Pan Troglodytes

Pan troglodytes verus: Crockford et al., 2004) have different calls or "dialects" is a reliable examination for their ability to learn.

From: Primate Beefcake (Third Edition) , 2007

Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Infection of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Edward J.D. Greenwood , ... Jonathan Fifty. Heeney , in Natural Hosts of SIV, 2014

Introduction

Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) of chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) (SIVcpz) is at present well established every bit the origin of the man immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-ane pandemic [1,2]. Because of this, and because of the close relationship between humans and chimpanzees, study of SIVcpz and its human relationship with the chimpanzee promises to exist of the greatest relevance to our understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms of HIV-1 infection in humans. Molecular genetic analyses have revealed a great deal regarding the origins, age, and distribution of SIVcpz inside wild chimpanzee populations. SIVcpz is a chimeric virus [3], the outcome of recombination events between SIVs of other monkey species that are casualty of chimpanzees, and therefore has presumably arisen relatively recently compared to other primate SIVs.

Still, compared with the all-encompassing study of two of the natural hosts of SIV infection, African green monkeys and sooty mangabeys—past far the all-time-described models—we know relatively little about the outcome of SIVcpz infection of chimpanzees. A central study of wild habituated chimpanzees suggests that SIVcpz induces increased mortality and an acquired allowed deficiency syndrome (AIDS)–like disease in these animals [4]. Reports of animals in captivity are somewhat anecdotal and conflicting; some animals also seem to endure sick effects from SIV infection, whereas others alive for decades without developing any clinical signs [v–8]. Hither, we review these studies, summarize the example for and against a pathogenic effect of SIVcpz infection, and annotate on the potential reasons that the relationship between SIVcpz and its host is different from that establish in other well-described natural hosts of SIV. Finally, we discuss the outstanding work required to provide a fuller understanding of the outcome of SIVcpz infection of chimpanzees, given the limitations and difficulties involved in working with this species.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B978012404734100005X

Book 1

Shinya Yamamoto , ... Brian Hare , in Encyclopedia of Animal Beliefs (Second Edition), 2019

Abstruse

Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) are both our evolutionary closest living relatives. Human and Pan lineages diverged around vii million years agone, and the chimpanzee and the bonobo branched ane–2 1000000 years ago. Accordingly, the two species accept a lot of similarities in their advent, behavior, and societies; however, inquiry highlights some striking differences between these close sis species. There are a number of traits in which bonobos and chimpanzees are more similar to humans than they are each other have been recognized recently. This comparison provides an extremely powerful exam of ideas nigh human uniqueness. Given that both species are as related to u.s., balanced insights are needed from both chimpanzees and bonobos in order to understand the selective pressures which may take shaped the human mind. Hither nosotros concisely review their development, society, and cognition, and propose its implication for the evolutionary processes past which cognitive traits evolve in apes.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B9780128096338907167

Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever

Kenneth N. Cameron , Patricia E. Reed , in Fowler's Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine, 2012

Free-Ranging Primates

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) appear to be dead-end hosts for ZEBOV infection. ZEBOV antigen was detected in 16 chimpanzee and gorilla carcasses discovered during epizootics associated with large great ape declines in cardinal Africa. 19,25 Based on temporal and spatial links betwixt large-scale great ape mortality and confirmed ZEBOV epidemics and epizootics, example-fatality rates in great apes have been estimated at roughly 90%. 24 The detection of Ebolavirus-specific IgG antibodies in 31 western lowland gorillas and chimpanzees suggests that they may survive infection or may be asymptomatically infected, or that assays are cross-reacting with an as nevertheless unidentified, less virulent, strain of EBOV. 4,14

Although the vastness and remoteness of the central African habitat makes precise cracking ape mortality impossible to decide, the bear upon of EHF on great ape populations appears dramatic. 17,24 Some field researchers have observed rapid and astonishingly high mortality in resident ape populations. Large-scale ecologic surveys carried out over the past decade have indicated dramatic declines (up to 95%) in bang-up ape populations in some regions. In all cases, these declines were spatially and/or temporally linked with homo or fauna ZEBOV outbreaks, in which hunting and habitat loss were ruled out as contributing factors. 10 Given the context, it is reasonable to assume that the great ape declines were associated with EHF. The western lowland gorilla was reclassified as "critically endangered" by the International Marriage for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), largely as a consequence of the threat of EHF.

Antibodies to ZEBOV were detected in eight wild-built-in monkeys of four species in Cameroon, Gabonese republic, and the Democracy of Congo, indicating virus circulation in nonhuman primates. 14 Monkey morbidity and mortality take been spatially or temporally linked with man ZEBOV, although tests were negative for ZEBOV. 10,25

CIEBOV was associated with the deaths of 12 chimpanzees in the Taï wood of Côte d'Ivoire in 1994. 10 One chimpanzee was confirmed CIEBOV positive on immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay, suggesting that chimpanzees are dead-end hosts. 26 Antibodies to CIEBOV were detected in a scarlet colobus monkey (Procolobus badius) following the outbreak. All affected chimps were observed consuming the monkey vi days prior to the outbreak, suggesting the monkey as the source of infection of the chimpanzees.

Wildlife morbidity and mortality associated with SEBOV and Bundibugyo ebolavirus have non been reported.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781437719864000548

Elephant cognition, communication and tool apply

Paul A. Rees , in Elephants Under Human Care, 2021

5.2.two Self-awareness: exercise elephants know they exist?

When chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) or orangutans (Pongo sp.) see themselves in a mirror they appear to exist able to recognise themselves. However, when monkeys see themselves in a mirror they react to their ain image equally if it were another monkey.

A number of experiments have used the 'carmine-spot test' that involves a spot of cherry dye existence placed on the animal'southward face under anaesthetic or while comatose, and and so observing the beast's response to the spot when it looks in a mirror. Apes appeared to show cocky-awareness by touching the spot more oft than a control area. For example they touched an ear marked with a spot more often than the other (unmarked) ear (Rodgers, 1998). Chimpanzees also demonstrated self-sensation by using a mirror to examine parts of the body that could not be seen directly (Povinelli and Preuss, 1995).

The experimental evidence for self-recognition in apes is inconsistent – some of the apes tested in red-spot experiments did not reply to the spots – and is therefore inconclusive.

Gallup suggested that the chapters for self-recognition may not extend below humans and the great apes (Gallup, 1970; Gallup et al., 1995). Still, self-examination behaviour has been recorded in dolphins (Tursiops sp.) exposed to mirrors and video images. They will also examine marked areas of their bodies in a mirror (Marten and Psarakos, 1995). It has been suggested that the trend of dolphins and killer whales (Orcinus orca) to adorn themselves with seaweed effectually their fins or flukes, or by carrying dead fish on their snouts, might exist evidence of self-sensation (De Waal, 1996).

What happens when elephants are given the opportunity to see themselves in mirrors? Using a mirror, Daniel Povinelli tested ii Asian elephants at the National Zoological Park in Washington, DC, United States, and found they paid little attention to their images and concluded they did not show self-recognition (Povinelli, 1989). Nonetheless, an elephant's eyes are on the side of its head and the experiment has been criticised for using mirrors that were as well small to allow the animals to see the unabridged side of their bodies at i time.

The value of mirror experiments is unclear. Experiments using mirrors have establish that pigeons (Columbidae) answer to coloured dots in a similar mode to Gallup'due south chimpanzees. At the fourth dimension the experimenters concluded that this could not possibly be interpreted as complex behaviour or self-sensation in pigeons and offered a simpler explanation in terms of 'environmental events' (Rodgers, 1998). However, we know that pigeons are capable of some very circuitous behaviour (Epstein et al., 1981).

Plotnik et al. (2006) studied self-recognition in iii adult female Asian elephants at the Bronx Zoo in New York by applying visible marks and invisible sham-marks to their heads and then exposing them to a large mirror to see if an private would spontaneously apply the mirror to touch an otherwise imperceptible mark on its own body (Fig. 5.1). 1 elephant, Happy, passed the exam on the first mean solar day of the study, and repeatedly touched the visible mark with her torso while continuing at the mirror. The other two elephants, Maxine and Patty, failed the exam. Plotnik et al. noted that these results were not inconsistent with some studies of chimpanzees where fewer than half of the individuals tested passed the test.

Effigy 5.1. A representation of the appliance used in a mirror self-recognition test performed on Asian elephants at the Bronx Zoo, New York, by Plotnik et al. (2006).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B9780128162088000051

Volume 5

T. Uniacke-Lowe , P.F. Play a joke on , in Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences (Third Edition), 2022

Total Amino Acids

Human and chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ) milks have significantly lower concentrations of total amino acids (protein-bound plus free) than the milks of other primate and nonprimate species, though concentrations are similar between the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and lower primates (Table half-dozen). The low protein, and hence depression full amino acid concentration, is non unique to human being milk just occurs across primates generally, merely in nonprimates it is observed but in the horse (Equus caballus). There is some commonality in the general amino acrid patterns of primate and nonprimate species (Table 6) despite differences in total amino acid concentrations. In all species studied, total amino acid concentration is much greater in colostrum than that in mature milk, and a decrease of ∼75% in full amino acids occurs between colostrum and milk for humans and horses, but the decrease in baboons and Rhesus monkeys is ∼34% and 21%, respectively. Glutamate, leucine, and proline incorporate twoscore%, ten%, and 10%, respectively, of the milks of primate and nonprimate species, and no phylogenetic tendency is found beyond species for these amino acids, except perhaps, leucine, which is high in primate milk. There is some phylogenetic trend between primate and nonprimate species in the concentration of cystine and methionine, equally primates have lower methionine and higher cystine levels than nonprimates. Across primate species, humans and Great Apes have lower methionine and higher cystine than lower primates. Total essential amino acids concentration is similar beyond primate and nonprimate species and represents ∼40% of total amino acids in both.

Table half dozen. Full (g   L−ane) a , essential amino acids (mg   m−1 full) and some important amino acids (mg   g−1 total) in the milk of some primate and nonprimate species

Primate Total Full essential amino acids Glutamate b Leucine Proline Methionine Cystine Glycine Serine Arginine
Human (Homo sapiens) eight.v 400 190 104 95 16.ane xx.2 22.0 61.0 36.0
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) 9.two 392 221 104 104 17.0 16.2 20.0 41.0 35.0
Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) 11.5 408 203 102 99 19.8 15.5 22.0 47.0 35.0
Baboon (Papio cynocephalus anubis) 11.five 408 194 105 107 21.two ten.1 14.0 53.0 56.0
Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) xi.6 421 191 111 112 24.viii eleven.seven 14.0 48.0 47.0
Nonprimate
Cow (Bos taurus) 33.6 427 208 99 100 26.iii 8.nine eighteen.0 56.0 34.0
Goat (Capra hircus) 25.7 433 209 96 106 25.5 viii.6 18.0 49.0 29.0
Sheep (Ovis aries) 54.i 422 203 xc 102 28.seven seven.v 18.0 52.0 34.0
Llama (Lama glama) 29.6 443 220 99 102 31.1 7.3 fourteen.0 41.0 36.0
Squealer (Sus scrofa) 35.0 379 208 89 117 21.7 fifteen.6 32.0 51.0 44.0
Horse (Horse) 15.eight 377 217 93 91 22.0 eleven.iii sixteen.0 52.0 60.0
Elephant (Elephas maximus) 37.1 411 195 98 102 21.viii 10.6 13.0 68.0 48.0
Cat (Felix catus) 75.7 400 208 118 94 32.0 12.i 10.0 44.0 64.0
Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 86.nine 371 221 92 75 25.0 25.7 15.0 85.0 33.0
a
Amino acids in proteins plus free amino acids.
b
Glutamate plus glutamine.

Modified from Davis, T. A., Nguyen, H. V., Garcia-Bravo, R., et al., 1994. Amino acid composition of man milk is not unique. J. Nutr. 454, 1126–1132.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128187661002312

Medical Aspects of Chimpanzee Rehabilitation and Sanctuary Medicine

Jocelyn Bezner , in Fowler'southward Zoo and Wild Creature Medicine Current Therapy, Volume 9, 2019

Status of Chimpanzees at Sanctuaries

The use of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in research has undergone meaning changes over the past few years. In the U.s. the National Institutes of Wellness (NIH) commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2010 to review the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. The report entitled, "Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity," stated that "while the chimpanzee has been a valuable brute model in past research, about current utilize of chimpanzee research is unnecessary." two Time was given for public comment from researchers, scientists, and other interested parties. After several years of spirited fence, the NIH announced that the decades-long apply of chimpanzees in biomedical enquiry would finish and that all NIH-owned chimpanzees would be retired. Furthermore, the NIH would stop funding inquiry on privately owned chimps. Then, in 2015, the United States Fish and Wild fauna Service declared that captive chimpanzees would exist reclassified from threatened to endangered, affording them the same protection every bit wild chimpanzees and severely restricting whatever research that does not show a articulate benefit for the species in the wild. There is an accent to move chimps out of laboratories and into sanctuaries. As of 2017, a total of 330 federally owned chimpanzees had transferred to the NIH-supported national sanctuary, "Chimp Oasis." 3 Hundreds of privately endemic (i.e., not federally endemic) chimpanzees are retired or projected to exist retired from laboratories also, though there is a severe restriction of available space at this time. Research in sanctuaries, if immune, is restricted to observational and noninvasive studies that practice not disturb the animals and provide a purposeful, direct benefit to their quality of life.

Much of the post-obit primate medicine information is from a individual sanctuary that cares for 248 chimpanzees, many of whom came from a financially failing biomedical laboratory. Others arrived from roadside zoos, amusement venues, and the pet trade. The 150-acre sanctuary houses 237 chimpanzees divided into 12 families made upward of both males and females of varying ages. Each group has an indoor living space with 6 interconnected bedrooms attached to a three- to 4-acre grass-covered island with trees, hills, climbing structures, and platforms. Eleven animals deemed psychologically or medically unfit for large social groups live with fewer chimps in a fission-fusion blueprint in a building with divide large outdoor yards. Two of these chimpanzees are singly housed for psychological reasons simply have close visual, auditory, and safe tactile contact with neighboring chimps. Attempts are ongoing to acclimate them with conspecifics.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323552288000813

Book 3

A. Whiten , in Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior (Second Edition), 2010

Introduction

The cracking apes include the chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ), the bonobo (Pan paniscus), and the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) of Africa, and their more afar relative, the Asian orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). Because the closest living relative of the chimpanzee is our ain species (Homo sapiens), some authors too refer to humans every bit great apes. In this article, the focus is on not-human ape species, although some fundamental comparisons with humans will exist made. So lilliputian is known of social learning in the lesser apes, the gibbons (Hylobates spp.), that no mention will be made of them here. 'Apes' volition refer to the great apes: chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, and orangutan.

Apes have played a particularly prominent role in the study of social learning in animals, equally a result of their long-standing reputation for learning from others ('to ape' has long been a plough of phrase), every bit well as the fact that they are the closest relatives of humans, for whom culture is massively important in shaping behavioral repertoires. The importance of studies of apes in the history of studies of social learning probably reflects the complexity of their social learning. However, progress has also been made because of the need to develop methods to encounter the challenges inherent in studying these intelligent, dexterous, and socially sensitive animals.

Experimental studies with captive apes began early in the twentieth century. Yet, I focus first on studies in the wild, which, although they started later, depict the important natural context to which apes' capacities for social learning are probable to be adapted.

Read total chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128096338013054

A Large-brained Social Animal

Heidi C. Pearson , Deborah E. Shelton , in The Dusky Dolphin, 2010

Introduction

In 1961, Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) using tools to "fish" for termites in Gombe National Park, Tanzania van Lawick-Goodall 1968, Goodall 1986). This ascertainment indicated sophisticated thought on the function of the chimpanzee and conflicted with the traditional thought that tool-making is a distinctly man capacity. Documentation of chimpanzee tool apply was part of a shift in our agreement of the mental lives of animals that is yet incomplete; scientists are still grappling with how best to study creature noesis, its origins, and its evolutionary implications.

At about the same time every bit Goodall'southward report on chimpanzee tool employ, the notion of intelligence in cetaceans was besides beginning to receive attention. In the early on 1960s, neurobiologist John Lilly sought to understand the "extrater-restrial" intelligence of dolphins in captivity. While his methods and conclusions accept rightfully generated controversy (summarized in Samuels and Tyack 2000), Lilly is nevertheless credited with first popularizing the thought of dolphin intelligence, particularly with respect to communication (Lilly and Miller 1961, Lilly 1962, 1965 Lilly 1962 Lilly 1965 ). Later that decade, Karen Pryor and colleagues (Pryor et al. 1969) reported on the capacity for deuterolearning ("learning to learn") in captive crude-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis). The cognitive significance of Pryor's findings was discussed cautiously, withal, and it was non until 11 years afterwards, when Louis Herman (1980) reported on more rigorous tests of the complex cognition of captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), that cetacean intelligence started receiving more scientific attention (run into Würsig 2009 for summary and further discussion).

Fifty-fifty as these studies shifted the weight of the evidence in favor of intelligence in dolphins, questions remained about the relevance of studies on captive animals to the evolution and function of wild dolphin noesis. However, in 1984, observations of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) carrying sponges on their rostrums during benthic foraging provided the start evidence of tool use in wild cetaceans (Smolker et al. 1997); chiefly, these observations as well demonstrated the presence of sophisticated dolphin behavior outside of captivity. Today, a combination of evidence from experimental, field, and theoretical studies is yielding unprecedented opportunities for scientists to formulate and test hypotheses concerning the evolution of animal intelligence in full general, and specifically in dolphins.

We use "intelligence" and "cognition" every bit umbrella terms encompassing the set of neuronal functions that underpin functioning in diverse problem-solving tasks. We accept in mind tasks that demand causal reasoning, flexibility, imagination, and prospection (Emery and Clayton 2004). In humans, individuals tend to showroom rather consistent levels of functioning across tasks that seem quite unlike. That is, for "loftier-g" tasks, individuals who perform well on one job are likely to perform well on another, even though the tasks seem to demand completely different skills. The pattern is known as "general intelligence," and its explanation (in humans) appears to lie in the recruitment of a restricted neuronal arrangement, the lateral frontal cortex, in response to these seemingly diverse tasks (Duncan et al. 2000).

The details of the mechanistic basis of "general intelligence" in humans is an agile area of research and may yet reveal much about the significance of this blueprint in a comparative context. As a starting betoken for this chapter, nosotros consider it likely that non-human animals also take "general intelligence" (i.e., positive correlations among distinct problem-solving tasks, arising from recruitment of a restricted neuronal organization). Yet, we do not suggest that the lateral frontal cortex is the location of this restricted neuronal arrangement in all non-human animals.

How can we apply the idea of "general intelligence" to diverse species? Equally our affiliate title suggests, a useful starting point is to scale back from an interest in specific neural structures and instead await at a much coarser metric: encephalon size. "Large-brained" is a relative concept and depends on the out-group used for the comparison (Box 16.ane). Great apes, dolphins, and corvids are all large-brained when compared to their shut relatives. These groups take diverse neuroanatomical characteristics, withal their similarly circuitous beliefs indicates that they have convergently evolved a remarkable adaptation: high general intelligence (east.g., Marino 2002, Emery and Clayton 2005, Marino et al. 2007).

Box 16.ane

Convergent Evolution of Intelligence: Brain Size and Neuroanatomy

Animate being intelligence is difficult to measure out. Therefore, encephalon size 1 is often used to bespeak a species' capacity to learn and process information (Jerison 1973, Tartarelli and Bisconti 2006). Jerison (1973) defined the encephalization quotient (EQ = brain weight/(0.12 × body weight0.67)) to describe a mammalian species' deviation from the "expected" brain size for its body weight; for example, an EQ of 3 means that a species has a brain that is three times as large as the "boilerplate" extant mammal.

Primates and cetaceans are the two near highly encephalized mammalian groups (i.e., those with the highest EQs; Figure 16.one). The dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) EQ is 4.vii, which is 1 of the highest reported for any odontocete (Marino et al. 2004) and college than whatever reported for a non-human being primate (Jerison 1973). In fact, the dusky dolphin EQ lies between that of a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes, EQ = ii.3) and that of a modernistic man (Homo sapiens, EQ = seven.6; Jerison 1973). Other delphinids (east.g., Pacific white-sided dolphins, Fifty. obliquidens, EQ = 5.3; rough-toothed dolphins, Steno bredanensis, EQ = 5.0) also take larger EQs than whatever non-man primate, and the mean EQ in modern odontocetes (mean EQ = two.half-dozen, range = 0.58–iv.56) exceeds that of modern non-human anthropoid primates (mean EQ = 2.0, range = ane.02–3.two; Marino 1997, 1998 Marino 1997 Marino 1998 , Marino et al. 2004, Tartarelli and Bisconti 2006).

All the same, the EQ is a rough way to gauge the variable of involvement (intelligence), and may be problematic. First, EQs for mammals >k   kg are non meaningful because the expected brain–body size relationship is unlikely to be linear (Jerison 1973). Extremely large odontocetes (e.g., sperm whales, Physteter macrocephalus) and all mysticetes have undergone dramatic increases in body size without allometric increases in brain size (Marino 2004). Yet, the sperm whale has the largest brain known to accept always evolved, and behavioral prove indicates that this relatively small but admittedly large encephalon produces complex behavior (east.1000., Whitehead 1996, Rendell and Whitehead 2003).

2nd, it is difficult to compare EQs among different-sized animals, as the brain–body weight slope (i.due east., the exponent) used for the EQ adding may change with taxonomic level (Harvey and Krebs 1990, Marino 1998). Tertiary, EQs vary according to the reference grouping used. One-half of all primates have EQs <1 when compared with other primates, merely all primates take EQs >i when compared with other mammals (Harvey and Krebs 1990). Finally, EQs may not exist comparable betwixt animals of unlike relative maturities (Ridgway and Brownson 1984).

Another way to measure relative encephalon size is to examine the ratio of the neocortex to the balance of the brain. The neocortex plays a role in abstract idea and rule learning, and is thought to be the "seat of cerebral processes" ( Dunbar 1992, 1998 Dunbar 1992 Dunbar 1998 , Seyfarth and Cheney 2002). If the neocortex is the brain region underpinning the evolution of intelligence, then measuring neocortical enlargement would be a more than straight metric of intelligence than the EQ.

Regardless of the method used to assess relative encephalon size, odontocetes and primates testify convergent encephalization and neocortical elaboration, which is coupled with divergent physical and neuroanatomical development (Marino 1998, Reiss and Marino 2001, Marino 2004, Hof et al. 2005, Tartarelli and Bisconti 2006). Some of the differences in cetacean (vs. primate) brains include an enlarged cerebellum with well-developed regions for automatic command of complicated movement (e.g., acrobatic pond); reduction of the limbic organisation, particularly structures related to olfaction; and enhanced evolution of cerebral regions related to audition (Marino 2004, Tartarelli and Bisconti 2006).

Cetacean brains also comprise a circuitous and enlarged neocortex with a loftier gyrification alphabetize (a measure of neocortex area to total brain size) which surpasses that of humans and indicates the presence of neural hardware necessary for complex cognition (Marino 2004). However, the cetacean neocortex is also much thinner than the human neocortex (Marino 2004, Hof et al. 2005, Tartarelli and Bisconti 2006). All the same, a suite of anatomical and behavioral factors should be used to assess cerebral potential, and the combination of large relative brain size, neocortical complexity, and complex behavior and sociality indicate high cognition in cetaceans. Furthermore, these traits indicate that the large cetacean brain is not simply an antiquity of the transition of archaeocetes (eastward.grand., Pakicetus inachus) from state to water, or the demand for echolocation ( Marino 2004, 2007 Marino 2004 Marino 2007 , Marino et al. 2004, 2007, 2008 Marino et al. 2004 Marino et al. 2007 Marino et al. 2008 , Hof et al. 2005).

Primates and some birds (corvids; African gray parrots, Psittacus erithacus) too display convergent cognitive evolution, despite beingness evolutionarily separated for >150 million years (e.1000., Pepperberg 1999, Emery and Clayton 2004, Lefebvre et al. 2004, Emery and Clayton 2005, Prior 2006). Although the accented size of a bird'south brain is restricted past the need for flight, some corvids take the same relative brain size as chimpanzees, and enlargement of the nidopallium and mesopallium in the corvid forebrain may reflect "primate-like" intelligence (Lefebvre et al. 1997, Emery and Clayton 2004). Show of complex cognitive behavior lends further support to the convergence between corvids, parrots, and primates. The fact that intelligent behavior may be produced by brains of dissimilar structure and system beyond various taxa (eastward.g., pongids, delphinids, corvids, parrots) indicates that intelligence may have evolved multiple times via different neurocognitive processes (after Emery and Clayton 2004, Tartarelli and Bisconti 2006).

Several singled-out fields are contributing testify relevant to the task of understanding intelligent beliefs in an evolutionary context. Cerebral neurobiologists are using powerful imaging techniques to illuminate the office of brains in existent time. Behavioral ecologists are characterizing the behavioral patterns produced past animals in various environments, providing insight into the fettle consequences of behavior. Evolutionary biologists are because the consequences of selection on beliefs; through modeling and by mapping brain-related characters onto phylogenetic trees, they are contributing knowledge about evolutionary scenarios that could have led to the observed variation. Paleobiologists are refining ideas about the historical timing and conditions from which large brains emerged, information that can be used to rule out or support particular evolutionary hypotheses.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123737236000163

Mammals

B.L. Hart , L.A. Hart , in Development of Nervous Systems, 2007

3.34.2.1 Comparative Aspects of Cognitive Behavior

For this topic it is advisable to compare elephants with chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ), the slap-up ape nearly unremarkably studied with regard to cerebral behavior. Using sticks to fish termites out of hush-hush nests or to reach within bones for marrow (van Schaik et al., 1999; Matsuzawa, 2003) is a classic case of tool use in great apes. Mayhap the best example of complex tool apply by chimpanzees is neat nuts open up by holding a nut confronting an anvil stone and hitting it with a smaller hammer rock (Humle and Matsuzawa, 2001).

Elephants appoint in several types of tool employ. Fly switching with branches, while not peculiarly complex, would appear, in fact, to be the showtime documented example of tool use among nonhuman animals, dating back to when a wildlife adventurer wrote in 1838 of seeing elephants emerging into an open glen, "bearing in their trunks the branches of trees with which they indolently protected themselves from flies" (Harris, 1838, p. 169). Elephant fly switching was even mentioned past Darwin (1871) in discussing the intelligence of beasts. We have documented the efficacy of wing switching in repelling flies (Hart and Hart, 1994) and the modification of branches to use equally switches (Hart et al., 2001). Asian and African elephants engage in other types of tool use, including scratching with a stick and throwing stones at rodents competing for fruit (Hart and Hart, 1994; Kurt and Hartl, 1995; Wickler and Seibt, 1997). Despite the historical significance, the complexity of tool apply of elephants pales in comparing with the rich repertoire of fast-action, highly coordinated tool use described for chimpanzees such as the hammer–anvil style of slap-up nuts.

Simultaneous visual discrimination learning is another area of cognitive behavior in which elephants accept been compared to standards fix by other mammals. Under seminatural conditions, Asian elephants may learn a black/white or large/small-scale bigotry but the operation of even the fastest-learning elephants is unremarkable compared with other mammals (Nissani et al., 2005). Tests of insight behavior, exemplified by pulling a cord to obtain a desirable object, too reveal disappointing beliefs by elephants which do not perform in a mode consistent with that of chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, and even several species of birds (Nissani, 2004).

Finally, in the way of classical tests of cognitive behavior, at that place is the exam of self-recognition, as studied in the well-known mirror experiment in which the cocky-recognizing animal touches a mark on its head in front of a mirror. In contrast to chimpanzees that perform well (Povinelli et al., 1997), Asian elephants fail in self-recognition (Povinelli, 1989; Nissani, 2004).

Read total chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0123708788003438

The Human being Family

M.Five. Flinn , in On Human Nature, 2017

Fathers

Mammals that live in groups with multiple males—such as chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)—usually accept little or no paternal care, because the nonexclusivity of mating relationships obscures paternity (Alexander, 1990b; Clutton-Brock, 1991). In contrast, information technology is mutual for man fathers to provide protection, data, food, and social status for their children (Grayness and Anderson, 2010). Paternal intendance in humans appears to exist facilitated by relatively stable pair bonds, which not just involves cooperation between mates that oftentimes endures over the lifespan, but which requires an unusual type of cooperation among co-residing males—respect for each other'due south mating relationships.

The relatively exclusive mating relationships that are characteristic of most human societies (Flinn and Depression, 1986) generate natural factions within the grouping. Mating relationships also can create alliances in human being groups, linking ii families or clans together (eg, Macfarlan et al., 2014). By style of comparison, in chimpanzee communities it is hard for even the most ascendant male to monopolize an estrous female; usually about of the males in a community mate with almost of the females (Goodall, 1986; Mitani et al., 2010). Chimpanzee males in effect "share" a common interest in the community's females and their offspring. Human groups, in contrast, are composed of family units, each with distinct reproductive interests. Human being males do not typically share mating admission to all the group'due south females; consequently, there are usually reliable cues identifying which children are their genetic offspring, and which are those of other males (for exceptions meet Walker et al., 2010). Because humans live in multimale groups, even so frequently maintain stable and exclusive mating relationships, the potential for fission along family lines is high. Still, human groups overcome this inherent conflict between family units to course big, stable coalitions—a "federation of families" (Chapais, 2013).

This unusual tolerance amongst co-residential males and their families stands in contrast to the norm of polygamous mate competition in group-living nonhuman primates. Pick pressures favoring such tolerance are uncertain, merely likely involve the importance of both male person parental investment and male coalitions for intraspecific conflict (Alexander, 1990b; Wrangham, 1999).

The advantages of intensive parenting, including paternal protection and other intendance, crave a most unusual design of mating relationships: moderately exclusive pair bonding in multiple-male groups. No other primate (or mammal) that lives in large, cooperative multiple-reproductive-male person groups has such extensive male person parental intendance targeted at specific offspring. Competition for females in multiple-male groups normally results in low confidence of paternity (eg, bonobos and chimpanzees). Males forming sectional pair bonds in multiple-male person groups would provide cues of nonpaternity to other males, and hence place their offspring in bully danger of infanticide (Hrdy, 1999). Paternal intendance is most probable to be favored by natural selection in conditions where males can place their offspring with sufficient probability to offset the costs of investment, although reciprocity with mates is also likely to be involved (Geary and Flinn, 2001). Humans exhibit a unique "nested family unit" social construction, involving circuitous reciprocity among males and females to restrict direct contest for mates among group members.

It is hard to imagine how this system could be maintained in the absence of some other unusual human trait: concealed or cryptic ovulation (Alexander and Noonan, 1979). Human groups tend to exist male philopatric (males tending to remain in their natal groups), resulting in extensive male kin alliances, useful for competing against other groups of male kin (Leblanc, 2003; Wrangham and Peterson, 1996). Females also take complex alliances, simply commonly are not involved directly in the overt physical aggression characteristic of intergroup relations (Campbell, 2002; Geary and Flinn, 2002). Relationships amongst human brothers and sisters are life-long fifty-fifty where residence is in different communities, in dissimilarity with the absence of significant ties or apparent kin recognition after emigration in other hominoids. Parents, grandparents, and other kin may be specially important for the child's mental development of social and cultural maps because they can be relied upon as landmarks who provide relatively honest data. From this perspective, the evolutionary significance of the homo family unit in regard to child development is viewed more as a nest from which social skills may be acquired than just every bit an economic unit centered on the sexual partition of labor (Flinn and Ward, 2005).

In summary, the care-providing roles of fathers are unusually important in humans, particularly in regard to protection and social ability, but are flexible components of the man family and are linked with the roles of other relatives, including grandparents. In improver to the furnishings of direct parental care, paternity provides the footing for critical bilateral kinship links that extend across communities and generations. The neuroendocrine mechanisms that underpin human being paternal and grandparental psychology are not well studied, simply likely involve the common mammalian affiliative hormones oxytocin and arginine vasopressin, with additional influence from the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal systems (Feldman, 2015, 2016; Gettler, 2014; Gray and Campbell, 2009; Pereira and Ferreira, 2016).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124201903000168