Re: Gorrillas use tools, too


Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > Jois wrote:
> >
> >>"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>news:1129859237.617015.48910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>>Rich Travsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> >>>>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>>The claim is not that apes are most often seen to be bipedal when
> >>>they're in water, but that when they are in particular shallow depths
> >>>of water they're almost certain to be bipedal. See the difference?
> >>>It's a subtle point but, I think, it's very important. On land apes are
> >>>rarely bipedal. Studies have shown this to be around 2-3% of the time.
> >>>In tress, the same. But in water, the only study that has been done
> >>>(mine, albeit a small one on captive bonobos) showed it to be around
> >>>90%.
> >>
> >>You're referring to the 0.425 seconds you observed bonobos in that
> >>unpublished report done in your back yard with the lawn hose?
> >
> >
> > 37 seconds actually. Only out by a factor of 87, Jois. As a percentage
> > of observation time, it compares favourably with Hunt's 1997 study of
> > bipedalism in the wild. And as I keep repeating, but you guys keep
> > ignoring of course, students who had observed them there for months
> > told me that this was very typical behaviour.
> > It was published actually. In Nutrition & Health (2002 16:267-289).
> > Oops, wrong there too.
> > It was actually at the bonobo enclosure at Planckendael, near Brussels.
> > The largest captive group of P paniscus in the world. ***. Wrong
> > again.
> >
> > If I'd have made errors as gross as that, even in jest, you-know-who
> > Professor Pedantic would have been down my neck lecturing about how
> > poor my research methods were. But it's ok, as long as you're an
> > aquascpetic. Then, you kind write any old rubbish and it passes without
> > comment.
> >
> > Algis Kuliukas
> >
>
> Is Nutrition & Health professionally published or is it something run
> off on a mimeograph in someone's basement? Does the publisher have a
> website? A e-mail address? A mailing address? Did they charge you by the
> page or the word? Inquiring minds want to know.

It is an actual journal. It isn't widely circulated and it doesn't
appear in several research engines. You can find some articles in the
journal on Medline, but not in Science Citations. I do not know what
their review process is (peer review? a lesser editorial review?) but
it is not a journal widely read by an appropriate readership in
anthropology. The quality of the content I've seen leads only to the
conclusion that their review process is lacking.

.

Quantcast