Month: September 2022

WISHFUL THINKING. “Copernicus...brought the sun to a standstill and launched the Earth into the skies -- heliocentrism replaces geocentrism.” https://lnkd.in/deri8XN View in LinkedIn

Amarilis at its best. View in LinkedIn

FRAGMENT FROM NATURE continues from last weekend and concludes this weekend on the theme of the human face. This delightful article combines morphology, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology in this multidisciplinary enquiry into the human face. Seeing the familiar anew is always a challenge, but the rewards are manifold. That is a gift of reading from different disciplines by very bright authors, the core of a curated Natural Sciences journal club. Enjoy! View in LinkedIn

SOCIAL STRUCTURING. “Visual communication among conspecifics within Primates is part of maintaining social groups, social bonds, reproduction, and many aspects of daily life, especially so among the diurnal species. Primates generate visual communication signals in the face and these signals include skin coloration/patterning and facial expressions/displays.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn

TRIBAL MAKEUP. “Skin coloration and patterning make up the ‘external morphology’ of the face. External morphology provides cues on identity, both at the species and individual levels, and is important in assigning identity for recognition of kin, individuals, and mate recognition.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn

FACIAL MECHANICS. “Internal facial morphology consists of the mimetic musculature and its motor supply, branches of the facial nerve. Mimetic musculature is responsible for generating facial displays or facial expressions. These displays assist in regulating and maintaining social bonds and the social group by cueing conspecifics to the emotional and behavioral intentions of the sender.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn

ROOTS OF MODERN THINKING. “Much of our previous understanding of mimetic musculature and its evolution in primates was rooted solely in phylogeny. Huber (1931) held that facial expression musculature was the simplest and least complex in prosimians (complexity here referring to number of individual muscles, relative sizes, interconnections, and attachment sites).” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn

TRADITIONAL MODEL. “Under this ‘phylogenetic’ model, complexity of mimetic muscle morphology increased in a simple linear, step-wise fashion up the phylogenetic scale until humans, where the ultimate in complexity was achieved. This view has traditionally also been applied to facial display repertoire, with the most simple, undifferentiated displays being rooted in the prosimians, ever increasing in a step-wise, linear fashion up to humans, where the most complex, subtle, and graded displays are found.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn

NEW THINKING. “This ‘phylogenetic model’ of morphology has recently been challenged. Work in wide phylogenetic, ecological, and social environment ranges of primates (and some non-primate mammals) has shown that social environment variables play a considerable role in the adaptive morphology of mimetic musculature.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn

SOCIAL NOT PHYLOGENETIC. “Neurobiological evidence also indicates that there are considerable socioecological variables involved in the evolution of facial displays among primate species. species that live in large, complex social groups had more facial nerve neurons than species that live in small social groups, indicating more potential control over mimetic musculature.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.12440/full View in LinkedIn