Blogia

BITÁCORA ETOLÓGICA

Exposición "Atapuerca i l'evolució humana" , en Girona

Exposición "Atapuerca i l'evolució humana" , en Girona

Exposició "Atapuerca i l'evolució humana"
Dirigida per Juan Luis Arsuaga, codirector de l'Equip d'Investigacions d'Atapuerca, la mostra ha estat creada pels investigadors per acostar als ciutadans la realitat d'un dels projectes científics més rellevants del nostre país. Es podrà visitar fins al 21 de gener de 2007, de dilluns a diumenge de 10 a 14 h i de 16 a 20 h.


Horaris:
Tancat els dies: 25,26 i 31 de desembre i l’1 i 6 de gener. També tancat les tardes de 24 de desembre i del 5 de gener.

Tallers:
Els taller es faran els dies 25, 26 de novembre, el 2, 3, 16 i 17 de desembre i el 13 i 14 de gener. Monitors de suport.
Dia 25, taller d’arqueologia de 12 a 13,30 i el de paleontologia, de 18 a 19,30.
Dia 26, taller d’art prehistòric de 12 a 13,30.
Dia 2 i 3, els mateixos horaris del cap de setmana 25 i 26.
Dia 16 i 17, els mateixos horaris del cap de setmana 25 i 26.
Dia 13 i 14, els mateixos horaris del cap de setmana 25 i 26.

Visites guiades:
OBERTES: Les visites es faran cada dia a les 7 de la tarda.
Els dissabtes i festius se’n farà dues : una al matí a les 12 i una al vespre a les 7. (possibilitat d’ampliar a 2 a les tardes).
ESCOLARS: a petició (presumiblement en horari de 10 a 12 o de 15 a 16).

La mostra està organitzada per la Fundació Caixa de Catalunya i Casa de Cultura. Per a més informació: 972.20.20.13

Primate Behavior and Conservation Field Course in Costa Rica


Hiring Organization:
State University of New York, Oneonta and DANTA: Association for Conservation of the Tropics

Date Posted:
2006-11-15

Position Description:
The State University of New York at Oneonta and Danta: Association for Conservation of the Tropics are pleased to announce a Primate Behavior and Conservation Field Course to be held in Costa Rica from June 12, to July 11, 2007. This program is open to people of all academic backgrounds. Participants may enroll on either a credit or non-credit basis. Also, an optional ecotravel experience will be provided for those who wish to stay longer for travel after the course.
The course will be held at El Zota Biological Field Station in North-eastern Costa Rica. The course is designed to provide students with training in primate behavior, ecology and conservation in a field setting. During the first half of the course, students will learn how to (1) collect data on the behavior of free-ranging primates, (2) measure environmental variables, including assessment of resource availability, (3) measure population size, and (4) map the field site. In the second half of the course, in consultation with the instructor, each student carries out an independent research project. Students in the past have investigated such topics as feeding ecology, positional behavior, and habitat use in the mantled howler monkey, white-faced capuchin and black-handed spider monkey. Students will be involved in applied conservation during a 6 day field trip to Puerto Viejo and Punta Mona.

The cost of the course is $1850, and includes all within-country transportation, room and board, and expenses for a 6 day field trip. It does NOT include your international flight, airport taxes ($25), accommodation and meals for the first and last nights in San Jose. The deadline for registration is May 1, 2007. Enrollment is limited to 25 participants.

To learn more about the Primate Behavior and Conservation field course, please visit our website (www.danta.info), or email us at dingeska@oneonta.edu.

Qualifications/Experience:
The course is intended for undergraduates or early graduate level students who are very interested in tropical biology, but have little or no experience of working in a tropical environment.

Application Deadline:
May 1, 2007

Contact Information:
Kimberly Dingess
31 Pine Street
Oneonta, NY 13820
USA

Telephone Number:
607-432-0315

Website:
http://www.danta.info

E-mail Address:
dingeska@oneonta.edu

Not Just Nuts and Berries for These Hominids

Not Just Nuts and Berries for These Hominids


By Ann Gibbons
ScienceNOW Daily News
9 November 2006

The robust australopithecines of South Africa are often described as failed humans, having died out 1 million to 1.4 million years ago. Researchers believe their high-fiber, low-nutrient diets might have been too specialized to allow them to cope with a changing environment. A new report in tomorrow's issue of Science challenges this assumption, however, arguing that these close cousins of humans were much more culinarily adventurous than thought.

With their huge molars and massive jaw muscles, australopithecines have been portrayed as nutcrackers who crunched their way through seeds, nuts, and pulpy fruits. As Africa grew cooler and drier, however, these critical fall-back foods were hard to come by, supposedly leading to the hominid's downfall.

To test this theory, a team of American and British researchers studied the teeth of four individuals of Paranthropus robustus (also known as Australopithecus robustus) from the Swartkrans Cave in South Africa. The team scanned the teeth with a sensitive laser, which did not destroy the teeth but etched them lightly enough to free carbon gases long trapped in the enamel. Because different plants absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide differently, the researchers were able to see what types of vegetation the hominids ate based on the ratio of carbon isotopes in their teeth.

Their cuisine included a mix of tropical grasses and sedges, along with woody fruits, shrubs, and herbs, according to the findings. What's more, carbon samples from ridges laid down like tree rings in a single tooth revealed that the hominids switched between these diverse plants, depending on the time of year. The pattern held, regardless of when the hominids lived. Although the specimens date back to about 1.8 million years ago, each individual's lifetime was probably separated by thousands or tens of thousands of years, indicating that Paranthropus robustus was quite capable of dealing with changes in climate or different habitats. "We didn't expect to see as much variability as we found," says lead author Matt Sponheimer of University of Colorado at Boulder. "It was quite a surprise."

The new method is a huge improvement over old isotopic studies that required anthropologists to drill--and destroy--teeth to sample carbon, like prehistoric dentists, says paleoanthropologist Fred Grine of the Stony Brook University in New York. "Sponheimer's taken the analysis of carbon isotopes in fossils to a new level of sophistication," he says, adding that he hopes that fossil teeth--and diets--of earlier hominids can also be studied with the new nondestructive method.

 

Fuente: Science: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1109/1?etoc 

Funding opportunity

Primate Conservation, Incorporated (PCI) is a nonprofit foundation founded to fund field research that supports conservation programs for wild populations of primates. Priority will be given to projects that study, in their natural habitat, the least known and most endangered species. The involvement of citizens from the country in which the primates are found will be a plus. The intent is to provide support for original research that can be used to formulate and to implement conservation plans for the species studied.

PCI will grant seed monies or provide matching grants for graduate students, qualified conservationists, and primatologists to study rare and endangered primates and their conservation in their natural habitat. All appropriate projects will be considered, but the regions of current interest are Asia and West Africa.

http://fundingopps.cos.com/alerts/61631?id=61631&if=alert
http://www.primate.org/grant_in.htm

Ray Hamel
Wisconsin Primate Center Library
Phone: 608-263-3512
hamel@primate.wisc.edu

Cool Like You

Picture of chimps

Follow the leader?
Chimps in captivity follow the leader and place orange plastic token in a container to receive a reward.

Credit: Yerkes National Primate Research Center


By Gretchen Vogel
ScienceNOW Daily News
3 November 2006

Humans excel at following conventions. In France, acquaintances greet one another with a kiss on the cheek. In Japan, they bow. The different greetings have no inherent use on their own--and they would each lose their meaning when performed in the wrong context. But are humans the only animals to use such social conventions? A new study in chimps suggests not; the primates can learn an arbitrary behavior and pass it along to their groupmates.

The behaviour in question involved objects that chimps would normally deem useless. Graduate student Kristin Bonnie of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and her colleagues provided two groups of chimpanzees with either a bucket with a hole cut in the side or a container with a large tube sticking out of the top. Out of sight of the other group members, the researchers trained one high-ranking female from each group to deposit tokens into either the bucket or the tube. The team then sat back and watched to see if that trained behavior would spread.

Indeed, the other animals quickly realized that the trained group member was receiving treats--apple or banana slices--for picking up the tokens and placing them in a container. Although treats were available for chimps that used either receptacle, each group followed their leader and used just one of the two options. There was only one exception: A low-ranking female in one group figured out she could get rewards for using the second container, but none of her group members followed her lead.

Bonnie and her colleagues say the results, reported online this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that the evolutionary roots of humans’ tendency to follow convention are also present in our chimpanzee cousins. While other studies have shown that different chimp groups use similar tools in different ways (ScienceNOW, 22 August 2005), this is the first controlled study that shows chimps can follow conventions that don’t involve tools, Bonnie says.

The experiment is "getting closer to the heart of cultural phenomena where you’re only doing something because it’s the local way of doing it," says study co-author Andrew Whiten of the University of St. Andrews in Fife, United Kingdom. But psychologist Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, says the experiment doesn’t cleanly demonstrate that chimps can pick up a completely arbitrary custom. Learning that performing a certain action results in a reward is not the same as doing something just because everyone else is doing it, he says.

Fuente: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1103/4?etoc

Speaking Bonobo

Speaking Bonobo

Bonobos have an impressive vocabulary, especially when it comes to snacks

By Paul Raffaele

 
To better understand bonobo intelligence, I traveled to Des Moines, Iowa, to meet Kanzi, a 26-year-old male bonobo reputedly able to converse with humans. When Kanzi was an infant, American psychologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh tried to teach his mother, Matata, to communicate using a keyboard labeled with geometric symbols. Matata never really got the hang of it, but Kanzi—who usually played in the background, seemingly oblivious, during his mother’s teaching sessions—picked up the language.

Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues kept adding symbols to Kanzi’s keyboard and laminated sheets of paper. First Kanzi used 6 symbols, then 18, finally 348. The symbols refer to familiar objects (yogurt, key, tummy, bowl), favored activities (chase, tickle), and even some concepts considered fairly abstract (now, bad).

Kanzi learned to combine these symbols in regular ways, or in what linguists call"proto-grammar."Once, Savage-Rumbaugh says, on an outing in a forest by the Georgia State University laboratory where he was raised, Kanzi touched the symbols for"marshmallow"and"fire."Given matches and marshmallows, Kanzi snapped twigs for a fire, lit them with the matches and toasted the marshmallows on a stick.

Watch Kanzi comprehend novel sentences — phrases that preclude the learning of specific responses.

Savage-Rumbaugh claims that in addition to the symbols Kanzi uses, he knows the meaning of up to 3,000 spoken English words. She tests his comprehension in part by having someone in another room pronounce words that Kanzi hears through a set of headphones. Kanzi then points to the appropriate symbol on his keyboard. But Savage-Rumbaugh says Kanzi also understands words that aren’t a part of his keyboard vocabulary; she says he can respond appropriately to commands such as"put the soap in the water"or"carry the TV outdoors."

About a year ago, Kanzi and his sister, mother, nephew and four other bonobos moved into a $10 million, 18-room house and laboratory complex at the Great Ape Trust, North America’s largest great ape sanctuary, five miles from downtown Des Moines. The bonobo compound boasts a 13,000-square-foot lab, drinking fountains, outdoor playgrounds, rooms linked by hydraulic doors that the animals operate themselves by pushing buttons, and a kitchen where they can use a microwave oven and get snacks from a vending machine (pressing the symbols for desired foods).

Kanzi and the other bonobos spend evenings sprawled on the floor, snacking on M & M’s, blueberries, onions and celery, as they watch DVDs they select by pressing buttons on a computer screen. Their favorites star apes and other creatures friendly with humans such as Quest for Fire, Every Which Way But Loose, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan and Babe.

Through a glass panel, Savage-Rumbaugh asks Kanzi if it’s OK for me to enter his enclosure."The bonobos control who comes into their quarters,"she explains. Kanzi, still the alpha male of this group in his middle age, has the mien of an aging patriarch—he’s balding and paunchy with serious, deep-set eyes. Squealing apparent agreement, he pushes a button, and I walk inside. A wire barrier still separates us."Kanzi can cause you serious damage if he wants,"Savage-Rumbaugh adds.

Kanzi shows me his electronic lexigram touch pad, which is connected to a computer that displays—while a male voice speaks—the words he selects. But Kanzi’s finger slips off the keys."We're trying to solve this problem,"says Savage-Rumbaugh.

She and her colleagues have been testing the bonobos’ ability to express their thoughts vocally, rather than by pushing buttons. In one experiment she described to me, she placed Kanzi and Panbanisha, his sister, in separate rooms where they could hear but not see each other. Through lexigrams, Savage-Rumbaugh explained to Kanzi that he would be given yogurt. He was then asked to communicate this information to Panbanisha."Kanzi vocalized, then Panbanisha vocalized in return and selected ‘yogurt’ on the keyboard in front of her,"Savage-Rumbaugh tells me.

With these and other ape-language experiments, says Savage-Rumbaugh,"the mythology of human uniqueness is coming under challenge. If apes can learn language, which we once thought unique to humans, then it suggests that ability is not innate in just us."

But many linguists argue that these bonobos are simply very skilled at getting what they want, and that their abilities do not constitute language."I do not believe that there has ever been an example anywhere of a nonhuman expressing an opinion, or asking a question. Not ever,"says Geoffrey Pullum, a linguist at the University of California at Santa Cruz."It would be wonderful if animals could say things about the world, as opposed to just signaling a direct emotional state or need. But they just don’t.”

Whatever the dimension of Kanzi’s abilities, he and I did manage to communicate. I’d told Savage-Rumbaugh about some of my adventures, and she invited me to perform a Maori war dance. I beat my chest, slapped my thighs and hollered. The bonobos sat quiet and motionless for a few seconds, then all but Kanzi snapped into a frenzy, the noise deafening as they screamed, bared their teeth and pounded on the walls and floor of their enclosure. Still calm, Kanzi waved an arm at Savage-Rumbaugh, as if asking her to come closer, then let loose with a stream of squeaks and squeals."Kanzi says he knows you're not threatening them,"Savage-Rumbaugh said to me,"and he'd like you to do it again just for him, in a room out back, so the others won't get upset.”

I’m skeptical, but I follow the researcher through the complex, out of Kanzi's sight. I find him, all alone, standing behind protective bars. Seeing me, he slapped his chest and thighs, mimicking my war dance, as if inviting me to perform an encore. I obliged, of course, and Kanzi joined in with gusto.
 
Fuente: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/november/speakingbonobo.php 

Lizards have personalities too, study shows

13:35 08 November 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Roxanne Khamsi

 

The lizards were monitored from birth (Image: Jean-François Le Galliard)


The lizards were monitored from birth (Image: Jean-François Le Galliard)
The researchers captured pregnant females for their study (Image: Jean-François Le Galliard)


The researchers captured pregnant females for their study (Image: Jean-François Le Galliard)

They may be cold-blooded, but some lizards have warm personalities and like to socialise, a new study shows.

A behavioural study reveals that lizards have different social skills: some are naturally inclined to join large groups while others eschew company altogether. The discovery of reptilian personality types could help ecologists better understand and model animal population dynamics, say the researchers involved.

Scientists define "personality differences" as consistent behavioural differences between individuals across time and contexts. But there is a need for more research on these differences in wild animals, says Julien Cote of the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. "Psychologists have explored the considerable range of non-human personalities like sociability, but mostly on domesticated animals," he says.

Scent of another

Cote and colleagues captured wild pregnant common lizards (Lacerta vivipara), and as soon as the offspring were born they were exposed to the scent of other lizards, to test their reactions. Over the next year the team monitored the newly born creatures to see how much time each spent in different areas of their enclosure.

Lizards that showed an aversion to other scents at an early age were more likely to flee highly populated areas of the enclosure, Cote's team found. These lizards were described as "asocial". In contrast, those that had been initially attracted to other scents often left sparsely populated areas of the enclosure to seek out areas of higher population density.

Understanding these personality differences in wild animals could give ecologists a more nuanced view of population dynamics, Cote says. "When studying and modelling how populations function, it is necessary to consider different kinds of individuals reacting differently to the environment rather than a unique behavioural response for all individuals."

Other experts agree that personality types could help explain why some animals might be more reluctant to leave a group and explore new turf. "If you have a personality by definition you are constrained," says ecologist Jason Jones of Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York, US.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society B (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3734)

Related Articles
Weblinks
document.write("Close this window")
Return to article
Printed on Sat Nov 11 18:36:49 GMT 2006

Did evolution make our eyes stand out?

Did evolution make our eyes stand out?


Researchers test ‘cooperative eye’ hypothesis in humans and apes


By Ker Than
LiveScience
Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2006

For humans, the eyes are more than just windows to the outside world. They are also portals inward, providing others with glimpses into our inner thoughts and feelings.

Of all primates, human eyes are the most conspicuous; our eyes see, but they are also meant to be seen. Our colored irises float against backdrops of white and encircle black pupils. This color contrast is not found in the eyes of most apes.

According to one idea, called the cooperative eye hypothesis, the distinctive features that help highlight our eyes evolved partly to help us follow each others' gazes when communicating or when cooperating with one another on tasks requiring close contact.

In a new study that is one of the first direct tests of this theory, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany looked at what effect head and eye movements had on redirecting the gaze of great apes versus human infants.

In the study, a human experimenter did one of the following:

  • Closed his eyes, but tilted his head up toward the ceiling
  • Kept head stationary while looking at the ceiling
  • Looked at the ceiling with both head and eyes
  • Kept head stationary while looking straight ahead
  • Results showed that the great apes — which included 11 chimpanzees, four gorillas and four bonobos — were more likely to follow the experimenter's gaze when he moved only his head. In contrast, the 40 human infants looked up more often when the experimenter moved only his eyes.

    The findings suggest that great apes are influenced more by head than eyes when trying to follow another's gaze, while humans are more reliant on eyes under the same circumstances.

    The study, led by Michael Tomasello, will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Human Evolution.

    The small things
    Kevin Haley, an anthropologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study, told LiveScience he thinks the cooperative eye hypothesis is quite plausible, especially "in light of research demonstrating that human infants and children both infer cooperative intentions in others and display cooperative intensions themselves."

    Comparisons of human eyes to those of other primates reveal several subtle differences that help make ours stand out. For example, the human eye lacks certain pigments found in primate eyes, so the outer fibrous covering, or "sclera," of our eyeball is white. In contrast, most primates have uniformly brown or dark-hued sclera, making it more difficult to determine the direction they're looking from their eyes alone.

    Another subtle aid that helps us determine where another person is looking is the contrast in color between our facial skin, sclera and irises. Most apes have low contrast between their eyes and facial skin.

    Humans are also the only primates for whom the outline of the eye and the position of the iris are clearly visible. In addition, our eyes are more horizontally elongated and disproportionately large for our body size compared to most apes. Gorillas, for example, have massive bodies but relatively small eyes.

    The cooperative eye hypothesis explains these differences as traits that evolved to help facilitate communication and cooperation between members of a social group. As one important example, human mothers and infants are heavily reliant on eye contact during their interactions. One study found that human infants look at the face and eyes of their caregiver twice as long on average compared with other apes.

    Clue to our humanity
    Other ideas have also been proposed to explain why humans have such visible eyes. For example, white sclera might signal good health and therefore help signal to others our potential as a mate.

    Or, as one other recent study suggested, visible eyes might be important for promoting cooperative and altruistic behavior in individuals that benefit the group. The study, conducted by Haley and Daniel Fessler, also at UCLA, found that people were more generous and donated more money if they felt they were being watched — even if the watchful eyes were just drawings resembling eyes on a computer screen.

    Tomasello and his team note in their paper that "these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and highly visible eyes may serve all of these functions."

    If correct, the cooperative eye hypothesis could provide a valuable clue about when we became the social beings that we are. “It would be especially useful to know when in evolution human's highly visible eyes originated, as this would suggest a possible date for the origins of uniquely human forms of cooperation and communication,” Tomasello and colleagues write.

    © 2006 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.


    URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15625720/

    XXXth International Ethological Conference

    XXXth International Ethological Conference

    The XXXth International Ethological Conference will be held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada from 15-23 August 2007. The web page for the conference is http://iec2007.psychology.dal.ca/ . I attended the conference in August of 2005 in Budapest, Hungary and it was quite good. In 2007, there appears to be a number of Plenary talks that are directly applicable to at least aspects of Evolutionary Psychology. I'm tentatively planning to go. It is quite a large, international meeting with people from many countries attending.

    The list of Plenary Speaker to date are as follows:

    CURRENT LIST OF PLENARY SPEAKERS:

    Opening Public lecture

    Hal Whitehead, Dalhousie University, Canada.
    "Adventures of a marine mammalogist in the study of whale language
    and culture"

    Plenary lectures (tentative titles)

    1. Patrick Bateson, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge,
    England
    "Developmental Plasticity and Epigenetics"
    .

    2. Pat Monaghan, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
    "Growth, lifespan and life history trade-offs"

    3. Elisabetta Visalberghi, Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della
    Cognizione, Rome, Italy
    "Behavioral, cognitive and ecological factors affecting tool use in
    wild capuchin monkeys"

    4. Atsushi Iriki, RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Japan.
    "Brain mechanism for development and evolution of monkey tool-use as
    a latent precursor of human intelligence"

    5. Roger T. Hanlon, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, USA
    "Masters of optical illusion: the neuroethology of rapid adaptive
    camouflage and communication in cephalopods"

    6. Horst Bleckmann, Institut für Zoologie der Universität Bonn, Germany.
    "Neuroethology of Sensory Systems"

    7. Rui Oliveira, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa,
    Portugal
    "From hormones to behaviour and back: androgens, social context and
    competition".

    8. Hanna Kokko, University of Helsinki, Finland
    "Love and hatred in a world of feedback"

    9. Sara J. Shettleworth, University of Toronto, Canada
    "How do animals know what they know?"

    10. Marian Stamp Dawkins, Department of Zoology, University of
    Oxford, England
    "The scientific basis for assessing suffering in animals"

    11. Robert L. Trivers, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers
    University,USA
    "Human Ethology / Genes in conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic
    Elements"

    Regards,
    Jay R. Feierman

    La estructura genética del gran simio

    A un 3% del hombre

    1. • Robert Waterston, el científico que coordinó la secuenciación del genoma del chimpancé, explica que las mayores diferencias con los humanos atañen al sexo y el sistema inmune
     <b>Robert Waterston </b> El lunes, en CosmoCaixa-Barcelona. Foto:  JOSEP GARCÍA Robert Waterston El lunes, en CosmoCaixa-Barcelona. Foto: JOSEP GARCÍA
    ANTONIO MADRIDEJOS
    BARCELONA
    Los humanos (Homo sapiens) y los chimpancés (Pan troglodytes) llevan solo seis o siete millones de años avanzando por caminos divergentes, que en términos evolutivos es un suspiro, y lógicamente lo comparten casi todo. Guardando las distancias, se parecen los esqueletos, la visión, la fabricación de hemoglobina, el desarrollo corporal, la memoria, el cuidado de los hijos... "Compartimos entre el 96% y el 97% del genoma. Nos parecemos tanto a los chimpancés --dice el biólogo Robert Waterston-- como los propios chimpancés a los gorilas". ¿Otro ejemplo? Las diferencias son 10 veces más pequeñas que entre ratas y ratones.
    Waterston, catedrático de la Universidad de Washington en Seattle (EEUU), fue el coordinador del consorcio internacional que el año pasado publicó la secuenciación del genoma del chimpancé, "el primer gran simio, si exceptuamos el hombre", del que disponemos un resumen bastante preciso de su estructura genética. El investigador estuvo ayer en Barcelona invitado por el programa de ciencia y medio ambiente de la Obra Social La Caixa.
    Técnicamente, prosigue Waterston, las diferencias en el ADN de ambas especies suponen sólo el 1,2% del total. "Lo que pasa es que hay secuencias que están en el chimpancé y faltan en los humanos, o al revés, y pueden representar otro 3%", insiste. Tenemos casi los mismos cromosomas (23 pares los humanos, 24 pares los chimpancés) y casi los mismos genes. "Lo que nos diferencia es esencialmente que algunos aminoácidos que están codificados dentro de un gen son distintos". Los genes se expresan de forma diferente y las proteínas resultantes no son iguales.
    En cualquier caso, cambios aparentemente pequeños pueden tener una importancia vital. El profesor pone el ejemplo de la mutación que provocó que el cráneo de los humanos pudiera crecer a costa de perder musculatura en la mandíbula y fuerza en la masticación.

    Genes defensivos
    De forma sorprendente, las mayores diferencias entre ambos genomas no atañen a genes vinculados a lo que entendemos por humanidad, sino a una conducta tan supuestamente animal como es la reproducción. Así, Waterston cita grandes divergencias en genes responsables de la producción de esperma, fruto posiblemente de la prosmicua vida de los chimpancés. También varían el sistema inmunológico y las defensas: "Son genes que tienden a cambiar rápido debido a la injerencia de factores externos que los atacan".
    ¿Y la inteligencia? "Es difícil vincular determinados genes a lo que llamamos inteligencia. Ya me gustaría saberlo --prosigue--, pero sí confío en que comparando ambos genomas podamos descubrir qué es lo que nos hizo humanos".
    Lo que sí se ha comprobado, dice Waterston, es que hay un gen inactivo en los chimpancés, llamado FoxP2, que parece determinante en nuestra capacidad de hablar. El catedrático explica que a una familia británica se le ha detectado la misma particularidad: sus miembros son inteligentes, pero tienen problemas insalvables con la pronunciación y la gramática.

    Capacidad olfativa
    En seis millones de vida por separado, ambas especies de origen centroafricano han acumulado nuevas aptitudes genéticas y han perdido otras. "Es difícil determinarlo, pero sabemos que los humanos, por ejemplo, han perdido capacidad olfativa que se mantiene en los chimpancés".
    "Como nuestros parientes evolutivos más cercanos, los chimpancés están especialmente capacitados para enseñarnos sobre nosotros mismos --dice Waterston--. Creo que nos podrían ayudar a entender la base genética de algunas enfermedades humanas". Y luego cita el caso del virus del sida, una enfermedad que los chimpancés transportan pero no sufren. "El sida no progresa en ellos, no les infecta".
    ¿Y los gorilas? Se sitúan más lejos de los humanos. A partir de un antepasado común, sus genes iniciaron caminos divergentes mucho antes, posiblemente hace 10 millones de años, y hora las coincidencias rondan el 92%. "Todavía no ha concluido la secuenciación del genoma del gorila, pero hay aproximadamente un 2% de diferencias y otro 6% de fragmentos del ADN que faltan en una u otra especie", concluye Waterston.
     
    Fuente: El Periódico de Catalunya 

    Mirror Test Implies Elephants Self-Aware

    Mirror Test Implies Elephants Self-Aware

    By ANDREW BRIDGES
    The Associated Press
    Monday, October 30, 2006; 11:02 PM

    WASHINGTON -- If you're Happy and you know it, pat your head. That, in a peanut shell, is how a 34-year-old female Asian elephant in the Bronx Zoo showed researchers that pachyderms can recognize themselves in a mirror _ complex behavior observed in only a few other species.

    The test results suggest elephants _ or at least Happy _ are self-aware. The ability to distinguish oneself from others had been shown only in humans, chimpanzees and, to a limited extent, dolphins.

    That self-recognition may underlie the social complexity seen in elephants, and could be linked to the empathy and altruism that the big-brained animals have been known to display, said researcher Diana Reiss, of the Wildlife Conservation Society, which manages the Bronx Zoo.

    In a 2005 experiment, Happy faced her reflection in an 8-by-8-foot mirror and repeatedly used her trunk to touch an "X" painted above her eye. The elephant could not have seen the mark except in her reflection. Furthermore, Happy ignored a similar mark, made on the opposite side of her head in paint of an identical smell and texture, that was invisible unless seen under black light.

    "It seems to verify for us she definitely recognized herself in the mirror," said Joshua Plotnik, one of the researchers behind the study. Details appear this week on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Still, two other zoo elephants, Maxine and Patty, failed to touch either the visible or invisible "X" marks on their heads in two runs of the experiment. But all three adult female elephants at the zoo behaved while in front of the jumbo mirror in ways that suggested they recognized themselves, said Plotnik, a graduate student at Emory University in Atlanta.

    Maxine, for instance, used the tip of her trunk to probe the inside of her mouth while facing the mirror. She also used her trunk to slowly pull one ear toward the mirror, as if she were using the reflection to investigate herself. The researchers reported not seeing that type of behavior at any other time.

    "Doing things in front of the mirror: that spoke volumes to me that they were definitely recognizing themselves," said Janine Brown, a research physiologist and elephant expert at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park in Washington. She was not connected with the study but expressed interest in conducting follow-up research.

    Gordon Gallup, the psychologist who devised the mark test in 1970 for use on chimps, called the results "very strong and very compelling." But he said additional studies on both elephants and dolphins were needed.

    "They really need to be replicated in order to be able to say with any assurance that dolphins and elephants indeed as species are capable of recognizing themselves. Replication is the cornerstone of science," said Gallup, a professor at the State University of New York at Albany, who provided advice to the researchers.

    The three Bronx Zoo elephants did not display any social behavior in front of the mirror, suggesting that each recognized the reflected image as itself and not another elephant. Many other animals mistake their mirror reflections for other creatures.

    That divergent species such as elephants and dolphins should share the ability to recognize themselves as distinct from others suggests the characteristic evolved independently, according to the study.

    Elephants and mammoths, now extinct, split from the last common ancestor they shared with mastodons, also extinct, about 24 million years ago. In a separate study also appearing this week on the scientific journal's Web site, researchers report finding fossil evidence of an older species that links modern elephants to even older ancestors.

    The likely "missing link" is a 27 million-year-old jaw fossil, found in Eritrea.

    ___

    On the Net:

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/

    Fuente: The Washington Post

    Autoconsciencia en elefantes?

    Autoconsciencia en elefantes?

    Los elefantes pueden, al igual que delfines y simios, reconocerse en el espejo

    EUROPA PRESS
    MADRID
     

    Los elefantes pueden reconocerse a sí mismos en un espejo como ya se había descubierto en el caso de simios y delfines, animales que como el ser humano poseen este sentido de conciencia, según un estudio de la Universidad Emory en Atlanta (Estados Unidos) que se publica en la edición digital de la revista de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias.

    Los investigadores explican que este tipo de conciencia puede medirse a través del autorreconocimiento en el espejo. Un animal capaz de reconocerse ante el espejo suele progresar hacia otra serie de reconocimientos y observaciones, culminando en una prueba mediante la que es capaz de tocar una marca sobre su cuerpo que de otra forma no podría ver.

    Esta capacidad de reconocerse en el espejo sólo se ha documentado hasta ahora en simios y delfines.

    La prueba definitiva

    Los científicos han realizado una prueba de reconocimiento ante el espejo en tres elefantes hembra asiáticos. Los tres elefantes han pasado varios niveles de pruebas frente al espejo. Por último, uno de los tres comenzó a tocar repetidamente una X que tenía sobre su cabeza con su trompa.

    Aunque sólo uno de los elefantes ha pasado la prueba de tocarse la marca, los investigadores indican que menos de la mitad de los chimpancés evaluados habitualmente pasaban también esta prueba. En combinación con el hecho de que la progresión global fue paralela a la de simios y delfines, los elefantes pondrían por ello desplegar autoconciencia.

    Fuente: El Periódico de Catalunya .

    Study Suggests Evolutionary Link Between Diet, Brain Size In Orangutans

    In a study of orangutans living on the Indonesian islands of Borneo and Sumatra, scientists from Duke University and the University of Zurich have found what they say is the first demonstration in primates of an evolutionary connection between available food supplies and brain size.


    Andrea Taylor deduced brain size by measuring orangutan skulls. (Photo Credit: Megan Morr / Courtesy of Duke University)

    Based on their comparative study, the scientists say orangutans confined to part of Borneo where food supplies are frequently depleted may have evolved through the process of natural selection comparatively smaller brains than orangs inhabiting the more bounteous Sumatra.

    The findings "suggest that temporary, unavoidable food scarcity may select for a decrease in brain size, perhaps accompanied by only small or subtle decreases in body size," said Andrea Taylor and Carel van Schaik in a report now online in the Journal of Human Evolution.

    Taylor is an assistant professor at Duke's departments of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and of Community and Family Medicine. Van Schaik directs the University of Zurich's Anthropological Institute & Museum, and he also is an adjunct professor of biological anthropology and anatomy at Duke, where he had worked for 15 years.

    "To our knowledge, this is the first such study to demonstrate a relationship between relative brain size and resource quality at this microevolutionary level in primates," they said.

    Such a change would provide support for what Taylor called the "expensive tissue" hypothesis. "Compared to other tissues, brain tissue is metabolically expensive to grow and maintain," she said. "If there has to be a trade-off, brain tissue may have to give."

    "The study suggests that animals facing periods of uncontrollable food scarcity may deal with that by reducing their energy requirement for one of the most expensive organs in their bodies: the brain," van Schaik added.

    "This brings us closer to a good ecological theory of variation in brain size, and thus of the conditions steering cognitive evolution," he said. "Such a theory is vital for understanding what happened during human evolution, where, relative to our ancestors, our lineage underwent a threefold expansion of brain size in a few million years."

    In their study, Taylor and van Schaik focused on several varieties of orangutans, an endangered primate closely related to humans.

    Members of the orang species inhabiting Sumatra, called Pongo abelii, live in the island's most favored environment, where soils are best for growing the fruits they most like to eat. "They'll eat fruits as often as they can, and they'll travel farther away for them if not nearby," Taylor said.

    Sumatra also appears to be less subject to periodic "El Niño" climatic fluctuations that disrupt vegetative growth on other islands in the Indonesian region, the researchers' report said.

    The scientists found that the nutritionally well-off Sumatran orangutans differed most strikingly from Pongo pygmaeus morio, one of the three subspecies occupying the island of Borneo. The morio subspecies lives in the northeastern part of the island where soils are poorer, access to fruit is most iffy and the impact of El Niño events can be significant.

    Those factors "converge to produce an environment for orangutans of eastern Borneo that is at times seriously resource-limited," the scientists wrote. During extensive fruit-short periods, the animals have to "resort to fallback foods with reduced energy and protein content, such as vegetation and bark," they added.

    In previous studies, reported in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, Taylor found evidence that orangs living in Borneo's northeast have jaws that are better able to handle tougher varieties of food than orangutans in other parts of Borneo or Sumatra.

    This improved feeding efficiency, coupled with a relatively small brain, would enable such animals to adapt to their conditions by both maximizing their resources and conserving energy, she said.

    In addition, studies by van Schaik and other scientists have suggested that Borneo's morio orangs bear offspring more frequently than do Sumatra's orangs. Such relatively short intervals between births could themselves be tied to smaller brains in such higher primates as orangutans, van Schaik and Taylor wrote in their current report.

    "Larger-brained apes have slower-paced life histories," they said. "Assuming selection is acting on brain size, life history is prolonged because development of larger brains require more time."

    Their previous work led Taylor, an anatomist who studies bones, to begin collaborating with van Schaik, a field biologist who studies living orangs in the wilds, to address the question of whether nutrition, brain size and interbirth intervals might be linked.

    Other scientists working in the 1980s had found no differences in brain size among orangs from Borneo and Sumatra, Taylor said. But that work sampled animals only from west Borneo and not from resource-limited east Borneo, she added.

    In their own studies, as well as in studies by other researchers, "we see greater anatomical differences amongst the Bornean populations than we see between the Bornean and Sumatran populations," Taylor said.

    In addition to having physical differences, Bornean orangs also inhabit areas that vary more ecologically than do comparative orangutan habitats on Sumatra. "The eastern parts of Borneo suffer more from El Niño-related droughts than parts of western Borneo," the scientists wrote. "The effects of El Niño on tropical rain forest composition and diversity are also more marked in eastern compared to western parts."

    So Taylor and van Schaik undertook "a comprehensive re-evaluation of brain size among all orangutan species and subspecies," they wrote.

    Since they couldn't measure brain size in wild, living members of these endangered animals, Taylor sought out skulls from museums and other sources. In all, they compared 226 adult specimens from the four distinct populations occupying Sumatra and Borneo.

    Among these populations, orangutans of the Pongo pygmaeus morio species on Borneo "consistently exhibit the absolutely and relatively smallest cranial capacity," the researchers concluded. Although the researchers found reduced brain sizes in both male and female orangutans, the differences within the small group of animals studied were statistically significant only for the females, they noted.

    As to what may cause the gender difference, the researchers note that female morio are notably smaller than their male counterparts and that they generally are at greater risk for nutritional stress because of pregnancy and lactation and their smaller homes ranges.

    "The general scenario supported by these results, then, is that an increase in the frequency of uncontrollable periods of low energy intake in one part of the orangutan's geographic range selected for a reduction in brain size," the researchers said.

    Similar evolutionary pressures within resource-poor environments also may explain the smaller-than-normal brain size of a controversial 18,000-year-old skull recently found on the Indonesian island of Flores, Taylor and van Schaik said in their article.

    In announcing the find in 2004, the skull's discoverers suggested that the small-brained specimen represented a new dwarf early human species that somehow survived until fairly recently. Critics argue that it actually is a modern human afflicted with microcephaly, a genetic disorder characterized by an abnormally small head and an underdeveloped brain.

    Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192505.htm

    La primera migración

    La primera migración

    1. Una paleontóloga de Cambridge propone que los 'Homo sapiens' modernos poblaron la Tierra en dos oleadas
    2. Los aborígenes australianos son la herencia de la más antigua

    ANTONIO MADRIDEJOS
    BARCELONA

    Hace 70.000 años, unas tribus de Homo sapiens dejaron su cuna africana y se lanzaron a la colonización del mundo: partiendo de la actual Eritrea, cruzaron el estrecho de Bab el Mandeb, alcanzaron la península Arábiga y, con el paso de las generaciones, bordeando las costas o saltando de isla en isla, hollaron la lejana Australia hace 60.000 años. Los primeros emigrantes modernos llegaron ciertamente lejos, pues cubrieron 12.000 kilómetros, pero su éxito demográfico fue más bien escaso: la herencia genética de aquellas poblaciones solo es detectable hoy en día en unos cuantos miles de personas en Australia y en recónditos rincones de Asia oriental y el Índico.
    No hay más herencia visible. Lo dice la genética: o se extinguieron o fueron asimilados sin dejar rastro, puesto que todo el resto del mundo, incluyendo el resto de África, desciende de una segunda expansión mucho más exitosa que aconteció hace 50.000 años. Esto es al menos lo que propone
    Marta Mirazón Lahr, paleoantropóloga de la Universidad de Cambridge (Reino Unido), para quien las dos migraciones son la única forma de explicar las particularidades de los nativos australianos. Mirazón participó en un congreso en Barcelona invitada por el programa de ciencia de la Obra Social La Caixa.


    "Es cierto que los estudios genéticos apuntan hacia una única migración porque todos los humanos somos muy parecidos, pero cuando uno estudia la morfología y las herramientas de los antiguos australianos se da cuenta de que algo no encaja", afirma.

    Avance del desierto

    Una crisis climática que desertizó el África tropical fue posiblemente el acicate que hace 70.000 años amplió los horizontes del Homo sapiens. Eso sí, fueron muy pocos, "quizá 500 o 1.000", los que realmente cruzaron Bab el Mandeb. Los colonizadores, adaptados a una dieta más marinera, siguieron por la costa de lo que hoy es Irán hasta llegar al delta del Indo y la India. Aunque varios estudios lo sugieren, Mirazón no cree que la colonización definitiva del planeta partiera de las poblaciones que se instalaron en esas regiones: "Habría que atravesar desiertos o bien los montes Zagros o el Himalaya. No parece fácil". En cambio, la paleoantropóloga considera que los sapiens de aquella época ya tenían suficiente destreza marinera como para sortear los numerosos estrechos que llevan a Australia, incluyendo uno último de 90 kilómetros de anchura. "Podían fabricar barcazas capaces de transportar a varias familias".
    Uno de los escollos de la hipótesis de las dos migraciones es que no se han encontrado restos ni descendientes en la India, territorio por el que forzosamente debieron de pasar aquellos primitivos colonizadores. Mirazón Lahr afirma que la erupción del volcán Toba (Indonesia), la mayor en el último millón de años en la Tierra, pudo abocar a la extinción a las comunidades locales en la India y sepultar cualquier resto arqueológico. En su opinión, no es nada descabellado pensar en grandes extinciones porque la humanidad ha sufrido varios cuellos de botella en los últimos 200.000 años.
    La migración de hace 70.000 años no ha dejado huella visible en la India, al menos por ahora, pero en cambio sí hay una indudable herencia en poblaciones actuales de las islas Nicobar y Andamán y en núcleos aislados de Filipinas, Malaisia e Indonesia. "Son tribus que quedaron arrinconadas". Originariamente, estas poblaciones reliquias no eran sustancialmente diferentes al grueso de los humanos modernos, pero el aislamiento acentuó ciertos rasgos, como la baja estatura, dice Mirazón.
    ¿Las diferencias entre los antepasados de los aborígenes australianos y el resto de la población mundial son debidas a una evolución separada, fruto del aislamiento, o a diferentes orígenes africanos? "No tenemos ni idea del proceso de diferenciación dentro de África que llevó al origen del hombre moderno hace 150.000 años. En líneas generales, los colonizadores de ambas migraciones eran muy parecidos, pero no creo salieran de los mismos linajes", concluye la paleontropóloga.

    Fuente: El Periódico de Catalunya, 24-10-2006, www.elperiodico.cat

    DNA trail points to human brain evolution

    DNA trail points to human brain evolution

    12:01 11 October 2006
    NewScientist.com news service
    Roxanne Khamsi

     

    The human brain may have evolved beyond that of our primate cousins because our brain cells are better at sticking in place, researchers say.

    A new study comparing the genomes of humans, chimps, monkeys and mice found an unexpectedly high degree of genetic difference in the human DNA regions that influence nerve cell adhesion, compared with the DNA of the other animals.

    Accelerated evolution here allowed human brain cell connections to form with greater complexity, enabling us to grow bigger brains, the researchers suggest.

    The genetic assembly of the ten billion neurons in the human brain relies on precise expression of adhesion molecules that allow for thousands of connections between neurons and the matrix of proteins around them.

    “Cell adhesion controls many aspects of brain development” including growth and structure, says Shyam Prabhakar at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, US, who carried out the genetic analysis with colleagues.

    Tests are now needed to reveal whether levels of proteins involved in nerve adhesion do in fact physically differ between the brains of monkeys, chimps and humans, as suggested by the DNA findings. “We don’t have any [physical] changes to link the genetic changes to,” explains Todd Preuss at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, US.

    Prabhakar will present the findings at the American Society of Human Genetics meeting in New Orleans, US, this week.

    Publicado artículo en LATERALITY

    Publicado artículo en LATERALITY

    El pasado 28 de agostó se publicó online en la prestigiosa revista "Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition " un artículo sobre la investigación llevada a cabo en Fundación Mona sobra lateralización manual y especialización hemisférica en chimpancés.

     

    Este proyecto de investigación fue llevado a cabo conjuntamente por miembros del IPHES , Fundación Mona, URV y el Centro UCM-ISCII de Evolución y Comportamiento Humanos.

    En los próximos meses saldrá publicado en la edición en papel de la revista británica, editada por Psychology Press.

    Adjunto la referencia y el abstract del artículo:

    Mosquera, M., Llorente, M., Riba, D., Estebaranz, F., Gonzalez, M., Lorenzo, C., Sanmart, N., Toll, M., Carbonell, E., & Feliu, O. (2006). Ethological study of manual laterality in naturalistic housed chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) from the Mona Foundation Sanctuary (Girona, Spain). Laterality, in press.

     

     

     

    Título:

    Ethological study of manual laterality in naturalistic housed chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) from the Mona Foundation Sanctuary (Girona, Spain).


    Autores:

    Marina Mosquera1, Miquel Llorente2,3, David Riba1, Ferran Estebaranz3, Mar González-Brao3, Carlos Lorenzo1,4, Neus Sanmartí3, Macarena Toll3, Eudald Carbonell1,2 y Olga Feliu3.

    Filiación:

    1 Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

    2 Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES), Tarragona, Spain

    3 Unitat de Recerca i Laboratori d’Etologia, Fundació Mona, Girona, Spain

    4 Centro UCM-ISCIII de Evolución y Comportamiento Humanos, Madrid, Spain

    Referencia:

    Laterality, (in press).

    Publicado online el 28 de agosto de 2006 (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1357650X.asp).

    DOI: 10.1080/13576500600886754

    Print ISSN: 1357-650X

    Online ISSN: 1464-0678

    Abstract:

    During recent years, handedness of nonhuman primates has been the subject of several studies, especially focused on our closest relatives: the chimpanzees. These studies have dealt with both wild and captive chimpanzees, and they seem to point to divergent conclusions, which have been interpreted as a by-product of the human influence in the captive samples. Here we present the results of a study of 10 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). In the past, they were trained in circus and marketing tasks (humanised behaviours), until they were confiscated and accepted into the Mona Foundation (in northeast Spain) in 2000, where they live in a semi-naturalistic environment. This study has been performed through observational bouts without systematic human influence, recording the actions carried out by chimpanzees when performing spontaneous activities. Our results indicate that chimpanzees that were under strong human influence in the past show the same trend in handedness as those living in freedom: few significant lateralities were observed among either individuals or tasks. So, laterality may not be influenced by humanisation. However, this conclusion must be taken as preliminary because very few individuals were studied.

    Contacto:

    Miquel Llorente

    Correo electrónico: mllorente@fmrecerca.org

     

     

    IPHES y MONA en el XI Congreso Nacional y VIII Iberoamericano de Etología

    IPHES y MONA en el XI Congreso Nacional y VIII Iberoamericano de Etología

    Los pósters que hemos presentado en el XI Congreso Nacional y VIII Iberoamericano de Etología , celebrado en Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, del 19 al 22 de septiembre, han tenido un gran éxito en la sesión de comunicaciones en panel. El interés del público y asistentes al congreso hacia los pósters presentados ha sido muy alto y superior al resto, cosa que nos enorgullece teniendo en cuenta el alto nivel de este tipo de reuniones científicas que organiza la Sociedad Española de Etología , y al que están acudiendo etólogos de España, Ibero América, EEUU y Europa.

    Os recuerdo que las comunicaciones en panel presentadas eran las siguientes:

    * Arós García, L., Llorente Espino, M., Pazos Ruiz, A. B., y Feliu Olleta, O. (2006a). Comportamiento postural en un grupo de chimpancés (Pan troglodytes) en semicautividad. Diferencias entre edades. Comunicación presentada en XI Congreso Nacional y VIII Iberoamericano de Etología, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife.

    * Arós García, L., Llorente Espino, M., Pazos Ruiz, A. B., y Feliu Olleta, O. (2006b). Evaluación de los comportamientos asociados a la postura bípeda en chimpancés (Pan troglodytes). Comunicación presentada en XI Congreso Nacional y VIII Iberoamericano de Etología, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife.

    * Llorente Espino, M., y Arós García, L. (2006). Análisis secuencial de un proceso de adopción en chimpancés (Pan troglodytes). Comunicación presentada en XI Congreso Nacional y
    VIII Iberoamericano de Etología, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife.


    Para más información podéis poneros en contacto con Miquel Llorente: mllorente@fmrecerca.org
     
    Foto: Leonor Arós junto a uno de los pósters presentados en Tenerife.

    Abstracts de Mona en

    Abstracts de Mona en

    En el número de junio de 2006 de la prestigiosa revista de la Federación Europea de Primatología, "Folia Primatologica ", se han publicado los abstracts de las dos comunicaciones de Mona que se presentaron en el pasado Congreso de la Asociación Primatológica Española , celebrado en Madrid en 2005. De igual manera, ya están introducidas las referencias en la base de datos de primatología "PrimateLit" (http://primatelit.library.wisc.edu/ ).

    Las referencias son las siguientes:


    • Feliu, O., y Veà, J. (2006). Use of space in structural preferences by a group of humanized chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes). Folia Primatologica, 77(4), 311.

    • Mosquera, M., Llorente, M., Riba, D., y Feliu, O. (2006). Hand laterality in humanized chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Folia Primatologica, 77(4), 323.

    Aquellas personas que estéis interesados en obtener los documentos no dudéis en poneros en contacto con Miquel Llorente: mllorente@fmrecerca.org

    ¿Qué nos hace diferentes?

    ¿Qué nos hace diferentes?

    La revista "Time" dedica a su tema de portada un interesante artículo sobre qué nos hace diferentes del resto de primates.

    Podeis encontrar el artículo en:

    Time, October 9, vol.168, no.15. What make us different? By Michael D. Lemonick & Andrea Dorfman

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html


     

    Chimps share human learning trait

    Un-apelike: Georgia researcher finds that animals pass knowledge from one generation to the next, as people do.


    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    Published on: 09/26/06

    Unlike many of their human cousins, chimps aren't chumps.

    Scientists have learned that chimpanzees don't just ape the behavior of their fellows, but actually learn from watching it. And then they pass down what they've learned as a cultural trait from generation to generation.

    As far as scientists know, this ability is unique to chimps and humans —- though chimps' Homo sapiens cousins often learn by trial and painful error.

    "Culture depends on learning from others," said Victoria Horner, formerly a primate behaviorist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland who's now at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in the piney wilds of Gwinnett County.

    She published her findings in the Aug. 28 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science with co-authors Frans de Waal, Yerkes' longtime top ape expert, and St. Andrews scholar Andrew Whiten.

    Great apes, which include humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos, are so prone to copying each other's behavior than the name "ape" has become synonymous with miming. But Horner said this study was groundbreaking because it showed that a chain of six chimps went beyond simple mimicking and "faithfully and accurately transmitted behaviors" to each other exactly, down a line of individuals.

    It "shows behaviors can spread within a group and down a chain of animals without human intervention, so the chimps effectively learn from each other," she said. "The behavior does not degrade when passed along a chain. Researchers knew chimps could copy human behavior, but this research shows how they learn and copy from each other."

    What this means, Horner said, is that chimps possess one of the critical skills necessary to create and maintain cultural differences between groups, and that their behaviors become traditions.

    Horner and her colleagues set up experiments at the primate center in which they trained a chimp to open a small brown box containing fruit in one of two ways —- either by lifting the lid or by sliding a small door.

    After the first chimp learned to lift the lid of the box open to get to the fruit, they let another one watch the "teacher" demonstrate the technique several times. After the teacher was removed, the new chimp was brought in. And it went straight to the box, lifted the lid and got the fruit out the same way its teacher had. This went on through six teacher-student generations.

    The same experiment was replicated after another "teacher" retrieved the fruit by sliding open the door. Then another chimp was brought in, who learned to get the fruit just like that teacher had. This went on until it was clear that each chimp consistently carried on behavior learned from the one it had a chance to watch. A control group showed researchers that through trial and error they could discover a way into the box, even without a teacher.

    It became obvious that the chimps were transferring knowledge through a chain of simulated generations, Horner said, showing for the first time that chimps exhibit generational learning behaviors just like humans do.

    "The chimpanzees in this study continued using only the technique they observed, rather than an alternative method," Horner said. "This finding is particularly remarkable considering the chimpanzees in the control group were able to discover both methods through individual exploration."

    Such research is important, de Waal said, because chimps are humans' closest cousins, and by learning more about how they learn, it helps us to understand ourselves.

    "Everything in human culture was passed down through the generations," de Waal said. "Now we've shown in the chimps that the learning mechanisms needed to have culture are there."

    "This tells us that they're darn near as smart as humans. We share 98.4 percent of our genes. It is important to know what makes us special and not so special," de Waal said. "We are looking at them for clues about how we got to be what we are and why we do what we do."

     

    Find this article at:
    http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2006/09/26/meshchimps0926a.html