Talk:Frugivore

Frugivore debate

1. Repeated deletion of original quote, and added inline citations from primary research. Please see history, and first editor SummerPhD's similar behaviour at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Fruitarianism . 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Content is written in an unencyclopaedic-style and appears to be plagiarized from a non-reliable source. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted a quote and cites from primary published academic research, with references. Should I paraphrase then? Pearl999 (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I deleted a link to a radical, pseudoscientific Fruitarian website. Please read WP:RS for more information on reliable sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You certainly did delete cites from published academic research. You cannot support your claim that the link you deleted contained anything radical or pseudoscientific with any substantive argument whatsoever. Pearl999 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not an expert on this subject. I've never edited this article. I'm not a judge. I'm just here to help. The specific question raised here is whether the website http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm can be used as a reliable source. The short answer is no. This is not a peer reviewed journal. Its a website. From my cursory glance, http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf does not appear to be a peer reviewed article either. But you really need to go further. You would have to show that this is the prevailing view amongst scientists in the field. If not, this may be an alternative theory (in which case you would have to specifically cite the author) or it may just be wp:fringe. I think you may need to do some more searches. I suggest you continue to discuss sources on this discussion page and reach consensus before making an addition—Work permit (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding '.. in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf , - That is the peer-reviewed publication. Both of the authors are highly regarded and widely cited researchers. See: http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBIE366IE366&q=Theories+of+human+evolutionary+trends+in+meat+eating+and+studies+of+primate++Pasquet,++Hladik+&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

And: '.. There was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-bosed foods in the diet. - The American journal of cardiology ISSN 0002-9149 CODEN AJCDAG http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679

Supporting the original quote : "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." - Linnaeus

The highly informative and very well regarded website that was referenced is similarly supported throughout with academic research.Pearl999 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at your first source I don't see the journal that's it's published in. I see its cited by one other author. Have you take a look at [1] ? At least I see it was published in the journal of human evolution. "Throughout the various time periods, our human ancestors could have mostly consumed either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter (with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement), depending on the availability and nutrient content of food resources."--Work permit (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct. I've cited from that source in the discussion above. We need to distinguish between biological adaptations and behavioural adaptations. Behavioural adaptation: (Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm Biological adaptation: (Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

(Hladik, 1981). - http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

Similarly:

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604Pearl999 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just glanced through your first source. He concludes "Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets." You own papers are not supporting your edit--Work permit (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is referring to the flexibility of the unspecialized frugivore's gut anatomy (plant foods can range from high nutrient density, e.g. nuts, seeds, to bulky foods, e.g. fruits). The fact remains: '.. in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf There is no contradiction in these papers. Pearl999 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. I think his conclusion is easier to digest and more to the point. "Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets--Work permit (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Easier to digest.. catering as that (first sentence of the last paragraph) does to the prevalent belief that animal flesh was critical to human evolution in every sense .. when it may only have been crucial to survival in periods of extensive glaciation. As you already cited above, "Throughout the various time periods, our human ancestors could have mostly consumed either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter (with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement), depending on the availability and nutrient content of food resources."

The concluding paragraph continues - (Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

 http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

Now the elucidation and question for the uninformed reader of this lone paragraph remains ... "change" in/from what type of "gut anatomy"? The answer, as we now know - and which really is to the point, - the gut anatomy of a "frugivore".

From the all-important biological aspect, 'easier to digest' becomes in reality a veritable nightmare:

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf Pearl999 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 . I take it from the study that chinese people who eat alot of meat are at greater risk of coronary disease then those who don't eat alot of meat. To take that observation and conclude that primative man was a Frugivore is wp:synthesis.--Work permit (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern man is still a frugivore.  :) Pearl999 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:) Peace. Its been fun working with you. --Work permit (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the editing war over then?  ;) Very good. All stipulations have indeed been met. Would now appreciate your kind assistance in how to proceed with the formatting of the addition for Wikipedia. For example, are direct cites with references ok? Thanks. Peace.  :) Pearl999 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated Information with new sources!

Hey~
So as a class project, my teammates and I have updated the page to include more references and expand the information presented about frugivores. We removed the comment about humans as frugivores because an important role that frugivores play is being seed dispersers. Since we, humans, are not seed dispesers, we felt it important to take that bit of information out.
Please, read over and make any comments or edits as you see fit!
You can message me if you have any other additional comments.
THANKS!

--Raneve08 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely humans would have been seed dispersers though? I mean they ate fruit, moved on, defecated... Richard001 (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, humans have dispersed the seeds of say wheat over a very wide area :) eug (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Obligate frugivore

A fourth opinion, fwiw. Obligate (obligation) is a term that isn't mentioned at all in either this or the article page. It might make-over some of the arguments. It might be worth reporting what species are considered to be obligate frugivores. 319 pages found by google advanced search.

Neither is the word facultative mentioned. I would guess that many, many species – including our own – that aren't obligate carnivores could, to varying extents, be considered facultative frugivores. But I don't think that's what this frugivore article page is about, is it? Trev M (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trev. I think it could be argued that humans are obligate frugivores. Vitamin C has to be obtained from food, and fruits are the primary source, whereas animal flesh and grains provide none, as can be seen on this food data chart - http://www.healthyeatingclub.org/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data4i.html . I've seen quite a few people asserting that the traditional Inuit diet is next to 100% of animal origin, however this appears to not be the case..

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

- Floyd L. Davidson, Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska). Pearl999 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't distinguishing between those animals which must eat a lot of fruit, and those who apparently must eat some plant matter. In any case, if you wish the article to state that humans are "obligate frugivores" you will need an independent reliable source that says, in no uncertain terms, that humans are "obligate fruigivores". - SummerPhD (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pearl999: "Vitamin C has to be obtained from food, and fruits are the primary source"

Trev M: Fruits may have been the primary vitamin C source in an abundant tropical ecosystem, but in temperate regions non-fruit vegetation will have formed a much higher proportion of pre-industrial vitamin C intake: see this chart at http://biology.clc.uc.edu/scripts/VitCVegRes.pl; of the top ten listed vitamin C containing non-processed foods, 5 are native temperate leafy vegetables and 4 of the others are semi-tropical, and the 5th was introduced to the west in very recent history. This does not make humans obligate frugivores! As I understand it, an Obligate is an organism that cannot cannot survive without "x". There are arguments that a non-tropical fruit diet is not optimal for humans (eg. Tony Wright's "Left in the Dark" theory) but this interesting research is original and not appropriate material for this encyclopedia.

Pearl999: "whereas animal flesh and grains provide none"; false: cooked flesh contains almost none, [2]. below quotes 30mg/100g raw liver.

Trev M: 1.http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vitamin_C, line 15; 2.http://www.ehow.com/about_5368442_food-sources-vitamin-c.html, line 36; 3.http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/asia/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780511282508&ss=exc, line/para 34; 4.www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/darwinmed/darwinmedlectures/legacies.rtf, line 96.... etc., etc. I think you get the point.

You and I may infinitely prefer fresh ripe mangos to raw liver but let's be accurate unbiased in our communication. Trev M (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did say animal flesh. Liver is by definition an organ, and that's a lot of scavenging or hunting for a tribe. As we can see below though, it isn't just a matter of individual nutrients. But first of all, we should clarify what is meant by "fruits".

'In everyday, grocery-store, culinary language, the words "fruit" and "vegetable" are mutually exclusive; plant products that are called fruits are hardly ever classified as vegetables, and vice versa. For scientists, the word "fruit" has a precise botanical meaning (a part that developed from the ovary of a flowering plant), which is considerably different from its common meaning, and includes many poisonous fruits. While peaches, plums, and oranges are "fruits" in both senses, many items commonly called "vegetables" — such as eggplants, bell peppers, and tomatoes — are technically fruits, as are most cereals, as well as some spices like black pepper and chillies. Some plant products, such as corn or peas, may be considered vegetables only while still unripe. .. Fruits in the botanical sense, but used as vegetables: tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, zucchinis, pumpkins, peppers, eggplant, tomatillos, christophene, okra, breadfruit and avocado, and also the following: Legumes: green beans, snap peas, soybean .. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vegetable#Examples_of_different_parts_of_plants_used_as_vegetables

'Botanically speaking, corn is a caryopsis, or dry fruit - popularly known as a grain. .. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_corn_a_vegetable_or_a_fruit

'Pea .. Although it is botanically a fruit,[2] it is treated as a vegetable in cooking. .. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pea

And the definition of "obligate" -

'obligate

(biology) Capable of functioning or surviving only in a particular condition or by assuming a particular behavior.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Obligate

Ill health or disease significantly adversely affects normal functioning capability. So the question is really whether humans can eliminate the consumption of all fruits without significant detrimental effects on health; whether the consumption of fruits is required for normal or optimal health.

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/517S Pearl999 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Obligate frugivore (continued)

Please could we aim for conciseness?

Pearl999: "we should clarify what is meant by "fruits" "

Trev M: Let us take for granted that as we are dealing with the biological concept "obligate frugivore" we are dealing with the biological term "fruit" which therefore does not need restatement here.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Obligate: "Capable of functioning or surviving only in a particular condition or by assuming a particular behavior."

Pearl999: "So the question is really whether humans can eliminate the consumption of all fruits without significant detrimental effects on health; whether the consumption of fruits is required for normal or optimal health."

Trev M: FALSE; the question is whether humans can survive and function, according to that definition. You are reinterpreting and elaborating on the definition you cited. It doesn't say function optimally. (re-edited)

"whether the consumption of fruits is required for normal or optimal health" (functioning). '- The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs.'Pearl999 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rui Hai Liu 1 From the Department of Food Science and the Institute of Comparative and Environmental Toxicology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: "Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are"....

'http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/517S': "Cardiovascular disease and cancer are ranked as the first and second leading causes of death in the United States"....

Trev M: The statement "fruit and vegetables are good for humans" does not mean "humans must eat fruit to survive", or even "humans must eat fruit to be healthy"; no, not even "humans must eat fruit and vegetables to survive". All of these statements involve many complex assumptions. Animals kept in prisons and fed human effluent are unlikely to be as nutritious as wide ranging animals eating a diverse wild diet. Fruit grown in deficient soils with growth promoters is unlikely to be as nutritious as wild fruit. Frugivores spending all day glued to a computer screen will have a different spectrum of illness from their ancestors who foraged all day for berries! Hamburger eaters who drive everywhere and watch TV all evening will have a different spectrum of illness from their ancestors who climbed rigging all day and ate only salt beef, or from those who chased and ate raw game. These are all hypotheses, and one set certainly can't be compared against another!

Time I got up from in front this computer screen! Trev M (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) et seq.

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.htmlPearl999 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see you cite a single refereed journal article that says, quote "humans are frugivores"--Work permit (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Again.

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

AGAIN read YOUR OWN SOURCE! . http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf. Don't be an armchair scientist trying to read one graph. Just read THE CONCLUSION "Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets--Work permit (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

AGAIN read the abstract: Throughout the various time periods, our human ancestors could have mostly consumed either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter (with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement), depending on the availability and nutrient content of food resources.

See 'DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION' etc. above.Pearl999 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pearl999 cited:

"Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts 
Patrick Pasquet, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France 
Claude-Marcel Hladik, Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, France" (no date found on paper)
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf"

which says: "Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves, or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various categories of food items available in different habitats throughout the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly frugivorous diet."

- '..rarely available to females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981)' above, and '.. not for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays.', above.Pearl999 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Trev M says: Pasquet and Hladik above appear to be saying that the animals they are comparing humans to are ambiguously called omnivores, who mainly eat fruit; and that their digestions are a very close match to ours. This would seem to me to concur with the term facultative frugivore. If they were obligate frugivores they would eat only fruit or become ill. I would go along with the possibility that humans were facultative frugivores for some significant part of their evolution..

Can you show me a definition of "obligate" stating that exclusivity is requisite? Humans have always been and still are biological frugivores. Pearl999 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The next issue is that Pasquet and Hladik's paper is original research WP:OR. I have found just a couple of other citations of it in respectable journals, but I cant find any WP:REL secondary sources quoting it. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Go find, I'd say, but check them without bias against WP:REL!

Trev M ~  02:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to cherry pick one or two sources and make a bold statement of fact. Worse yet, you are sometimes cherry picking a single item or statement within your own source. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship. If you want to say Humans are herbivores, find multiple sources that just say so, up front.--Work permit (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the one cherry-picking, not me. You now want multiple sources affirming the obvious?

"Although we think we are one, and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores." - Roberts, William C. , Editor, American Journal of Cardiology. Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990.

'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man’s structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote in his Pluralite’ de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal, and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote: "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking."

The poet Shelley, in his essay, "A Vindication of a Natural Diet," wrote:

"Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles the frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing...It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite loathing and disgust...

"Man resembles no carnivorous animal. There is no exception, unless man be one, to the rule of herbivorous animals having cellulated colons. The orang-outang is the most anthropomorphous (manlike) of the ape tribe, all of whom are strictly frugivorous.

"There is no other species of animals which live on different foods in which this analogy exists...The structure of the human frame then, is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet in every essential particular." ..

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy, Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work, Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the garden." ..

"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal," wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them." According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a vegetable diet." Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man’s Natural Food: An Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:

"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped him for hunting."

According to Dr. Kellogg, "The statement that man is omnivorous is made without an atom of scientific support. It is true the average hotel bill of fare and the menu found upon the table of the average citizen of this country have a decidedly omnivorous appearance. As a matter of fact, man is not naturally omnivorous, but belongs, as long ago pointed out by Cuvier, to the frugivorous class of animals along with the chimpanzee and other anthropoids.

"The hog is a truly omnivorous animal. Although he thrives best upon a diet of grass or clover, tender shoots, seeds, and succulent roots, he will eat animal flesh, raw or cooked, with avidity when hungry, and he does not hesitate to regale himself upon carrion, after his taste has been cultivated in this direction.

"Man is not omnivorous. He cannot subsist upon grass or raw grain. Taking his food from the hand of Nature, without the aid of cookery, he must confine his dietary to fruits, nuts, soft grains, tender shoots, and succulent roots...It is true he can acquire an appetite for meat, especially when cooked, but practically all animals can do the same. Hunters sometimes teach their horses to eat broiled venison and cows have been taught to eat fish with avidity. Du Chaillu found in the Island of Magero...that sheep and goats were fed daily on fish both raw and cooked." ..'

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.htmlPearl999 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me make this easy and plain. You want to say "humans are Frugivores". Find me a quote in a peer-reviewed journal article that says, quote, "Humans are Frugivores"--Work permit (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! Pearl999 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright... I've skimmed what looks like a 2-year-old debate, and here's what I have to say: I am interested in human evolution and have studied anthropology. In college, I was a student of Ecology, Ethology, and Evolution. Never, in all my primate studies involving textbooks and journal articles have I seen anyone mainstream claim that humans are predominantly frugivores, let alone "obligate frugivores". The only place that I have seen this argument is from vegetarian activists and animal rights groups, and the latter is notorious for distorting the truth to gain public support. (I'm not trying to point any fingers. I'm just stating what I have noticed.) I don't know what the slant is here or if there is an agenda here or not, but this debate should have been short and obvious. The quotes that I read above were mostly from the 19th century and lacked specific sources... (or included a link to some animal rights material... hmmm...). If you have to go back that far, you've got a very weak argument. Our understanding of anthropology and human biology has grown leaps and bounds since then. I don't see anyone (successfully) trying to use quotes from 19th-century anti-evolutionists (who were often reputable scientists for their time) to change the Evolution article to reflect evolution as a fraud. We need reliable, recent references—and many of them, particularly from the field of anthropology—to overturn what is clearly the dominant view in the academic literature, which states that humans are omnivores. In other words, it is not going to happen.

There are also other issues. It looks like people have already been throwing definitions around, but let me state the definition I'm working off of (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obligate): "able to exist under only one set of environmental conditions." Let's take cats for instance. They are "obligate carnivores", and it says so in every introductory text on cats. Meat contains arginine and taurine, amino acids that are essential to cats, but they are unable to produce themselves. This may sound like humans and our need for vitamin C (noted in the discussion above). However unlike cats, humans do not subsist entirely on fruit as cats do on meat. We are able to exist under more than one set of environmental conditions, eating a mix of meat, fruits, and vegetables (omnivory). About the only reason you'll see a cat eat anything other than meat is to induce vomiting. Humans, on the other hand, can live for a long time without fruits, although admittedly we do require some appreciable source of vitamin C (which is usually fruit). This inability to produce vitamin C is not a human-only trait among primates. In fact, the entire haplorrhine clade (tarsiers and all simians) lack the ability. Only the strepsirrhine primates (lemurs, lorises, and bushbabies) can produce vitamin C. Clearly a lot of evolution has occurred since the haplorrhine/strepsirrhine split, and most primate species or even families have variable diets. (A quick note: Tarsiers are strictly carnivorous, despite their inability to make vitamin C.) Let me give one more quick example: Ruffed lemurs are frugivores. In the wild, they predominantly eat fruit. However, nowhere in the literature does it say that ruffed lemurs are obligate frugivores. And sure enough, the article I wrote on them does not state that. Even if I found a text from the early 1800's stating that they are obligate frugivores, I would never introduce it into the article, except as a historical note. In the case at hand, it all comes down to recent, reliable sources particularly from the fields that specialize in the topic... i.e. Anthropology. Reaching much beyond, particularly in an attempt to overturn the predominant view comes across as OR.

If you are not satisfied with how this debate is going, then I encourage you to take it up on the Human article's talk page. The fact that this topic has not been brought up there strikes me as suspicious. If you feel so strongly that humans are obligate frugivores, why not spend this energy engaging a broader audience on a much more popular page (where the information would actually belong), rather than some (unfortunately) obscure article in general biology? (Maybe someday someone will devote the necessary energy into cleaning up these articles on basic biology...) Just trying to mention this on an article explaining frugivory seems a little out of context. Its good to list examples, but shouldn't the species page contain this critical information first? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Personalised perspective

I came here following a link requesting unbiased assistance with resolution, from the third opinion page. What I have seen appears to be Pearl999 wishing to present a personalised perspective rather than a representative overview of material on a now fashionable subject.

This is a place for representing all informed opinion on a matter, and if you are truly unbiased, you should welcome WP:REL accredited information both indicating a given conclusion and an opposite conclusion, and present both for the reader to make up their own mind. If you want to prove that humans are/should be/could be/were/will be Obligate Frugivores ie. Fruitarian, then you are better off editing or building a one-point-of-view site, not using this open-access resource as a platform. If such a site presented that information very credibly, it might even hold onto a citation from here! I notice very similar arguments going on on the Talk:Fruitarianism page. The difference with this page is that Frugivore is a scientific term, whereas Fruitarian is a description people apply more liberally to (their own) lifestyle.

Regarding attention to order in this page, I have put effort into keeping my posts neat and concise to make the discussion followable, but the flow has become fragmented several times by commenting within existing posts (rather than referring to statements from a new post) and overburdened by screen-fulls of pasted text, where references would do. If you wish to be credible, please work methodically. I have enjoyed learning here but will now move on. Thank you. Trev M ~  20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indisputable Evidence

Ok, I've read the latest comments and most noticeable is the continued avoidance of the recent published literature already cited, from credible, respected authors in the fields of anthropology and nutritional science. It was fashionable in the last century for anthropologists to support the idea that early humans and pre-humans were habitual meat-eaters, but those theories have been disputed, not least by a review of the archeological evidence posted above (and ignored). Please also learn to distinguish between behavioural adaptations and biological adaptations.

Jared Diamond, professor of anthropology at UCLA: ".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging. It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000 years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch12/chap12.htm

Again, recent published research..

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.htm

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://thexvials.blogspot.com/

No modern human can capture, kill and consume animals without external aids. That alone should tell you that humans are not naturally carnivorous, and nutritional research (ignored) puts the last nail in that coffin.

(Copyright violation removed. Ucucha 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)) http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679

There is no "distortion of truth" here, or elsewhere by animal rights and vegan activists. On the other hand, refusing to engage with the evidence in favour of baseless ad hominem and arguably biased support for popular theories in the face of the evidence most certainly is. Pearl999 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only "indisputable evidence" shows that you have little to no understanding of anthropology or basic biology. (And italicizing "theorized" didn't help your image, since you obviously have no understanding of the word outside of the colloquial sense.) Your message does strongly suggest, especially from the last paragraph, that you listen to animal rights propaganda without asking healthy questions. But I digress..... I should start off, however, by apologizing for not responding to your "recent published literature" in my first reply. Honestly, I didn't want to read a book... and likewise, I didn't want to read a book this morning, so I mostly skimmed the volume you wrote (though more closely this time). Let me state this as succinctly as possible. Your sources do not make a case for humans being obligate frugivores... or plain frugivores for that matter. (Australopithecus afarensis may have been a fruit and nut eater, but we are Homo sapiens. There is no direct link for your claim.) They simply argue that meat was not the central part of the diet of our ancestors. Basically, they are de-emphasizing the role as "hunter" and helping paint humans as omnivores: eating a combination vegetable matter and scavenged or hunted meat. That's not being a frugivore; that's being an omnivore. I'm going to state this again: If you feel so strongly about this, take up the debate at Talk:Human. You will certainly get more feedback there... though probably not the kind you want. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

'Main Entry: the·o·rize Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-ˌrīz, ˈthir-ˌīz\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): the·o·rized; the·o·riz·ing Date: 1638 intransitive verb

to form a theory : speculate

transitive verb 1 : to form a theory about 2 : to propose as a theory — the·o·ri·za·tion \ˌthē-ə-rə-ˈzā-shən, ˌthir-ə-\ noun — the·o·riz·er noun http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theorized

'Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken not for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays.

'Chimpanzees, that occasionally eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).

And you still seem to be wholly unable to distinguish between behavioural adaptations and biological adaptations!

If you guys are representative of editors at Wikipedia, I'll remember in future not to rely on it as a credible source of information. Pearl999 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. For that reason, I am no longer going to debate this. As I have said twice now, briefly mention your thoughts on this issue on the talk page for Human—where the material would belong—and discuss it there. This is not the article for this material. If you are still not content with the outcome, you can escalate using the established guidelines for resolving disputes. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course humans' biological status as an unspecialised frugivore (Hladik, et al.) merits a mention in a page about frugivores. As for debate... well, the tab above does clearly say "discussion". (no surprises here)

Alright, I'll take it to "Human", as you suggest.  :) Pearl999 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says "discussion". However, it is not for discussing the topic, it is for discussing ways to improve the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"I suggest you continue to discuss sources on this discussion page and reach consensus before making an addition—Work permit (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of cites by Ucucha can also be filed under "evasive dirty tricks".

(Copyright violation removed (again). Please read WP:NFC#Text 2. Ucucha 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test Pearl999 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotta laugh. Pearl999 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans Are Biological Frugivores - proposed addition

Anatomy - Human anatomy is almost identical to the anatomy of frugivorous primates. Gut measurements do not support theories of an adaptation towards carnivory, but are grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

Archaeology - A review of Plio-Pleistocene archaeology found site location and assemblage composition to be indicative of low-yield scavenging in the context of competitive male displays and not consistent with the idea that big game hunting and provisioning was responsible for the evolution of early Homo. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

Health - Clinical and epidemiological nutritional studies consistently reveal health benefits from the consumption of plant-based foods and conversely, significant increase in the risk of chronic degenerative diseases with the consumption of animal-based foods. According to the findings of the largest and most comprehensive study there was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl999 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up at the human talk page. You'll get more informed opinions. You should not add it to this article before you add it to the Human article.--Work permit (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pearl, does "frugivore/-ous" mean "vegan" or "vegetarian" or to you? In other words, does "frugivore/-frugivorous" necessarly exlude also eating other things, such as meat perhaps, when you use it? Because the article says it means that the natural diet would simply include fruit as one of the preferred foods, a definition which humans would obviously fit. Chrisrus (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What the word means to Pearl, Work permit, me, you or any other editor is moot. In terms of what the article says, we can only say what reliable sources say. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article says that it means a creature that has fruit as a regularly preferred item in its diet. Therefore, Humans apply. I think it's pretty obvious that this is part of some agenda on her part to prove that humans are natural vegans, which, sadly perhaps, is obviously false. But if she wants to add to this article that humans are an animal that fits the definition of the word as it stands in the article, she's right and should procede, because we are an omnivore that often prefers fruit. It's kind of pointless and obvious, but then again, so are many things in many articles. There's an article for example that tells you that a chair is something people sit on, you know, so there you go. If however she tries to make it seem that humans are natural vegetarians, however, that's another question entirely. Chrisrus (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans are not omnivores, vegans, frugivores or anything else unless a reliable source says they are. Anything on this talk page discussing what humans are or are not is off-topic, UNLESS you are stating what such sources say for inclusion in the article. This page is NOT for discussing frugivores. This page is for discussing the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

She wants to add humans to the article. Only facts which are not blatantly obvious to anyone need to be sourced at all.Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be sourced. I challenge the assertion that humans are "frugivores". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You challenge the assertion that humans often eat fruit? Chrisrus (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion that humans are "frugivores", we do not have a reliable source stating that. The related argument, that frugivores are animals who often eat fruit and humans often eat fruit making them frugivores, is synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk)

But, the article says that a frugivore is any omnivore that includes fruit as a regular part of its diet. As you know, humans are an omnivore whose diet regularly features fruit. It might be difficult to cite the simple widely known fact that fruit is and always has been a predominant feature of human diets, but not impossible. I have an encyclopedia of food and nutrition that might do the job, I suppose. The point is, this Pearl person and her "sources" seem to be trying to prove that humans are naturally vegetarians or some such, which is highly controvertial, to put it mildly. But if this article is correct, she's making a big mistake if she thinks adding humans to the frugivores in this article would do anything to promote that agenda. It'd be simply stateing an obvious and not at all controvertial thing about people: that we often eat fruit. Hence, the entire debate here and at the article "human" is based on wrong assumtions. Calling humans "frugivores" is about as controvertial as saying that we have elbows, and says nothing about our consumption of meat or grains or anything else. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing A + B therefore C. This is synthesis. If you would like to add to the article that humans are frigivores, you will need reliable sources that say that. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless this article is wrong, all I'd need to do that would be to find some citation to prove that the human diet normally features fruit.Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true. That would be synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5]" WP:SYN - SummerPhD (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this issue seems to have been previously resolved against your proposal at another venue. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply stating the same thing in different words can't be "synthesis". If it were, every time we paraphrase a citation, it'd be synthesis. Saying "humans are frugivores" is a paraphrase of "humans are omnivores whose diet features fruit". If a source says "giraffes eat leaves" and you wrote in an article "giraffes are leafeatavores", that's not synthesis simply because you found the word "leafeatavore" elsewhere. Anyway, you're clearly missing my point and conflating me with someone else if you are sending me to that debate. Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this page about frugivores or about seed dispersal?

The introduction makes it clear that frugivores can disperse seeds or they can not disperse seeds, but then the rest of the article seems to imply that seed dispersal is the most important aspect of the topic. And some statements imply that disppersing seeds is a requirement of frugivores. It makes me think maybe most of the seed dispersal stuff should be moved to a different page.

I think the thing is, the concept of frugivore is very useful for the discussion of seed disperal, but not much good for anything else.

Yes, it seems to me now that you can't really speak of many animals as frugivores because fruit is seasonal so you've almost always got to be able to be able to eat something else besides fruit, so most animals that you could call "frugivores" are mostly omnivores. But if you're talking about seed dispersal, you don't care what the animal does when the fruit is out of season. Thinking back of all the articles I've read, there are some "obligate fruigores" to coin a term, maybe the tropical fruitbats eat fruit only, and maybe some tropical birds can also travel the amazing distances necessary to locate ripe fruit 365 days a year, but I think most monkeys and such as I recall eat a lot of bugs, eggs, other plant parts.

On the other hand, probably only those carnivores that are very specialized eat only meat. Their closest relatives and ancestors probably wouldn't have passed up any fruit they could find. Most bears, civets, raccoon family, skunk family, and so on eat fruit whenever they can. Casey and the puppy both like bananas. Cats are the only land mammal species I can think of that just no way will eat fruit. So with mammals, we're pretty much all frugivores because we eat fruit, but none of us can depend on it because we've got to eat every day and there just is no way to find fruit every day. And it doesn't keep.

Insects, I don't know so much. They're more of a problem for seed dispersalist plants than friends, but some of the larvae are specialized to just eat one apple or whatnot, and then go dormant, grow wings and such, and fly to lay an egg on the next apple. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any insect scientists using the word "frugivore". They have their own words for this lifestyle, I think. Maybe, I don't know.

So it's a botanical term. Chrisrus (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of tree's fruit all year around , modern agriculture has modified them to drop all at the same time , and usually once a year . Mainly for putting in tin can's . that inferior product became the norm . So now we are all eating cheapest nastiest shit imaginable and it don't matter what food it is . Your eating genetically modified fruit that is made canning and because of ritual animal sacrificing cult's , just because they are large and considered normal , does not mean they are . You wikipedia article's just full of absolutely garbage like this one . I don't see gelatin on the horse page etc , nor even a link , tho it is so common . Seems to me to be a huge bias against fruit . This aint a place for you religious preaching's and business propaganda .