Talk:Frugivore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ecology Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

	Frugivore is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

A commons page on this subject is needed.

[edit] Deleted material about homo sapiens as frugivore:

  Homo sapiens sapiens (modern human). In his article, 
  "Source of Perfect Nourishment: The Plant Kingdom" (1949) 
  Geoffrey Hodson quotes the great Swedish naturalist often 
  called the Father of Taxonomy, Karl von Linne' (Linnaeus) 
  (1707-1778) who introduced binomial nomenclature - naming 
  plants and animals according to their physical structure: 
  "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with 
  that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent 
  vegetables constitute his natural food." See: 
  http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .

First of all, the long and awkward sentence beginning "In his article..." is plagiarized from an unidentified and uncredited web site which is, in fact, a partisan and polemical pro-vegetarian, anti-meat site. Secondly, the link given at the end is to another such site that, itself, has plagiarized from still another pro-vegetarian, anti-meat polemical site. The presentation of this claim - that humans are "frugivores", by which the author means they "ought" to eat a fruit-based diet - is not supported by any legitimate references. --68.164.235.51 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restored material about homo sapiens as frugivores

Rewritten for easier reading. The charge of plagiarism is unfounded, as are the personal attacks. Many authorities on anatomy can be quoted, and medical evidence supports the biological evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.183.37 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not written well at all. It begins with 'Homo sapiens sapiens' - is that supposed to be a heading or something? The page it links to, though I haven't read it all, seems to have an agenda to push, and is not the sort of thing we use for references here (we want primary academic material here). It also seems to be using appeal to nature. You might also want to learn some of the ways of Wikipedia, for example the three revert rule.

As for the Linnaeus quote, he also thought that all life on earth was created by God. Richard001 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should I somehow link up 'Homo sapiens sapiens ...' to the quote that follows? The page it links to is written by a public educator and published with the author's permission. In addition, there are supporting cites from primary academic research - which I would happily cite here, if that were permissible. Elementary facts are presented regarding human anatomy, biology and physiology in the context of diet, health and origins. I personally wouldn't call this "having an agenda".

Creationism is another subject altogether, and whatever your views on that, it does not detract from Linnaeus' work in the field of Taxonomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.183.37 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do as the bot says and sign your posts. Regarding the writing, we are using prose rather than a bullet pointed list so it looks rather arkward. I'm not an authority on the human diet but I think the statement that humans are frugivores would be very controversial scientifically, and I wouldn't be surprised if the page in question was selectively quoting sources so as to present the view of its author. For example I don't see the article mentioning that the common chimpanzee has similar dentition to humans and hunts colobus monkeys for a tasty treat. I'm a vegan myself, by the way (but not a fruitarian). Richard001 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, Richard. Patience please. Here's a recent abstract by a current authority on human anatomy:

Journal Human Evolution The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2 (1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, Éco-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE 2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du Petit Château, 91800 Brunoy, (France) (2) Dynamique de l'évolution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44, rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut measurements of primate species do not support the contention that human digestive tract is specialized for meat-eating, especially when taking into account allometric factors and their variations between folivores, frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore, having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat (omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods, our human ancestors could have mostly consumed either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter (with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement), depending on the availability and nutrient content of food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g. the "thrifty genotype") could have resulted from selective pressure during transitory variations of feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints existing in the past.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

And regarding our evolutionary diet:

Paleodiet and Its Relation to Atherosclerosis '... Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, it is assumed that erectus' basically raw vegetarian diet may be encoded in our present genome. However, the prehistoric diet, especially during the last 35000 years (the verified existence of Homo sapiens sapiens [now 195,000ys]), exhibits a wide variability of dietetic composition due to various subsistence strategies and geoclimatic conditions of Eurasia.39 ...' http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/reprint/827/1/382.pdf

The person who originally removed my contribution has seen these cites. He came across the Frugivore page looking for evidence to support his pro-meat agenda (for real). Best say no more on that score.

Concerning feeding habits of the chimpanzee:

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed "no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967, Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete, or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima, revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood." (p.87).

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only 14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.

Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not been observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit pulp, 15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal foods constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95).

The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle (p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests. Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105), and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed" study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107) In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108)

The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in 'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135, that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs, insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)" He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal remains have been found in gorilla dung, except for one case presumably indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)."

Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below in his evidence.

1. the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive

systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases

1. the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
2. rarity of pertinent field observations
3. the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey

animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research." ..' http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm

Pearl999 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Pearl