Do Quokkas Actually Throw Their Babies At Predators?

This question started as an online joke, and as time went on, people started taking it seriously. The answer to the question isn’t that simple, however. Firstly, it should be noted that no, quokkas don’t throw their babies at predators. That is a joke, but it is somewhat based on reality. Quokkas keep their young in their pouches, and while fleeing from predators, babies are known to fall out and are then left there by their parents.

The thing that is interesting here is that the part where they fall out of the pouch may be done on purpose by the mothers. Research shows that this may be an actual anti-predator characteristic of quokkas. They normally have very strong control over the muscles in their pouches, so their response to the threat of predators may be to release those muscles. The babies are left there to attract the attention of the predator, and the parents can safely escape. Mothers want to save themselves because they have proven that they are fertile, while the young might not be.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the mother gets eaten, the offspring in her pouch will be too. Sacrificing one to save the others and maintain the opportunity to reproduce again in the future works out from an evolutionary standpoint.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Remember, you only get to live once. You can also have more children.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    People often read agendas where they may not be in simple but definitive phrase like that, especially if they seem similar to things people with agendas say.

    For instance, someone might think you're making a strong anti-abortion statement, including blaming women for wanting to have sex, but your statement doesn't mention any of that. I could see a "pro-life"anti-abortion person saying that statement as a way of saying a woman should choose to die giving birth rather than getting an abortion, but I could also see it being the exact opposite argument in that if you don't want to risk your life, get an abortion instead of having the kid.

    In either case, people with opposing opinions may read what they dislike in your comment and downvote it. So it might explain something completely different about human society.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    It's not that they throw them, they "accidentally" fall from the pouch

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    More where that came from lol!

    -Momma Quokka

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How nice of science to demand the motivation of the mother for ditching her kid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    yep, there's this weird trend to demonise cute animals.

    you can't even fucking mention koalas on reddit without some arsehole telling us they all have chlamydia every 53 seconds.

    according to them, all dolphins suck, all ducks are shit, and all cute little marsupials who never harmed a fly are secretly evil incarnate.

    what if all humans were judged by the actions of some humans? that's a frying pan i'd rather not be in...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Maybe their flight response causes them to lose control of their pouch muscles (because that’s not a priority to survive), therefore accidentally dropping their babies.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not necessarily. Evolution doesn't optimize trait by trait.

    If the flight response leads to overall more reproduction it would naturally pass on regardless of any effect of the loss of pouch control.

    The dropping of the baby wouldn't necessarily be a trait itself, but a side effect of the flight response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    If the relaxation of the pouch is directly tied to the stress/adrenaline response diverting resources elsewhere, which aids in escape, then it's not so easy to optimize to not loose the pouch. Pouch relaxation wouldn't be the genetic trait being selected for or against, flight response would be.

    It can be more harmful for the pouch to be relaxed than not on an isolated level, but if that's counteracted by the increased ability to escape due to resource allocation then it would pass on as a "by product" regardless of its individual effect.

    There may not be an existing genetic variation which maintains the pouch control during the flight response without compromise on the degree of speed or intensity dedicated to the escape. Evolution can't select for mutations that don't yet exist in the gene pool.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    If the drop response was paired against retaining the offspring, and if the drop response coded genetically, more survivors would result potentially for several reasons: predator would be distracted by the discarded offspring and less likely, but the reduced weight burden.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)

    The last few memes have been bullshit about the kind of day I've been having to spend around my mother in law and thank you y'all for helping

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    English mother quokka, do you speak it!?

  • source
  • Yeet the baby!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    correction on that last sentence. mother's want to save themselves because they don't want to die. they are not making any calculations about their own fertility.

    this strategy doesn't prove to be a major evolutionary disadvantage because the mothers are proven to be fertile so there is no evolutionary pressure to remove this trait but that's an analysis a human scientist is making. not the quokka

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The individual Quokka isn't making that analysis, but evolutionary selection is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Evolution doesn't work that way. It's not picking and choosing traits. It's not making analysis.

    The quokka just survives to pass on that trait so it persists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Semantics, but I would say evolution is indeed picking and choosing traits, in the sense that an algorithm picks a result. It's not some conscious being though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    semantics are important when talking about evolutionary science. especially when a large segment of the population dismisses evolution as a "theory" with little understanding of what the term "theory" means in the context of science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What natural predators do quokkas even have??

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    MothaQuokka you did what?!

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Is this post text written by AI? It seems very, "no, but yes, but maybe". It's like it's written by an LLM trained on clickbait.

  • source
  • 16 comments in c/memes@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Quokkas look like an unused Disney character.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    me and the wife saw a documentary on capybaras, and one of the mother's kids got eaten by a crocodile. The capybara gave 0 fucks.

    Edit : we even joke about "Caiman ate ma baybee!"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    And when it comes to humans: "Almost all neonaticides are committed by mothers." - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2174580/

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I mean, if men would have to carry the baby for nearly 10 months within their own body and after giving birth having to do all the care work like lots of women had and have to do, they would be baby killers more often as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)