If humans went extinct what animal would dominate next

If mankind had never existed, but everything else was the same, which species would now "rule the planet"?

Richard, London, UK

• To rule the planet, a potential candidate species would need to populate, or at least be able to reach and survey, all parts of the earth's landmass - as well as being able to cross the oceans. With evolution unchanged in our absence, this marks out the winged, flying, species as the one most able to achieve a dominant position. But would birds have developed the necessary organisational and social skills? Well, as we know, even domesticated chickens are quick to establish a pecking order, and when it came to political matters - groups of of tamed, dependent, parrots could have done all the talking. (So no change there.)

  Sheila Kirby, Esbjerg, Denmark

• Depends what you mean by 'rule'. In terms of sheer numbers, insdects already 'rule' the planet, regardless of man's existence (I am ignoring bacteria for the sake of the argument!) If you mean top of the food chain then it would be the top carnivores, presumably lions and all the sabre-tooth tigers that we would not have killed off.

  Paul Francis, The Hague, The Netherlands

• Sorry, this really is a non-question. If you believe in a deterministic universe, then everything else being the same would have led inevitably to the existence of mankind. If you do not, then there can be no single answer to what might have happened instead.

  Pelham Barton, Birmingham U.K.

• The short answer is that a variety of big mammals would be on top -- both the big ones we know and love today, and some even bigger ones that became extinct shortly after people moved into their territory. No one species would rule the entire planet. Only mankind has ever dominated the world with brainpower, and no other animal was preparing to do so, if we hadn't come along. Earth has many environments, from the frozen poles to the steamy tropics, from thick forests to barren plains. Each environment would be dominated by a different set of animals, which have specialized for that environment. Just as today, whales would be the biggest creatures in the ocean, while polar bears and walruses would dominate on the Arctic ice. Without humans to kill them off, cave lions and bears would still be bigger than today's species. The Irish Elk would still be showing off its twelve foot wide antlers. In Australia, marsupial lions would still hunt giant kangaroos and Diprotodons. And the Mauritius Islands would still be "ruled" by the dodo.

  David Morenus, Alexandria, Virginia USA

• I do not agree that Mankind rules the planet in the first place. Four fifths (the large majority) of this planet is made-up of oceans, seas and other water masses. Mankind does not hold dominion over these water masses. Human beings are land mammals with no ability to survive in water. The species that presently rules the world is the species that rules the oceans (the largest of group of water masses). Found at the top of the oceanic food chain and being the largest creature on earth and the Blue Whale would be the logical choice. I would argue that Blue Whales rule this planet and not mankind.

  Rachael Young, London England

• In fact, mankind is thought to have almost gone extinct. I've read somewhere that at some point before our ancestors left Africa, the population is believed to have shrunk to between roughly 6,000 and 60,000 individuals. Had our ancestors failed to survive, perhaps a related species would have developed language and consciousness in their stead, and done to the planet much the same kind of injury as we've done.

  John Adams, Querétaro, Mexico

• No animal which are presently living on earth is as greedy as man. So if mankind never existed, all animals would have lived happily by itself. The fact is that the threat to all animal and plant life would be absent and they would have thrived better.

  K. Vishwanath, Bangalore India

• No animal which is presently living on earth is as greedy as man. So if mankind never existed, all animals would have lived happily by itself. The fact is that the threat to all animal and plant life would be absent and they would have thrived better.

  K. Vishwanath, Bangalore India