1
|
Bronstein JL, Sridhar H. Connecting and integrating cooperation within and between species. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2024; 379:20230203. [PMID: 39034697 PMCID: PMC11293865 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2023] [Revised: 12/31/2023] [Accepted: 01/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/23/2024] Open
Abstract
There has long been a fundamental divide in the study of cooperation: researchers focus either on cooperation within species, including but not limited to sociality, or else on cooperation between species, commonly termed mutualism. Here, we explore the ecologically and evolutionarily significant ways in which within- and between-species cooperation interact. We highlight two primary cross-linkages. First, cooperation of one type can change the context in which cooperation of the other type functions, and thus potentially its outcome. We delineate three possibilities: (i) within-species cooperation modulates benefits for a heterospecific partner; (ii) between-species cooperation affects the dynamics of within-species cooperation; and (iii) both processes take place interactively. The second type of cross-linkage emerges when resources or services that cooperation makes available are obtainable either from members of the same species or from different species. This brings cooperation at the two levels into direct interaction, to some extent obscuring the distinction between them. We expand on these intersections between within- and between-species cooperation in a diversity of taxa and interaction types. These interactions have the potential to weave together social networks and trophic dynamics, contributing to the structure and functioning of ecological communities in ways that are just beginning to be explored. This article is part of the theme issue 'Connected interactions: enriching food web research by spatial and social interactions'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Judith L. Bronstein
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721, USA
| | - Hari Sridhar
- Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, KlosterneuburgA-3400, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dixit T. A synthesis of coevolution across levels of biological organization. Evolution 2024; 78:211-220. [PMID: 38085659 DOI: 10.1093/evolut/qpad082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2022] [Revised: 04/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/03/2024]
Abstract
In evolutionary ecology, coevolution is typically defined as reciprocal evolution of interacting species. However, outside the context of interacting species, the term "coevolution" is also used at levels of biological organization within species (e.g., between males and females, between cells, and between genes or proteins). Furthermore, although evolution is typically defined as "genetic change over time", coevolution need not involve genetic changes in the interacting parties, since cultures can also evolve. In this review, I propose that coevolution be defined more broadly as "reciprocal adaptive evolution at any level of biological organisation". The classification of reciprocal evolution at all levels of biological organization as coevolution would maintain consistency in terminology. More importantly, the broader definition should facilitate greater integration of coevolution research across disciplines. For example, principles usually discussed only in the context of coevolution between species or coevolution between genes (e.g., tight and diffuse coevolution, and compensatory coevolution, respectively) could be more readily applied to new fields. The application of coevolutionary principles to new contexts could also provide benefits to society, for instance in deducing the dynamics of coevolution between cancer cells and cells of the human immune system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanmay Dixit
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- DST-NRF Centre of Excellence at the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Spottiswoode CN, Wood BM. Culturally determined interspecies communication between humans and honeyguides. Science 2023; 382:1155-1158. [PMID: 38060656 DOI: 10.1126/science.adh4129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 10/25/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
Species interactions that vary across environments can create geographical mosaics of genetic coevolution. However, traits mediating species interactions are sometimes culturally inherited. Here we show that traditions of interspecies communication between people and wild birds vary in a culturally determined geographical mosaic. Honey hunters in different parts of Africa use different calls to communicate with greater honeyguides (Indicator indicator) that lead them to bees' nests. We show experimentally that honeyguides in Tanzania and Mozambique discriminate among honey hunters' calls, responding more readily to local than to foreign calls. This was not explained by variation in sound transmission and instead suggests that honeyguides learn local human signals. We discuss the forces stabilizing and diversifying interspecies communication traditions, and the potential for cultural coevolution between species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire N Spottiswoode
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Brian M Wood
- Department of Anthropology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Human Behavior, Ecology, and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Searcy WA, Nowicki S. Human-wild bird cooperation. Science 2023; 382:1124-1125. [PMID: 38060667 DOI: 10.1126/science.adl5923] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
Honeyguides learn distinct signals made by honey hunters from different cultures.
Collapse
|
5
|
Reeves IM, Totterdell JA, Betty EL, Donnelly DM, George A, Holmes S, Moller L, Stockin KA, Wellard R, White C, Foote AD. Ancestry testing of "Old Tom," a killer whale central to mutualistic interactions with human whalers. J Hered 2023; 114:598-611. [PMID: 37821799 PMCID: PMC10650950 DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esad058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/21/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Cooperative hunting between humans and killer whales (Orcinus orca) targeting baleen whales was reported in Eden, New South Wales, Australia, for almost a century. By 1928, whaling operations had ceased, and local killer whale sightings became scarce. A killer whale from the group, known as "Old Tom," washed up dead in 1930 and his skeleton was preserved. How these killer whales from Eden relate to other populations globally and whether their genetic descendants persist today remains unknown. We extracted and sequenced DNA from Old Tom using ancient DNA techniques. Genomic sequences were then compared with a global dataset of mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. Old Tom shared a most recent common ancestor with killer whales from Australasia, the North Atlantic, and the North Pacific, having the highest genetic similarity with contemporary New Zealand killer whales. However, much of the variation found in Old Tom's genome was not shared with these widespread populations, suggesting ancestral rather than ongoing gene flow. Our genetic comparisons also failed to find any clear descendants of Tom, raising the possibility of local extinction of this group. We integrated Traditional Custodian knowledge to recapture the events in Eden and recognize that Indigenous Australians initiated the relationship with the killer whales before European colonization and the advent of commercial whaling locally. This study rectifies discrepancies in local records and provides new insight into the origins of the killer whales in Eden and the history of Australasian killer whales.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabella M Reeves
- Flinders University, College of Science and Engineering, Bedford Park, Adelaide,South Australia, Australia
- Cetacean Research Centre (CETREC WA), Esperance, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - John A Totterdell
- Cetacean Research Centre (CETREC WA), Esperance, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Emma L Betty
- Cetacean Ecology Research Group, School of Natural Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - David M Donnelly
- Killer Whales Australia, Mornington, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Angela George
- Eden Killer Whale Museum, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Steven Holmes
- Eden Killer Whale Museum, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Luciana Moller
- Flinders University, College of Science and Engineering, Bedford Park, Adelaide,South Australia, Australia
- Cetacean Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution Laboratory, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Molecular Ecology Laboratory, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Karen A Stockin
- Cetacean Ecology Research Group, School of Natural Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Charlie White
- Flinders University, College of Science and Engineering, Bedford Park, Adelaide,South Australia, Australia
- Cetacean Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution Laboratory, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Andrew D Foote
- Department of Natural History, NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
- Department of Biosciences, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cram DL, Lloyd-Jones DJ, van der Wal JEM, Lund J, Buanachique IO, Muamedi M, Nanguar CI, Ngovene A, Raveh S, Boner W, Spottiswoode CN. Guides and cheats: producer-scrounger dynamics in the human-honeyguide mutualism. Proc Biol Sci 2023; 290:20232024. [PMID: 37935365 PMCID: PMC10645085 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Foraging animals commonly choose whether to find new food (as 'producers') or scavenge from others (as 'scroungers'), and this decision has ecological and evolutionary consequences. Understanding these tactic decisions is particularly vital for naturally occurring producer-scrounger systems of economic importance, because they determine the system's productivity and resilience. Here, we investigate how individuals' traits predict tactic decisions, and the consistency and pay-offs of these decisions, in the remarkable mutualism between humans (Homo sapiens) and greater honeyguides (Indicator indicator). Honeyguides can either guide people to bees' nests and eat the resulting beeswax (producing), or scavenge beeswax (scrounging). Our results suggest that honeyguides flexibly switched tactics, and that guiding yielded greater access to the beeswax. Birds with longer tarsi scrounged more, perhaps because they are more competitive. The lightest females rarely guided, possibly to avoid aggression, or because genetic matrilines may affect female body mass and behaviour in this species. Overall, aspects of this producer-scrounger system probably increase the productivity and resilience of the associated human-honeyguide mutualism, because the pay-offs incentivize producing, and tactic-switching increases the pool of potential producers. Broadly, our findings suggest that even where tactic-switching is prevalent and producing yields greater pay-offs, certain phenotypes may be predisposed to one tactic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominic L. Cram
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - David J. Lloyd-Jones
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
| | - Jessica E. M. van der Wal
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
| | - Jess Lund
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB2 3EJ, UK
| | | | | | | | - Antonio Ngovene
- EO Wilson Biodiversity Laboratory, Gorongosa National Park, Mozambique
| | - Shirley Raveh
- School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
| | - Winnie Boner
- School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
| | - Claire N. Spottiswoode
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB2 3EJ, UK
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Moser C, Buckner W, Sarian M, Winking J. Aggressive Mimicry and the Evolution of the Human Cognitive Niche. HUMAN NATURE (HAWTHORNE, N.Y.) 2023; 34:456-475. [PMID: 37672174 PMCID: PMC10543935 DOI: 10.1007/s12110-023-09458-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/20/2023] [Indexed: 09/07/2023]
Abstract
The evolutionary origins of deception and its functional role in our species is a major focus of research in the science of human origins. Several hypotheses have been proposed for its evolution, often packaged under either the Social Brain Hypothesis, which emphasizes the role that the evolution of our social systems may have played in scaffolding our cognitive traits, and the Foraging Brain Hypothesis, which emphasizes how changes in the human dietary niche were met with subsequent changes in cognition to facilitate foraging of difficult-to-acquire foods. Despite substantive overlap, these hypotheses are often presented as competing schools of thought, and there have been few explicitly proposed theoretical links unifying the two. Utilizing cross-cultural data gathered from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), we identify numerous (n = 357) examples of the application of deception toward prey across 145 cultures. By comparing similar behaviors in nonhuman animals that utilize a hunting strategy known as aggressive mimicry, we suggest a potential pathway through which the evolution of deception may have taken place. Rather than deception evolving as a tactic for deceiving conspecifics, we suggest social applications of deception in humans could have evolved from an original context of directing these behaviors toward prey. We discuss this framework with regard to the evolution of other mental traits, including language, Theory of Mind, and empathy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cody Moser
- Department of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, USA.
| | - William Buckner
- Human Systems and Behavior Lab, Department of Anthropology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Melina Sarian
- Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
| | - Jeffrey Winking
- Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gao Y, Lee ATL, Luo Y, Alexander JS, Shi X, Sangpo T, Clark SG. Large carnivore encounters through the lens of mobile videos on social media. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2023. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/18/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Yufang Gao
- School of the Environment Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
- Department of Anthropology Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
- China Conservation Support Beijing China
| | - Andy T. L. Lee
- China Conservation Support Beijing China
- RESOLVE Washington District of Columbia USA
| | - Yu Luo
- Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Puget Sound Tacoma Washington USA
| | - Justine Shanti Alexander
- The Snow Leopard Trust Seattle Washington USA
- Department of Ecology and Evolution University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland
| | - Xiangying Shi
- Shanshui Conservation Center Beijing China
- College of Environmental Science and Engineering Peking University Beijing China
| | - Tashi Sangpo
- Nyanpo Yutse Conservation Association Jiuzhi China
| | - Susan G. Clark
- School of the Environment Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Spottiswoode CN, Lund J, Lloyd-Jones DJ. Honeyguides. Curr Biol 2022; 32:R1072-R1074. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.08.076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
10
|
van der Wal JEM, Spottiswoode CN, Uomini NT, Cantor M, Daura‐Jorge FG, Afan AI, Attwood MC, Amphaeris J, Balasani F, Begg CM, Blair CJ, Bronstein JL, Buanachique IO, Cuthill RRT, Das J, Deb A, Dixit T, Dlamini GS, Dounias E, Gedi II, Gruber M, Hoffmann LS, Holzlehner T, Isack HA, Laltaika EA, Lloyd‐Jones DJ, Lund J, Machado AMS, Mahadevan L, Moreno IB, Nwaogu CJ, Pereira VL, Pierotti R, Rucunua SA, dos Santos WF, Serpa N, Smith BD, Tolkova I, Tun T, Valle‐Pereira JVS, Wood BM, Wrangham RW, Cram DL. Safeguarding human–wildlife cooperation. Conserv Lett 2022; 15:e12886. [PMID: 36248252 PMCID: PMC9540276 DOI: 10.1111/conl.12886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2021] [Revised: 03/19/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Human–wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free‐living wild animals actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms are human–honeyguide and human–dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of joining several inactive forms (including human–wolf and human–orca cooperation). Human–wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges, as it requires multiple components—a motivated human and wildlife partner, a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge—which face threats from ecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human–wildlife cooperation, we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments; (iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long‐term empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats. Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between human and animal cultures. Please see AfricanHoneyguides.com/abstract‐translations for Kiswahili and Portuguese translations of the abstract.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica E. M. van der Wal
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | - Claire N. Spottiswoode
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
- Department of Zoology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
| | | | - Mauricio Cantor
- Department of Ecology and Zoology Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Florianopolis Brazil
- Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, Marine Mammal Institute Oregon State University Corvallis Oregon USA
- Department for the Ecology of Animal Societies Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior Radolfzell Germany
- Centre of Marine Studies Universidade Federal do Paraná Curitiba Brazil
| | - Fábio G. Daura‐Jorge
- Department of Ecology and Zoology Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Florianopolis Brazil
| | - Anap I. Afan
- A.P. Leventis Ornithological Research Institute University of Jos Jos Nigeria
| | | | - Jenny Amphaeris
- School of Arts, Culture and Language Bangor University Bangor UK
| | | | - Colleen M. Begg
- Niassa Carnivore Project TRT Conservation Foundation Cape Town South Africa
| | - Cameron J. Blair
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | - Judith L. Bronstein
- Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA
| | | | - Rion R. T. Cuthill
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | - Jewel Das
- Institute of Marine Sciences University of Chittagong Chittagong Bangladesh
| | - Apurba Deb
- Department of Conservation and Climate Government of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
| | - Tanmay Dixit
- Department of Zoology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
| | | | - Edmond Dounias
- CEFE Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD Montpellier France
| | | | - Martin Gruber
- Department of Anthropology and Cultural Research University of Bremen Bremen Germany
| | - Lilian S. Hoffmann
- Cytogenetics and Evolution Lab, Instituto de Biociências Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre Brazil
| | - Tobias Holzlehner
- Seminar für Ethnologie Martin‐Luther‐University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle Germany
| | | | - Eliupendo A. Laltaika
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
- Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority Ngorongoro Tanzania
| | - David J. Lloyd‐Jones
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | - Jess Lund
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
- Department of Zoology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
| | - Alexandre M. S. Machado
- Department of Ecology and Zoology Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Florianopolis Brazil
| | - L. Mahadevan
- Department of Physics Harvard University Boston Massachusetts USA
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
- Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
| | - Ignacio B. Moreno
- Centro de Estudos Costeiros, Limnológicos e Marinhos Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Imbé Brazil
- Programa de Pós‐Graduação em Biologia Animal Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre Brazil
| | - Chima J. Nwaogu
- FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, Department of Science and Innovation‐National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | | | - Raymond Pierotti
- Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas USA
| | | | | | - Nathalia Serpa
- Centro de Estudos Costeiros, Limnológicos e Marinhos Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Imbé Brazil
- Programa de Pós‐Graduação em Biologia Animal Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre Brazil
| | | | - Irina Tolkova
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
| | | | | | - Brian M. Wood
- Department of Anthropology University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles California USA
- Department of Human Behavior, Ecology, and Culture Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig Germany
| | - Richard W. Wrangham
- Department of Human Evolutionary Biology Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
| | | |
Collapse
|