Marmoset Misconceptions

Garber, Paul A.; Rosenberger, Alfred L.; Norconk, Marilyn A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8770-9_5

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 Callitrichid monkeys, (marmosets and tamarins), 32 live in family groups typically composed of a single breeding pair and its adult and immature offspring, although polygynous and especially polyandrous constellations occur as well. 33 Helpers tend not to be reproductively active in the group. All group members, including unrelated or even initially unfamiliar individuals, 34 systematically engage in many cooperative behaviors, ranging from infant carrying, shared vigilance, and systematic provisioning with high-value food items to collective action such as communal group defense (Fig.…”

Section: Box 1: Spontaneous Prosociality In Nonhuman Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution

Burkart

Hrdy

Schaik³

2009

Evolutionary Anthropology

483

406

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite sharing a recent common ancestor, humans are surprisingly different from other great apes. The most obvious discontinuities are related to our cognitive abilities, including language, but we also have a markedly different, cooperative breeding system. Among many nonhuman primates and mammals in general, cooperative breeding is accompanied by psychological changes leading to greater prosociality, which directly enhances performance in social cognition. Here we propose that these cognitive consequences of cooperative breeding could have become more pervasive in the human lineage because the psychological changes were added to an ape-level cognitive system capable of understanding simple mental states, albeit mainly in competitive contexts. Once more prosocial motivations were added, these cognitive abilities could also be used for cooperative purposes, including a willingness to share mental states, thereby enabling the emergence of shared intentionality. Shared intentionality has been identified as the original source of many uniquely human cognitive abilities, including cumulative culture and language. Shared intentionality rests on a fundamentally prosocial disposition that is strikingly absent in chimpanzees, but present in cooperatively breeding primates. Thus, our hypothesis is that while chimpanzees and perhaps all great apes exhibit many of the important cognitive preconditions for uniquely human mental capacities to evolve, they lack the psychological preconditions. In humans, we argue, the two components merged, the cognitive component due to common descent from ape ancestors and the motivational component due to convergent evolution of traits typical of many cooperative breeders.As recently as 6 to 7 million years ago, the hominin lineage split off from the rest of the great ape (hominid) lineage 1 and consequently shares many biological traits and behavioral and cognitive similarities with great apes. 2,3Nevertheless, humans also exhibit remarkable differences from our closest relatives. First, we not only live far longer lives and reproduce at faster rates than do the other great apes, but our offspring take much longer to mature and women cease reproduction well before somatic senescence sets in.4 Second, our ecological niche involves specialization on large, valuable food packages that have to be acquired together, as well as shared, and mandatory reliance on techniques acquired through cumulative culture.5 This niche and our social relationships are based on an un-apelike selflessness, a degree of hypersociality reflected in a concern for others, eagerness to share food and information with others, and cooperation in a wide array of contexts, even with nonrelatives and near-strangers.5-8 Our mode of life facilitates our spread into new habitats, resulting in a ubiquitous geographic distribution.9 Third, with regard to intellectual performance, humans differ from the other great apes, which, as a group, show relatively homogeneous cognitive abilities. [10][11][12]

show abstract

Section: Box 1: Spontaneous Prosociality In Nonhuman Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution

Burkart

Hrdy

Schaik³

2009

Evolutionary Anthropology

483

406

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, even among closely related species "marked differences in patterns of locomotion, substrate preferences, vertical ranging, and locomotor anatomy" are evident (Garber and Leigh 2001, p 27), with several species having undergone independent evolutionary decreases or increases in body mass, changes in limb, hand, and trunk proportions, as well as gut adaptations (Coimbra-Filho and Mittermeier 1978;Garber 1992;Garber et al 1996;Garber and Leigh 1997;Hamrick 1998;Bicca-Marques 1999;Porter and Garber 2004). For example in the case of tree gouging and exudate feeding in marmosets, it has been proposed "that intense specialization on plant gums evolved locally [independently] in some forms of Callithrix and Cebuella (Garber et al 1996, p 90).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Comparative Study of the Kinematics of Trunk-to-Trunk Leaping in Callimico goeldii, Callithrix jacchus, and Cebuella pygmaea

Garber

Sallenave²,

Blomquist³

et al. 2009

The Smallest Anthropoids

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Callitrichids are characterized by a highly variable positional repertoire, which includes prehensile behaviors on small, flexible supports, and claw-clinging, scansorial travel, and trunk-to-trunk leaping that commonly occurs on large noncompliant supports. In this study, we examine the kinematics of trunk-to-trunk leaping in callimico (C. goeldii), the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus), and the pygmy marmoset (Cebuella pygmaea). In the wild, each species is reported to exploit vertical trunks during locomotor and feeding behavior. These species differ, however, in body mass and limb proportions. Compared to common marmosets and pygmy marmosets, callimicos are heavier and have relatively longer hindlimbs.Video sequences of leaping to and from noncompliant vertical poles were collected on captive family groups of callimicos and marmosets housed at the Primate Facility of the Anthropological Institute, University of Zuerich, Switzerland. Data from 438 leaps were analyzed using equations provided by Warren and Crompton (1998a).During all trunk-to-trunk leaps, Callimico, Callithrix, and Cebuella were characterized by forelimb-first landing. Results indicate that C. jacchus failed to leap a distance of 2 m between vertical poles, whereas Callimico leaped this distance frequently. The maximum distance leaped by Cebuella was 1.4 m. Two patterns of trunk-to-trunk leaping were identified. In both common marmosets and pygmy marmosets, leaps were characterized by a relatively low angled body orientation at takeoff, low takeoff velocity, an in-air trajectory characterized by significant vertical height loss, and relatively high compressive forces during landing. In contrast, callimico's long powerful hindlimbs acted to generate higher velocities at takeoff, an in-air trajectory resulting in a height gain during all but the longest leaps, and a reduction in travel velocity when arriving at the landing substrate. The mechanical cost of transport (C) was relatively constant across different leaping distances for callimico, but increased significantly with increased leaping distance in the other two marmoset species. Overall, it appears that these three marmoset taxa are

show abstract

“…Geoffroy (1812); Gray (1821, 1825); Burnett (1828); Lesson (1840). Mais recentemente, o monofiletismo da subfamília Callitrichinae foi corroborado por análises filogenéticas cladistas, e nesse contexto podem-se citar as principais sinapomorfias morfológicas para o grupo (Ford 1980;Rosenberger 1981Rosenberger , 1983Garber et al 1996;Schneider e Rosenberger 1996): nanismo (alguns membros da subfamília estão entre os menores primatas conhecidos), presença de garras derivadas de unhas em todos os dígitos menos no hálux, perda do polegar opositor, molares superiores tricuspidados, não homólogos aos molares tribosfênicos plesiomórficos em Primates, redução ou perda dos terceiros molares superiores e inferiores, e tendência a produzir gêmeos mesmo com as fêmeas possuindo um útero simples. Cronin e Sarich (1975), com base em similaridade imunológica entre albuminas e transferinas, também corroboram o monofiletismo de Callitrichinae.…”

Section: ) M Emiliae) ((Mmarcai + M Nigriceps) M Rondoni)) (M Acunclassified

“…Do mesmo modo, os primeiros estudos de filogenia baseados em sequências de nucleotídeos de DNA nuclear e mitocondrial também corroboraram o monofiletismo do grupo (e.g. Schneider et al 1993Harada et al 1995;Barroso et al 1997;Tagliaro et al, 1997 Garber et al 1996).…”

Section: ) M Emiliae) ((Mmarcai + M Nigriceps) M Rondoni)) (M Acunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Filogenia da tribo Callitrichini Thomas, 1903 (Primates, Platyrrhini, Callitrichinae), com base em caracteres morfológicos

Garbino¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marmoset Misconceptions

Cited by 14 publications

References 27 publications

Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution

Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution

A Comparative Study of the Kinematics of Trunk-to-Trunk Leaping in Callimico goeldii, Callithrix jacchus, and Cebuella pygmaea

Filogenia da tribo Callitrichini Thomas, 1903 (Primates, Platyrrhini, Callitrichinae), com base em caracteres morfológicos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About