Example, while eye and wings have both evolved independently in insects

Example, while eye and wings have both evolved independently in insects and vertebrates, it turns out that they rely in both cases on an identical set of genes and developmental pathways. This situation of convergent evolution `taking the same path twice’ has been termed deep homology [42,43]. This appears to be the situation for the capacity for complex vocal learning, which has evolved convergently and independently many times (reviewed in [41]). Nonetheless, comparisons of birds and humans reveal that the same genes (e.g. FOXP2) play a role in vocal learning in both groups [44], and that homologous neural mechanisms have been independently harnessed into vocal learning systems in birds and humans [45]. In both cases, there appears to be a deep mechanistic homology between birdsong and human vocal learning, despite their independent evolutionary origins (cf. [46?8]). In summary, principle three exhorts bio-musicologists to adopt a broad comparative approach to any specific capability proposed as relevant to musicality. While it is important to distinguish homologous traits from those that convergently evolved, there is no justification for ignoring the latter (e.g. [23]), because both serve useful roles in comparative biology.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:(d) The get 3′-Methylquercetin ecological principle: seek broad ecological validity including popular styles, eschewing elitismLike the previous one, this principle is also broadly comparative but this time involves comparisons within our species. According to this populist `ecological’ principle, bio-musicologists should seek to understand all manifestations of human musicality, from simple nursery tunes or singing in the shower, to expert bowmanship on a Stradivarius or the complex polyrhythmic improvisations of a Ghanaian master drummer. This principle is familiar to ethnomusicologists but not as widely appreciated by researchers in music cognition or neuroscience, where a focus on the Western `high art’ canon remains evident. Although it is of course important to understand highly developed musical forms, performed by elite musicians, this should not lead us to neglect more basic and widespread expressions of musicality. The ecological principle is particularly important when addressing questions about the functional, adaptive relevance of music in our species (cf. [49]). It makes little sense to ask about the evolutionary `survival value’ of writing or performing a modern orchestral piece, but it is not unreasonable to ask about the potential adaptive value of a mother singing to her child, or of a tribal group singing and dancing together. Much of traditional musicology adopts an implicitly elitist attitude, where the proper object of study is `high’ art, Wuningmeisu CMedChemExpress Flagecidin composed and performed by a musical elite. Sometimes such elitism is explicit: a textbook intended to introduce students to musicand art appreciation states that art `which aims merely to amuse and to provide a pleasant diversion . . . has little or no lasting quality’. In particular, the authors state that, `art which caters to the masses . . . is of little aesthetic value and will not be considered’. [50, p. 1]. But if we ever hope to understand the shared biological basis of music, it is precisely popular music style (e.g. dance music) that will be most relevant, along with behaviours such as a mother singing lullabies in order to soothe her infant: one of the functions of song for which the empirical data is most co.Example, while eye and wings have both evolved independently in insects and vertebrates, it turns out that they rely in both cases on an identical set of genes and developmental pathways. This situation of convergent evolution `taking the same path twice’ has been termed deep homology [42,43]. This appears to be the situation for the capacity for complex vocal learning, which has evolved convergently and independently many times (reviewed in [41]). Nonetheless, comparisons of birds and humans reveal that the same genes (e.g. FOXP2) play a role in vocal learning in both groups [44], and that homologous neural mechanisms have been independently harnessed into vocal learning systems in birds and humans [45]. In both cases, there appears to be a deep mechanistic homology between birdsong and human vocal learning, despite their independent evolutionary origins (cf. [46?8]). In summary, principle three exhorts bio-musicologists to adopt a broad comparative approach to any specific capability proposed as relevant to musicality. While it is important to distinguish homologous traits from those that convergently evolved, there is no justification for ignoring the latter (e.g. [23]), because both serve useful roles in comparative biology.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:(d) The ecological principle: seek broad ecological validity including popular styles, eschewing elitismLike the previous one, this principle is also broadly comparative but this time involves comparisons within our species. According to this populist `ecological’ principle, bio-musicologists should seek to understand all manifestations of human musicality, from simple nursery tunes or singing in the shower, to expert bowmanship on a Stradivarius or the complex polyrhythmic improvisations of a Ghanaian master drummer. This principle is familiar to ethnomusicologists but not as widely appreciated by researchers in music cognition or neuroscience, where a focus on the Western `high art’ canon remains evident. Although it is of course important to understand highly developed musical forms, performed by elite musicians, this should not lead us to neglect more basic and widespread expressions of musicality. The ecological principle is particularly important when addressing questions about the functional, adaptive relevance of music in our species (cf. [49]). It makes little sense to ask about the evolutionary `survival value’ of writing or performing a modern orchestral piece, but it is not unreasonable to ask about the potential adaptive value of a mother singing to her child, or of a tribal group singing and dancing together. Much of traditional musicology adopts an implicitly elitist attitude, where the proper object of study is `high’ art, composed and performed by a musical elite. Sometimes such elitism is explicit: a textbook intended to introduce students to musicand art appreciation states that art `which aims merely to amuse and to provide a pleasant diversion . . . has little or no lasting quality’. In particular, the authors state that, `art which caters to the masses . . . is of little aesthetic value and will not be considered’. [50, p. 1]. But if we ever hope to understand the shared biological basis of music, it is precisely popular music style (e.g. dance music) that will be most relevant, along with behaviours such as a mother singing lullabies in order to soothe her infant: one of the functions of song for which the empirical data is most co.