DISTRACTION DISPLAY AND THE HUMAN PREDATOR.
Summary. Evidence concerning the size of human populations and man's mentality in the past shows that human influence on the evolution of distraction display cannot have been appreciable. This is supported by ethological evidence. Threat elements, modified by retreat behaviour, are conspicuous...
| Published in: | Ibis |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
1956
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.1956.tb01454.x https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1474-919X.1956.tb01454.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1956.tb01454.x |
| Summary: | Summary. Evidence concerning the size of human populations and man's mentality in the past shows that human influence on the evolution of distraction display cannot have been appreciable. This is supported by ethological evidence. Threat elements, modified by retreat behaviour, are conspicuous in distraction display. Boldness, not tameness, is involved. Threat display is regarded as consisting mainly of “checked” attack movements. Distraction displays have been perfected through the elimination of inadequate performers by predators other than man. The limited number of relevant predators in high northern latitudes as compared with tropical forest has resulted in more specialized displays by birds breeding in the Arctic. Birds often attack ungulates rather than injury‐simulate to them. This is apparently an adaptation evolved to deter wild herbivores. In its evolution, as well as its performance, distraction display may be due to conflict between defence and retreat motivations. Non‐human predators possess discriminative abilities sufficient to account for the elaboration of distraction displays. |
|---|