User:K.white31/sandbox

Sandbox page for Placentophagy Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:K.white31/sandbox/Placentophagy&action=edit

Article Evaluation

Prusten

I chose to evaluate this article as it briefly discusses a behaviour performed by certain jungle cats. Specifically, it refers to a vocalization, called prusten or chuffing. I find the topic intriguing and would like to research it further to find out more about the particulars of the behaviour. Further, it is a stub article so there is opportunity to add to information in subsequent parts of the assignment.

Lead

The lead begins by referring to which subfamily of animals exhibit the behaviour rather than what the behaviour actually is. The first sentence should define the action in more detail so that readers know exactly what the article is about, and the article should expand from this introduction. This will also help the overall flow of the article. Further, the lead does not present the major sections of the article to be discussed and incorporates a broad range of information that may have been best to save for later sections such as how the sound is made, and specific examples of its use.

Content

The article itself contains very little content, it is a stub article and so it consists only of a Lead paragraph. While the content in the lead is pertinent to the article's topic, there is much more that can be added. The lead briefly touches on when and why the behaviour is exhibited but does not elaborate further. More research on when and how the behaviour was discovered, any studies on the vocalization, as well the difference between this particular sound and other sounds created by the animals could be included in other sections.

Tone

The tone of the article is neutral. There is no evident bias or persuasion. In saying this, the article contains little information. It is likely that there are viewpoints and studies surrounding this topic that were not mentioned in the article, meaning they are underrepresented.

Sources

The lead has two references within, which is not enough to substantiate the topic. The links for the references are functional, but both would be considered poor sources for Wikipedia standards. The first is a definition from an online dictionary and the second from a official snow leopard website. It is fair to say that the article is not thorough as the sources are not indicative of all available literature on the subject. There should be more, specifically ones from academic and peer reviewed references.

Organization

The organization of the article is poor. The article does not flow properly, the lead contains too broad of a scope of information. It should be divided into sections which elaborate on the major aspects of the vocalization.

Images and Media

The article lacks any images or media. While it may be hard to find images that improve a readers understanding of the article, some should be included to make the page more visually appealing. These could be images of scenarios in which the animal will perform the vocalization, or of the phylogeny of the animals that exhibit the behaviour.

Talk Page

The talk page of this article did not contain any relevant discussion from other wiki users. The article is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Overall Evaluation

Overall, the article is underdeveloped. It could be improved by doing more research on the subject, and finding out more about what is known through the available literature. Topics like the discovery of this type of vocalization, the purpose or the circumstances in which animals exhibit this particular sound, and studies related to the prusten vocalization need to be discussed in more detail. Another interesting idea to include would be whether or not this behaviour is learned or innate.

References

Edited Prusten

Reproductive Biology of the Snow Leopard, Panthera uncia

Int. Ped. Book of Snow Leopards 3: 71-79, 1982.

http://snowleopardnetwork.org/bibliography/Blomqvist_Sten_1982.pdf

Evolution of Acoustic Communication Signals of Mammals: Friendly Close-Range Vocalizations in Felidae (Carnivora)

Journal of Mammalian Evolution, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999

https://link-springer-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1020620121416.pdf

Placentophagy

Placentophagy, also known as placentophagia, is the act of consuming part or all of the afterbirth following parturition in mammals. Parturition involves the delivery of the neonate, as well as the placenta and fetal membranes. The placenta is a critical organ that develops in the maternal uterus during pregnancy to support the fetus. It connects to the baby via the umbilical cord in order to allow nutrient transport, waste excretion and gas exchange between mother and baby. The morphological features of the placenta differ among species, but the function is universal.

Fig. 1: Mother goat engaging in placentophagy

The behaviour is characteristic to the birth giver, ie. the mother, of the majority of placental mammals. Significant documentation has been provided on placentophagy in a range of animals. Anomalies generally include humans and aquatic species, as well as camels. However, the concept is becoming more popular among women in the Western World despite its controversial overtone.

Theories as to why mammals engage in placentophagy are related to the many proposed benefits of placental consumption. These vary between animals but tend to be behavioural, medical or spiritual in nature. .

Prevalence

Placentophagy is a normality in most members of the taxonomic group Eutheria. It has been observed in animals ranging from rodents to primates, and even in some instances humans. The most extensive study has been on animals in orders Rodentia, Chiroptera, Lagomorpha, Carnivora, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, and Primates. Exceptions to the ubiquitous behaviour in mammals can be seen in humans, sea mammals and camelids. It is suggested that the portion of marine species that do not practice placentophagy are ones that deliver their offspring in the water because beneficial components are dispersed upon expulsion from the mother, and that the domestication of camelids has eradicated the behaviour by placing stress and selective pressure on the species.

Hypothesized Benefits

There are numerous hypothesized benefits to the practice of placentophagy in both human and nonhuman mammals, which are seen as the direct motivation for various animals to engage in the consumption of the afterbirth. Many of these proposed benefits have since been disproved through scientific study.

Satiation of Hunger

Some initial conjectures related directly to the satiation of specific and general maternal hunger. These hinged on the idea that prior to parturition mothers ceased to eat and so, immediately after birth they consumed the placenta to satisfy an intense hunger. Further, was the idea of specific hunger in that the maternal figure participated in placentophagy to replenish any resources depleted during pregnancy that were contained within the placenta. This was later disproved by studies on rats and other species showing that a wide range of animals do not typically decrease the amount of food or water taken in prior to delivery, and that rats presented with placenta will consume it regardless of pregnancy or virginity.

Cleanliness and Protection Against Predation

Another aspect of placentophagy that was initially considered a beneficial reason for its occurrence was that the consumption of the afterbirth ensured cleanliness of the nest and eliminated any sign of new/vulnerable offspring. It was suggested that nesting animals who would then rear there young within the nest benefitted by having an aseptic area. Further, predators would be attracted to the site of parturition by the scent of blood and of fetal tissue, so ingesting the afterbirth would eliminate the ability for predators to easily locate newborns. This would in turn provide protection for the defenceless young. These hypothesized benefits were later rejected because the act of consuming the placenta would be more time consuming than merely abandoning the site of parturition or removing the afterbirth from the nesting area. Each of which would provide the same benefit as placentophagy was presumed to provide.

Increased Pain Threshold

A newer and more scientifically sound hypothesize about the maternal consumption of afterbirth in mammals is that the placenta contains compounds that increase pain tolerance post parturition. Although it is known that during pregnancy and labour there is a natural increase in internal production of enkephalins and endorphins that decrease the sensation of pain, studies proved that the consumption of placenta by maternal rats, after delivery, spiked the subsequent numbers of these opioids. This was due to the active ingredient present in the placenta as well as the amniotic fluid, Placental Opiod-Enhancing Factor (POEF). It is important to note that afterbirth also contains amniotic fluid, and scientists believe its consumption may be equally as important in the elevation of pain threshold as is the placental ingestion. Amniotic fluid is likely taken in unknowingly by cleaning the genital area prior or post delivery, or by cleaning or kissing the infant soon after expulsion.

Evolution

Placentophagy evolved independently in different lineages as adaptations to various challenges faced by ancestral species. The behaviour was ultimately attractive to the maternal subject based on the hypothesized benefits discussed above but provided some kind of advantage. Based on this advantage, placentophagy was selected for by natural selection which lead to its persistence in mammal species.