Talk:Animal communication

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SophiaR20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The human/animal cognition section needs fixing. I suggest mention of Brian Hare's work on shuman cocial cue reading in primates and dogs [1]. I deleted the human/animal telepathy edit by 86.129.206.167.

The definition of the term "animal communication" (first sentence) is way too broad. The way it currently stands, it would include almost every form of physical interaction between animals - intentional and non-intentional, including parasitism, predation, copulation, etc. 84.52.177.91 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ant scent trails

Mention ant scent trails.Jidanni 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the dolphin name/call paragraph.

Please accept my apologies for not having commented earlier; I meant to do so but forgot. :-) I'll be back later with proper cites, but the short version is that the press stories almost uniformly mis characterized the study, conflating distinct calls for members of the group (which are interesting enough as it is, since to date mostly primates seemed to have had them) with proper names which would be something very notable indeed. The distinction between using a call (vocatively) or a name (referentially) is slightly subtle, but critical as far as cognition goes.

At any rate, the press coverage of the study was universally bungled (as "science" reporting almost unfailingly does). While the study itself is probably interesting and notable enough to mention, the hash popular press made of it isn't. I'll see next week if I can access that study from my university library subscription for proper cites. — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I would suggest that popular press "news" on science topics always be viewed with suspicion as sources for a statement in a scientific article-- my experience is that when the research isn't willfully mischaracterized into nonsense for the sake of a "good story", it's still so distorted that it becomes so wrong one can't even believe the opposite of what's written.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, even better. Strike one for truly open science: the paper is available online! I'll be re-adding the paragraph, now, properly tempered by what it actually says.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There we go. That's a far cry from the press clippings!  :-) It's still very interesting, however, and I can't wait for the results of follow-up research. — Coren ^(talk) 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Section reorganization (almost no textual change)

I've regrouped the sections as follows:

Beforehand, the article plunged into interspecies/intraspecies. Only it covered interspecies first, the actual background on communication being included within intraspecies. A better layout for the article would be:

1. General sections on communication - form, function and interpretation
2. Intra (first as its more developed and studied) then intra-species communication
3. Other aspects (evolution, linguistics, cognitive aspects)

I have made virtually no textual changes other than reorganize the sections as above. The "intraspecies" section now needs enlarging with actual information specific to intraspecies communication, rather than being used as general background on animal communication in general (as it was before). I've tagged it as "sectstub" for this purpose.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Sebeok

Shouldn't this article say something about Thomas Sebeok since he coined the term "Zoosemiotics" and really pioneered animal communication studies?--98percenthuman 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Still not done. Is this important? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much gulls

The forms of comunication lacks information of body part, which is the most important, and describes too much about the Herring Gull, which I think it's not good as body language description since it seems to be way too complex and is a reaction due to colours, not fully body language. Position of cats' ears and tail seems to be a better example to body language explanation. (I have some source if needed) Or I'll edit it later... (CyberTigerrr (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I think there's so much about the herring gull because of it's historic role in the study of animal communication. Nikolaas Tinbergen's research on communication in gulls is mentioned in the Nobel Prize press release. I know of no research of anything like a similar impact conducted on cats. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to agree with CyberTigerrr here; while the scientific relevance of the gulls is indisputable, as an introductory/summary text a bit more prose relating to animals more familiar to the readers would probably also be a good thing. There are good bits in Dog communication, for instance, that could stand a bit of summarizing and would be good in this article. — Coren ^(talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Something's missing(?)

I don't know if I'm too far forward, but what I sense may be missing in the article are:

1. the structure of warning calls: threat-type / direction,
2. the same structure of collective food calls and food communication: honey-bee direction / distance / amount,
3. the imitation gesture behaviors of primates, and the sound imitations of singing birds, purposes and connection to idea communication,

What's hinted in the article is metacommunication, the ability to surpress, feign and otherwise willedly control the communication by "tactical" reasoning, but it should be stressed more in order to make connexions toward human language. Said: Rursus ☻ 06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Rursus!! That info is already there, you just should read before opinionating! Said: Rursus ☻ 06:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.40.118.201 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is horribly written and structured. Also, it does not contain many facts, just interpretation... two thumbs down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ZOOSEMITICS??? What is that, a slur? Change it to zoosemiotics, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.75.111 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for restructure

In the Animal language discussion a user suggested we restructure these two pages and I wanted to post my suggestions how how that might happen here, as well as over there.

Taking from Marnat27s suggestion on the moving of the animal communication section to animal language brings up the question of what should go in animal language and what should go into animal communication? After much thought about this I suggest that if we take Derek Bickertons argument to heart and accept his definition that, "Animal communication is innate, language has to be learned" (p.217 Bickerton Adams tongue) speaking to the difference between communication and language we can clearly separate the two and more easily delegate what information belongs in each section

If we accept that the difference between communication and language is that one must be taught and the other is natural then we can section off the animal communication page to be dedicated entirely to list the different established animal communication systems that would logically seem innate Bird calls, bee dances, ant pheromone trails ect. While it’s quite difficult to determine what part of the communication animals do is learned and which is innate but we’ll have to use our best judgment and base our findings on research done in the field. We can also keep the breakdown of intraspecies and interspecies communication along with the different forms, physical, pheromone, dance, ect.

While the Animal language section can be dedicated to the modeling of human language systems with the established ACSs, discussing how these systems have been studied to relation to aspects of our own language, bee dance showing signs of displacement, apes like koko using arbitrariness in her signs by using words that sound like or rhyme to mean other things. Sections for taught language should also be here, not only humans teaching apes sign but also taught things that occur in nature. Perhaps we could also speak to the difference between language and communication here, rather than the communication page.

Odd statement

This is weird (as well as being structurally flawed as a sentence):

"Other than a few natural expressions animals (especially dogs) use to communicate to humans, scientists in general do not pursue expanding the expressive/productive communication of domesticated animals. Horses are taught to not communicate (for safety)."

Surely any possibility of expansion of communication with animals is of paramount interest to scientists working in this field. Why on earth would they choose not to pursue any avenue? The horse thing is weird too... 109.153.234.112 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the definition of Animal Communication correct?

I was just about to start writing a section on communication by visual means, e.g. colour changes caused by physiological cycles to indicate reproductive status, when I realised this is not strictly a behaviour, and therefore is not covered by the opening sentence (definition) of this article. I propose that the opening sentence should be changed to

Animal communication is any transfer of information on the part of one animal that has an effect on the current or future behaviour of another animal.

This would also be more consistent with the definition given in the Communication article - "Communication (from Latin "communis", meaning to share) is the activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior." __DrChrissy (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good change! Lova Falk talk 15:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be bold and make the edit__DrChrissy (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviving this thread... The current definition in the lede is too broad with regard to the nature of communication: "Animal communication is the transfer of information from one or a group of animals (sender or senders) to one or more other animals (receiver or receivers) that affects the current or future behavior of the receivers." This varies little from the term "sensing" and is virtually synonymous with "perception." Communication involves meaning, signs, symbols or, purposeful (not necessarily intentional) behaviour of the sender. Perception by a predator animal of incidental emissions falls short. If a predator intercepts a communication of a prey animal, that's still communication, however, if the predator merely senses or perceives incidental reflections of light emissions from an animal that is not communicating, that's not communication. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:43, 4 July 2018‎ (UTC)

Fear / Edit request

The question came up in Talk:Fear: Do "animals and humans emit some particular chemical when frightened, and then other ones of the same type can detect it and smell it"? I checked this page to see if anything was written about it, but it isn't. Now I don't know the first thing about this, if there is some truth in it or if it is a myth. But maybe one of you knows? In that case, could you add some text about it? Lova Falk talk 08:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have always believed that stinging insects such as bees and wasps can smell 'fear' in humans and are attracted to this, however, I have not looked into the literature to see if this can be verified. Dogs can be trained to detect cancer in humans by smelling, so they are extremely sensitive to smells emitted by us. The fight-or-flight response involves the release of adrenaline in mammals, I guess it is possible this may be emitted as a smell, perhaps detectable by other species. Research on animals being killed in slaughter plants has failed to confirm that animals can "smell fear". This aspect of pheromones would be an interesting addition to the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Other aspects - Evolution ... 'Runaway Selection'

The last paragraph of this section is misleading, confused, inaccurate, and poorly written (in contrast to the rest of the section, as far as I can tell). It does a poor job of introducing and distinguishing ideas ("runaway selection," "good genes," and "handicap" hypotheses of sexual selection) that are much better explained in other Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, this paragraph should be entirely deleted. I've provided suggestions for links to (better) Wikipedia articles that readers could be redirected to, instead.

"Runaway selection" in this context refers to the development of a linkage disequilibrium between sender and receiver traits (e.g., male and female). The positive feedback loop that results in the "runaway" evolution of traits is the self-reinforcing association between female preference and male trait: female preference for exaggerated male traits will select for exaggerated male traits, but it will also select for continued female preference for exaggerated traits because a female's fitness depends in part of having sons that other females will find attractive (as well as daughters that will have grandsons that other females find attractive). The muddled explanation offered by the current paragraph ("Exploiting the psychology of the female, a positive feedback loop is enacted and the tail becomes bigger and brighter") in no way explains what runaway selection is, or how it works. Suggested alternate Wikipedia article link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

"Good genes" and "handicap"-type sexual selection mechanisms are expected to eventually lead to linkage disequilibrium-based "runaway selection", but are neither necessary, nor sufficient factors. In theory, "runaway selection" can act upon a male trait that offers no genetic or honest indicator-type benefits to a female. Furthermore, other sources of selection for male-female coevolution (for example, sexual conflict selecting for coevolution of male persistence and female resistance), or any sort of assortative mating between males and females are also expected to lead to linkage disequilibrium and "runaway selection." Suggested alternate Wikipedia article link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis

The "good genes" and "handicap" hypotheses of sexual selection are closely related, and definitely not mutually exclusive (I would argue that the "handicap" hypothesis is actually a very subtle subcategory of "good genes"-type hypotheses). The way in which the current article pits these two hypotheses against one another is, again, misleading. The article explains that, under the "handicap" hypothesis, "the individual is able to survive, even though its genes are not as good per se." In fact, the "handicap" hypothesis states that the male's overall genetic quality is very good, so good that he is able to survive, mate, etc... despite the "handicap." That is what makes the "handicap" an honest display. Both the "good genes" and the "handicap" hypotheses postulate that male signals are honest signals of genetic quality. The article continues to confuse things by attributing these two characteristics only to the "good genes" hypothesis. Suggested alternate Wikipedia article link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Handicap_principle

Finally, because this is an article on a science topic, I take issue with the incorrect use of "theory" in this paragraph where "hypothesis" would be a much more appropriate term.

I won't even get started on the poor grammar.

174.6.89.149 (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hear, here. But thanks for all the work herein. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing in good faith

My intentions are not to be contentious. I edit for clarity and brevity and thought I could correct some run-on sentences and confusing grammar. Are you suggesting that I need to run my edits past this talk page before I make them? Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You say your intentions are not to be contentious, yet your actions are clearly designed to be otherwise. You are going to a number of high level articles, some long established, and changing key definitions in the lead without seeking consensus on the talk page. Now it may be you are a foremost world authority in all these areas, and feel you are entitled to behave that way. But in general, the edits you have made suggest that you have little familiarity with the fields you edit so confidently. As has been mentioned to you before, there is a big difference between edits that improve clarity and brevity, and edits that remove important nuance. You need to have some background in a topic area to know if you are removing nuance. Your edits on this particular article so far may not been particularly problematic, since this article needs more work. But they have certainly been problematic on other articles. So far, as far as I am aware, when challenged you have stopped nowhere to discuss in a collegial way what you are doing. You just move imperiously on, creating new problems and suggesting that people who care about these articles and try and divert you have ownership problems. Yes, I would agree that, unless you are absolutely clear you are merely breaking up long sentences and clarifying confusing grammar, you run your edits past the talk page. Particularly if you are editing the lead. And most particularly if you are editing the very first sentence in a substantial and long-established article on which you have had no previous input. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Readability test results

I analyzed the readability of the first two paragraphs of the article. The article is overly complicated and difficult to read according to multiple readability tests:

It is found here:

This online software tool calculates readability : Coleman Liau index, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, ARI (Automated Readability Index), SMOG. The measure of readability used here is the indication of number of years of education that a person needs to be able to understand the text easily on the first reading. This tool is made primarily for English texts but might work also for some other languages. In general, these tests penalize writers for polysyllabic words and long, complex sentences. Your writing will score better when you: use simpler diction, write short sentences.

It also displays complicated sentences (with many words and syllables) with suggestions for what you might do to improve its readability.

• Number of characters (without spaces) 1,319.00
• Number of words 261.00
• Number of sentences 16.00
• Average number of characters per word 5.05
• Average number of syllables per word 1.83
• Average number of words per sentence 16.31
• Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading - Gunning Fog index 16.18

• Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text - Coleman Liau index 12.13
• Flesch Kincaid Grade level - 12.38
• ARI (Automated Readability Index) - 10.53
• SMOG - 14.54

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IR communication

An editor has recently removed the section on infra red (IR) communication. I do not see a difference between animals hunting prey using sight, sound or another "mainstream" sense, and snakes using IR to hunt mice. It still fits our definition of "communication". I believe it should remain in the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we should look up what sources are saying. None of the provided sources (Kardong & Mackessy 1991, Krochmal et al. 2004, Pough et al. 1992 and Gracheva et al. 2010) uses the term "communication". Instead they are using terms such as "detection" or "sensing". --22merlin (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, 22merlin. You do not have the consensus you seem to be claiming. The section is in line with the definition used in the lead to the article. If you want to dispute the matter further then you need to dispute that definition, and see if you can provide a more plausible alternative definition supported with appropriate reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308094334/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/two-faced-fish-tricks-competitor.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/two-faced-fish-tricks-competitor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

British or US-English?

This article has become a mixture of British and US-English. I think we need consistency. I seem to remember reading somewhere that if the version to be used is unclear, we should use the version of the original article. The original article is British-English. Rather than making sweeping changes which might be seen as aggressive editing, I thought I would come here first to try and get consensus. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't need consensus. The original version of the article was clearly in British English. That's an excellent lead image, btw. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that I will go ahead and make the changes. Thanks also for the comment on the lead image - I really enjoyed finding that rather than the standard peacock type image. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been four years and the article remains about half US English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.251.193.182 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a short article about eye pinning in parrots

Take a look a eye pinning. It's a form of nonverbal communication that parrots use. Would this be suitable for inclusion in this article somewhere? --Iloveparrots (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TobyBryant13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sibusiso Mahlangu, BRICHH1, Batuolana.

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ucblueashmorgan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ucblueashmorgan (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Which details are irrelevant?

@WeirdNAnnoyed: Does this article have too much detail about evolution or the theory of communication?

If these details aren't relevant, which topics should the article cover instead? Jarble (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the details are relevant, but there's just too much. For example, in the "Modes/Thermal" section, the second and third paragraphs could be condensed into two individual sentences with no loss of significance. The entire "Interpretation of animal behaviour" section is superfluous (and unsourced). Under "Interspecific communication/Prey to predator", the second and third paragraphs are walls of text with far too much detail; again, these could be condensed to one or two sentences each. The "Other aspects" section is a mess of lightly-sourced examples that borders on WP:OR. Once again, a handful of example cases could be selected and that would make for a far more readable and relatable article. I'm busy with other concerns at the moment, but in a few weeks I would be happy to help out with any revisions you or other editors would be willing to make. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)