6 research outputs found
PENGARUH MODEL PEMBELAJARAN INKUIRI TERBIMBING TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN BERPIKIR ANALITIS DITINJAU DARI MOTIVASI BELAJAR SISWA KELAS XI IPS SMAN 1 TUMPANG KABUPATEN MALANG
No full textRINGKASANPertiwi, Meri Dwi. 2019. Pengaruh Model Inkuiri Terbimbing terhadap Kemampuan Berpikir Analitis Siswa Ditinjau dari Motivasi Belajar Siswa Kelas XI IPS SMA Negeri 1 Tumpang. Skripsi. Jurusan Geografi Fakultas Ilmu Sosial Universitas Negeri Malang. Pembimbing: (1) Drs. Yusuf Suharto, M.Pd., (2) Dra. Yuswanti Ariani Wirahayu, M.Si. Kata kunci: Model Inkuiri Terbimbing, Kemampuan Berpikir Analitis, Motivasi BelajarPembelajaran abad 21 menekankan pada kemampuan berpikir analitis. Kemampuan berpikir analitis penting untuk dimiliki siswa karena termasuk kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi dan dibutuhkan dalam pembelajaran geografi. kemampuan berpikir analitis dapat diperoleh melalui model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing. Model ini dipilih dalam penelitian ini karena sesuai dengan implementasi Kurikulum 2013 dan didasarkan pada teori konstruktivisme. Motivasi dipilih sebagai variabel moderator dalam penelitian ini karena Motivasi belajar menjadi pengarah siswa dalam mencapai tujuan pembelajaran. Tujuan dari penelitian ini yaitu untuk mengetahui: 1) pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing terhadap kemampuan berpikir analitis siswa, dan 2) pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing terhadap kemampuan berpikir analitis ditinjau dari motivasi belajar siswa. Metode yang digunakan adalah eksperimen semu dengan posttest only control group design . penelitian ini dilakukan pada dua kelas yaitu kelas eksperimen yang diberikan model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing dan kelas kontrol yang diberikan perlakuan pembelajaran konvensional. Pemilihan subjek penelitian didasarkan pada kelas yann memiliki rata-rata nilai yang hampir sama. Instrumen yang digunakan dalam pembelajaran dalam penelitian ini adalah soal tes esai yang mengukur berpikir analitis siswa dan angket motivasi belajar geografi. Data yang diperoleh dianalisis menggunakan uji- f dengan bantuan SPSS dengan taraf signifikansi 5%.Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa nilai rata-rata kemampuan berpikir analitis siswa pada kelas yang menggunakan model inkuiri terbimbing memiliki nilai rata-rata (73,67) lebih tinggi dari kelas yang tidak menggunakan model inkuiri terbimbing (66,47). Hasil uji hipotesis pertama diperoleh nilai sig. 0,000. Nilai ini lebih kecil dibanding 0,05. Dengan demikian, H0 ditolak berarti model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing berpengaruh terhadap kemampuan berpikir analitis pada mata pelajaran geografi di SMAN 1 Tumpang. Hasil uji hipotesis kedua diperoleh nilai signifikansi 0,039. Nilai ini lebih kecil dibanding 0,05. Dengan demikian, H0 ditolak berarti model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing berpengaruh terhadap kemampuan berpikir analitis ditinjau dari motivasi belajar siswa pada mata pelajaran geografi di SMAN 1 Tumpang. Interaksi antara model pembelajaran dan motivasi belajar siswa berpengaruh signifikan terhadap kemampuan berpikir analitis siswa SUMMARYPertiwi, Meri Dwi. 2019. The Effect of Guided Inquiry Learning Model on Students Analytical Thinking Ability Viewed from Learning Motivation in Grade XI IPS SMA 1 Tumpang. Thesis, Geography Education, Faculty of social Science, State University of Malang. Advisors: (1) Drs. Yusuf Suharto, M.Pd., (2) Dra. Yuswanti Ariani Wirahayu, M.Si. Keywords: Guided inquiry learning, analytical thinking ability, learning motivation21st century learning emphasizes the ability to think analytically. The ability to think analytically is important for students to have because it includes high level thinking skills and is needed in geography learning. The ability to think analytically can be obtained through a guided inquiry learning model. This model was selected in this study because it was in accordance with the implementation of the 2013 curriculum and basedon constructivisme theory. Motivation was chosen as a moderator variable in this research because motivation to learn becomes the direction of students in achieving learning goals. The purpose of this research study is to know: 1) the effect of guided inquiry learning models on students analytical thinking abilities, and 2) the effect of guided inquiry learning models on analytical thinking ability viewed from learning motivation. The method used is quasy experiment with posttest only control group design. The sampling is done by choosingg two classes which average test scores are quite similar. This study employes two classes which are XI IPS 3 as the experimental group which is given guided inquiry leraning treatment and XI IPS 4 as the control group which is given conventional treatment. The data is gathered by using a test as an instrument in the form of essays tomeasure analytical thinking ability and a non test as an instrument in the form of opinionnaire to investigate students learning motivation in geography. The data analysis is administered by using difference test statistical parametric that is F- test with help SPSS with significance level of 5%. The results of this research indicate that the average analytical thinking ability of students in the class using the guided inquiry model has an average value (73.67) higher than the class that does not use the guided inquiry model (66.47). The results of the first hypothesis test are obtained sig. 0,000. This value is smaller than 0.05. Thus, H0 is rejected, meaning guided inquiry learning model influences the ability to think analytically on geography subjects at SMAN 1 Tumpang. The results of the second hypothesis test obtained a significance value of 0.039. This value is smaller than 0.05. Thus, H0 is rejected, meaning the guided inquiry learning model influences the ability of analytical thinking in terms of student learning motivation in geography subjects at SMAN 1 Tumpang. The interaction between learning models and student learning motivation has a significant effect on students analytical thinking abilities
Pemodelan Sistem dengan Metode Neural Network Back Propagation Modeling System Using Neural Network Backpropagation
Full text linkA system can be modeled using mathematical formulation analysis method. Analysis of the system starts from the value of inputs, processes, noise, and output processes. then sought mathematical approach. This method is very complex, especially for some of the processes that have a higher order. In this article the author tries to discuss a method to perform modeling on a system by using Back Propagation Neural Network method.In the neural network method we require the initial data for network training process. Network training process is intended to gain weight. The weight is then identified with a model system. This paper has demonstrated that the modeling system can be done by the method of back propagation neural network
Paguristes alcocki Mclaughlin & Rahayu, 2005, n. sp.
No full textPaguristes alcocki n. sp. (Figs 1–3) ? Paguristes ? ciliatus— Alcock 1905: 34. [Not Paguristes ciliatus (Heller, 1862)]. Paguristes ciliatus.— Gordan, 1956: 321 [in part; literature]. ? Paguristes ciliatus.— Haig & Ball, 1988: 176; Wang, 1992: 59 (list); Wang, 1994: 568; Rahayu, 2000: 392. Not Paguristes ciliatus (Heller, 1862). Paguristes ciliatus.— Wang, 1983: 50 (in part, not pl. 1: fig. 2). Not Paguristes ciliatus Heller, 1892 (see Remarks). Type material. Western Australia: holotype male (7.8 mm), 33 nautical miles N of Rosemary Island, 19 ° 55 ’S, 116 ° 36 ’E, 58 m, 29 Nov 1982, WAM C 29554. Paratypes, 33 nautical miles N of Rosemary Island, 19 ° 55 ’S, 116 ° 36 ’E, 58 m, 29 Nov 1982, 2 males (6.3, 7.5 mm), WAM C 16862, C 16493; 39 nautical miles north of Enderby Island, 19 ° 58.1 ’S, 116 ° 27.9 ’E, 58–59 m, 28 Sep 1982, 1 ovig. female (5.5 mm), WAM C 16751. Indonesia: Wamsoi Lagoon, Padaido, Irian Jaya, 57–91 m, 0 4 Feb 1956, 1 male (7.2 mm), RMNH. Philippine Islands: Panglao Expedition, stn L 43, off Pamilacan Island, 09° 30 ’N, 123 °05’E, 60 m, 0 2 Jul 2004, 1 male (8.6 mm), NMP. Description. Thirteen pairs of quadriserial gills; branchiostegites each with few spinules on distal margin and dorsal margin distally, concealed by moderately dense setae. Shield (Figs 1 a, 3) longer than broad; dorsal surface with few tubercles or subacute spines and sparse covering of setae laterally, few scattered tufts centrally. Rostrum slender, elongate, reaching beyond bases of ocular acicles and considerably overreaching lateral projections, but broader in female, terminating acutely or with tiny spinule. Lateral projections triangular, each with tiny terminal spine. Ocular peduncles 0.7 to as long as shield length, slender, each with sparse tuft of setae basally; corneal diameter 0.1 peduncular length. Ocular acicles subtriangular, terminating acutely or in simple terminal spine; separated by less than basal width of 1 acicle. Antennular peduncles, when fully extended, not reaching to bases of corneas; basal segment with small spine on lateral face of statocyst lobe. Antennal peduncles not exceeding 0.5 of ocular peduncles; fifth segment with few scattered setae; fourth segment with small dorsodistal spine; third segment with moderately dense setae laterally, ventrodistal margin drawn out into acute spine; second segment with dorsolateral distal angle produced, terminating in bifid spine, lateral and ventral surfaces with dense long setae, dorsomesial distal angle with small spine, mesial margin with setae; first segment unarmed. Antennal acicle reaching to distal 0.2 or nearly to distal margin of fifth peduncular segment, terminating in prominent bifid spine; 2 spines on lateral margin, 1 or 2 spines on dorsal surface mesially and scattered setae not concealing armature. Antennal flagellum slightly shorter to longer than carapace; articles each with 1 or 2 short setae proximally, slightly more numerous setae distally. Chelipeds subequal to unequal, somewhat dissimilar; left slightly to noticeably larger and more subovate. Left cheliped (Figs 2 a, 3) with dactyl (missing in smallest Australian male paratype) 1.7 to twice length of palm; dorsomesial margin delimited only distally by short row of acute small spines, dorsal surface with numerous, scattered small tubercles and irregular row of slightly larger tuberculate spines mesiad of midline in males, closelypacked and somewhat flattened tubercles in female; mesial face (Fig. 2 b) with ventroproximal unarmed area, remainder of surface with irregular, almost transverse, rows of small, sometimes corneouscapped, tubercles and small spines, obscured by covering of moderately short, dense setae; cutting edge with row of small calcareous teeth, terminating in small corneous claw; with or without very slight hiatus between dactyl and fixed finger. Palm with row of moderately small spines on dorsomesial margin, broader and multifid in female, convex dorsal surface with covering of flat, or slightly swollen, scalelike plates, each usually with 1–3 tiny, corneoustipped spinules, dorsolateral margin with row of small tuberculate spines, becoming more prominent and acute distally on fixed finger and concealed by moderately dense long setae in males, but not distinctly delimited in female; mesial face with row of very small, sometimes spinulose, tubercles adjacent to distal margin and parallel, subdistal row of larger flattened tubercles, 1 additional large, flattened and corneouscapped tubercle dorsally in midline; lateral face of palm and fixed finger with scattered spinulose tubercles, ventral surface with irregular, transverse rows of spinulose tubercles, decreasing in size on fixed finger and accompanied by tufts of setae. Carpus with row of moderately prominent spines on dorsomesial margin, distal margin with row of small, tuberculate spines, extending onto lateral face; dorsolateral margin not delimited, dorsal and lateral surfaces with numerous, but not dense, small tuberculate spines, 1 larger spine in midline proximally; mesial face with parallel distal and subdistal row of small spinulose tubercles or projections, partially obscured by tufts of long setae, remainder of surface with low, spinulose and corneouscapped tubercles, continued onto ventral surface and accompanied by tufts of setae. Merus with row of spines on distal margin extending onto lateral and mesial faces, dorsal surface with subdistal short, transverse row of spines also extending onto lateral and mesial faces, remainder of dorsal margin with row of spines decreasing in size proximally and becoming obsolete; mesial face spinulose, ventromesial margin with double row of small, spinulose tubercles or tuberculate spines and dense tufts of setae; lateral face spinulose, at least ventrally, ventrolateral margin with double row of small, tuberculate spines obscured by long dense setae; ventral surface with covering of short, dense setae. Ischium with row of small tubercles on ventromesial margin concealed by long dense setae. Right cheliped (Figs 2 c, 3) with dactyl 1.7 to twice length of palm; dorsomesial margin with row of moderately small, corneoustipped spines, decreasing in size distally; dorsal surface with numerous quite small, sometimes corneoustipped, tuberculate spines; cutting edge with row of very small calcareous teeth in proximal 0.7, corneous teeth distally, terminating in small corneous claw; mesial face (Fig. 2 d) with numerous corneouscapped tubercles, forming 2–4 irregular longitudinal rows proximally, 1 or 2 rows distally and scattered tufts of setae. Palm with row of 4–6 moderate to very prominent spines on dorsomesial margin, dorsolateral margin not delimited, dorsal surface of palm and fixed finger with irregular semitransverse rows of small, tuberculate or flattened, sometimes corneoustipped spines or tubercles, each often accompanied by circlet of very short setae, spination partially obscured dorsolaterally by dense short to moderately long setae; cutting edge of fixed finger with row of small calcareous teeth, terminating in small corneous claw; mesial face of palm with subdistal vertical row of low, large tubercles and tufts of setae, additional large tubercles in midline dorsally; ventral surface with numerous low protuberances and tufts of setae; lateral surface of palm and fixed finger with covering of spinulose or flattened tubercles and/or small, sometimes corneoustipped spines, almost completely concealed by dense, moderately short setae. Carpus with row of prominent spines on dorsomesial margin, dorsodistal margin with row of spinules, extending onto lateral face; dorsolateral margin not delimited, dorsal surface and lateral face each with numerous small, tuberculate, sometimes corneoustipped spines; mesial face tuberculate and with subdistal row of larger tuberculate spines partially concealed by tufts of dense setae; ventral surface weakly tuberculate and with distal tufts of dense setae. Merus with row of spines on distal margin extending onto lateral and mesial faces, dorsal surface with short, transverse row of subdistal spines also extending onto lateral face, remainder of dorsal surface with row of spines decreasing in size proximally and becoming obsolete; ventromesial margin with row of tuberculate spines and tufts of moderately long setae; lateral surface spinulose, ventrolateral margin with row of small spines distally becoming double to triple row of spinulose tubercles proximally, partially obscured by tufts of dense, moderately short setae; ventral surface with dense tufts of short setae. Ischium with row of tubercles and tufts of setae on ventromesial margin. Second and third pereopods (Figs 2 e–h, 3) differing somewhat in armature; right pereopods slightly longer than left. Dactyls 1.6 –2.0 longer than propodi; dorsal margins each with row of corneoustipped small spines (second) or very small spines or tubercles (third) and long, moderately stiff setae; ventral margins each with 11–22 corneous spines, concealed by long, stiff setae; lateral faces of second each with 1–3 rows of tufts of short setae and sometimes also weak longitudinal sulcus proximally, lateral faces of third each also with 1–3 rows of sparse tufts of short to moderate setae and occasionally corneous spinules and weak longitudinal sulcus proximally; mesial faces of second each with shallow sulcus in proximal half, ventral margin cut into row of weak, spiniform scutes, more tuberculate in female, mesial faces of third with 3 or 4 rows of corneous spinules and occasionally weak longitudinal sulcus. Propodi of second pereopods each with irregular row of prominent spines on dorsal surface partially obscured by tufts of long setae, third pereopods each with dorsal row of low protuberances and few small spines also partially concealed by tufts of setae; ventral margins of second pereopods each with row of small spines and tufts of setae, third with tufts of setae; mesial faces of second pereopods each with numerous scattered tubercles and short, transverse rows of setae ventrally; third with few faint protuberances and ventral short, transverse rows of sparse tufts; lateral faces of second pereopods each with weak median longitudinal sulcus and scattered tubercles dorsally, third with few scattered tufts of setae. Carpi each with shallow longitudinal sulcus on lateral face; second pereopods each with dorsal single or double row of prominent spines and tufts of long setae, third with prominent dorsodistal spine and small spines or protuberances and tufts of setae on remainder of dorsal surface; lateral faces of second pereopods each with additional cluster of small spines distally in dorsal half. Meri of second pereopods each with dorsal and ventral rows of small spines partially obscured by long setae, third unarmed, but with dense setae, particularly on ventral margins. Ischia unarmed but with dense dorsal and ventral setae. Fourth pereopods each with small preungual at base of claw; no dorsodistal spine on carpus. Male first gonopods (Fig. 1 b, c) each with tuft of setae on superior mesial angle of basal lobe; single row of small hooklike corneous spines on distal margin of inferior lamella; external lobe overreaching inferior lamella, internal lobe short, with marginal setae and moderately dense setal covering on inner surface. Second gonopods (Fig 1 d) with basal segment glabrous; endopod with row of moderately long setae on mesial margin, distal angle with tuft of stiff setae; appendix masculina with long setae on distal margin and inferior surface. Left pleopods 3–5 with exopods well developed; endopods very rudimentary. Female first pleopods (Fig. 1 e) each with numerous moderately long setae on distal half of basal segment; distal segment with long marginal setae. Brood pouch large, fanshaped with margin weakly scalloped and provided with fringe of long, plumose setae. Eggs numerous, moderately small, diameter of noneyed eggs 0.9–1.1 mm. Telson (Fig. 1 f) with deep lateral incisions; median cleft small, shallow; posterior lobes markedly asymmetrical, terminal and lateral margins unarmed, but each with row of long setae. Color in life. Shield mottled pink and darker reddish orange; ocular and antennular peduncles uniformly salmon pink, ocular acicles similar, but slightly lighter; antennal peduncles whitishpink. Chelipeds with chelae orangishpink with several whitish tubercles on mesial face; dorsal surfaces of carpi orangishpink distally, with irregular median transverse whitish band, mottled pink, red and white proximally and whitish tubercles; meri orangishred and white distally, subdistal, irregular patch of pinkishwhite dorsally, predominantly red to redorange in proximal halves; mesial faces each with prominent circular red patch dorsodistally, circumscribed by broad white ring, lateral faces each with similar, but somewhat less definitive patch. Second and third pereopods with dactyls predominantly orangishred, each with whitish patch or band distally, narrow, irregular band proximally, and sometimes light colored patch dorsomesially (Fig. 3); propodi, carpi and meri each with irregular narrow whitish band proximally and broader whitish band distally, median areas red with scattered white spots. Alcock (1905) indicated that the color of his specimen of P.? ciliatus was similar to that of Paguristes balanophilus Alcock, 1905, but that the shield was mottledred. Coloration (in preservative) of P. balanophilus was reported by Alcock to be pinkishwhite with a welldefined orange patch on a violet field on both the mesial and lateral faces of the merus each cheliped, most distinctive on the mesial face. Habitat. One of the Australian paratypes inhabited a shell entirely covered by a calcareous bryozoan. Distribution. Know with certainty only from Western Australia, Indonesia and the Philippine Islands, but perhaps also from the South China Sea and Persian Gulf; 58 to possibly 110 m. Etymology. The specific epithet, alcocki, is given to this species in the presumption that this is the taxon misinterpreted by A. Alcock (1905) to be Paguristes ciliatus of Heller (1862). Var ia t io n. The chelipeds of the holotype and larger paratypes reasonably can be categorized as unequal, as the size differences between the right and left are substantial. However, the differences seen in the chelipeds of the female and smallest male paratype are less and it is probable that if judged individually, their chelipeds would be described as subequal. The data, based only on five males and one ovigerous female, are too meager for anything other than speculation, but it does seem possible that in P. a l c o c k i n. sp. the degree of cheliped asymmetry is a function of growth. In contrast, the observed dissimilarities in armature of the right and left chelipeds appear to be specific characters of the species, despite observed intraspecific variation. The dorsomesial margins or marginal areas of the left chela are armed with several (palm) or numerous (dactyl) small spines and/or tubercles; these same margins of the right chela are provided with four to six more prominent spines (palm) and a row of moderatelysized spines (dactyl). Whereas the dorsal surfaces of the dactyls of both chelae have a moderate to dense covering of small tuberculate spines and spinules, the dorsal surface covering of the palm and fixed finger of the left chela consists of scalelike flattened tuberculate protuberances, each often provided with one to three tiny, corneoustipped spinules. These surfaces on the right chela may have a covering of very small, tuberculate spines that may or may not be corneoustipped, or, as in the smallest male and female, low, spinulose subrectangular tubercles. The armature of mesial faces of the dactyls is also somewhat dissimilar, albeit variable. The spination of the left dactylar mesial face is masked with short dense setae, but consists of numerous, rather closelyspaced, small tubercles and spinules (Fig. 1 b), some corneoustipped or corneouscapped, with a distinctly unarmed area proximally in the ventral half of the surface. This face of the right chela frequently lacks the dense pilosity of the left and is provided with somewhat larger, often corneouscapped tubercles (Fig. 1 d) arranged in irregular rows over the entire surface. The ambulatory legs also exhibit variations in armature between the second and third pereopods as can be seen in Figures 2 e–h. Affinities. Among Australian species of Paguristes, P. alcocki n. sp. appears most closely allied to P. kimberleyensis Morgan & Forest, 1991, sharing with that species the tendency toward dissimilarities in the size and armature of the chelipeds. However, as indicated in the discussion of variation, cheliped inequality appears to be a function of growth in P. alcocki, whereas in P. kimberleyensis the differences between the right and left chelipeds are consistent regardless of animal size or sex. The two species may be distinguished by the armature of the mesial faces of the dactyls of the chelipeds that in P. alcocki consists of a covering of small spines or spinules in irregular rows, but in P. kimberleyensis of one or two longitudinal rows of small spines. Additionally, but subject to more variation, the ocular peduncles of P. alcocki are longer and slenderer; the armature of the dorsal surface of the left cheliped consists of more flattened, scalelike tubercles, and the external lobe of the male first gonopod is better developed. Although only faint coloration remained in the holotype of P. kimberleyensis (cf. Morgan & Forest 1991), reexamination of the holotype by the first author however showed that the color in preservative of the chelipeds and ambulatory legs was mottled orange and white and that of the dactyls of second and third pereopods each had a band of white at the base of the claw. In contrast, the mesial and lateral faces of the meri of the chelipeds of P. alcocki (Fig. 3) each has an ovate patch of red (in life) or orange (in preservative) most prominent on the mesial face; the segments of the ambulatory legs have median broad bands of red or reddish orange. Paguristes alcocki n. sp. also appears closely allied to P. balanophilus Alcock, 1905. As with Alcock’s P.? ciliatus, Indian specimens of P. balanophilus have not been available for examination; however, Morgan and Forest (1991), reporting on specimens of that species in the collections of the Muséum national dHistoire naturelle, described P. balanophilus as having chelipeds, although dissimilar in size, similar in form and spination. Although Alcock (1905) commented that with the exception that the inner margin of the right carpus was spinose, the chelipeds were similar in sculpture, his illustration (Alcock 1905, pl. 3: fig. 1) does not show any notable difference between the right and left carpi. As previously indicated, the dissimilarity in size between the right and left chelipeds appears to be growth related in P. a l c o c k i, but the dissimilarity in armament in the new species is not. This character alone should distinguish P. alcocki from P. balanophilus. One differentiating character cited by Alcock was the bi or trifid ocular acicles of P. balanophilus and the acuminate (or simple) ocular acicles of the species he interpreted as P.? ciliatus. The ocular acicles are simple in the holotype and paratypes of P. alcocki; nevertheless, variability cannot be discounted. McLaughlin (unpublished) noted that the ocular acicles of P. kimberleyensis varied from being armed with a single spine to having up to three. Remarks. Wang (1983) provided a brief description of a species he identified as Paguristes ciliatus of Heller (1862), but his description was based on Alcock’s (1905) interpretation of the species. However, Alcock provided no illustration of the species he had questionably assigned to Heller’s (1862) taxon. Wangs (1982, pl. 1: fig. 2) illustration is of a specimen lacking the posterior portion of the abdomen and there is considerable similarity between Wang’s illustration and Heller’s (1865, pl. 7: fig. 6) rather stylized drawing of a hermit crab partially withdrawn into its shell, including the equal and similar chelipeds and stout ocular peduncles. It is quite clear that Wang (1983) did not illustrate a specimen of P. alcocki n. sp. or P. lewinsohni n. sp., but it cannot be said with certainty what species that author actually had. In their comparison of P. runyanae Haig & Ball, 1988, with other Indian Ocean and Japanese species of Paguristes, Haig & Ball’s (1988) remarks regarding the armature of the chelipeds of P. balanophilus and P. c i l i a t u s were taken from Alcock’s (1905) descriptions. Similarly, the distributional records of P. ciliatus in Chinese waters by Wang (1992, 1994) and Rahayu (2000) did not involve examined specimens.Published as part of Mclaughlin, Patsy A. & Rahayu, Dwi Listyo, 2005, Two new species of Paguristes sensu stricto (Decapoda: Anomura: Paguroidea: Diogenidae) and a review of Paguristes pusillus Henderson, pp. 37-62 in Zootaxa 1083 on pages 40-49, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17043
Dardanus lagopodes
No full textDardanus lagopodes (Forskål, 1775) (Figs. 3H, 5 A–B) Cancer lagopodes Forskål, 1775: 93 (Red Sea, type locality). Pagurus sanguinolentus – Forest, 1953b: 559–560, Figs. 12–14 [in part]; Fize & Serène, 1955: 166–173, Fig. 25, pl. 4 nos. 4–5 [in part] (not Pagurus sanguinolentus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824). Pagurus affinis H. Milne Edwards, 1836: 274 (Sri Lanka, type locality). Pagurus euopsis Dana, 1852: 452–453 (Upolu, Samoa, type locality); Estampador, 1937: 503 (in part). Dardanus lagopodes – Lewinsohn, 1969: 32, Fig. 1–2 pl. 2 [in part]; Ball & Haig, 1972: 92–93 [in part]; Haig & Ball, 1988: 166; McLaughlin et al., 2007: 91–93, 3 unlabelled figures [in part]. Material examined. 1 male SL 7.8 mm (ZRC), stn B1, Alona Reef, Panglao I., 9°33.0′N, 123°46.5′E, 8–14 m, 30.v.2004; 2 males SL 4.4–5.6 mm (ZRC), stn B3, Arco Point, Panglao I., 9°33.5′N, 123°48.6′E, 8 m, 31.v.2004; 1 male SL 9.0 mm (ZRC), stn B7, Catarman, Panglao I., 9°35.9′N, 123°51.8′E, 4–30 m, 5.vi.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 2.9 mm, 1 male SL 3.9 mm (ZRC), stn B9, Napaling, Panglao I., 9°33.1′N, 123°44.0′E, 8.5–10 m, 8.vi.2004; 1 female SL 10.1 mm, 1 male SL 11.1 mm (ZRC), stn M1, Alona Beach, Panglao I., 9°32.9′N, 123°46.6′E, 0–1 m, v.2004 to vii.2004; 2 males SL 7.8–9.8 mm (ZRC), stn M2, west end of Alona Beach, Panglao I., 9°32.8′N, 123°45.9′E, 0–2 m, 30.v.2004; 2 males SL 10.3–12.8 mm (ZRC), stn M7, Momo Beach, Panglao I., 9°36.1′N, 123°45.2′E, 0–3 m, 1.vi.2004; 1 female SL 6.6 mm (ZRC), stn M8, Doljo, north coast, Panglao I., 9°35.4′N, 123°44.3′E, 0–1 m, 2.vi.2004; 1 male SL 11.2 mm (ZRC), stn M18, Gak-Ang Islet, off Panglao I., 9°33.0′N, 123°45.5′E, 0–1 m, 10 & 12.vi.2004; 1 male SL 14.0 mm (ZRC), stn M19, Pamilacan I., 9°30.0′N, 123°55.3′E, 0–2 m, 11.vi.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 9.1 mm, 1 female SL 7.3 mm, 1 male SL 8.0 mm (ZRC), stn M58, Balicasag I., 9°31.3′N, 123°41.0′E, depth unknown, 4.vii.2004; 2 males SL 8.0– 9.8 mm (ZRC), stn N2, Alona Reef, Panglao I., 9°32.9′N, 123°46.6′E, 12 m, 7.vi.2004; 1 male SL 7.2 mm (ZRC), stn N4, Alona Reef, Panglao I., 9°32.9′N, 123°46.9′E, 15–20 m, 10.vi.2004; 1 female SL 6.9 mm, 3 males SL 7.4–12.6 mm (ZRC), stn R1, Balicasag I., 9°31.2′N, 123°41.3′E, 5–7 m, 30.v.2004; 1 male SL 7.8 mm (ZRC), stn R3, Alona Reef, Panglao I., 9°33.0′N, 123°46.5′E, 5–24 m, v.2004 to vii.2004; 1 male SL 7.5 mm (ZRC), stn R5, Catarman, Panglao I., 9°36.6′N, 123°52.4′E, 5–16 m, 31.v.2004; 1 female SL 8.3 mm, 2 males SL 10.4–11.5 mm (ZRC), stn R6, Baclayon, Bohol I., Loay, Bohol I., 9°36.6′N, 123°57.8′E, 5–12 m, 31.v.2004; 1 female SL 7.2 mm (ZRC), stn R8, House Reef, Panglao I., 9°31.2′N, 123°41.3′E, 4–24 m, v.2004 to vii.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 7.0 mm, 2 males SL 7.3–9.4 mm (ZRC), stn R10, Biking, Panglao I., 9°35.3′N, 123°50.5′E, 2–10 m, 1.vi.2004; 1 female SL 8.7 mm, 1 male SL 9.5 mm (ZRC), stn R11, Biking, Panglao I., 9°35.2′N, 123°50.5′E, 4 m, 2.vi.2004; 1 female SL 10.2 mm, 1 male SL 9.0 mm (ZRC), stn R13, Doljo Point, Panglao I., 9°35.6′N, 123°43.2′E, 2–41 m, 2.vi.2004; 2 females SL 9.5–12.0 mm, 1 male SL 14.1 mm (ZRC), stn R14, Baclayon, Bohol I., 9°37.4′N, 123°54.5′E, 6–8 m, 3.vi.2004; 1 male SL 10.3 mm (ZRC), stn R15, Arco Point, Panglao I., 9°33.5′N, 123°48.6′E, 6–30 m, 3.vi.2004; 2 males SL 7.2–8.9 mm (ZRC), stn R17, Black Forest, Panglao I., 9°31.1′N, 123°41.3′E, 3–15 m, 4.vi.2004; 3 males SL 3.8–9.5 mm (ZRC), stn R20, Cathedral, 9°31.1′N, 123°41.5′E, 7–48 m, 5.vi.2004; 1 male SL 9.6 mm (ZRC), stn R23, lagoon off Poblacion, Panglao I., 9°33.5′/34.8′N, 123°42.7′/46.3′E, 1–5 m, 5, 6, & 21.vi.2004; 1 female SL 3.8 mm (ZRC), stn R24, Bingag, Panglao I., 9°37.5′N, 123°46.8′E, 0–2 m, 6.vi.2004; 1 female SL 6.7 mm, 1 male SL 6.5 mm (ZRC), stn R27, Napaling, Panglao I., 9°37.0′N, 123°46.3′E, 2–20 m, 7.vi.2004; 1 female SL 11.5 mm (ZRC), stn R28, Napaling, Panglao I., 9°37.0′N, 123°46.3′E, 20–54 m, 7.vi.2004; 2 males SL 6.3–8.0 mm (ZRC), stn R36, Pamilacan I., 9°30.2′N, 123°55.3′E, 3–32 m, 9.vi.2004; 1 male SL 13.3 mm (ZRC), stn R38, Pamilacan I., 9°29.4′N, 123°56.0′E, 6–37 m, 11.vi.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 5.5 mm, 1 female SL 8.6 mm, 2 males SL 11.4–12.5 mm (ZRC), stn R38, Pamilacan I., 9°29.4′N, 123°56.0′E, 6–37 m, 11.vi.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 7.5 mm (ZRC), stn R42, Baclayon Takot, Bohol I., 9°37.1′N, 123°52.6′E, 8–22 m, 12.vi.2004; 3 ovig. females SL 6.5–12.0 mm, 4 males SL 5.5–13.0 mm (ZRC), stn R43, Cortes Takot, Bohol I., 9°41.3′N, 123°49.5′E, 3–41 m, 13.vi.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 6.5 mm, 1 male SL 9.5 mm (ZRC), stn R48, Bingag, Panglao I., 9°37.6′N, 123°47.3′E, 4–20 m, 17.vi.2004; 1 ovig. female SL 6.5 mm, 1 male SL 8.5 mm (ZRC), stn R58, Looc (lagoon side), Panglao I., 9°35.7′N, 123°44.7′E, 1–3 m, 22.vi.2004; 2 females SL 6.7–10.1 mm, 2 males SL 6.2–7.4 mm (ZRC), stn R73, Balicasag I., 9°30.9′N, 123°40.8′E, 2–30 m, 2.vii.2004; 2 males SL 7.1–10.8 mm (ZRC), stn R75, west of Pontod, Panglao I., 9°32.8′N, 123°42.1′E, 3–35 m, 3.vii.2004; 1 female SL 7.9 mm, 1 male SL 10.0 mm (ZRC), stn R76, lagoon, 9°N, 123°E, 5.vii.2004; 2 ovig. females SL 6.9–7.2 mm (ZRC), stn R77, between Momo and Napaling, Panglao I., 9°37.0′N, 123°46.0′E, 2–10 m, 6.vii.2004. Other material: Dardanus affinis (H. Milne Edwards, 1836) holotype, male SL 23 mm (MNHN Pg. 1305), Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Description. Shield nearly as long as it is wide; anterior margin between rostrum and lateral projections shallowly concave; lateral margins slightly convex, slightly irregular, with tufts of long setae. Posterior margin rounded. Dorsal surface of shield somewhat inflated, with tufts of long setae, strongly calcified; Y-shaped line present posteriorly. Rostral lobe weakly produced. Lateral projections large, bluntly triangular, produced. Posterior carapace lateral elements well calcified, unarmed. Branchiostegites unarmed. Ocular peduncles 0.8–0.9 times length of shield, subcylindrical, somewhat inflated distally, diameter of corneas 0.2 length of ocular peduncles. Ocular acicles broad, distal margins each with 3 spines, with fringe of setae along distal margins. Interocular plate with pair of protrusions. Antennular peduncles slender, when fully extended, distal ultimate segments reaching base of corneas; ultimate and penultimate segments unarmed, basal segment distal margin with tufts of long setae. Antennal peduncles, when fully extended, reaching 0.7 length of ocular peduncles; fifth segment unarmed, with 3–4 scattered setae on dorsal and ventral surfaces; fourth segment with tufts of setae on mesiodistal margin; third segment with tufts of long setae on ventral surface; second segment with dorsolateral distal angle produced, terminating in strong simple spine, lateral margin unarmed, dorsomesial distal angle bearing 1 spine, mesial margin, lateral margin, and dorsolateral distal angle with tufts of setae; first segment unarmed. Antennal acicle short, barely passing base of fourth segment and terminating in strong bifid spine; dorsomesial margin with 3 spines, dorsolateral margin unarmed or with single spine. Antennal flagella bearing minute seta on each articulation. Third maxilliped with well developed crista dentata; basis with 2 small corneous spines. Chelipeds unequal, left larger than right. Left cheliped stout. Outer face of palm, dactyl, and fixed finger convex; bearing rows of corneous-tipped conical spines; with tufts of long and short setae, not concealing armature. Dactyl and fixed finger each terminating in strong corneous claw, cutting edges each with 5–6 (dactyl) or 7–9 (fixed finger) low, molar-like calcareous teeth. Upper margin of palm and dactyl with row of corneous-tipped conical spines, spines larger in upper proximal angle; lower margin bearing row of conical corneous tipped spines. Inner face of dactyl smooth but with row of tufts of setae, inner face of fixed finger with irregular rows of low corneous-tipped spines distally and tufs of setae; inner face of palm with tufts of setae. Carpus with upper margin bearing 2 prominent corneous-tipped spines and 2 smaller spines proximally; outer face with irregular rows of corneous-tipped spines distally, remaining of surface with sparse corneous-tipped spines and tufts of setae, lower outer margin with 1strong corneous-tipped spines; inner face with scattered tufts of setae. Merus with distal margin bearing row of corneous-tipped spines; ventral margin with row of corneous-tipped spines, more prominent spines distally; lateral face with tufts of long setae; ischium with 4 teeth on ventromesial margin. Right cheliped smaller and more slender than left, armament similar. Second pereopods and right third pereopod generally similar; second pair more slender than right third. Dactyls 1.3–1.4 length of propodi; each terminating in strong corneous claw; subcylindrical; ventral margins each with 5–7 small corneous spines distally; dorsal margins each with row of corneous spines; spines obscured by tufts of setae; lateral and mesial surfaces with rows of tufts of setae. Propodi 1.3 length of carpi; dorsal margins each with row of corneous spines obscured by tufts of setae; lateral faces convex, unarmed, and with rows of tufts of setae; ventral margins unarmed but with row of tufts of setae; mesial faces flattened, smooth, unarmed, with rows of tufts of setae. Carpi 0.6–0.7 length of meri; lateral faces flattened with tufts of setae on dorsal and ventral margins; dorsal surfaces covered with tufts of long setae, each bearing two prominent corneous-tipped conical spine distally; distal margins of lateral faces each with row of small, corneous-tipped spines obscured by tufs of setae. Meri lateral faces flattened or slightly convex, with tufts of setae on dorsal and ventral margins; ventral margins each with row of small spines obscured by tufts of seta; dorsal margins each with row of tufts of setae. Ischia unarmed. Left third pereopod stout. Dactyl 1.6 length of propodus, terminating in large corneous claw; dorsal, ventral margins, and lateral face with rows of corneous spines and tufts of short and long setae, mesial face with 3 corneous spines distally and rows of tufts of setae on entire surface. Propodus 1.3 length of carpus, 2.3–2.4 as long as broad; dorsal margin with row of corneous spines obscured by tufts of setae; lateral face convex or flattened, with irregular rows of corneous spines obscured by tufts of short and long setae; ventral margin with row of sometimes bi-spinous corneoustipped spines, obscured by tufts of setae. Carpus 0.8 length of merus; lateral face flattened; dorsal margin with row of corneous-tipped spines; dorsolateral angle with several strong corneous-tipped spines covered by dense tufts of long setae; dorsal, distal, and ventral margins covsered by dense tufts of setae; mesial face slightly convex, smooth, unarmed, distal margin bearing tufts of long setae. Merus lateral face convex, with tufts of long setae on the dorsal, ventral, and subdistal margins; mesial face flattened with tufts of setae on subdorsal margin; ventral margin crested with row of tubercles bearing dense tufts of long setae and 2 calcareous teeth distally. Ischium unarmed. Sternite of third pereopods with anterior lobe rectangular, with 2 protrusions each bearing tuft of long setae anteriorly. Fourth pereopods semichelate; dactyls with 5 corneous ventral spines on lateral face; propodal rasps well developed; carpi each with sharp dorsodistal spine covered by dense tuft of long setae. Fifth pereopods chelate; rasps of dactyl and propodus well developed. Male pleon with first to fifth left pleopod fringed with sparse setae, uniramous. Female pleon with second to fifth left pleopods fringed with long setae; first to third triramous; fourth and fifth uniramous, very large, elongate, triangular fleshy membrane fringed with long setae present between fourth and fifth pleopods. Uropods strongly asymmetrical, left larger than right; endopods and exopods with well developed rasps. Habitat. Intertidal to subtidal, 0 to approximately 20 m deep, reef flats, seagrass beds, reef slopes and plateaus, on coralline, sandy, mud-sand, rubble, and rocky substrates. Remarks. Dardanus lagopodes was described by Forskål (1775) as Cancer lagopodes from the Red Sea, and is a very common species in the Indo-West Pacific. Two colour forms have been reported for D. lagopodes, the “black/brown/ blue knee” form (colour description varies depending on author) and the “red knee” form (Fize & Serène, 1955 as Pagurus sanguinolentus; Lewinsohn, 1969; Ball & Haig, 1972; McLaughlin et al., 2007). In addition, considerable morphological variation has been noted for this species (Forest, 1953b; Fize & Serène, 1955; Ball & Haig, 1972). In the course of the present study, strong morphological, colour, and genetic differences were detected within D. lagopodes, which can now be recognised as a species complex. For the first time, it has been possible to link morphological variation with the different colour forms and with mitochondrial DNA data. Morphological and genetic differences clearly indicate that the two colour forms, the “black/brown/blue knee” (hereafter simply referred to as the “blue knee” form) and the “red knee” form, represent two distinct species. In the absence of colouration, these two species are most easily distinguished on the basis of the sculpturing on the propodus of the left third pereopod (LP3). The LP3 of the blue knee form exhibits great variation: the propodus smooth, cylindrical, and of the same width as the dactyl (Fig. 5A); or it may be flattened, broader, and covered with corneous spines (Fig. 5B). Nonetheless the LP3 propodus never bears a sulcus on its outer surface. On the other hand the red knee form is characterised by a deep sulcus on the upper half of the lateral face of the left third pereopod dactyl and propodus (Fig. 5C). Telson with lateral constrictions; marginal area partially calcified; posterior lobes separated by median cleft, left much larger than right, each with 7 ventral corneous spines near terminal margin, terminal margins fringed with long setae; anterior lobes with long setae on lateral margins. Colour. Shield brownish purple, with large brown spot anteriorly; posterior carapace mottled red and tan. Ocular peduncles uniform purplish brown, with narrow yellow line next to black cornea. Antennules and antennae yellowish brown. Chelipeds reddish purple with white tubercles and white–tipped red setae. Pereopods 2 and 3 reddish purple; broad black band at distal end of merus and large black patch on carpus; setae reddish purple with white tips (see Haig & Ball, 1988). The two species are also clearly distinct genetically. Tree-based analyses (maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches) yielded congruent results, and showed reciprocally monophyletic blue knee and red knee clades (Fig. 9). No phylogeographic structuring was detected within each of the two species despite inclusion of both Philippine and Taiwan samples. Moreover, inclusion of one blue knee specimen from the Tuamotu did not increase phylogeographic structuring. Average intraspecific K2P values are 0.9% (± 0.5%) for the blue knee species and 1.5% (± 0.4%) for the red knee species. The average K2P genetic distance between blue knee and red knee species is 19.1% (± 0.4%). As a comparison, in the diogenid genus Calcinus K2P distances separating closely related sister-species ranged from 2.6% – 25% (average 16.1 ± 5.3%; see Malay & Paulay, 2010). Therefore, the genetic distance between blue knee and red knee Dardanus is within the range of interspecific genetic distances for diogenids. The fact that blue knee and red knee morphs maintain reciprocal monophyly and large genetic distances in sympatry is compelling evidence that they are good biological species. The phylogeny also revealed one distinctly different COI haplotype from a specimen initially identified as D. lagopodes in the field, which upon closer examination turned out to be a new species (Dardanus balhibuon new species, described below). To which colour form the name D. lagopodes is applied has to be determined. Unfortunately, virtually all of Forskål’s types have been lost, including that of D. lagopodes (viz. Ng et al., 2008). However, in his very short diagnosis, Forskål (1775) mentioned the colour “cinereo-fuscus”, or gray-brown. This shows that Forskål dealt with the blue knee colour form. Moreover, Lewinsohn (1969) examined specimens from the type locality (the Red Sea) and reported the presence of both colour forms, while emphasising the brown colouration in his notes. The figure of D. lagopodes from the type locality provided by Lewinsohn (1969: pl. 2, Figs. 1, 2) matches very well with the morphological characters of the left cheliped and LP3 of the blue knee form. Furthermore, the two color forms are easily recognised and very common in intertidal areas throughout the Indo-West Pacific, thus there is no doubt that Forskål’s types D. lagopodes were of the blue knee species. The following species have long been regarded as synonyms of D. lagopodes (Forskål, 1775): D. sanguinolentus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824); D. affinis (H. Milne Edwards, 1836); D. euopsis (Dana, 1852); D. depressus (Heller, 1861); and D. hellerii Paul’son, 1875. Quoy & Gaimard (1824) described D. sanguinolentus from a specimen probably collected in Mauritius (see Forest, 1953b, p. 560). Unfortunately their description and illustration lack sufficient detail to distinguish which species they described. Forest (1953b) examined the type specimen of D. sanguinolentus at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, and noted that D. sanguinolentus has “ une depression longitudinale ” on the lateral face of propodus of the left third pereopod, while for the type of D. affinis the propodus of the third left pereopod is more elongate, the lateral face is not depressed but straight or convex (see Forest, 1953b, Figs. 13, 14). Forest (1953b) did not describe the colouration but the description of these characters already indicates that Forest was dealing with the two forms of D. lagopodes. The first author had the opportunity to re-examine the holotypes of D. sanguinolentus and D. affinis at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, and confirms that the D. sanguinolentus holotype (MNHN Pg. 1304) bears the deep sulcus on the outer face of the LP3 propodus characteristic of the red knee form. On the other hand, the D. affinis holotype (MNHN Pg. 1305) has a smoothly convex LP3 propodus, corresponding to the D. lagopodes blue knee form. Therefore it is now possible to assign the species name D. sanguinolentus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) to the red knee form, while D. affinis is a junior synonym of D. lagopodes. The original description of D. depressus can be applied to both D. lagopodes and D. sanguinolentus, however Heller (1861) mentioned the colouration of the species as “rubescens”. The syntypes of D. depressus were redescribed by McLaughlin & Dworschak (2001, p. 150–151). They describe the left third pereopod of D. depressus as having a “weak longitudinal sulcus” on the lateral face of the dactyl, while the lateral face of the propodus is “concave in dorsal half”. Photographs of the syntypes (NHMW 19396, two syntypes) kindly provided by P. Dworschak show that the description corresponds to the sulcus on the lateral face of the left third pereopod that characterises D. sanguinolentus. The depressed carapace noted in the original description of D. depressus appears to be an ecological feature related to occupation of shells with a narrow aperture (Paul’son, 1875; Forest, 1953b). The type specimen of D. euopsis could not be located for study, and is probably lost. Most of Dana’s specimens from the US exploring expedition were lent to William Stimpson, and sadly were burned in the great Chicago fire of 1871 (Evans, 1967). However, Dana (1852: 453) described the colouration of the pereopods of D. euopsis as follows: “The legs are pale sepia with a dark maroon (nearly black) broad band on the third and fourth joints of the second and third pairs”. This colouration showed that Dana (1852) was likely dealing with D. lagopodes sensu stricto. Dardanus hellerii was described from the Red Sea by Paul’son (1875). Paul’son’s type specimens cannot be located (M. Tuerkay, pers. comm.). However, Paul’son (1875) stated that his specimen was very close to D. depressus (= D. sanguinolentus) except for its ophthalmic somite with prominent interocular structure which is oval in shape and has two distal denticles and small median groove, and the colour of the legs is yellowish with external surface of merus red. The oval shape of the interocular structure cannot be considered as a specific character of the D. hellerii, as examination of the species in the genus Dardanus revealed that all have the same structure. The colour mentioned by Paul’son (1875) matched the colour of D. sanguinolentus. Therefore it is highly likely that Paul’son was dealing with D. sanguinolentus. In conclusion, the name Dardanus lagopodes (Forskål, 1775) should refer to the blue knee form. Dardanus affinis (H. Milne Edwards, 1836) and D. euopsis (Dana, 1852) are junior synonyms of D. lagopodes. The name D. sanguinolentus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) is relevant for the red knee species. Dardanus depressus (Heller, 1861) is a junior synonym for D. sanguinolentus. Dardanus hellerii Paul’son, 1875 is a nomen dubium but if it belongs to the “ D. lagopodes ” species complex, it should also be a junior synonym of D. sanguinolentus according to the original colour description. While many published records of D. lagopodes lack sufficient detail to distinguish this species from D. sanguinolentus, by careful checking we are able to determine that D. lagopodes is known with certainty from the Red Sea (type locality), Djibouti, Ea
Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication
Full text linkConsiderable research has examined human mate preferences across cultures, finding universal sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and resources as well as sources of systematic cultural variation. Two competing perspectives—an evolutionary psychological perspective and a biosocial role perspective—offer alternative explanations for these findings. However, the original data on which each perspective relies are decades old, and the literature is fraught with conflicting methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), we attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives. Support for universal sex differences in preferences remains robust: Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects. Cross-culturally, both sexes have mates closer to their own ages as gender equality increases. Beyond age of partner, neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries. © The Author(s) 2020
Conservatism negatively predicts creativity: a study across 28 countries
No full textPrevious studies have found a negative relationship between creativity and conservatism. However, as these studies were mostly conducted on samples of homogeneous nationality, the generalizability of the effect across different cultures is unknown. We addressed this gap by conducting a study in 28 countries. Based on the notion that attitudes can be shaped by both environmental and ecological factors, we hypothesized that parasite stress can also affect creativity and thus, its potential effects should be controlled for. The results of multilevel analyses showed that, as expected, conservatism was a significant predictor of lower creativity, adjusting for economic status, age, sex, education level, subjective susceptibility to disease, and country-level parasite stress. In addition, most of the variability in creativity was due to individual rather than country-level variance. Our study provides evidence for a weak but significant negative link between conservatism and creativity at the individual level (β = −0.08, p <.001) and no such effect when country-level conservatism was considered. We present our hypotheses considering previous findings on the behavioral immune system in humans. © The Author(s) 2024
