DOCSLIB.ORG

Visual Preference by Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes) for Photos of Primates Measured by a Free Choice-Order Task: Implication for Influence of Social Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Visual Preference by Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes) for Photos of Primates Measured by a Free Choice-Order Task: Implication for Influence of Social Experience Primates (2003) 44: 157–165 DOI 10.1007/s10329-002-0022-8 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Masayuki Tanaka Visual preference by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) for photos of primates measured by a free choice-order task: implication for influence of social experience Received: 5 September 2002 / Accepted: 12 December 2002 / Published online: 22 February 2003 Ó Japan Monkey Centre and Springer-Verlag 2003 Abstract With a free-choice task, visual preference was more complex central nervous system an animal has, the estimated in five adult chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). more things that it learns would contribute to its life. The The subjects were presented with digitized color photo- present study investigated visual preference in five adult graphs of various species of primates on a CRT screen. chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) that had been in captivity Their touching responses to the photographs were re- for many years and had close relationships with humans. inforced by food reward irrespective of which photo- Previous studies revealed that macaque monkeys graphs they touched. The results revealed that all showed differential preference for visual stimuli (Hum- chimpanzees touched the photographs of humans sig- phrey 1972, 1974; Humphrey and Keeble 1974). In nificantly more than any other species, or phylogenetic particular, macaque monkeys showed a preference for families of primates. This tendency was consistent across the visual stimuli of their own species (Sackett 1970; different stimulus sets. The results suggest that the Swartz and Rosenblum 1980). Fujita and Matsuzawa chimpanzees showed visual preference for the photo- (1986) developed a procedure to study the perceptual graphs of humans over those of their own species. The world of nonhuman animals through a sensory rein- results also suggest that the degree of this visual pref- forcement procedure. In their study, a female chimpan- erence was not in accordance with phylogenetic distance zee touched a button to see a variety of color slides. from the subjects’ species, chimpanzees. The preference Slides were presented as long as the subject kept for humans was stronger in the case of the colored touching the button. Repeated touch within 10 s after a photographs than in monochromatic ones. All of the five previous release produced the same slides again. The chimpanzees had been in captivity for at least 16 years. slide was changed if 10 s had passed after releasing the They were reared by humans from just after their birth, button. Analysis of response duration and response or at least from 1.5 years old. Their preference might interval revealed a clear difference between slides with have developed through social experience, especially that humans and those without humans, with the chimpanzee during infanthood. preferring to view the former. Using this procedure, Fujita and his colleagues (Fujita Keywords Chimpanzee Æ Free-choice Æ Sensory 1987, 1989, 1993a; Fujita and Watanabe 1995, Fujita et al. reinforcement Æ Social experience Æ Visual preference 1997) demonstrated that macaque species tend to show greater interest in the slides of monkeys of their own species. For example, Japanese macaques (Macaca fus- cata) preferred to observe slides of Japanese macaques Introduction over those of the other macaque species, such as rhesus macaques (M. mulatta). In contrast, rhesus macaques Do animals have an intrinsic preference for specific spe- preferred to observe slides of rhesus macaques over those cies, especially their own species? Alternatively, do they of the other macaques. Fujita pointed out that such dif- form their preference through social experience? The ferential interest might help prevent interbreeding among closely related species. Yoshikubo (1985, 1987) suggested M. Tanaka the ‘‘psychological reproductive isolation mechanism’’, Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, which means that macaques attain reproductive isolation Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, from closely related species by means of actively choosing Kanrin, Inuyama, Aichi 484-8506, Japan E-mail: [email protected] their mate from their own gene pool. Tel.: +81-568-630548 Fujita (1990, 1993b) also revealed that social experi- Fax: +81-568-630085 ence in infanthood might influence an animal’s preference 158 for a particular species. He used the subjects with vari- subjects had already been trained in a matching-to- ously restricted social experience (i.e., either reared by sample task on the basis of identity, using the same humans, or with conspecific heterospecific peers). In this apparatus as in this study. study, rhesus macaques tended to prefer seeing rhesus macaques regardless of their age or social experience. However, Japanese macaques with restricted experience Apparatus tended to prefer to see rhesus macaques over Japanese Each chimpanzee was trained and tested in an experi- macaques. mental booth (1.8 m in width, 1.8 m in depth, and 2.0 m The present study developed a new method for in height). A 53-cm (21-inch) CRT display (Totoku, evaluating visual preference using a touch-sensitive CV213PJ; 1280·960 pixels, 24-bit color, refresh rate monitor system. The present method was based on a 85 Hz) with a touch screen (MicroTouch) was installed form of sensory reinforcement. All that the subjects on one wall of the booth. A universal feeder (Biomedica, had to do was to touch stimuli on a touch-sensitive BUF-310) delivered small pieces of food reward (apples display. The stimuli that the subject touched were or raisins) into a food tray below the display. A Pentium moved inside a frame at the top of the display. In each II-300 computer controlled the equipment by software trial of the task, the subjects were giving the chance to written in Microsoft Visual Basic ver. 5. choose three times to estimate their order of prefer- ence. Food reward was often delivered irrespective of which stimulus the subject chose, but choices were not Stimuli always reinforced in order to extinguish superstitious behaviors (e.g., a choice on the basis of position of the Stimuli were 5.6·5.6-cm digitized color images (198·198 stimuli). pixels, 24-bit color bitmap file) made from colored pho- In the present study, I aimed to investigate species tographs. There were three stimulus sets, each of which preference in chimpanzees reared by humans, but with consisted of four categories: (1) human and great apes access to social interaction with fellow chimpanzees. (four genera: Homo, Pan, Gorilla, Pongo); (2) Haplorhine This study used three different levels of biological/ (four families: Hominidae, Pongidae, Hylobatidae, phylogenetic categories – species, family, or superfamily Cercopithecidae); and (3) primate sets (five superfamilies: – in order to investigate the relationship between pre- Hominoidea, Cercopithecoidea, Ceboidea, Lemuroidea ference and phylogenetic distance. and Lorisoidea). Each category in each set consisted of ten different exemplars. Each exemplar was used in only one of the stimulus sets. Only the Hominoidea category in set 3 Experiment 1 consisted of three subcategories (Hominidae, Pongidae, Hylobatidae) of ten different exemplars each (i.e., 30 Methods exemplars). That is, sets 1 and 2 consisted of 40 exemplars, and set 3 consisted of 60 exemplars. The species used in Subjects each set are listed in Table 2. Photographs of humans did not include Japanese people whom the subjects met every The subjects were five adult female chimpanzees, day. Instead, the photographs of humans included a wide named Ai, Mari, Pendesa, Popo, and Pan (23, 23, 23, variety in terms of race, age, and sex, since the focus of the 18, and 16 years old, at the time of testing, respec- present study was preference based not on familiarity, but tively). Table 1 summarizes the profiles of the subjects. on biological category. Ai and Mari were born in Africa and received at the laboratory at 1 year of age. Pendesa was born in cap- tivity at the Japan Monkey Center, reared by humans Procedure and received at the institute at 2 years of age. Popo and Pan were born at the Primate Research Institute, An open rectangle was presented at the top of the display. Kyoto University and reared by humans from just after A trial began with the appearance of a warning stimulus their birth, but introduced to the chimpanzee group at (gray solid square, 4·4 cm) at a random position below 11 and 9 years of age. They had previously participated the rectangle. After the subject had touched the starting in various experiments testing cognitive abilities (e.g., stimulus, 12 images were presented in 12 cells randomly Hirata & Morimura 2000; Kawai and Matsuzawa 2000; chosen within a 3 rows by 5 columns matrix on the display. Matsuzawa 2001; Tanaka 2001; Tomonaga and Ma- The 12 images consisted of 3 exemplars from the 4 cate- tsuzawa 2002). They lived with six other chimpanzees gories of a particular stimulus set. In a trial, the subject in an outdoor compound and attached indoor resi- was requested to touch three photographs (cf. Fig. 1). dence. They were not deprived of food at anytime Each touch was followed by a chime, and randomly fol- during the present study. Care and use of the chim- lowed by food reward with a probability of 60–67% ir- panzees adhered to the Guide for the Care and Use of respective of which photographs the subject touched. Laboratory Primates of the Primate Research Institute, After a touch, the photograph selected by the subject Kyoto University (2002). Before the present study, all disappeared, and the same photograph was presented 159 Table 1 Subjects and their a b profiles. PRI Primate Research Name Age at test Birth Age to PRI Notes Institute, Kyoto University. JMC Japan Monkey Center, Ai 23 Africa (wild) 1:01 Reared by humans together Inuyama, Aichi 484–0081, with Mari and another male Japan infant Mari 23 Africa (wild) 1:06 Moved to JMCat the age of 9 and lived in the chimpanzee group of JMC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Orangutan…Taxonomy…And…Nomenclature
    «««« ORANGUTAN…TAXONOMY…AND…NOMENCLATURE« « Craig«D em itros« « The«taxonom y«of«the«orangutan«has«been«confusing«and«is«still«the«subject«of« m uch«debate.«Q uestions«at«the«specific«and«subspecific«level«are«still«being« investigated«(Courtenay«et«al.«1988).«The«follow ing«taxonom ic«inform ation«is« taken«prim arily«from «G roves,«1971.« « H IG H ER«LEVEL«TAXO N O M Y:« O rder:«Prim ates« Suborder:«A nthropoidea« Superfam ily:«H om inoidea« Fam ily:«Pongidae«(Includes«extant«genera«Pan,…Gorilla…and…Pongo).« « H ISTO RICA L«TAXO N O M Y«AT«TH E«G EN U S«A N D «G EN U S«SPECIES«LEVEL:«« G enus« Pongo«Lacepede,«1799.« O urangus«Zim m erm an,«1777«(N am e«invalidated).« « G enus«species«(Pongo…pygm aeus«H oppius,«1763).« Sim ia…pygm aeus«H oppius,«1763.««Type«locality«Sum atra.« Sim ia…satyrus«Linnaeus,«1766.« O urangus…outangus«Zim m erm an,«1777.« Pongo…borneo«Lacepede,«1799.««Type«locality«Borneo.« Sim ia…Agrais«Schreber,«1779.««Type«locality«Borneo.« Pongo…W urm bii«Tiedem ann,«1808.««Type«locality«Borneo.« Pongo…Abelii«Lesson,«1827.««Type«locality«Sum atra.« Sim ia…M orio«O w en,«1836.««Type«locality«Borneo.« Pithecus…bicolor«I.«G eoffroy,«1841.««Type«locality«Sum atra.« Sim ia…Gargantica«Pearson,«1841.««Type«locality«Sum atra.« Pithecus…brookei«Blyth,«1853.««Type«locality«Saraw ak.« Pithecus…ow enii«Blyth,«1853.««Type«locality«Saraw ak.« Pithecus…curtus«Blyth,«1855.««Type«locality«Saraw ak.« Satyrus…Knekias«M eyer,«1856.««Type«locality«Borneo.« Pithecus…W allichii«G ray,«1870.««Type«locality«Borneo.« Pithecus…sum atranus«Selenka,«1896.««Type«locality«Sum atra.« Pongo…pygm aeus«Rothschild,«1904.««First«use«of«this«com bination.« Ptihecus…w allacei«Elliot,«1913.««Type«locality«Borneo.« « CURRENT…TAXONOMY« « The«current«and«m ost«accepted«taxonom y«of«the«G enus«Pongo«includes«one« species«Pongo…pygm aeus«and«tw o«subspecies«P.p.…pygm aeus«(the«Bornean« subspecies)«and«P.p.…abelii«(the«Sum atran«subspecies)«(Bem m el«1968;«Jones« 1969;«G roves«1971;«Jacobshagen«1979;«Seuarez«et«al.«1979«and«G roves«1993).« 5« « .
    [Show full text]
  • Studbook Gibbons 07
    European Studbook Number 2 (data 31.12.2006) Edited by Pierre Moisson & Mélanie Berthet Northern White-cheeked Gibbon - Nomascus leucogenys Southern White-cheeked Gibbon - Nomascus siki Red-cheeked Gibbon - Nomascus gabriellae With Nutrition guidelines by David Gomis and a summary of Hylobatidae diseases 1 Nutrition guidelines for “Concolor” gibbons by David Gomis, DVM, with the collaboration of Sara De Michelis, PhD ; Thijs Flahou, DVM ; Lise Turner, DVM. These nutritional guidelines can also be used for other Hylobatidae species, except perhaps Siamangs. Part of this work was undertaken in 2005 by L. Turner for her veterinary thesis (Cf. 9- Ref. 84) and more recently in 2006-2007 with T. Flahou for the Mulhouse Zoo Dietary Manual publication. 1- Introduction: The present guidelines have been written in response to a lack of research and published informations on Nomascus subspecies diets. Meeting the nutritional needs of gibbons is essential to assure their survival and their reproduction in captivity. Present guidelines are not nutrition recommendations, but a first evaluation done in Mulhouse Zoo. Our Zoo has experience with keeping and breeding gibbons since 1961, and even if their nutrition doesn’t seem to represent a real difficulty compared to other non human primates, the diets have been improved over these 46 years. Therefore this work does not pretend to be exhaustive. Hopefully it would initiate some more nutrition research and coordination among zoos, with the objective of improving the database. Zoo animal nutrition is increasingly being recognised as a specialty: knowledge available is increasing too. The first aim of this study was to provide a database, useful for the development of diets for “Concolor” gibbons, as objectively as possible: with this purpose, we synthetized the few data we could collect on “Concolor” gibbons’ diets and nutrient requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing Human Evolution: Achievements, Challenges, and Opportunities
    Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities Bernard Wood1 George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 This contribution reviews the evidence that has resolved the can then be used as the equivalent of a null hypothesis when branching structure of the higher primate part of the tree of life considering where to place newly discovered fossil great ape taxa. and the substantial body of fossil evidence for human evolution. It considers some of the problems faced by those who try to interpret The Human Fossil Record. The fossil record of the human clade the taxonomy and systematics of the human fossil record. How do consists of fossil evidence for modern humans plus that of all ex- you to tell an early human taxon from one in a closely related clade? tinct taxa that are hypothesized to be more closely related to How do you determine the number of taxa represented in the modern humans than to any other living taxon. Not so long ago human clade? How can homoplasy be recognized and factored into nearly all researchers were comfortable with according the human attempts to recover phylogeny? clade the status of a family, the Hominidae, with the nonhuman extant great apes (i.e., chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and history | hominin orangutans) placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. But given the abundant evidence for a closer relationship between Pan and his contribution begins by considering two achievements rele- Homo than between Pan and Gorilla (see above), many research- Tvant to reconstructing human evolution: resolving the branch- ers have concluded that the human clade should be distinguished ing structure of the higher primate part of the tree of life and the beneath the level of the family in the Linnaean hierarchy.
    [Show full text]
  • Hominid/Human Evolution
    Hominid/Human Evolution Geology 331 Paleontology Primate Classification- 1980’s Order Primates Suborder Prosimii: tarsiers and lemurs Suborder Anthropoidea: monkeys, apes, and hominids Superfamily Hominoidea Family Pongidae: great apes Family Hominidae: Homo and hominid ancestors Primate Classification – 2000’s Order Primates Suborder Prosimii: tarsiers and lemurs Suborder Anthropoidea: monkeys, apes, and hominids Superfamily Hominoidea Family Hylobatidae: gibbons Family Hominidae Subfamily Ponginae: orangutans Subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimps, Homo and hominin ancestors % genetic similarity 96% 100% with humans 95% 98% 84% 58% 91% Prothero, 2007 Tarsiers, a primitive Primate (Prosimian) from Southeast Asia. Tarsier sanctuary, Philippines A Galago or bush baby, a primitive Primate (Prosimian) from Africa. A Slow Loris, a primitive Primate (Prosimian) from Southeast Asia. Check out the fingers. Lemurs, primitive Primates (Prosimians) from Madagascar. Monkeys, such as baboons, have tails and are not hominoids. Smallest Primate – Pygmy Marmoset, a New World monkey from Brazil Proconsul, the oldest hominoid, 18 MY Hominoids A lesser ape, the Gibbon from Southeast Asia, a primitive living hominoid similar to Proconsul. Male Female Hominoids The Orangutan, a Great Ape from Southeast Asia. Dogs: Hominoids best friend? Gorillas, Great Apes from Africa. Bipedal Gorilla! Gorilla enjoying social media Chimp Gorilla Chimpanzees, Great I’m cool Apes from Africa. Pan troglodytes Chimps are simple tool users Chimp Human Neoteny in Human Evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingdom =Animalia Phylum =Chordata Subphylum =Vertebrata Class =Mammalia Order =Primates I. PARTIAL
    Kingdom =Animalia '' Phylum =Chordata '' Subphylum =Vertebrata '' Class =Mammalia '' Order =Primates 130-132 I. PARTIAL TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF PREHISTORIC AND CONTEMPORARY PRIMATES 176-187 197-198/Lab 7.II. Suborder Infraorder Superfamily Family Genus Species Common Name Prosimii [tree shrew = insectivore] (Strepsirhini) lemur 132-134 aye-aye 188-191 loris and bush baby tarsier Anthropoidea Platyrrhini *Parapithecus (basal anthropoid) (Haplorhini) 134-136 *Apidium (basal anthropoid) 134-138 Ceboidea New World monkey 188-191 Catarrhini *Propliopithecus (basal catarrhine) 136-138 *Aegyptopithecus (basal catarrhine) Cercopithecoidea Cercopithecidae Old World monkey 124-126 Macaca macaque Papio baboon Colobidae Colobus colobus monkey Presbytis langur Hominoidea *Proconsulidae *Proconsul 138-143 191-193 Lab 7. II. D. *Oreopithecidea *Oreopithecus Hylobatidae Hylobates gibbon *Pliopithecidae *Pliopithecus Pongidae *Dryopithecus *dryopithecus *Sivapithecus *ramapithecus *kenyapithecus *ouranopithecus *Gigantopithecus Pongo orangutan Panidae Pan traglodytes chimpanzee Pan paniscus bonobo (“pygmy chimpanzee”) Pan ? Gorilla gorilla Mountain gorilla Gorilla Western lowland g. 202-204 Hominidae *Ardipithecus *ramidus 213-218 1 228-237 *Australopithecus *anamensis 241-245 *afarensis Lucy / First Family Lab 8 *africanus southern ape *garhi *[aka Paranthropus]1 *aethiopicus *boisei Zinj *robustus *Kenyanthropus *platyops 1 237-238 Homo *rudolfensis ER-1470 245-247 *habilis human Ch. 11 *erectus Java / Peking “Man” Lab 10 sapiens Mary / John Chs. 12-13 Lab 12 An * marks groups known only through fossils. Compare: FIGURE 6-7 Primate taxonomic classification, p. 131 FIGURE 6-8 Revised partial classification of the primates, p. 132 FIGURE 8-1 Classification chart, modified from Linnaeus p. 177 FIGURE 8-15 Major events in early primate evolution, p. 191 Virtual Lab 1, section II, parts A-D Primate Classification 1(Note: Australopithecus and Paranthropus make up a “Subfamily” called Australopithecinae, more commonly known as Australopithecines.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination of the Phylogenetic Value of Molar Cusp Patterns for Australopithecus Paranthropus and Early Homo
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2000 Examination of the phylogenetic value of molar cusp patterns for Australopithecus Paranthropus and early Homo Michael Sperazza The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sperazza, Michael, "Examination of the phylogenetic value of molar cusp patterns for Australopithecus Paranthropus and early Homo" (2000). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7080. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7080 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of IVIONTANA Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. ** Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature ** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature D ate ^ 00 Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. An Examination of the Phylogenetic Value of Molar Cusp Patterns for Australopithecus^ Paranthropus and EarlyHomo by Michael Sperazza B.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Inference from Endogenous Retrovirus Distribution and Diversity
    Evolutionary Inference from Endogenous Retrovirus Distribution and Diversity Robert James Moncreiff Gifford University of London Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Department of Biology Silwood Park A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the year 2002 1 Preface PREFACE The work in this thesis carried out between October 1998 and August 2002. My research was supported by a studentship from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and supervised by Dr M. Tristem. This thesis is the result of my own work except where explicitly stated in the text. The contents have not been previously submitted for any degree, diploma, or any other qualification at Imperial College or at any other university. 2 Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my friends and colleagues at Silwood Park for their support and understanding. Equally I would like to thank my friends elsewhere, and my family, for offering some respite from retroviruses and from science in general, and for their encouragement and unaccountable faith in me. Special thanks to Paul-Michael Agapow for his invaluable guidance and supervision in the realm of programming and bioinformatics, and to Vicki and her family for their wonderful hospitality during my stint in post-grant purgatory. Above all I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Mike Tristem, for his support, guidance, and his remarkable patience and generosity. 3 Abstract ABSTRACT Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of germline infections by ancient retroviruses. ERVs are widespread elements within the genomic DNA of vertebrates, and show great potential as markers of evolutionary processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Orangutan Background Information.Pdf
    ORANGUTANS ABQ BioPark Zoo Information Guide ORANGUTAN Pogo pygmaeus abelli Order : Primata Family : Pongidae Range : Northern Sumatra [Indonesia]; formerly throughout entire island. Habitat : Tropical rainforests, including hill forests and swamp forests Diet: Herbivorous. Forest fruits, including durians, jackfruits, lychees, mangos and figs. Also eats leaves and shoots, occasionally small animals, tree bark, and soils rich in minerals. Lifespan : In the wild, 40-50 years. In captivity, up to 60 years. Size : Asia’s largest primate. Males: 4 ½ feet tall, weigh 130-200 lbs. Females: 4 feet tall, weigh 90-110 lbs. World’s largest tree-dwelling animal. Behavior: Diurnal. Arboreal. Spend much of their lives high in trees. Solitary; typically encounter others only to mate. Move slowly through forest looking for fruiting trees; follow movements of hornbills and other fruit-eaters. At night, bend branches into nest platforms for sleeping. Shelter from rain and sun by holding leaves over heads. Use tools such as sticks to get honey and insects from holes and seeds from fruit. Males establish home range and defend it mainly through vocalization; “long call” can be heard 800m away. Also uses call to attract females. Adaptations : Have very long arms [up to eight foot span] that nearly reach the ground when standing; allows brachiation from branch to branch. Hook-shaped hands and feet with long fingers assist in grasping branches while brachiating. Thumbs are short; long ones would get in way while swinging. Are quite dexterous and have been known to undo nuts and bolts in captivity. Legs are much shorter than arms. Have very strong, large jaws for cracking and crushing fruits with hard thick shells.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Animals
    C H A P T E R 10 Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Animals Molluscan shells from the collection of Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744 to 1829). Order in Diversity Evolution has produced a great diversity of species in the animal kingdom. including vertebrae and homeothermy, that separate them from even more Zoologists have named more than 1.5 million species of animals, and thou- dissimilar forms such as insects and flatworms. sands more are described each year. Some zoologists estimate that species All human cultures classify familiar animals according to patterns in ani- named so far constitute less than 20% of all living animals and less than 1% mal diversity. These classifications have many purposes. Some societies classify of all those that have existed. animals according to their usefulness or destructiveness to human endeavors; Despite its magnitude, the diversity of animals is not without limits. others may group animals according to their roles in mythology. Biologists or- Many conceivable forms do not exist in nature, as our myths of minotaurs ganize animal diversity in a nested hierarchy of groups within groups according and winged horses show. Animal diversity is not random but has definite to evolutionary relationships as revealed by ordered patterns in their sharing order. Characteristic features of humans and cattle never occur together of homologous features. This ordering is called a “natural system” because it in a single organism as they do in the mythical minotaurs; nor do char- reflects relationships that exist among animals in nature, outside the context acteristic wings of birds and bodies of horses occur together naturally as of human activity.
    [Show full text]
  • And Taxonomy of Hominoidea: History, Morphology, Molecules, and Fossils
    A REVIEW OF THE SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY OF HOMINOIDEA: HISTORY, MORPHOLOGY, MOLECULES, AND FOSSILS JEFFREY H. SCHWARTZ ABSTRACT. The history of hominoid systematics reveals a general tendency to recognize diversity in the fossil record of “apes” and “basal hominoids,” but a view toward taxonomic limitation with regard to hominids, which was exacerbated in the 1980s by the “removal” of fossils such as Sivapithecus (=Ramapithecus) and their association via morphological synapomorphy with Pongo. The latter, in turn, reinforced the increasingly accepted, molecularly based theory of human-African ape relatedness, which was never substan- tially supported by morphology. Although claims to being cladistic in associ- ating humans with the African apes (or Pan alone) abound in the literature, molecularly and morphologically based analyses are, however, not only pro- cedurally different, they identify synapomorphy differently. Continuing con- fusion of orangutan-like specimens as hominids plus recent re-evaluations of diversity in the human fossil record as well new discoveries of so-called basal fossil hominoids argue for a broadening of hominoid classification until such time as the clades and the relationships between and within them become better understood. KEY WORDS. Systematics, hominoid, hominid, synapomorphy, orangutan clade, molecules versus morphology, regulatory genes INTRODUCTION The questions this conference has raised about the reality and recognition of a “human clade” are numerous, at times hierarchically entwined, and yet also have different implications and consequences for the different approaches that have been brought to bear on what are essentially two different pursuits: systematics and phylogenetic relationships versus clas- sification. The concern of this conference also raises the question of “what Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Australopithecines, Australopiths Kevin D
    Australopithecines: 1 Australopithecines, australopiths Kevin D. Hunt Department of Anthropology Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 Phone: (812) 855 2555 “Australopithecine” is the informal adjective designating members of the taxonomic subfamily Australopithecinae, which with the Homininae constitute the family Hominidae. The Hominidae are humans, human ancestors and collateral species after the lineage branched from that leading to chimpanzees. Recently, paleontologists, influenced by evidence from genetics that apes and humans are more closely related than traditional taxonomy reflected, have pulled African apes into the Hominidae, with repercussions right down the taxonomic scale. Under the new scheme, gorillas are in the subfamily Gorillinae and chimpanzees and humans are in the Homininae. The Homininae is divided into two tribes, the Panini for chimpanzees and Hominini for our own lineage. Our tribe, the Hominini, is divided into two subtribes, the Australopithecina (less formally “australopiths”) and the Hominina, which contains only the genus Homo. Except for specialists, the new taxonomy hardly affects the australopithecines. There is but a single difference: “australopithecines” are now referred to as “australopiths.” The old and new schemes are given in Table 1 (adapted from Wood and Richmond, 2000). Taxa in bold are discussed in this entry. Table 1. Traditional and Revised Ape and Human Taxonomy Traditional taxonomy Superfamily Hominoidea (apes and humans; informally “hominoids”) Family Hylobatidae Genus Hylobates Family
    [Show full text]
  • Gorillas and Orangutans
    The Mentalities of Gorillas and Orangutans Comparative Perspectives Edited by SUE TAYLOR PARKER ROBERT W. MITCHELL H. LYN MILES The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211, USA www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarco´n 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain © Cambridge University Press 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeset in Ehrhardt 9.5/12pt [] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0 521 58027 7 hardback Contents List of contributors [vii] Preface [ix] Acknowledgments [xi] I Comparative evolutionary and developmental perspectives on gorillas and orangutans 1 Hominid family values: morphological and molecular data on relations among the great apes and humans [3] . 2 The life history and development of great apes in comparative perspective [43] . 3 The frontal lobes of the great apes with a focus on the gorilla and the orangutan [70] II Cognition and tool use in gorillas and orangutans 4 Intelligent tool use in wild Sumatran orangutans [99] . , . , . 5 Orangutans’ imitation of tool use: a cognitive interpretation [117] . 6 Object manipulation and skill organization in the complex food preparation of mountain gorillas [147] . 7 Development of sensorimotor intelligence in infant gorillas: the manipulation of objects in problem-solving and exploration [160] .
    [Show full text]