Mental illness affects one in five adults each year. Watch the following TED talk about understanding mental illness.

Toward a New Understanding of Mental Illness (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)

Choose one of the following mental illnesses to research. Explain why this illness should not be considered a behavioral disorder. How can describing the illness as a brain disorder aid in treatment?

ADHD
Bipolar
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Addiction
Depression
Anxiety

Please review the three hypotheses for primate evolution in the text and in the video below and discuss if these are mutually exclusive or if there is room for overlap.

The text:

Arboreal Hypothesis

In the 1800s, many anthropologists viewed all animals in relation to humans. That is, animals that were more like humans were considered to be more “advanced” and those lacking humanlike features were considered more “primitive.” This way of thinking was particularly obvious in studies of primates.

Thus, when anthropologists sought features that separate primates from other mammals, they focused on features that were least developed in lemurs and lorises, more developed in monkeys, and most developed in apes (Figure 8.2). Frederic Wood Jones, one of the leading anatomist-anthropologists of the early 1900s, is usually credited with the Arboreal Hypothesis of primate origins (Jones 1916). This hypothesis holds that many of the features of primates evolved to improve locomotion in the trees. For example, the grasping hands and feet of primates are well suited to gripping tree branches of various sizes and our flexible joints are good for reorienting the extremities in many different ways. A mentor of Jones, Grafton Elliot Smith, had suggested that the reduced olfactory system, acute vision, and forward-facing eyes of primates are an adaptation to making accurate leaps and bounds through a complex, three-dimensional canopy (Smith 1912). The forward orientation of the eyes in primates causes the visual fields to overlap, enhancing depth perception, especially at close range. Evidence to support this hypothesis includes the fact that many extant primates are arboreal, and the primitive members of most primate groups are dedicated arborists. The Arboreal Hypothesis was well accepted by most anthropologists at the time and for decades afterward.

Visual Predation Hypothesis

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Matt Cartmill studied and tested the idea that the characteristic features of primates evolved in the context of arboreal locomotion. Cartmill noted that squirrels climb trees (and even vertical walls) very effectively, even though they lack some of the key adaptations of primates. As members of the Order Rodentia, squirrels also lack the hand and foot anatomy of primates. They have claws instead of flattened nails and their eyes face more laterally than those of primates. Cartmill reasoned that there must be some other explanation for the unique traits of primates. He noted that some non-arboreal animals share at least some of these traits with primates; for example, cats and predatory birds have forward-facing eyes that enable visual field overlap. Cartmill suggested that the unique suite of features in primates is an adaptation to detecting insect prey and guiding the hands (or feet) to catch insects (Cartmill 1972). His hypothesis emphasizes the primary role of vision in prey detection and capture; it is explicitly comparative, relying on form function relationships in other mammals and nonmammalian vertebrates. According to Cartmill, many of the key features of primates evolved for preying on insects in this special manner (Cartmill 1974).

Angiosperm-Primate Coevolution Hypothesis

The visual predation hypothesis was unpopular with some anthropologists. One reason for this is that many primates today are not especially predatory. Another is that, whereas primates do seem well adapted to moving around in the smallest, terminal branches of trees, insects are not necessarily easier to find there. A counterargument to the visual predation hypothesis is the angiosperm-primate coevolution hypothesis. Primate ecologist Robert Sussman (Sussman 1991) argued that the few primates that eat mostly insects often catch their prey on the ground rather than in the fine branches of trees. Furthermore, predatory primates often use their ears more than their eyes to detect prey. Finally, most early primate fossils show signs of having been omnivorous rather than insectivorous. Instead, he argued, the earliest primates were probably seeking fruit. Fruit (and flowers) of angiosperms (flowering plants) often develop in the terminal branches. Therefore, any mammal trying to access those fruits must possess anatomical traits that allow them to maintain their hold on thin branches and avoid falling while reaching for the fruits. Primates likely evolved their distinctive visual traits and extremities in the Paleocene (approximately 65 million to 54 million years ago) and Eocene (approximately 54 million to 34 million years ago) epochs, just when angiosperms were going through a revolution of their own—the evolution of large, fleshy fruit that would have been attractive to a small arboreal mammal. Sussman argued that, just as primates were evolving anatomical traits that made them more efficient fruit foragers, angiosperms were also evolving fruit that would be more attractive to primates to promote better seed dispersal. This mutually beneficial relationship between the angiosperms and the primates was termed “coevolution” or more specifically “diffuse coevolution.”

At about the same time, D. Tab Rasmussen noted several parallel traits in primates and the South American woolly opossum, Caluromys. He argued that early primates were probably foraging on both fruits and insects (Rasmussen 1990). As is true of Caluromys today, early primates probably foraged for fruits in the terminal branches of angiosperms, and they probably used their visual sense to aid in catching insects. Insects are also attracted to fruit (and flowers), so these insects represent a convenient opportunity for a primarily fruit-eating primate to gather protein. This solution is, in effect, a compromise between the visual predation hypothesis and the angiosperm-primate coevolution hypothesis. It is worth noting that other models of primate origins have been proposed, and these include the possibility that no single ecological scenario can account for the origin of primates.

The link of the video:

The curator is super-impressed with the work your interns have done and wants you to propose how your specimen can be incorporated into an upcoming exhibit on the evolution of bipedalism called ‘Two is Greater than Four: Why Bipedalism?’

Write about WHY bipedalism may have evolved in hominins. There are a lot of theories about this, exploitation of new environments or predator avoidance – pick ONE theory, citing at least two scholarly sources.

Write a piece arguing for the inclusion of your specimen in the exhibit.

1. Include an introduction on the role of the pelvis and its morphology in bipedal locomotion, Include a section explaining where one would include it in the exhibition and why (this can include a list of accompanying specimens or visual aids or interactive elements to help contextualize your specimen, if necessary), and include a blurb to accompany your specimen in the display case explaining how it relates to the themes of the exhibition.

Taphonomy, which means burial, is the study of the transition of organisms after death from the biosphere to the lithosphere, which means underground. In short, it is the study of the remains of creatures after death to gain information on the processes that transpire after death (S King & Anna Zajicek, 2019). As subdisciplines of biological anthropology, such as bioarchaeology and zooarchaeology, it helps tell the story of the decomposing process of various creatures in the pretense of environment and culture, which can tell us a bit about the history prior to death, including how an organism became a fossil (S King & Anna Zajicek, 2019).

A taphonomic analysis may reveal essential information about the consequence of profound thinking and the ritualistic aspect of human evolution (S King & Anna Zajicek, 2019). For example, Motley (2022) based her dissertation on “The Taphonomy and Ritual Economy of Funerary Bundles on the Pre-Hispanic Central Coast of Peru (1000-1532 CE)”, where she uses methods such as a taphonomic scoring system and multimodal paleo radiography to gather data collection. In Motley, By using an integrated biocultural approach that uses taphonomy, ethnohistoric research, and theoretical discussions of Andean ontology, the results showed deep rituals among the Ychsma that revealed skull removal, delayed burial, differential access to intentional natural mummification, and the inclusion of ritually significant objects in select non-elite burials (2022). Not only is this information an essential part of history, but some of the rituals discussed have also been depicted in our current entertainment, such as tv shows, movies, and books.