Wikipedia: Cannibalism/Talk

Showing revision 9

Many fish have absolutely no problem with cannibalising their young simply because they don't distinguish between them and other smaller fish. That hardly counts as an extreme case. If I recall correctly certain higher fossil vertebrates are also cannibalistic (Coelophysis comes to mind) but I can't remember under what cases, so can't update the above. Anyone know?

I also seriously doubt the claim that cannibalism isn't "normal" in any vertebrate species; I'm not even sure that can be determined in any meaningful way. It clearly can be shown that it exists in many species, even higher mammals. Whether or not it should be considered "normal" is a matter of judgment.

I tried to edit the article with the first paragraph above in mind. I didn't know how to edit the article with the second paragraph in mind--probably, the author of that comment could help. --LMS

For some species, cannibalism under certain well-defined circumstances, such as the female black widow spider eating the male after mating, is a normal part of the life cycle.

You did a good job, but this isn't really true - all the cases of supposedly cannibalism being a normal part of mating, at least, fall through under investigation ([Stephen J. Gould]? did an essay on this). For widows, the female ignores the male as often as not, suggesting that when she does eat him it is because he is a little bug: indistinct voracity rather than instinctive cannibalism. And similar for all the other classic examples. Male mantids, for instance, are only eaten some of the time and try their hardest not to be. This is not especially different from fish eating their young when hungry. I'm not really sure how the above should be tweaked.

It is worth noting that early reports of human cannabilism are somewhat suspect.

Is this widely-agreed upon, or does the paragraph only give one side of what is in fact a controversy? I don't know, which is why I'm asking. --LMS

The first part:- that many early reports of cannabilism were dubious is as far as I know largely agreed upon, although the extent to which this is true is more controversial as you might expect. The second section, relating to Kuru is much more controversial. The statement made though "has been called into question" is of course true. In other words I am noting that differences of opinion exist, rather than supporting one side.

If someone with a greater knowledge of the field wishes to add further detail then I would be happy. Anthropology is something I have an interest in, rather than an active engagement. PL

I wonder how questionable the "Kuru" is currently. I did watch a program filmed recently and shown on public television wherein these New Guinea natives were having conversations with researchers about the importance of consuming part of the departed in order to keep their spirit alive. Then these same tribespeople were shown first roasting and then grinding the long bones of dead relatives, putting them in a soup, and drinking the soup. A later part of the program covered the spread of Kuru in this tribe. How controversial is this, really? Doesn't that seem like rather thorough documentation?

Here, for instance, in the "virtual hospital," http://www.vh.org/Providers/TeachingFiles/CNSInfDisR2/Text/PInf.CDE.html

 this mechanism of transmission is quite taken for granted.

I can vouch for cannibalistic chimpanzees...I saw a video of it once in school--a group of them ambushed and ate another rival group. Pretty horrible to look at, chewing apart other chimps.

BTW, I once read (somewhere, I think a book about AIDS) that in private interviews, new guinea tribesmen would admit that they wouldn't actually *eat* the meat, but just palm it to make it look like they did, because it repulsed them... The story had to do with how some virus was presumed to have been spread, but it couldn't have considering that the theory was based on consumption of infected humans.

...but the whole thing sounds unverifiable one way or the other--I also read a book on a similar subject by some german guy who contended that human sacrifice stories were invariably made up. It was probably the most unconvincing book in the world, claiming that the aztecs only *drew* depcitions of human sacrifices, wrote stories about them, and that the altars were candy bowls or some crap. -AD.