Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Austin Nguyen
English 101
23 October 2018
The population of old world primates is currently on the decline, and so in an effort to aid
in preventing their extinction, two primatologists set out to determine the variables significant to
the extinction risk of taxa in the Colobine phylogeny. In Jason Kamilar and Lisa Paciulli’s2008
research article “Examining the Extinction Risk of Specialized Folivores: A Comparative Study
of Colobine Monkeys”, published in the American Journal of Primatology, the pair delve into the
topic of extinction and analyze the factors that increase the risk of it. With the utilization of
credibility, adherence to proper formatting, and a logical structure, Kamilar and Paciulli are able
To start, it is important to understand the content of the research article. Eight variables
were identified to be related to the extinction risk of Colobine monkeys (female body mass,
percent leaves in diet, percent mature leaves in diet, percent of fruit and seeds in diet, home
range, number of habitat types, absolute value of maximum latitude, and mean human population
density) (Kamilar and Paciulli). With the use of a variety of statistical analyses, four were found
to be most important (body mass, folivory, number of habitats, and maximum latitude) (Kamilar
and Paciulli).
Nguyen 2
Before the actual content of the research article even begins, certain things have already
been strategically placed by the writers. The title is descriptive enough to convey the general
idea and yet simplistic enough to grasp the content of the paper which is a convention of
scientific articles. It effectively grabs the attention of those interested in the field. Another detail
to notice is the placement of the writers’ names. Kamilar has had previous affiliation with Yale
University and so perhaps in an effort to increase attention, his name was intentionally placed
first (“Jason Kamilar”).This does not mean Paciulli lacks any experience however. The paper on
Colobine monkeys is not her first as she has written many others in the field (Paciulli) and even
owns a research facility located in Indonesia (Paciulli LM). In addition to the qualifications of
the authors, key words are also identifiedwhich help make the research article appear in certain
search results. These words are primate, conservation, diet, folivory, threatened, and taxonomic
scale (Kamilar and Paciulli). By selecting these phrases, it indicates that the paper’s target
audience are individuals in the same field of study or those interested in the subject. All of this is
merely a small fragment of the research paper, but it is clear that Kamilar and Paciulli have
The paper then continues with the established structure of scientific articles: vital for the
success of the publication of the research. Kamilar and Paciulli create an encompassing abstract,
adequate introduction, methods section, and results section; extensive discussion, and a lengthy
list of citations in the reference list.The introduction alone provides more than sufficient
evidence of intensive study and research. Frequently, there are references to previous published
works as well as justification for certain aspects of the project. When listing traits or other
things, each item is provided its own citation which displays meticulous attention to detail.
explanations coupled by citations sprinkled about. This writing style of the introduction ensures
that each claim is defended and adds to the credibility of Kamilar and Paciulli.
Like most research articles, the introduction is followed by a methods section. For this
paper, Kamilar and Paciulli have decided to divide the section into two parts, data organization
and data analysis. In data organization there is a central theme of not having enough data
available. To solve this, Kamilar and Paciulli took previous published work of other researchers
in the field and compiled it to fill in the gaps. Each mention of this comes with citation(s) which
continues the credibility similar to that of the introduction. Unfortunately, this section is not free
International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) categories for extinction risk classification
(Kamilar and Paciulli). They acknowledge that the categorization is strongly influenced by
perspective and mention that many other studies have used the IUCN categories as well;
however, in the very next sentence following this stance Kamilar and Paciulli go on to say “The
fact that a particular method is commonly implemented does not justify its use” which also
comes with its own citation (Kamilar and Paciulli). The sentence after completes the argument
that IUCN categories should be used to be able to compare with other work but the final
reasoning does not overcome the self-defeating nature of the previous statement. It creates a
negative mood with the reader and lowers some of the credibility that had been built up to that
point. There is some redemption near the end of the paragraph as Kamilar and Paciulli address
some more issues with the IUCN categories by removing each specific aspect, but other details
continue to erode the credibility of the study. An example is that the paper identified studying
eight extinction variables but only hypothesizes about one of the variables that being female
body mass.
Nguyen 4
The data analysis portion of the methods section also weakens Kamilar and Paciulli’s
research article though much of it is out of their control as it is a convention. It was a very smart
idea to divide the methods section into data organization and data analysis because the data
analysis part is where all of the statistical procedures were placed (not the actual analysis of
data). To someone not familiar with the field, the segment requires a great deal of trust from the
reader. The data analysis section appears to have less citations than any other part of the paper,
and although the results section yielded promising findings later, at this point in the article, the
ordinary readers may have stopped reading due to a loss of credibility and in the individual
explanations.
Those who manage to push through the methods section and decide to proceed onward in
the paper are next met with a short results section. This portion of the paper is frequently short in
scientific articles because their purpose is to only state the outcome of the experiment or test
which in this case are multiple statistical analyses. Several tables are provided and once again
some trust is required due to the high level of math needed to understand it. Still, tables are
clearly labelled as well as the results of the maximum likelihood analysis, the exploratory
analysis, the bivariate analysis, and multiple regression. The eight variables are also
accompanied by either a plus or minus symbol in parenthesis for easy identification of their
relationship with extinction rate (plus means it is positively correlated, minus means it is
negatively correlated). Credibility continues to be maintained at the level it was left at and the
paper follows through with the structure of research articles with the discussion section coming
right after.
The discussion section is by far the largest part and focus of the Kamilar and Paciulli’s
work. Spanning over two pages, this section is also divided into different parts for easier
Nguyen 5
identification of information. Out of the eight extinction risk predictors, four were found to be of
greater importance than the rest; body mass, percent of mature leaves in diet, number of habitats,
and maximum latitude (Kamilar and Paciulli). The presentation of the findings and elaboration
of them matches with common knowledge about primates and animals in general which
establishes foundational credibility. The percent of mature leaves in diet discussion agreed with
data from Palomar College regarding the ability of Colobine monkeys to have a “predominantly
low protein, fibrous leaf diet” (O’Neil). All crucial points of the discussion are easily
understandable and results are brief and can be quickly found as a result of how it is organized.
The four sections about the four variables effectively interpret the results and adequately uses
logical reasoning to explain them. Citations appear every few sentences but not so much that
more of the paragraph appears to be in reference to other work. This part of the discussion
finishes off the analysis of the study but Kamilar and Paciulli decide not to end the paper just yet.
After the four sections for each of the four variables, there is a fifth section dedicated to
lower taxonomic scales, an aspect that was not one of the eight variables. Despite its
resemblance in format to the four variables, the content is more similar to the “relevance of the
study” portion found in lab report conclusions. Scientific articles do not have conclusions so
make it makes sense that should an author want to include one, it would be tacked on at the end
of the discussion section. At first the two paragraphs seem irrelevant but actually effectively
opens the way for future work. The section discusses the importance of taxa levels and even
some possible conservation plans (Kamilar and Paciulli) and by adding this section, Kamilar and
Paciulli use the credibility and experience they have gained from the study to offer suggestions
The work of Jason Kamilar and Lisa Paciulli is important to preserving biodiversity in a
world where humans are speeding up the rate of extinction. By analyzing variables that most
heavily impact the Colobine monkeys, related studies can help to save the Old World primates as
a whole. Their research paper is overall effective in reporting their findings and discussion
despite a few holes from time to time. The logical flow of the findings in combination with the
qualifications of Kamilar and Paciulli are able to follow the format of published journal articles
Works Cited
https://www.umass.edu/anthro/people/jason-kamilar.
Kamilar, Jason M., and Lisa M. Paciulli. “Examining the Extinction Risk of Specialized
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajp.20553.
https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/primate/prim_6.htm.
Paciulli, Lisa M. “‘They’re Logging Your Rain Forest!.’” Vienna, vol. 30, 4, Aug. 2000, p. 36–
43.