Monkeys and bats have similar bone structure in their forelimbs. however, monkeys have longer forelimbs to use for climbing and swinging in trees. bats have shorter forelimbs to use for flight. which term best describes how monkey and bat forelimbs are related to each other? a. homologous b. embryonic c. analogous d. vestigial

Hi!

The correct option would be A.

Homologous structures are those structures which have a common structure and consequently origin (the bone structure is the same in both monkeys and bats in our case). These structures, however, perform different functions in different species (used for climbing in monkeys, and flight in bats).

They are called homologous structures because the underlying anatomy of these are same in different species, and indicative of a common ancestor. The difference in the appearance is due to the adaptation of these structures to accommodate different lifestyles of the species.

Hope this helps!

homologous

Explanation:

1. the question asks the most appropriate, which seems to rule out "all of the above." your choice appears to be the correct one.

2. the protocol described is good for identifying correlation, but not cause and effect. for cause/effect, you need to devise a protocol that will assign the treatment (or not) to groups that have essentially the same "demographics" with respect to all the other variables. your choice regarding control group seems appropriate. random assignment of treatment (choice d) may be appropriate also. (i think you can argue that b and d are just different descriptions of the same method.)

3. d will randomize the birds, but may not guarantee there are 10 in each group. e will do both, so seems the better choice.

comment on question 2

based on the problem statement, it seems clear that confident, attentive drivers are more likely to use daytime running lights. so, the protocol might need to be devised in such a way that the lights would be turned on or off without the driver's knowledge. (an attentive driver will figure it out.) assigning a confident, attentive driver to a group required to drive without running lights might mess with his/her confidence and attentiveness. you don't want your experiment to do that. (nor do you want the experiment to subject a driver to greater risk of accident as a consequence of driving without running lights.) experiments involving human safety are always problematic.