Bonobos, cause of mating behaviour
Koen Robeys
behaviour in the wild and in zoos respectively) face to face; like humans
rather than most other primates. This is linked to the bonobos' anatomy,
which, again as in humans, favours this position; especially from the
females' point of view. The question arose whether this anatomical change
might be linked to the bonobos' (even more occasional) bipedal activity. In
that case the further question would be if we can think of any reason why
the bonobos would get erect enough to cause this anatomical change. For all
I personally know, possible reasons may vary from godly intervention over
swamped environments to Jupiter being hit by a comet. But here is what the
science-head of a local zoo, owning 11 bonobos and with an own team in Kongo
had to say. (I wonder whether it is good or bad protocol to cite her full
name)
The point is we do not really know what is cause and what is consequence.
The bonobos mating behaviour may be caused by a change in anatomy, in which
case we are all warmly encouraged to speculate upon its origin. However, the
shift in anatomy may just as well be caused by the shift in behaviour:
bonobos appear to be a very social species, using means of personal
communication which are far more subtle than other apes (not my words).
Eye-contact appears to be of the highest importance, so that it would be
conceivable to tell a "just-so" story (my words) in which the more "social"
bonobos were enough favoured to cause an anatomical shift.
Such a story would be a nice hypothesis, not worse or better than any other
like story which does or does not include water, branches or even
pseudo-science: all sources of progress would be welcomed.
(This was the result of a brief telephone conversation with a very patient
scientist on one side explaining in a way calculated to have Koen on the
other side understand too. All errors, superficialities, omissions and other
signs of crackpotism are of course due to me.)
Sincere greetings, Koen
Elaine Morgan
<koen.ro...@skynet.be> writes
>Bonobos are known to mate occasionally (30% - 80% are figures cited for
>behaviour in the wild and in zoos respectively) face to face; like humans
>rather than most other primates. This is linked to the bonobos' anatomy,
>which, again as in humans, favours this position; especially from the
>females' point of view. The question arose whether this anatomical change
>might be linked to the bonobos' (even more occasional) bipedal activity. In
>that case the further question would be if we can think of any reason why
>the bonobos would get erect enough to cause this anatomical change. F
They live in swamp forests. Wading behaviour leads to bipedalism
Elaine
Lorenzo L. Love
Elaine Morgan wrote:
So bipedalism is caused by wading, not diving? It seems to change from day to
day depending on what point the wet apes are trying to make. I guess that why
wading moose are bipedal.
Lorenzo
Koen Robeys
Lorenzo L. Love wrote in message <36069AC2...@thegrid.net>...
>> They live in swamp forests. Wading behaviour leads to bipedalism
>>
>> Elaine
>
> So bipedalism is caused by wading, not diving? It seems to change from day
to
>day depending on what point the wet apes are trying to make. I guess that
why
>wading moose are bipedal.
>
>Lorenzo
>
If one reason for bipedality is being able to breath in a flooded
environment, we can hardly claim the wading idea to be a new one. So it
looks we can think of at least the swamp idea, which my contact by the way
did not at all dismiss - but we also can think of other ideas for the
bonobos shift in anatomy. Shouldn't we be looking into those too?
Cheers, Koen
Elaine Morgan
<koen.ro...@skynet.be> writes
>
>>
>If one reason for bipedality is being able to breath in a flooded
>environment, we can hardly claim the wading idea to be a new one. So it
>looks we can think of at least the swamp idea, which my contact by the way
>did not at all dismiss - but we also can think of other ideas for the
>bonobos shift in anatomy. Shouldn't we be looking into those too?
>
Before I suggsted it was a consequence of bipedalism there were as far
as I know only one or two ideas floating around. (a) that it made loving
more personal and soulful and (b) helped to cement the pairbond,
because you could look into each other's eyes and know who you were
doing it with. The pairbonding wouldn't work for bonobos because they
don't pairbond. (I don't believe Lucy did either but that cannot be
tested). I think it is a tad anthropomorphic to assume that animals
don't know who they are doing it with because they are not looking at
one another. They know olfactorily who it is. As far as I know, the
bonobos do not resemble us in our loss of olfaction. It would not be
expectedm because they show no signs of ever having been divers, only
waders.
Elaine
>
>
--
Elaine Morgan
<lll...@thegrid.net> writes
>
>
> The question arose whether this anatomical change
>> >might be linked to the bonobos' (even more occasional) bipedal activity. In
>> >that case the further question would be if we can think of any reason why
>> >the bonobos would get erect enough to cause this anatomical change. F
>>
>>
>> Elaine
>
> So bipedalism is caused by wading, not diving?
>It seems to change from day to
>day depending on what point the wet apes are trying to make.
Have I ever said it was not caused by wading? Remind me on what day that
was.
I guess that why
>wading moose are bipedal.
Try to get this point into your head. Different species react
differently to a similar environmental stimulus according to what
they were like before they were subjected to the stimulus. Primates
react to crossing water by becoming bipedal. It is the only stimulus
that is guaranteed to produce bipedal locomotion in primates, (apart
from threat displays and that applies only to a few species and only to
the males and is brief.) They do this because it is not too difficult
for them since they often have erect torsos with heads pointing forward,
and are often hind-limb dominated in their brand of quadrupedalism. So
they are halfway there. They rise onto two legs in water which would
cover their heads if they remained on four legs. Isn't that sensible of
them?
A moose does not wade bipedally partly because it is not preadapted in
this way, but mainly of course because it does not wade through water
deep enough to submerge its nostrils while it walks on four legs.
Wouldn't it be a fool even to try to walk on two legs when it would have
nothing at all to gain by it? Do try not to be so simplistic.
Elaine
>
>
--
Elaine Morgan
Sherilyn
<ela...@desco.demon.co.uk> writes
[Bonoboes would know olfactorily who they are having sex with...]
> As far as I know, the
>bonobos do not resemble us in our loss of olfaction. It would not be
>expectedm because they show no signs of ever having been divers, only
>waders.
Can you think of any significant human traits separating us from our
great ape cousins that you would not ascribe to an aquatic adaptation in
humans?
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
<ela...@desco.demon.co.uk> writes
...
> Primates
>react to crossing water by becoming bipedal. It is the only stimulus
>that is guaranteed to produce bipedal locomotion in primates, (apart
>from threat displays and that applies only to a few species and only to
>the males and is brief.)
Last time I checked, I think you have one (1) independent example of
where a fossil primate had a pelvis indicative of bipedalism in
circumstances suggestive of swamp life: Oreopithecus. Have you
uncovered new evidence to justify your claim that crossing water makes a
primate bipedal, or is this another conjecture based on the discrepancy
of bonobo frontal mating?
--
Sherilyn
It is a glimpse into an America that would have no basic civil liberties. Let
us be a nation where people can seek forgiveness and let us not become a nation
of hunters and the hunted. -Elizabeth Birch, Executive Director, HRC.
Rich Travsky
=> [...]
=> Try to get this point into your head. Different species react
=> differently to a similar environmental stimulus according to what
=> they were like before they were subjected to the stimulus. Primates
=> react to crossing water by becoming bipedal. It is the only stimulus
=> that is guaranteed to produce bipedal locomotion in primates, (apart
=> from threat displays and that applies only to a few species and only to
=> the males and is brief.) They do this because it is not too difficult
=> for them since they often have erect torsos with heads pointing forward,
=> and are often hind-limb dominated in their brand of quadrupedalism. So
=> they are halfway there. They rise onto two legs in water which would
=> cover their heads if they remained on four legs. Isn't that sensible of
=> them?
Many four legged animals can swim. They "dog paddle". Primates can dog
paddle too.
This is an insufficient motivation for bipediality. There are other
means of crossing water, such as using overhanging branches to leap
from. Or they just plain avoid the water.
This scenario requires that the water level was always just enough
to force the reaction you mention. It would have to happen often enough
and, time wise, prolonged enough, to put evolutionary pressure
on the primate-human-to-be. It requires that they would hardly ever seek
some other means of dealing with the water. And *that* is far more sensible.
=> [...]
Rich
Rich Travsky
Elaine Morgan
<rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> writes
>
>Many four legged animals can swim. They "dog paddle". Primates can dog
>paddle too.
I would say almost every quadruped can swim. Yes, certainly, primates
can if they must. What is your point?
>
>This is an insufficient motivation for bipediality. There are other
>means of crossing water, such as using overhanging branches to leap
>from. Or they just plain avoid the water.
If there are overhanging branches. Proboscis monkeys use this methos
when available, but it often isn't and they have to wade. If the patch
of trees they are in is running out of resources and the trees are
surrounded by water they can't just avoid the water. They have to go in
search of food.
It may sound an insufficient motivation. But it is the only motivation
that in actual practice is guaranteed to induce bipedal locomotion in
apes.
>
>This scenario requires that the water level was always just enough
>to force the reaction you mention. It would have to happen often enough
>and, time wise, prolonged enough, to put evolutionary pressure
>on the primate-human-to-be. It requires that they would hardly ever seek
>some other means of dealing with the water. And *that* is far more sensible.
>
There is no shortage of habitats where the water is kneedeep for months
on end. Okavango in India, the sundabans in India..
Elaine
>
--
Elaine Morgan
Rich Travsky
=> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> writes
=> >Many four legged animals can swim. They "dog paddle". Primates can
dog
=> >paddle too.
=>
=> I would say almost every quadruped can swim. Yes, certainly, primates
=> can if they must. What is your point?
Wading isn't the only approach to approach. In fact, they could just as
well remain quadrapedal to go through the water.
=> >This is an insufficient motivation for bipediality. There are other
=> >means of crossing water, such as using overhanging branches to leap
=> >from. Or they just plain avoid the water.
=>
=> If there are overhanging branches. Proboscis monkeys use this methos
=> when available, but it often isn't and they have to wade. If the
patch
=> of trees they are in is running out of resources and the trees are
=> surrounded by water they can't just avoid the water. They have to go
in
=> search of food.
=>
=> It may sound an insufficient motivation. But it is the only
motivation
=> that in actual practice is guaranteed to induce bipedal locomotion in
=> apes.
But this just minimizes the need for wading and any possible impact
on the primates to become habitually bipedal. It puts it on a par with
other bipedal events like dominance displays, sexual displays, looking
around, carrying things (like food), fighting, etc.
Wading then becomes not just insufficient motivation, it becomes
inconsequential in and of itself.
=> >This scenario requires that the water level was always just enough
=> >to force the reaction you mention. It would have to happen often
enough
=> >and, time wise, prolonged enough, to put evolutionary pressure
=> >on the primate-human-to-be. It requires that they would hardly ever
seek
=> >some other means of dealing with the water. And *that* is far more
sensible.
=> >
=> There is no shortage of habitats where the water is kneedeep for
months
=> on end. Okavango in India, the sundabans in India..
Fine. Now, what are the primate species therein? How often are they
forced to
wade? How big are the breeding populations of primates? How long have
they
been there? Long enough to force an adaptation to habitual bipedalism?
Do they
move to the fringe of the wet area? What is the size of the primates?
The water
has to be of a depth to force them to wade, and not dog paddle or walk
through
quadrapedally. Do the primates therein exhibit bipedal locomotion? A
lot? A
little? Are the areas forested such that they needn't wade at all?
Etc.
In short, where are the bipedal primates from these areas?
Rich
Elaine Morgan
<rtra...@REMOVETHIS.uwyo.edu> writes
>Elaine Morgan wrote:
>=> Rich Travsky <rtra...@REMOVETHISuwyo.edu> writes
>=> >Many four legged animals can swim. They "dog paddle". Primates can
>dog
>=> >paddle too.
>=>
>=> I would say almost every quadruped can swim. Yes, certainly, primates
>=> can if they must. What is your point?
>
>Wading isn't the only approach to approach. In fact, they could just as
>well remain quadrapedal to go through the water.
Depends how deep it was. And, in practice, they don't do that.
>=> >
>=> There is no shortage of habitats where the water is kneedeep for
>months
>=> on end. Okavango in India, the sundabans in India..
>
>Fine. Now, what are the primate species therein?
Okavango - don't know. Sundabans - crab-eating macaque, I think. Some
monkeys in India are capable of drinking salt water, I read once
>How often are they
>forced to
>wade?
I haven';t heard they ever do.
How big are the breeding populations of primates? How long have
>they
>been there? Long enough to force an adaptation to habitual bipedalism?
>Do they
>move to the fringe of the wet area? What is the size of the primates?
>The water
>has to be of a depth to force them to wade, and not dog paddle or walk
>through
>quadrapedally. Do the primates therein exhibit bipedal locomotion? A
>lot? A
>little? Are the areas forested such that they needn't wade at all?
>
>In short, where are the bipedal primates from these areas?
Okay. Good questions. I won't counter by asking where are the bipedal
primates from the savanna or any other habitat our ancestors may have
evolved in. Let us for the time being accept the convention that AAT is
in the dock , while its opponents have simply been cautioned "You are
not required to say anything, and as long as you keep your mouth shut
nobody can lay a finger on you."
Rich, I don't know how long they've been there. The areas I have in mind
are not forested. My impression is that what primates are there hang
around on the edges. The water does not appear suddenly. They have
plenty of time to retreat from it as it in advance, if it is seasonal as
in Okavango. Or else there are more or less permanent flood plains and
they are not constrained to go into them if they don't want to. Crabs
and stuff come ashore. Things get stranded when the tide goes out if it
is a tidal plain. They get the pickings without having to change thewir
habits very much.
For some of these reasons I am inclined to think that the aquatic
interlude did not occur in in;land Africa, by the lakes and rivers. It
would have had to be too sudden for them to back away. In Afar it would
have been. The situation was something like the Mediterranean, where the
sealevels (repeatedly) built up outside a strip of highland and finally
broke through the Straits of Gibraltar like a dam breaking. The Danakil
Alps form a similar barrier. Afar like the Med was repeatedly inundated.
Am I guessing? Yes, of course, an educated guess. Nobody can do
anything other than guess. But the situation leading to bipedalism has
to have been very unusual to elicit such a unique response.
Elaine
Marc Verhaegen
.....
>>=> >Many four legged animals can swim. They "dog paddle". Primates can dog
>>=>
>>=> I would say almost every quadruped can swim. Yes, certainly, primates
>>=> can if they must. What is your point?
>>
>>Wading isn't the only approach to approach. In fact, they could just as
>>well remain quadrapedal to go through the water.
>
>Depends how deep it was. And, in practice, they don't do that.
>>=> >
>>=> There is no shortage of habitats where the water is kneedeep for months
>>=> on end. Okavango in India, the sundabans in India..
>>
>>Fine. Now, what are the primate species therein?
>
Rich, for swimming & other water activities in primates, read D.Ellis 1991
"Is an aquatic ape viable in terms of marine ecology & primate behaviour?"
M.Roede ed. "The aquatic ape: fact or fiction?" Souvenir London.
Marc
Marc
Paul Crowley
<ela...@desco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>This is an insufficient motivation for bipediality. There are other
>>means of crossing water, such as using overhanging branches to leap
>>from. Or they just plain avoid the water.
>
>If there are overhanging branches. Proboscis monkeys use this methos
>when available, but it often isn't and they have to wade. If the patch
>of trees they are in is running out of resources and the trees are
>surrounded by water they can't just avoid the water. They have to go in
>search of food.
>
>It may sound an insufficient motivation. But it is the only motivation
>that in actual practice is guaranteed to induce bipedal locomotion in
>apes.
Does it guarantee extended bipedalism in a mother carrying a
largish infant?
Another motivation that would enable continuous bipedalism would
be searching for shellfish both at wading depth and by swimming.
I'm convinced that two factors were necessary (a) the putting
down of the infant by the mother (which wading/swimming for food
would cause) and (b) the abandonment of the trees for sleeping.
If they'd continued sleeping in trees, then they'd have needed
exactly the same equipment as chimps.
>>This scenario requires that the water level was always just enough
>>to force the reaction you mention. It would have to happen often enough
>>and, time wise, prolonged enough, to put evolutionary pressure
>>on the primate-human-to-be. It requires that they would hardly ever seek
>>some other means of dealing with the water. And *that* is far more sensible.
>>
>There is no shortage of habitats where the water is kneedeep for months
>on end. Okavango in India, the sundabans in India..
It is knee-deep only in patches. It varies from dry land to deep
pools and gullies, like any other swamp. Also such areas are
quite dry for some months. Further, they are well populated
with predators, both crocodiles and ordinary terrestrial ones.
How did these hominines survive the nights?
Paul.