The Savannah hypotheses: origin, reception and impact on paleoanthropology

The reconstruction of the human past is a complex task characterized by a high level of interdisciplinarity. How do scientists from different fields reach consensus on crucial aspects of paleoanthropological research? The present paper explores this question through an historical analysis of the origin, development, and reception of the savannah hypotheses (SHs). We show that this model neglected to investigate crucial biological aspects which appeared to be irrelevant in scenarios depicting early hominins evolving in arid or semi-arid open plains. For instance, the exploitation of aquatic food resources and other aspects of hominin interaction with water were largely ignored in classical paleoanthropology. These topics became central to alternative ideas on human evolution known as aquatic hypotheses. Since the aquatic model is commonly regarded as highly controversial, its rejection led to a stigmatization of the whole spectrum of topics around water use in non-human hominoids and hominins. We argue that this bias represents a serious hindrance to a comprehensive reconstruction of the human past. Progress in this field depends on clear differentiation between hypotheses proposed to contextualize early hominin evolution in specific environmental settings and research topics which demand the investigation of all relevant facets of early hominins' interaction with complex landscapes.

Wildlife health investigations: needs, challenges and recommendations.

In a fast changing world with growing concerns about biodiversity loss and an increasing number of animal and human diseases emerging from wildlife, the need for effective wildlife health investigations including both surveillance and research is now widely recognized. However, procedures applicable to and knowledge acquired from studies related to domestic animal and human health can be on partly extrapolated to wildlife. This article identifies requirements and challenges inherent in wildlife health investigations, reviews important definitions and novel health investigation methods, and proposes tools and strategies for effective wildlife health surveillance programs. Impediments to wildlife health investigations are largely related to zoological, behavioral and ecological characteristics of wildlife populations and to limited access to investigation materials. These concerns should not be viewed as insurmountable but it is imperative that they are considered in study design, data analysis and result interpretation. It is particularly crucial to remember that health surveillance does not begin in the laboratory but in the fields. In this context, participatory approaches and mutual respect are essential. Furthermore, interdisciplinarity and open minds are necessary because a wide range of tools and knowledge from different fields need to be integrated in wildlife health surveillance and research. The identification of factors contributing to disease emergence requires the comparison of health and ecological data over time and among geographical regions. Finally, there is a need for the development and validation of diagnostic tests for wildlife species and for data on free-ranging population densities. Training of health professionals in wildlife diseases should also be improved. Overall, the article particularly emphasizes five needs of wildlife health investigations: communication and collaboration; use of synergies and triangulation approaches; investments for the long term; systematic collection of metadata; and harmonization of definitions and methods.

Linguista sum... sed lingua non definio. Absence de définition de la langue et circularité de la construction structurale

This article analyzes the Jakobsonian classification of aphasias. It aims to show on the one hand the non-linguistic character of this classification and on the other hand its asymmetry, in spite of the fact that its author had conceived his structural construction as symmetrical. The non-linguistic character of Jakobson’s formulation is due to the absence of any definition of language, this absence being the main characteristic of Jakobsonian linguistics: concerning the aphasia problem, the Jakobsonian formulation is linguistic solely by virtue of its object, aphasia, which is already considered as a linguistic concern because it belongs to the field of « language », but which is not defined as such (as linguistic). As for asymmetry, it demonstrates first the circularity of the Jakobsonian representation of language (the duality between structure and functioning), and secondly the non-linguistic character – in the Saussurean sense of the term – of the aphasia problem. Thus it appears that breaking (in the sense of Gaston Bachelard) with idiom is the prerequisite of a scientific apprehension of language, and therefore of any interdisciplinarity, this being one of Jakobson’s favorite topics but one that this linguist failed to render fruitful because he did not offer a real definition of language.