Hello everyone!

My name is Cátia, I'm 24 years old and I'm from Portugal (like João Oliveira - actually, I'm the one who told him about this group :) ). I'm an Environmental Biologist and I've finished last year my MSc, where I studied the behaviour of a colony of captive gorillas.

My aim is to become an ethologist and to do research in the field of animal behaviour. My interests, besides animal behaviour, are mainly (but not only): socioecology, animal welfare, anthrozoology (animal-human interaction), captive behaviour, stereotypies, animal motivation and species-specific appropriate behaviour. But until I can consider myself an ethologist, I think I still have a lot to learn, and to read, and to research and to discuss!

Because of that and because I have got plenty of free time, I decided to join this group, in order to further my knowledge. I'm only working part-time (unfortunately, not in biology) and I'm writing papers based on my MSc dissertation, which leaves me with time to read every posts made on this forum (and others!).

Before moving on to the second subject of my post, I would like to congratulate all the people from this group, because this forum seems to me, of high scientific interest and plus, is very active, with interesting discussions and points of views. An excellent place to learn more about behavioural sciences!

Regarding the present discussion that has been taking place, about Schneirla's School, I have a few remarks to make:

- First, I want to thank Ruth because it was almost a perfect timing for this discussion. I've just entered this forum and you brought up this topic. I was very glad you brought that up, because I've never heard of that school of thought (Schneirla's, although I had studied briefly Morgan's contributions to science), and even if it is not widely accepted, I think it's very important as an investigator to know different theories and different perspectives of the same area/topic of study. Like Jay Feierman, I'm also going to buy the books you recommended!

- I am usually some kind of a silent/passive reader in forums, but this discussion compelled me to join in and share what I think (and I think sometimes some scientific groups "forgets" how to do this, to make people really interested in participate in the discussions).

- However, due to some of the last posts, I've found myself disappointed with the way Ruth Rosin is placing her arguments defending Schneirla's School... I don't understand fully why Ruth has adopted this stand, but I don't think is positive, from a scientifically point of view, because Ruth is not promoting knowledge about this school of thought and neither is she defending the school very well (in my humble opinion).

- Ruth started by stating her defense of a theory that is not very well known (for what I tried to research and for the reaction of some experienced people of the forum, and for what I read on internet and on a few scientific papers) and definitely not widely accepted (as has been previously discussed on this forum). So, I was expecting that Ruth explained how this school functions and explained several behavioural mechanisms that had been discussed here. Instead, Ruth only makes clear that: 1) classical European Ethology is wrong and Schneirla's school is right, 2) all papers that have been published based on European Ethology are all wrong (and that is really nonsense). And finally, she refuses to read links/papers/books which have an opposite argument to her supported theory and don't provide solid research/references to support her claims, what inevitably leads to the end of a positive discussion. And this is a big mistake! In my opinion, no investigator should adopt this position. As I said before, even if you don't agree with a point of view or a whole theory, you have to know very well the theories that are opposite to what you defend, in order to make better arguments for yourself. And if you don't inform yourself about opposite arguments, then it kind of turns into a dogmatic point of view and we enter in a more "belief area" instead of "evidence-based structured arguments" (i.e. science itself).

- I'd like to know which kind of background you have Ruth, if you are a psychologist, biologist, anthropologist, etc. in order to try to figure out why you choose this approach in Ethology. I'm asking this, because during my MSc I worked with an anthropologist, as my thesis advisor, and I noticed differences in the way of approaching problems (because my background is in biology and hers was in anthropology). In the end, I've came to the conclusion that it only worked out on my benefit as a trainee, because I believe that we should be pluralists while doing science and try to have contact with different ways of working within the scientific community.

- Second, I would like to ask you Ruth, (if you would have the patience...) of explaining how Schneirla's School would explain all the migrations that animals do, because as you may know, not only birds and insects migrates. In Portugal, we have an important point in the route of migratory birds (Sagres) and this is a topic that is well studied here. But you also have cetaceans and other mammals, fishes, reptiles, etc. that migrate, and that their migratory routes are very well studied (sorry not providing references, but I think it is easy to find papers about this topic). Neither they can be all wrong, neither it can be all by chance, that all this groups of animals maintain the same route, generation after generation, without some kind of instinctive/innate mechanism. And there are other studies that alone (apparently without being based on older theories of any kind) support this line of thought in Ethology (for what I've read so far).

- Just so you all know, I've read everything that has been said in this forum about this topic, including Ruth explanations about the migration of butterflies. But I'm still confused about Schneirla's school, because I honestly didn't understand yet what this line of thought defends (maybe the books will help!!), except for the "fact" the other (European school) is wrong…

- So if possible, Ruth, I want to ask you one last thing: instead of being "against something", just try to defend your school of thought, because in this way, everyone will understand it better and maybe, even agree with it.

To finish this long post (hope not to long! ;) ), I would like to apologize in advance for my English (as it is not my native language, and although in Portugal we have a good contact with the language, I didn't have yet much opportunities to fully practice my writing and speaking in a more formal/scientific way), and honestly I hope that Ruth (and other members) don't take my opinion too personally.

Hope to have some feedback from all of you!

Cheers,
Cátia Caeiro