::::Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it's linked to social group size. the three orangutan species are basically solitary, chimpanzees (and bobobos) tend to live in groups of a few dozen, while humans (sapiens, neanderthalensis, etc) seem ancestrally to have lived in [[Band society|extended families]] smaller than typical chimpanzee troops.
::::Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it's linked to social group size. the three orangutan species are basically solitary, chimpanzees (and bobobos) tend to live in groups of a few dozen, while humans (sapiens, neanderthalensis, etc) seem ancestrally to have lived in [[Band society|extended families]] smaller than typical chimpanzee troops.
::::Environment may also be/have been a factor. Orangutans mate up trees in forests, and are unlikely to be disturbed while so doing. Chimpanzees typically mate on the ground (I believe) and may be disturbed by predators, or by other chimps. Ancestral humans may have typically mated in caves (yeah, cliché) and/or other semi-safe situations, with others on watch for predators, and being more social and intelligent likely interrupted each other less.
::::Environment may also be/have been a factor. Orangutans mate up trees in forests, and are unlikely to be disturbed while so doing. Chimpanzees typically mate on the ground (I believe) and may be disturbed by predators, or by other chimps. Ancestral humans may have typically mated in caves (yeah, cliché) and/or other semi-safe situations, with others on watch for predators, and being more social and intelligent likely interrupted each other less.
::::Lastly: chimpanzee females exhibit obvious signs of [[Sexual swelling|oestrus]]; humans less so if at all, but females could indicate their willingness to mate in other ways; orangutans do not have obvious eostrus signals, and forced copulation is quite frequent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.213.18.208|90.213.18.208]] ([[User talk:90.213.18.208|talk]]) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Lastly: chimpanzee females exhibit obvious signs of [[Sexual swelling|oestrus]]; humans less so if at all, but females could indicate their willingness to mate in other ways; orangutans do not have obvious oestrus signals, and forced copulation is quite frequent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.213.18.208|90.213.18.208]] ([[User talk:90.213.18.208|talk]]) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::It's been years since I read [[David Buss]] and [[Christopher Ryan (author)|Christopher Ryan]]. Your speculation seems to lean towards elements of both. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::It's been years since I read [[David Buss]] and [[Christopher Ryan (author)|Christopher Ryan]]. Your speculation seems to lean towards elements of both. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Conceivably, our [[hominid]] ancestors spent a longer time on procreation, which got shorter progressively on all [[hominine]] branches, more so on some than on others. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 07:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Conceivably, our [[hominid]] ancestors spent a longer time on procreation, which got shorter progressively on all [[hominine]] branches, more so on some than on others. --[[User talk:Lambiam#top|Lambiam]] 07:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 08:01, 23 April 2023
Wikimedia Project Page
Welcome to the miscellaneous section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
Good afternoon, need sources for a citation.
The most important position was that of Maryland, because it was from this state that the district of Washington, D.C. was at one time designated as the capital. If Maryland had sided with the Southerners, the U.S. capital would have been inside Confederate territory. As events unfolded, the threat was very real: after a bloody skirmish with the 6th Massachusetts Regiment marching into Washington from Boston, the Baltimore people destroyed railroad tracks, threw locomotives off a slope and burned railroad bridges, thereby cutting Washington off from the rest of the Union. In response, Lincoln inserted troops into Maryland, which ensured that the state was forcibly part of the Union until the end of the war.
Thanks in advance. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't wrong, except by perhaps rounding too much. The part of DC that existed when the Civil War started was entirely Maryland territory when the district was created. The original district had been created from land donated by both Maryland and Virginia, however in 1847, some 13 years before the events described in the paragraph above, it had been returned to Virginia. To describe the entire process of DC being created and some of the land being retroceded to Virginia is outside of the scope of the narrative above. It is, like many things, at once both true and irrelevant to the discussion. It is not the history of how DC was created that is relevant to the narrative, it is the physical location of DC wedged between Maryland and Virginia, that matters. The reason that Maryland could not be allowed to consider seceding from the U.S. is that the capital city of the U.S. would then become an exclave within the Confederate States of America, a situation that plainly would be bad for the Union side of the war. The entire rest of the paragraph is correct, and the first sentence could be made more clear perhaps with a few wording tweaks, but it isn't wrong. --Jayron3212:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be for commerial use like what you would find at a store not the ones for home use and she wants a physical store if at all possible, maybe some sort of wholesaler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.100.87 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All joking aside, in the Chimpanzee article it says: "Copulation is brief, lasting approximately seven seconds". How and why did human copulation evolve to longer and longer lengths of time for adults? Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, there's an incorrect premise in your question. Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees, Chimpanzees and Humans evolved from a common ancestor which was a species that lived somewhere between 13 million and 4 million years ago (speciation is a process, not an instant, and there are rather large error bars on the data we do have). Unless we know the copulation habits of that common ancestor, we don't know if human copulation time got longer, or if Chimpanzee copulation time got shorter, or if both happened. --Jayron3213:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the pedantry, but I’m aware that humans evolved from a common ancestor, not from chimps, which is why I asked about the evolution of human copulation, particularly in adults. Looking into this, it turns out that the average time of human copulation has been measured at five minutes, while orangutans can go for fifteen minutes on average. What explains the large differences in copulation time between the three great ape species? Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it's linked to social group size. the three orangutan species are basically solitary, chimpanzees (and bobobos) tend to live in groups of a few dozen, while humans (sapiens, neanderthalensis, etc) seem ancestrally to have lived in extended families smaller than typical chimpanzee troops.
Environment may also be/have been a factor. Orangutans mate up trees in forests, and are unlikely to be disturbed while so doing. Chimpanzees typically mate on the ground (I believe) and may be disturbed by predators, or by other chimps. Ancestral humans may have typically mated in caves (yeah, cliché) and/or other semi-safe situations, with others on watch for predators, and being more social and intelligent likely interrupted each other less.
Lastly: chimpanzee females exhibit obvious signs of oestrus; humans less so if at all, but females could indicate their willingness to mate in other ways; orangutans do not have obvious oestrus signals, and forced copulation is quite frequent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonobos split from Pan paniscus two million years ago, yet copulate longer than common chimps by almost twice as much time (13 seconds). Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the conjunction yet implies that the second clause stands in contrast with the first clause, but I cannot discern how. Perhaps their common ancestor spent a full minute on the act. Two million years is enough time for evolution to progress towards quicker completion. Reportedly, there is also a difference between the species in the appetite they have developed for it. --Lambiam18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it looks like copulation increased in length over time, not decreased. Some of this has been addressed above. If a species is more vulnerable to predators, they have sex quicker. Over time, humans became less vulnerable to predators due to their adaptation and control over the natural environment. We would therefore expect copulation to increase as their safety increased over time. On another site discussion, it was pointed out that longer copulation has a selective advantage because it increases the chance of fertilization and delays the success of the chance of a second mate. I’m inclined to believe that human copulation grew longer for these reasons, not shorter. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific indications that make it look like that, I must have overlooked them. Our common hominid ancestors may have been frugivorous tree dwellers too large for birds of prey but nevertheless relatively small, hanging out on branches too flexible for big cats too climb and thereby hardly vulnerable to predators. One can ask, "why is it the case that X?" and come up with one or more theories. But these theories, however plausible, cannot settle the answer to the question, "is it the case that X?". --Lambiam07:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
English spelling was not very standardized until long after all these words came into use. In Middle English, "winter" had forms with more than 6 letters such as "winnterr", "whynter" and "wyntyre"; "autumn" was spelled "autumne", "autumpne" and "atome"; spring was spelled "sprenge" and "sprynge"; and "summer" was spelled "somir", "sommere", "somur", "sumir", and "summure", among other forms. The fact that modern spelling has settled on 6-letter spelling for each of these four words is coincidence. CodeTalker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
