Tripod1404
Active member
As a biologist, I never liked the "omnivore" classification. It is a concept that is too loosely defined and to be honest it doesn't really classify animals based on feeding behavior. Wolfs, brown bears, humans, pigs are all classified as omnivores. Now wolfs feed mostly on other animals but also take in small amounts of plant materiel and the case for the pigs is just the opposite. For bears and humans food intake depends on the time of the year and the region. Inuit people and brown bears living in Alaska feed almost exclusively on a carnivorous diet of fish, whereas people living in India and bears living in Europe feed exclusively on plant materiel.
Furthermore,you can not make any evolutionary or behavioral grouping based on omnivorism. Brown bear is classified as an omnivore, giant panda is a herbivore and polar bear is a carnivore. All these animals are in the bear family (Ursidae) and are as closely related as any tang.
IME the term omnivore only indicates a flexibility in diet based on available resources and most fish are flexible in terms of diet. Even athias would eat nori if you cut it into small pieces and blow it with a power head.
Furthermore,you can not make any evolutionary or behavioral grouping based on omnivorism. Brown bear is classified as an omnivore, giant panda is a herbivore and polar bear is a carnivore. All these animals are in the bear family (Ursidae) and are as closely related as any tang.
IME the term omnivore only indicates a flexibility in diet based on available resources and most fish are flexible in terms of diet. Even athias would eat nori if you cut it into small pieces and blow it with a power head.