Evaluation edit
The widespread study of animal cognition has required a disciplined use of Lloyd Morgan's canon.[1] D.A. Dewsbury called Morgan's Canon "perhaps, the most quoted statement in the history of comparative psychology"[2]. As well, Frans de Waal reiterated that it is "perhaps the most quoted statement in all of psychology" in his book The Ape and the Sushi Master. One section points to a statement that Morgan later added: "there is nothing really wrong with complex interpretations if an animal species has provided independent signs of high intelligence".[3] It has played a critical role in the growth of the prestige of behaviourism in twentieth century academic psychology.[4] Morgan’s contribution remains a significant framework of animal cognition and is revered as a valued understanding of behavioural execution [5][6]. Various reasons for adherence to the canon have been offered, including fitness analysis, constraints of evolution and phylogeny, and physiological limitations.
With that being said, the canon has gathered substantial criticism. Many modern researchers such as Tobias Starzak suggest that it lacks operationally defined behaviour hierarchies.[7] There is additional concern that the restriction of advanced cognitive explanations dismisses the spectrum of behavioural awareness and opportunity. Due to these problems, Morgan's own interpretation is thought to be oversimplified and ambiguous[8]. Some animal behaviour research poses questions about favouring simplistic reasonings, especially when discussing behaviours from dispersed origins or observing rather sophisticated systems. The quantity of proposed behavioural mechanisms appears to receive less attention than their position on a cognitive scale. Several studies have taken note of this and thus maintained skepticism of Morgan's Canon as a parsimony principle[9]. Despite these shortcomings, several submitted alternatives, including evidentialism, aim to resolve its complications[10].
Application to animal populations edit
Mating displays edit
Most varieties of animals produce displays for reproductive or courtship purposes. Mating behaviour is often thought to be intentional due to the discriminatory nature of mate selection; that is, pursuit of potential partners anticipates a deliberate choice[11]. Mating processes are frequently disputed under the nature-nurture debate. However, mating procedures may vary across circumstances. Homosexual mating displays such as those noticed in an observation of king penguins on the Kerguelen Islands appear identical to those used to attract opposite sex individuals[12]. The ability of penguins to differentiate between members of the same and opposite sex has been debated within animal behaviour literature, some claiming the phenomenon to be irregular while others considered it more systemic[13]. Nonetheless, environmental conditions such as sex ratios may demonstrate individual differences within the population. As the Kerguelen Island population showed no conscious discernment between individuals, instead choosing mates at random[12], Morgan's canon possibly presumes that their displays are genetically hardwired and show no evidence of discrimination between sexes.
Competition and external signals edit
Competition among organisms (usually males) results from unwavering disputes over territory (for mating or general residence), food, or potential mating partners[14]. Individuals may compete using visual signals, as is seen in various butterfly species. Two different combative signals have been recorded: one uses an aerodynamic display that results in surrender of at least one male contestant, the second requires an encounter with an immature cocoon[15]. The latter does not exclude rivals from approaching the same cocoon, but fights can occur in the event that a female is hatched. Similar instances in other species are supported by game theory principles[16]. However, competition between butterflies is a rare occurrence[17] and therefore conflict settlement is not exactly understood. One study used Morgan's canon to identify a third process; the possibility that battles emerge from a mistaken attempt to court other competitors[15]. Since butterflies cannot cause severe injury to opponents nor accurately identify another's sex, the distinction of a mate from a competitor is sometimes nonexistent[18]. Results of several studies conclude that air combat is ideally exclusive to territorial males[15][18]. Likewise, Morgan's canon justifies misguided combat as long as recorded instances of sex differentiation are limited.
Cognitive awareness edit
Animal sentience is a topic of much controversy. The scope of animal consciousness is not perceived equally by human standards, so obligations to animal species as a whole are unequally distributed[19]. Concerns raised by animal rights activists partly discuss the cognitive abilities of an individual or species. Such issues suggest that most species are at least somewhat capable of self-acknowledgement[20]. Dolphins are particularly regarded for bearing high intellectual capacities, and are often the subject of cognitive experiments. Though Morgan's canon usually intends to avoid assumptions based on higher order processes, a psychological exception arises with dolphins as their perceptions do not imply intentionality on their behalf[21]. There is evidence of both self-directed and otherwise directed states of awareness that are close to those experienced by humans[21]. A 2004 study conducted by Derek Browne[22] tested the perceptual concept of uncertainty in dolphins. The subject was acclimated to an unaltered sound clip, then was expected to use their memory to determine a change in pitch. Once a lower or higher pitch is heard, the subject was to touch an oar indicating that tone. Browne references a discrimination threshold beyond which interpretations of pitch change become doubtful (about 2100 Hz). In the event that it cannot determine how the pitch changed, the subject can also press a third "escape" oar to show that it is unsure[22]. This study and others found that dolphins did make use of the "escape", but were quite reluctant to do so[23]. Even when showing outward signs of uncertainty, there were many trials in which dolphin subjects still chose one of the other two options, perhaps as an insistence on their original answer[22]. Due to the conflicting options presented at threshold tones, researchers have widely agreed on a pattern of ingrained compulsion that further supports Morgan's lower ordered inquiries.
- ^ Karin-D’Arcy, M. Rosalyn (2005-12-31). The Modern Role of Morgan’s Canon in Comparative Psychology. eScholarship, University of California. OCLC 1034738815.
- ^ Dewsbury, Donald A. (1984). Comparative psychology in the twentieth century. Stroudsburg, Pa: Hutchinson Ross Pub. Co. ISBN 9780879331085.[page needed]
- ^ de Waal, Frans (2001). The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist. New York: Basic Books. p. 62. ISBN 978-0465041756.
- ^ Steward, Helen (2018-06-21). Morgan’s Canon. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199375967.003.0018.
- ^ Böhnert, Martin; Hilbert, Christopher (2018-9). ""Other minds than ours": a controversial discussion on the limits and possibilities of comparative psychology in the light of C. Lloyd Morgan's work". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 40 (3): 44. doi:10.1007/s40656-018-0211-4. ISSN 0391-9714.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Kimler, William C. (2000-12-01). "Reading Morgan's Canon: Reduction and Unification in the Forging of a Science of the Mind". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 40 (6): 853–861. doi:10.1093/icb/40.6.853. ISSN 1540-7063.
- ^ Starzak, Tobias (2017-5). "Interpretations without justification: a general argument against Morgan's Canon". Synthese. 194 (5): 1681–1701. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1013-4. ISSN 0039-7857.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Fitzpatrick, Simon (2008-4). "Doing Away with Morgan's Canon". Mind & Language. 23 (2): 224–246. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00338.x. ISSN 0268-1064.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Bruni, Domenica; Perconti, Pietro; Plebe, Alessio (2018-11-15). "Anti-anthropomorphism and Its Limits". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 2205. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02205. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 6249301. PMID 30498465.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Ghiselin, Michael T. (1983-09). "Lloyd Morgan's canon in evolutionary context". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 6 (3): 362–363. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00016460. ISSN 0140-525X.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Nolan, Paul M.; Stephen Dobson, F.; Nicolaus, Marion; Karels, Tim J.; McGraw, Kevin J.; Jouventin, Pierre (2010-4). "Mutual Mate Choice for Colorful Traits in King Penguins". Ethology. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01775.x.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b Pincemy, Gwénaëlle; Dobson, F. Stephen; Jouventin, Pierre (2010-10-08). "Homosexual Mating Displays in Penguins". Ethology. 116 (12): 1210–1216. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01835.x. ISSN 0179-1613.
- ^ Weimerskirch, H.; Stahl, J. C.; Jouventin, P. (1992). "The breeding biology and population dynamics of King Penguins Aptenodytes patagonica on the Crozet Islands". Ibis. 134 (2): 107–117. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1992.tb08387.x. ISSN 1474-919X.
- ^ Elwood, Robert W.; Arnott, Gareth (2012-11). "Understanding how animals fight with Lloyd Morgan's canon". Animal Behaviour. 84 (5): 1095–1102. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.035.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c Takeuchi, Tsuyoshi (2017-1). "Agonistic display or courtship behavior? A review of contests over mating opportunity in butterflies". Journal of Ethology. 35 (1): 3–12. doi:10.1007/s10164-016-0487-3. ISSN 0289-0771. PMC 5215026. PMID 28127115.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link) - ^ Gadagkar, Raghavendra (2005-11). "The logic of animal conflict". Resonance. 10 (11): 5–5. doi:10.1007/bf02837640. ISSN 0971-8044.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Peixoto, Paulo E. C.; Muniz, Danilo; Benson, Woodruff W. (2012-01-05). "Do Feeding Resources Induce the Adoption of Resource Defence Polygyny in a Lekking Butterfly?". Ethology. 118 (3): 311–319. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.02015.x. ISSN 0179-1613.
- ^ a b Takeuchi, Tsuyoshi; Imafuku, Michio (2005-09). "Territorial Behavior of a Green Hairstreak Chrysozephyrus smaragdinus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Site Tenacity and Wars of Attrition". Zoological Science. 22 (9): 989–994. doi:10.2108/zsj.22.989. ISSN 0289-0003.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Broom, Donald M. (2010-08). "Cognitive ability and awareness in domestic animals and decisions about obligations to animals". Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 126 (1–2): 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.05.001. ISSN 0168-1591.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Broom, Donald M. (1998), "Welfare, Stress, and the Evolution of Feelings", Advances in the Study of Behavior, Elsevier, pp. 371–403, ISBN 9780120045273, retrieved 2019-10-26
- ^ a b "Exploring the Cognitive World of the Bottlenosed Dolphin", The Cognitive Animal, The MIT Press, 2002, ISBN 9780262268028, retrieved 2019-10-26
- ^ a b c Browne, Derek (2004-9). "Do dolphins know their own minds?". Biology & Philosophy. 19 (4): 633–653. doi:10.1007/sBIPH-004-0928-1. ISSN 0169-3867.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Smith, J. David; Schull, Jonathan; Strote, Jared; McGee, Kelli; Egnor, Roian; Erb, Linda (1995). "The uncertain response in the bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 124 (4): 391–408. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.4.391. ISSN 1939-2222.