Re: Hierarchy In the Forest

OK, there is much that I should read. But by conveying some of the 
substance of Lovejoy's arguments, I hoped to show the difference between 
speculations that are grounded in specific detail and those that are cut 
loose from specifics in a way that allows one to say whatever one's 
political predilictions might incline one to say.

The exchange on bonobos versus chimps is just the sort of speculation I 
was deprecating. It is idle to discuss who we are more closely related to 
without specific evidence. Moreover, all of the differences Lovejoy notes 
with common chimps apply to bonobos as well with the exception of their 
sexuality: with bonobos there is such a prolonged display of estrus that 
sexual receptivity and copulation occur beyond the period of fertility. 
So with bonobos the display is not a reliable sign of fertility. And, as 
a corollary, sex among bonobos is serving social functions beyond 
reproduction, including sexual pleasuring of females by females. They 
also copulate face to face sometimes.

Lovejoy's piece, particularly the version I cited, is short and very well 
argued.On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> Very interesting points, Paul, but you should really read the book...
> 
> Richard
> 
>