To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In basic neuropsychopharmacological research, some biobehavioral phenomena – e.g., population migration and navigation over long distances - are rarely considered because the most commonly used laboratory animals show little or no evidence of these phenomena. Nevertheless, they can be also relevant for the mechanism of human psychic aberrations. An annual migration is seen in migratory birds, certain marine mammals and several ungulates. For migratory birds, the time of departure is determined by the length of the photoperiod and is much less changeable than the chosen route. When navigating, migratory birds also use the direction and strength of the field lines of the Earth’s magnetic field. Because humans also seem to exhibit a certain sensitivity to the Earth’s magnetic field, the regulation in birds could also provide hints for research on human well-being. Some bird species have such highly developed cognitive abilities that this is considered proof of the possession of consciousness. Therefore, some birds may be suitable as experimental animals in neurobiological models for cognitive functions and for making the world of thought accessible. The dorsal diencephalic conduction system (DDCS) in humans is difficult to study due to its small size and complex architecture, but it is relatively well developed in more primitive vertebrates. For research into the primary interactions between the DDCS and the rest of the brain, the lamprey can be used as laboratory animal. There is manifold evidence that the DDCS along with forebrain and upper brainstem is of functional relevance and the significance of the DDCS in cortical-controlled networks could then be investigated in birds and verified in humans.
This study presents data on helminth communities from 93 Hooded Crows (Corvus cornix). The dataset includes historical and contemporary records from three localities in Ukraine with different levels of urbanisation: Kyiv, the Middle Dnipro River, and Polissya. Thirty-two helminth species were identified, including 14 trematodes, six cestodes, 11 nematodes, and one acanthocephalan. The nematodes Eufilariella delicata and Hadjelia truncata are documented in Hooded Crows for the first time. During the statistical analysis, it was revealed that the used dataset is insufficient for robust inference regarding the impact of urbanisation on helminth communities due to its temporal and spatial biases. Despite the limitation, the data offer information for future research on the influence of urbanisation on helminth biodiversity in avian hosts.
Zooarchaeologists routinely analyze assemblages that were initially sorted into major animal type (birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates) by students or lab technicians with varied backgrounds in zooarchaeology. Sorting errors are probably made in this initial phase, which can affect taxonomic representation and understanding of human–animal relationships. Recent study of the immense faunal assemblage (over 1 million NSP [Number of Specimens]) from Čḯxwicən (45CA523), a 2,700-year-old Lower Elwha Klallam village located on the coast of Washington (USA), allows us to systematically analyze trends in sorting errors. For example, 22.6% of the bird bones included in our sample were initially missorted into other taxonomic groups, primarily mammal, but also fish and invertebrate. Fish bones were less frequently missorted, but certain taxa with unusual elements were affected. More than one-fourth (27.3%) of all mammal bone chips (debitage from tool production) were missorted. Failure to recognize and mitigate these errors could lead to significant biases. Lab managers need to recognize the potential for sorting error at the beginning and train lab technicians in the kinds of faunal remains they will be encountering, including distinctive elements. Collaborative researchers need to develop protocols for transferring specimens, and scholars working with “legacy collections” should not assume the collections were sorted correctly.
Outside of our fellow mammals, our next closest relatives are reptiles. As both birds and mammals are warm blooded (endothermic) and have four-chambered hearts, one might be tempted to think that the sister group to mammals would be birds. But the story is much more complicated than that, especially because birds are actually reptiles.
Reptiles include four main lineages: (1) turtles, (2) lizards and snakes, (3) crocodilians, and (4) dinosaurs, including birds. Indeed, birds are reptiles – birds are a surviving lineage descended from bipedal predatory dinosaurs! In decades past, there were five “classes” of vertebrates (animal groups with backbones): fishes, amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and birds. In fact, many basic treatments still list these groups. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica still has an article entitled: “Five Vertebrate Groups.” But there are major problems with two of these old groups: neither fishes nor scaly reptiles are monophyletic.
I have argued that one of the major misconceptions about evolution and the tree of life is that some species or lineages are considered more “primitive” than others – this chapter will delve more deeply into this misconception and one of its key causes. Across the tree of life, certain lineages – including the platypus, lungfishes, and mosses – are frequently labeled as more primitive than other members of their groups. Mammals provide several good case studies demonstrating the reasons for this longstanding misperception. Researchers, journalists, and filmmakers all seem obsessed with discussing certain lineages that somehow seem primitive to them. This misconception about primitive lineages is problematic for two major reasons. First, it leads to a general misunderstanding of evolution, which can lead to fundamental misunderstandings across all of biology, including human health.
Fossils provide a unique window into how evolution has unfolded. In particular, transitions in the fossil record provide compelling evidence for how major evolutionary changes have happened. One of the most well-known transitions is from fish-like vertebrates to the first land vertebrates – our earliest tetrapod ancestors. (The word tetrapod refers to the groups of vertebrates with four legs, namely mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.) Paleontologists had known that transitional fossils connecting aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates must exist. There were abundant fossils of vertebrates with fins from around 400 mya, and there were abundant fossils of terrestrial tetrapods with limbs from around 350 mya. But key fossils were missing – those that could show details of how the evolutionary crawl onto land had occurred.
If we think of ourselves as the “highest” forms of life, we often think of Bacteria as the “lowest” forms of life. We also think of Bacteria as ancient, “primitive,” and ancestral. As discussed for many other extant branches of the tree of life, these views are misleading. But these views may be especially hard to jettison when thinking of Bacteria – aren’t they more ancestral than we are? But we must always come back to this idea: Bacteria are not our ancestors – they are extant cousins. As will be detailed below, all lineages of organisms descended from the LUCA; the major lineages of life did not descend from Bacteria.
The clade Bacteria includes species that are ecologically essential (e.g., as decomposers that impact the carbon cycle) and that comprise key organisms of our microbiome (e.g., the symbiotic Bacteria normally found on our skin and in our digestive tracts). Bacteria also cause many diseases, including stomach ulcers (Helicobacter pylori), tetanus (Clostridium tetani), and acne (Cutibacterium acnes).
This chapter begins with the strong statement that fish do not exist as a true evolutionary group. Of the five traditional “classes” of vertebrates, fishes are the most problematic. The concept “fish” is wildly paraphyletic. In contrast, extant amphibians form a monophyletic clade. Mammals are also a true evolutionary group. In the previous chapter we learned that the former paraphyletic group Reptilia can be fixed by recognizing that birds are reptiles.
But there is no simple fix for fishes. One possible solution is to say that all tetrapods are fishes too. In other words, you and I and frogs and birds would all be fishes. That could work and it does reflect true evolutionary relationships, but it makes the former concept fishes fairly useless. Another solution is to recognize at least six separate lineages as distinct monophyletic groups.
For decades, biologists have assumed that our most distant animal cousins were sponges (Porifera). This seemed to make a lot of sense, because sponges are very different from us and from all other animals. Sponges do not have different types of tissues, such as skin, muscles, and nerves. Their colonies of cells form the colorful but irregular shapes that are common on coral reefs. There is no way to cut a sponge into two equal halves – adult sponges are asymmetrical. Surely animals such as this must be very distantly related to us, no? (Note that for this chapter, I have switched things up to talk about our most distant animal relatives first.)
But beginning around 2010, new data began to emerge suggesting that another group of animals, the comb jellies, might be our most distant animal relatives. Comb jellies, also known as ctenophores (Ctenophora), are aquatic organisms with generally translucent gel-filled bodies.
According to Aristotle and Linnaeus, there were only two “kingdoms” – Plantae and Animalia. In the 1800s, Haeckel carved kingdom “Protista” off of Linnaeus’ Plantae. Kingdoms for Fungi and Bacteria (Monera) were later added. By the time I was in secondary school, I learned a five-kingdom system. The five “kingdoms” that I learned are still frequently used in biology lessons: animals, plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria. But we now know that a five-kingdom story is so simplified as to be misleading, and it tells us very little about the broad tree of life. Back then, in the 1900s, our limited understanding made things seem more simple, but recent DNA sequence data indicate that the groupings are much more complex.
The five-kingdom system was first proposed in 1969. (1) Animalia were multicellular creatures that eat other organisms. (2) Fungi were generally multicellular decomposers that fed by a network of filamentous cells. (3) Plantae included especially the land plants.
Chimpanzees are not our ancestors! Rather, they are our closest living cousins. Approximately 7 mya there was a species of ape in Africa, the common ancestor that you and I share with the chimps. That species was not a chimpanzee – we know that thousands of changes in DNA have occurred in the descendant lineages since that ancestor. And many resulting skeletal and biological changes have occurred in both the human lineage and the chimpanzee lineage since that ancestor.
The idea that humans descended from chimpanzees is one of the most common misconceptions about evolution. The notion that we evolved from chimps fits well with the concept of the ladder of progress. We might think that chimpanzees are more “primitive” than we are, so if evolution were a progression toward more “advanced” forms, then we might think that the other living apes evolved first, and that we evolved from those apes. We might think that chimpanzees and gorillas are older species, and that Homo sapiens is a younger species that evolved more recently.
Imagine looking out on the plains of Africa sometime several hundred thousand years ago. You see a group of people – perhaps a family group with grandparents, parents, adolescents, and younger children. You can sense their connection to you – they are fellow humans and you recognize the key features that we all share today. Perhaps some of them are sharing meat from a gazelle they have killed. Others might be gathering fruit or seeds. The children might be running around chasing one another. Imagine a young woman in that clan, perhaps in her early twenties. She could be a woman that you and I and every other living human can trace our ancestry back to. Such a woman lived in East Africa approximately 150,000 years ago; she is a common ancestor that you and I share, along with every other human currently alive on Earth. We all inherited a key piece of our DNA from her. This is a segment of DNA that you inherited from your mother, and she from her mother, and she from her mother … all the way back to this woman who lived perhaps in present-day Kenya, Tanzania, or Ethiopia. She has been nicknamed “mitochondrial Eve.”
All species on Earth share common ancestry – we are all part of the same family tree. The tree of life is a representation of how all those species are related to one another. All living species on Earth are the product of billions of years of evolution, so all are evolutionary equals in that way. However, we tend to think of life in a hierarchical way. We think there are lower animals and higher animals. We may incorrectly think that species of bacteria are old and primitive, and that humans are recent and advanced. Many news articles about evolution can feed into the perceptions that some species are younger, more advanced, or more evolved. But all of those perceptions are misleading. Each of these present-day species are our evolutionary cousins. All species alive today are the product of the same 3.5 billion years of evolutionary change, each adapting to their own environment. (Note that species are the units of evolution, frequently defined based on the distinctiveness of their appearance and genetics, and often on their ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.)
Forest structure has a significant impact on the quality of habitat for various bird communities. In particular, birds that rely on forests, such as woodpeckers, are sensitive to changes in the characteristics of the forest. However, there is limited knowledge on how woodpeckers respond to these changes in forests outside protected areas, and in the highly seasonal Eastern Himalaya. To address this gap, a study was conducted in the differently managed non-protected forests of Darjeeling, Eastern Himalaya, India, spanning an elevation range of 250–2,400 m. The study aimed to identify the key forest characteristics that influence woodpecker diversity at the community and individual species levels. Data on woodpeckers were collected using point counts along transects during the pre-monsoon, monsoon, post-monsoon, and winter seasons. Habitat characteristics were assessed using 20 × 20 m quadrats at each observation point. The study recorded 1,721 individual woodpeckers belonging to 13 species from 3,456 point counts. The results indicated that the basal area and density of snags were the main factors influencing woodpecker diversity. Woodpeckers in the study area showed a significant negative relationship with the basal area, tree density, and tree diameter diversity. This suggests that woodpeckers prefer high snag density but scattered, smaller, and more uniformly sized trees in the study area. Among individual species, the Greater Yellownape Chrysophlegma flavinucha and Grey-capped Pygmy Yungipicus canicapillus Woodpeckers showed a strong preference for high snag density, while Bay Woodpeckers Blythipicus pyrrhotis were closely associated with high canopy cover and denser forests. Seasonal effects had minimal influence on woodpecker diversity in the study area. The study contradicts the typical preference of large woodpeckers for large trees and greater basal areas, despite four large-sized species making up 75% of the woodpecker community in the region. Thus, the findings highlight the importance of considering species-specific, region-specific, and management-specific habitat requirements when developing conservation strategies.
Distinguishing between Stomylotrema bijugum and S. vicarium is challenging due to their phenotypic plasticity. In this study, adult specimens were recovered from 9 host species in the Mexican tropical lowlands. To explore the morphological differences, 32 morphological characteristics were evaluated in 54 specimens. Linear discriminant analysis provided enough evidence to differentiate the 2 species. Additionally, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed for each species. The PCA of S. bijugum revealed 3 groups separately corresponding to specimens from the 3 hosts, suggesting host-induced phenotypic plasticity, whereas the PCA of S. vicarium revealed that the specimens from 3 host species were clustered together, indicating morphometric homogeneity. To confirm the morphological differences between the 2 species of Stomylotrema, we sequenced 2 molecular markers: the D1–D3 domains of the large subunit (LSU) from nuclear DNA and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase subunit 1 (Nad1) from mitochondrial DNA. Sequences of the LSU were aligned and compared with the LSU sequences of other congeneric species available in GenBank. Phylogenetic analyses supported the monophyly of Stomylotrema, with 2 main subclades that corresponded to S. bijugum and S. vicarium. A haplotype network was predicted with 25 Nad1 sequences, revealing the presence of 2 clusters representing the 2 species separated from each other by 98 substitutions. The current studies on S. bijugum and S. vicarium revealed new hosts and geographical regions in the Americas, suggesting that both species addressed in the current study can complete their life cycle in the Neotropical region of Mexico.
Detection approaches based on environmental DNA (eDNA) are widely used for free-living species but remain underutilized for parasite species. This study applies eDNA detection methods to elucidate the life cycle of the trematode Curtuteria arguinae, which infects the socioeconomically and ecologically important edible cockle (Cerastoderma edule) as its second intermediate host along the northeastern Atlantic coast, including Arcachon Bay, France. The first intermediate and definitive hosts remained unknown. To identify these hosts – presumed to be a gastropod and a shorebird – we developed a quantitative PCR (qPCR)-based eDNA approach targeting partial cox1 and SSU gene regions of C. arguinae. We tested for C. arguinae eDNA presence in water samples containing separately five dominant gastropod species and fecal samples from known cockle predators, the European oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) and gulls (Larus spp.), collected in Arcachon Bay. C. arguinae eDNA was only detected in water containing the needle snail (Bittium reticulatum), with cercarial emergence confirming infection in 1.6% of individual hosts. Morphological analysis of the cercarial and metacercarial stages revealed variability in collar spine visibility. Additionally, C. arguinae was detected by qPCR in 42% of oystercatcher feces and no gull feces, suggesting oystercatchers are the definitive host. This study is the first to elucidate the complete life cycle of C. arguinae, identifying B. reticulatum as its first intermediate host and H. ostralegus as its definitive host. Our findings highlight the potential of eDNA approaches for resolving parasite life cycles and enabling advances in ecological research on C. arguinae.
Resource partitioning remains a central ecological issue for understanding the structures of animal communities. As members of the generalist New World Thraupidae bird family, tanagers can help reinforce knowledge of animal communities. Thus, to study bird trophic ecology and relationships, I followed six tanager species (Schistochlamys ruficapillus, Tangara desmaresti, Stilpnia cayana, Stephanophorus diadematus, Thraupis sayaca and Dacnis cayana) from the Ibitipoca State Park, south-eastern Brazil, for 12 months. I expected 1) more similarities among frugivorous behaviours when compared to the similarities in the frugivorous diet, 2) no differences between the predation behaviours on arthropods against the use of substrates to capture them, 3) no specialisation in the bird–fruit seed dispersal network and 4) similarities of frugivorous diet and substrate use equal those expected by chance due to the absence of specialisation in frugivory and limited use of substrates. Several ecological and behavioural factors seemed to determine the ways in which Ibitipoca tanagers consumed fruits to reduce similarities in diets and reveal network specialisation. On the other hand, the analysis of predation behaviour indicated that tanager species used similar tactics to reach arthropods randomly on substrates. In general, frugivory seems to be more relevant in trophic partitioning than foraging on arthropods in Ibitipoca tanagers.
This article opens with a mystery: why was Zizang 子臧 assassinated in the seventh century bce, and why was his assassination justified in the Zuozhuan by his fondness of snipe-feather caps? It is well established that feathers were a common item of clothing in early and medieval China, used to confer status, to flaunt wealth, to embellish rituals. This article argues that there may also have been accompanying beliefs surrounding their use; beliefs that feathers might bestow upon the wearer certain imagined characteristics of the birds from which they came. It uses case studies of soldiers and their relationship to brown-eared pheasants, dancers and their relationship to long-tailed pheasants, and immortals and their relationship to cranes and egrets. Finally, it returns to Zizang's snipe-feather cap, and suggests reasons for his fate.
This chapter contains a broad overview of the technical and environmental issues to be addressed in the contruction of onshore wind energy projects. The former include ecological considerations, including birds and mammals; the requirements of typical pre-construction ornithological surveys are described with an example. Public safety and acceptance is discussed in the context of catastrophic damage to wind turbines, visual impact, shadow flicker, and noise nuisance. In the last case equations and simple rules for noise assessment are given in the context of typical planning guidelines. Sound power levels for a range of commercial wind turbines are compared, and empirical relationships given relating noise to rated output, and rotor size and tip speed. Risks to aviation are discussed, covering aircraft collision and interference to radar systems, including both primary and secondary surveillance radars. The concept of ‘stealthy’ wind turbine blades is discussed, and described in outline. Other siting criteria include avoidance of RF and microwave communications beams and television interference. Rules are given to avoid interference, while minimising required separation distances.