play.  Such as the never-ending stream of talking dogs in The New Yorker's cartoons.  Or the very durable ones by James Thurber -- simple but expressive line-drawings.

With so much to give me pause, why have I now at last set pen to paper with this article?  It is because I stumbled upon what is perhaps the highest compliment ever paid to dogs (even if there is a bit of irony about this particular dog virtue).  The spiritual writer Karen Armstrong, contrasting humans to dogs, wrote:  "While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don't find some significance in our lives."

Her statement goes even deeper than the common observation that dogs do not stew over the day's events or worry about tomorrow.  (What a relief for a dog owner who returns home exhausted from a hard day!)  Armstrong's observation goes to the matter of the meaning of life, something humans very much need to search for but can never be absolutely certain about. Ironically, it is because dogs do not possess that human need that they can lightheartedly give meaning to our own lives.

~~~

Have you or your family ever had a dog?  Name something it contributed to your life.

(The Armstrong quote is from her article "Think Again: God" in Foreign Policy, Nov./Dec. 2009.)
(The photo of two dogs is by José Carlos Cortizo Pérez from Fuenlabrada, Spain.  That of the dog with sunglasses
 is by Chiniman123. Both are used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licenses.)