著者
鈴木 惟司 前田 尚子
出版者
公益財団法人 山階鳥類研究所
雑誌
山階鳥類学雑誌 (ISSN:13485032)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.45, no.2, pp.77-91, 2014-03-20 (Released:2016-03-25)
参考文献数
41
被引用文献数
1 4

テンナンショウ属Arisaema(サトイモ科Araceae)は良く目立つ鮮紅色の集合果(果実序)を生産する。本属の果実は鳥によって摂食され,その種子は鳥によって散布されると考えられている。しかしテンナンショウ属の種が多数知られている日本でも,その果実食者(種子散布者)についての詳しい調査は未だ行われていない。著者らは,南関東低地で生育するミミガタテンナンショウA. limbatumとカントウマムシグサA. serratumを対象にして,自動撮影カメラを利用してその主要な果実食者を調査した。ミミガタとカントウは植物本体や果実の形状・サイズなど似通っているが,前者では夏季の7–8月に,後者では秋10月以降に鮮紅色の成熟果実が出現するという違いがある。調査は2008–2013年の期間に東京都八王子市内(多摩丘陵)と神奈川県秦野市内(丹沢山麓)の二次林で行われた。なお結果的に資料は概ね後者で得られている。ミミガタの果実を採取した鳥はヒヨドリHypsipetes amaurotis 1種であった。ヒヨドリは本種にとって最重要な果実食者と見なせた。このほかアカネズミApodemus speciosusも果実を採取するのを確認した。本種は果実というより種子を摂食していた。一方,カントウでは8種の鳥が果実食者として記録された。そのうち主要と思われるのはヒヨドリ,ルリビタキTarsiger cyanurus,シロハラTurdus pallidusおよびヤマドリSyrmaticus soemmerringiiの4種であった。他の4種はソウシチョウLeiothrix lutea(外来種),トラツグミZoothera dauma,アカハラT. chrysolaus,ジョウビタキPhoenicurus auroreusである。またそれ以外にアカネズミ属の個体による採食も記録された。
著者
前田 尚子 Maeda Naoko
出版者
Graduate School of International Development. Nagoya University
雑誌
Forum of International Development Studies (ISSN:13413732)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.26, pp.47-64, 2004-03

It is frequently said that the Japanese people have not been able to establish positive relationships with other ethnic peoples while accepting the many differences that exist among peoples of different social and cultural backgrounds. On the basis of this view, a number of researchers have criticized Japan’s assimilative policy and the Japanese way of communicating, and have produced a brand of discourse that encourages individuals to know and respect the diversity between Japanese and other cultures.The intent of this paper is to critically examine, using the concept of Constructionism, the views of discourse dealing with heterogeneity. For that purpose, I examine how the concept of “the self”is argued within the discourse on heterogeneity, and how individuals’selves (realities) are constructed through the acceptance of this particular discussion. I will show that the current discourse on heterogeneity advises people to have such selfimages as to be themselves and to be conscious of their own characters, as well as to be relativistic and to respect others equally. These points of views on heterogeneity appear to be rationalized on the grounds that they attempt to harmonize these two specific types of self-image. In addition, I will point out the limitations of the current discourse on heterogeneity. The discussion itself cannot avoid the systemic way of thinking that allows individuals to pursue self-image to be themselves and conscious of their own characters while harmonizing the efforts to be relativistic and respectful of others equally,even though there is an assumption that people can attain the first of these self-images by themselves. The discussions concerning heterogeneity are in error since they include the assumption that individuals’complementary roles in their systems are a result of self-determination. Finally, I will describe the occurrence of two paradoxes that arise as a direct consequence of the inaccuracy of these assumptions. The more eagerly individuals pursue their authenticities by themselves, the more tightly they are bound to one of the complementary roles within their systems. Furthermore, the more strongly they emphasize the differences or boundaries between themselves and others, the more they fail to recognize that they themselves are the parties concerned in the construction of mutual selves(realities). As a final result, individuals develop an attitude called “the denial of coevalness”.