Hello all! Just to clarify, you only have to do 3 muddy points total over the reading. So, even though you have to read two chapters for Monday, you need 3, not 6, muddy points. Of course, if you have more questions or things you want to talk about, you're welcome to write more, but you only need 3.
1. Chapter 1, page 1: Why has studying animal behavior changed from the past of practical needs to now it being a luxury and for curiosity? What caused this change? From the many examples listed after this statement, it seems like we are consistently wanting to learn new things about animals for a purpose, not just out of curiosity. 2. Chapter 1, page 3: Learning so much about the Dwarf Mongoose was a little confusing. I didn't realize they are one of the few who live in a social group. I thought that was a lot more common and their way of reproduction, although explain greatly, was still a little hard to understand. 3. Chapter 2, page 13: Ethologists focused on evolution and function and comparative psychologists focused on the mechanism and development of behavior, meanwhile Tinbergen looked at all 4. The booked briefly mentioned these together, but I wish they would have explained this overlap a little more to help understanding how it came to be.
1. Chapter 1, page 4. Although really interesting, the explanation of female reproductive suppression was a little confusing. I realize that if higher ranking females leave, then they are no longer available to help take care of young. Even if that happened, though, there would still be the lower ranking females to do that. Why would the top female be behaviorally kinder to females that pose more of a threat to her position? 2. Chapter 2, page 16. When reading about sign stimuli in male robins, I immediately thought of category formation. They included red feathers, even when not part of a live bird, in their category of territorial threats. I would be interested to know if category formation plays any role in perception of sign stimuli. 3. Chapter 2, page 21. The idea of inclusive fitness doesn't make complete sense to me. I understand including siblings' and offspring's fitness, but niece seems too removed to still reflect the subject individual. Also, it says when quantifying inclusive fitness, we count individuals alive because of the actions of the original individual. Determining an individual's survival as a result of one specific action seems difficult.
1. Chapter 1, Page 4. I am a little confused about the subordinates roles in dwarf mongooses. Why do they stay within the group when they aren't, the males, able to mate with the females due to the dominant males attacking them? 2. Chapter 2, Page 13. What does it mean by ethologist's only looked at behavior patterns that are inheirted, does this indicate that that there are behaviors that aren't inheirted? I am a little confused on what this means because aren't there behaviors that aren't inheirted then why aren't they looking at those behaviors? 3. Chapter 2, Page 23. What exactly is happening in the section on behavior biology and what does it mean by the mechanisms behind the male calling in tungara frogs and how it develops has to do with fitness?
1. Chapter 1, page 3. Why is it that group reproduction in the dwarf mongoose's suppressed? I understand why only the dominant females reproduce since they have the best traits, but why is group reproduction suppressed? Also as a side not, I'm not fully sure what they mean by group reproduction. Do you they the group of females that are pregnant? Or do they mean the reproduction of the entire group as a whole? 2. Chapter 2, page 13. I understand that there are two different approaches to animal behavior. What i seemed to miss from this, and it may have been mentioned and i may have just missed it, but those who are ethologists, do they also use comparative psychology in their studies? Or are they sickly ethologists that only view things in the way of ethology? Is this also the same for comparative psychologists? Is there no crossover? I know there is talk about how the differences are that much different but I'm wondering about the people themselves and the scientists themselves. 3. Chapter 2, page 19. Im a little confused about how Skinner based his entire belief that the control of behavior was a matter of reinforcement. Is it possible to control an animals behavior? I just find it very odd that there was a use of the word control. Does anyone have the power to control anything? Or is it simply influencing the animals behavior? I'm just a bit confused on this.
Rachel, basically what they're saying is that only the dominant female gets to mate and it's very unlikely that other females will. So reproduction is prevented (i.e. suppressed) in those females (i.e. the group). Make sense?
1.) Chapter 1 page 2. It talks about the four questions of animal behavior and two I am confused about. One question is how does it develop, and another question is how did it evolve? I personally feel as if develop and evolve are synonymous, and those two questions are essentially the same. Anyone else feel that way?
2.) Chapter 2, page 13 It said on this page "In the words of Lorenz (1958), “Every time a biologist seeks to know why an organism looks and acts as it does, he must resort to the comparative method.” " As much as I agree that comparing is an important factor, I dont think we should undermine other methods. To get the best possible answer, you've got to come at a problem from a multitude of angles.
3.Chapter 2, Page 16. I thought the paragraph on sign stimuli and Releasers as triggers was pretty interesting. The example of the male Robin's attacking a red tuft as feathers was an example I have heard before, but never knew the terminology behind. I'd be interested to see other examples of this in the animal kingdom.
Develop and evolve may be similar in terms of every day vocabulary but they're very different in terms of Tinbergen's questions. We'll talk more about these questions in class.
For Lorenz, comparative = considering the organism's environment. You're right that there are other perspectives. We'll talk about why Lorenz felt so strongly tomorrow.
1) Ch 2-Page 13: Why were the United States and Europe so split on paths to examine and Animal Behavior as? Would it be more or less productive to co-work and explore 1 path and share connected discoveries and theories rather than 2 sides of the science? 2) Ch 2-Page 14 While explaining and exploring early testing of similar actions between animal sub-species (flies) it seems like that testing was only run in flies and insects. How long would it have taken early studies to work on lager animals. Meaning anything larger than bugs or insects? 3) Chapter 2-Page 15 How can a Fixed Action Pattern be distinguishable from a choice an animal makes . Can it be tested to figure when a FAP is happening against a decision made?
1) Chapter 1, Page 2:It compares Tinbergen's four questions to the four legs of an animal by saying that, "an animal that lacks one of its legs can only hobble along". I have always felt like that in many circumstances by answering one of the four questions you also answer the others and similarly many animals do amazingly on three legs. I guess I'm either confused on the distinction between the four questions or why they haven't been combined? I guess I personally prefer looking it as more of two, proximate and ultimate questions. 2) Chapter 1, Page 4: MONGOOSES (mongeese?) BLOCKING THE REPRODUCTIVE ABILITY OF SUBORDINATES VIA CHEMICALS IS WILDDDDDD. My mind was blown. But the part that I'm confused about would be why the subordinates wouldn't have mechanisms to block the block or wouldn't know to avoid that smell? I feel like their instincts to reproduce should overcome this, but maybe its all about inclusive fitness for them. 3)Chapter 2, Page 13: wouldn't comparative psychologists and ethologists essentially be the same thing? The way it was explained in the book it seemed like two sides of the same coin.
1.) chapter 1, page 4: when discussing the dwarf mongoose, the author explains that some individuals are lower in the hierarchy and cannot often/or ever reproduce. The author goes on to state that the individual could hope for improvement in it's social rank by gaining status over it's lifetime, however, it doesn't explain how one would gain status. I was curious about what actions, besides age or a tragedy to the dominant mongoose, would lead to a rise in an individual's status? 2.) Chapter 2, page 12: When going into detail about Darwin's evolutionary framework, it is said that Darwin considered the minds of humans and animals to only differ in complexity. I was wondering what Darwin's definition of complexity was? Since the term can be defined in so many different ways. 3.) Chapter 2, page 14: When discussing the species H. maura, it is stated that only some males place food inside cocoons; others just enclose a meaningless "gift" such as a flower petal. I am curious as to what might be the reason behind this behavior? Does the meaningless gift benefit the male in any way?
Hello all! Just to clarify, you only have to do 3 muddy points total over the reading. So, even though you have to read two chapters for Monday, you need 3, not 6, muddy points. Of course, if you have more questions or things you want to talk about, you're welcome to write more, but you only need 3.
ReplyDeleteChapters 1-2
ReplyDelete1. Chapter 1, page 1: Why has studying animal behavior changed from the past of practical needs to now it being a luxury and for curiosity? What caused this change? From the many examples listed after this statement, it seems like we are consistently wanting to learn new things about animals for a purpose, not just out of curiosity.
2. Chapter 1, page 3: Learning so much about the Dwarf Mongoose was a little confusing. I didn't realize they are one of the few who live in a social group. I thought that was a lot more common and their way of reproduction, although explain greatly, was still a little hard to understand.
3. Chapter 2, page 13: Ethologists focused on evolution and function and comparative psychologists focused on the mechanism and development of behavior, meanwhile Tinbergen looked at all 4. The booked briefly mentioned these together, but I wish they would have explained this overlap a little more to help understanding how it came to be.
1. Chapter 1, page 4. Although really interesting, the explanation of female reproductive suppression was a little confusing. I realize that if higher ranking females leave, then they are no longer available to help take care of young. Even if that happened, though, there would still be the lower ranking females to do that. Why would the top female be behaviorally kinder to females that pose more of a threat to her position?
ReplyDelete2. Chapter 2, page 16. When reading about sign stimuli in male robins, I immediately thought of category formation. They included red feathers, even when not part of a live bird, in their category of territorial threats. I would be interested to know if category formation plays any role in perception of sign stimuli.
3. Chapter 2, page 21. The idea of inclusive fitness doesn't make complete sense to me. I understand including siblings' and offspring's fitness, but niece seems too removed to still reflect the subject individual. Also, it says when quantifying inclusive fitness, we count individuals alive because of the actions of the original individual. Determining an individual's survival as a result of one specific action seems difficult.
Here's an article that suggests that it might be to avoid infanticide in mongooses: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890811/
DeleteThere are a number of potential reasons for why this might happen though and we can brainstorm some in class tomorrow if you'd like.
Brooke, remind me tomorrow to talk more about the mongoose if you'd like. I had planned to but then forgot once I started my lecture. Dr D
Delete1. Chapter 1, Page 4. I am a little confused about the subordinates roles in dwarf mongooses. Why do they stay within the group when they aren't, the males, able to mate with the females due to the dominant males attacking them?
ReplyDelete2. Chapter 2, Page 13. What does it mean by ethologist's only looked at behavior patterns that are inheirted, does this indicate that that there are behaviors that aren't inheirted? I am a little confused on what this means because aren't there behaviors that aren't inheirted then why aren't they looking at those behaviors?
3. Chapter 2, Page 23. What exactly is happening in the section on behavior biology and what does it mean by the mechanisms behind the male calling in tungara frogs and how it develops has to do with fitness?
1. Chapter 1, page 3. Why is it that group reproduction in the dwarf mongoose's suppressed? I understand why only the dominant females reproduce since they have the best traits, but why is group reproduction suppressed? Also as a side not, I'm not fully sure what they mean by group reproduction. Do you they the group of females that are pregnant? Or do they mean the reproduction of the entire group as a whole?
ReplyDelete2. Chapter 2, page 13. I understand that there are two different approaches to animal behavior. What i seemed to miss from this, and it may have been mentioned and i may have just missed it, but those who are ethologists, do they also use comparative psychology in their studies? Or are they sickly ethologists that only view things in the way of ethology? Is this also the same for comparative psychologists? Is there no crossover? I know there is talk about how the differences are that much different but I'm wondering about the people themselves and the scientists themselves.
3. Chapter 2, page 19. Im a little confused about how Skinner based his entire belief that the control of behavior was a matter of reinforcement. Is it possible to control an animals behavior? I just find it very odd that there was a use of the word control. Does anyone have the power to control anything? Or is it simply influencing the animals behavior? I'm just a bit confused on this.
Rachel, basically what they're saying is that only the dominant female gets to mate and it's very unlikely that other females will. So reproduction is prevented (i.e. suppressed) in those females (i.e. the group). Make sense?
Delete1.) Chapter 1 page 2. It talks about the four questions of animal behavior and two I am confused about. One question is how does it develop, and another question is how did it evolve? I personally feel as if develop and evolve are synonymous, and those two questions are essentially the same. Anyone else feel that way?
ReplyDelete2.) Chapter 2, page 13 It said on this page "In the words of Lorenz (1958), “Every time a biologist seeks to know why an
organism looks and acts as it does, he must resort to the
comparative method.” " As much as I agree that comparing is an important factor, I dont think we should undermine other methods. To get the best possible answer, you've got to come at a problem from a multitude of angles.
3.Chapter 2, Page 16. I thought the paragraph on sign stimuli and Releasers as triggers was pretty interesting. The example of the male Robin's attacking a red tuft as feathers was an example I have heard before, but never knew the terminology behind. I'd be interested to see other examples of this in the animal kingdom.
Develop and evolve may be similar in terms of every day vocabulary but they're very different in terms of Tinbergen's questions. We'll talk more about these questions in class.
DeleteFor Lorenz, comparative = considering the organism's environment. You're right that there are other perspectives. We'll talk about why Lorenz felt so strongly tomorrow.
1) Ch 2-Page 13: Why were the United States and Europe so split on paths to examine and Animal Behavior as? Would it be more or less productive to co-work and explore 1 path and share connected discoveries and theories rather than 2 sides of the science?
ReplyDelete2) Ch 2-Page 14 While explaining and exploring early testing of similar actions between animal sub-species (flies) it seems like that testing was only run in flies and insects. How long would it have taken early studies to work on lager animals. Meaning anything larger than bugs or insects?
3) Chapter 2-Page 15 How can a Fixed Action Pattern be distinguishable from a choice an animal makes . Can it be tested to figure when a FAP is happening against a decision made?
We'll talk more about what makes a FAP a FAP in lecture:)
Delete1) Chapter 1, Page 2:It compares Tinbergen's four questions to the four legs of an animal by saying that, "an animal that lacks one of its legs can only hobble along". I have always felt like that in many circumstances by answering one of the four questions you also answer the others and similarly many animals do amazingly on three legs. I guess I'm either confused on the distinction between the four questions or why they haven't been combined? I guess I personally prefer looking it as more of two, proximate and ultimate questions.
ReplyDelete2) Chapter 1, Page 4: MONGOOSES (mongeese?) BLOCKING THE REPRODUCTIVE ABILITY OF SUBORDINATES VIA CHEMICALS IS WILDDDDDD. My mind was blown. But the part that I'm confused about would be why the subordinates wouldn't have mechanisms to block the block or wouldn't know to avoid that smell? I feel like their instincts to reproduce should overcome this, but maybe its all about inclusive fitness for them.
3)Chapter 2, Page 13: wouldn't comparative psychologists and ethologists essentially be the same thing? The way it was explained in the book it seemed like two sides of the same coin.
1.) chapter 1, page 4: when discussing the dwarf mongoose, the author explains that some individuals are lower in the hierarchy and cannot often/or ever reproduce. The author goes on to state that the individual could hope for improvement in it's social rank by gaining status over it's lifetime, however, it doesn't explain how one would gain status. I was curious about what actions, besides age or a tragedy to the dominant mongoose, would lead to a rise in an individual's status?
ReplyDelete2.) Chapter 2, page 12: When going into detail about Darwin's evolutionary framework, it is said that Darwin considered the minds of humans and animals to only differ in complexity. I was wondering what Darwin's definition of complexity was? Since the term can be defined in so many different ways.
3.) Chapter 2, page 14: When discussing the species H. maura, it is stated that only some males place food inside cocoons; others just enclose a meaningless "gift" such as a flower petal. I am curious as to what might be the reason behind this behavior? Does the meaningless gift benefit the male in any way?