2 results
3 - Patterns of diversity in gorilla cranial morphology
-
- By Rebecca M. Stumpf, Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., John D. Polk, Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., John F. Oates, Department of Anthropology, Hunter College CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, U.S.A., William L. Jungers, Department of Anatomical Sciences Health Sciences Center and Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., Christopher P. Heesy, Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A., Colin P. Groves, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, John G. Fleagle, Department of Anatomical Sciences Health Sciences Center and Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A.
- Edited by Andrea B. Taylor, Duke University, North Carolina, Michele L. Goldsmith, Tufts University, Massachusetts
-
- Book:
- Gorilla Biology
- Published online:
- 11 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 05 December 2002, pp 35-61
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Gorillas, perhaps because of their size, always seem to be the subject of spectacularly divergent interpretations. Views of their behavior have ranged from the rapacious, vicious giant ape of the nineteenth century, through Robert Ardrey's (1961) view of them as lethargic, depressed, evolutionary dead ends, to the current view of them as gentle giants, albeit with infanticidal tendencies. Views of gorilla systematics have been no less diverse over the past century and a half (see review by Groves, this volume). Beginning with the initial description of Gorilla gorilla by Savage and Wyman in 1847 through the 1920s, ten separate species of Gorilla were described by systematists from all over the world, often from a single skull. The modern systematics of Gorilla stems from the work of Harold Jefferson Coolidge in 1929. Coolidge reviewed all of the previously described species and provided measurements and graphs of 213 specimens from seven major geographic regions. He placed all gorillas in a single species, Gorilla gorilla, in accordance with others such as Rothschild (1906), Elliot (1913), and Schwarz (1928), but went even further in identifying only two subspecies – Gorilla gorilla gorilla for the gorillas of western and central Africa, and Gorilla gorilla beringei for gorillas from the Virunga mountains and adjacent regions.
More recently, Gorilla systematics has derived almost exclusively from Groves's (1970, 1986; also Groves and Stott, 1979) study of 747 skulls and over 100 skeletons.
1 - Multivariate and phylogenetic approaches to understanding chimpanzee and bonobo behavioral diversity
- Edited by Christophe Boesch, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany, Gottfried Hohmann, Max-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre Anthropologie, Germany
- Linda Marchant, Miami University
-
- Book:
- Behavioural Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos
- Published online:
- 08 February 2010
- Print publication:
- 01 August 2002, pp 14-34
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Primates exhibit considerable diversity in their social systems (Smuts et al. 1987), a phenomenon that is thought to have evolved through the interaction of many factors. These include: (1) ecological variables, particularly predation pressure and the abundance and distribution of food (Alexander 1974; Wrangham 1979, 1980, 1987; van Schaik 1983, 1989, 1996; Sterck et al. 1997); (2) social factors, primarily sexual selection and the potential risk of infanticide (Wrangham 1979; Watts 1989; van Schaik 1996); (3) demographic and life history variables (DeRousseau 1990; Ross 1998); and (4) phylogenetic constraints (Wilson 1975; DiFiore & Rendall 1994). Generally, tests of models of the effect of these variables on behavior have been made through broad comparisons of many taxa, usually across genera (Wrangham 1980; van Schaik 1989; DiFiore & Rendall 1994; Sterck et al. 1997). There have been fewer attempts to consider the influence of these factors on variability in social organization within and between closely related taxa, largely as a result of a dearth of species for which such data are available (but see Mitchell et al. 1991; Koenig et al. 1998; Boinski 1999; Barton 2000). In addition, most tests have focused intensively on a single class of traits, and their proposed influence on behavior (e.g. the influence of ecology on behavior, van Schaik 1989; but see Nunn & van Schaik 2000), rather than the role of all proposed factors. To date, no study has quantitatively examined the combined influence of ecology, habitat, demography, and phylogeny on behavior.