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 •Random lly s huffl 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 ha bitat, 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 inc lddhluded 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 class ified 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 lat ypus 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 Colu go 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 e tter 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 a dditions) 15%1.5% 3/3 (1 a ddition) 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 .