Talk:Tinbergen's four questions

Untitled
Tinbergen’s four questions on animal behavior are already discussed in three Wikipedia articles: Nikolaas_Tinbergen, behavioral ecology, and ethology.

Actually, these 4 levels of analysis can be applied to any biological phenomenon, not only behaviour, as the "periodic table" below indicates. I have not seen this "periodic table" anywhere else, but it makes sense to me. George A. Lozano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.47.64 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So a basic question regarding this article is whether it should be a stand-alone article or be incorporated into one of the existing articles.

I believe this topic deserves a stand-alone article, because of (1) its substantive importance and (2) its length once its basic ideas are fully developed and some examples are given. The causal/temporary relationships among the four explanations need to be presented graphically and the confusion over the “functional” and “evolutionary” explanations needs to be sorted out.

As I envision it, a stand-alone article should be referenced by the above articles as well as by sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, both of which do not (but should) recognize the importance’s of this topic. To point users to this article, I will insert the following statement in the above three articles plus those for evolutionary psychology and sociobiology: “See Animal Behavior Questions for an expanded discussion of Tinbergen’s four questions. The causal relationships among these explanations are presented graphically.”

W Pete Welch 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In my writing the initial draft of this page, the most difficult issue was selecting its title. A colleague suggested “Tinbergen’s Four Questions.” Do other people have reactions or suggestions?

W Pete Welch 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)W Pete Welch

The following sentence was may be right 100 years ago, as long as a functional anatomy was not developed: "For nonbehavioral aspects of biology (e.g., anatomy), three of the four questions are applicable. Only the proximate mechanism is not relevant, as it cannot be an explanation for itself." The functional anatomy makes research concerning the proximate mechanisms of for example legs, wings, organs for hunting and eating.

Is somebody willing to give examples to the fields in the table? For example fields a1, a2, a3, a4; b1, b2, b3, b4 ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.79.65 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me a page on Tinbergen's four questions should at some point (probably near the top) include a simple list of the four questions. Something like:

 What is the mechanism of the behavior? How does the behavior develop? How did the behavior evolve? How is the behavior adaptive? 

I'd do this myself, but I'm not really an expert on the topic, so I'm worried that some of the four questions above are slightly (or not-so-slightly) wrong. 96.252.13.79 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Rating
I've rated this article B class, but it barely meets the criteria. Inline citations and a graphic in the lead will keep the article class at a solid B.  Justin  chat 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"periodic table"?
Are there reliable sources that discuss Tinbergen's four questions explicitly using this periodic table analogy? Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC) The metaphor "periodic table" is great. Who is Pete Welch? He used the metaphor already in the initial draft. What is his scientific background? User: gerhard.medicus@tilak.at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.79.65 (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)