Re: Evolutionary advantages

["David A. Youngker" <nestor10@mindspring.com>]

From: Simon Voorwinde
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 6:32 AM


> ...So it seems that in the animal world the instinctive
> behaviour associated with parenting is both learned
> and inherited to some extent...

Considering the complexity of the problem, I'd say that it might be
worthwhile to examine and separate this issue into definable "stages" when
trying to determine the "trouble spots". Trying to lump *all* of the
characteristics of a seemingly "singular" behavior into a rather simplistic
"all-in-one" answer is too much akin to the old rose-colored glasses - if
everyone looks "red", then how do you know who's angry and who's merely
blushing?

For example, are your Rams eating eggs or fry? (I'd "instinctively" assume
that there are differing reasons for either.) If it's egg consumption that's
the problem, is it right away or does it go all the way to wriggler stage
before the clutch is devoured? Do the parents eat the fry after the first
move, or do they wait until conditions have eradicated most of the clutch
and they merely consume the remainder?

To illustrate, let's take an easy view of egg-eating. It's fairly common
knowledge that many cichlids will destroy their first few nests (Discus and
Angel breeders will fill your ears with their frustrations if you even come
close to asking the question.) Initially, it may be easy to say: Hmm, it may
be "instinctive" for the parent to notice a difference between a white egg
and an amber egg as defining "bad egg-good egg". It may be the contrast that
triggers an almost uncontrollable urge to remove the "offending" color from
the clutch (easily attributable to genetics, perhaps). But once the "bad"
egg is removed and actually *tasted* the novelty and excitment of a new,
delicious and easily-obtained food source may be enough to override the
freshly emerging instinct to guard the eggs instead. Once the novelty wears
off, the urge to "protect" the clutch can then gain the upper hand in
behavioral patterns.

But what if conditions favor the development of negative habitual patterns
instead? It could be a consistent factor, like water hardness and
conductivity, that constantly produces infertile clutches, or the bad luck
and timing of a series of factors that rotate through a "duty roster",
taking their turns at denying the viability of the clutch. At any rate, how
many times would a fish have to be "forced" to eat clutch after clutch
before the action merely becomes Pavlovian?

All of this talk of "breeding vs environment" has been applied to almost all
animals, from Rams to humans, at one time or another. The weakest point in
any of these applications lies in trying to *clearly and firmly* separate
any and all actions, despite simplicity or complexity, as either inherited
or learned.

Unfortunately, what often *triggers* the response is not the same thing as
the influences that actually *shape* the response...

-Y-

David A. Youngker
nestor10@mindspring.com




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!