Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41712117›Full record

ReviewPrimates; journal of primatology2026

(Re)Integrating classical natural history approaches into contemporary field primatology: toward a more holistic understanding of primates.

E Freymann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Primates; journal of primatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

E FreymannEthnopharmacology and Zoopharmacognosy Junior Research Group, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany. elodie_freymann@brown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5484-8643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The historical evolution of the natural sciences, from natural history to specialized scientific disciplines, has fundamentally altered how we study the natural world. While scientific specialization has undoubtedly brought both depth and rigor to specific scientific fields, including primatology, it has also created methodological limitations that fragment our understanding of complex primate ecosystems. This paper outlines four core principles, once central to natural history research, that are less commonly applied in contemporary primatology. These principles include: multidisciplinarity, democratized participation, integration of subjective interpretation, and creative communication. I argue for the strategic integration and/or reintegration of these principles within primatology and provide concrete recommendations for institutional enactment. However, while the incorporation of these selected principles may make the field more inclusive, ethical, and diverse, it is critical to also acknowledge that many other aspects of natural history have been historically rooted in a colonialism, racism, and exploitation. This paper, therefore, does not call for a blind return to natural history approaches as they were once practiced, but rather for the development of a new, holistic, next-generation primatology. Rather than abandoning scientific rigor, this synthesis approach would expand primatology's methodological toolkit to better reflect the interconnected nature of primate worlds while bridging the gap between academic and local knowledge systems. Such integration offers pathways toward more inclusive, comprehensive, and ultimately more effective primate research and conservation.

Indexed as

Natural HistoryPrimatesZoologyAnimalsCreative communicationInclusivityMultidisciplinarityNatural historyNext-Generation primatologyPrimatologySubjectivity

Identifiers

PMID41712117
PMCPMC13541987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.