john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

apes

  • Orangutan loris capture and meat-eating

    Fri, 2012-01-20 16:38 -- John Hawks

    Madeleine Hardus and colleagues [1] describe long-term observations of hunting by Sumatran orangutans.

    The paper is straightforward in its description of the hunting observations: They hunt slow lorises, the practice is rare, it occurs at times when their other preferred foods are scarce, some individuals hunt but most don't, and food sharing among individuals other than mother-infant pairs wasn't observed. This isn't the first time hunting has been reported by wild orangutans, what it does is report a longer-term observation of one hunting female, tying this case to earlier observations.

    I'm pointing to the paper because it includes some discussion about the requirements of meat eating for early hominins. These orangutans take a long time to chew up a slow lorus.

    Orangutans used more than twice the amount of time (160.9 g/h) to eat the same amount of meat than chimpanzees (348 g/h) (Wrangham 2009; Wrangham and Conklin-Brittain 2003). Other chimpanzee data shows that this species is able to consume meat at much higher rates, i.e., 1.9±1.2 kg/h (Gilby 2006). This difference between orangutans and chimpanzees may suggest that higher sociality in chimpan- zees influences intake rates, where individuals are surrounded by conspecifics when eating meat, and where meat is a highly preferred food item and stealing occurs (Boesch and Boesch 1989; Goodall 1986; Stanford 1999).

    I'll point out that orangutans may make a better model for early hominin jaw mechanics than chimpanzees do, because the sizes of jaw musculature and teeth are more comparable. Neither orangutans nor australopithecines have teeth that look well-made for reducing fibrous, tough meat into smaller pieces. Recent humans have been able to cook meat, which reduces its mechanical resistance to chewing. Early hominins didn't cook, so getting some high fraction of their caloric requirements from meat (even if only seasonally) might have taken a lot of time.

    According to orangutan data (ingestion rate of 185 kcal/h), Australopithecus africanus would have had to chew for ca. 2 h to achieve 25% of these caloric requirements purely from meat (Table III, orangutans×A. africanus), while achieving the remaining 75% of its caloric requirements from food sources with faster chewing/intake rates, e.g., leaves or insects. This constitutes a considerable period of the day for orangutans, which spend ca. 6 h/d feeding (Morrogh-Bernard et al. 2009), and does not include the time necessary for the collection of vertebrate prey.

    That sounds like a lot of chewing time, but it's not an insuperable barrier. The isotopic values for A. africanus and A. robustus suggest the possibility of up to 25% meat consumption, although they may have gotten C4 plant input by several different food sources (e.g., corms, edible stems, aquatic animals) as well as meat. Altogether, the chewing time analysis shuts off one line of argument that early hominins would have faced extreme constraints preventing them from moving to a more meat-intensive diet before the control and routine use of fire.


    References

    Synopsis: 
    A discussion of early hominin meat-eating emerges from observations of orangutan hunting
  • Meet Aegyptopithecus

    Tue, 2011-10-18 00:15 -- John Hawks

    At this station are casts of Aegyptopithecus zeuxis. This species comes from the Oligocene, approximately 30 million years ago. It is from the Fayum fossil beds of Egypt.

    Your mission is to determine which superfamily or superfamilies of primates are the closest living relatives of this fossil. Consider the teeth most closely, as they are most likely to lead you in the right direction.

  • Ugandapithecus skull found

    Fri, 2011-08-19 08:30 -- John Hawks

    A brief report earlier this month from Agence France-Presse describes a new discovery of Ugandapithecus, worked on by Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford: "20-million-year-old ape skull unearthed in Uganda".

    "This is the first time that the complete skull of an ape of this age has been found ... it is a highly important fossil and it will certainly put Uganda on the map in terms of the scientific world," Martin Pickford, a paleontologist from the College de France in Paris, told journalists in Kampala.

    Ugandapithecus is a large Early Miocene ape, probably related to Proconsul. A 2009 paper by Pickford and colleagues [1] (open access) does a nice job of showing the anatomy with photographs and describing how the different samples of Ugandapithecus, some of which represent different species, differ from Proconsul. It will be very interesting to see how the new skull adds to the record of this ape genus.


    References

    1. Pickford M, Senut B, Gommery D, and Musiime E. 2009. Distinctiveness of Ugandapithecus from Proconsul. Estudios Geológicos 65:183 - 241.
  • Scanning the ape fecome

    Mon, 2010-09-27 17:00 -- John Hawks

    Donald McNeil, Jr., has written up some background detail about last week's story that falciparum malaria came from gorillas: "A finding on malaria comes from humble origins". It's one of many research findings coming out of a systematic collection of fecal samples from African ape field projects:

    Dr. Hahn, a virologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is an expert not in malaria but in S.I.V., or simian immunodeficiency virus, the precursor to the virus that causes AIDS in humans. But she has made deals with primate researchers all across Africa who collect fecal samples for their own projects, to have them take extras for her.

    They go into vials with a special solution, called RNAlater, that preserves the nucleic acids of all the cells in the sample — which includes not only what apes eat, but cells sloughed off their gut linings, which contain all the things infecting them. She has systematically sequenced the genes of many of those infective agents: S.I.V., simian foamy virus, hepatitis and now malaria parasites.

    Poop metagenomics. I wonder to what extent pathogens in meat may pass through the gut with DNA intact. Probably not a big issue with African apes, as meat consumption is fairly sporadic even in chimpanzees. But you'd want to be cautious doing certain things with carnivores.

  • Quote: Huxley and the gorilla mystique

    Tue, 2010-09-21 08:30 -- John Hawks

    Thomas Henry Huxley, in Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature:

    If I have abstained from quoting M. Du Chaillu's work, then, it is not because I discern any inherent improbability in his assertions respecting the man-like Apes; nor from any wish to throw suspicion on his veracity; but because, in my opinion, so long as his narrative remains in its present state of unexplained and apparently inexplicable confusion, it has no claim to original authority respecting any subject whatsoever.

    It may be truth, but it is not evidence.

    Bulldog, indeed.

  • Swimming orangutans

    Thu, 2010-03-25 15:30 -- John Hawks

    New Scientist is running a gallery of orangutans interacting in water. These are orphaned orangutans that were relocated to an island and have since been observed to interact with water in all kinds of unusual ways -- snatching fish, sex in water, trawling for sunken fruit.

    Others in the group have found drier means of crossing water: they've learned how to build bridges. "They deliberately bend slender trees over and use them as bridges to travel over broad stretches of water," says [Anne] Russon. "The trees remain partially bent after the first use, and after several uses they stay permanently bent into these positions." And although each bridge is engineered by a single orang-utan, the structure is used by all the orang-utans on Kaja. "Nothing like this has been seen anywhere else," says Russon.

    The introduction notes that these behaviors are rarely observed, and that many zoo orangutans have drowned in "moats" meant to enclose them. Several of the behaviors seem to be driven by individuals using the water to prevent competition from others.

  • Orangutan facts

    Wed, 2009-11-04 16:57 -- John Hawks

    Current Biology has a Q and A with orangutan researcher Anne Russon. It's a good discussion to freshen one's knowledge of orangutan behavior. Here's an interesting passage:

    Orangutans also show chimpanzee-like traditions, so they too sustain cultures. Given their dispersed sociality, how they do so is unclear. Youngsters learn an enormous amount from their mother, but mostly basics. Consorts could learn from each other, but opportunities are very rare. And neither network can spread traditions community-wide. Adolescents may hold the answer: gregarious and keen on widening their horizons, they range beyond their natal range and hang out with non-kin — probably swapping knowledge and skills and jointly concocting new ones.

    This is a bit of a mystery, even in chimpanzees where the geographic distribution of "cultural" behaviors is better known. How do these traits manage to stake out territories larger than a local group, when opportunities for diffusion among groups are so few? Do they go along with dispersing females? Is mother-offspring learning (in chimpanzees, the major "broadband" channel of information transfer) sufficient, or are peers more important? How does transfer differ among behaviors?

    Russon herself has a very informative website with resources on orangutan conservation. Russon's 2004 book is Orangutans: Wizards of the Rain Forest (The Amazon page seems like a portal to everyone else's orangutan book, as well).

  • Chimps R'n't Us

    Fri, 2009-10-30 23:28 -- John Hawks

    Michael Balter reports on the "First 4 Million Years of Human Evolution" meeting: "Primatologists Go Ape Over Ardi".

    At the end of the day, when the meeting was thrown open for discussion among the roughly 200 attendees, White countered McGrew’s argument, pointing to what he saw as the dangers of using a chimp model for the LCA’s behavior. “If we try to model the LCA or even the earliest hominids based on living chimps, which have these adaptations to [swinging in the trees], to moving through that canopy so well and so quickly that they can take down a red colobus monkey, we could be very misled. Ardipithecus probably couldn’t do that, and the LCA probably couldn’t do that.”

    The discussion appears to have been heated (as the reaction Lovejoy's previous articles has been). The unwritten theme: if chimpanzees are a poor model for the human-chimpanzee common ancestor, why are we spending so much more money studying chimpanzees than other primates?

  • High-tech honey extraction, chimpanzee-style

    Mon, 2009-10-26 23:56 -- John Hawks

    Most people know that hunter-gatherer men hunt meat. Fewer people know the major secondary target for male foraging in many hunter-gatherer societies: honey. The resource is so highly valued that some men spend as much effort foraging for honey as they do hunting.

    Chimpanzees also forage for honey. The use of tools to dig for, bash into, and dip honey out of bee nests or hives has long been known from many chimpanzee field sites. For example, Craig Stanford and colleagues (2000) described how chimpanzees in Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, use small sticks to forage for honey from the small nests of stingless bees, while they use much bigger sticks to get honey out of honeybee nests.

    Two papers from this year have illustrated a new appreciation for the complexity of chimpanzee toolkits used for honey raiding. Crickette Sanz and David Morgan (2009) describe honey gathering by chimpanzees at the Goualougo, Congo field site, while Christophe Boesch and colleagues (2009) describe the technology used by chimpanzees at Loango, Gabon. Both are relatively new field sites, in which researchers have arrived recently or are still habituating the chimpanzees to their presence. Thus, the variations in chimpanzee behaviors at these sites are still being recognized and just starting to be reported.

    Loango National Park is a relatively new field site. As the researchers there continue to habituate the chimpanzees, they have been gathering a series of observations on behaviors that occur differently in Loango compared to other field sites. According to Boesch et al. (2009:2), chimpanzees at the Loango field site do not crack nuts despite a local abundance of them. But far from being simpler in their material culture than other chimpanzees that do crack nuts, the Loango chimps make up for their lack of nutcracking with a complex package of tools for honey extraction:

    Gathering honey from underground hives, similar to underground termite fishing in Goualougo, is special in the sense that chimpanzees cannot see where the resource is hidden and use the first tool, the perforator, as an exploratory tool to “feel” where the resource is located underground. In both cases, external indirect signs of food sources are visible (e.g., large termite mounds or small fragile Melipone-made tubes), but the nest itself is not visible and its exact location cannot be inferred. Therefore, chimpanzees have to investigate the soil in order to locate food that can be, in the case of Melipone underground nests, as much as 1 m deep and 70 cm lateral to the visible tube. Locating the underground chamber can take a human between 20 to 40 minutes (Boesch, pers. obs.). The successful locating of honey is apparent from honey sticking to the ends of perforators. To extract honey, a tunnel needs to be dug sideways so as to reach the underground chamber and prevent soil from getting mixed with the honey once the membrane of the chamber is broken (in general, the intact upper membrane of the chamber in the emptied hole can be felt). We think that such tunnels are dug with the help of perforators to loosen the soil. These tunnels are sometimes barely large enough to let a human arm through, and therefore indicate that chimpanzees know exactly where they are aiming. This cannot be done by simply following the bee tube, as it is much too fragile to resist the tool-assisted digging process. Thus, an elaborate understanding of unseen nest structure, combined with a clear appreciation that tools permit the location of unseen resources, and a precise three-dimensional sense of geometry for reaching the honey chamber from the correct angle, is demonstrated by the chimpanzees when extracting underground honey. It has been proposed that an elaborate understanding of causal relationships between external objects is required for flexible tool use to evolve (Boesch and Boesch-Achermann, 2000), and the fact that such exploratory tools are only seen in chimpanzees and humans supports this proposition (Boesch et al. 2009).

    I liked the authors' description of how they defined tool types and categorized objects on the basis of signs of use. WIth quite a simple technology, this differentiation appears nevertheless to be of a similar extent to the stone toolkits used by early Homo. What is different is the complexity of manufacture of (some of) the elements of the toolkit.

    That topic of basic manufacturing method versus within-toolkit differentiation is addressed by a new study by Thibaud Gruber and colleagues (2009):

    Here, we present the results of a field experiment [20] and [21] that compared the performance of chimpanzees (P. t. schweinfurthii) from two Ugandan communities, Kanyawara and Sonso, on an identical task in the physical domain—extracting honey from holes drilled into horizontal logs. Kanyawara chimpanzees, who occasionally use sticks to acquire honey [4], spontaneously manufactured sticks to extract the experimentally provided honey. In contrast, Sonso chimpanzees, who possess a considerable leaf technology but no food-related stick use [4] and [22], relied on their fingers, but some also produced leaf sponges to access the honey. Our results indicate that, when genetic and environmental factors are controlled, wild chimpanzees rely on their cultural knowledge to solve a novel task.

    The finer points of tool use lie atop a technological substrate. For one group of chimpanzees, this substrate may be sticks, for another stones (in nutcracking), for another leaves. Social learning may tend to associate some raw materials with manipulatory processes -- a chaïne operatoire, at a very simple level. The complexity of the honey-extraction kits appears to show that, at least for highly valued purposes, chimpanzees can bring together distinct elements into a single technological solution. It's nothing that a three-year-old human can't do, but it's another point in favor of Wynn and McGrew's "Ape's view of the Oldowan" argument.

    References:

    Boesch C, Head J, Robbins MM. 2009. Complex tool sets for honey extraction among chimpanzees in Loango National Park, Gabon. J Hum Evol 56:560-569. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.04.001

    Gruber T, Muller MN, Strimling P, Wrangham R, Zuberbühler K. 2009. Wild chimpanzees rely on cultural knowledge to solve an experimental honey acquisition task. Curr Biol (in press) doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.08.060

    Sanz CM, Morgan DB. 2009. Flexible and persistent tool-using strategies in honey-gathering by wild chimpanzees. Int J Primatol 30:411-427. doi:10.1007/s10764-009-9350-5

    Stanford CB, Gambaneza C, Nkurunungi JB, Goldsmith ML. 2000. Chimpanzees in Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, Use different tools to obtain different types of honey. Primates 41:337-341.

Pages

Subscribe to apes

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.