Preliminary Results of a Cognidiihitum Study Investigating the Traditional Tetrapod Classes
Timothy R. Brophy Liberty University Out of the ground the LORD Go d forme d every beast of the field and every bird of the air , and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle , to the birds of the air, and to Anastasia Hohriakova, 2002 every beast of the field. Genesis 2:19-20 INTRODUCTION
“God purposely created organisms in a pattern specifically recognizable to man and created man capable of recognizing that pattern ” (()Sanders and Wise, 2003) What is a Cognitum?
• “A Cognitum is defined as a group of organisms recognized through the human cognitive senses as belonging together and sharing an underlying, unifying gestalt” (Sanders and Wise, 2003)
• “A cognitum can exist at any level of inclusiveness and may or may not be hierarchically nested within other cognita” (Sanders and Wise, 2003)
• Study higher-level patterns in nature & relieve other taxonomic concepts from considerations that might hinder their development METHODS & MATERIALS
• Compppgpiled stack of 57 color photographs representing major groups within tetrapod classes
•Randomly l sh uffl ed stack ; same each ti me
• 3 amphibian orders, 6 reptile orders/suborders, 27 bird orders & 21 mammal orders
• Natural/semi-natural habitats
• Not to scale (≈ 5 ½” x 8”); 2 per sheet METHODS & MATERIALS
• 67 colleggpge students asked to sort photos & give criteria used in determining each group
•Gifiihiven very few instructions on how to sort ph otos – Mechanisms by which to communicate classification – “Any criteria”; “intuition” or “gut reaction”
• Not giv en pre-designed categories or asked to sort into mutually exclusive or hierarchical groups PtiiParticipant tPfil Profile
Age 19.9 ± 1.6 yrs.
Years in College 2.4 ± 1.2 yrs.
# Biology Classes 4.0 ± 1.7 classes
Knowledge 4.9 ± 1.6 Source of Knowledge
Personal Study None (1.1%) (14.9%) TV (18.1%)
Nature (9.6%)
Sc hoo l (56. 4%) RESULTS Criteria Used to Classify
Misc. (0.2%) Unable (0. 9%) Beauty (2.1%)
Size (5.2%) Diet (4.6%) Rarity (1.6%) Man (3.3%)
Geography (0.9%)
Habitat (15.7%)
Traditional (41.5%)
Morphology (14.8%)
Behavior (9.1%) Class Aves*
• Ruddy duck • Chacalaca •Ruby-throated • Oriental Cuckoo Hummingbird • Peregrine Falcon • Common Nighthawk •Chicken • Killdeer • Common Loon • Great Blue Heron • American Coot • Mousebird • Northern Cardinal • Mourning Dove • White Pelican • Belted Kingfisher •Flamingo
*UMMZ Animal Diversity Web Class Aves
• Pileated Woodpecker •Western GbGrebe •Albatross • Cockatoo • Emperor Penguin • Great Horned Owl •Ostrich •Tinamou • Trogon • Buttonquail Bird Orders Classified as “Birds”
27/27 64.2%
26/27 14.9%
25/27 45%4.5%
24/27 45%4.5%
Total 88.1% Birds “Lost” to Other Categories
• Penguin (7.5%) - classified as mammal; placed in h abi tat, morph ol ogy or geographi c category • Owl in nocturnal category • Hummingbird in morppgygyhology category • Chicken, ostrich & flamingo in “relationship to h”thumans” category • Grebe, loon & ruddy duck in habitat & diet categories Bird Cognitum
Birds
ALL 27 Orders
Penguin? “Ducks” Cognit u m
• 22.4% of the participants created a separate “ducks” category
• 100% of these included the duck, grebe, loon & coot in this category “Ducks” Cognitum Water Birds Cognitum
• An additional 32.8% of the participants created a larger “water birds” category • 100% ofhf these i ncl lddhuded the dkduck, grebe, loon & coot in this group • Other members of this category were: – Pelican (86. 4%) – Flamingo, heron & albatross (63.6%) – Penguin (40. 9%) Water Birds Cognitum Water Birds Cognitum
Water Birds PliPelican Flamingo Duck Heron GbGrebe “Ducks” Albatross Loon Penguin Coot
Penguin? Other Habitat-Based Bird Cognita
• 25.4% of the participants created a “land or ground-dwelling” birds category
• 15.0% of the ppparticipants created a “tree or air” birds category
• Both of these, however, were extremely diverse and difficult to summarize Fliggghtless Birds Cognitum
• 28.4% of the participants created a “flightless birds” category •Membfhibers of this category i ilddncluded: –Ostrich(89.5%) – Penguin (68.4%) –Chicken(47.4%) –Flamingo(42.1%) –Tinamou(10.5%) – Buttonquail, killdeer & nighthawk (5.3%) Flightless Birds Cognitum Flightless Birds Cognitum
Killdeer? Tinamou Flightless Ostrich Penguin Birds Chicken Flamingo
Nighthawk? Buttonquail Bird Cognitum - Summary
“D” Land Water Birds
Air Flightless Class Mammalia* • Cow • Kangaroo •Tiger • Duck-billed Platypus • Killer Wh al e • Horse •Bat • Pangolin • Colugo • Seal • Three-toed Sloth •Chimpanzee • African Rock Hyrax • Elephant • Least Shrew • Gray Squirrel • Rabbit • Tree Shrew • Elephant Shrew • Manatee • Aardvark *UMMZ Animal Diversity Web Mammal Orders Classified as “Mammals”
21/21 13.4%
20/21 16.4%
19/21 45%4.5%
18/21 11.9%
Total 46.3% “Fuzzy” Mammals
• Pangolin – 70. 2% of the participants classified the pangolin as a reptile • Bat/Colugo – 23.9% of the participants classified these together as birds • Bat/Colugo – 55.2% of the participants classifi ed th ese t ogeth er as “b at s” , “flyi “fl ing mammals/creatures” or “nocturnal mammal/t”ls/creatures” “Fuzzy” Mammals Are Monotremes & Marsupials “Fuzzy” Mammals? • Only 16.4% of the participants created a marsupial category; 100% of these included the kangaroo; 27.3% of these included the platypus as well • Only 1.5% of the participants created an “egg-laying mammal” categgy;yory; only the p latyp us was included in this group • The res t o f the parti ci pant s did n’t di sti ngui sh between monotremes, marsupials & placentals and/or grouped the platypus & kangaroo with various placentals Mammal Cognitum
Kangaroo? Pangolin Colugo Mammals
18 Orders
Platypus? Bat Water Mammals Cognitum
• 74. 6% of the participants created a “water mammals” category • 100% of these included the manatee, whale & seal in this ggproup • 62% of these included the platypus in this group • Only 6% of those who created this group distinguished between marine & freshwater Water Mammals Cognitum Water Mammals Cognitum
Water Manatee Whale Mammals Seal Platypus Other Habitat-Based Mammal Cognita
• 41.8% of the participants created a “land” mammals category
• 13.4% of the ppparticipants created a “tree” mammals category
• Both of these, however, were extremely diverse and difficult to summarize “Rodent” Cognitum
• 62.7% of the participants created a “rodent”, “small f urry rr mammal/creat ure” category categor • 95.2% of these included the elephant shrew, tree shrew & least shrew together in this group • Other members of this category included: – African rock hyrax (88.1%), Aardvark (83.3%), Squirrel (81.0%) & Rabbit (73.8%) – Sloth (35.7%) & Bat/Colugo together (19.1%) – Platypus (7.1%) & Pangolin (7.1%) “Rodent” Cognitum “Rodent” Cognitum
Pangolin Sloth?
Colugo 3Shrews3 Shrews Hyrax Aardvark “Rodents” Squirrel Rabbit Bat Platypus? Mammal Cognitum - Summary
Water Land
Mammals
Tree Rodents Class Reptilia*
• American Alligator •Tuatara • Iberian Worm Lizard • Five-lined Skink Order Squamata • Green Snake • Stinkpot
*Zug et al., 2001 & EMBL Reptile Database Reptile Groups Classified as “Reptiles”
6/6 60%6.0%
5/6 16.4%
4/6 14.9%
4/6 or b ett er 37.3%
Thoroughly Mixed 62.7% Common Reptile Patterns
• 49.3% of the participants grouped the worm lizard and caecilian together as “worms” • An additional 11.9% of the participants grouped the worm lizard, caecilian, and snake together as “snakes” • 13. 4% of the participants grouped the lizard and salamander together as “amphibians” “Slippery” Reptiles Core Group of Reptiles • 29.9% of participants grouped the following four as reptiles: snake, tuatara, alligator & turtle; additional 3.0% grouped 1st three Reptile Cognitum
Lizard? Worm Lizard
Snake Tuatara Reptiles Alligator Turtle Class Amphibia*
• Green Frog • Spotted Salamander • Caecilian
*Zug et al., 2001 & UMMZ Animal Diversity Web Amphibian Groups Classified as “Amphibians”
3/3 ( no additi ons) 15%1.5%
3/3 (1 additi on) 15%1.5%
2/3 (no additions) 11.9%
2/3 (1 addition) 13.4%
Thoroughly Mixed 62.7% “Slippery” Amphibian Core Group of Amphibians
• 28.4% of participants grouped the frog and salamander together as “amphibians” Amphibian Cognitum
Caecilian
Frog Amppbashibians Salamander Reptile & Amphibian Overlap
Amphibians
Reptiles “Close Relationship” to Man Cognita • 14.9% of participants created a “zoo” category; verery div erse and difficult to s ummari ze • 20.9% of participants created a “farm” category • Members of farm category included: –Cow(85.7%) – Horse & Chicken (78.6%) – Rabbit (7.1%) Farm Cognitum Farm Cognitum
Rabbit FAilFarm Animals
Cow Horse Chicken Future Research
• Should test the effects of particular methdlhodologi ies on resul tant cl assifi cati on – How organisms chosen to represent taxonomic group – Presentation medium – Age/experience of participants – Instructions given to participants
• Improve methods and use on lower levels within Class Amphibia; precursor to quantitative baraminology study