Memoirs of a zoologist and a puma 5 letters. Bernard eyvelmans - in the footsteps of mysterious animals - read the book for free. Reproduction and offspring

Scan, OCR: ???, SpellCheck: Miger, 2007
Original: Bernard Heuvelman, Sur la piste des betes ignorees, 1955
Translation: I. Alcheev, N. Nepomniachtchi, P. Trannua
annotation
The work of the famous Belgian zoologist Bernard Euvelmans is completely unfamiliar to the domestic reader. Meanwhile, he has written more than a dozen fascinating books about giant sea serpents and krakens, dinosaurs and " Bigfoot". The scientist traveled a lot, in his dossier there are tens of thousands of testimonies of unprecedented animals from all continents. The book is intended for everyone who is not indifferent to the search for the unknown, the secrets of nature.
Bernard Euvelmans
IN THE TRAKE OF MYSTERIOUS Beasts
Translation from French. First edition: "Around the World", 1994 (under the title "Traces of Unseen Beasts"), second ed. - "Veche", 2000 (under the heading "Secrets of mysterious animals").
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

From the editors of the magazine "Around the World"
Books are like people - they grow old, but do not lose their attractiveness and become even wiser and more interesting interlocutors. Books by Bernard Euvelmans - in particular. The name of this amazing person known in our country to a few, only those who are passionate about the search for hitherto unknown forms of life, those who dream of adventure and discovery. "Traces of unseen beasts" - main book this famous Belgian cryptozoologist, for which he collected materials for many years (in total, Euvelmans wrote about a dozen fascinating books). It is dedicated to the mysteries of zoology that have not yet been unraveled, the search and discovery of new species of living beings.
Euvelmans is rightly called the "father of cryptozoology", for the first time among zoologists! - loudly declaring that on our planet there are corners with hitherto unknown forms of life. The scientist today has many followers. These are students from his school - the school of studying the unknown.
The magazine has written many times over the course of its more than 130-year history about the search for and discoveries of mysterious animals. One can recall at least the diaries of the geologist V. Tverdokhlebov, published in the early 50s, when no one knew about cryptozoology - about meetings with mysterious creature, resembling a plesiosaur, in the lakes of Yakutia; notes of Soviet specialists who met in West Africa with a huge hairy crocodile; the search by O. Kuvaev and V. Orlov for a giant prehistoric arctodus bear in Chukotka, which was reflected in the pages of the magazine; stories about sea ​​snake, which was seen by fishermen and naval sailors in various parts of the oceans; observation of Bigfoot» domestic cryptozoologists, followers of the indefatigable Belgian ... And, finally, the magazine published excerpts from this book by Euvelmans, written quite a long time ago, but which has not lost its authenticity today. Today, for example, the scientist's hypothesis about the existence in Africa of the so-called "third anthropoid" - a large great ape living in the jungle along with chimpanzees and gorillas. Or that West Africa is home to dwarf forest elephants, whose adults are no larger than six-month-old elephants. Expeditions returning from the far corners of the planet bring information about new species of the animal world, still unknown to science.
By publishing this book, the editors of the Vokrug Sveta magazine really want to show that the study of our planet is not over, the "blank spots" are still waiting for their cryptozoological researchers, who, by the way, often come to the editorial office with a variety of ideas and projects about new exciting expeditions to different parts of our country, to deserts and jungles, mountains and the depths of the ocean ... In a word, the work of Euvelmans lives on!
THIRTY YEARS LATER
Preface to the second edition

Is everything so hopeless?
One of the most exciting mysteries of the enlightened 20th century is the mysterious animals that supposedly exist in reality. From time to time, here and there they meet a Bigfoot, a plesiosaur head emerges from the water of the Scottish Loch Ness, a “little people”, well known to connoisseurs of native folklore, roams the jungles of Indonesia ... Messages of this kind could be treated as a harmless invention , do not arise on their basis cryptozoology - a discipline that considers mythical and extinct animals as a reality of our days. Adherents consider it a science, but "real" zoologists, as a rule, simply do not take it seriously - and not without reason. But from a purely scientific standpoint, is there really nothing in cryptozoology other than charlatanism, which is common for modern fashionable modern sciences?

A few zoological facts
... In 1819, the great Cuvier declared that the vertebrate fauna had been fully studied, and suggested that further reports about their new species be considered a deliberate fake. Since then, the forest elephant, the okapi, the spindle-shaped antelope, the mountain gorilla have been discovered ... And a dozen more species, including the famous lobe-finned fish, in time immemorial gave rise to terrestrial vertebrates. Only paleontological data testified to it - and it turned out that one of the species of lobe-finned fish is still alive!
...Relatively recently, krakens were considered a legend. Now these giant cephalopods catch, dissect and study.
... Steller's cow, manat, dugong. The last two species are rare, the first is extinct or almost extinct. Many scientists believe that it was they who served as the prototype for sirens and mermaids, although they do not sing, but rather unpleasantly scream. It turns out that the myth is not quite a myth? ..

Several cryptozoological artifacts
... In 1961, the zoologist Robert Le Serrec, sailing on a boat in the vicinity of the Australian Great barrier reef, photographed a formidable shadow that suddenly emerged from the depths to the very surface of the water. It's hard to tell what it is from the photo. Le Serrec himself is sure that he caught a placoderm in the lens - a giant armored fish, which, according to official data, became extinct back in the Devonian (!), But he cannot prove it.
... In the summer of 1989, being in national park Kerinchi-Seb-lat in Sumatra, British journalist Deborah Martin first heard from local residents about orangpendeks - "little people" who seem to live in the jungle. In September of the same year, she herself saw their footprints, very similar to human ones. Since then, Deborah has been persistently looking for orangpendeks, for which she equipped a long-term expedition. Alas, the mysterious forest people are clearly not eager to meet with the press: according to the assurances of an enthusiastic journalist, only occasionally in the thickets of vines do creatures flash in front of her and her colleagues, corresponding to the verbal portrait of a typical orangpendek - stocky, a little over a meter, completely covered with black-brown wool , with maned heads. So far it has not been possible not only to establish their species affiliation, but even to photograph them. There is only a portrait of one of them, personally executed by Deborah from nature.
... In 1994, the American biologist David Oren, a graduate of Harvard, equipped an expedition to the Amazon in order to search for mapinguari - a South American folklore monster. He knew about him from the words of local Indians. According to their description, Mapinguari is a large-sized one-eyed beast covered with red hair, walks on two legs, its mouth hangs down to the very belly. The monster is very aggressive and bites off the heads of its victims, and escaping from the chase, it releases streams of fetid gases at the pursuers (from where - not specified).
Here is one of the testimonies. A rubber picker was hunting in the forest. Suddenly he heard a growl behind him, turned around - and was stunned: a huge creature of a strange appearance stood on its hind legs and roared at the top of its voice. The native did not lose his head and fired, the animal fell ... and then the air was filled with such a stench that the hunter rushed to his heels. For several hours he wandered through the forest, shuddering with disgust, then nevertheless returned to the carcass and cut off the front paw. But the trophy was so "fragrant" that it had to be thrown into the forest.
According to the description, Oren concluded that Mapinguari are nothing more than giant sloths that became extinct several thousand years ago (!). The scientist went into the jungle, accompanied by a dozen Indians - they were all armed with rifles that fired ampoules of sleeping pills and gas masks. For more than a month, a small detachment wandered through the selva. Not a single creature, even remotely corresponding to the verbal portrait, could be found. The material collected by the expedition included only a bunch of red wool and about 9 kg of litter of unknown origin.
... In 1966, in one of the caves of Australia, they found the corpse of a marsupial wolf, suspiciously "new" in appearance and showing signs of active decomposition. The find was immediately subjected to radiocarbon analysis. The result saddened: the age of the remains is several thousand years.
... In 1986, Richard Greenwell, an American zoologist, chairman of the International Society of Cryptozoology, while in Mexico, heard many stories about ontsa - a legendary wild cat resembling a cheetah. According to legend, one of the individuals of this “species” was once tamed by the Aztec emperor Montezuma himself. Greenwell agreed with the Indian hunters: if one of them was lucky enough to catch a cat alive, or at least shoot him, let him be informed. A few months later, Greenwell received a telegram: they shot him, the corpse was frozen, come. Arriving at the place scientist first In fact, he himself examined the prey as a zoologist. In front of him lay a slender, graceful female, quite feline in appearance, but with very long, by no means cat-like legs. Most of all, she looked like a cougar, but, in addition to the long legs mentioned, she differed from her in the presence of horizontal stripes on her paws and a different shape of the skull. For the reliability of the diagnosis, we decided to subject the specimen to modern biochemical tests. It turned out, after all, a cougar, although atypical.
... In 1968, a certain Hansen, a citizen of the United States, demonstrated to the public a Bigfoot frozen into the ice, smuggled from Vietnam to him in Minnesota. The enthusiasm of onlookers could not have been taken seriously if the authoritative French zoologist Bernard Euvelmans had not personally examined the find. He found that the exhibit was most likely genuine and therefore deserves attention, and an external examination allowed him, as an experienced morphologist, to assume that in front of him was a representative of an unknown species of man - Euvelmans even, as they say, on the spot, came up with a name for him: Homo pongoides. Soon, the FBI became interested in Hansen's exhibit; almost immediately both - the exhibit and Hansen himself - disappeared without a trace ...
If we add to the above well-known information about Nessie, meetings with Bigfoot, etc., one might get the impression that cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific show like telekinesis: only amateurs believe in it, and experiments - or is it better to say "tricks"? - succeed only when no one is watching. Indeed, apart from krakens, there are no documented cryptozoological successes. Lots of colorful and mysterious stories, even more romance of wandering in the jungle - but not a single description of a new species of animal that satisfies the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and what's there - not a single collectible item or even a photograph, the image on which can be accurately identified. But…
But it was not by chance that we mentioned what kind of person bears the honorary title of “grandfather of cryptozoology”. It's one thing - a British journalist who does not have vocational training, and quite another - a venerable zoologist, in whose professionalism and conscientiousness there is no doubt. And Euvelmans is by no means the only professional biologist among cryptozoologists. Philip Tobias from South Africa, one of the largest paleoanthropologists in the world, worked enthusiastically in the directorate of the Cryptozoological Society until his retirement. What about research organizers? Yes, of course, stories and fables are told by natives who did not study at universities, but scientists equip expeditions! The result of these expeditions is invariably zero or almost zero - this seems to prove that real science refutes cryptozoological conjectures as not supported by facts. Then why are all new expeditions equipped, why are cryptozoological societies organized in different countries, why is the number of enthusiasts growing? True, many of them give the impression of incurable romantics, longing for miracles.
But what if the romantic veil only tightly envelops the overall picture, distorting it true meaning even for those who drew it? Let's try to forget for a while about who is looking for mysterious animals, and let's talk about something else: who will cryptozoologists find - if they find?

Ten questions and one more
The natural distrust of cryptozoology of an average biologist with a classical education can be formulated in the form of the following questions.
1. Can, in principle, exist animals that are studied by cryptozoology (hereinafter, for brevity, we will call them cryptozoans)?
2. If yes, why are they so hard to find?
3. Why are they met only by representatives of backward tribes and nationalities?
4. Why are cryptozoans found mainly in tropical forests?
5. Why does modern biospheric monitoring equipment not register any traces of cryptozoans?
6. Why are cryptozoologists looking for cryptozoans?
7. Do I need to look for them at all? Is information about them of real value?
8. Is it possible to rely on the data of subtle analyzes in determining the species identity of a candidate for cryptozoa?
9. Is it necessary to protect cryptozoans, to list them in the Red Book?
10. Finally, the final question: is there any scientific character in cryptozoology and what does it consist of, if any?
And since the noise around cryptozoology is raised exclusively by the press, let's add the eleventh question: if the reality of cryptozoans is irrefutably proven, can this be considered a sensation?

Trusting expertise, check yourself
I think it's superfluous to follow the order of the questions. It is more convenient to start with the easiest and most particular, namely the eighth. It arises because the Australian zoologist (professional!) Arnold M. Douglas discredited the conclusion about the age of the said corpse of the marsupial wolf. According to the scientist, groundwater penetrated into the remains, which confused the instruments. Yes, and it’s strange: a thousand-year-old carcass shows signs of decomposition now?
There is an obvious misunderstanding here, unfortunate, but in no way detracts from the merits of radiocarbon analysis as a method. The point is different: is it reasonable in difficult cases to refer to modern subtle (molecular) methods as the last resort? Recall: the zoologist Greenwell stated a number of signs that distinguish the alleged ontsu from the cougar - quite respectful from the point of view of taxonomy - but immediately denied them, having received a biochemical verdict in his hands.
Meanwhile, from the point of view of classical, official, generally recognized zoology, this is illegal. It was not for nothing that the unforgettable Hercule Poirot said: “I myself do not rely too much on all kinds of expertise - I am usually interested in psychology, not cigarette ashes.” We, in this case, are interested in zoology, and not in spectroscopy, spectrometry, etc. Morphological features for modern taxonomy are as weighty as for the antediluvian, Linnean. It is morphological differences that are zoological, since they directly reflect the ecological uniqueness of each species.
Any biologist still on the university bench learns one axiom, which would be worth devoting a whole treatise to, but for lack of space we confine ourselves to its formulation: if a dachshund (species, genus, family, order, etc.) stands out, it means that he is doing something in nature. What exactly does it do? This can be answered by studying the ecological niche of the taxon: where, how and how its representatives live. And what is primarily reflected in the ecological adaptations of, say, the same ontsa? Of course, on her morphological features, that is, on the outside and internal structure. As for biochemical and other “test-tube” traits, “grinding in” to an ecological niche does not necessarily require changing them. Walk for evidence. At one time, genosystematics became very fashionable - the classification of animals based on a genetic test. At first, as usual, they excitedly shouted that this was a revolution in systematics, that traditional methods of classification could be safely discarded, and so on. And on closer examination, it turned out that sometimes some two species of the same genus show differences of the same degree as two types (!).
There were other embarrassments - apparently, they are generally inevitable when trying to absolutize the subtle methods of species diagnostics. This means that a competent diagnosis of the species affiliation of the Puma-Ontsa or any other cryptozoa should be based on a complex of morphological, ecological and, let's say, its molecular features. If the latter raise doubts, it is better to resolve them in favor of morphology and ecology.
Why are we talking about this in such detail? Yes, because it directly follows from here, for example, that Greenwell was clearly in a hurry to admit his defeat. Still, he was more likely to deal with an unknown cat than with a “defective” cougar. If the length of the legs is an insignificant sign, then the stripes on the paws and the shape of the skull should not be brushed aside - for in the ecological sense they undoubtedly mean something. The stripes on the paws can serve to identify the male of the female of his species (and vice versa) - it is known that nature does not neglect any opportunity to strengthen the barrier of reproductive isolation, especially when two species are close relatives among themselves. And it is not difficult to associate the shape of the skull with the source of food, and with the method of hunting, even with the dynamics of daily activity!
In a word, the negative result of the molecular test cannot be considered a convincing refutation of the reality of the Cryptozoic as a species. What is allowed? Now it's time to discuss the first question:

Do they exist?
Or rather, can they exist in principle - from the point of view of a "normal" zoologist?
Recall who the motley company of cryptozoans consists of: firstly, from mythological animals; secondly, from long or recently extinct. The reality of fairy-tale monsters is theoretically not excluded, but only in one sense: since the fantasy of people, including myth-makers, by definition does not go beyond the total human experience, dragons, sirens and others, of course, did not arise from scratch. They must certainly have prototypes in nature. The dragon seemed to be a completely fictional creature until paleontologists discovered prehistoric flying pangolins; sirens were somehow identified with Steller's cows, and so on. In a word, albeit with a stretch, but it is possible to pick up the original from which this or that fairy-tale beast is copied.
The question of extinct animals is more difficult. At least it is known for sure that they existed, and it is considered proven that they have now disappeared. But is it conceivable to take any of these proofs seriously? Example: September 7, 1936 at the Hobart Zoo (Tasmania) died the elderly Benjamin, the last alleged representative of marsupial wolves. Does it follow from this that there is not a single pair of individuals of this species left on the planet capable of producing offspring?
Not only from here, but, perhaps, it cannot follow from anything at all. One entomologist happened to map breeding sites for mosquitoes - animals that undoubtedly exist and are by no means rare. So, even in the rice fields of Karakalpakstan that are open to the eye, complete thoroughness cannot be guaranteed. Well, where is the guarantee that all conceivable habitats have been combed in search of marsupial wolves? Let's not forget, these are impenetrable thickets, not rice fields!
By the way, special attention deserves a question about thickets. For some reason, cryptozoans are suspiciously concentrated in tropical forests. What if, in fact, their distribution according to natural areas planets more evenly? Then they could be looked for in any uninhabited or almost uninhabited places. But ... most of these places are even less suitable for observation than the jungle. Where to start the search for cryptozoa in the ice of the Arctic and Antarctic, in impregnable mountains, in the depths of the ocean? Apparently, from mapping trails, burrows, nests, rookeries, etc. How to conduct it? Obviously, personally comb the entire area. That's all - the solution of the problem is broken by the impossibility of even its preliminary part! But let's say an expedition looking for a "snowman" in the Caucasus has reached a place where no reasonable man has yet set foot. What will happen? While the latter, cursing everything in the world, will drive another wedge into the rock, the first will notice it and, being local resident, perfectly adapted to imperceptible (!) movement in mountains familiar from birth, will hide so skillfully that none of the researchers will even notice that someone unknown was and disappeared!
Remains a tropical forest. An ideal place where people live, albeit uncivilized, but able to give primary information - where to look and whom. How do they know this? Why do Mapinguari easily appear in front of aboriginal hunters? Yes, because the latter, like the former, have their own in the tropical forest! They know it like the back of their hand and know how to move along it no worse than the real cryptozoa!
And now the main thing: the rainforest is a very ancient community that has changed little over the past hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, it is natural that there are indeed more supposedly extinct species there than in other natural areas.
So, if you approach the matter scientifically, there is nothing incredible either in the very fact that creatures that seem to have disappeared from the face of the Earth still live somewhere for a long time, or in the fact that “somewhere” almost always means “in tropical jungle”, nor in the fact that it is much more difficult for a civilized person - a scientist, for example - to meet them than for a native. That is, the answers to questions from the third to the fifth of our list are quite materialistic. It is also understandable why the equipment of biospheric monitoring does not register traces of the life activity of cryptozoans. After all, it works rather “roughly”, and in addition, its use requires knowing exactly who we are looking for and what signs of his presence we expect. And if you do not know in advance how to interpret what the instruments give out, it is easy to overlook the obvious.

Why are they hiding? And from whom? From U.S?
And the cryptozoa masterfully hide. Although we silently agreed to speak of them as of reality, we do not forget for a second that reality is still illusory. Almost no one was found! All the above arguments only prove that the search is not hopeless in principle, but practice shows that even the natives are extremely rarely lucky!
There are two conceivable reasons: a) the number of cryptozoans is vanishingly small; b) they, we repeat, skillfully hide. So why? So that the hunters do not exterminate the survivors? What amazing wisdom!
And yet no.
First of all, let's look at the causes of extinction certain types. Putting the blame on civilization is as easy as it is ridiculous. Man unwittingly displaces or deliberately exterminates all those who compete with him as a species, who fight with him for existence. But some obediently die out, while others - say, rats, cockroaches, mosquitoes, city pigeons - do not yield to displacement. It turns out that man is not such an important factor in the extinction of animals. What, figuratively speaking, throws them off the ark of evolution?

Evolution
Marsupial wolves, Steller's cows, saber-toothed tigers and others have disappeared or almost disappeared because they played their part. Of course, a person is their competitor, but a secondary one. The main ones should be looked for where they lived: marsupial wolf- in the jungles of Tasmania, Steller's cow - in the sea, etc. It is those who shared shelter with them, survived them.
In other words, cryptozoans are what evolution has abandoned. And it doesn’t matter at all whether they died out 10,000 years ago or will die out in 10,000 years: in both cases they are not residents on Earth. They are the dead ends of evolution, and in the future they cannot serve as material for it, and therefore they turned out to be repressed.
And the cryptozoans hide not so much from people, but from those who kicked them, cryptozoans, from the holiday of life, from their neighbors in the biocenosis, guided by no means by reason, which they do not have and never had, but by the most ancient instinct of self-preservation: only he helps they somehow survive the last days.
And from here you can see the true value of cryptozoology. We did not want to consider it a pseudoscience in advance and tried to understand it. What led us to known to science facts combined with logic, the tenth question - is there any scientific nature in cryptozoology - allows you to answer in the affirmative. But this scientific nature is "buried" in a somewhat unexpected place.

Why do we need them?
Let's repeat: what is cryptozoa as an object scientific research? They are the species abandoned by evolution, its hopeless dead ends. This means that the usefulness of cryptozoology as a discipline that studies them lies in the knowledge of suboptimal physiology, morphology, ecology and biochemistry, in the knowledge of how an animal of a given group (genus, family, order, etc.) should not and should not be arranged. A further exit into biomechanics and bionics is obvious: the study of cryptozoans from their positions will help to understand how unsuccessful living machines are arranged. All this is unique information, which modern biology does not have, and only cryptozoological research is able to give it!
A pedantic scientific approach leads to this conclusion.

Power and elegance, composure and phenomenal jumping ability - all this is a cougar, one of the most impressive cats on the planet (4th place after a lion, a jaguar and a tiger). In America, larger than the cougar, also called the cougar or mountain lion, only the jaguar.

Description of the cougar

Puma concolor - this is the name of the species in Latin, where the second part is translated as "one-color", and this statement is true if we regard the color in terms of the absence of a pattern. On the other hand, the beast does not look entirely monochrome: top part contrasts with the light belly, and clearly stand out on the muzzle white zone chin and mouth.

Appearance

An adult male is larger than the female by about a third and weighs 60–80 kg with a length of 1–1.8 meters.. Individual specimens gain 100–105 kg. The height of the cougar is 0.6–0.9 m, and the muscular, evenly pubescent tail is 0.6–0.75 m. The cougar has an elongated and flexible body, crowned with a proportional head with rounded ears. The cougar has a very attentive look and beautiful eyes outlined in black. The color of the iris varies from hazel and light gray to green.

The hind feet are broad (with 4 fingers) more massive than the front, with 5 fingers each. The fingers are armed with curved and sharp claws that retract like all cats. Retractable claws are needed to capture and hold the victim, as well as for climbing trunks. The coat of the mountain lion is short, coarse, but thick, reminiscent of the coloring of its main prey - deer. In adults, the underside of the body is much lighter than the top.

It is interesting! The predominant shades are red, gray-brown, sandy and tan. White markings are visible on the neck, chest and belly.

The cubs are colored differently: their dense fur is dotted with dark, almost black spots, there are stripes on the fore and hind limbs, and rings on the tail. The climate also affects the coloring of cougars. Those who live in tropical regions have a reddish tinge, while those in northern regions tend to show gray tones more often.

Puma subspecies

Until 1999, biologists worked with the old classification of cougars, based on their morphological characteristics, and identified almost 30 subspecies. Modern classification(based on genetic research) simplified the calculation, reducing the entire variety of cougars to only 6 subspecies included in the same number of phylogeographic groups.

Simply put, predators differ both in their genomes and in binding to a specific territory:

• Puma concolor costaricensis - Central America;
• Puma concolor couguar - North America;
• Puma concolor cabrerae central part South America;
• Puma concolor capricornensis - eastern South America;
• Puma concolor puma southern part South America;
• Puma concolor concolor Northern part South America.

It is interesting! The rarest subspecies is Puma concolor coryi, a Florida cougar that lives in the forests / swamps of South Florida.

The highest concentration was noted in the Big Cypress National Preserve (USA). In 2011, a little more than 160 individuals lived here, which is why the subspecies was listed in the IUCN Red List with the status of "critically endangered" (in critical condition). The disappearance of the Florida cougar, according to biologists, is to blame for the man who drained the swamps and hunted her because of sporting interest. Inbreeding also contributed to extinction, when closely related animals mated (due to a small population).

Lifestyle, character

Cougars are principled loners who converge only during the mating season and then for no more than a week. Females with kittens also keep together. Adult males are not friendly: this is characteristic only of young cougars, recently torn off from their mother's hem. The density of the population is affected by the presence of game: a single cougar can host on 85 km², and more than a dozen predators on half the area.

As a rule, the hunting plot of the female occupies from 26 to 350 km², adjacent to the site of the male. The sector where the male hunts is larger (140–760 km²) and never intersects with the rival's territory. The marking of the lines is done with the help of urine / feces and scratches on the trees. Puma changes location within the site depending on the time of year. Mountain lions are perfectly adapted to life on rough terrain: they are excellent jumpers (the best of all cats) both in length and in height.

Puma records:

• long jump - 7.5 m;
• high jump - 4.5 m;
• jump from a height of 18 m (as from the roof of a five-story building).

It is interesting! Cougar accelerates to 50 km / h, but quickly runs out of steam, but easily overcomes mountain slopes, climbs rocks and trees great. Cougars running from dogs in the southwestern deserts of the United States have even climbed giant cacti. The beast also swims well, but does not show much interest in this sport.

Puma hunts at dusk, preferring to knock down the victim with one powerful jump, and during the day the predator sleeps in the den, basks in the sun or licks itself like all cats. For a long time there were stories about the chilling howl emitted by the cougar, but everything turned out to be fiction. The loudest screams occur during the rutting period, and the rest of the time the beast is limited to growling, rumbling, hissing, snorting and the usual cat "meow".

Lifespan

AT wild nature cougar lives to be 18-20 years old if it doesn't hit the front sight hunting rifle or into the clutches of a larger animal.

Range, habitats

This is the only wild cat in America, occupying the longest area of ​​​​the continent.. A few centuries earlier, the cougar could be found on a vast territory from the south of Patagonia (Argentina) to Canada and Alaska. Nowadays, the range has narrowed noticeably, and now cougars (if we talk about the USA and Canada) are found only in Florida, as well as in less populated western regions. True, the zone of their vital interests is still South America as a whole.

Zoologists have noticed that the cougar's range practically repeats the distribution range of wild deer, its main commercial object. It is no coincidence that the predator is called a mountain lion - he likes to settle in alpine forests (up to 4700 m above sea level), but does not avoid plains either. The main thing is that deer and other fodder game are found in abundance in the chosen area.

Cougars live in different landscapes such as:

• rainforests;
• coniferous forests;
• pampas;
• grassy plains;
• swampy lowlands.

True, the small-sized cougars of South America are afraid to appear on the swampy lowlands where jaguars hunt.

Puma food

The beast goes hunting when it gets dark and usually lays in ambush in order to jump sharply on gaping living creatures. An open confrontation with a bull or an elk is given to the cougar with difficulty, so she uses the surprise factor, fixing it with an accurate jump on the back of the victim. Once on top, the cougar, due to its weight, twists its neck or (like other cats) bites its teeth into the throat and strangles. The diet of the cougar consists mainly of ungulate mammals, but sometimes it diversifies it with rodents and other animals. The cougar has also been seen in cannibalism.

The mountain lion menu looks something like this:

• deer (white-tailed, black-tailed, pampas, caribou and wapiti);
• moose, bulls and bighorn sheep;
• porcupines, sloths and opossums;
• rabbits, squirrels and mice;
• beavers, muskrats and agoutis;
• skunks, armadillos and raccoons;
• monkeys, bobcats and coyotes.

Puma does not refuse birds, fish, insects and snails. At the same time, she is not afraid to attack baribals, alligators and adult grizzlies. Unlike leopards and tigers, for the cougar there is no difference between domestic and wild animals: at every opportunity, he cuts livestock / birds, without sparing cats and dogs.

It is interesting! For a year, one puma eats from 860 to 1300 kg of meat, which is equal to total weight about fifty ungulates. She often and far drags the half-eaten carcass to hide (covered with brushwood, foliage or snow) and return to it later.

The cougar has a bad habit of killing game with a margin, that is, in a volume that far exceeds its needs. The Indians, who knew about this, watched the movements of the predator and took away the carcasses buried by him, often completely intact.

Reproduction and offspring

It is believed that mountain lions do not have a fixed breeding season, and only for cougars living in northern latitudes, there are certain limits - this is the period from December to March. Females are set to mate for about 9 days. About what cougars are in active search partner, the heart-rending cries of males and their fights testify. The male copulates with all females in oestrus who wander into his territory.

The cougar bears offspring from 82 to 96 days, giving birth to up to 6 kittens, each of which weighs 0.2–0.4 kg and is 0.3 m long. After a couple of weeks, newborns begin to see clearly and look at the world blue eyes. Six months later, the heavenly color of the iris changes to amber or gray. By the age of one and a half months, the kittens, whose teeth have already erupted, switch to an adult diet, but do not refuse mother's milk. The most difficult task is facing the mother, who is forced to carry meat for her grown cubs (three times more than for herself).

By 9 months of age, dark spots begin to disappear on the coat of kittens, disappearing completely by 2 years.. Cubs do not leave their mother until about 1.5–2 years old, and then disperse in search of their territories. Leaving their mother, young cougars stay in small groups for some time and finally disperse, entering the time of puberty. In females, fertility occurs at 2.5 years, in males - six months later.

The cougar, which is also called the cougar, or the mountain lion (as well as many other names), is the largest representative of the subfamily of the so-called small cats (Felianae) and the second, after the jaguar, the cat of both Americas. Moreover, especially large cougars can far exceed the body weight of small jaguars. In length, the largest cougars surpass even the largest jaguars. The largest cougars live at the poles of their range, that is, in the north North America and in the extreme south of the South. It is believed that adult male cougars can weigh up to approximately 113 kg. According to some sources, the largest known cougar was an individual from Arizona, whose weight was 125.5 kg. In North America, including Arizona, there is a subspecies of Puma concolor couguar. Even if this super-large individual is not taken into account, then judging by the cougars from North America as a whole, there is every reason to believe that the most major representatives of this type. However, in South America, as noted above, there are giants.
The cougar is very strong and athletic, although it is inferior in strength to panther cats of the same size as it has a smaller muscle mass(especially in comparison with the jaguar) and weaker jaws relative to panthers. In athletics, only a leopard can be compared with a cougar from large cats, as well as Snow Leopard. But in jumping ability, apparently, the cougar even surpasses these cats.
Puma prey is very diverse. This gorgeous cat quite often hunts both for such small animals as hares, and for such large and strong animals as North American red deer wapiti. A puma can even get a mighty male deer of this species or a not very large elk. For a cougar this is very big booty, given that the weight of these animals can exceed the weight of a predator by about three or even four times.
Despite its strength, power and ability to get very large animals, the cougar, however, is not the top predator of North America. This niche is occupied by wolves, who, hunting in a pack, can hunt even larger animals and resist other predators, even such mighty ones as brown bears. On occasion, wolves also kill cougars. In turn, the cougar can kill a lone wolf. The top predator of South America is the jaguar. This niche passes to the cougar only in those places where its larger and stronger relative is absent.
The cougar as a whole is a rather quiet, non-confrontational animal. However, on occasion, for example, the encroachment on her cubs, the cougar is able to fight back even a grizzly bear. Smaller black bears (baribals) prefer not to mess with this cat at all.