RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Bonobos, Steviepinhead and I were wondering...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,17:20   

At some bar off of 1st down by the key arena, I was having a beer with a guy who had the most amazing head you've ever seen. Anyway, we were wondering about bonobos, in a very general sort of way. Both of us agreed it could be an interesting thread topic and with this:
Quote
Occasionally, the role of sex in relation to food is taken one step further, bringing bonobos very close to humans in their behavior. It has been speculated by anthropologists-- including C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University and Helen Fisher of Rutgers University--that sex is partially separated from reproduction in our species because it serves to cement mutually profitable relationships between men and women. The human female's capacity to mate throughout her cycle and her strong sex drive allow her to exchange sex for male commitment and paternal care, thus giving rise to the nuclear family.

This arrangement is thought to be favored by natural selection because it allows women to raise more offspring than they could if they were on their own. Although bonobos clearly do not establish the exclusive heterosexual bonds characteristic of our species, their behavior does fit important elements of this model. A female bonobo shows extended receptivity and uses sex to obtain a male's favors when--usually because of youth--she is too low in social status to dominate him.

At the San Diego Zoo, I observed that if Loretta was in a sexually attractive state, she would not hesitate to approach the adult male, Vernon, if he had food. Presenting herself to Vernon, she would mate with him and make high- pitched food calls while taking over his entire bundle of branches and leaves. When Loretta had no genital swelling, she would wait until Vernon was ready to share. Primatologist Suehisa Kuroda reports similar exchanges at Wamba: "A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."
link

And it got me thinking about the chimp/ bonobo divide and whether anyone here knows anything about it or knows of something interesting on the web.

Also, regarding phylogenies, I remember reading somewhere (could have been yesterday or 30 years ago, not sure) that because of the genetic similarities between human /chimp human/bonobo and bonobo/chimp that the genus homo might be better off simply being pan but I don't remember like I said. Anything?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,18:38   

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2007,17:20)
Primatologist Suehisa Kuroda reports similar exchanges at Wamba: "A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."

If that worked on humans, the price of sugarcane would quadruple overnight.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,18:40   

Quote
It has been speculated by anthropologists-- including C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University and Helen Fisher of Rutgers University--that sex is partially separated from reproduction in our species because it serves to cement mutually profitable relationships between men and women. The human female's capacity to mate throughout her cycle and her strong sex drive allow her to exchange sex for male commitment and paternal care, thus giving rise to the nuclear family.

This arrangement is thought to be favored by natural selection because it allows women to raise more offspring than they could if they were on their own.


There must be more to it than that. Why do so few species engage in recreational sex? (Are there any other examples beyond humans and bonobos?) Why are there species that pair-bond strongly in the complete absence of recreational sex?

Critiques aside, I think the parallels between bonobo and human sexuality are fascinating and have enormous value for understanding human behaviors.

Regarding Homo versus Pan, I doubt there's any right answer. Unlike species, where reproductive isolation is at least a semi-objective criterion, what constitutes different genera is pretty much arbitrary, is it not?

  
David Holland



Posts: 17
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,19:34   

If humans and chimps are put in the same genus how would that affect australopithicus, ardipithicus, and kenyanthropus. Would they all become pan?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,19:58   

Short answer: Yes.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,22:07   

I recall reading someplace that an objective classifier would have put humans and chimpanzees in the same genus in the first place. But they let either ego or politics override that.

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,23:11   

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 10 2007,16:38)
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2007,17:20)
Primatologist Suehisa Kuroda reports similar exchanges at Wamba: "A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."

If that worked on humans, the price of sugarcane would quadruple overnight.

Haven't you ever heard the classic mythopoetic psychosocial analysis, "Candy is dandy, but Liquor is quicker."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,00:45   

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 11 2007,00:38)
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2007,17:20)
Primatologist Suehisa Kuroda reports similar exchanges at Wamba: "A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."

If that worked on humans, the price of sugarcane would quadruple overnight.

Well we know one thing. That young bonobo is a WHORE! Satan has corrupted her tiny mind, she has-ah strayed-ah from the ways-ah of Jeeebus-ah.

Here's my phone number.

Louis

P.S. Not sure what happened there, just started channelling the spirit of some dead televangelist.

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,10:27   

In that case, you should change the channel...

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,12:13   

Why does everyone else get all the good spirits? The ones that I channel were all laborers who never went far from home and have nothing interesting to talk about. A typical channelling would go something like:

"Oh, I'm here again. Hmmm. Well, what's on espn?"

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reed A. Cartwright



Posts: 21
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,15:51   

Quote
"A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."


Probably because he fell asleep.  I surprised that she only took half.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,16:33   

Quote (qetzal @ Oct. 10 2007,16:40)
There must be more to it than that. Why do so few species engage in recreational sex? (Are there any other examples beyond humans and bonobos?) Why are there species that pair-bond strongly in the complete absence of recreational sex?

I don't have a reference (and if you think I'm going to google "animal recreational sex" from my office computer...) but I think dolphins and porpoises are pretty enthusiastic in this field.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,16:41   

And there you have it, folks.
Smart animals know a good thing when they see it.

Sugar cane. I was talking about sugar cane.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,17:53   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 11 2007,16:33)
Quote (qetzal @ Oct. 10 2007,16:40)
There must be more to it than that. Why do so few species engage in recreational sex? (Are there any other examples beyond humans and bonobos?) Why are there species that pair-bond strongly in the complete absence of recreational sex?

I don't have a reference (and if you think I'm going to google "animal recreational sex" from my office computer...) but I think dolphins and porpoises are pretty enthusiastic in this field.

Yeah, I think you're right. (But I'm not about to Google it right now either!)

If that's true, it raises some interesting questions. The three species that engage in recreational/social sex are among the most intelligent known species.

Does that mean recreational sex is restricted to smart creatures? (Insert conservative/liberal or scientist/creationist joke of choice here.)

  
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2007,18:08   

Based on the rules of nomenclature, humans would not be placed into the genus Pan, but chimps and bonobos would be placed into †the genus Homo. †Gorillas would remain in Gorilla however. It supposedly was Linnaeus his very self who thought seriously about classifying the chimpanzee as Homo troglodytes, but decided not to - because of what the Swedish Lutheran Church would say.

If you think about the older tradition of describing species to identify them - which Linnaeus shortened into the binomial scheme - it makes sense: †the "animal man" contrasted with the "thinking man."

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
  14 replies since Oct. 10 2007,17:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]