Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
socioecologists typically consider human activity as “unnatural” disturbance
that alters the animal's “natural” behavioral patterns. They have argued that
investigations of synanthropic primates are not relevant to understanding the
behavioral biology of the animal, as the human influence makes them behave
in species-atypical ways.
A second approach is the emerging field of ethnoprimatology. This approach
starts from the socioecological perspective, but instead of viewing human
impact as just “interference” or perturbation of a “natural” state, views human
impact as another ecological component to be considered in the natural system
(Burton and Carroll,
2005
). Therefore, an ethnoprimatological approach seeks
to understand the anthropogenic interface affects the behavior of the animal,
and considers behavior elicited by anthropogenic factors as a facultative or
“normative” response to the new environmental pressures. In other words, the
human affect on primate populations should be considered as a significant eco-
logical pressure that shapes the natural behavioral potential of the synanthropic
primate.
The similarity across primates, particularly macaques, in morphology and
behavior suggests that the interface between humans and other primate species
may differ from those between humans and other mammals (Fuentes,
2007b
).
For example, the high degree of overlap in primate sensory systems and neuro-
psychology might result in more tightly shared perceptual and emotive expe-
riences between humans and other anthropoid primates. Also, similarities in
digestive tracts and dietary requirements can create similarities in the survival
needs across species. The high degree of biological overlap suggests the inter-
face between humans and other primates may have some important ecological
and physiological differences from similar interfaces between humans and
other synanthropes, such as dogs or cattle. Future research will want to focus
more on this distinction.
Primatologists usually model the human-primate interface primarily as
a competition for space and resources, and thus a contest between humans
and the synanthrope. The approach of ethnoprimatology (Sponsel,
1997
;
Wheatley,
1999
; Fuentes and Wolfe,
2002
) takes such competition into
account, but also brings greater focus to the mutualistic and commensal com-
ponents of human-primate relationships. By exploring all the potential aspects
of the interspecific relationship, an ethnoprimatologist attempts to merge the
socioecological approach with an anthropological approach. They study the
symbolic interpretations, uses, and perception of the relationship with the non-
human primates by the human communities living with them (i.e., socio-cul-
tural anthropology and historical accounts), as well as the direct interactions
between humans and non-humans (Fuentes,
2006b
). This approach allows
us to characterize each human-macaque interface zone studied, and then, by
