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
    2 days ago






  • 3




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






  • 3




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






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago
















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
    2 days ago






  • 3




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






  • 3




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






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago














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 yesterday









Chuck Ramirez

3227




3227










asked 2 days ago









Sengiwizard42Sengiwizard42

935




935








  • 1




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






  • 3




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






  • 3




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






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago














  • 1




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






  • 3




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






  • 3




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






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago








1




1




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




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




3




3




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




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




3




3




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




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




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
2 days ago






$begingroup$
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
2 days ago






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
2 days ago




$begingroup$
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
2 days ago










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
      2 days ago












    • $begingroup$
      @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
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      2 days ago








    • 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
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      2 days ago





















    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 2 days ago









          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
                2 days ago












              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago








              • 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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago


















              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
                2 days ago












              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago








              • 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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago
















              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 yesterday

























              answered 2 days ago









              Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez

              3227




              3227












              • $begingroup$
                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
                2 days ago












              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago








              • 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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago




















              • $begingroup$
                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
                2 days ago












              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago








              • 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
                2 days ago










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                2 days ago


















              $begingroup$
              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
              2 days ago






              $begingroup$
              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
              2 days ago














              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago




              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago












              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago






              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago






              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
              2 days ago




              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago












              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago






              $begingroup$
              @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
              2 days ago













              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 yesterday









                  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

                      GameSpot

                      Image
                      body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} GameSpot 戰地風雲：惡名昭彰2在Gamespot的評論 网站类型 新聞 持有者 CBS 创始人 Pete Deemer Vince Broady Jon Epstein 网站 http://www.gamespot.com/ 注册 Optional (free and paid) 推出时间 1996年5月1日 [1] GameSpot （中国大陆：游戏基地），於1996年5月由Pete Deemer和Vince Broady創立，是一個提供新聞、評論、預告片、下載及其他的相關資訊的電子遊戲網站。GameSpot被一間後來被CNET收購的企業ZDNet所收購。根據Alexa，GameSpot.com是200個網路擁擠最嚴重的網站之一。 除了由GameSpot員工創作的內容，網站還允許用戶寫評論、網誌、之後在網路論壇分享。一些在CNET旗下的GameFAQs分享。 2004年， GameSpot被Spike TV的觀眾選上「電子遊戲賞節目」贏得「最傑出遊戲網站。 [2] 其他的遊戲網站還有IGN、1UP.com、GameSpy是它最大的競爭對手。2008年，根據Compete.com的統計，「gamespot.com」吸引了最少6000萬人的點擊率。 [3] GameSpot的主頁鏈結了到最近新聞、評論、預告、和一些有關遊戲機的入口：Wii、任天堂DS、電腦遊戲、Xbox 360、PSP、PlayStation 2、PlayStation 3。它還有一列「最受歡迎遊戲名單」，還有給用戶快速獲得遊戲資訊的搜尋器。GameSpot 還包括一些小範圍的遊戲機：任天堂64、GameCube、Game Boy Color、Game Boy Advance、Xbox、PlayStation、SEGA Saturn、Dreamcast、Neo Geo Pocket Color、N-Gage、手機遊戲。 目录 1 歷史 1.1 國際歷史 1.2 著名的員工 2 評論和分...
                      Read more

                      日野市

                      Image
                      body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} 日野市 日野市 日文轉寫  • 日文 日野市  • 平假名 ひのし  • 罗马字 Hino-shi 金剛寺（關東三十六不動尊靈場第9號）的不動堂 市旗 徽章 日野市在東京都的位置 日野市 日野市在日本的位置 坐标： 35°40′17″N 139°23′42″E  /  35.6714°N 139.395°E  / 35.6714; 139.395 国家   日本 地方 關東地方 都道府縣 東京都 接鄰行政區 府中市、國立市、立川市、昭島市、八王子市、多摩市 政府  • 市長 大坪冬彦 面积  •  总计 27.53 平方公里（10.63 平方英里） 人口 （2014年12月1日）  • 總計 183,323  • 密度 6,660/平方公里（17,200/平方英里） 象徵  • 市樹 樫  • 市花 菊花  • 市鳥 普通翠鳥 时区 日本標準時間 （UTC+9） 地方公共團體編號 13212-8 邮政编码 〒 191-8686 市役所地址 日野市神明一丁目12番1號 電話號碼 +81-42-585-1111 法人編號 1000020132128 網站 http://www.city.hino.lg.jp/ 人口：日野市官方網頁 日野市 （日语： 日野市 ／ ひのし   Hino shi   * / ? ）為一位于東京都（不含島嶼部分）中央地帶的城市。從東京站乘坐中央線特別快速列車45分鐘即可到該市。面積27.53km²。1963年（昭和38年）11月3日，該市開始實行市制，為全日本第559個市。汽車企業日野自動車的總部位於這裡。 往東京都特別區部的通勤率為20.9%，往八王子市的通勤率為12.0%（平成22年國勢調査）。 目录 1 概要 ...
                      Read more

                      Tu-95轟炸機

                      Image
                      body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} 图-95 Ту–95 北约代号：熊（Bear） 一架在安格斯空军基地的图-95MS 概觀 類型 战略轰炸机 代號 北约代号： Bear （熊） 乘員 7名 駕駛員2名，機尾炮手1名，其他人員4名 首飛 1952年11月12日 服役 1956年 設計 圖波列夫設計局 產量 超过500架 現況 现役 主要用戶   蘇聯   俄羅斯 衍生機型 图-114、图-119、Tu-95 技术数据 長度 49.50米（162呎5吋） 翼展 51.10米（167呎8吋） 高度 12.12米（39呎9吋） 翼面積 310平方米（3,330平方呎） 空重 90,000公斤（198,000磅） 最大起飛重量 188,000公斤（414,500磅） 發動機 4具库兹涅佐夫NK-12MV型渦輪螺旋槳發動機 功率 4×11,000千瓦（14,800馬力） 性能數據 最大速度 925公里／時（500節，575哩／時） 爬升率 10米／秒（2,000呎／分） 最大升限 12,000米（39,000呎） 最大航程 15,000公里（8,100海浬，9,400哩） 翼負荷 606公斤／平方米（124磅／平方呎） 推重比 235 W／公斤（0.143馬力／磅） 武器装备 機炮 1具/2具AM-23型23公釐雷達控制機砲（機尾） 飛彈 空对地导弹： Kh-20、Kh-22 Kh-26、Kh-55 炸彈 60枚FAB-250炸彈，或 30枚FAB-500炸彈。 其他 载弹量（包括飞弹）：最多15,000公斤（33,000磅） Tu-95熊式MR型機 图-95 （俄语： Ту–95 ， 英语： Tu-95 ），北約代號： Bear （ 熊 ），是蘇聯圖波列夫設計局所研製，是全世界唯一服役的大型四渦輪螺旋槳發動機...
                      Read more