INTRODUCTION

In 1974, Ernst Mayr published a now classic paper on the distinction between innate and acquired characteristics. In this work, Mayr broke away from some of the more confining features of traditional accounts of innateness, and proposed a dimension along which behaviors might be expected to vary with respect to innateness. Mayr proposed a distinction between “closed” and “open” programs1 – a program that does not allow appreciable modifications during the lifespan of its owner is a “closed” program, while a program that does allow for the effects of additional input is “open.” Since it seems unlikely that any developmental program can be completely closed, Wimsatt (1986) has suggested that Mayr's notion of a closed program may be most fruitfully viewed as a relative one – “relative to the period of time of development under investigation, and the class of inputs being investigated, and probably also to the environment and the prior state of the developing phenotype” (Wimsatt 1986, p. 203). In Wimsatt's terms, a closed developmental program is one which is canalized with respect to the relevant inputs.

Mayr's classificatory schemes distinguished two types of behavior: A behavior is considered communicative if it is directed toward a recipient who is capable of responding with behavior of its own, and noncommunicative if it is directed toward a “recipient” that is passive and does not itself react (e.g., behaviors involved in selecting a habitat or seeking food).