How Debunking the Osteological Paradox Results in Improved Quality of Life for Retiring Apes

Copyright: © 2013 Rothschild B. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The term “osteological paradox” has been used to disparage research derived from skeletal collections [1]. Their explanation: After all, the animal died, so its remains are not representative of the species? This unproven speculation could be correct if observation of the phenomenon of interest were to be affected by the agonal event. Speculation has been offered that wild “harvested” animals may not be representative, as perhaps they were slower or less effective at hiding than other members of their species who got away. The latter idea was easily disproved. Study of inflammatory arthritis in gorillas reveals the same frequency, pattern and extent of disease when the results of the great ape hunt (120 gorillas curated at the MCZ, Cleveland Museum of Natural History and the NMNH) and that seen in zoological parks [2,3] are compared. Further, the patterns are identical to those noted in human populations [4,5].