What's the "phylogenetic scale" and how are rats and horses ranked on it?

[bibliophage]

I’m taking a practice test for the GRE subject test in psychology from this book. The questions aren’t taken from actual GRE tests but are meant to be similar. One of them is

The sexual behavior of which of the following species is most affected by hormones?
A. humans
B. apes
C. wolves
D. horses
E. rats

I guessed D. Horses because I knew humans, apes, wolves and at least some rodents (I wasn’t sure about rats) have sex for social reasons but horses (as far as I know), don’t. Social sex can still be controlled by hormones, I suppose, but horses seemed the odd choice, so that’s what I went with.

The answer and explanation given in the back are

E. The lower a species is on the phylogenetic scale, the more its behavior is controlled by instincts and hormones. Rats are lower on the scale than any of the other species listed.

Huh? I know what phylogenetics is. Humans, apes, and rats are in one clade, (super-order Euarchontoglires) while horses and wolves are in another (super-order Laurasiatheria). I’ve never heard of the “phylogentic scale” before. Googling it suggests it has something to do with the complexity of the organism, but I don’t understand on what objective basis a horse could be considered more complex than a rat. The whole thing sounds suspiciously like the discredited Great Chain of Being.

My questions: 1) Is “rat” is the correct answer to their question? and more importantly 2) Is their reasoning correct?

[WF_Tomba]

I’d like to see how they quantify “affected by hormones”.

[WF_Tomba]

Here’s something.

Implicit in the work of comparative psychologists from Darwin’s day until about the 1930s is something called the phylogenetic scale This is a ranking of animals according to their general complexity and ability, from lowest to highest. The concept is still present in our language, when we use the phrase “lower animals.”

So your practice test is only about seventy years out of date.

[Colibri]

There is no way to deduce a correct answer to the question from the information given and general biological principles. It’s a stupid question.

That explanation for the answer really is seriously out of date. I would say there is no a priori reason for the sexual behavior of rats to be more affected by hormones than the other animals on the list.

Rats may be less intelligent than the other animals on the list; and perhaps for that reason their behavior might be more affected by instinct than by learning. But that has nothing to do with their phylogeny.

“Phylogenetic scale” seems to be akin to the idea of an “evolutionary grade.” Birds and mammals were considered to be of a higher “grade” than reptiles, because they were more intelligent and warm-blooded. However, for the past half-century or more this concept has been out of date; now evolutionists think more in terms of clades, that is, lines of descent, rather than grades. And cladistically speaking, birds are closer to reptiles than they are to mammals.

As you mention, rats are more closely related to humans and gorillas than they are to horses and wolves, according to modern phylogenetic thinking.

[MOIDALIZE]

Mr. Ed was a professional. He never let his hormones take over.

[thelurkinghorror]

This is another reasons why ETS is a crap company. I don’t know about the phylogenetic scale, but rats score an “awesome” on thelurkinghorror scale. Cute little fuzzbuckets.

[puppygod]

@Colibri

There is no way to deduce a correct answer to the question from the information given and general biological principles. It’s a stupid question.

This. You heard it from biologist, and I, as a psychologist, agree that it’s stupid question. It’s based on false dichotomy between behaviors affected by “higher” functions (presumably cortical) versus “lower”, “alligator brain” ones (which are presumably interpreted as more “affected by hormones” here). While still popular, these dichotomy is demonstrably false and, as WF Tomba pointed out, very outdated.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@MOIDALIZE

Mr. Ed was a professional. He never let his hormones take over.

Well, he couldn’t. He was a gelding.

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Well, he couldn’t. He was a gelding.

That, plus the lack of lady zebras on set

[wevets]

I agree that the question sucks.

It’s based on the fallacy that of extant organisms, some are more evolutionarily “advanced” than others (an understandable confusion given that there is terminology in evolutionary biology concerning “primitive” and “derived” characteristics - meaning characteristics inherited from earlier ancestors and shared with other groups relative to characteristics inherited from recent ancestors and not as frequently shared with other groups.) But the whole point behind the term “derived” is to avoid the confusion with “advanced” and some anthropocentric “Great Chain of Being” with an arbitrary top or goal.
The only way they should be asking that question is if they have some quantitative measure of hormone influence and the question is based on observational/experimental results, not on evolutionary theory. I’m willing to bet they don’t have the results to back up that question.

[Giles]

@Tapioca_Dextrin

That, plus the lack of lady zebras on set

Snopes seems to be having a joke there. Wikipedia and IMDB agree that Mister Ed was played by a horse named Bamboo Harvester, with another horse called Pumpkin as a stand-in at times.

[KneadToKnow]

@Giles

Snopes seems to be having a joke there.

Yes. That’s from their TRoLL section: The Repository of Lost Legends, which includes such stretchers as a silent version of The Poseidon Adventure being screened aboard the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

Among the many other moronic aspects of this question, it should be noted that apes and rats are not “species”. I’m not sure about horses and wolves.

[Giles]

@Freddy_the_Pig

Among the many other moronic aspects of this question, it should be noted that apes and rats are not “species”. I’m not sure about horses and wolves.

Horses are one species. Wolves are a subspecies of Canis lupus, with the other major subspecies of C. lupus being the domestic dog, and a third being the dingo.