Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: nicephotog on 03/07/2009 07:58:01
-
Can "organised communal survival behavior of an animal group" be predicted by dental "mechanism" charting and geometric skull measurement?
Archeologically or present(e.g. overlooked)
Someone asked when did we start living in family groups?
After which i answered with a salvo off a rack compared to others.
That contained a quantity relating wolves and Rabbits communal behavior.
One interesting feature of that thread was someone answered,
its "a hereditry brain function" that causes it.
My answer was based on behavioral psychology of the various requirements that
are gained in nature from instinct to adjoin learning ability and communication
capacity for survival
.
Having some small knowledge of wolves and rabbits, the proposition is that these
may be higher animals in brain function than e.g. Felidae(cats) because of their
lesser physical ability and hence a greater need for cooperation.
This last feature(lesser physical ability and hence a greater need for cooperation)
appears to have manifest in their behavioral survival psychology and instinct of which
traits in these animals skulls and dental charts show their differences much to the effect
that cats may not exhibit a great need for intellect and higher developed communal behavior
for survival.
If you look at snakes behavior, they are dangerous to each and other and do not appear to
build any complex signalling.
Again though, spiders have giant communal nests alike bees and wasps and have signals.
Is there anything that can be picked on to predict that from e.g. fossilised skulls.
overview
http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/BIAN3011%202%20-%20placentals.ppt
Lagomorpha (rabbits)
are unlike rodents because in the upper jaw they have a second smaller pair of incisors.
rodents only have a single pair.
(RABBITS DENTAL CHART)
http://www.petsmile.org/documents/chart_lapis.pdf
(DOGS and CAT DENTAL CHART)
http://www.avdc.org/dental-charts.pdf
(DOG ONLY)
http://books.google.com/books?id=RS_ZTMP611QC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=dogs+teeth+dental+chart+picture+figure&source=bl&ots=s2mJWPg7B3&sig=1W59IiOJkZGG0NA_RNrWBDYMdtA&hl=en&ei=y6JNSra-FZKyswOHss2uBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
-
1. what is your conclusion?
2. If your conclusion is that the relationship is there, how would you defend that conclusion against accusations you have used a very restricted data?
-
NOTE: This point really applies to more complex environment manipulators
e.g. mammalia that can manipulate their surroundings by their toolset
whether their mouth or some other appendage. e.g. a lobster or crab or
yabbie does not appear to contain much ability to reason though they
utilise their surroundings, so maybe they have more frontal lobe processing
for brain than memory or movement motor, but finally they are so
primitive for requirement they do not need to learn much or move
well, simply decide what little is required "next".
Sea dwelling animals are too different ot land dwelling, but do exhibit levels
of ability to absorb concepts and cooperate through training e.g. dolphins.
National Geographic once ran an article about the "origin of the dog" as a
"shape changer". That various factors in gestation particularly have created
these canids shape and differentiation of psychology.
Better again recently i found a zoo keeping study of wolves born in captivity
in zoos relating their "skull shape".
A degeneration in the shape "instantly" shows the first generation have milder
curves to the skull that then degenerates again in the next to something similar
to seeing a Felidae skull.
1. what is your conclusion?
First, my conclusion is that there is some real relationship to dental
formation by ranking of specialist tool ability quantification as
a level/mark and skull incrementation for brain size but more for
the frontal processing lobe space or evidence that that will relate
to the dental quantification level of toolset.
2. If your conclusion is that the relationship is there,
how would you defend that conclusion against accusations
you have used a very restricted data?
Mainly, i'm seeing it as a good guide, Because eating and environmental
manipulation tools for survival inbuilt to the system of an animal reflect
the level of processing(physical) and diversity of foodstuffs can be utilised.
e.g. Incisors, fangs, pre-molar,molar being present in particular
systematics(e.g. positional) and quantity, with the processing(frontal lobe "reason logic").
As soon as you get this more complex formation of toolset in the jaw and/or
appendage operation, you get a closer possibility of requirement to communicate
with others by signals and rank order, but if only a large quantity of one of these is present it instantly starts to drop the cooperative communal processing(intellect) requirements of having a group operation.
-
thank you for your response. Now that you have expressed your view clearly I shall take the time to look at the data.
In the meantime I was a little offput by this:Better again recently i found a zoo keeping study of wolves born in captivity
in zoos relating their "skull shape".
A degeneration in the shape "instantly" shows the first generation have milder curves to the skull that then degenerates again in the next to something similar to seeing a Felidae skull.
Degenerate? What do you mean by 'degenerate' in general and in this specific context?
-
Degenerate? What do you mean by 'degenerate' in general and in this specific context?
Degenerate in this context is: shows underdevelopment by the comparitive standard size and the more complex standard dimensions of the skull morphology of the specific creature.
Degenerate as an adverb would be appropriate because its incrementation does not match the wild raised and bred version for efficiency of mechanics quite obviously based on size and development.
I was trying to find that PDF again last night on the net, it has a figure of three skulls comparitive , 1st wild , next first generation then the generation from the 1st captive bred wolf.
It was data taken from from a zoo study of their development.
-
This sounds entirely like an environmental factor. Would you agree?
-
With canids, shape changing rapidly p/generation certainly is, "the idea of the Nat. Geo." article was that was how the domesticative physical changes of identity of wild dogs occurred.
But the underlying point is there is forward processor space in the frontal lobe evident by size and in other animals by size that type-of(to coin a phrase) space is evident and available too.
But to make things quicker and easier forensically to what and where they gather in mud on them at time of death, they can be more predictable as being a pack or group assisting one and other by the differentiation diversity of their tooth system containing specialist sets of the four types of teeth or some variation thereof for their beings morphology.
note: (Need to/am look(ing) into whether Weasels pack, looking over various omnivorous and also Hyper-carnivours)
Definitely it is an environmental factor in the case of increments from development, but 'tis to evolution theory that after some time the environmental survival requirements for continuation or change of whether facets are kept or dropped from the system of the physiology.
Foodstuffs and physical input requirements indicate whether chemical handling is required biochemically to the animals' metabolism as its liver and "else/other" organs excrete and affect by supply with food.
Essentially that comes to it being affected by the range of substances input, but for these creatures the availability is based on the processing technique of the raw foodstuff. Secondly its obtainence of the stuff is required potentially by intellect(consistant ability to learn) and cooperation(packing grouping) and memory(signal discernation). The question is whether teeth as a complex toolset reflect if the animals ability and requirement show potential to need to cooperate by signals as a group or that at least that may be becoming or is.
-
Help me out here photog. Are you a native English speaker? Your writing is grammatically peculiar and consequently ambiguous. I am having a hard time working out what you are trying to say much of the time.
For example this sentence simply does not make sense, though I could try to guess what you mean:
"Definitely it is an environmental factor in the case of increments from development, but 'tis to evolution theory that after some time the environmental survival requirements for continuation or change of whether facets are kept or dropped from the system of the physiology."
-
Note: OK your right about the language, but you should remeber there is
an english language called Pidgin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin
All i'm seeking to demonstrate by this here is that the diverse word set found in as
much as standard worldwide English can be reflected by the various languages also
found in word processor applications relating categorically English only.
E.g. open MS word and you have ISO EN_us , EN_au , EN_gb , EN_ca , EN_zw, EN_jm e.t.c.
http://www.iso.org/iso/english_country_names_and_code_elements
me requoted:
"Definitely it is an environmental factor in the case of increments from
development, but 'tis to evolution theory that after some time the
environmental survival requirements for continuation or change of whether
facets are kept or dropped from the system of the physiology."
The theory of evolution is that "changes occur to the animal" relating
its environment and how it utilitarianly survives using its environment.
If it does not have physical and body-biochemical change(evolve) that
allows it to survive it certainly dies and becomes extinct when the environment
changes.
The compare of the skulls in the zoo study showed that was alike evolutionary
theory and it was its environment that committed the effect(you could repeat
this again and again with the same result).
Here is a more complex version , the best i know of:
"Silver Fox experiement"
breif: http://dev.null.org/blog/item/200905272241_novodomef
(PDF) http://www.floridalupine.org/publications/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf
That only makes some proof that change is committed.
I'm querying, does specialist tooth systems or having all four(five? incisor fang) specialist types make a direct link to having a colony with some form of hereditory protocol signals.
E.g. A Borophagine has four less molars than a wolf, but would you assume with a completely extinct creature that if it has all four tooth types anyhow that it used protocol and colonised*(* colonised in this definition context means to have an ordered hierarchy pack family that cooperate for survival requiring refined learning and remembering instinctively driven(embedded driver) to behave that way(more refined and intricate in protocol)).