The internet is full of wonderful - if unashamedly sentimental photos and film of bizare pairings of animals showing affection or nurturing each other. A chimp who cuddles baby tigers, cats sleeping with dogs, ducklings imprinted on puppies. Fawns and rabbits - I could go on. One of the animals is nearly always a
baby, so it is obviously linked to the maternal instict of the older animal. I've seen it referred to as 'inter species affection or nurturing, but I'm sure there must be a single Scientific Latin or Greek based word for this. Does anybody know of one? And would it begin with 'Zoo...'?

WELCOME H.L.

It's not unique to mammals, BTW. Some cuckoos and cowbirds are "brood parasitic" and make use of the maternal instinct of other birds. But "maternal" is not strictly correct, as some of the care-givers are male. Among the recent videos I saw was of (IIRC) a MALE pit bull that had a baby kitten - carried it around in its mouth all over the place.

In a sense, humans make use of this too - with the animals we take in as pets / partners. When our dog dies, I'm going to have to put my wife on a suicide watch. That's not a joke. I'm serious. I've already broached the subject with her several times so she knows this is an expected outcome and something we can deal with.

But humans also benefit from this - there was a case a few years back when a kid in Germany (I think) who fell into a gorilla cage and was protected by a female who dragged the boy over to the door and kept the male gorilla away. There are several cases in recent years of dogs that died to protect their owners or displayed loyalty in some other way. (If you're interested, google "Hachiko", not the movie the real story of a Japanese dog.)

Those of us who were adopted, in a sense, make use of the same principle. (I was legally adopted by my step father, but it seems very odd to me and I usually don't even think about it until someone mentions my "real dad.") In any case, my brothers and I have benefited from our step father's need to nurture.

Good luck on finding the term. My only contribution is:
1) Humans display this character and also benefit from it sometimes, both with respect to other animals and with respect to ourselves.
2) The character is displayed somewhat in birds. I don't about other non-mammals. Monotremes? Reptiles? Fish? Are there limits even within mammalia?

I get slightly irritated when people say, "Oh, your dog is not experiencing and conveying love, but just programmed behavior."
What? It's not "real" unless it's also magical?

It reminds me vaguely of another programmed behavior - that of the Sphex wasp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digger_wasp

The only reason we think our love behavior is "real" is because we can talk about it.

Caring for animals has shaped our evolution as humans. No other species has domesticated a large variety of animals, fish, birds reptiles or insects. Most of us now need that animal connection.
And I know what you are saying FF, with regards to your wife's dog. I think we get closer to our animals than most other humans.

I think 'nature' made babies and toddlers of all animal groups, cute, so we would care for them. I should tell you that once I found a nest of rats in my bathroom and started leaving food for the babies, only to have someone comment that in a few months time I might be wanting to get in the exterminator........

As to your question H L ...I don't know of the word. There should be one. Good question. (and yes welcome, as Luke says).

alloparent or allomother....... using the Greek prefix, allo 'other than'.... describes an individual other than parents that help raise offspring,
as in some societies, both animal and human, where 'aunts' traditionally take on that roll.

I agree that the word shouldn't be 'maternal' as in female. Many males species are involved in raising young, some exclusive to the mother who delivered them. I'm thinking about seahorses now, but thats more role reversal, because the male gets 'pregnant and delivers the young fry' and neither parent rears the young....not a good example.

I am reminded of the pet rock phenomenon of my youth. Surely, animals do behave in certain ways towards members of different species. When it comes to interpreting these behaviors and attaching words to them, it probably a projection of meaning from the human onto the pet.

The only reason we think our love behavior is "real" is because we can talk about it.

+1

Let's explore your dry response.

Presumably the reason some people believe non-human animals do not experience "real" love is because they can't talk about it?

We'll ignore mute humans.

We'll ignore that talking is not the only means of communication, even among humans.

I wonder if this is a binary relation or whether the quality or realness of love is considered to be a monotonically increasing function of our ability to express it. Shakespeare's love was more real than that of lesser men. Same for Emily Dickens'.

The illiterate parent who without a thought sacrifices its life for its offspring experiences a less real love than the bathetic student sputtering erudite, lust-inspired platitudes into the ear of his high school sweetheart.

We'll ignore mute humans.

Mute humans mostly still have language; animals don't.

True. "Talking about" means more than what comes out of one's mouth. That's a common usage. So we have "the possession of language creates - or at least allows - *real* love."

Are human children capable of love before they develop language?

By "we" I mean the human species in general. The fact that some of us may not have the power of speech does not make that subset less human. We have no idea what love is and it's only the fact that we can talk about it that makes us think we somehow understand what it is. The big thing we really thought had over the other animals is that we have a consciousness of self and other, although we are starting to see that some other animals have the same level of consciousness.

I don't assume you accept this criteria. It seems a likely explanation that "we" in general hold it, even though you and I as individuals may (or may not).

Human love is real because there are many members of the set of humans who can use language to communicate about it. Animal love is not real, because they cannot do the same and therefore the love they appear to express must merely be a programmed response.

An assumption is that whether the expression is a "programmed response" as opposed to an act of "free will" determines the "reality" of the love. Another assumption is that "programmed response" and "free will" are mutually exclusive.

There was a movie a few years back called A.I. that explored this idea. (I liked it, but I suspect most people would find it overly long and boring.)

Are human children capable of love before they develop language?

Depends on your definition of love, I suppose. Probably not.

I think if love is a reflection of our outward expression then yes it does exist whether we realise it or not.

There was a movie a few years back called A.I. that explored this idea.

Good movie. Based on a story by Brian Aldiss called Super-Toys Last All Summer Long.

I do believe that you are talking about filial imprinting, in which a young animal acquires several of its behavioral characteristics from its parent. It is most obvious in nidifugous birds, which imprint on their parents and then follow them around.


It was first reported in domestic chickens, by the 19th-century amateur biologist Douglas Spalding and was rediscovered by the early ethologist Oskar Heinroth, and studied extensively and popularised by his disciple Konrad Lorenz working with greylag geese.
Lorenz demonstrated how incubator-hatched geese would imprint on the first suitable moving stimulus they saw within what he called a "critical period" between 13–16 hours shortly after hatching. Most notably, the goslings would imprint on Lorenz himself (more specifically, on his wading boots), and he is often depicted being followed by a gaggle of geese who had imprinted on him.
Filial imprinting is not restricted to animals that are able to follow their parents, however; in child development the term is used to refer to the process by which a baby learns who its mother and father are. The process is recognised as beginning in the womb, when the unborn baby starts to recognise its parents' voices. (courtesy of Wikipedia Filial Imprinting )

This occurs in a lot of animals, take for instance the cuckoo - it is brought up by birds of a different species as they are under the impression that it is their own chick

Depends on your definition of love, I suppose. Probably not.

I think love and fascination are closely related sensations. I'm quite sure that I loved grasses and flowers before I loved my mother or brothers and sisters or pets. A young child can miss and long for its parents during a period of separation, but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with love.

I still haven't found word for 'cross-species relationships'

meanwhile I found this....and had to post it.

WHAT ??
They actually spoke hey/hi?
I thought they'd text it.

touche