Animals and Evolution Books

One thing I admire about Jared Diamond is his ability (like Carl Sagan) to take complex issues and scientific concepts then molding them into comprehensive bites that the average reader can swallow. The Third Chimpanzee a book that Diamond had published in 1992 has come back into print because of the success of Collapse and Germs, Guns & Steel which is terrific since it tackles a very different series of subjects from the ability of animals to communicate with each other, natural selection and why homosapiens managed to come out on the top of the heap, how/why we find certain people attractive and select our mates to whether or not aliens are listening for our radio signals (and why we might be in big trouble because we gave them our address IF they were listening).

All of this falls under the general theme of the book which focuses on the nature and future of humanity. Diamond has a breezy, enjoyable style that most readers will find inviting and that makes the more complex scientific ideas that much easier to swallow (whether it be how scientist calculate how often we go through evolutionary change or which theory about why men have bigger...you know what than our nearest relatives).

Diamond's book is over 15 years old so things have changed a bit since he first wrote it although interestingly the very things that he suggested could happen do appear to be coming true in many cases so he's added a post script discussing some of these new ideas, etc. that weren't available when the book was written.

As with Diamond's other books he is very upfront about his thoughtful opinions on the subject he focuses on. Whether or not you enjoy the book will probably depend on whether or not you like to have your preconceptions challenged, you agree with him or both.

I thought this book made many interesting and intellectual connections between human nature and the evolution of primates. The author does an excellent job of substantiating his hypthesis with scientific and established facts. His predictions for the future of humans are logically explained.

That being said, some topics are over explained and repetitious.

Overall I think this book is very much worth reading.

I took away the following:

1. Humans are descended from animals. Diamond shows that the things we think distinguish humans from animals - art, language, lifecyle (long child rearing period, menopause, long lives) - have strong roots in our biological history. There is a TON of fascinating detail covering a wide range of topics, and is essentially an articulate reinforcement of the latest science showing the truth behind Darwin's theories.

2. Language is the key to rise of humanity. It's obvious, though, that humans are somehow unique, and the book postulates that language is the key. If humans are 98% the same genetically as chimpanzees, what small thing could make the huge evolutionary difference? The voice box and ability to form languages allow humans to cooperate, form more complex social organizations, and advance knowledge from one generation to the next. Language is the foundation of innovation, which has been essential to our rise. As someone who enjoys languages and can speak a few, I really liked this idea.

3. All humans are equal. Differences among humans in Africa, Europe, Middle East, Asia, the Artic, and so on are not based on genetic selection but rather sexual selection. I've read Stanford research that tracks maternal genes through the millenia and shows that humans spread from Africa to all corners of the world. Diamond postulates that the reason people look different is perhaps due to genetic adaptations to local environments (fairer skin in colder climates, etc), but more likely due to random changes reinforced by our predilection for choosing mates who look most like our own families. My favorite detail: people are more likely to choose mates with similar index finger length (0.6 correlation coefficient) than economic background (only 0.2).

4. Random distribution of geographic resources makes some cultures and societies more successful. From #3, Diamond goes on to say that the reason European culture has come to be pre-eminent in today's world is not because of genetic superiority. Rather, it is simply due to the fact that Europe (and its culture progenitors Greece and Rome) happened to be lucky enough to have the best natural resources. If you've played Risk, Civilization or World of Warcraft, this is pretty obvious. You want to found your cities or capture the areas where there are the most resources that allow you to build the biggest and most advanced armies (Diamond expanded this theory in his more famous book Germs, Guns and Steel, which I haven't read yet). But, I don't know. Though this theory is interesting and powerful, it sparked the biggest reaction in me. I found it somehow...Marxist, stating that all human history can be reduced to economic drivers. While I know resource advantages are helpful to some degree, my humanist side rejects this as the primary driver of history. Where is the role of the individual, of the struggle to grow and learn? Could it really be that Western culture produced Plato, Newton and Churchill simply because it happened to have plentiful deer, while other places didn't? Do I go to work everyday, invest time into my children and bust my tail without a single ounce of impact on the fate of my culture? Of course not, so though Diamond postulates this as a strong theory it gives only a partial explanation of history.

5. The end is near: beware of nuclear weapons and environmental catastrophy. In this area Diamond seemed to leave the field of science and enter that of personal political view. Most of the book felt deeply analytical and data driven, the last sections felt light on science in comparison. That said, I don't disagree with the point. It's just hard to accept when his argument for protecting endangered species is "you never know which one matters."

Overall, an enjoyable and thought-provoking read.

The only way to describe this book is 'excellent.' Starting with our evolutionary origins, Jared Diamond examines possible reasons for many uniquely human (or so you'd think) behaviors and oddities, ranging from art to relative penis size (after reading this book you will be able to say that you're better hung than a gorilla). Next, Diamond turns his focus to some of the nastier behaviors of human societies - genocide, racism, etc - and explores what recent findings mean to us as a species. Finally, in the last few chapters, Diamond goes on a conservation crusade, convincingly arguing the case for working toward a sustainable future. Read it - it will change the way you think of yourself and others in relation to the world.

Hey, my review is going to be broken down in to four sections, the introduction, the information that you can retain from this book, the interest level of this book, and the age group I recommend this to. This book (The Third Chimpanzee) talks about how us humans are what we are today and what came in the process of it. This is an interesting topic to speak about because it is a surprise to know what we came from and how our great ancestors chose the "right" mates for them, which eventually created us in the end.
I will be talking about a few of the subjects Jared Diamond covers in his book, the evolution of human sexuality is a very important subject, you will learn about how your ancestors chose their mates and what made them do it. You will learn about male jealousy over a female and the evolution of extra-marital sex. The chapter on how we pick our mates and sex partners will make you want to read even more, Diamond talks about the scientific studies about this subject and how we subconsciously become turned on by different characteristics in a male or female without even realizing it, as example the temperature of their hands or as funny as it sounds the way they give you a hug may allow you to make a subconscious decision for mating. The information you retain from this book is amazing, if you are looking to find as much information as possible about human evolution, this book is for you. Now, how interesting this book is to me, I do not know, even though this books hold a lifetime worth of information, there is also a lot of ranting and raving, so many people might become very bored with this type of writing. This book is just a very hard read, to get into it you MUST give it your full attention or else you wont really learn anything about. I found part three to be one of the most interesting subjects because it spoke about the origins of art and how some societies elaborated on it and how some did not. The reason this book is a crucial read is because Jared Diamond does not just question the reader he also provides them with answers that have been long awaited. I recommend this book to a 16+ age group, not necessarily because younger children could not understand the book, but it is long and tiresome and certain points, so they may lose interest. This book is excellent for any information seekers, that are looking for theories and scientific studies to back a book or essay they are writing about, yet I would not really recommend this to someone who just wants to read for fun. Jared Diamond also covers an interesting topic which might spark an interest in high school readers which talks about why people smoke, drink and use dangerous drugs. This book is full of fun and interesting information so you kids who are in high school or you students who are in college, I recommend you read this for it will benefit you in the future.

Some other customer reviewers treat this book as if it was a horror novel by Stephen King, and both the title and the back matter certainly gives that impression. "Imagine a world where the parasites control the minds of their hosts, sending them to their destruction...where parasites steer the course of evolution, where the majority of species are parasites. WELCOME TO EARTH".

In reality, Carl Zimmer's "Parasite Rex" is a perfectly serious, popular science book about parasites and their impact on evolution. But yes, the book *is* scary on a philosophical level. Zimmer, and presumably the scientists he interviewed, actually do believe that the majority of species are parasites, and that parasites might be the driving force of evolution. Apparently, this hasn't always been the scientific consensus. For a long time, parasites were seen as degenerate organisms, organisms that had "devolved" rather than evolved. This was connected to a misinterpretation of Darwinism as "progressive" evolution. Since parasites didn't seem "progressive", they were considered evolutionary dead-ends. Sometimes, the political analogies were pretty transparent: parasites were a metaphor for human welfare cheats (and welfare states).

Today, scientists know that parasites aren't "degenerate". Quite the contrary. They are perfectly well adapted to their respective environments, and their life-cycles and behaviour are incredibly complex, which implies that they have been evolving for a very long time. "Parasite Rex" takes this reasoning one step further, arguing that co-evolution between parasites and their hosts have been a prime feature of all evolution, and that the parasites are the most dynamic part of that process. In effect, the course of evolution, perhaps even human evolution, is steered by...the parasites. They are the movers and shakers of planet Earth.

Zimmer also believes that many natural scientists haven't faced the implications of this yet. Many studies of population dynamics and animal behaviour are made without taking into consideration that parasites might affect the populations, and even their behaviour, in dramatic ways. Zimmer wants biologists to place parasitology, and parasite-host interaction, centre stage.

But the most disturbing aspect of the book is, of course, philosophical.

If evolution is a blind process steered by parasites, where on earth does that leave us?

It's a fallen world, after all.

I read the 2001 paperback of the 2000 book. It is very well written, which can't be said about all books on the topic. It is clear, at times funny, macabre, eye-opening, repulsive due to topic, fascinating and thought provoking.

Parasites outnumber other forms of life 4:1, are much more ubiquitous than commonly thought, have been essential for evolution and have directly influenced human DNA. (Not even considering mitochondria getting integrated in most forms of life.) Parasites make it necessary to revise the tree of life into a bush of many merging branches. Human cells within the average human are outnumbered by a factor of ten by non-human cells. Getting knowledgable about parasites is much more important a topic than the obvious peculiar yuk effect. Though I promise you that this book will fulfill the latter to the fullest as well.

I thought I knew a bit about parasites. For example those wasps which lay eggs in other invertebrates. To begin with, I didn't know that there were some 200,000 parasitic wasp species out there. I had also no idea, how EXACTLY some of them work. Like the species, whose two eggs, one female, one male, subdivide in the host, to produce ever more eggs, with the females developing into different classes of maggots, such as the soldier maggots whose only job it is to kill other parasitic wasps' maggots in the host - and all but one of the male siblings. Or that the social parasite, the cuckoo baby is able to mimic the sound of a CHOIR of eight singing host bird babies and the sign stimulus of as many youngsters in the nest to the parents' eyes. (Though the book doesn't mention that some birds cannot be fooled anyway and depose of the cuckoo (egg) and also doesn't mention that the near-by cuckoo parents may retaliate by killing all the hosts' surviving kids...) Or that there is something like plant bacteria, not as in bacteria of plants, but as in green bacteria. Being an essential part (originally parasite) of the parasite named "bad-air" aka malaria.

The book answers even the nagging question, wether there are homosexual parasites. (I wondered that ever since I read Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions) about mammals and birds.) The flukes mentioned here are the first parasites I encountered (as in READING about them), which act homosexual in a benign way. To each other that is. (Other parasites - not mentioned in this book - may act homosexual in very twisted ways to procreate to the detriment of same-sex competitors.) Thinking about it: Shouldn't homosexual parasites of the former kind be our favorite parasites, if there is such a thing, because presumably they do NOT procreate, as in: in us? The book sure doesn't answer the question wether there are homosexual solidarity activists like there are for maltreated homosexual zoo animals.

Talking about questions I never knew existed: The book is full of them. Sticking with the homosexual topic, there's a fungus, which TURNS flies into necrophiliac homosexuals. As much as another parasite doesn't only fool crabs into believing that their attached parasite babies are crab babies to care for, but fooling male crabs to believe they themselves are females all of the sudden in order to (be able to) do that to begin with. If you ever sought a flabbergasting book, this will be it. Some animals have a bodyguard class against parasites (ants), others employ blind snakes as maids to free the nest of parasites (owls). And how much DNA itself can get parasitic in various ways sure wasn't on my radar of existing topics.

The book talks about allergies caused by the modern lack of parasites, complete fusions of life, the parasitic origin of sexuality, and that humans may be considered as parasites in the gaia concept. As stupid parasites that is, which are those defined who kill their host. Some readers may be a little lost with this spirituality capping ending of the book. As a Rasta, personally, I am not. As such, I was surprised to find welcome information on the spread of parasites through colonialism. Not only via the conquerors' imported bugs and slavery's transmission, but via relocating cattle within Africa. And via forcing the indiginous populations to live and work in areas unsuited for humans and/or their cattle. All of that having caused most severe and lethal epidemics. The Western apologetic lore has it that their colonial doctors brought healing power to their conquered new lands. (The book doesn't mention that some vaccines were necessary, because the diseases had been imported in the first place and that some FORCED cattle vaccinations occasionally caused more deaths in livestock than the diseases themselves, sometimes intended, sometimes not.) In today's shifted colonial world, the book warns (indirectly) against huge dams, which dramatically expand standing water, which in turn dramatically expands the habitat of dangerous to human parasite carrying snails. In case you are wondering how dams are colonial, please read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. I find it also interesting to read that Konrad Lorenz didn't change his views of parasitism in the Nazi sort of way at all - even not a few days before his death in 1989. As celebrated as he gets in Western school books, it is usually not known (and not elaborated in this book) that he fully embraced the Nazi party and became an eager member immediately after Hitler marched into Austria. On a more enlightening subject around parasites, I didn't consider before I read this book that human (pre-)history can be reconstructed via tapeworms.

I have a little bit of criticism. Some things are sketchily mentioned only. There is a parasite which eats the flesh of the human face. Ok, horrid. But if I think about it after the initial impulse to turn the page immediately: How exactly do I have to imagine that? What consequences does this have? How is that livable? No answers in this book. The captions of the FEW black and white pictures on 16 pages in the middle of the book are sometimes not that precise. With that parasite, which replaces a fish's tongue, the caption is all we will ever read in this book about that parasite. How does it eat the tongue, i.e. getting into the mouth? How does the parasite help the fish grabbing food? How does the parasite mate? Does it cause infected fish to french kiss or what? If I want to research that, I would have appreciated the parasite's name. Or the name of the host. The caption only says a crustacean in a fish. Wow, that's precise! I don't even know, where on this planet I should look into a fish's mouth before eating it. Well, I was able to find some answers elsewhere nevertheless: The parasite is called Cymothoa exigua, lives in California and only in the mouths of Lutjanus guttatus aka spotted rose snapper. The parasite crawls under the tongue and severes its blood supply in a vampiric manner, causing the tongue to wither away to be replaced by the growing tongue with eyes. I still don't know how it procreates, so anybody who does know, please leave a comment with source. Five years after the book had been written, the first fish with second tongue was found in EU waters (in the UK). The book may not be that incredibly up to date, with some issues still pending when written. For example on the eradication of some parasites. As of 2008 some more countries could be added to the list of eradicated guinea worms, but with other countries still lacking behind.

The Hamilton-Zuk theory got its own book by Marlene Zuk herself: Riddled with Life: Friendly Worms, Ladybug Sex, and the Parasites That Make Us Who We Are, itself a great book about parasites, with little overlap. And if, it goes more in-depth, like with the fungus which attacks insects. If you like a coffee table book of the nasty treat, in which you can also read, which (utterly unexpected!) places in your household are the most yukky ones, "enjoy" the Canadian Human Wildlife: The Life That Lives on Us. If you are interested in more symbiotic body roomies, largely restricted to bacteria and in a systematic text book presentation, read the rather dry Microbial Inhabitants of Humans: Their Ecology and Role in Health and Disease. Much more grippingly written is Good Germs, Bad Germs: Health and Survival in a Bacterial World by a science journalist. Which is also about the history if antibiotic treatments and their failure due to mounting resistance. About former parasites, today our energy source and DNA family tree provider, mitochondria, read Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life. A more general biological approach of symbiosis is Liaisons of Life: From Hornworts to Hippos--How the Unassuming Microbe has Driven Evolution. A theoretic re-thinking, including reconstructing taxonomy and theories about gaia, read Symbiotic Planet: A New Look At Evolution.

I bought this book quite a long time ago and forgot to review it until now...I am a parasitologist and this is one of my favorites. Zimmer is funny and engaging and scientifically accurate--I HAVE GOT TO READ THIS AGAIN SOON.

"Parasite Rex" is great science writing. For readers familiar with evolutionary and ecological theories, they will meet these theories in a new guise. For readers not familiar, Zimmer has a talent for explaining complex ideas in a very simple fashion. In only one case did I detect a minor oversimplification: there is more to generating novel antibodies than shuffling genes. My only complaint about style is that Zimmer sometimes tries to make the reader horrified at what parasite does to prey, and when the prey is a lower order animal like a caterpillar, I am doubtful that having its insides eaten is as horrible as it sounds. I say this as a person who only eats free range meat. As regards content, fewer case histories of individual parasites would suffice to illustrate the ideas, and for me at least, make for an even more interesting book.

I was very surprised to learn of the strong environmental component to such autoimmune diseases as Crohn's: while once thought to be characteristic of a few ethnic groups, e.g. Jewish, it has become much more common in other groups as sanitation has improved, and the immune system has fewer parasites to fight off. Zimmer suggests parasites play a critical role in ecological balance, and points to some compelling case histories. Parasites are often able to control behavior of their hosts, and thus are a potentially important source of new behavioral drugs.

Another excellently-written work from Carl Zimmer. This book will give you a bad case of the creepy-crawlies in parts. It will also completely change your outlook on the nature of life, because you will learn that parasites are not really the gross, "devolved" hangers-on that most think of them as, but rather a vibrant, important part of the web of life...

... that is sometimes really disgusting.

Still, an outstanding book, one that give parasitology a much-improved face. Written in Zimmer's usual clear, very readable style.

This is a great book that should be read. Morris is a very intelligent guy, and a very good writer, and you'll be able to polish this book off with no trouble.

One caveat is that the book is over forty-one years old, and so some of the conclusions/assertions/asseverations may be obsolete (and many more "politically incorrect")...but most, I'd imagine, still hold true. Evolution tends to take a while...one need look no further than the nearest mirror. Morris makes some dated predictions, and overreaches on a few, but nothing on a Paul Ehrlich-level of hyperbolic nonsense.

Many clever insights are provided throughout the book, shining an etiological bulb on numerous aspects of naked ape culture and behavior. Morris's articulated reasoning for the invention and continuation of religion in an allegedly rationalistic age was novel to me (though intuitively obvious--after the fact!), and his explication of how some traits have developed out of conjunction with our evolutionary time-frame (while anachronistic others remain sticky long after they've ceased being useful) is truly food for thought.

I recommend The Naked Ape highly, with the proviso, alluded to earlier, that certain folks holding certain orthodoxies probably won't find their cherished faiths reinforced, and thus will react with hostility. Such folks would include: fags, feminists, religious whack-jobs, et al. This book caters to a dispassionate, non-political, scientific outlook...so dudes who like to pretend their ani are vaginas, and gals who like to believe that gender is a social construct and nothing but, and spuds who like to believe that snakes can talk should probably occupy their readin'-time with something else.

A stirring look at the primal factors driving man in the art of Love, the doldrums of Work and the visceral depths of War and chronicling our relative similarity to our closest cousins, the primates, Desmond Morris adds soil and soul to the grassroots movement sparked in the Sixties counterculture to reconnect with some bygone artifact of Man's blind past. There can be no doubt that the embattled Sixties and the embittered youthful revolts influenced Morris to direct his scientific acumen at the internal drive of Man.

Overall, this is a good start for those questioning just how biological many of Man's drives are.

I had to read this for a psychology class. As I am not a psych. major, it wasn't my idea of fun reading. I found it really difficult to get totally into the book as I usually do when reading. It was slow reading. However, there were many insights that the author made that I found very interesting.

This book is great to read. Whether you believe what's been written or not, not-so-religious people can't deny evolution. It's as simple as 1+1=2 and that's how this book has been written.

You believe what I just said? Grab a copy of the book now!

Don't believe me? Good, as I don't buy into everything that has been said as well. But I do think it's important that the more views you have, the better your fundamentent for judgement is. This book certainly has some very strong points and may sound familiar to you.

So, just with psychology and Dr. Phil, don't believe everything that's being said, but make up your own mind. Maybe this book will be 'a changing day in your life...'.

If you are interested in a 1950-60's view of human evolutionary science, this book may be worthwhile. Otherwise, don't waste your time. Evolutionary science has advanced dramatically in the last 50 years and has discredited many of the views presented in The Naked Ape. Several are even laughable, such as the explanation of homosexuality in the chapter on sex.

Further, while promoted as a zoological study, the presentation is psychological, focusing on behavioral issues and their explanations rather than biological evolution. It is filled with the "he-man hunter" psychobabel that was preached in 1960's university Psych courses.

Simply, this book was a waste of my time and money. The reviews that stated the book was dated, but still relevant, were sadly mistaken.

Dougal Dixon's "After Man" is an entertaining evolutionary fantasy. Dixon wonders how the world will look like 50 million years into the future. His scenario is actually quite simple: humanity have disappeared after first killing off most specialized animal species. Naturally, farm animals such as pigs and cows also die out shortly after humanity. After millions of years, the near-empty world is filled with new creatures, descended from animals humanity regarded as pests: rats, rabbits, starlings, crows and the mongoose. Humans never managed to eradicate them, and free from human interference they evolve into countless new species.

"After Man" is really a book about evolution. Indeed, the first chapters aren't about the future, but about Earth's evolutionary past and present. I think Dixon's wanted to educate the public about evolution and its mechanisms, and realized that a fanciful book about possible future animals would sell better than yet another dry tome about Neandertals or selfish genes. At least in terms of sales figure, Dixon was successful.

Here in Sweden, "After Man" was heavily promoted by Swedish media in 1982, when the Swedish translation was published. I believe they even mentioned the book on the national evening news! I also remember that the book was extremely expensive, and that my father really hated it. (He sounded like the negative customer reviewer T.Peoples on this product page.) In my father's opinion, Dixon's book was ridiculous and too speculative, and for some reason he particularly hated the Horrane, in the belief that it was a hybrid tiger of some sort. Still, I managed to talk my parents into buying me a copy. Incidentally, the name of the fantasy animals are really silly in the Swedish translation. They often sound frivolous, and I suspect many Swedes bought the book for the comic effect, which is considerable. Thus, the bat (fladdermus) has been turned into a gibberish mouse (pladdermus), and the puffin (lunnefågel) is morphed into a moody bird (lynnefågel). The original English names, all things considered, are more normal!

What makes "After Man" so compelling is that the book isn't *that* speculative and far-fetched. Most of the evolutionary changes conjured up by Dixon are perfectly believable, even a bit conservative. Many of his futuristic animals are simply "improved" versions of present animals: beavers that are more efficient swimmers, bats with even better eco-location, and brood parasitic magpies. Dixon's main idea - that animals like rabbits, rats or starlings will survive humanity - isn't very far-fetched either. In Dixon's post-human world, rabbits have evolved into large, deer-like creatures, rats have turned into wolfish predators, and the birds of prey turn out to be strong-billed starlings. More fanciful, perhaps, is the Vortex, a whale-like creature that's actually a highly evolved penguin! The least believable chapter takes us to Batavia, an imaginary group of volcanic islands in the Pacific where bats have evolved into monsters. But then, 50 million years is a very long time... I remember that Swedish media were particulary fascinated by the Night Stalker.

I haven't read Dixon's later works, but apparently he left moderation behind, becoming more of a science fiction writer. Nothing wrong with that. Still, I prefer the clever evolutionary fantasies of "After Man".

Is a shame we are the only species in the rational process of extincting ourselves, but this projection is call for hope for life in the planet, with a rational thread of thought, perfect drawings and wording.

This book delighted our daughter with all its unknown monsters. With minimal intervention from us, she was able to grasp the possibilities of the theory of evolution, without even realising she was being educated.

This book is fun and educational. Highly recommended for bringing a dry subject to life.

As I have stated, "After Man: A Zoology of the future is a great book for any one who's interested in future evolution that isn't like "The Future Is Wild". Although the book seems to have more imagination than "The Future Is Wild", nothing looked alien to me and resembled like organisms our own time. Even today we observe waterbirds with more toes or neck bones than others, just like the reedstilt is to other mammals. And there used to be flightless auks swimming in Arctic waters.

The only complain I have is that it seems like a complete zoology of the future, but infact it isn't. It lacked a field guide to the oceans of the future but, as Dixon stated, the results would be boring and only exciting to the specialist. Other than that, it explained nearly all terrestrial ecosystems and that's all that matters.

According to Dougal Dixon in 50 million years man will be extinct. This certainly is a possibility. If this does not happen we certainly hope that man will have evolved away from war and greed. Based upon the life expectancy of our sun, the earth and evolutionary processes will be here for up to another 5000 million years.

Dixon does a masterful job of speculating how life forms will evolve over the next 50 million years. He presents detailed color drawings of the new life forms. His work is visionary and will help the reader form his own vision of the future.

This book is so full of interesting, amazing information - but the writing is very, very dry. I loved "Your Inner Fish" which overlaps the content of this book, but is much more engaging.

This is an interesting take on evo-devo. I'd recommend it for the popular science reader (its stays in pretty shallow waters scientifically).

The best feature of this book is the fantastic sense of the complexity of the development of the organism from the genes. Sean shows with genius how the tiniest changes in a gene can lead to huge effects in the developing organism -- much like in Chaos theory (see the book "Chaos: making a new science" for example)in mathematics where complex systems are affected by the tiniest influences (i.e., a puff of air from a butterfly's wings) which can be magnified to change the entire face of a complex multi-determined system from what it would have been (i.e. weather patterns) over time. This book shows how and why all life is related, yet very different. For example, we share about 50% of our genes with a banana plant, and about 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees, yet we are very different physically and intellectually. This applies ESPECIALLY with that most unique of human characteristics -- our large and staggeringly complex brains. This can explain differences everything from mental diseases or IQ to personality and temperament differences. There are not really any other books out there like this. A MUST-READ in an emerging and exciting area of science. Stunning.

This book explains very well the way that DNA works. It answers some questions like, "How can I share 90% of my dna with a mouse?" "How do mutations eventually lead up to a change in an animal's form?" I had never heard a satisfactory explanation for how genes function before reading this book. It was very easy to understand, and an enjoyable read.

It was a tad repetitive, with the author listing a couple of very detailed examples for every point he made. To be honest I appreciate this, but I did skip over some material after I had gotten the point of the chapter.

I love popular science, particularly books about prehistory and evolution, but I avoid those books that are all about God vs. Evolution. Yes, the religious right is a very large, colorful, tantalizing target, but I prefer just the science. This book was great in that respect.

Carroll's main thesis is that evolutionary biology is in the midst of its third great revolution. First, with Darwin, we had brilliant ideas including natural selection and descent with modification. This was incomplete however, as Darwin was wholly ignorant of genetics, and went without the support of the experimental biologists. Second, with the Modern Synthesis, mechanisms of genetics and evolution were reconciled enough so that most experimental biologists discarded ideas such as saltation and soft inheritance.

Molecular biology and embryology still had more to offer to evolutionary biology, Carroll argues. In the last 20-25 years, these two fields have begun to explain evolution of animal development. How is the fruit fly genome structured to organize when various genes are turned on or off at the right time and place in the developing organism? How is the overall bilateral animal body-plan preserved, while variation in the details is maximized? What are the major changes that occurred to form new phyla?

"Endless Forms" is very informative, but aptly explains all of the relevant jargon, and would be appropriate for both high school graduates and PhDs, and everyone in between.

I read the original hardcover edition of 2004. The book has 400 regular text pages (180 about animals, for the very most part vertebrates and the occasional insect; 220 about humans), a seven-page appendix, 50 pages of footnotes and with the rest altogether 492 pages.

The perspective of an openly transgendered science author is most refreshing - and necessary. Some reviewers choose to indulge in rhetoric that for the status of her transgender nature the author has to be biased automatically and as the result the book has to get dismissed. I am sorry, but I can't follow that line of thought. The most it shows is that the author has an interest to come closer to the truth. In contrast to the usual transphobic and/or homophobic biologist in a deeply transphobic and homophobic society, she is NOT biased against anyone. Occasionally, she raises questions, offers a thesis, but leaves the final answer open, as we don't know yet. She isn't sparing lesbian and gay authors either, when it comes to perception warps. Frankly, she uses science exactly as I do. (I deleted "medical" in the following quote.): "Our task as informed readers of science is to extract as best as we can the data from the layers of ... prejudice in which they're embedded." I have to say, even without any claim of final judgement by her or me, her theories make much more sense than what we are fed with by most other "education". When the establishment's biologists' theories don't add up, they get deservedly ridiculed. Joan Roughgarden is also criticizing biased language which humanizes animals, e.g. when the behavior of some birds is expressed in criminalizing vocabulary, thereby distorting what is objectively happening.

She is also further developing or correcting existing knowledge, as she expects to get treated the same way. She re-thinks some of Darwin's essential theses and sinks the sexual selection theory. [Don't mind the title in this context, I recommend also reading Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn about Sex from Animals by a feminist biologist. Occasionally, Roughgarden is also summarizing parts of the modern classic Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions), an encyclopedia on some 450 lesbian, gay, transgendered and "alternatively" heterosexual animal species].

Personally, I have only minor criticisms. For one thing, she isn't always providing the Latin and/or exact (sub)species name of the peculiar examples of animal ways of life. Sometimes, they are provided in the footnotes, other times not, especially concerning fish. It is very ardous to find out more about those examples elsewhere, when you don't know the exact name. Her examples are true, of course, as far as I was able to find the species and read up on them.

While her general lines of thought sound correct, occasionally, she is simplifying matters by leaving out "surplus" information. For example on the function of antlers, she has forgotten to mention that in some species they are also erogenous zones. As I am not a biologist and know that by chance only, I wonder what else might have been left out. I am not quite sure wether the "development of homosexuality" is probably happening between the ages from 1-10. In fact, I am surprised to read such a line of thought coming from this author.

Not really criticism, but constructive reasonings: It doesn't seem to occur to the author that in a certain triangle of bird relationship one male isn't mating with the female, because she is HIS MOTHER (= not the best of gene mixing choices). I would be careful to exclusively judge procreation advantage as the thing which counts in the animal kingdom. I am specifically referring to the mentioned salmons, some of them living longer, some more time in danger etc. She is basing one thesis on the preceding question of why any human isn't homosexual (as in bisexual) like the bonobos are. Well, she has forgotten that in some human societies that was or is very much the case. As in various societies on New Guinea (read Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia (Studies in Melanesian Anthropology)). Or, of potential special interest to the author, supposedly every male Samoan has had sexual encounters with a Fa'afafine at least once. ("Biological men" who in childhood are chosen to be raised to assume female gender roles.) Which concerns exactly what she elaborates on in Western society as the exception, i.e. non-fetish lovers who don't expect transsexuals to alter her body appearance.

However, I don't have to agree 100% with the author. The information and challenge value far exceeds these minor flaws of my perceptions to merit a full subtraction of a star in the rating. Her occasional colloquial inserts keep the book a fun reading on top of everything.

She is also going into the Bible a bit. Which may be the reason why some reviewers are especially jolted.

a very interesting and mindful book. interesting in that it shows how the gender dichotomy of western societies is ever so rigid and needs to loosen up. mindful in that it exudes tolerance and simply makes you appreciate diversity. i enjoyed reading it.

No matter what one may think about Roughgarden's hypotheses (though these are to my mind often inspired) Evolution's Rainbow was a great read if only for the sheer quantity of information it encapsulates. One comes away from this book with a profoundly altered idea of what constitutes "natural" in reference to sexuality and gender.

The only criticism I have is of the rather strained effort at the end of the book to reconcile the Bible with homosexuality. While I agree the Sodom story is primarily aimed at a lack of hospitality other scriptures e.g. Romans 1:31-32 are more explicit. It is unfortunate that an exemplary scientist still feels the need to pander to moral constructs based upon faith i.e. the belief in things that cannot be seen or demonstrated. By this criteria the 9/11 terrorists were very moral people.

Roughgarden's work in Evolution's Rainbow should be required reading for all college and high school students in the country. Starting with relatively simple animals and working into increasingly complex organisms (finally culminating with humans), Roughgarden convincingly and irrefutably demonstrates how sexual diversity is widespread in nature, not simply "weird statistical anomalies" as many believe. In fact, an over-abundance of examples from nature in the first section of the book is often somewhat exhausting to follow, but serves to establish the widespread nature of homosexuality, transsexuality, and even intersexuality in nature. And finally, the ending sections of the book, demonstrating how various societies have accepted/incorporpated sexually diverse elements, should serve as a motivation for LGBTI peoples around the world. Overall an excellent and politically timely book that can be appreciated by biologists and non-scientists alike.

Finally, someone is putting together all of the real, scientific information regarding sexuality and gender variance in the animal world.
Roughgarden may well have taken on too much for one book - there is something of a rushed pace and she often drops dissertation-worthy bits of information into one page - but she has gathered some wonderful examples of the true nature of diversity in the animal kingdom.
Her reasons for writing the book may be political and personal in nature, but I think her reasoning and biology are sound.

This is BY FAR the best book about ANY prehistoric mammals that I have ever found! The fact that the subject is cats makes the book unique. There just isn't another book like this one. The focus is on fossil cats and their modern descendants, but they are discussed in relation to the environment and the other animals around them. The text is thorough, informative and very lucid. The writing style is clear and concise, without being terse and dry. A college student or interested adult will find it technical enough not to insult their intelligence, yet it is so well plotted and presented that an enthusiastic pre-teen can follow it (although they may need some help with some of the more technical terms). Turner obviously knows and loves cats.

Now, to the illustrations. Mauricio Anton has absolutely no equal as an illustrator of cats. His illustrations of the other animals who share the cats' habitats are equally enthralling. His renderings are so lifelike that they place the reader right beside the cat. You can almost smell the dirt as it's raised by the hooves of the struggling prey and hear the sounds of interaction between cats and the creatures around them. The book is worth having for the color plates alone, but the pencil drawings are fabulous too, and in some ways even more informative than the plates.

As a lifelong student and admirer of cats of all sizes, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I reread it at least six or eight times a year, and refer to it almost daily. This book belongs in the collection of everyone who is interested in animals and wildlife art.

It's hard to review this book without tossing in a bucketful of giddy superlatives, so I'll stick with WONDERFUL! It contains some of the most strikingly beautiful artwork contained in any scholarly book. Having said that, a potential reader needs to keep in mind that this isn't a "popular science" book. You'll be encountering terms like "Paleocene" and "carnassials", but even though they might be a little confusing, they won't hurt you, either.

Get this book! There may never be another work like this about the ancestral cats in print again.

I liked most everything about this book. This is a great natural history of the big cats and their various ancient ancestors going back some 25 million years. I especially enenjoyed chapters 4-Anatomy And Action, and 5-Behavior And Ecology. Also, Mr. Anton is a fine artist. This book should appeal to anyone with even a modest interest in the big cats. Both the color plates and the black and white drawings are lifelike and worth the price of the book.

For the lay reader - such as me - the welter of taxonomical and anatomical details with which this book is filled could perhaps have made it very boring. However, the fine drawing and the speculative detail about reconstrued ecology and behavior made the book a light read, even comic at times, when you discover that sabertoothed cats were a kind of lions and tigers "on steroids", with heavily muscled forelimbs and shoulders allowing them to immobilize the prey to the ground in order to deliver a devastating neck bite that would close a windpipe and sever bloodvessels neatly and quickly. Very funny to think that evolution could have taken this alternative path of turning the gracile feline form into something like a BB contest...

This is a great book on the evolution of the big cats, in fact I think its probably the only book outside of research journals or more technical material. Its wonderfully illustrated with very detailed pencil drawings of skulls, skeletons, musculature, and 'life reconstructions' of exctinct big cats. Also includes color plates with scenes depicting the cats and their habitats. The text is well organized and accesible to the informed layperson and is detailed enough to satisfy those with a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

The illustrations really makes the book stand out: they are detailed and well drawn, and really bring the subject matter to life, as if you were able to examine the museum collection yourself, and then go on a prehistoric safari. An excellent choice for those interested in cat biology, natural history, or paleontology.

This is a collection of Darwin's four best known books, and it's a great read for any natural science enthusiast. My only complaint is that the volume is so large in size that it makes it rather inconvenient to carry with you. The price is very reasonable, if you were interested in only two of Darwin's works you may as well buy this and get his four major publications.

this is a great book, it is really neat that all 4 volumes are in one book. it was a great price for these volumes

Having also considered the alternative collection "The Evolution Of An
Idea by James Watson " I arrived at this work, from the couple dozen
small newspaper-style, mini-illustrations on same pages, and the feedback
received from this work.

Actually, it's an open debate whether this is the best option. First,
all 4 books are glued together in one giant "tome" ...and this doesn't
facilitate reading, from the size or the volume. Also, the pages are
extremely thin, although not transparent, and probably smudge easily
and are fragile. That's another liability, if one makes notes in the
pages, probably the ink will leak to the other size, etc.

Perhaps the best option, is buying all 4 books separately, and reading
them one at a time.

This book is excellent! It has all of the four greatest works by Darwin, all facsimile editions (exact original) and written by Wilson, a great evolutionary biologist. If you are looking to read some of Darwin's books, here is the place to do it. It also features introductions by the editor to put the book in its scientific, cultural and historical context.

A long time ago, I criticized the theory of Darwin, before I escaped
fundamental Christianity -- and before I had ever read his works. After
reading this rather lengthy book, a collection of his four major works,
it becomes painfully obvious how little there is to criticize. A
summary of the major works follows:

THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE:
The first book in the volume is the account of Darwin's travels aboard
The Beagle, a voyage that lasted about five years, visiting mostly the
southern hemisphere. The greatest part of this account is on various
places in South America, but covers the Galapagos, Australia, and
several other places. Some of the most interesting parts of this book
are about the Fuegians or other primitives and their practices. I
further enjoyed reading about other things, such as the distaste he
expressed in regard to slavery, and remarks consistent with him being
somewhat a Christian during the journey, though his findings on the
journey influenced his theories and theology to conform to natural
evidence he found.

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE:
Published in 1859 initially (and this is the form published in this
volume, rather than any of the updates provided later), this was the
defining publication for Darwin's life's work. It is no wonder. After
reading it, I had to admit that anyone against evolution likely has
never read the book, however they may be educated. His arguments are
very cautious, cogent, detailed, and persuasive. All of the arguments I
ever heard against evolution, he introduces in this work as possible
detriments to his theory, then soundly quashes every one of those
arguments with pages of reasons and examples for why those arguments are
untenable, and in a completely humble and careful manner. An example is
the "irreducible complexity" of the eye. He gives examples of various
stages of organs of sight that exist in the living world, from very
complex, as with ours, down to stalks with the most primitive sensing
organs that can only tell the difference between light and dark, and
shows the relation from one stage to another. He also wonders what we
are to do with animals with vestigial eyes, such as moles, with eyes
covered in skin and hair in many instances. It is easily surmised after
reading this work how little it is read by Christian and ID apologists.
It is equally surmised how sound evolution is, and though Darwin did not
originate the idea - as many scientists before and during his time knew
there had to be something like it - he is the one that carefully
examined and put forth a workable mechanism - Natural Selection.

THE DESCENT OF MAN, AND SELECTION IN RELATION TO SEX:
The longest and most tedious of the books, it is the next step after
ORIGIN in that it completes the thought of where humans came from, which
was not addressed at all in ORIGIN. Not quite as interesting as his
masterwork, he addresses somewhat the relation of humans to evolution,
then goes into a very long section about sexual selection, in which he
describes in painful detail characteristics that are specifically sexual
in natural selection (such as beauty or singing of most male birds as
opposed to female birds), starting with lower forms all the way up to
humans. Then he concludes with final remarks on humanity's relation to
Natural Selection and Sexual Selection.

THE EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS IN MAN AND ANIMALS:
This is the shortest of the works in the volume, and the title speaks
for itself. However, what does not come across in the title is how
deftly Darwin shows emotional expressions to be inherited - not learned.
Something as simple as shrugging one's shoulders is shown by examples
to be linked with descent.
______________________________________________________________________
The introductions and summary by E. O. Wilson are most helpful in
putting these works into their proper perspective, including remarks on
Darwin's views on religion. There may be less expensive ways to read
Charles Darwin, but this Norton volume will be a handsome addition to
your library, and is built to last.

One of the best books about how we produced our cultures. Ehrlich is just brilliant..

Ehrlich's central thesis - that there is not just one human nature but many seems eminently reasonable on the surface. But Ehrlich sidesteps the most convincing evidence! His "culture theory" rebuttal of the straw man of "genetic determinism" singularly fails to review the many twin and adoption studies showing that people inherit their behavior as well as their appearance.

Ehrlich becomes especially annoying when he repeats the mantra that human races do not exist and brands the genetic argument over race and sex differences "racist" and "sexist." Consider the following sets of data. If race was an invalid concept and genes had little or no predictive power, the findings I summarize would not be so consistently found.

For example, although IQ tests were invented by Whites and standardized on mainly White populations, dozens of studies now show that East Asians, whether tested in North America or in Pacific Rim countries, typically average higher than Whites, scoring in the range of 101 to 111. Caucasoid populations in North America and in Europe typically average an IQ of 100. African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, and in the Caribbean have mean IQs of from 70 to 90.

Ehrlich also fails to mention that IQ scores are related to brain size and that the races differ in brain size. Over a dozen magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have found a r = 0.40 relation between brain size and IQ. Racial differences in brain size have been established using four quite different procedures: MRI, autopsies, endocranial volume, and external head measures. The brains of East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) and their descendants consistently average a larger volume (about 17 cm3) than those of Europeans and their descendants, and 97 cm3 larger than those of Africans and their descendants.

Changes in brain size have cascading effects on other traits, including athletic ability. Blacks have narrower hips than Whites or East Asians which gives them a more efficient stride and enables them to run and jump better. The reason why Blacks have narrower hips, however, is because they give birth to smaller brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis.

Why did Ehrlich neglect to mention all these data if he's interested in the truth about human natures (in the plural)? Wouldn't we expect the evolutionary process to have different effects in different environments? In the wake of the success of The Bell Curve and other recent books about race by Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, and me (Race, Evolution, and Behavior) that provide race-realist answers to the question of differential group achievement, there has been an intense effort to get the 'race genie' back in the bottle. Its sad when a scientist with so many accomplishments and so Herculean a reputation as Ehrlich takes it upon himself to assume so Sisyphean a task.

Ehrlich has added to a number of good inter-disciplinary books that have been published in the last few years that all bring together the social and hard sciences. This is a well written and brilliantly engaging work. Few readers will fail to come away after reading this without some sort of intellectual reward.

Culture as a model of human evolution is emphasised, not to overtake genetics, but to add another dimension. The implications of this effect many fields, including biology, genetics, psychology, history and anthropology. Ehrlichs intelligent and clear writing, persuasive analysis and excellent footnotes make reading "Human Natures" a worthwhile effort. A joy to read.

Paul Erlich is usually introduced as the author of "The Population Bomb", so it's not unreasonable to look back for a moment at that book- and Erlich's intellectual history- in considering this new book. Back in the 1960s Erlich was a mainstay of the popular media- sort of a Carl Sagan of population- and a regular guest on the Tonight Show, where he spelled out his apocalyptic vision.

"The Population Bomb" was a polemic that dictated a series of prescriptions for society, without which we were racing headlong to all sorts of disasters, notable shrtages of all strategic resources, massive starvation involving millions of people, food riots that destroyed governments and the downfall of western society as we knew it. This was prophisized to happen in the 1970s, and as most of us recall, none of it happened. He went on to predict that *billions* would die of starvation in the 1980s. Erlich also made a famous bet with economist Julian Simon,in which Simon challanged Erlich to pick 5 commodities that he felt would go up in price because of shortages. Erlich took the bet, and all five fell drastically in price.

In fact, nothing that Erlich prophasized ever happened. Erlich's predictions had little to do with science and much do do with ad-hoc justifications for his political prescriptions. Now Erlich has jumped onto the nature/nurture bandwagon, which has generated a lot of renewed interest in recent years owing to some major breakthroughs in the understanding of, and potential control over, the genetic makeup of humans. And once again, Erlich sees a lot of reasons we should follow his particular social agenda.

There's nothing particularly new or original in the discussion of nature and nurture in this book, which isn't surprising as Erlich has never done any research in this area. Most of the book is a fairly elementary rehash of the last twenty years of genetic research. Unfortunately it's not a terribly good one. His understanding of issues like human language is elementary at best. Even as science continues to discover just how much of our nature and our biology is, in fact, genetically determined, Erlich's position is that the contribution of genes to behavior is all but trivial, and that leads into the real intent of this book, which is to say his prescription for how society should be run. And not surprisingly, it's the same prescription he was making in the 1960s.

Erlich's problem is that he wants to be a social philosopher. He longs to dictate his notion of an ideal society- but he doesn't have any good social arguments. Instead he gives us specious arguments rooted in questionable scientific interpretations. The result is a poor introduction to either the nature-nurture debate or social philosophy.

Paul Ehrlich enters the lists of "nature vs nurture" by fulminating against the straw-man of "genetic determinism". One would have thought this joust would have been called for "time" by now. In his attempt to triumph over this rather ephemeral opponent, Ehrlich has performed a prodigious task. This well-written and comprehensive view of human evolution is a valuable resource. A massive footnotes and references collection grants this book value far above the narrative itself. Ehrlich, a practiced writer and researcher, brings many years of work and observations of the human condition to this massive overview. He strives to explain who we are and how we arrived at our current stature. He further warns that our lack of understanding of our backgrounds may threaten our future.

"Human nature" is often cited as a foundation for many behavioural traits. The fallacy of that moral expression is revealed in the variety of our habits. Ehrlich recognises that variation in his title and goes on to explain it in this book. While the genetic foundation of our behaviour is being solidly established by much field research, he ultimately concludes much of that basis is overriden by our cultural influences. Much of our confusion about "nature versus nurture", he contends, lies in the rapid pace of humanity. Compared to most other species, our mental development raced past the other animals - with language as the accelerator pedal. Since the genetic base for most traits is so slow and nearly muted, our development agriculture, religion and urban society virtually overwhelmed our "animal instincts". The prime example, of course, is the massive impact we have on our environment.

Ehrlich's key in assessing genetic versus cultural input lies [logically!] in the structure of the brain. When he wrote this book, the human genome was thought to be comprised of 100 000 genes. With that figure halved, he concludes the genome hasn't the power to command the billions of neurons with their trillions of connections that comprise the human brain. This "gene" shortage, he avers, suggests the genome hasn't the capacity to drive human behaviour to any significant degree. This rather simplisitic enumeration ignores the fact that the entire genome, whatever the number of genes, must be highly interactive in many areas of the body - the brain is simply another part of the mechanism. He is apparently unaware of the brain research showing how similar interactions have been mapped within the brain. Genes merely kickstart the process, they don't need to "control" our behaviour.

Ehrlich takes the usual swipes at Richard Dawkins as he builds his narrative. Like so many others, Ehrlich's reading of "The Selfish Gene" appears to have ceased at the title. To him, the "Great Leap Forward" of some fifty thousand years ago emancipated us from the shackles of our genetic heritage. With the development of language [which wouldn't have happened without a biologically endowed "voice box"], human cognition, hence behaviour, launched on a new course. Ehrlich asserts we've never looked back, but also warns our capabilities should be adapted to now look forward. Our abilities threaten the biosphere with an intensity and scope no other species possessed.

In his conclusion, the author nearly reverses all his prior narrative. He urges humanity to develop a better understanding of its place within nature. That, of course, means a full programme of understanding animal behaviour and the mechanisms animals and plants use to stay alive and reproduce. Our evolution, particularly the cultural input, has led us to believe we are distinct from Nature. Ehrlich recognises the dangers of such an attitude and urges us to overcome it. Although an excellent synthesis and supremely comprehensive, it's unfortunate that Ehrlich's prejudices blinded him to create a problem that doesn't exist. Nobody argues for "biological determinism" in an absolute sense - certainly not Dawkins. Where Ehrlich is correct is that we must increase our knowledge of how nature works and undertake the tasks needed to stop and reverse the spoilage under way.
[stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

The author continues to look at evolution and the overlapping of different species, including ours. He looks at how difficult it is to differentiate between nature and nurture, how it's not always important to do so, and how too many people switch definitions when defining human and non-human behavior. It's his usually well written, mass market explanation of evolution and behavior.

The book is a bit overlong, the only reason it lost one star.

I have just finished reading this book, and I am both thrilled and saddened. I am thrilled because someone has had the insight and courage to say that our human characteristics are not all that unique in the world and that culture is not all-or-nothing. I am saddened because it was made painfully clear just how much our own values and beliefs affect what we see...or even what we WILL see. Western society with its insistence that humans are utterly distinct and even "unnatural" and its refusal to look at certain issues like sexuality means that we are constantly blinding ourselves to the facts. If there was ever a treatise that showed just how much cultural affects perceptions--including the perceptions of what and where is culture!--this is it. I agree that the flow of the book is a little jumpy, going from discussions of personalities like Konrad Lorenz to discussions of ethological observations, but here too we get to see human blinders in action. Too many people looked at Lorenz--and still look at Darwin--through their own political (and "other") agendas and do not judge the work itself and the facts it is based on. Maybe if we were a little LESS personal in our evaluations of the world around us and took it on its own terms, we would understand more and argue less.

As anthropologist, I strongly recommend the reading of this book, especially for non-specialist. Easy to read, full of such interesting reflexions and historical fact. It is THE book to read for better understanding where human stand in the animal kingdom.

And do apes and other animals have it? For some reason I didn't find it too long a reach to say that apes and other animals have culture. How much of an organism's brain is hard-wired and how much allows for the flexibility of learning...learning such that you change your daily behavior, be it eating or mating or whatever. Sure, why not? Why can't animals observe each other and change their own behavior when they see something that works? I've never really looked at intelligence, let alone culture, as things that are discrete, parceled out in specific quantities "to each according to his need" to each species, but rather as more free flowing phenomena, with some chance for overlap between ourselves and our animal (and not just primate) brethren.

Everyone wants to be special. In big families, children vie for the place of momma's little boys or girls; in the army, every soldier carries a marshal's staff in his backpack. There is barely any nation (mature enough to identify itself as a nation) which successfully resisted, throughout its history, messianic ideas. The worst political nightmares of the last century arose from our burning desire to be special, and to prove so to all other untermenschen.

But let's face it, we are not special. During the last decades, the civilization entered a phase when it can destroy itself - by military or industrial means. We proudly predict the end of the world. But the world has existed for billions of years before us, and will safely do without us. Even in the worst-case scenario of a nuclear Armageddon, cockroaches will survive. It will not be the end of the world. Just the end of us. Big deal. It's just one species.

It seems to be pretty important to come to terms with being ordinary. To find a proper place for ourselves in the world. To stop misrepresenting ourselves. Once Copernicus shifted Earth from the central place in the universe, astronomy ceased to be a fairy tale, and eventually space travel became possible. Everybody won, in the long run.

The first father of modern Western thought, Aristotle, seemed to be aware of this need. (Though I am always wary about interpretations of Aristotle in modern science books - his writings are not perfectly preserved and extremely cryptic, and blurred by twenty-five hundred years of interpretations.) The second father of modern Western thought, Descartes, did away with it, reinforcing the ideas of our special position, of God's special treatment of our species, and rejecting any continuity between (other) animals and ourselves.

We are still struggling with the consequences. Darwin offered a bridge across this yawning gap, but old convictions die hard. We are still extremely uncomfortable with the idea of our connection with the rest of the living world.

De Waal's book poses just one question: do animals have culture? To answer that, we need to define terms, of course. He defines culture as non-genetically transmitted information. And then he easily says - Yes, they do. Songbirds have dialects (roughly speaking, nightingales and rossignols do not sing the same tunes). Japanese monkeys in a certain colony on a certain island wash sweet potatoes in the sea. Chimpanzees of a certain colony use stone tools to crack coconuts open. They are not born this way. They learn it from each other and pass it down to the next generations. Just like us. We are not born with driving skills, for example. We cannot possibly be, such skills have been necessary for only about one hundred years, that's not even recognizable as evolutionary time. But we learn to drive, some better than others; and chimps learn to crack coconuts. There are human populations which do not need to drive, and they don't. There are chimp populations where coconuts do not grow, and they don't have these skills. Simple, isn't it.

Simple. But consider the implications. All difference between the ape and the sushi master becomes quantitative. We find ourselves not on the pinnacle of God's creation, but rather in a link connected to the endless chain. We are forced to reconsider everything that we deem exclusively human. And the more we consider it, the weaker our case for uniqueness. Altruism? You can routinely train dogs to blow up enemy's tanks. There is no reward, no evolutionary need that justifies such actions. Language? We hardly know what language is; we do not know when, how or why it originated; we do not have bullet-proof ways to separate animals' communication means from ours. Art? Humans have lived for thousands of years without any trace of art; either our definition of "humans" is seriously flawed, or art is not crucial for our biological existence. And then again, there are ape painters, and they, argues De Waal, do it for their own pleasure. Social structures? There are animals with such sophisticated social life that our states and parties (both senses) seem a joke in comparison.

It is not bad to be self-centered, it is bad to be self-absorbed. Once we understand our limitations, things will go more smoothly. It is good for us to know that there is no metaphysical divide between the ape and the sushi master.

De Waal's book is patchy, and sometimes his story seems to be jumping from subject to subject without much effort to glue chapters together. The author's Dutch experience is very interesting for me, but I live in the Netherlands, so this opinion is strictly private. His forays into the history of the question and the lives of scientists who gave it its present form are educational and lucid. He is a scientist all right, but there is no trace of guild narrow-mindedness in what he writes. And he does not accompany his thoughts on probably the most important scientific, philosophical and human question of all times with pomp and circumstance. He treats it with a grain of salt, but with the earnestness it deserves. And the book reads smoothly. Thumbs up, on hands and feet alike.