From:
Bob C
Date: 2002-03-01 03:24:00 UTC
Subject: Bob C: Q&A--Tails and Tales
Sorry I haven't been responding to much email lately; my mom has been
very ill, which has been taking up most of my time. I have a large
number of questions to answer, many stemming from the recent Ferrets
2002 symposium in Las Vegas. I'll get to them as soon as possible.
Q: "I read in [a ferret book] that ferrets use their tails when running
backwards to find the hole in the tunnel. Can this be true? I've watched
my ferrets back up and they don't seem to be using their tails to find
their way. Is the book wrong?"
A: What! You found a ferret book containing a factual error?! But I
thought books were infallible...or maybe that was inflammable...?
Wow, this is a new one on me. I've been studying mammals and their
structure for more than a decade, and this is the first time I've heard
this idea. I had to actually look up the reference and read it for
myself to make sure the questioner wasn't pulling my leg, but sure
enough, the statement was there. It is true? Probably not--I've watched
my ferrets back down clear tubes or across floors hundreds of times and
have never seen their tails used in such a fashion. I even reviewed
several videotapes to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Usually,
when rapidly backing down the tube, about two-thirds the time the tail
is pulled along side of the body or between the legs. When frightened,
ferrets scoot backwards until they hit an obstruction, then crab-walk
sideways (while pushing backwards) until they stumble into an escape
route. The tail is usually fluffed and held up, but I suspect the idea
is to make the ferret look larger or to throw off a predator's targeting
system. Still, since ferrets do seem to use their butts to find escape
routes, I can't entirely discount the idea. If it is true, then it's a
new behavior for the books, and the author(s) should get their data
supporting the statement into print. Personally, I'd like to know how
they came up with the idea; it is supported neither by referenced facts,
nor by reported observation. It was just a statement proclaimed as
fact. I'd like to see the data so it could be tested.
Ferrets use their tails for balance and counterbalance, visual signals
to other ferrets, confounding rivals, confusing predators, insulation
against cold, and olfactory communication, to name just a few functions.
Watch a ferret when it stands on their hind legs, and you will
generally see the tail pushed against the floor, helping maintain
balance. A jumping ferret uses the tail as a counter-balance in the air
and when landing. I've noticed the tail employed in the same capacity
when a ferret is running down a narrow ledge, such as on a tree branch.
Ferrets use their tail to signal to other ferrets that they are
frightened or playful. Fluffed up, the tail increases the apparent
visual size of the ferret, making them seem larger to the competition or
to predators. The same tail, held up like a flagpole when a frightened
ferret sprints away, could confuse avian and mammalian predators
swooping or dashing after them. A fluffy tail helps keep small animals
warm in cooler weather. When a ferret drags their butt on the ground
after pooping, it is marking the ground with anal sac secretions; these
drag onto the tail and can become airborne when the tail is fluffed,
signaling other ferrets the identity, sex and health of the owner. The
scents on the tail are also dragged behind the ferret as it wanders from
place to place, creating an invisible trail ferrets can easily follow
with their magnificent noses (they also dribble urine for the same
purpose, but that's another post). These functions (and others) are
universal among weasels and quite common among mammals in general.
As for the use of the tail in the detection of escape routes? I told
you I doubted it was true, remember? The reason is animals that lead
subterranean lives generally have short or diminished tails. Gophers,
moles, rabbits, many ground squirrels, shrews, marmots (aka groundhogs)
mountain beavers, hamsters, guinea pigs, prairie dogs, voles, and
hundreds of other mammals that spend most, if not all, of their lives
underground lack significant tails. All these animals have to run
backwards down their tunnels to escape predators from time to time, and
if the tail had significant application to detect escape routes, then it
would have been maintained in some of them. The fact that the tail is
lost in the vast majority of subterranean mammals is strong evidence
that the hypothesis is faulty. Mother nature simply does not
substantiate the idea, which is probably why the statement was made
without supporting citations or data.
I have to admit the preceding paragraphs sound a bit harsh. They are
not meant to be; they are nothing more than what is asked of ANY
scientific finding, by any scientist, from any scientist. However, it
WAS meant to call attention to the all-to-common tendency to place
hypothetical statements into ferret books as if they were fact.
Biological facts are actually extremely hard to come by. Ideas like
ferrets using their tails to find escape routes, ferrets being
domesticated by the Egyptians, ferrets spreading rabies, or ferrets
chewing off children's faces all share the same basic characteristics.
They lack scientifically collected data and referenced support, they
have not been crafted from careful observation, they have not been
retested demonstrating reliable repeatability, they did not survive
falsification, and they have taken on all the characteristics of urban
legend--that is, belief without support in the face of contradictory
data. In short, they are opinions, sometimes mediocre, sometimes pretty
good, always disguised as facts. Nevertheless, without meeting minimum
standards of evidence, they are worthless. Don't misunderstand; I am
not saying it is wrong to offer ideas explaining things. However, there
is a world of difference saying, "I have a sneaking suspicion (or
believe or hypothesize or speculate or think) that ferrets use their
tails to find escape routes in tunnels," and "Ferrets use their tails to
find escape routes in tunnels." The former is factually proper in that
it makes the reader understand they are appraising something in doubt or
unproved; the later presents an idea as a fact. The later version is at
best misinformation, and at worst, it is unethical and factual
misrepresentation.
Some people may object to my characterization, suggesting the comment
was unintentional, or that I might be making too much of a single
mistake. Perhaps both statements are correct from a certain point of
view. If the book had been reviewed prior to publication, I am sure a
good technical editor would have flagged the statement and asked for
some sort of weasel word to qualify it, or better, asked that a citation
or data to support the idea be offered. That is the value of peer
review. Unfortunately, very few ferret books have been reviewed, so
most have multiple factual errors of this type. Besides the
misinformation (which is bad enough), there are two problems caused by
factual errors, and are the ultimate reason behind my comments.
First, misinformation of any kind, either purposeful or unintentional,
is harmful. You never know the impact a single statement can make. For
example, Pliny the Elder and the Greek historian Strabo both mentioned
ferrets roughly around the beginning of the modern era (roughly 50 BC to
AD 70). Subsumed into a single statement, the two said that on a
specific island, rabbits had grown to epidemic proportions, and the
Emperor was asked for soldiers to remove them. They also said ferrets
from Libya were favored to bolt rabbits from their burrows so they could
be caught by people outside the warrens. Since that time, people have
interpreted these statements to mean, 1) ferrets were domesticated in
Africa, Libya or Egypt, 2) the Emperor sent ferrets to help the
islanders in need, 3) Roman soldiers owned ferrets. All three of those
conclusions are faulty; they lack historical, zooarchaeological and
zoological evidence to support them. They are commonly held beliefs,
but that doesn't detract from them being unsupported myths. Statements
made in modern ferret books have had similar effects. One of the worst
examples is the myth that the Egyptians first domesticated ferrets, a
debunked hypothesis without historic, archaeological, zoological,
paleontological, biogeographical, or genetic merit. It is a modern
myth, an urban legend, and it can have some serious repercussions.
Which brings us to the second problem, more pressing that just a desire
to keep the facts straight. That second problem is the poor public
image ferrets have. Let's face it; ferrets would be free to live
anywhere if people didn't succumb to unfounded fears and unsupported
myths. To counter this fear-based mythology, we have to remain
dedicated in our efforts to dispel myths with facts. How accurate do we
appear when our ferret books are full of factual errors, or opinions
disguised as facts? Those who resort to dogmatic diatribe rather than
scientific methodology use each one of our mistakes as ammunition
against us. Each time we petition for ferret freedom, someone not half
as smart as a dead clam can point to our ferret books and freedom
literature and say, "See? They got the population of ferrets, the time
and region of domestication, and even parts of the natural history
wrong!! What makes you think anything else they have to say is
correct?" Gosh, they already do it, and do it effectively.
Science progresses through falsification, which in a way means accepted
ideas haven't yet been disproved. In a way, that means all current
thought is based upon someone showing someone else was wrong. It has
happened to the best minds in the world, including Newton, Darwin,
Einstein, and more. I cannot tell you how many times it has happened to
me, and I KNOW many of my best current ideas will be disproved in the
future. There is NO shame in presenting an idea, even one that is later
shown false, but only dishonor can stem from disguising an opinion as a
fact. I can only hope the next generation of ferret book authors can
grasp this basic concept. We MUST do better, if not for ourselves, then
at least for our ferrets. My favorite quote comes from the Bible.
Paraphrased into modern English, it says, "Test everything. Discard the
bad, and keep what is good." Good advice for us all. (Extra credit
goes to anyone who can tell me chapter and verse. Yes, I know it, but
figuring out who else knows is sort of fun).
Bob C