Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Function and mechanism in neuroecology: looking for clues

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Animal Biology
For more content, see Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie (Vol 1-17) and Netherlands Journal of Zoology (Vol 18-52).

The four questions that Niko Tinbergen identified for behavioural biology — evolution, function, development and causation — are all important and should be studied in their own right. Recently, there has been a debate as to whether these four questions should be investigated separately or whether they should be integrated. Integration of the four questions has been attempted in novel research disciplines such as cognitive ecology, evolutionary psychology and neuroecology. Euan Macphail and I have criticised these integrative approaches, suggesting that they are fundamentally flawed as they confound function and mechanism. Investigating the function or evolutionary history of a behaviour or cognitive system is important and entirely legitimate. However, such investigations cannot provide us with answers to questions about the mechanisms underlying behaviour or cognition. At most, functional or evolutionary considerations can provide clues that may be useful for a causal analysis of the underlying mechanisms. However, these clues can be misleading and are often wrong, as is illustrated with examples from song learning and food storing in birds. After summarising the main issues in the neuroecology debate, I discuss some misunderstandings that were apparent in the responses to our critique, as well as some recent relevant data. Recent results do not support the neuroecological approach. Finally, I suggest that the way forward is a cautious and critical use of functional and evolutionary clues in the study of the mechanisms of behaviour.

10.1163/157075605774840987
/content/journals/10.1163/157075605774840987
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157075605774840987
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157075605774840987
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157075605774840987
2005-12-01
2016-08-26

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation