Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a good pack animal for the ancient Mayans?












9












$begingroup$


In my world, the Mayan Empire expanded into the Caribbean and met the relict ground sloths of the Caribbean. In this same world, the Mayan empire saw the use of these creatures as useful domestic animals that they could bring to the mainland. With pack animals to be used as beasts of burden, the Mayans could build even more amazing structures, and form an even more powerful civilization. They may not even have been dominated by the Spanish. Sadly, there is a problem with this idea. Could the Ground Sloths have been made in to viable pack animals?






civilization domestication







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    By pack animal, you mean using them for things like driving carts, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes, and carrying things. They could also possibly being mounts for humans, though this isn't required.
    $endgroup$
    – Sengiwizard42
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan you could just dump packs on them, eg. !pack llama
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    keep in mind there are several species of horse, a giant camelid, and all the toxodontids available at the same time that would make for better candidates. although with domestication temperament and behavior rain supreme.
    $endgroup$
    – John
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Wait, Zootopia clearly shows that sloths are way too slow to be a useful pack animal. I mean, Disney would never lie to me, right?
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    yesterday
















9












$begingroup$


In my world, the Mayan Empire expanded into the Caribbean and met the relict ground sloths of the Caribbean. In this same world, the Mayan empire saw the use of these creatures as useful domestic animals that they could bring to the mainland. With pack animals to be used as beasts of burden, the Mayans could build even more amazing structures, and form an even more powerful civilization. They may not even have been dominated by the Spanish. Sadly, there is a problem with this idea. Could the Ground Sloths have been made in to viable pack animals?






civilization domestication







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    By pack animal, you mean using them for things like driving carts, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes, and carrying things. They could also possibly being mounts for humans, though this isn't required.
    $endgroup$
    – Sengiwizard42
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan you could just dump packs on them, eg. !pack llama
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    keep in mind there are several species of horse, a giant camelid, and all the toxodontids available at the same time that would make for better candidates. although with domestication temperament and behavior rain supreme.
    $endgroup$
    – John
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Wait, Zootopia clearly shows that sloths are way too slow to be a useful pack animal. I mean, Disney would never lie to me, right?
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    yesterday














9












9








9





$begingroup$


In my world, the Mayan Empire expanded into the Caribbean and met the relict ground sloths of the Caribbean. In this same world, the Mayan empire saw the use of these creatures as useful domestic animals that they could bring to the mainland. With pack animals to be used as beasts of burden, the Mayans could build even more amazing structures, and form an even more powerful civilization. They may not even have been dominated by the Spanish. Sadly, there is a problem with this idea. Could the Ground Sloths have been made in to viable pack animals?






civilization domestication







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




In my world, the Mayan Empire expanded into the Caribbean and met the relict ground sloths of the Caribbean. In this same world, the Mayan empire saw the use of these creatures as useful domestic animals that they could bring to the mainland. With pack animals to be used as beasts of burden, the Mayans could build even more amazing structures, and form an even more powerful civilization. They may not even have been dominated by the Spanish. Sadly, there is a problem with this idea. Could the Ground Sloths have been made in to viable pack animals?






civilization domestication




civilization domestication






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Chuck Ramirez

3226




3226










asked yesterday









Sengiwizard42Sengiwizard42

935




935








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    By pack animal, you mean using them for things like driving carts, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes, and carrying things. They could also possibly being mounts for humans, though this isn't required.
    $endgroup$
    – Sengiwizard42
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan you could just dump packs on them, eg. !pack llama
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    keep in mind there are several species of horse, a giant camelid, and all the toxodontids available at the same time that would make for better candidates. although with domestication temperament and behavior rain supreme.
    $endgroup$
    – John
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Wait, Zootopia clearly shows that sloths are way too slow to be a useful pack animal. I mean, Disney would never lie to me, right?
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    yesterday














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    By pack animal, you mean using them for things like driving carts, right?
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes, and carrying things. They could also possibly being mounts for humans, though this isn't required.
    $endgroup$
    – Sengiwizard42
    yesterday






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan you could just dump packs on them, eg. !pack llama
    $endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    keep in mind there are several species of horse, a giant camelid, and all the toxodontids available at the same time that would make for better candidates. although with domestication temperament and behavior rain supreme.
    $endgroup$
    – John
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Wait, Zootopia clearly shows that sloths are way too slow to be a useful pack animal. I mean, Disney would never lie to me, right?
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    yesterday








1




1




$begingroup$
By pack animal, you mean using them for things like driving carts, right?
$endgroup$
– Renan
yesterday




$begingroup$
By pack animal, you mean using them for things like driving carts, right?
$endgroup$
– Renan
yesterday




3




3




$begingroup$
Yes, and carrying things. They could also possibly being mounts for humans, though this isn't required.
$endgroup$
– Sengiwizard42
yesterday




$begingroup$
Yes, and carrying things. They could also possibly being mounts for humans, though this isn't required.
$endgroup$
– Sengiwizard42
yesterday




3




3




$begingroup$
@Renan you could just dump packs on them, eg. !pack llama
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Renan you could just dump packs on them, eg. !pack llama
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
yesterday




2




2




$begingroup$
keep in mind there are several species of horse, a giant camelid, and all the toxodontids available at the same time that would make for better candidates. although with domestication temperament and behavior rain supreme.
$endgroup$
– John
yesterday






$begingroup$
keep in mind there are several species of horse, a giant camelid, and all the toxodontids available at the same time that would make for better candidates. although with domestication temperament and behavior rain supreme.
$endgroup$
– John
yesterday






1




1




$begingroup$
Wait, Zootopia clearly shows that sloths are way too slow to be a useful pack animal. I mean, Disney would never lie to me, right?
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday




$begingroup$
Wait, Zootopia clearly shows that sloths are way too slow to be a useful pack animal. I mean, Disney would never lie to me, right?
$endgroup$
– JBH
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

Based on assessments of them being slower-paced in motion, having osteoderms, inturned claws on the front paws capable of tearing apart large branches, no incisors, and exclusively vegetarian diet in coproliths, I'd say it'd be possible, but probably no picnic to domesticate such a beast.



We cannot, of course, assess intelligence / intransigence, herd / individuated behaviour easily, so it's equally possible that they might be characterlogically unsuited to domestication; I'd guess though that if the people in question had a significant observational base of the behaviours of this mega-critter, it'd probably be do-able.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    Sloths are not very social but they are still mammals



    Most domesticated animals come from species that form packs in the wild, with cats as a notorious exception. Social species are able to live together in a confined space more easily than solitary species (try to lock two adult tigers in a barn and you'll get an idea). Moreover, their social brains allow them to "empathize" with human moods and feelings (e.g. dogs, camels, horses), and make them less likely to resist or kill their masters whenever they have a chance (google tiger accident circus to get a taste of this stuff... jaguars are worse, no circus dares to tame such beasts).



    Unfortunately, it seems sloths are not very social animals.
    This is an excerpt from a paper on social behaviour between sloth mothers and their young offspring.




    Social interactions among sloths are considered to be rare, mainly because these animals are known for their solitary habits. However, some reports represent attempts to understand to a greater extent some of the sloths' social interactions in captivity or in the wild. In this context, a study focused on indirect contact through vocalization between mother and young of Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus infuscatus (= Bradypus variegatus) (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1974). It showed that vocalization is quite intense and important to communication in the first 6 months of total infant dependence.




    However, since sloths are mammals, they do depend on mom and learn a lot of things from her. If your Mayans find a way to substitute sloth mothers and make them addicted to humans somehow, you could have some type of sloth domestication but very different from that of horses or dogs. Maybe you could look into the process of cow domestication to get some inspiration.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
      $endgroup$
      – Liam Morris
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
      $endgroup$
      – Ville Niemi
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
      $endgroup$
      – Liam Morris
      yesterday








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
      $endgroup$
      – Chuck Ramirez
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
      $endgroup$
      – Liam Morris
      yesterday





















    1












    $begingroup$

    I am going to have to suggest that no, sloths would not make good pack animals.



    I don't say this for any particular behavior reasons. As others have mentioned sloths are not particularly social, but this I think could be trained into sloth behavior if they were raised from birth by humans. We are pretty dang good at training animals.



    My concern is physiological.




    1. Sloths move slow. Really slow. While pack animals are generally not known for amazing speed, they do tend to be able to plod along at an at least human walking pace.


    2. Their limbs are adapted for hanging and grasping, not for supporting their weight. Their bones, muscles and tendons are not meant for crossing overland. If you haven't clicked the link link in #1, watch it, it basically tries to scuttle along on its stomach. Their claws also curve back toward the forearm, they may be able to bend them the other direction, not sure, but they wouldn't be suited to walking on dirt paths and dragging a cart or sled behind them.


    3. Their metabolism is really slow, they can also hibernate, or enter a topor (see the wikipedia link).



    All in all, nothing in their physiology suggests they would make a good pack animal.



    I suppose it is possible that you could selectively breed sloths to make them better pack animals...but it would take many many generations...you are essentially trying to make them... not sloths. Considering pre-colonial peoples had already domesticated llamas as pack animals it doesn't really make sense to basically completely change the physiology of a creature.



    On a cool side note the wikipedia page says a sloth can hold its breath underwater for up to 40 minutes due to its slow metabolism...which is neat.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143504%2fcould-giant-ground-sloths-have-been-a-good-pack-animal-for-the-ancient-mayans%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      Based on assessments of them being slower-paced in motion, having osteoderms, inturned claws on the front paws capable of tearing apart large branches, no incisors, and exclusively vegetarian diet in coproliths, I'd say it'd be possible, but probably no picnic to domesticate such a beast.



      We cannot, of course, assess intelligence / intransigence, herd / individuated behaviour easily, so it's equally possible that they might be characterlogically unsuited to domestication; I'd guess though that if the people in question had a significant observational base of the behaviours of this mega-critter, it'd probably be do-able.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        6












        $begingroup$

        Based on assessments of them being slower-paced in motion, having osteoderms, inturned claws on the front paws capable of tearing apart large branches, no incisors, and exclusively vegetarian diet in coproliths, I'd say it'd be possible, but probably no picnic to domesticate such a beast.



        We cannot, of course, assess intelligence / intransigence, herd / individuated behaviour easily, so it's equally possible that they might be characterlogically unsuited to domestication; I'd guess though that if the people in question had a significant observational base of the behaviours of this mega-critter, it'd probably be do-able.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Based on assessments of them being slower-paced in motion, having osteoderms, inturned claws on the front paws capable of tearing apart large branches, no incisors, and exclusively vegetarian diet in coproliths, I'd say it'd be possible, but probably no picnic to domesticate such a beast.



          We cannot, of course, assess intelligence / intransigence, herd / individuated behaviour easily, so it's equally possible that they might be characterlogically unsuited to domestication; I'd guess though that if the people in question had a significant observational base of the behaviours of this mega-critter, it'd probably be do-able.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Based on assessments of them being slower-paced in motion, having osteoderms, inturned claws on the front paws capable of tearing apart large branches, no incisors, and exclusively vegetarian diet in coproliths, I'd say it'd be possible, but probably no picnic to domesticate such a beast.



          We cannot, of course, assess intelligence / intransigence, herd / individuated behaviour easily, so it's equally possible that they might be characterlogically unsuited to domestication; I'd guess though that if the people in question had a significant observational base of the behaviours of this mega-critter, it'd probably be do-able.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          GerardFallaGerardFalla

          4,845729




          4,845729























              2












              $begingroup$

              Sloths are not very social but they are still mammals



              Most domesticated animals come from species that form packs in the wild, with cats as a notorious exception. Social species are able to live together in a confined space more easily than solitary species (try to lock two adult tigers in a barn and you'll get an idea). Moreover, their social brains allow them to "empathize" with human moods and feelings (e.g. dogs, camels, horses), and make them less likely to resist or kill their masters whenever they have a chance (google tiger accident circus to get a taste of this stuff... jaguars are worse, no circus dares to tame such beasts).



              Unfortunately, it seems sloths are not very social animals.
              This is an excerpt from a paper on social behaviour between sloth mothers and their young offspring.




              Social interactions among sloths are considered to be rare, mainly because these animals are known for their solitary habits. However, some reports represent attempts to understand to a greater extent some of the sloths' social interactions in captivity or in the wild. In this context, a study focused on indirect contact through vocalization between mother and young of Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus infuscatus (= Bradypus variegatus) (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1974). It showed that vocalization is quite intense and important to communication in the first 6 months of total infant dependence.




              However, since sloths are mammals, they do depend on mom and learn a lot of things from her. If your Mayans find a way to substitute sloth mothers and make them addicted to humans somehow, you could have some type of sloth domestication but very different from that of horses or dogs. Maybe you could look into the process of cow domestication to get some inspiration.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
                $endgroup$
                – Chuck Ramirez
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday


















              2












              $begingroup$

              Sloths are not very social but they are still mammals



              Most domesticated animals come from species that form packs in the wild, with cats as a notorious exception. Social species are able to live together in a confined space more easily than solitary species (try to lock two adult tigers in a barn and you'll get an idea). Moreover, their social brains allow them to "empathize" with human moods and feelings (e.g. dogs, camels, horses), and make them less likely to resist or kill their masters whenever they have a chance (google tiger accident circus to get a taste of this stuff... jaguars are worse, no circus dares to tame such beasts).



              Unfortunately, it seems sloths are not very social animals.
              This is an excerpt from a paper on social behaviour between sloth mothers and their young offspring.




              Social interactions among sloths are considered to be rare, mainly because these animals are known for their solitary habits. However, some reports represent attempts to understand to a greater extent some of the sloths' social interactions in captivity or in the wild. In this context, a study focused on indirect contact through vocalization between mother and young of Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus infuscatus (= Bradypus variegatus) (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1974). It showed that vocalization is quite intense and important to communication in the first 6 months of total infant dependence.




              However, since sloths are mammals, they do depend on mom and learn a lot of things from her. If your Mayans find a way to substitute sloth mothers and make them addicted to humans somehow, you could have some type of sloth domestication but very different from that of horses or dogs. Maybe you could look into the process of cow domestication to get some inspiration.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
                $endgroup$
                – Chuck Ramirez
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday
















              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              Sloths are not very social but they are still mammals



              Most domesticated animals come from species that form packs in the wild, with cats as a notorious exception. Social species are able to live together in a confined space more easily than solitary species (try to lock two adult tigers in a barn and you'll get an idea). Moreover, their social brains allow them to "empathize" with human moods and feelings (e.g. dogs, camels, horses), and make them less likely to resist or kill their masters whenever they have a chance (google tiger accident circus to get a taste of this stuff... jaguars are worse, no circus dares to tame such beasts).



              Unfortunately, it seems sloths are not very social animals.
              This is an excerpt from a paper on social behaviour between sloth mothers and their young offspring.




              Social interactions among sloths are considered to be rare, mainly because these animals are known for their solitary habits. However, some reports represent attempts to understand to a greater extent some of the sloths' social interactions in captivity or in the wild. In this context, a study focused on indirect contact through vocalization between mother and young of Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus infuscatus (= Bradypus variegatus) (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1974). It showed that vocalization is quite intense and important to communication in the first 6 months of total infant dependence.




              However, since sloths are mammals, they do depend on mom and learn a lot of things from her. If your Mayans find a way to substitute sloth mothers and make them addicted to humans somehow, you could have some type of sloth domestication but very different from that of horses or dogs. Maybe you could look into the process of cow domestication to get some inspiration.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Sloths are not very social but they are still mammals



              Most domesticated animals come from species that form packs in the wild, with cats as a notorious exception. Social species are able to live together in a confined space more easily than solitary species (try to lock two adult tigers in a barn and you'll get an idea). Moreover, their social brains allow them to "empathize" with human moods and feelings (e.g. dogs, camels, horses), and make them less likely to resist or kill their masters whenever they have a chance (google tiger accident circus to get a taste of this stuff... jaguars are worse, no circus dares to tame such beasts).



              Unfortunately, it seems sloths are not very social animals.
              This is an excerpt from a paper on social behaviour between sloth mothers and their young offspring.




              Social interactions among sloths are considered to be rare, mainly because these animals are known for their solitary habits. However, some reports represent attempts to understand to a greater extent some of the sloths' social interactions in captivity or in the wild. In this context, a study focused on indirect contact through vocalization between mother and young of Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus infuscatus (= Bradypus variegatus) (Montgomery & Sunquist, 1974). It showed that vocalization is quite intense and important to communication in the first 6 months of total infant dependence.




              However, since sloths are mammals, they do depend on mom and learn a lot of things from her. If your Mayans find a way to substitute sloth mothers and make them addicted to humans somehow, you could have some type of sloth domestication but very different from that of horses or dogs. Maybe you could look into the process of cow domestication to get some inspiration.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 11 hours ago

























              answered yesterday









              Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez

              3226




              3226












              • $begingroup$
                Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
                $endgroup$
                – Chuck Ramirez
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday




















              • $begingroup$
                Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
                $endgroup$
                – Ville Niemi
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
                $endgroup$
                – Chuck Ramirez
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
                $endgroup$
                – Liam Morris
                yesterday


















              $begingroup$
              Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
              $endgroup$
              – Liam Morris
              yesterday






              $begingroup$
              Im not sure you answered the question here, i think you have misinterpreted the phrase “pack animals”. The phrase is not referring to a pack of animals, such as a wolf pack, it is refering to load-bearing animals, such as donkeys. Essentially, its asking “would giant sloths make good beasts of burden”.
              $endgroup$
              – Liam Morris
              yesterday














              $begingroup$
              @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
              $endgroup$
              – Ville Niemi
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              @LiamMorris He is talking about the social patterns as relevant to ease of domestication. An animal that cannot be domesticated does not make a good pack animal. By contrast most animals of sufficient size that can be domesticated can be used as pack animals and bred to be better at it over generations. So he is answering the correct question, he just forgot to say it.
              $endgroup$
              – Ville Niemi
              yesterday












              $begingroup$
              @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
              $endgroup$
              – Liam Morris
              yesterday






              $begingroup$
              @VilleNiemi The way it is phrased indicates they have not fully understood the question “So on one side, based on the knowledge we have from extant species, sloths are not pack animals.” This phrase comes directly after explaining the social interactions and solitary nature of sloths. That phrase does not make sense unless they were refering to sloths not being good as a pack of animals. If they were refering to pack animals as the OP meant, then they would have talked about the physiology or biology of sloths, not how they socialise.
              $endgroup$
              – Liam Morris
              yesterday






              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
              $endgroup$
              – Chuck Ramirez
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              @LiamMorris dogs are good pack animals but poor beasts of burden, with notable exceptions. Except for cats, domesticated animals come from animals that form packs in the wild, I assumed this was common-knowledge, my fault. I´ll edit my post later. Maybe you could comment this issue directly to @Sengiwizard42?
              $endgroup$
              – Chuck Ramirez
              yesterday












              $begingroup$
              @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
              $endgroup$
              – Liam Morris
              yesterday






              $begingroup$
              @ChuckRamirez Its not the knowledge thats the problem, its the wording (or rather, the lack of words to provide clarification). It doesnt make sense without that context you added. Also, i would argue that them being solitary creatures as no effect on their physical capabilities. Even if they are not social creatures by nature, if they can carry heavy loads and be directed to move in a direction, they would make good pack animals.
              $endgroup$
              – Liam Morris
              yesterday













              1












              $begingroup$

              I am going to have to suggest that no, sloths would not make good pack animals.



              I don't say this for any particular behavior reasons. As others have mentioned sloths are not particularly social, but this I think could be trained into sloth behavior if they were raised from birth by humans. We are pretty dang good at training animals.



              My concern is physiological.




              1. Sloths move slow. Really slow. While pack animals are generally not known for amazing speed, they do tend to be able to plod along at an at least human walking pace.


              2. Their limbs are adapted for hanging and grasping, not for supporting their weight. Their bones, muscles and tendons are not meant for crossing overland. If you haven't clicked the link link in #1, watch it, it basically tries to scuttle along on its stomach. Their claws also curve back toward the forearm, they may be able to bend them the other direction, not sure, but they wouldn't be suited to walking on dirt paths and dragging a cart or sled behind them.


              3. Their metabolism is really slow, they can also hibernate, or enter a topor (see the wikipedia link).



              All in all, nothing in their physiology suggests they would make a good pack animal.



              I suppose it is possible that you could selectively breed sloths to make them better pack animals...but it would take many many generations...you are essentially trying to make them... not sloths. Considering pre-colonial peoples had already domesticated llamas as pack animals it doesn't really make sense to basically completely change the physiology of a creature.



              On a cool side note the wikipedia page says a sloth can hold its breath underwater for up to 40 minutes due to its slow metabolism...which is neat.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                I am going to have to suggest that no, sloths would not make good pack animals.



                I don't say this for any particular behavior reasons. As others have mentioned sloths are not particularly social, but this I think could be trained into sloth behavior if they were raised from birth by humans. We are pretty dang good at training animals.



                My concern is physiological.




                1. Sloths move slow. Really slow. While pack animals are generally not known for amazing speed, they do tend to be able to plod along at an at least human walking pace.


                2. Their limbs are adapted for hanging and grasping, not for supporting their weight. Their bones, muscles and tendons are not meant for crossing overland. If you haven't clicked the link link in #1, watch it, it basically tries to scuttle along on its stomach. Their claws also curve back toward the forearm, they may be able to bend them the other direction, not sure, but they wouldn't be suited to walking on dirt paths and dragging a cart or sled behind them.


                3. Their metabolism is really slow, they can also hibernate, or enter a topor (see the wikipedia link).



                All in all, nothing in their physiology suggests they would make a good pack animal.



                I suppose it is possible that you could selectively breed sloths to make them better pack animals...but it would take many many generations...you are essentially trying to make them... not sloths. Considering pre-colonial peoples had already domesticated llamas as pack animals it doesn't really make sense to basically completely change the physiology of a creature.



                On a cool side note the wikipedia page says a sloth can hold its breath underwater for up to 40 minutes due to its slow metabolism...which is neat.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  I am going to have to suggest that no, sloths would not make good pack animals.



                  I don't say this for any particular behavior reasons. As others have mentioned sloths are not particularly social, but this I think could be trained into sloth behavior if they were raised from birth by humans. We are pretty dang good at training animals.



                  My concern is physiological.




                  1. Sloths move slow. Really slow. While pack animals are generally not known for amazing speed, they do tend to be able to plod along at an at least human walking pace.


                  2. Their limbs are adapted for hanging and grasping, not for supporting their weight. Their bones, muscles and tendons are not meant for crossing overland. If you haven't clicked the link link in #1, watch it, it basically tries to scuttle along on its stomach. Their claws also curve back toward the forearm, they may be able to bend them the other direction, not sure, but they wouldn't be suited to walking on dirt paths and dragging a cart or sled behind them.


                  3. Their metabolism is really slow, they can also hibernate, or enter a topor (see the wikipedia link).



                  All in all, nothing in their physiology suggests they would make a good pack animal.



                  I suppose it is possible that you could selectively breed sloths to make them better pack animals...but it would take many many generations...you are essentially trying to make them... not sloths. Considering pre-colonial peoples had already domesticated llamas as pack animals it doesn't really make sense to basically completely change the physiology of a creature.



                  On a cool side note the wikipedia page says a sloth can hold its breath underwater for up to 40 minutes due to its slow metabolism...which is neat.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  I am going to have to suggest that no, sloths would not make good pack animals.



                  I don't say this for any particular behavior reasons. As others have mentioned sloths are not particularly social, but this I think could be trained into sloth behavior if they were raised from birth by humans. We are pretty dang good at training animals.



                  My concern is physiological.




                  1. Sloths move slow. Really slow. While pack animals are generally not known for amazing speed, they do tend to be able to plod along at an at least human walking pace.


                  2. Their limbs are adapted for hanging and grasping, not for supporting their weight. Their bones, muscles and tendons are not meant for crossing overland. If you haven't clicked the link link in #1, watch it, it basically tries to scuttle along on its stomach. Their claws also curve back toward the forearm, they may be able to bend them the other direction, not sure, but they wouldn't be suited to walking on dirt paths and dragging a cart or sled behind them.


                  3. Their metabolism is really slow, they can also hibernate, or enter a topor (see the wikipedia link).



                  All in all, nothing in their physiology suggests they would make a good pack animal.



                  I suppose it is possible that you could selectively breed sloths to make them better pack animals...but it would take many many generations...you are essentially trying to make them... not sloths. Considering pre-colonial peoples had already domesticated llamas as pack animals it doesn't really make sense to basically completely change the physiology of a creature.



                  On a cool side note the wikipedia page says a sloth can hold its breath underwater for up to 40 minutes due to its slow metabolism...which is neat.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  James♦James

                  25k1096182




                  25k1096182






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143504%2fcould-giant-ground-sloths-have-been-a-good-pack-animal-for-the-ancient-mayans%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to label and detect the document text images

                      Image
                      1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C...
                      Read more

                      Vallis Paradisi

                      Image
                      Coordinata: .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap} 33°03′S 71°37′W  /  33.05°S 71.617°W  / -33.05; -71.617 Vallis Paradisi Res apud Vicidata repertae: Civitas : Chilia Numerus incolarum : 296 655 Zona horaria : UTC-4 Situs interretialis Nomen officiale : Valparaíso Gubernium Consilium : municipal council of Valparaíso Geographia Superficies : 401 600 000 Metrum quadratum Coniunctiones urbium Urbes gemellae : Ovetum , Badalona , Santa Fe , Ora longa , Sciamhaevum , Quantunia , Callao , Bat Yam , Melaka , Novorossiysk , Busan , Corduba , Odessa , Rosario , Malacca , Barcino , Soteropolis , Franciscopolis (California) , Guanajuato, Silao Tabula aut despectus Despectus in portum sinumque et urbem Vallis Paradisi Vallis Para...
                      Read more

                      Tabula Rosettana

                      Image
                      Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a...
                      Read more