VARIABLES, folks: when ferrets come from Europe to the U.S. (or visa
versa) MANY things change often: there may be different diet, there may
be different schedules (not joking since in the U.S.  workdays according
to studies and commutes are often longer and the human schedules affect
the ferrets' ones), there may be different amounts of darkness provided,
there may be different amounts of time outside, there may be difference
to the water, there may be different viruses circulating (Remember that
parts of Europe as well as Africa have had things like West Nile for a
very protracted time but it is a recent addition to the U.S.  and that
works in reverse, too.), there may be different exposures to certain
plastics, there may be different amounts of exercise, there may be
different cleansers, etc.  The list could go on till it fills an entire
FML.  I know that it seems easy to try to narrow things down to one
difference but that is a fast way to mislead oneself.  When considering
one variable NEVER forget that others exist.  There is nothing wrong with
considering specific options, but do not confuse that with having cause
to eliminate the others from consideration or to confuse it with having
good cause to narrow the search when there isn't at this point.
 
It is also ESSENTIAL to recall that there are NO studies showing that the
numbers of certain things actually are lower in one location vs another.
There are indications, but the RATES are lacking.  Don;t forget that
when studied, it was found that despite general "knowledge" that adrenal
growths were rare in the Netherlands, the reality is that they were
decently common once the symptoms were looked for, the vet care provided,
and the surgeries done.
 
Adrenal growths are complex in cause; NONE of the easy single cause
hypotheses have panned out at this point, though it MAY (again there is
a lack of numerical data) be that whole ferrets may be less likely to
get adrenal growths.  Will real stats support that feeling?  No one knows
yet.
 
Do NOT forget that in the earlier years of having ferrets adrenal growths
were thought to be uncommon and fur loss from other causes here in the
U.S., too.
 
20 years ago they also had kibbled food (plain old cat foods then) and we
had similar schedules and a number of other things were similar or the
same.  So, were there fewer then, or is that a misleading artifact of
what was not yet known then?  Hey, there may have been fewer, but no one
knows.
 
One thing that I know DOES appear to have changed in the U.S. -- it
seems that the age of unset may be decreasing here in the U.S.  It's not
know if that is so but the evidence looks like it sure could be.  If so,
why?  Well, perhaps people didn't look for it in younger ones, perhaps
the fancies which have been so emphasized in breeding in the last decade
have spread around some very susceptible genetic make-up, perhaps those
who are newer to ferrets are less likely to provide some things those of
us who have been around provide such as ture darkness or lots of
exercise, etc.
 
It is NOT a simple picture.  Please, don't hurt yourself or your ferrets
by treating it as one.  Read about hypotheses, try to ones you chose to
try.  Remember what is only a hypothesis (including the true darkness
hypothesis which we use here) rather than a fact to avoid future pain
when some hypotheses inevitably do NOT pan out.
 
>BTW, many of the great apes have canines and do eat meat.  Case in point
>the chimpanzees, they are vicious hunters that attack other chimp clans
>and take the victims away and take much pleasure in devouring the
>carcasses.  Gorillas use their canines only for show (both highland and
>lowland)...
 
Actually, SOME of the apes (greater but not lesser) do eat meat but do so
in small amounts.  Like humans, the "common" ape (Pan troglodytes) is a
very good hunter, though the meat is usually not shared and the hunting
and eating of meat is usually by males (with exceptions, of course,
including one family which handed down a cannibalism trait for a while in
one study group).  Never-the-less, most primates have very dagger-like
canines and do not eat meat.  The point and the illustration were in
response to writer's statement that canine teeth indicate meat teething
when in fact the indicative teeth of LARGE amounts of meat eating are
the slicing edges of certain teeth like premolars and molars.  It is
not possible yet to generalize this to most female P.  troglodytes, to
bonobos (about whom) more and more is recently being learned, to gorillas
9as you pointed out), to orangutans (ditto about learning but that is in
trouble badly from habitat loss so something may never be known), let
alone to the lesser apes (gibbons and siamangs) to monkeys, or the
prosimians.
 
Human dentition tracks our history well.  The incisor-form canines
are reflective of high levels of frugivory (fruit eating) and to some
extent that of young vegetation in earlier ancestors and predates even
the 75% vegetarian - 25% flesh diet or gatherer-hunters (also called
hunter-gatherers but some are veering away from the old term due to the
Calorie percentages), some of the cusping and cingulae may be from
insectivory (which still today is present in many societies though we
tend to forget that in the U.S.).  The grain grinding surfaces of teeth,
frontal sexual attractants (such as enlarged breasts), padded rear ends,
etc.  are part of the Theroptihecus complex which reflect gramnivory
(grain eating).  You can tell a lot about where a species has been from
its teeth, and the presence of canine teeth that are large and conical
is more far, far commonly for defence and display in primates than for
hunting.
[Posted in FML issue 3941]