Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 06-13-2002, 01:06 PM

Well I finally received the lab's circulating Science journals for the month, so here we go. . .

<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5572/1452" target="_blank">Excavation of a chimpanzee stone tool site in the African rainforest.</a>

The news summary of this article, appearing on page 1380 by Gretchen Vogel, had these things to say:

Quote:

In the tropical forests of West Africa, chimpanzees are especially avid nutcrackers, spending hours patiently using stone or wooden hammers to break open the tough shells of Coula, Panda, and other nuts. That behavior, studied for decades by primatologists, now may also shed light on how early hominids began to make and use tools.

On page 1452, primatologist Melissa Panger and archaeologist Julio Mercader[...]with primatologist Christophe Boesch[...]present one of the first research reports on chimpanzee archaeology--a description of stone pieces they dug up at a chimp nutcracking site in the Tai forest in Cote d'Ivoire.

Scientists have watched enough chimps to know that these fragments were created by accident, whereas many early hominid artifacts were clearly intentionally shaped. But the researchers argue that the chimps' leavings bear some resemblance to some of the simplest artifacts left by hominids millions of years ago.

Basically, this work shows that chimps left a definitive record of their nutcracking, and perhaps future studies of old hominid sites may yield more clues as to how complex behaviors like tool development occurred.

Quote:

Stanley Ambrose points out that because chimpanzee and hominid hands are different, early hominids probably had different tool-using skills. However, sophisticated tools appear suddenly in the archaeological record about 2.5 million years ago, so additional studies of chimp sites might help researchers detect ancient assemblages that represent earlier steps in toolmaking. "It is a short step from accidentally producing sharp-edged flakes and cores to discovering their utility for cutting and chopping," Ambrose says.

Not every scientist was impressed by the similarities that the researchers found between the chimp and hominid fragments. Apparently, separating chimp from human or prehuman activities is a difficult task indeed. Surprising if we evolved from chimp-like ancestors? Not at all.

scigirl

RufusAtticus · 06-13-2002, 01:42 PM

I liked that article.

There is a really cool one in Nature Reviews Genetics this week.

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=120427 70&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Salamini F et al. Genetics and geography of wild cereal domestication in the near east. Nat Rev Genet 2002 Jun;3(6):429-41</a>

Abstract:

About 12,000 years ago, humans began the transition from hunter-gathering to a sedentary, agriculture-based society. From its origins in the Near East, farming expanded throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, together with various domesticated plants and animals. Where, how and why agriculture originated is still debated. But newer findings, on the basis of genome-wide measures of genetic similarity, have traced the origins of some domesticated cereals to wild populations of naturally occurring grasses that persist in the Near East. A better understanding of the genetic differences between wild grasses and domesticated crops adds important facets to the continuing debate on the origin of Western agriculture and the societies to which it gave rise.

scigirl · 06-14-2002, 01:30 PM

Here's another evolution article. The findings aren't extremely exciting, but the methods they use are cool, and could theoretically be used in many different evolutionary studies.

The article is titled, Common mammals drive the evolutionary increase of hypsodonty in the Neogene, and the abstract is found <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=120375 65&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">here</a>.

Basically, this research group was studying how certain kinds of teeth evolved, in the context of the environment. Their conclusions:

Quote:

These results imply that drying climatic conditions in Europe, usually associated with the uplift of the Tibetan plateau, allowed ungulates � hoofed mammals � with higher tooth crowns to expand their range as more open arid grasslands spread in Europe.

One way to confirm their results would be to study the North American fossil record and see if the tooth trend still holds.

The reason why this paper made Nature, I think, is the following implication of the study:

Quote:

In studying past environments, the rare and more specialized animals often get the most attention. In their paper on page 538 of this issue, however, Jernvall and Fortelius show that a few, common, regionally widespread species can drive major trends, yielding more information than is usually recognized.

Apparently, examining rare and common groups separately to study trends in evolution may be insightful in many other areas.

scigirl

scigirl · 06-14-2002, 01:31 PM

Oh, and thanks for the article, Rufus. I'll have to check it out.

scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2002, 01:42 PM	#2
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I liked that article. There is a really cool one in Nature Reviews Genetics this week. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=120427 70&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Salamini F et al. Genetics and geography of wild cereal domestication in the near east. Nat Rev Genet 2002 Jun;3(6):429-41</a> Abstract: About 12,000 years ago, humans began the transition from hunter-gathering to a sedentary, agriculture-based society. From its origins in the Near East, farming expanded throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, together with various domesticated plants and animals. Where, how and why agriculture originated is still debated. But newer findings, on the basis of genome-wide measures of genetic similarity, have traced the origins of some domesticated cereals to wild populations of naturally occurring grasses that persist in the Near East. A better understanding of the genetic differences between wild grasses and domesticated crops adds important facets to the continuing debate on the origin of Western agriculture and the societies to which it gave rise.

06-14-2002, 01:31 PM	#4
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Oh, and thanks for the article, Rufus. I'll have to check it out. scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.