Nature, funding both unfair to ugly mammals

As if the world wasn't already unfair to the ugly, some animals are in danger of extinction because they lack  beauty.

It's not evolution. It's prejudice.

At least that's the conclusion of a study published in Mammal Review Journal (which could really be the name for People magazine, right?).

The study was focused on Australia, hopefully by scientists with big knives strapped to their hips while they called each other "mate" and ate vegemite sandwiches. It broke native Aussie mammals into three groups: "Good" (such as kangaroos and koalas), "bad" (invasive species) and "ugly" (animals that look like Don Knotts). Researchers found that the ugly animals made up about 45 percent of the mammals, but got a small percentage of academic research.

In other words, the animal versions of David and Victoria Beckham got a lot more attention than the animal versions of Clint Howard and his wife (I don't know what his wife looks like. This is based purely on Clint Howard).

The professor who led the study said that scientists who research ugly animals do little more than document their existence. Meanwhile, animals that attract tourists and inspire cuddly animated characters get plenty of funding for studies.

This doesn't seem right. Ugly animals are stuck in a perpetual middle school and high school, where physical appearance is overvalued and the ability to know sports statistics, song lyrics and 1970s sitcom characters is undervalued (the previous sentence may be influenced by personal experience).

The concern among Aussie scientists is that the less-attractive animals may go extinct in the same way as Aussie musical groups Little River Band and Air Supply. If we spend all of our time making the lives of the beautiful animals better while ignoring the ugly animals, are we headed toward a world that looks less like a healthy biosphere and more like an episode of "The Bachelor?"

Well, there's some good news. There's an advocacy group: The Ugly Animal Preservation Society.

Seriously.

While their approach is to use comedy (frequently used by those of us not favored by nature), the goal is, "to raise the profile of some of Mother Nature's more aesthetically challenged children."

Some of the animals promoted by the group include the lesser horseshoe bat, the griffon vulture, the public louse, the humphead wrasse and the tonkin snub-nosed monkey.

Back to the Mammal Review Journal, where this started. The article about the study featured a photo of two Aussie scientists holding cuddly koalas while apparently discussing ways to make the cute koala's life even better. But it also included a photo of an ugly animal: the blobfish, which was once voted the world's ugliest animal.

I didn't think it looked so bad. It was really a fish version of Jimmy Durante, who wasn't considered ugly because he was talented.

Which brings this: Is it possible that one solution to the ugly-animal problem is one that humans figured out long ago? Perhaps instead of funding studies and trying to change perceptions, we should just teach the griffon vulture how to sing "You must remember this," and to do a soft-shoe dance.

Nature isn't kind. Neither is research.

But we must do our best to save the humphead wrasse and tonkin snub-nosed monkey. And Clint Howard.

Maybe the soft-shoe is nature's best gift.

Brad Stanhope is a former Daily Republic editor. Reach him at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.