Historically, scientists have argued the significance of cooperative breeding in evolution fitness. In Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Coteries are Cooperatively Breeding Units (1983), John L. Hoogland discusses this argument in the context of black-tailed prairie dogs’ behavior. This article is an attempt to clarify critiques made of his earlier work, from 1981, by Michener & Murie. He defends himself by clarifying a few of the terms he used in his earlier work. In addition, Hoogland makes it a point that several of his inferences made in his earlier work had been just predictions and not his requirements to classify a species as a cooperative breeder. Cooperative breeding is a situation in which an individual forgoes reproducing to assist offspring …show more content…
Within the prairie dog group he studied some females, within the coteries, who do not breed; however, they help rear young that are not their own (Hoogland 1983). Thus, Hoogland classifies black-tailed prairie dogs as cooperative breeders, although they do not help breeders to the same degree as cooperative breeding birds (Hoogland 1983). Black-tailed prairie dogs show cooperative breeding through having adult females building and protecting the nest while maintaining the burrow when breeders are raising their babies (Hoogland 1983). Hoogland states that some nonbreeding adult females may or may not mate, conceive, or give birth (Hoogland 1983). These criteria are adequate when determining if a species classifies as cooperative breeders found in his earlier work (Hoogland …show more content…
Michener & Murie (1983) believe relinquish stands for “forced to give up”; however, this was not what Hoogland meant by relinquishing (Hoogland 1983). Hoogland uses his definition of relinquishing (to withdraw from) to clarify and proposes that the prairie dogs “self-initiated” the relinquishment, unlike ant and bee species (Hoogland 1983). In ant and bee species, which practice kin selection, their queen removes their option to conceive and forces them to forgo their breeding rights (Queller & Strassmann 1998). I feel both sides are to blame here because the author must define his terms because common terminology may differ when used in scientific writing than in our everyday conversation (Zimmer 2013). In addition, Michener and Murie should have asked Hoogland what he meant by relinquish before making assumptions on his
Intro: Charles Darwin’s natural selection comes to mind when viewing the aggressive behaviors in crickets. This interaction comes into play specifically when competition for resources, such as foods and females, are scarce. Thus, only the organism most fit in the environment would be allowed to survive and pass on its genes. Pioneers of animal behavior, pave the way to understanding the why animals act the way they act (von Frisch, 1967; Lorenz, 1952; and Tinbergen 1951). With further integration between different biological organizations, we see the rise of new possible research, especially in crickets (Wong & Hoffman, 2010). The house crickets, Acheta domesticus, would normally display little to no aggression between males because of their natural behavior to live in groups. But when isolated for a length of time, ag...
...e winner or dominate male is able to breed the does in the area with no competition. This type of breeding ensures only the best genes from the strongest deer and transferred to the offspring thus ensuring a hearty offspring.
...present (Gangestad 1989). The paradox of altruism is another notion undefined because it interferes with Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”. Now there is a gene present contributing to the benefiting of the vast number of species and no longer a battle for personal fitness? Organism’s now reproduce to carry on the successful offspring by themselves and genetically similar organisms (Rushton 1980). This is the evolution of species’ genes and now kin related species will obtain the same genes? Rushton expands more on Dawkin’s “selfish gene”. With zero evidence, he concludes that non-related species with the same genetic makeup can consist of altruistic behavior rather than it just pertaining to kin. Bringing us back to the question, how can a specie just know another’s genetic makeup? And how can they have the same genetic makeup and belong to a different kin?
Every year an estimated 4.5 million dog bites occur in the U.S. BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) is a law that suggests that certain breeds are more prone to aggression than others. By banning or restricting the breeds in question, it is believed to help reduce the number of attacks. BSL determines which breeds are dangerous using statistics. These statistics cannot be relied on for two reasons. One, there is no concrete method to determine a dog’s pedigree. Thus, a victim, animal control officer, or owner is trusted with identifying the dog through appearance. According to Scott and Fuller, authors of Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog, “It has been known for decades that the cross-bred offspring of purebred dogs of different breeds often bear little or no resemblance to either their sires or dams (1965).” Visual assessments are questionable. Two, population is not accounted for. Population is important, in that it provides context to percentages. Because a dog’s breed is impossible to pinpoint, we cannot provide numbers. BSL’s cause is rendered useless when we consider these points.
White tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are one of the most common species of mammals seen in North America, the most common of large animals actually. The last official count of deer in the USA and Canada was done in 1982, at which time 15000000 were found at an average of 3 deer in every square kilometer. The deer are very much native and were hunted even by Native Americans.
The dog is a unique beast. Loyal and affectionate, if somewhat bizarrely built, today’s dogs are a far cry from the wild wolves from which they emerged. Whether fluffy, naked, cock-eyed, or bow-legged, each dog is an ample prototype of its kind. The very idea that such a cooperative creature could spring forth from such a ruthless predator is astounding by itself. The fact that the multitude of breeds (340, according to the World Canine Organization (Melina, 2014)) could starburst forth from a single point begs investigation. How, indeed, did it come to be that there are so many different breeds of dog?
Elizabeth Cashdan addresses the question of territoriality among human forager groups, specifically comparing four Bushman groups. She argues that territoriality should occur only in places where the benefits will outweigh the costs. Introducing the scientific definition of territoriality in animals, she first claims that animals tend to be the most territorial when they have adequate food and other resources. It is when there is a severe lack of or abundance of resources that animals are not territorial. With a lack of food, territoriality tends to waste too much energy. In the case of an abundance of food, it is not worth defending that which is plentiful for animals. She points out predictability as another environmental factor: if a resource is unpredictable, then it is not economical to defend it. It is only worthwhile to defend a territory if there is high probability that the resources will still be available when they are wanted. However, the costs and benefits of being territorial not only depend on the environment, but also on the species and its characteristics.
This source is slightly limited because it is not intended for serious research, but rather to provide general information on the topic. This being said, it is helpful to me because it supports other sources that speak more in depth on the topic. I would recommend this source to other researchers only as additional support, not as a source to base their research on. This source was found using the search engine www.google.com using the search term dog evolution. Book Morey, Darcy.
Species reintroduction has become a hotly debated topic, especially in the states experiencing actual reintroduction efforts. The reintroduction of the lynx into Colorado appeals to many who would like to return the area to it's pristine, pre-developed state. However, the actual costs, both financial and emotional, make this program impractical and illogical.
The video “Dogs and More Dogs” presents one of the most perplexing questions in evolutionary biology: how did the diversity of dogs evolve from a relatively homogeneous population of wolves. Anthropological data suggests that dogs came into existence some fifteen thousand years ago. In terms of the history of earth and the majority of the organisms that inhibit it, dogs are still very young. It is thus very remarkable that one species (wolves), which must have looked somewhat alike, could have given rise to the huge differences we see between the Chihuahua and the Golden Retriever.
Primates have long been understood to have a distinct connection with other animals of its kind, perhaps one of the reasons why their behavior has been most often than not closely related to how humans interact in social groups. However, between different emerging species, it could be analyzed how competition becomes a vital part of the connection they share between each other. This is the reason why it was easier to preserve species of different kinds of primates even within the same locations of habitat. Cross-breeding was not that common among primates due to being highly territorial in nature. Male primates often direct their groups specifically having a distinct distance from other types of other primates. This is why preserving intact social groups among monkeys have been a distinct characteristic of the animal, giving them a greater chance of propagating and preserving their own groups surviving within a specific habitat. When instances of environmental imbalance occurs, primates often move as groups, hence bringing their whole clan and community along with them as they follow their leaders find viable locations to become their new home.
The downfall of artificial selection is that it decreases variation in a species. Pure bred dogs are highly susceptible to many different disorders and diseases because of the lack of variation in their genotype. With these two processes, today we have friendly canine companions.
Over thousands of years, humans have domesticated animals for various reasons. Among these domesticated species companion animals hold multiple questions, from why do humans have companion animals to how certain desired behavioral traits developed. When observing closely related species or species with a common ancestor one can clearly see the difference along with similarities among a variety of traits. Behavior, just like any other trait, can also be observed and related to closely related species or species with common ancestors. The main focus of this research is to understand these similarities and differences among closely related species or species with a common ancestor at a genetic level. The connection between genetics and behavior
Williams SE, Hoffman EA. Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs. Biological Conservation. 2009; 2388-2400.
" Society & Animals 18.2 (2010): 183-203. Academic Search Premier -. EBSCO. Web. The Web. The Web.