Do species other than humans have distinct daily feeding patterns?

Quite frankly I don't understand how it can be unclear what I'm asking for. I'm searching for empirical data that might show instances in the animal world where a specie might have developed non-stochastic feeding patterns, for example due to "dependencies connected to the 24h circadian rhythm, dependencies to availability of food, or internal dependencies on behavioural organization in social species". For example like where we humans for social and cultural reasons have developed the very distinct "breakfast/lunch/dinner"-pattern.

Have I expressed myself badly? Do I suffer from biased awareness in how I have formulated my question?

The types of answers I expected would be in line with

Yes! We know that for example great apes organize collective feeding a couple of times per day where they transport themselves to collection of fruit trees where they use to spend a couple of hours before they retreat and spend some time socializing.


No, not that I'm aware of. But that might be because there haven't been any research in discovering feeding patterns like this. For example our closest relatives the great apes does not seem to have any behaviour like that, but eat randomly through out the day from morning to night.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree, your question should not have been closed. $\endgroup$ – canadianer Dec 31 '14 at 11:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Seconded, your question is crystal clear, and is of a far higher standard than the majority of questions on this site. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jan 1 '15 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Nathaniel Thank you, but for clarification I have reformulated it quite significantly after this conflict occurred, just to be sure that it's crystal clear for everyone. Good to hear that I seem to have accomplished that :) $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 1 '15 at 9:13
  • $\begingroup$ I read it before the edit and it was still very clear. For some reason, a lot of questions are closed when the answer is thought to be "no". $\endgroup$ – canadianer Jan 1 '15 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ I want to go on record here (as one of the closers) that I would not have voted to close this question in its present form. This one shows some effort in answering the question yourself. To me, a question which shows no effort or understanding at all is a valid reason to close. That is the reason I ask questions in comments. However, I prefer not to answer them in a comment thread. $\endgroup$ – anongoodnurse Jan 2 '15 at 7:24
  • $\begingroup$ @anongoodnurse Would you care to elaborate on how my original format of the question fits into "shows no effort or understanding at all"? Would be good to know for the future. $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 2 '15 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ I think comparing your original question with the end result will show quite clearly the difference. $\endgroup$ – anongoodnurse Jan 2 '15 at 7:42
  • $\begingroup$ @anongoodnurse I know about the difference, but I don't understand how the previous format, again, fits into "shows no effort or understanding at all". And since people agreed with me that the original format was clear and answerable and opened it again, I'm curious about your view on it. Not to mention that "shows no effort or understanding at all" is quite an attack. $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 2 '15 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ I apologize. I didn't mean to attack, and that does sound harsh. Having apologized, I also do not engage in protracted debates in comments. I've said my piece. Your question now is much improved over the original. Good job with editing to improve your question and on getting it reopened. $\endgroup$ – anongoodnurse Jan 2 '15 at 8:58

Having read through the question I agree that it is clearly explained and answerable (even if that answer turns out to be 'no'). I have reopened it.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. But since it ended up in this situation and as we now have empirical data that confusion might occur, I'll make sure too revise it and make it even clearer. $\endgroup$ – Alex Dec 31 '14 at 15:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have now rewritten the question for extra clarity. I know meta is not supposed to be about meta-discussions about specific questions but since this thread already exists, please don't hesitate to let me know it anyone of you thinks there is any further problems. $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 1 '15 at 3:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .