Zoosemiotics

Los artículos publicados en TRANS--Revista Transcultural de Música están (si no se indica lo contrario) bajo una licencia Reconocimiento--NoComercial--SinObraDerivada 2.5 España de Creative Commons. Puede copiarlos, distribuirlos y comunicarlos públicamente siempre que cite su autor y mencione en un lugar visible que ha sido tomado de TRANS agregando la dirección URL y/o un enlace a este sitio: www.sibetrans.com/trans. No utilice los contenidos de esta revista para fines comerciales y no haga con ellos obra derivada. La licencia completa se puede consultar en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by--nc--nd/2.5/es/deed.es All the materials in TRANS--Transcultural Music Review are published under a Creative Commons licence (Attribution--NonCommercial--NoDerivs 2.5) You can copy, distribute, and transmit the work, provided that you mention the author and the source of the material, either by adding the URL address of the article and/or a link to the webpage: www.sibetrans.com/trans. It is not allowed to use the contents of this journal for comercial purposes and you may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. You can check the complete licence agreement in the following link: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by--nc--nd/2.5/es/deed.en

"CONVERSATIONS WITH ANIMALS" OR “CONVERSATIONS TO ANIMALS"? ON SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS WITH THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF COMMUNICATION IN THE BACKGROUND.
The purpose of this article is an attempt to answer the question of whether we communicate with animals or only talk to them. The starting point for the text are conversations with the minders of the animals about their habits to converse to, with or instead of their animals. Looking at the discussions over the years about the mentality of animals and their ability to understand human speech, to respond to it, and to communicate with their minders using sounds or gestures, glances and facial expressions, I try to determine how far zoosemiotics, biocommunication or the anthropology of communication help explain the complexity of the relationships that connect us with animals.

Animal welfare is a complex matter that includes scientific, ethical, economic and other dimensions. Despite the existence of more comprehensive approaches to animal welfare and the obvious shortcomings of the 'Five Freedoms', for zoological gardens the freedoms still constitute the general guidelines to be followed. These guidelines reflect both, an ethical view and a science based approach. Analysis reveals that the potential ineptitude of the 'Five Freedoms' lies in the manifold perceptions that people have of other animals. These perceptions are biased by our own (mammalian) umwelt, which is intertwined with different cultural attitudes towards other species (e.g. humanistic, moralistic, ecologistic). Perceptions of animals may be held simultaneously by different interest groups and may often be incompatible, thus often making it difficult to follow the 'Five Freedoms' in practice. We aim to recognise and consider the multiplicity of factors that, besides animal subjectivity, are relevant in understanding this hybrid environment. The moral value and practical applicability of the 'Five Freedoms' are sometimes undermined by prioritising some freedoms over others and by species bias. Both are characteristic phenomena of the zoo as a hybrid environment where other species are managed by humans. Given deficiencies are further amplified by humanistic and moralistic attitudes that people hold.

The story of the feral child brought up in the wilderness among animals appears in the mythology of almost every culture.
As a topos, it gained a great importance during the periods of enlightenment and romanticism, and it even crops up in
some of the 20th century dystopian fictions. Besides the literary and cinematic Mowgli-interpretations, there are about
150 written records of ‘real Mowglis’. Through these, the present study explores the forms of language acquisition and
the interspecies communication from the perspectives of science and mass culture.
Keywords: wild or feral child, real Mowgli, language acquisition, Critical Age/Period Hypothesis, interspecies
communication, popular literature, mass culture

The present book analyses critically the tripartite mimicry model (consisting of the mimic, model and receiver species) and develops semiotic tools for comparative analysis. It is proposed that mimicry has a double structure where sign relations in communication are in constant interplay with ecological relations between species. Multi-constructivism and toolbox-like conceptual methods are advocated for, as these allow taking into account both the participants’ Umwelten as well as cultural meanings related to specific mimicry cases.

From biosemiotic viewpoint, mimicry is a sign relation, where deceptively similar messages are perceived, interpreted and acted upon. Focusing on living subjects and their communication opens up new ways to understand mimicry. Such view helps to explain the diversity of mimicry as well as mimicry studies and treat these in a single framework. On a meta-level, a semiotic view allows critical reflection on the use of mimicry concept in modern biology.

The author further discusses interpretations of mimicry in contemporary semiotics, analyses mimicry as communicative interaction, relates mimicry to iconic signs and focuses on abstract resemblances in mimicry. Theoretical discussions are illustrated with detailed excursions into practical mimicry cases in nature (brood parasitism, eyespots, myrmecomorphy, etc.). The book concludes with a conviction that mimicry should be treated in a broader semiotic-ecological context as it presumes the existence of ecological codes and other sign conventions in the ecosystem.

This article characterizes briefly the central aims of the semiotic study of animal life. Semiotic sciences in general can be defined as approaches to the study of various forms of knowing (as different from physical sciences, which study various things in the world), considering that knowing is possible only due to semiosis. The semiosphere is the sphere of knowing (knowing being always related to learning and acting). The basic types of knowing (as well as semiosis) include the vegetative, the animal, and the cultural. Zoosemiotics is focused on the animal type of knowing. Animal knowing is characterized by its use of iconic and indexical relations, whereas the extensive use of symbols is a prerequisite of specifically human (cultural, language-based) semiosis. However, the human or- ganism also includes animal knowing as an inevitable part of its knowing. Knowl- edge cannot be credible if it is exclusively symbolic; it requires that iconic and indexical semiosis be involved.

This article analyses the possibility to look at living systems as biorhetorical systems. Rhetorics of biology, which studies the rhetoric of biological discourse, is distinguishable from biorhetorics, which attempts to analyse the expressive behaviour of organisms in terms of primordial (un¬conscious) rhetoric. The appearance of such a view is a logical consequence from recent developments in new (or general) rhetorics on the one hand (e.g., G. A. Kennedy’s claim that rhetoric exists among social animals), and from the biosemiotic approach to living systems on the other hand.

The aim of this study is to demonstrate the mutual relationship between the classes of signs, mechanisms of learning, and types of umwelten. This framework is necessary in order to describe tlre animal ways of meaning-making in the context of various forms of semiosis. We state that semiosis only occurs in the internal present. An account of the linkage of vegetatirre, animal, social, and cultural umwelten with corresponding classes of signs and mechanisms of learning (imprinting , conditioning, imitating, conventioning) is provided. we also formulate two rules of semiotic development that characterise the ontogeny of the umwelt.

In previous papers considered the semiotic relationships and differences between the architecture of imperial and colonial zoos. (Stellenbosch, 2008; Carlisle, 2009). These were recently joined by a vertical study of the shifting social and cultural values reflected in the architectural rhetoric of a century of South African zoo lion enclosures (Tartu, 2011). The present account applies a similar approach to the contentious issue of a century and a half of European elephant houses designed by leading architects.

The opening study is of Decimus Burton’s Elephant Stables at London Zoo (1831) which was a hybridised fusion of African lapa thatch and Indian tented pavilion. The second concerns the world’s first modernist elephant house, a ‘rationalist’ design by Berthold Lubetkin at Whipsnade Zoo (1935) whose dimensions were based on the discovery that captive elephants tended to walk in small circles. This is followed by Hugh Casson’s ‘Brutalist ‘ building at London Zoo (1962-5) which is said by some to resemble a herd of elephants and whose roughly textured outer walls were intended to evoke elephant hide. The account concludes with Norman Foster’s much praised hi-tech structure at Copenhagen Zoo (2008) whose glass roof has a photo-etched pattern of leaves, which it is claimed simulate the light conditions of an African forest.

Throughout this time the animal framed within these structures has remained physically unchanged, in contrast to what has been projected on to it. Whilst each building embodies the attitudes of its particular era, there appears to have been both a consistent concern for the animal, and an equally consistent failure to question the purpose, or indeed desirability of keeping elephants in highly artificial situations at high latitudes.

The paper develops the concept of 'semiotic threshold zone' and a classification of major levels of semiotic systems, looking at this as both a theoretical and an empirical problem. The concept of semiotic threshold zone both specifies and generalizes the notion of 'semiotic threshold' and is necessary in order to describe and understand the events that enable a system in its evolution to cross the threshold between the levels, and also at the same time to maintain it. The existence of systems based on different types of semiosis leads to secondary and tertiary semiotic threshold zones, in addition to the lower (primary) one that distinguishes semiosic and non-semiosic systems. We argue for the secondary threshold zones being the indexical and symbolic ones, which correspondingly separate the vegetative and animal semiosis (at the indexical threshold zone), and animal and cultural semiosis (at the symbolic threshold zone). We also argue that indexical semiosis is responsible for spatial representations (perception of space), whereas symbolic semiosis is necessary for temporal representations (perception of time) to take place. This implies that the vegetative umwelten are both non-spatial and non-temporal, the animal umwelten being spatial but non-temporal, and the cultural umwelten (Lebenswelten) being both spatial and temporal. Within these types of semiosis, the tertiary threshold zones could be discovered.

A detailed review of the work of Thomas A. Sebeok (1920-2001) in the field of biosemiotics. This includes Sebeok’s relationships to biology and his work on building biosemiotics, or semiotic biology, including both his work as a theoretician in the field and his activity in organising, publishing, and communicating. It reviews Sebeok’s (a) establishing of zoosemiotics, (b) interpretation and development of Jakob von Uexküll’s and Heini Hediger’s ideas, (c) typological, comparative, and evolutionary study of semiosis and semiotic phenomena in living organisms, (d) idea that life is semiosis, and that semiosphere coincides with biosphere, (e) research on the history of biosemiotics, and (f) his organizational work in establishing biosemiotics.

The article addresses the topic of great ape-keeper tactile communication. The aim of this paper is to understand whether direct physical contact can be considered a source of enrichment for captive apes and whether it could be used to enhance animal welfare in zoos. We make use of a multispecies perspective provided by umwelt theory in an attempt to determine the role of touch in zoological gardens. By referring to Konrad Lorenz, we describe keeper-animal relationships as a special case of companionship, highlighting the role of keepers in apes' social behaviour. The paper considers social touch as the primary means used by social animals to create and maintain increasingly complex relationships. Since tactile communication in interspecific contexts has been underestimated previously, our theoretical framework allows for a better understanding of physical contact in zoological gardens without assuming an anthropocentric point of view. Our hypothesis is that physical contact with keepers may provide enriching opportunities for social animals and help strengthen the bond between animals and their keepers. We emphasize that ape-animal interactions in zoos need to involve keeper-animal physical contact as a possible means for enhancing the apes' welfare.

We demonstrate the mutual relationship between the classes of signs, mechanisms of learning, and types of umwelten. We argue that semiosis itself takes place only in the subjective present. The creation of organic present is also a general condition of life.

This introductory paper of the zoosemiotic issue of Semiotica gives an insight into the history of zoosemiotics and into contemporary developments of the field. Temporal distance allows taking a fresh perspective on Thomas A. Sebeok’s zoosemiotic writings, periodization of his works and their relations to other studies of animal semiotics. In the present time, zoosemiotics can provide a necessary space of dialogue between biosemiotics and general semiotics. It is claimed that for contemporary zoosemiotics, a pluralistic approach is the most suitable, for the purposes of historical description, object-level studies and paradigmatic theorisations. It is also relevant to see zoosemiotics as contextualised within recent developments of environmental humanities. In this paper the classical era of zoosemiotics is contrasted with the more recent post-linguistic zoosemiotics, with special attention paid to the synthesis between zoosemiotics and cultural and literary criticism, to zoomusicology, and to the inclusion of semiotic arguments in animal ethics. Several practical methods and applications of zoosemiotics are discussed.

The following points, which represent a path to a semiotics of being, are pertinent to various sub-fields at the conjunction of semiotics of nature (biosemiotics, ecosemiotics, zoosemiotics) and semiotics of culture—semioethics and existential semiotics included. 1) Semiotics of being entails inquiry at all levels of biological organization, albeit, wherever there are individuals, with emphasis on the living qua individuals (integrated biological individualism). 2) An Umwelt is the public aspect (cf. the Innenwelt, the private aspect) of a phenomenal/experienced world that is organism-specific (rather than species-specific) and ultimately refers to an existential realm. 3) Existential universals at work on Earth include seeking out the edible, dwelling in a medium, holding a phenomenal world (possibly an Umwelt) and being endowed with life, and consequently being mortal. 4) Human Umwelten include speechless Umwelten, spoken Umwelten and alphabetic Umwelten. 5) An Uexküllian phenomenology—stating that semiotic states represent the general class to which all mental/cognitive states belong—can draw on the works of the phenomenologists David Abram and Ted Toadvine (The notion of semiotic states is treated in Tønnessen 2009a: 62–63. For an introduction to eco-phenomenology, see Brown and Toadvine (eds.) 2003). 6) A task for such a phenomenology is to portray the natural history of the phenomenal world. 7) An imperative task in our contemporary world of faltering biological diversity is that of Umwelt mapping, i.e. a mapping of ontological niches. 8) The ecological crisis is an ontological crisis with historical roots in humankind’s domestication of animals and plants, which can be taken as archetypical for our attempted planet-scale taming of the wild. 9) The process of globalization is expressed by correlated trends of depletion of semiotic diversity and semiotic diversification. 10) Semiotic economy is a field which task it is to map the human ontological niche insofar as its semiotic relations are of an economic nature. All ten points will be commented (explicitly or implicitly) in due time.

In modern biology, the appearance of organisms is largely understood as an adaptation serving the survival function. Here we advance a biosemiotic perspective inspired by the works of Adolf Portmann and Jakob von Uexküll. From this perspective, the visual dimension of every living being can be understood as a representation of the evolutionary experience of a species. In the study of animal displays, biosemiotics focuses on the qualitative perspective in both the logic behind the emergence of such signs as well as their perception and interpretation by perceiving animals. In this study, we claim that convergence of the animal surface patterns that stem developmentally from different ontogenetic precursors should be taken as evidence for congruence in biological meaning. As a specific example, the article discusses the development, perception, and evolution of semantic organs such as eyespots on butterfly wings and vertebrate eyes.

In the wake of both 9/11 and the financial crisis of 2008, the humanities have been offered as constituents of higher education which, if more prominent and more strenuously promoted, might have prevented both events. At the same time, the humanities have undergone an assault from governments in the West, with massively reduced or wholly cut funding as part of an attempt to promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in universities. The response from parts of the humanities to these government initiatives has been strident, insisting that a thriving humanities or liberal arts curriculum is crucial to democracy, ethics and citizenship, and that the humanities should be an essential ingredient of science and business education. Contemporary semiotics' deployment of the concept of Umwelt demonstrates that the contribution the humanities might make to theory, practice and social life remains indispensable. Yet this contribution is of a rather different character to that portrayed in the traditional defence of 'humanistic' study. Indeed, the example of semiotics reveals that the humanities themselves are regularly misconceived. A personal story illustrates one of the main points in what follows. When I was about 10 years old, I was standing outside the surgery of the local general practitioner, looking at the plaque near the front door. I turned to my dad, asking why doctors need to have so many qualifications, why they have to leave school with a range of exams passed rather than simply focusing on the practice of medicine as their one and only subject. My dad, described on my birth certificate as a " wheel turner " for the Ford Motor Company, someone who had left school at 14 and was placed as one of the most lowly functionaries of late capitalism, was able to reply with a degree of insight which, unfortunately, seems to be beyond that of many senior managers in universities, education policymakers and powerbrokers. His reply to my questions was that it is necessary for doctors to demonstrate that their minds are active in other subject areas than just medicine so that their specialism is not merely a matter of niched competence, that it is informed from without and also because they need to be able to carry out the great many diverse tasks involved in their job.

At an urban parrot sanctuary in the Midwestern USA, humans care for eightysome
parrots from more than a dozen species. Many of these parrots have personal histories
that include various forms of neglect, abuse, and abandonment. The article explores the
forms of interspecies communication through which human caretakers interpret and respond
to the psychic lives of these parrots—psychic lives that are marked by troubles ranging
from social withdrawal to self-destructive behavior. These interspecies communications
include body language, gesture, nonverbal vocalizations, and human-language phrases. While
biosemiotic theory offers a provocative starting point for understanding these communications,
sanctuary interactions destabilize certain semiotic distinctions, drawing attention to
ambiguities between semantic and nonsemantic vocalization, vocalization and body language,
informative speech and expletive, and communication and symptom. Building on ideas about
metacommunication in animal play, I suggest that both psychic trouble and interactions to
ease that trouble might be considered forms of biosemiotic creativity. By loosening and opening
up the distinctions frequently drawn between human and other-than-human semiosis, it
is possible to develop subtler accounts of the semiotic improvisations that emerge in uniquely
configured multispecies communities such as the sanctuary.

In recent years, humanists and social scientists have shown increasing interest in human-animal relations – to the point where many now speak of an ‘animal turn’ in the humanities and social sciences. Across history, psychology, anthropology, literature, sociology, philosophy, and law, an interdisciplinary field of human-animal studies has been forming. Certain common themes run through this diverse field, not least the reproduction of human-animal difference, and the conditions and the implications thereof.

Despite the long history of language use as a marker of such difference, the academic quest to investigate the boundary between human and nonhuman has, somewhat surprisingly, not taken root within rhetorical studies – at least not until now. For this edited volume, we therefore call for chapters that investigate the place of nonhuman animals in the purview of rhetorical theory; what it would mean to communicate beyond the human community; how rhetoric reveals our ‘brute roots.’ In other words, this book invites contributions which enlighten us about likely or possible implications of the animal turn within rhetorical studies. Would such a turn imply, for instance, that rhetoric needs a nonanthropocentric reconfiguration? The question, perhaps, is this: What difference would it make to the discipline if we assumed that nonhuman forms of communication were as interesting as human ones?

Animals are. A multitude of diff erent species surrounds us in our everyday doings, and infl uences our behaviour and culture. Dogs and cats develop delicate and personal relationships with the families they belong to. Swans and geese are waiting to be fed by passers-by. Th e wing-strokes of doves and jackdaws give a subtle ephemeral atmosphere to our cities. Spiders, snails and snakes are met with surprise or disgust. Beavers are blamed for reshaping the landscapes, and wolves for killing livestock. People and animals engage and interact in a number of ways: from hunting and fi shing to bird-watching, from the help provided by assistance dogs to family holidays in zoological gardens and animal parks. Children's fi rst encounters with the written word oft en take place through animal stories. And many fi ctional animal characters are known and internationally celebrated by name: Lassie, Moby Dick, Bambi, King Kong, etc. None of these interactions would be possible without semiotic processes: perception, communication and interpretation occurring between humans and animals. Sign relations or mediated relations that connect humans with other animal species are the very subject of this collective monograph. We make an inquiry into the semiotic character of diff erent species, study the ways in which humans endow animals with meaning, and analyse how animal sign exchange and communication has coped with environmental change. In this research, our core disciplinary framework is zoosemiotics, the semiotic study of animals-the paradigm that was proposed by the eminent American-Hungarian semiotician Th omas A. Sebeok in the 1960s and that recently had its fi ft ieth anniversary. Our approach is essentially semiotic and biosemiotic. At the same time, we engage in dialogues with ecocriticism, Actor-Network Th eory, posthumanism and other contemporary schools of the humanities, as well as with more practically oriented research topics in visitor studies, animal welfare studies and humananimal studies, not to forget ethology and conservation biology. Th is book is a collective eff ort. Its authors belong to the research group in zoosemiotics and human-animal relations based in the Department of Semiotics at the University of Tartu in Estonia, and at the University of Stavanger in Norway. Th e two opening chapters are written and edited collectively and present a framework of philosophical, historical, epistemological and methodological matters of zoosemiotic research. Th ese initial considerations are followed by specifi c case studies that have been conducted by individual authors. Th e specifi c chapters, however, have been cross-edited and commented on by other TIMO MARAN ET AL

Play is an intrinsic value to healthy human growth and is crucial to the persistence of creativity in daily life. The goal of this thesis is to achieve an approach to re-instilling play into the human world. As the title ‘Meaningful play: Applying Zoosemiotics to game development’ suggests, a practical application of theory will be devised in order to put play to work, so to speak. Frame of mind is the crux of the issue because mental frames are frequently determinative of how and what we perceive. By understanding this concept methods to introduce playful frames will help create better playthings. Play activities and social frames for play can be inspired and informed by the animal world, for human and non-human animals live in an interconnected and interrelated ecosystem.

This study examines zoo discourses on media as a convenient site for probing into human-animal power relations. A form of critical discourse analysis is carried out in national daily news discourse focusing on how zoo discourses portray animals through lexical choices, grammatical structures, and discursive strategies of capitalism, hospitality, and conservation. These strategies overall operate to conceal the domination, oppression, and suffering of captive wild animals behind the benevolent image of the zoo institution promoting conservation, education, and recreation. Through language, animals are constructed, on a superficial level, as subjects who enjoy their lives on natural habitats with their families. Yet further analysis reveals a power abuse in which animals are objectified and commodified for an exclusively human agenda. The study concludes that through the naturalizing effect of discourses human dominance over wild animals are never questioned and the zoos grant animals an instrumental value rather than inherent value.

Les animaux sont visibles, les animaux ont une forme. Cette affirmation, banale au premier abord, nous amène en réalité à des conséquences importantes dans le cadre de la réflexion sur l’animalité et sur les relations entre l’animal non-humain et l’animal-humain. À travers la reconnaissance et la valorisation de l’apparence animale – une apparence déjà significative – il est admis que le corps n’est pas un ‘sac physiologique’, mais un porteur de symboles. Le corps, animal autant qu’humain, nous parle : par ses gestes, par ses mouvements, par sa présence singulière. L’animal se présente devant notre regard avec sa forme (Gestalt), avec son style, qui est un langage à part entière : il a une valeur expressive et symbolique, il a une visibilité qui se dessine comme un ‘ensemble sémantique’ à reconnaître et interpréter. Dans notre proposition, le point de départ sera l’analyse de la biologie antiréductionniste d’Adolf Portmann que Maurice Merleau-Ponty effectue dans le cours au Collège de France daté du 1957, L’animalité, le corps humain, passage à la culture. Dans ces pages, Merleau-Ponty révèle un véritable narcissisme animal : la forme animale est, dans les mots de Portmann, une auto-présentation (Selbstdarstellung). À qui s’adresse cette apparence ? Est-ce que les animaux sont en mesure de la recevoir ?  S’agit-il d’une fin en soi ou d’une ouverture à l’intersubjectivité comprenant les animaux autant que les humains ?

Bibliographie
Bailly, Jean-Cristophe. Le versant animal. Paris: Bayard, 2007.
Bailly, Jean-Cristophe. Le parti pris des animaux. Paris: Christian Bourgois Editeur, 2013.
Benveniste, Émile. Problèmes de linguistique générale, 1-2, Paris : Gallimard, 1966 ;1974.
Coccia, Emanuele. La Vie sensible. Paris: Éditions Payot & Rivages, 2013.
Coquet, Jean-Claude. Physis et Logos. Une phénoménologie du langage. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 2007.
Macé, Marielle. Styles. Critique de nos formes de vie. Paris: Gallimard, 2016.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Le visible et l’invisible. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1964.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. La Nature. Notes. Cours de Collège de France (1956-1960). Paris: Éditions Seuil, 1995.

Approaches to animal communication have for the most part been quite different in semiotics and evolutionary biology. In this context the writings of a leading evolutionary biologist who has also been attracted to semiotics — John Maynard Smith — are an interesting exception and object of study. The present article focuses on the use and adaptation of semiotic terminology in Maynard Smith’s works with reference to general theoretical premises both in semiotics and evolutionary biology. In developing a typology of animal signals, Maynard Smith employs the concepts of icon, index and symbol to denote distinct signal classes. He uses “indices” or “indexes” to express a signal type where the relation between signal properties and meaning is restricted because of physical characteristics. Such approach also points out the issue of the motivatedness of signs, which has had a long history in semiotics. In the final part of the article the usage and content of the concepts of signal form and meaning in Maynard Smith’s writings are analysed. It appears that in evolutionary biology, the “signal” is a vague concept that may denote a variety of things from an animal’s specific physiological status to artificial theoretical constructs. It also becomes evident that in actual usage the concept of signal often includes references to the receiver’s activity and interpretation, which belong rather to the characteristics of sign process. The positive influence of Maynard Smith’s works on semiotics could lie in paying attention to the role of physical necessities in animal communication. Physical constraints and relations also seem to have a significant role in semiotic processes although this is not always sufficiently studied or understood in semiotics.

The article provides a commentary on Umberto Eco's text " Animal language before Sebeok " , and an annotated bibliography of various versions of the article on 'latratus canis' that Eco published together with Roberto Lambertini, Costantino Marmo, and Andrea Tabarroni.