Talk:Savannah hypothesis

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Savannah hypothesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

560 MYA[edit]

There were no hominids 560 million years ago, nor were there any woodlands for them to walk out of. Did the author mean "5 to 6 million years?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.52.135 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually. For starters, it's referring to hominines, not hominids. I remember being startled by the number, but it was pulled from a source. 5-6MYA would be inaccurate as well, since the subfamily dates back to 8-10MYA by most estimates (nor would it be more accurate to refer to hominids this way, as they date back even further, to about 15-20MYA). It may have been a typo in the source, an older source with a since-discredited view, or a simple mistake, but I recall confirming it twice already (once when reading it). I seem to remember this exact issue coming up once before, but I cant' recall where.

Note that this may be a mistake of re-phrasing, i.e. the 560MYA number is correct, but it didn't refer to hominines, but their ancestors. I'm checking the sources now to see if there's something I can do to fix it, because I'd rather not just go with OR because I know a source is wrong, without a better source to correct it with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know exactly what happened (I still can't remember the first go-around in much detail), but I do know that one of the sources supports the claim that hominins (distinct from hominines) arose 5-6MYA, so I'm going to change it to that, as you suggested. I know the 560MYA source was explicit, but I'm not going to quibble over details when they make the phrasing of the lede go off on a time period by ~550 million years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna(h) Hypothesis in evolutionary psychology[edit]

There's also a quite different (but related) "Savannah Hypothesis" in evolutionary psychology. It's the idea that we now have a preference for green, Arcadian landscapes, watering holes, manicured gardens, golf courses, etc based on our transition to the Savannah. This is the 1980s/1990s work of people like Gordon Orians on "evolved responses to landscape" etc, Judith Heerwagen, the experiments of Balling and Falk, etc etc. It either needs a mention in this article or a whole, separate disambiguated article along the lines "Savannah Hypothesis (evolutionary psychology)". Relevant primary sources would be...

Orians, G. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49–66). Chicago: Elsevier.
Orians, G. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meaning and values (pp. 3–25). London: Allen & Unwin.
Orians, G., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: University Press.
Balling, J.D. and Falk, J.H. (1982) Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.

and also mentioned at length by people like Steven Pinker, Denis Dutton, et al - as secondary sources. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable secondary-source summary is Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind by David Buss, T&F, 2015 edition, p83-85 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Evolutionary_Psychology/c85WCgAAQBAJ (though that would need balancing with alternative viewpoints). 82.71.0.229 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above, counterbalancing secondary source could be various of the chapters in Alas Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology by Hilary Rose, Steven Rose (eds), Random House,2010 (ISBN: 9781446412176, 1446412172, https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Alas_Poor_Darwin/HQthCC191y8C). Several of the authors there argue against the Savannah hypothesis. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]