Animal Adjectives Animal Adjectives By Maeve Maddox Most writers are familiar with the animal adjectives canine and feline used to refer to dogs and cats, but they may not be aware of numerous others they could use in writing about both animals and people. Here are some examples that use leonine, taurine, bovine, and feline: Concluding with remarks about Toscanini’s technique, Saminsky again contrasted his “leonine manner” with Nikisch’s “carefully restrained movements…” –Toscanini in Britain, Christopher Dyment, p. 18. Porta … asserts, that such men resemble bulls in anger, as is expressed by the wide nostrils; and, in the strength expressed by the dense neck. I have… seen many stout athletic men with taurine aspects, and have always observed such to have taurine dispositions likewise. –“History of Physiognomy,” The Gentleman’s Magazine, and Historical Chronicle, Vol. 69, Part 1, 1799. He was a plump little guy with thinning gray hair over a pink scalp, big brown bovine eyes and dewlaps hanging on either side of his chin.

—Peril is My Pay, Stephen Marlowe. Although it was rare for Bat to be clearly depicted in painting or sculpture, some notable artifacts […] include depictions of the goddess in bovine form. –”Bat (goddess),” Wikipedia. eartha kitt: the feline femme fatale –headline, Marie Claire, online magazine. (The original headline is all in lowercase.) Here’s a list of animals with their corresponding adjectives. ant: formicine wolf: lupine viper: viperine In addition to using animal adjectives literally and figuratively to describe animals and people, writers can build character names from them. For example, one of the characters in the novel Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz is a huge, bearlike servant named Ursus. A character called Corvin could have something to do with death; Pavonna could suggest beauty and pride, and Vespicia could be a sharp-tongued woman. Subscribe to Receive our Articles and Exercises via Email You will improve your English in only 5 minutes per day, guaranteed! Subscribers get access to our exercise archives, writing courses, writing jobs and much more! You'll also get three bonus ebooks completely free!

15 Responses to “Animal Adjectives” Dale A. Wood on February 14, 2014 11:17 am When I was a schoolboy and younger, I was a firstborn child, and I had but one cousin older than me, too. So, I wasn’t around older children very much. I had a neighbor boy, Marty, who was my age and a close friend. Marty had and older brother and an older sister, and no younger siblings. One time when Marty was angry at his brother and sister, he yelled at them “GO WITH THE PACHYDERMS TO THE ZOO !” (My friend was known for having a sharp tongue at times.) Of course, I was mystified because I didn’t even know what a pachyderm was. It was some years later that I learned that a pachyderm is from the group of animals that includes elephants, rhinos, hippopotami, and maybe giraffes, camels, bison, and zebras, too. Except for the elephant, their characteristics in common include being big and dumb! So, what is the appropriate adjective? pachydermish? pachydermlike?

thebluebird11 on February 14, 2014 3:21 pm Thanks, Maeve, for the great list, definitely has words I have never heard of (e.g. for tortoise, seal, peacock). Nice vocab lesson although many will not be useful for Scrabble LOL I’m sure there are more where these came from, but I will just add bee/apian. TGIF 🙂 venqax on February 14, 2014 4:29 pm I’ll add hircine– like a goat. This one comes in very handy quite a bit, actually. I once wrote an article describing a certain politician’s hircine behavior and it at least got me some style points. Didn’t bother him a tad. Nicholas Wilde on February 14, 2014 5:31 pm For the “peacock: pavonine” entry, does it only refer to the male bird, or should it actually be “peafowl: pavonine”?

thebluebird11 on February 14, 2014 6:02 pm @DAW: I would say the appropriate adjective would be found in Maeve’s list, elephantine. If you don’t like that one, use one of the ones you made up…nobody will stop you. I can also suggest pachydermal. @venqax: Exactly how many style points are these things worth and can I cash in points for, let’s say, a nice X3? Inquiring minds want to know 😉 Mock_Turtle on February 14, 2014 6:10 pm Loved this post, my husband and I had only recently discussed just such adjectives. Would add ‘simian’ (monkey-like). venqax on February 14, 2014 7:23 pm @bluebird: 3. 3 points. And if it’s like my airline rewards system, you’d need approximately 6000 points to get a “free” ticket somewhere. One-way. @DAW: bluebird is right. And pachyderm is an obsolete classification nowdays, anyway.

Did you know it means, “thick skinned”? I thought the word referred to one of those nicotine stickers to help quit smoking but it turns out that’s a dermapatchy. Language is dang tricky! thebluebird11 on February 14, 2014 7:43 pm @venqax: Oh well. Maybe if I add my style points, the airline miles from every trip I have ever taken, all the customer appreciation points from every restaurant in which I’ve ever eaten and every website from which I’ve ever made a purchase, AND throw in my first-born child…I might have enough for the doors off the X3. Keep on truckin’… philip e on February 14, 2014 8:54 pm This is a wonderful list. Many of these adjectives I had never heard, so I opened Dictionary.com to hear pronunciation. “Cygnine” yielded no results (and my word processor just stuck a red “misspelling” line under it). Curious, I went to the OED site and searched it in British and American. No results. I think there are more than one that might produce similar results.

The adjectives all look good to me, and follow a common-sense pattern. Are the words just so rarely used (except in fiction) that nobody has noticed them? Couldn’t believe that word was not in OED. They are the top as far as I’m concerned. Dale A. Wood on February 15, 2014 12:54 pm Thank you, the bluebird11: “pachydermal” is the right adjective. I also thought of “pachydermesque”, but I didn’t like that one. So, “pachydermal” definitely refers to rhinos, elephants, hippopotami, and maybe a few other species such as giraffes, okapis, musk oxen, Cape buffalo, and wildebeests. Yes, I did know that “pachyderm” refers to the thickness of the skin. Also, I think that the BALD declaration that the word “pachyderm” is obsolete is simply argumentative. Venqax, where do you get that from?

For example, if a word were only found in the writings of Kipling and Hemingway, that would not make it obsolete. D.A.W. Dale A. Wood on February 15, 2014 1:01 pm To thebluebird11. Thank you, but the word “elephantine” refers to being bulky, strong, and also smart. We need a word that refers to bulky, strong, and stupid, and I think that you hit it with “pachydermal”, with my “pachydermish” coming in second place. venqax on February 15, 2014 5:10 pm DAW: I didn’t say the word pachyderm was obsolete. I said the classification pachyderm is obsolete. That’s kind of what I said when I said, “…pachyderm is an obsolete classification…” Maybe you missed that. Dale A. Wood on February 21, 2014 1:29 pm If “pachyderm is an obsolete classification”, then don’t even use the word?

The contrapositive of this is: Since the word is still in use, the the classification is not obsolete. When my friend said “Go with the pachyderms to the zoo,” he knew what he was talking about, and I learned what it means, too. D.A.W. on February 23, 2014 3:27 pm Since the word is still in use, the the classification is not obsolete. But that is simply false. Just having a word for something doesn’t mean it is still relevant, extant, or useful in any way. The word “pachydermal” is fine. I was just pointing out the possibly unproductive nature of searching for a word that describes what is an obsolete concept (zoologically) anyway. Anyway, your friend really said, “Go with the pachyderms to the zoo,”? That just seems like such a very odd thing to say. Do pachyderms “go” to the zoo? Aren’t they already at the zoo? Go LIVE with the pachyderms AT the zoo, maybe? Your friend might deserve a DWT post all for himself.

venqax on February 23, 2014 3:29 pm Sorry. Apparently self-generating, random italics, again. What are the Biblical Kinds? What Are the Biblical Kinds? Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry. The phrase refers to the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of plants and animals . They are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin. The term barmin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The study of baramin (known as Baraminology ) is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification of the created kinds. [1] Contents 6 External Links History of the Concept The concept of the "created kind" originates from the biblical book of Genesis where it is first mentioned in chapter 1. "The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day...

Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so." Genesis 1:12-24 In contrast to the evolutionary principle of common ancestry , creation biologists argue that organisms were created in a finite number of discrete forms as described in the Bible , which subsequently diversified through speciation and microevolution . There is much uncertainty about what exactly the Bible means when it talks of "kinds". The original Hebrew word min is used to describe a variety of organisms. Nevertheless, creationists are in agreement that the phrase refers to a distinct barrier between different types or organisms and a limitation on variation.

In The Genesis Record , (1976) when Henry Morris states: “ It is significant that the phrase “after his kind” occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. Whatever precisely is meant by the term “kind” (Hebrew min), it does indicate the limitations of variation. Each organism was to reproduce after its own kind, not after some other kind. [2] ” Early creationists used the word "species" (Latin for "kind") for the concept of "created kind" referred to in the Bible. The concept of "fixity of species" persisted in the minds of scientists and laymen for some time, despite the narrower definition of species later adopted, as illustrated when Henry Morris continues: “ It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family". [2] ” Theologian Russell Mixter comments on this early view: “ One should not insist that "kind" means species.

The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis. [3] ” Due to an improved understanding of speciation, it is now widely recognized by creationists that the process has been a regular part of the development of the created kinds. In contrast to the earlier views, today most creation scientists see the reverse comparison to Morris; equating the "family" level as most often identical to the kinds of the Bible, sometimes the "genus," and only possibly once in a while with the "species". In 1941, creation biologist Frank L. Marsh proposed that the Biblical created kind could be defined in terms of reproduction. He argued that two creatures which can successfully mate must have descended from the same kind. This idea has been adopted to support the practice of baraminology , the attempt to identify the created kinds. [1] The few creationists who work in baraminology have attempted to derive a consistent set of rules for establishing when this criteria is met.

Microbiologist and creationist Siegfried Scherer refined the criteria to state that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same "basic type". Thus all members of a ring species would be members of the same kind. Scherer also updated Marsh's explanation of true fertilization: “ Two individuals belong to the same basic type if embryogenesis of a hybrid continues beyond the maternal phase, including subsequent co-ordinated expression of both maternal and paternal morphogenetic genes. ” Assigning the kinds to a particular level of the modern taxonomic hierarchy has proved problematic, as evolutionary assumptions have influenced the classification system. As a result, the kinds do not coincide on a consistent basis with any particular taxonomy level. Nevertheless, today most creation scientists identify the family level of classification (such as Felidae ) as most frequently synonymous with the baramin, whereas for others like humans it coincides with the genus level ( homo ). Diversification of Kinds The phylogenetic tree of evolutionary biology . The created kind is based upon an idea that organisms were created with the innate ability to vary a great deal, and evolutionary processes are merely the means by which that genetic information is expressed.

“ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments. [4] ” The creationary phylogenetic tree is similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree, but bears two important differences. First, while the evolutionary tree traces life back to a single cell, the creation biology tree traces life back to a number of unrelated populations that roughly resembled the forms of life today. The evolutionary model is single monophyletic tree, whereas the creation model contains many polypheletic trees. Those who tend to support a polyphetlic origin of life are often called pattern pluralists. [5] Second, while the evolutionary tree credits evolutionary change to an increase in genetic diversity from simpler to more complex organisms, the creation biology tree credits small mutational change to the rearrangement and expression of genetic variation that was "built in" to the original kinds; Many creationists believe that change within a population is accomplished only through the rearrangment of preexisting information or the degradation of the created genome .

[6] Others assert that organisms were designed with a molecular machinery capable of editing genes , adding new alleles to the population, which generates diversity. [7] It is generally agreed upon that natural selection , reproductive isolation (speciation), and genetic drift are effective in leading to the formation of populations that are highly adapted to their environment. Speciation and genetic drift is believed to have occurred at high frequencies during the dispersion immediately after the global flood . “ The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model. [8] ” Selection is used to explain the diversification of distinct species by both creationists and evolutionists . Imagine a small gene pool in which there are genes for both blue and brown eyes evenly spread throughout the population. In such a situation, some people will be born with brown eyes, and other people will be born with blue eyes.

However, if part of the population separates from the main group, and the smaller population has only the gene for brown eyes, then the descendants of that smaller population will have only brown eyes. The characteristic for brown eyes has become "set" in the isolated population. Many creationists believe that the formation of the races was also a result of this process. The population on board the ark is believed to have been a hybrid population containing the genetic characteristics of all the races . When the population spread over the Earth after the flood, gene pools became isolated and began to adapt differentially to the regions into which they settled. [9] For example, skin color became lightened by natural selection, so that northern populations developed lighter skin in order to produce vitamin D in more sun-deprived areas, while equatorial populations developed darker skin to protect them from the harmful effects of the sun. As a result of the population isolation, the racial characteristics became "set" in the respective populations, resulting in the characteristic races observable today. Boundaries Between Kinds Most of the controversy regarding created kinds revolves around the asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated.

Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creation biologists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are. The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing phylogenetic trees , where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related. Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion. That is, one should not presume that forms of life are related, but should hold that position only if there is solid reason to do so. In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible. Thus, humans and frogs are considered to be different kinds because they are not reproductively compatible at all, while the African and European races are considered to be clearly of the same kind, because they are totally reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule , a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring. Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that life originated in several unrelated forms. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds." Since 2001, creation biologists at the Baraminology Study Group have been developing a new method for demarcating created kinds. The new method involves the application of morphological character data to create a "biological character space," which can then be used to determine continuity and discontinuity between species, and ultimately to determine "biological trajectories.".

Creation scientists generally recognize that kinds are a form of clade since created kinds refer to common ancestry. Baraminology , or the effort to classify life according to the created kinds, is thus the creationist equivalent of cladistics . "'Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'" - Leviticus 19:19 Identification To understand the true evolutionary history of life on Earth , it is important that we identify what organisms were created in the beginning, it is generally assumed that a kind is similar to the genus or family depending on the given example. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and such examples are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record . It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species . Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal.

The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy ; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples: Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants , Mammoths , Mastodons , and Gomphotheres . Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative. [10] Humanity — Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus / ergaster , Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homo ; with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis , A. anamensis , A. africanus , A. robustus , A. aethiopithecus , A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae .

Hybridization Data Creationists view sexual compatibility to be one of the best physical indicators that organism belong to the same baramin (created kind). [11] This is largely based on the observations that compatibility diminishes over time in related species due to genetic drift . The Bible also states that God created organisms with seed in it, according to their various kinds. Therefore, the ability of genetically dissimilar species to mate successfully would seem to indicate that they are related. A hybrid is the progeny that results from such a mating. Hybridization especially refers to human breeding of plants or animals of different breeds or species, although wild varieties are recognized. Hybrid plants are created when the pollen from one kind of plant is used to pollinate and entirely different variety, resulting in a new plant. This type of crossbreeding is also used support that the created kind is broader than the species designation, and often synonymous with the family level of taxonomic classification. To aid in the identification of baramin, a database of known cases of interspecies reproduction was needed. To meet this need, Ashley Robinson and Todd Wood started an internet database of published references to such interspecific hybrids. This important creation science research tool is called the HybriDatabase .

[12] The database is hosted and maintained by the Center for Origins Research (CORE) at Bryan College , which currently contains nearly 5000 hybrid records. Examples of hybrids: Bertram the Liger is a hybrid (a cross between a male lion and a tiger). The Mule —a cross between a horse and a donkey. The Liger—a cross between a lion and a tiger . Kekaimalu the Wholphin is a fertile hybrid of two different genera, the False killer whale and Bottlenose dolphin . Kekaimalu herself gave birth to a calf, showing she was a fertile hybrid. Thus these creatures classified as different genera are really a single polytypic (many-type) species. Bos (true cattle) and Bison ( American buffalo ) can produce a fertile hybrid called a Cattalo . Bos and Bison are thus likewise the same polytypic species although they classified as different genera. Brassica and Raphanus are different plant genera which hybridize to what has been given a new generic name Raphanobrassica.

The creationist Don Batten helped create a hybrid of the fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), again classified as different genera. Fossil Record To identify whether a particular variety was created of evolved, baraminologists compare living organisms with those visible in the fossil record (which creationists interpret as having mostly been laid down during the flood ). Creationists recognize that organisms change dramatically over time, and many new species have developed since the creation . However, it is also viewed as improbable that any specific variety would have evolved independently before and also after the great deluge. Therefore, it is believed to be assumable that any organism alive today, which has obvious ancestors in the fossil record, is a created kind. Scriptural Accounts Creation Unfortunately, the descriptions of the kinds of plants and animals formed during the creation week are very general, and provide no specific definitions that would help. "Then God said, 'Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear'; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them'; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day." - Genesis 1:9-13 "Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day." - Genesis 1:20-23 "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so.

God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.' Then God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food'; and it was so.

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." - Genesis 1:24-31 Summary of the original kinds detailed in the creation account found within Genesis 1 . Many kinds of plants bearing fruit; Many kinds of trees bearing fruit; Many kinds of great sea creatures; Many kinds of sessile and mobile aquatic organisms; Many kinds of birds; Many kinds of insects, and; Many kinds of wild animals. The Flood Additional references to kinds are present during the description of the global flood, but again these statements are so general as to provide no specific definitions. We can only be sure that a great many species from each of the types of animals mentioned were present on board the ark . For example we know that there were many birds due to the statement "every bird of every sort". However, we can not be sure if God created just one species of birds like the "bird of prey", or several different species. Likewise were there many water fowl created or just one? Animals can change so dramatically through time that making such determination is exceedingly difficult. If only Noah had provided modern baraminologists with a complete manifest!

"On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the L ORD closed it behind him." - Genesis 7:13-16 The only specific mentions at the time of the flood are to the dove and raven , which Noah used to test whether the earth had dried sufficiently. From this reference we can sufficiently conclude that there were indeed a great many birds on board the ark. "Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.

Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land; but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark, for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself." - Genesis 8:6-9 Other Biblical References There are other mentions of animals later in the Old and New Testaments, but caution should be given to accepting these as baramin. Given the rapidity with which speciation and diversification can occur, it is possible that many of the animals listed elsewhere in the Bible have developed since the global flood. For example the list of clean and unclean animals in Deuteronomy 14 contains references to the red and black kite, which should probably be viewed as belonging to the same baramin. It also lists several species of owls including the desert owl, which has arguably adapted to conditions that did not exist before the flood. "You shall not eat any detestable thing.

These are the animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. Any animal that divides the hoof and has the hoof split in two and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these among those which chew the cud, or among those that divide the hoof in two: the camel and the rabbit and the shaphan, for though they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses. These you may eat of all that are in water: anything that has fins and scales you may eat, but anything that does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. You may eat any clean bird.

But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the red kite, the falcon, and the kite in their kinds, and every raven in its kind, and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron in their kinds, and the hoopoe and the bat. And all the teeming life with wings are unclean to you; they shall not be eaten. You may eat any clean bird." - Deuteronomy 14:3-20 References What Influences the Size of Groups in Which Primates Choose to Live? | Learn Science at Scitable What Influences the Size of Groups in Which Primates Choose to Live? By: Colin A. Chapman (Anthropology & School of Environment, McGill University) & Julie A. Teichroeb (Anthropology, McGill University) © 2012 Nature Education Citation: Chapman, C. A. & Teichroeb, J. A.

(2012) What Influences the Size of Groups in Which Primates Choose to Live? Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):9 Primate groups can vary in size from 1 to more than 800. Since group size strongly influences the type of social organization adopted, it is critical to understand what explains variation in group size. Aa Aa Aa One of the major theoretical contributions made by studying primates is an understanding of what influences the nature of complex variation in social structure and organizations. Underlying this is a set of theoretical developments examining why animals live in groups in the first place and why groups are of a particular size. Here, we focus on the question of "what influences the size of groups primates choose to live in?" Primates are particularly useful taxa to address this question because their group sizes are highly variable, not only within, but also between species. Intraspecific group size for red colobus (Procolobus rufomitratus), for example, varies between 12 and 150 members (Chapman & Chapman 2000a).

Interspecific variation ranges from a single individual, as seen in orangutans (Pongo sp.) (van Schaik 1999), to over 800 members in mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) (Abernethy et al. 2002). Furthermore, within some species, social groups repeatedly divide and re-unite into subgroups of different sizes and combinations over time (e.g., fission-fusion social organization of spider monkeys (Ateles sp.) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), or the multi-level organization of gelada (Theropithecus gelada) and Hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas, Aureli et al. 2008). This variation provides the foundation for researchers to develop models to investigate both the ecological and the social drivers of group size. Grouping is beneficial in several ways.

Individuals in larger groups are thought to have a decreased risk of predation (Hamilton 1971), may be better able to find and defend food resources (Cody 1971, Wrangham 1980), and may be protected against conspecific threat, like infanticide by extra-group males (Wrangham 1979). Various researchers have suggested that grouping confers such predictable benefits (Alexander 1974, van Schaik 1983) that differences in group size can be explained by the disadvantages (Wrangham et al. 1993). The most widely accepted potential cost of grouping is thought to be a reduction in foraging efficiency. Being with other individuals with the same dietary requirements means that animals either fight over food (contest competition), or one animal in a group beats another to the food, thus when the second animal comes to an area there is simply no food left (scramble competition, Janson & van Schaik 1988). In both of these situations it is thought that competition over food leads to animals having to travel farther. The logic behind this argument is relatively simple.

Animals must forage over an area that can meet their energetic and nutritional requirements. It follows that an increase in group size will increase the area that must be covered to find adequate food supplies. Thus individuals must travel further and expend more energy if they are in a large group, than if they forage in a smaller group. With an increase in the time spent traveling, a point is approached where the energy spent in travel is too costly and smaller groups become advantageous. In this way ecological factors can influence movement patterns and foraging efficiency, thereby constraining the size of groups that can efficiently exploit available food resources. These ideas have been formalized in what has become known as the Ecological Constraints Model (Chapman & Chapman 2000b, Ganas & Robbins 2005, Snaith & Chapman 2007, Teichroeb & Sicotte 2009). The essential component of the ecological constraints model is that an increase in group size must lead to an increase in within-group feeding competition. It is conceivable that this operates in a slightly different fashion depending on the nature of the resources used by particular species.

With frugivorous, and possibly many folivorous primates, that feed in discrete patches — typically trees bearing food items or clumps of trees — additional group members may deplete patches faster and lead to increased day ranges (Chapman 1988, Snaith & Chapman 2005). For more insectivorous species, whose resources may not occur in as discrete patches, continuous travel throughout the canopy in search of insects with additional group members may lead to an increase in the overlap of individual search fields, reducing per capita encounter rates with food and thus increasing the area that must be searched (van Schaik et al. 1983). So the ecological constraints model suggests that those factors that affect the distance that animals travel should also affect group size. For those animals that typically feed on fruit or leaves that can be depleted, the size of the patch would determine how long a group of a given size could stay and feed. A large group would spend less time in a patch of a given size than a smaller group, because it depletes the patch faster — a large group simply has more mouths to feed.

If animals travel between patches once they have depleted them, then the density and distribution of patches will determine the travel costs incurred. When resource patches are at a high density or in a clumped distribution, the distance to the next patch is small, travel costs are low, and animals can therefore form large groups. At such times, any additional cost associated with being a member of a large group, such as the need to visit many patches, can be easily recovered. In contrast, when resource patches occur at low densities, the distance to the next patch is typically large, travel costs are high, and animals cannot afford to rapidly deplete patches, and therefore animals form small groups. The fission-fusion social organization of spider monkeys, chimpanzees, and a few other primates (Figure 1) offers useful tests of the ecological constraints model because one can attempt to predict temporal changes in subgroup size from direct measures of the size, density, and distribution of food resources (Chapman 1990, Chapman et al. 1995). For spider monkeys and chimpanzees, a multiple regression model was developed to show that the size, density, and distribution of food patches measured each month were a good predictor of subgroup size.

It is difficult to visually represent a multiple regression, but the methods that were used for spider monkeys are portrayed in Figure 2. Spider monkeys have a very flexible fission-fusion type of social organization, and in Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica, subgroup size can range from 1 to 35 individuals, but on average about 5 individuals are found traveling together. For this population, 50% of the variance in mean monthly subgroup size can be predicted from relatively crude measures of the size, density, and distribution of food patches (Chapman 1990). Figure 1 Fission-fusion social organization is found in several primate species, such as black-and-white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata), grey-headed lemurs (Eulemur cinereiceps), spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and often seems to be associated with frugivory. © 2012 Nature Education Photo credits: V. variegata and E. cinereiceps, Steig Johnson; A. geoffroyi, Kayley Evans; P. troglodytes, Michael Huffman. All rights reserved.

Figure 2 A representation of the methods used to determine that the subgroup size of spider monkeys in Santa Rosa National Park, Uganda could be predicted based on the size, density, and distribution of food resource available each month. The right and left sides of this illustration represent different months. On the left is a month when food is rare. This can be seen by examining the square or rectangular sampling plots and the trees in each plot (lowest panel). When food is rare, a large group would deplete patches (trees) rapidly making it necessary to travel longer distances than would be needed if the group was smaller. Thus, as indicated in the upper panel, subgroups are smaller when food is rare, in comparison to when it is abundant and the travel distance to the next patch is small (the right side of the illustration). © 2012 Nature Education All rights reserved. In addition to the species mentioned above, the applicability of the ecological constraints model has been generally supported with research coming from a variety of species (Snaith & Chapman 2005) and situations (e.g., general models, Wrangham et al. 1993, and mixed species associations, Chapman & Chapman 2000c).

We view that, given the wide-ranging support that this model has received, the time has come that it is reasonable to suggest that species should typically conform to the expectations of the ecological constraints model. This does not mean that all species will conform, and thus it becomes an exciting time for research in this field because investigators can search for exceptions to the model. We suspect that species that do not conform will do so because they have adopted social strategies that run counter to the ecological expectations. This provides a "yardstick" to evaluate the potential importance of various social strategies (i.e., the further one deviates from the expectations of the ecological model, the more important the social selective pressures). Let us briefly provide two examples from our previous research. Female chimpanzees were more solitary than female spider monkeys, yet they both have similar fission-fusion social organizations. Further, while we could accurately predict the number of males and subadult chimpanzees in a subgroup based on ecological conditions, we were unable to predict the number of female chimpanzees in these subgroups (Chapman et al. 1995).

Even when resources were extremely abundant and almost all the males were in one big subgroup, females rarely entered groups, suggesting that the cost of being in a larger subgroup outweighed any benefits, such as predator avoidance. This is unexpected from the perspective that the infants of these females would be the age/sex class most threatened by predation. One testable hypothesis to explain these observations is that the nature of the coalitions in these two species may influence the benefits of group membership. Evidence suggests that, unlike chimpanzees, spider monkey females form coalitions that often operate to allow the members of the coalition exclusive access to food. So spider monkeys, when they join particular individuals, can increase their access to food by excluding others, but for chimpanzee females this is not the case (Chapman et al. 1995). We identified another interesting deviation, potentially caused by social factors affecting the costs and benefits of being in a group, and this concerns red colobus and black-and-white colobus monkeys (aka. guerezas, Colobus guereza) at Kibale National Park, Uganda.

Red colobus form large groups with an average of 65 individuals (25–127 individuals, Snaith et al. 2008), while guerezas live in small groups with an average of 6.5 individuals (4–11 individuals, Harris & Chapman 2007). Despite this difference, there is a great deal of similarity in the plants eaten by the two species. If ecological conditions were responsible for the difference in group size between the two colobine species, one would expect that their diets would differ and the density of food trees would be lower in the home ranges of the guerezas, since they have the smaller group size. However, their diets are very similar; the dietary overlap between a red colobus and a guereza group that had its home range entirely within the home range of the red colobus group was 43.2%, while for the two neighboring groups of red colobus, diet overlapped by only 37.3% (Chapman et al. 2002).

It appears that female guereza reproductive success is maximized in small and mid-sized groups, either because larger groups experience higher rates of take-overs and infanticide or more feeding competition (see evidence of scramble competition in the folivorous Trachypithecus phayrei and Semnopithecus sp. [Koenig et al. 1998, Koenig 2000, Koenig & Borries 2006, Borries et al. 2008], but a lack of evidence of guerezas depleting food patches [Tombak et al. 2012]). We have witnessed a number of male take-overs and infant killings in the guerezas (Onderdonk 2000) — see Teichroeb & Sicotte (2008) for an evaluation of theory regarding infanticide in colobines. What is not clear is how the risk of infanticide would limit the size of guereza groups, when they have apparent access to a high density of food that should permit the formation of multi-male groups.

In several species, larger female groups are more of a target for immigrating males, and this situation may increase infanticide rates-for example, Semnopithecus sp. (Borries 1997), Theropithecus gelada (Dunbar 1984), Alouatta seniculus (Crockett & Janson 2000), Presbytis thomasi (Steenbeek & van Schaik 2001). However, infanticide is expected to be less frequent if a group contains multiple reproductively active males, because male immigration and subsequent violent take over and infanticide are less likely to occur when the newcomer is faced with several possible sires of future infants (Janson & van Schaik 2000). Guerezas appear to have ample food resources to form larger groups (Tombak et al. 2012), which would decrease the risk of infanticide, yet they do not form large groups. It is possible that the nature of male-male interactions in guerezas makes large groups unstable.

This appears to be the case in ursine colobus (Colobus vellerosus), where multi-male groups attract male immigrants and have higher infanticide rates than groups with one strong adult male in his prime (Teichroeb, Wikberg, Badescu, & Sicotte, unpublished data; Figure 3). Thus, even when ecological conditions would permit large groups to form, social conditions preclude their formation (Chapman & Pavelka 2005). Figure 3 Infanticide risk increases with male and female group size in ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus). Being in a small to mid-sized group with a single, strong defending male seems to be the best defence. © 2012 Nature Education Courtesy of L. MacDonald. All rights reserved. If the ecological constraints model is outlining pressures that generally influence primate group size and if deviations from this expected group size result from social pressures, it will be an exciting time in this area of research because it raises a number of interesting questions. For example: What is the nature of the social pressures on group size? Why are these social constraints present in these species and not closely related ones?

And what are the evolutionary forces selecting for these social pressures? Group size is a critical element influencing the type of social organization species adopt, thus examining these issues will lead to exciting refinements of socioecological models. Glossary Social organization: Represents the arrangement of individuals in a social group, including the group size, sexual composition (the adult male:adult female sex ratio), and spatiotemporal cohesion (Kappeler & van Schaik 2002). Social structure: Refers to the patterns of social relationships between individuals in the same group (Kappeler & van Schaik 2002), which is influenced by which sex disperses from the natal group. Usually, a species with female-biased dispersal will show stronger relationships between males compared to females, while a species with male-biased dispersal will show strong bonding between females. If both sexes disperse, there may be strong relationships between the sexes. Fission-fusion: Refers to a fluid pattern of spatiotemporal cohesion in animals where the larger group splits up into subgroups of varying composition that range separately and may join up together or break apart depending on resource availability.

Patches: Denotes the distribution of food in a discrete, concentrated area, separated by space from other areas with food items. Patches may be represented by a single tree that is producing food items or a cluster of trees of the same species in the same area, all producing food items. Dietary overlap: Refers to the proportion of species/plant parts that are the same between two animal species and may be represented at different temporal scales (e.g., daily, monthly, or annual overlap in the diet). References and Recommended Reading Abernethy, K. A., White, L. J. T. & Wickings, E. J. Hordes of mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx): Extreme group size and seasonal male presence. Journal of Zoology 258, 131-137 (2002). Alexander, R. D. The evolution of social behaviour. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5, 325-382 (1974). Aureli, F. et al. Fission-fusion dynamics: New frameworks for comparative research. Current Anthropology 49, 627-654 (2008).

Borries, C. Infanticide in seasonally breeding multimale groups of Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) in Ramnagar (South Napal). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 139-150 (1997). Borries, C. et al. Costs of group size: Lower developmental and reproductive rates in larger groups of leaf monkeys. Behavioural Ecology 19, 1186-1194 (2008). Chapman, C. A. Patch use and patch depletion by the spider and howling monkeys of Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica. Behaviour 105, 99-116 (1988). Chapman, C. A. Association patterns of spider monkeys: The influence of ecology and sex on social organization. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 26, 409-414 (1990). Chapman, C. A. & Chapman, L. J. Constraints on group size in red colobus and red-tailed guenons: Examining the generality of the ecological constraints model.

International Journal of Primatology 21, 565-585 (2000a). Chapman, C. A. & Chapman, L. J. "Determinants of group size in primates: The importance of travel costs," in On the Move: How and Why Animals Travel in Groups, eds. S. Boinski & P. A. Garber (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000b) 24-41. Chapman, C. A. & Chapman, L. J. Interdemic variation in mixed-species association patterns: Common diurnal primates of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47, 129-139 (2000c). Chapman, C. A. & Pavelka, M. S. M. Group size in folivorous primates: Ecological constraints and the possible influence of social factors. Primates 46, 1-9 (2005). Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J. & Gillespie, T. R.

Scale issues in the study of primate foraging: Red colobus of Kibale National Park. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 117, 349-363 (2002). Chapman, C. A., Wrangham, R. W. & Chapman, L. J. Ecological constraints on group size: An analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36, 59-70 (1995). Cody, M. L. Finch flocks in the Mojave desert. Theoretical Population Biology 2, 141-158 (1971). Crockett, C. M. & Janson, C. H. "Infanticide in red howlers: Female group size, male membership, and a possible link to folivory," in Infanticide By Males and its Implications, eds. C. P. van Schaik & C. H. Janson (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 75-98. Dunbar, R. I. M.

Reproductive Decisions: An Economic Analysis of Gelada Baboon Social Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Ganas, J. & Robbins, M. M. Ranging behavior of the mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: A test of the ecological constraints model. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58, 277-288 (2005). Hamilton, W. D. Geometry of the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology 31, 295-331 (1971). Harris, T. & Chapman, C. A. Variation in the diet and ranging behavior of black-and-white colobus monkeys: Implications for theory and conservation. Primates 28, 208-221 (2007). Janson, C. H. & van Schaik, C. P. "Behavioral ecology of infanticide," in Infanticide By Males and its Implications, eds. C. P. van Schaik & C. H.

Janson (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 469-494. Janson, C. H. & van Schaik, C. P. Recognizing the many faces of primate food competition: Methods. Behaviour 105, 165-186 (1988). Kappeler, P. M. & van Schaik, C. P. Evolution of primate social systems. International Journal of Primatology 23, 707-740 (2002). Koenig, A. Competitive regimes in forest-dwelling Hanuman langur females (Semnopithecus entellus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48, 93-109 (2000). Koenig, A. & Borries, C. "The predictive power of socioecological models: A reconsideration of resource characteristics, agonism and dominance hierarchies," in Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates, eds. G. Hohmann, M. M. Robbins & C.

Boesch (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 263-284. Koenig, A. et al. When females should contest for food: Testing hypotheses about resource density, distribution, size and quality with Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 42, 225-237 (1998). Onderdonk, D. A. Infanticide of a newborn black-and-white colobus monkey (Colobus guereza) in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Primates 41, 209-212 (2000). Snaith, T. V. & Chapman, C. A. Towards an ecological solution to the folivore paradox: Patch depletion as an indicator of within-group scramble competition in red colobus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59, 185-190 (2005). Snaith, T. V. & Chapman, C. A. Primate group size and socioecological models: Do folivores really play by different rules?

Evolutionary Anthropology 16, 94-106 (2007). Snaith, T. V. & Chapman, C. A. Red colobus monkeys display alternative behavioural responses to the costs of scramble competition. Behavioural Ecology 19, 1289-1296 (2008). Snaith, T. V. et al. Bigger groups have fewer parasites and similar cortisol levels: A multi-group analysis in red colobus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 70, 1-9 (2008). Steenbeek, R. & van Schaik, C. P. Competition and group size in Thomas's langurs (Presbytis thomasi): The folivore paradox revisited. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 100-110 (2001). Teichroeb, J. A. & Sicotte, P. Test of the ecological-constraints model on ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) in Ghana.

American Journal of Primatology 71, 49-59 (2009). Teichroeb, J. A. & Sicotte, P. Infanticide in ursine colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) in Ghana: New cases and a test of the existing hypotheses. Behaviour 145, 727-755 (2008). Tombak, K. H. et al. Patch depletion behavior differs between sympatric folivorous primates. Primates 53, 57-64 (2012). van Schaik, C. P. Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behaviour 87, 120-144 (1983). van Schaik, C. P. The socioecology of fission-fusion sociality in orangutans. Primates 40, 69-86 (1999). van Schaik, C. P. et al. The effect of group size on time budgets and social behaviour in wild long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis).

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 13, 173-181 (1983). Wrangham, R. W. On the evolution of ape social systems. Social Science Information 18, 335-368 (1979). Wrangham, R. W. An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Behaviour 75, 262-300 (1980). Wrangham, R. W., Gittleman, J. L. & Chapman, C. A. Constraints on group size in primates and carnivores: Population density estimates and day-range as assays of exploitation competition. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 32, 199-209 (1993).

Ursine | Definition of Ursine by Merriam-Webster 1 : of or relating to a bear or the bear family (Ursidae) 2 : suggesting or characteristic of a bear <a lumbering ursine gait> Origin and Etymology of ursine Latin ursinus, from ursus bear — more at arctic First Known Use: circa 1550 Other Mammals Terms

Question: Ursine refers to what type of animal?
Answer: Bear