Posted by Dave Moore on August 11, 2003

Q: Is there an evolutionary reason/benefit for having antlers vs horns? Would being able to lose the antlers for part or most of the year be a benefit to woodland species as opposed to being an open plains species that doesn't have to worry about getting hung up in trees and shrubs?

A: I like your thinking on this, although I'm guessing that horns vs antlers

has more to do with simply a different biological approach (convergent evolution) to

head ornamentation/weaponry by primitive ancestors than it does as an

evolutionary response to facilitate life in a particular habitat.

I noted while reviewing material on antlered and horned animals, that the American

antlered animals (deer, caribou, elk, moose) ARE often found in wooded or

shrubby environments while American horned animals (sheep, goats, and

buffalo) are found in more open country. Interesting! It does occur to me,

however, that the time of year when antlers are at their prime - late summer

into fall - the foilage is also at its densest. If antlered mammals had

evolved to lose antlers as a response to navigation in dense environments,

wouldn't their prime antler growth have been during winter and spring when

plant growth is at a minimum? Good question and one that deserves further

research.

John Wiessinger ( August 18, 2003)