The debate over olfactory navigation by homing pigeons
The debate over olfactory navigation by homing pigeons
复制标题
关于信鸽嗅觉导航的争论
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1996
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Able
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Able
1971年，Papi和他的同事首次提出气味在鸽子的归巢导航中起着重要作用，自那以来，这一假设一直存在争议。尽管当时几乎所有在这一领域工作的人都觉得这个想法在直觉上是不合理的，但来自帕皮在比萨的实验室的各种实验的实证支持，激发了四分之一个世纪的实验、理论、倡导和异议。嗅觉导航的主要支持者之一Hans Wallraff和Roswitha Wiltschko在文章中回顾了这个问题，Roswitha Wiltschko仍然对气味与鸽子归巢的关系持怀疑态度。应编辑们的要求，我在这里提供一个没有参与这个问题的人对这场辩论的个人观点，事实上，我从来没有放过信鸽。关于鸽子归巢嗅觉的文献现在相当多。最近对实证数据和理论论证的总结，无论是支持还是反对，都可以在Papi (1991,1995), Wallraff (1990), Schmidt-Koenig (1987)， SchmidtKoenig和Ganzhorn（1991）和Waldvogel（1989）中找到。Wallraff和Wiltschko在章节中引用了许多相关的原始论文。我在这里的目的不是对相关文献进行全面的回顾。相反，我将把重点放在辩论中涉及的一般问题上，并试图权衡证据。
In the years since 1971, when Papi and his colleagues first proposed that odors played an important role in the homing navigation of pigeons, the hypothesis has remained controversial. Although the idea seemed intuitively unreasonable to nearly everyone working in the field at that time, empirical support from a wide variety of experiments emanating from Papi’s laboratory in Pisa has stimulated a quarter of a century of experiments, theorizing, advocacy and dissent. The issue is reviewed here in contributions by Hans Wallraff, one of the chief proponents of olfactory navigation, and Roswitha Wiltschko, who remains skeptical about the involvement of odors in pigeon homing. At the Editors’ request, I provide here a personal perspective on the debate from one who has had no involvement in the issue and, indeed, has never released a homing pigeon. The literature on olfaction in pigeon homing is now quite large. Recent summaries of the empirical data and theoretical arguments, both for and against, can be found in Papi (1991, 1995), Wallraff (1990), Schmidt-Koenig (1987), SchmidtKoenig and Ganzhorn (1991) and Waldvogel (1989). Many of the relevant original papers are cited in the chapters by Wallraff and Wiltschko. It is not my purpose here to provide a thorough review of the relevant literature. Rather, I will focus on the general issues involved in the debate and attempt to weigh up the evidence.