Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007). Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature, 447(7144), 581–584.
Abstract: In recent years evidence has been accumulating that personalities are not only found in humans but also in a wide range of other animal species. Individuals differ consistently in their behavioural tendencies and the behaviour in one context is correlated with the behaviour in multiple other contexts. From an adaptive perspective, the evolution of animal personalities is still a mystery, because a more flexible structure of behaviour should provide a selective advantage. Accordingly, many researchers view personalities as resulting from constraints imposed by the architecture of behaviour (but see ref. 12). In contrast, we show here that animal personalities can be given an adaptive explanation. Our argument is based on the insight that the trade-off between current and future reproduction often results in polymorphic populations in which some individuals put more emphasis on future fitness returns than others. Life-history theory predicts that such differences in fitness expectations should result in systematic differences in risk-taking behaviour. Individuals with high future expectations (who have much to lose) should be more risk-averse than individuals with low expectations. This applies to all kinds of risky situations, so individuals should consistently differ in their behaviour. By means of an evolutionary model we demonstrate that this basic principle results in the evolution of animal personalities. It simultaneously explains the coexistence of behavioural types, the consistency of behaviour through time and the structure of behavioural correlations across contexts. Moreover, it explains the common finding that explorative behaviour and risk-related traits like boldness and aggressiveness are common characteristics of animal personalities.
|
Bell, A. M. (2007). Evolutionary biology: animal personalities (Vol. 447). |
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. Am Psychol, 61(6), 622–631.
Abstract: A comprehensive evolutionary framework for understanding the maintenance of heritable behavioral variation in humans is yet to be developed. Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that heritable variation will not be found in important, fitness-relevant characteristics because of the winnowing effect of natural selection. This article propounds the opposite view. Heritable variation is ubiquitous in all species, and there are a number of frameworks for understanding its persistence. The author argues that each of the Big Five dimensions of human personality can be seen as the result of a trade-off between different fitness costs and benefits. As there is no unconditionally optimal value of these trade-offs, it is to be expected that genetic diversity will be retained in the population.
Keywords: Animals; Birds; *Evolution; Female; Fishes; Humans; Insects; Male; Personality/*genetics/*physiology
|
Yokoyama, S., & Radlwimmer, F. B. (1999). The molecular genetics of red and green color vision in mammals. Genetics, 153(2), 919–932.
Abstract: To elucidate the molecular mechanisms of red-green color vision in mammals, we have cloned and sequenced the red and green opsin cDNAs of cat (Felis catus), horse (Equus caballus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). These opsins were expressed in COS1 cells and reconstituted with 11-cis-retinal. The purified visual pigments of the cat, horse, squirrel, deer, and guinea pig have lambdamax values at 553, 545, 532, 531, and 516 nm, respectively, which are precise to within +/-1 nm. We also regenerated the “true” red pigment of goldfish (Carassius auratus), which has a lambdamax value at 559 +/- 4 nm. Multiple linear regression analyses show that S180A, H197Y, Y277F, T285A, and A308S shift the lambdamax values of the red and green pigments in mammals toward blue by 7, 28, 7, 15, and 16 nm, respectively, and the reverse amino acid changes toward red by the same extents. The additive effects of these amino acid changes fully explain the red-green color vision in a wide range of mammalian species, goldfish, American chameleon (Anolis carolinensis), and pigeon (Columba livia).
Keywords: Amino Acid Sequence; Animals; Base Sequence; COS Cells; Cats; Color Perception/*genetics; DNA Primers; Deer; Dolphins; *Evolution, Molecular; Goats; Guinea Pigs; Horses; Humans; Mammals/*genetics/physiology; Mice; Molecular Sequence Data; Opsin/biosynthesis/chemistry/*genetics; *Phylogeny; Rabbits; Rats; Recombinant Proteins/biosynthesis; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; Sciuridae; Sequence Alignment; Sequence Homology, Amino Acid; Transfection
|
Novacek, M. J. (1992). Mammalian phylogeny: shaking the tree. Nature, 356(6365), 121–125.
Abstract: Recent palaeontological discoveries and the correspondence between molecular and morphological results provide fresh insight on the deep structure of mammalian phylogeny. This new wave of research, however, has yet to resolve some important issues.
Keywords: Animals; Evolution; Fossils; Mammals/classification/*genetics; *Phylogeny
|
Gomez, J. - C. (2005). Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends. Cognit. Sci., 9(3), 118–125.
Abstract: The comparative study of infant development and animal cognition brings to cognitive science the promise of insights into the nature and origins of cognitive skills. In this article, I review a recent wave of comparative studies conducted with similar methodologies and similar theoretical frameworks on how two core components of human cognition--object permanence and gaze following--develop in different species. These comparative findings call for an integration of current competing accounts of developmental change. They further suggest that evolution has produced developmental devices capable at the same time of preserving core adaptive components, and opening themselves up to further adaptive change, not only in interaction with the external environment, but also in interaction with other co-developing cognitive systems.
Keywords: Animals; Attention/physiology; Brain/*growth & development; Child, Preschool; Cognition/*physiology; Concept Formation/physiology; Dogs; Evolution; Fixation, Ocular; Gorilla gorilla; Humans; Infant; Learning/*physiology; Macaca mulatta; Mental Recall/physiology; Personal Construct Theory; Psychomotor Performance/physiology; Species Specificity
|
Real, L. A. (1991). Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science, 253(5023), 980–986.
Abstract: Animals process sensory information according to specific computational rules and, subsequently, form representations of their environments that form the basis for decisions and choices. The specific computational rules used by organisms will often be evolutionarily adaptive by generating higher probabilities of survival, reproduction, and resource acquisition. Experiments with enclosed colonies of bumblebees constrained to foraging on artificial flowers suggest that the bumblebee's cognitive architecture is designed to efficiently exploit floral resources from spatially structured environments given limits on memory and the neuronal processing of information. A non-linear relationship between the biomechanics of nectar extraction and rates of net energetic gain by individual bees may account for sensitivities to both the arithmetic mean and variance in reward distributions in flowers. Heuristic rules that lead to efficient resource exploitation may also lead to subjective misperception of likelihoods. Subjective probability formation may then be viewed as a problem in pattern recognition subject to specific sampling schemes and memory constraints.
|
Williams, N. (1997). Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition (Vol. 275). |
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Man's best friend(s) reveal the possible roots of social intelligence (Vol. 312). |
Van Schaik, C. (2006). Why are some animals so smart? Sci Am, 294(4), 64–71. |