Geography For Dummies. Jerry T. Mitchell

Чтение книги онлайн.

      (© John Wiley & Sons Inc.)

      FIGURE 2-1: A map of the historical geography of the African lion.

      The answer is that African lions are much less widespread than they used to be. The map tells you this by using two kinds of shadings, the meanings of which are shown in the map legend. One shade shows areas where lions are found at present. Another depicts where lions formerly roamed. The last, blank space indicates areas where, so far as anyone can tell, lions have never lived.

      A fraction of its former self

Today, African lions in the wild live only in the handful of patches shown on the map, mainly the ones in southern and eastern Africa. But the map also tells us there was a time when the lion’s homeland consisted of a vast and contiguous hunk of Africa that stretched all the way from the Mediterranean coast in the north to the southernmost tip of the continent. Look at the map and visually compare the amount of territory that is lion country today versus the amount of former territory. Clearly, present-day lion country is a fraction of its former size and one estimate suggests that there are fewer than 23,000 left in Africa (a 40 percent loss in just the last two decades!).

      What in the world — or rather, what in Africa — happened to cause such a reduction in the size of lion country? Why did it happen? And what is the significance? I do not really expect you to have the answers at your fingertips. But take a few moments again, and this time see if you can’t come up with some possible reasons as to why lions live where the map says that they do, and why lion country has decreased so substantially.

      Where lions hang out

      First of all, where do lions live? No, I’m not asking you for a street address; but rather, in what kind of environment do lions tend to hang out? Here are a few choices of where your average well-adjusted lion might live:

      Although the last choice has considerable merit, the best response is “in a grassland.” Lions generally live in grasslands (you can read more about where they don’t live in the sidebar titled “Animal Geography, Hollywood Style”). You may have known the answer because just about everybody has seen a TV wildlife documentary, which, in graphic detail, shows lions killing their next meal and then eating it. But just in case, next time you see one of those programs, concentrate on the physical setting instead of the kill. That’s right, skip the build-up … . the eyeing of the herd … . the stalk … the chase … . the cute little impala meeting its untimely end. Instead, focus your attention on the surrounding countryside, and what you are bound to see is that this life and death drama is playing out on what is essentially an extensive grassland.

      What gives with grasslands?

      But what gives with grasslands? Or rather, why do lions choose to inhabit grasslands? Here are a few choices as to why lions live in grasslands:

      Although each choice could be correct, the best response is “that’s where those cute little impalas live.” Lions love impalas.

      Indeed, they truly love them to death. Like all wild animals, lions tend to live in places where they can find relatively abundant food to their liking. So, lions hang out where impalas, zebras, wildebeests, and other animals are on the menu. Lions, of course, are carnivores — meat-eaters. And nearly all the animals on the menu are herbivores — grass-eaters. Lions prefer to live in a grassland because, as far as they are concerned, it’s one big meat market.

      Extinction made easy

      Time to stop beating around the bush — and around the grassland, for that matter. The main message of the map is that lion country is a small fraction of its former size. And although the animal itself is not on the brink of extinction, things would appear to be headed in that direction. So what happened?

      ANIMAL GEOGRAPHY, HOLLYWOOD STYLE

      Movies may be responsible for more environmental misinformation than any other source. Thus, in the world according to Hollywood, animals have a maddening tendency to show up in locations where they have no business being. Sometimes the errors are rather obscure. For example, in the nativity scene at the start of the 1959 movie Ben-Hur, a Holstein calf prances by the manger. Holsteins are those dairy cattle with the black and white splotches. The problem is the Holsteins come from Schleswig-Holstein, the part of Germany that borders Denmark. Two thousand years ago, there would not have been a Holstein anywhere near Bethlehem. Like I said, sometimes the errors are rather obscure. Then again, sometimes the errors are downright outrageous, and, in that regard, nothing beats Hollywood’s treatment of the African lion. Check out just about any of the old Tarzan movies, George of the Jungle, or a host of other flicks set in a rainforest. Almost inevitably, one or more lions show up. The problem, of course, is that a lion has a whole lot less business being in a rainforest than does a Holstein in Bethlehem. Lions do not live in rainforests. Could they be near one? Sure, as habitats do rub up against each other. But an African lion really isn’t the King of the Jungle and the reason is simple. A lion has virtually nothing to eat in a rainforest — except maybe Tarzan.

Perhaps it would be better СКАЧАТЬ