Preliminary Results of a Cognitum Study Investigating i the Traditional Tetrapod Classes. Timothy R. Brophy

Transcription

1 Preliminary Results of a Cognitum Study Investigating i the Traditional Tetrapod Classes Timothy R. Brophy Liberty University

2 Anastasia Hohriakova, 2002 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. Genesis 2:19-20

3 INTRODUCTION God purposely created organisms in a pattern specifically recognizable to man and created man capable of recognizing that pattern (Sanders and Wise, 2003)

4 What is a Cognitum? A Cognitum is defined as a group of organisms recognized through the human cognitive senses as belonging together and sharing an underlying, unifying gestalt (Sanders and Wise, 2003) A cognitum can exist at any level of inclusiveness and may or may not be hierarchically nested within other cognita (Sanders and Wise, 2003) Study higher-level patterns in nature & relieve other taxonomic concepts from considerations that might hinder their development

5 METHODS & MATERIALS Compiled stack of 57 color photographs p representing major groups within tetrapod classes Randomly shuffled stack; same each time 3 amphibian orders, 6 reptile orders/suborders, 27 bird orders & 21 mammal orders Natural/semi-natural habitats Not to scale ( 5 ½ x 8 ); 2 per sheet

6 METHODS & MATERIALS 67 college students asked to sort photos & give criteria used in determining each group Given very few instructions i on how to sort photos Mechanisms by which to communicate classification Any criteria ; intuition or gut reaction Not given pre-designed categories or asked to sort into mutually exclusive or hierarchical groups

7 Participant i tprofile Age 19.9 ± 1.6 yrs. Years in College 2.4 ± 1.2 yrs. # Biology Classes 4.0 ± 1.7 classes Knowledge 4.9 ± 1.6

8 Source of Knowledge Personal Study None (1.1%) (14.9%) TV (18.1%) Nature (9.6%) School (56.4%)

9 RESULTS Criteria Used to Classify Misc. (0.2%) Unable (0.9%) Beauty (2.1%) Size (5.2%) Rarity (1.6%) Diet (4.6%) Man (3.3%) Geography (0.9%) Habitat (15.7%) Traditional (41.5%) Morphology (14.8%) Behavior (9.1%)

10 Class Aves* Ruddy duck Ruby-throated Hummingbird Common Nighthawk Killdeer Great Blue Heron Mousebird Mourning Dove Belted Kingfisher Chacalaca Oriental Cuckoo Peregrine Falcon Chicken Common Loon American Coot Northern Cardinal White Pelican Flamingo *UMMZ Animal Diversity Web

11 Class Aves Pileated Woodpecker Western Grebe Albatross Cockatoo Emperor Penguin Great Horned Owl Ostrich Tinamou Trogon Buttonquail

12 Bird Orders Classified as Birds 27/ % 26/ % 25/27 45% 4.5% 24/27 45% 4.5% Total 88.1%

13 Birds Lost to Other Categories Penguin (7.5%) - classified as mammal; placed in habitat, morphology or geographic category Owl in nocturnal category Hummingbird in morphology category Chicken, ostrich & flamingo in relationship to humans category Grebe loon & ruddy duck in habitat & diet Grebe, loon & ruddy duck in habitat & diet categories

14 Bird Cognitum Birds ALL 27 Orders Penguin?

15 Ducks Cognitum 22.4% of the participants created a separate ducks category 100% of these included the duck, grebe, loon & coot in this category

16 Ducks Cognitum

17 Water Birds Cognitum An additional 32.8% of the participants created a larger water birds category 100% of these included d the duck, grebe, loon & coot in this group Other members of this category were: Pelican (86.4%) Flamingo, heron & albatross (63.6%) Penguin (40.9%)

18 Water Birds Cognitum

19 Water Birds Cognitum Pli Pelican Flamingo Heron Albatross Penguin Water Birds Duck Grebe Loon Coot Ducks Penguin?

20 Other Habitat-Based Bird Cognita 25.4% of the participants created a land or ground-dwelling dwelling birds category 15.0% of the participants p created a tree or air birds category Both of these, however, were extremely diverse and difficult to summarize

21 Flightless Birds Cognitum 28.4% of the participants created a flightless birds category Members of this category included: d Ostrich(89.5%) Penguin (68.4%) Chicken(47.4%) Flamingo(42.1%) Tinamou(10.5%) Buttonquail, killdeer & nighthawk (5.3%)

22 Flightless Birds Cognitum

23 Flightless Birds Cognitum Killdeer? Tinamou Ostrich Penguin Chicken Flamingo Flightless Birds Nighthawk? Buttonquail

24 Bird Cognitum - Summary D Water Land Birds Air Flightless

25 Class Mammalia* Cow Tiger Killer Whale Bat Colugo Three-toed Sloth African Rock Hyrax Least Shrew Rabbit Elephant Shrew *UMMZ Animal Diversity Web Kangaroo Duck-billed Platypus Horse Pangolin Seal Chimpanzee Elephant Gray Squirrel Tree Shrew Manatee Aardvark

26 Mammal Orders Classified as Mammals 21/ % 20/ % 19/21 45% 4.5% 18/ % Total 46.3%

27 Fuzzy Mammals Pangolin 70.2% of the participants classified the pangolin as a reptile Bat/Colugo 23.9% of the participants classified these together as birds Bat/Colugo 55.2% of the participants classified these together th as bats, flying mammals/creatures or nocturnal mammals/creatures

28 Fuzzy Mammals

29 Are Monotremes & Marsupials Fuzzy Mammals? Only 16.4% of the participants created a marsupial category; 100% of these included the kangaroo; 27.3% of these included the platypus as well Only 1.5% of the participants created an egg-laying mammal category; only the platypus was included in this group The rest of the participants i t didn t distinguish i between monotremes, marsupials & placentals and/or grouped the platypus & kangaroo with various placentals

30 Mammal Cognitum Pangolin Kangaroo? Mammals 18 Orders Colugo Platypus? Bat

31 Water Mammals Cognitum 74.6% of the participants created a water mammals category 100% of these included the manatee, whale & seal in this group 62% of these included the platypus in this group Only 6% of those who created this group distinguished between marine & freshwater

32 Water Mammals Cognitum

33 Water Mammals Cognitum Manatee Whale Seal Platypus Water Mammals

34 Other Habitat-Based Mammal Cognita 41.8% of the participants created a land mammals category 13.4% of the participants p created a tree mammals category Both of these, however, were extremely diverse and difficult to summarize

35 Rodent Cognitum 62.7% of the participants created a rodent, small furry mammal/creature re category 95.2% of these included the elephant shrew, tree shrew & least shrew together in this group Other members of this category included: African rock hyrax (88.1%), Aardvark (83.3%), Squirrel (81.0%) & Rabbit (73.8%) Sloth (35.7%) & Bat/Colugo together (19.1%) Platypus (7.1%) & Pangolin (7.1%)

36 Rodent Cognitum

37 Rodent Cognitum Pangolin Sloth? Colugo Bat 3Shrews Hyrax Aardvark Squirrel Rabbit Rodents Platypus?

38 Mammal Cognitum - Summary Water Land Mammals Tree Rodents

39 Class Reptilia* American Alligator Tuatara Iberian Worm Lizard Five-lined Skink Green Snake Stinkpot Order Squamata *Zug et al., 2001 & EMBL Reptile Database

40 Reptile Groups Classified as Reptiles 6/6 60% 6.0% 5/6 16.4% 4/6 14.9% 4/6 or better 37.3% 3% Thoroughly Mixed 62.7%

41 Common Reptile Patterns 49.3% of the participants grouped the worm lizard and caecilian together as worms An additional 11.9% of the participants grouped the worm lizard, caecilian, and snake together as snakes 13 4% of the participants grouped the lizard 13.4% of the participants grouped the lizard and salamander together as amphibians

42 Slippery Reptiles

43 Core Group of Reptiles 29.9% of participants grouped the following four as reptiles: snake, tuatara, alligator & turtle; additional 3.0% grouped 1 st three

44 Reptile Cognitum Lizard? Worm Lizard Snake Tuatara Alligator Turtle Reptiles

45 Class Amphibia* Green Frog Spotted Salamander Caecilian *Zug et al., 2001 & UMMZ Animal Diversity Web

46 Amphibian Groups Classified as Amphibians 3/3 (no additions) 15% 1.5% 3/3 (1 addition) 15% 1.5% 2/3 (no additions) 11.9% 2/3 (1 addition) 13.4% Thoroughly Mixed 62.7%

47 Slippery Amphibian

48 Core Group of Amphibians 28.4% of participants grouped the frog and salamander together as amphibians

49 Amphibian Cognitum Caecilian Frog Salamander Amphibians

50 Reptile & Amphibian Overlap Amphibians Reptiles

51 Close Relationship to Man Cognita 14.9% of participants created a zoo category; very diverse and difficult to summarize 20.9% of participants created a farm category Members of farm category included: Cow(85.7%) Horse & Chicken (78.6%) Rabbit (7.1%)

52 Farm Cognitum

53 Farm Cognitum Rabbit Farm Animals Cow Horse Chicken

54 Future Research Should test the effects of particular methodologies on resultant classification i How organisms chosen to represent taxonomic group Presentation medium Age/experience of participants Instructions given to participants Improve methods and use on lower levels within Class Amphibia; precursor to quantitative baraminology study

55