john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

non-human primates

  • Better than a finger in the eye

    Fri, 2010-07-16 15:31 -- John Hawks

    Michael Balter writes in Science about a meeting called "Culture Evolves": "Probing Culture's Secrets, From Capuchins to Children."

    There appears to have been a deliberate ambiguity in the conference title -- is it the evolution of culture, or the evolution of the cognitive abilities underlying culture? Apparently both. Ignoring the distinction usually leads to confusion. Culture does not evolve in the same way as genes do.

    In one group of capuchins, the team's long-term observations have allowed them to witness a rare event: the emergence of a new tradition. In what Perry calls a "bizarre" and "high-risk" ritual, the monkeys poke each other's eyeballs. One monkey will insert his or her long, sharp, dirty fingernail deep into the eye socket of another animal, between the eyelid and the eyeball, up to the first knuckle. In videos Perry played for the meeting, the monkeys on the receiving end of the fingernail, typically social allies, could be seen to grimace and bat their eyelids furiously (as did many members of the audience) but did not attempt to remove the finger or otherwise object to the treatment. Indeed, during these eye-poking sessions, which last up to an hour, monkeys insisted on the finger being reinserted if it popped out of the eye socket.

    Why would the monkeys do something potentially dangerous? Perry suggests that capuchins, which, like humans, are highly cooperative and live in large groups, use this apparently pain-inflicting behavior to test the strength of their social bonds.

    If this were happening in a zoo, wouldn't we call it a behavioral pathology?

    Of course, if it were happening in a fraternity...oh well, never mind.

    A new tradition that appears within one group does not need an adaptive explanation.

  • 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.

  • Evolving swarm bots

    Tue, 2009-10-27 09:48 -- John Hawks

    Robot swarms programmed with genetic algorithms to "evolve" their behavior:

    A more recent 2009 study, again at Lausanne, suggests that swarms of bots don't just evolve cooperative strategies to find food (or avoid poison), they can also evolve the ability to deceive. Bots equipped with artificial neural networks and programmed to find food eventually learn to conceal their visual signals from other robots to keep the food for themselves. “Forget zombies,” a post on Current TV's blog comments about the little bots, “this is the real threat.” (Fortunately, these experimental bots don’t eat brains – at least, not yet.)

    A peeve: I wish people would stop using the word "learn" for this kind of thing. The robots aren't "learning" anything; their genetic algorithms are randomly changed and then subjected to a round of selection. I'm not sure they really qualify as "swarm bots" either, if they're competing instead of cooperating.

    Anyway, the article references my UW colleague Chuck Snowdon's work:

    Communication is very important for social organisms to ensure their ecological success. For example, University of Wisconsin-Madison psychology professor Charles Snowdon offers a perspective on what the early environmental conditions may have been that led to the hominid communicative explosion. His research into the world of nonhuman primates suggests that while apes and monkeys in the Old World tend to be relatively silent creatures, the New World is home to much noisier monkeys such as tararins and marmosets that vocalize more frequently to “show more richness of development and learning in their vocal patterns, and that appear to transmit more information with the sounds they produce than do any of the Old World primates.”

    A key reason, he suggests, is cooperative breeding, which is found in the New World animals to a much greater extent than in the Old World monkeys and apes. New World primates live in circumstances where engaging in rich communicative exchange is advantageous, because parents (and alloparents -- aunts, uncles, and others) engage in cooperative rearing and need to communicate about it. This, Snowdon suggests, may be a critical factor that differentiated our early hominid ancestors from their ape cousins.

    I think monkeys are much more of a threat than bots. Now, if there were swarming monkey bots, that would be different.

  • Gorilla snippets from the 1800's

    Sun, 2009-03-01 13:58 -- John Hawks

    I'm skipping around the net doing some historical research today, and I've been running across stories that try to describe apes to the general public, around the 1860's, when live apes had not yet been seen in America.

    Here's a description from the NY Times archive of a public lecture in 1868: "The Gorilla: Lecture by Dr. Lemercier at the Cooper Union". An excerpt:

    It may be safely concluded, then, said the Doctor, that materially and morally, there is not the slightest ground for comparison between the two species. It is sheer nonsense to say that the gorilla was our great, great grandfather. He was not our progenitor [Great laughter and applause.] The gorilla has probably existed as long as men have, and who can show us any perfection in his organization. Like other animals the gorilla can be improved by man, but it cannot improve itself....The gorilla is simply a beast and nothing more. He was born thus and must always remain the same.

    The New York public could get a full course on gorillas from lectures in 1868. Paul du Chaillu had passed through earlier in the year (relating to the next post about Barnum's gorilla. The Times reported on du Chaillu's lecture on February 18, 1868, "DU CHAILLU'S LECTURES.; First of the course at Steinway Hall--The Gorilla, Orang--Outang, Gibbon and Chimpanzee, and their Affinity to Man. "

    With reference to the brain capacity, the speaker said that the average in the gorilla is 28 cubic inches, (with very little growth from infancy,) and the highest 34 cubic inches, while in man the capacity of the lowest average [sic, I wonder from context if this should have read "savage"] is 63 cubic inches, and that of the highest civilization 114 cubic inches. This distance between the capacity of men's brains is measured by regular intervals, but that between man and the gorilla is a great gap with no gradiations.... Mons. Du Chaillu closed his able lecture with the most emphatic declarations of his belief in the superiority of man to, and his distinct difference from, the animals of the African forest of which he had spoken.

Subscribe to non-human primates

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.