Are mantis shrimp the most intelligent invertebrates?
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
DreamScape
New member
lol
it's probably easier for them to smash it open.
I read that most scientists don't like to use the tem "intelligent" in relation to octopi.
i think that the same applies to mantis shrimp too.
it's probably easier for them to smash it open.
I read that most scientists don't like to use the tem "intelligent" in relation to octopi.
i think that the same applies to mantis shrimp too.
Pandora
Premium Member
Heck, the people in the ceph forum (including me) would go ballistic if they saw this thread... hahaha. I have a mantis and an octo, and I must say, the contest isn't even close, sorry mantis fans. My mantis is cool to watch and comes out when I feed him...
But my octo sees me across the room and has learned to behave differently around me than my bf and other friends, since I'm the one who feeds him. When I come close, he shoots water out of his tank to get my attention, and he pulses color also, sometimes coming to the surface and extending 3 of it's arms like a dog in begging mode.
I've seen him solve really unusual tasks too, in his effort to escape. I have a latch to the door that opens his enclosure that goes into the main tank where he was, but the latch is on the outside of the door where I thought he couldn't reach. He learned to squeeze an arm out of a tiny hole next to the latch and pick the lock from inside his enclosure one day when I was home. When he saw me coming, he quickly sprinted back into his enclosure but left the door open. I pretended not to notice, passed him by, and shut off the room lights and watched him from afar just to watch what he was doing. I watched him creep out, look cautiously outside, but instead of going out this time, he actually CLOSED the door and put the latch back on, I swear. Don't know exactly why, maybe because he didn't want me to "notice"?? I honestly do not know to this day if he had the reasoning capacity to think that he would "fool me" and then pick the lock at night when no one could see him. I blocked his exit before lights-out with a large heavy rock, and then watched him from afar again. He creeped out to test the latch, and I swear, I could have seen him almost "surprised" that he could open the latch but not the door this time. These animals are absolutely incredible.
I do think mantis are probably the smarter of the shrimp and maybe crustaceans, but I suspect the smartest arthropod must be an insect, sorry. (Just not willing to put a bet on what it is)
Dreamscape: "Intelligence" applied to all non-human animals (and human animals as well) is difficult, because there is no one definitive measure and there is always the temptation to anthropomorphize. It depends largely on how you define the word... there are different kinds of intelligence. Like if you were to define it as range of vocal communication, wouldn't some birds have the edge over us? Would a dolphin think humans are really stupid because we can't even use ultrasound to detect objects underwater or communicate with each other? It's a subjective measure for something that people treat as objective, unfortunately. As pet owners, it's hard NOT to think subjectively, we will be biased in how we read our animal's behaviors. For example, I had an oscar which would rub up against my arm every time I fed it like a cat, and it would even make a gutteral purring noise. Did I interpret this as "he loves me"? It's tempting when we care for our pets... but in reality, he might just be thinking "when I do this behavior, I'm more likely to be fed", i.e. operant learning.
But my octo sees me across the room and has learned to behave differently around me than my bf and other friends, since I'm the one who feeds him. When I come close, he shoots water out of his tank to get my attention, and he pulses color also, sometimes coming to the surface and extending 3 of it's arms like a dog in begging mode.
I've seen him solve really unusual tasks too, in his effort to escape. I have a latch to the door that opens his enclosure that goes into the main tank where he was, but the latch is on the outside of the door where I thought he couldn't reach. He learned to squeeze an arm out of a tiny hole next to the latch and pick the lock from inside his enclosure one day when I was home. When he saw me coming, he quickly sprinted back into his enclosure but left the door open. I pretended not to notice, passed him by, and shut off the room lights and watched him from afar just to watch what he was doing. I watched him creep out, look cautiously outside, but instead of going out this time, he actually CLOSED the door and put the latch back on, I swear. Don't know exactly why, maybe because he didn't want me to "notice"?? I honestly do not know to this day if he had the reasoning capacity to think that he would "fool me" and then pick the lock at night when no one could see him. I blocked his exit before lights-out with a large heavy rock, and then watched him from afar again. He creeped out to test the latch, and I swear, I could have seen him almost "surprised" that he could open the latch but not the door this time. These animals are absolutely incredible.
I do think mantis are probably the smarter of the shrimp and maybe crustaceans, but I suspect the smartest arthropod must be an insect, sorry. (Just not willing to put a bet on what it is)
Dreamscape: "Intelligence" applied to all non-human animals (and human animals as well) is difficult, because there is no one definitive measure and there is always the temptation to anthropomorphize. It depends largely on how you define the word... there are different kinds of intelligence. Like if you were to define it as range of vocal communication, wouldn't some birds have the edge over us? Would a dolphin think humans are really stupid because we can't even use ultrasound to detect objects underwater or communicate with each other? It's a subjective measure for something that people treat as objective, unfortunately. As pet owners, it's hard NOT to think subjectively, we will be biased in how we read our animal's behaviors. For example, I had an oscar which would rub up against my arm every time I fed it like a cat, and it would even make a gutteral purring noise. Did I interpret this as "he loves me"? It's tempting when we care for our pets... but in reality, he might just be thinking "when I do this behavior, I'm more likely to be fed", i.e. operant learning.
espi360
In Memoriam
ceph story
ceph story
This probaly should go in the ceph group, but Im telling it here.
I had 3 tanks on a 20 foot long solid oak table. the one on the left was salt, the one on the right was fresh, the one in the center was .. yup, brackish. I had a pod in the left tank. he was smart and a tad on the pesky side as he liked to play "hide the floating hydrometer" with me. Any way, I had an automatic feeder on the fresh tank. I would fill it, and it would rin for 10 days, then Id re fill it. WELL, after a few months, I was finding it empty by the third day. I thought how odd.... so Id refill it, and it would empty again. I yelled at my family cause I thought they were turning up the dose.... They said no. I yelled at the cat, she just meowed and looked at me stupidly. A month of this went on. One night I got up to go to the bath room at 3 am, and went down stairs for some milk, I heard a thump. I turned the lights on in the den, and the cover was off the feeder. I looked around, the cat was in her bathroom cat bed sound asleep. HOW ODD !
I asked a friend to borrow his video camera. I set it up and for the next week and it didnt happen. I took it down, and the VERY next night it was all empty. F*&$^#@*&$ I exclaimed ! so I yelled at the family ( and cat again) to no avail. I decided to stay up one night and watch from the steps up stairs after 12:00 pm.
At 2:35 AM I heard a thump. I waited 2 min.... then Turned on a Coleman battery flood light. WHAT TO MY WONDERING EVES SHOULD APPEAR ! ...... ( no not the sled or reindeer) but my pod chowing down ! HE froze mid bite..... UT OH! I VE BEEN CAUGHT !
I shouted for my family they came running W laughed our azzzzez off. I walked down to the table and said to Doc Ock...
" BUSTED !" now go to your room ! the thing slinked back to its aquarium, opened the lid of the hang on, crawled in, squeezed between the cutout and back into his tank. I wish I had it on tape. Untill the day he died, he did this little routine. 5.00 worth of wardlys flake a week.... I can deal with it.....
:eek1:
ceph story
This probaly should go in the ceph group, but Im telling it here.
I had 3 tanks on a 20 foot long solid oak table. the one on the left was salt, the one on the right was fresh, the one in the center was .. yup, brackish. I had a pod in the left tank. he was smart and a tad on the pesky side as he liked to play "hide the floating hydrometer" with me. Any way, I had an automatic feeder on the fresh tank. I would fill it, and it would rin for 10 days, then Id re fill it. WELL, after a few months, I was finding it empty by the third day. I thought how odd.... so Id refill it, and it would empty again. I yelled at my family cause I thought they were turning up the dose.... They said no. I yelled at the cat, she just meowed and looked at me stupidly. A month of this went on. One night I got up to go to the bath room at 3 am, and went down stairs for some milk, I heard a thump. I turned the lights on in the den, and the cover was off the feeder. I looked around, the cat was in her bathroom cat bed sound asleep. HOW ODD !
I asked a friend to borrow his video camera. I set it up and for the next week and it didnt happen. I took it down, and the VERY next night it was all empty. F*&$^#@*&$ I exclaimed ! so I yelled at the family ( and cat again) to no avail. I decided to stay up one night and watch from the steps up stairs after 12:00 pm.
At 2:35 AM I heard a thump. I waited 2 min.... then Turned on a Coleman battery flood light. WHAT TO MY WONDERING EVES SHOULD APPEAR ! ...... ( no not the sled or reindeer) but my pod chowing down ! HE froze mid bite..... UT OH! I VE BEEN CAUGHT !
I shouted for my family they came running W laughed our azzzzez off. I walked down to the table and said to Doc Ock...
" BUSTED !" now go to your room ! the thing slinked back to its aquarium, opened the lid of the hang on, crawled in, squeezed between the cutout and back into his tank. I wish I had it on tape. Untill the day he died, he did this little routine. 5.00 worth of wardlys flake a week.... I can deal with it.....
:eek1:
Gonodactylus
Premium Member
"Intelligence" is task and species based. I know of no octopus that can remember another octopus with which it has fought for a month or more.
I know of no octopus that can be trained to discriminate betwen to very similar colors.
I know of no octopus that can be trained to discriminate between two different e-vectors of polarized light.
There are stomatopods that can do all of these things.
As for observational learning in octopus, I remain a skeptic. THe Italian experiments that were published a few years ago, to my knowledge, have not been replicated. Many of us have tried. When you think about it, why would an octopus evolve such behavior. They are mostly asocial and rarely whould have the opportunity to observe another octopus do anything.
Roy
I know of no octopus that can be trained to discriminate betwen to very similar colors.
I know of no octopus that can be trained to discriminate between two different e-vectors of polarized light.
There are stomatopods that can do all of these things.
As for observational learning in octopus, I remain a skeptic. THe Italian experiments that were published a few years ago, to my knowledge, have not been replicated. Many of us have tried. When you think about it, why would an octopus evolve such behavior. They are mostly asocial and rarely whould have the opportunity to observe another octopus do anything.
Roy
Pandora
Premium Member
Gono, hmm, your arguments have interesting info but are not at all convincing. First off, saying "intelligence is task and species based", I was unsure exactly what you meant by that... that every individual animal could only be compared between others of it's own species? With that I could agree, but then you go on to do cross-species comparisons BETWEEN species based on specific sensory capabilities ... and with the point I was trying to make before, this is not a fair way of qualifying intelligence... if we used the measure of "able to interpret odor cues to figure out things about their environment", humans would be downright stupid next to dogs and the large majority of the animal species out there. Analogous is your comparison of "distinguishing between similar colors" and "discriminating between vectors of polarized light". These are sensory abilities that a species has evolved to make it through it's respective environmental niche, and each species does it a little differently.. it takes no real "intelligence" for a bacterium to sense light and move towards it by tumbling with it's flagellae, for instance. We're talking about complex tasks of problem solving which involve more than one step of thinking, cognitive behavior which includes analysis, flexibility of behavior to achieve the same goal, and future planning. This is how animal behaviorists do comparitive studies of intelligence.
And yes, the studies have been replicated, not only the famous Italian studies of bottle opening but more complex tasks as well. Here's one article on it for instance, other references have been published in past journals such as Nature and Scientific American:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cephpod.html
I think a few others, including an interesting study of spatial mapping, are on the Cephalopod Homepage run by Dr. James Wood. Being subscribed to the ceph mailing list, I do occasionally see animal behaviorists who do research with squid and octopus... some of it is just neuroanatomy, but some of it really is behavioral trials of operant conditioning. I know of no studies that have proven that mantis shrimp can learn by "observational learning"; in fact, a large number of mammals can't do this, and there is an argument in the above paper which debates that this is an inaccurate measure of invertebrate intelligence to begin with.
Lastly... very poor argument... the octopus IS solitary for much of their life, but no more so than a mantis shrimp! There is a social theory of learning for human evolution, but this is not necessarily the only way to evolve complex behavior and cognitive ability (in hominid evolution, there's also a number of competing theories and no real definite consensus in anthropology yet). If you used "being social" as a measure of intelligence, you'd exclude many animals known for their intelligence, including the orangutan, which lives alone most of it's life except when mating or raising young... and of course, you'd exclude the mantis shrimp which can't be known as "social" either! As I said, I have nothing against mantis, I own one myself and have seen it do very amazing things, but owning an octopus also, I've got to say the latter wins hands down.
And yes, the studies have been replicated, not only the famous Italian studies of bottle opening but more complex tasks as well. Here's one article on it for instance, other references have been published in past journals such as Nature and Scientific American:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cephpod.html
I think a few others, including an interesting study of spatial mapping, are on the Cephalopod Homepage run by Dr. James Wood. Being subscribed to the ceph mailing list, I do occasionally see animal behaviorists who do research with squid and octopus... some of it is just neuroanatomy, but some of it really is behavioral trials of operant conditioning. I know of no studies that have proven that mantis shrimp can learn by "observational learning"; in fact, a large number of mammals can't do this, and there is an argument in the above paper which debates that this is an inaccurate measure of invertebrate intelligence to begin with.
Lastly... very poor argument... the octopus IS solitary for much of their life, but no more so than a mantis shrimp! There is a social theory of learning for human evolution, but this is not necessarily the only way to evolve complex behavior and cognitive ability (in hominid evolution, there's also a number of competing theories and no real definite consensus in anthropology yet). If you used "being social" as a measure of intelligence, you'd exclude many animals known for their intelligence, including the orangutan, which lives alone most of it's life except when mating or raising young... and of course, you'd exclude the mantis shrimp which can't be known as "social" either! As I said, I have nothing against mantis, I own one myself and have seen it do very amazing things, but owning an octopus also, I've got to say the latter wins hands down.
Gonodactylus
Premium Member
My statement about octopus not being social had nothing to do with arguments about the evolution of "intelligence" in social verse non-social species. I was simply pointing out that I could see very little opportunity in nature for octopuses to learn by watching one another. Aside from brief mating encounters, most species that have been studied rarely spend much time within sight of another octopus.
As for mantis shrimp, they are indeed much more social than octopus. They frequently occur at very high densities, learn to recognize individual neighbors with whom they frequently interact, and in species such as Lysiosquillina maculata, a male and female may live together for 20 years or more. There is good evidence that these pairs coordinate their activities.
I will admit that I did include sensory systems that octopuses are deficient in, but length of memory is a measure that can be applied across apecies and I can't remember any demonstration in octopus that memory persists as long as it does in stomatopods.
FInally, I will stand my ground on the statment that the Itailian observational learning study has not been replicated using O. vulgarus or any other octopus. I've tried, I know several other cephalopod behaviorists who have tried it, and the effect is not robust. (It didn't work with stomatopods either.)
Roy
As for mantis shrimp, they are indeed much more social than octopus. They frequently occur at very high densities, learn to recognize individual neighbors with whom they frequently interact, and in species such as Lysiosquillina maculata, a male and female may live together for 20 years or more. There is good evidence that these pairs coordinate their activities.
I will admit that I did include sensory systems that octopuses are deficient in, but length of memory is a measure that can be applied across apecies and I can't remember any demonstration in octopus that memory persists as long as it does in stomatopods.
FInally, I will stand my ground on the statment that the Itailian observational learning study has not been replicated using O. vulgarus or any other octopus. I've tried, I know several other cephalopod behaviorists who have tried it, and the effect is not robust. (It didn't work with stomatopods either.)
Roy
interesting discussion.
i'll put in my 2 cents by saying that anecdotal "evidence" of octopus/mantis shrimp intelligence is just that...anecdotes, and we should not put too much value into them.
The strong daily sociality of many mantis shrimps, versus mainly solitary octopuses, might be a better indicator of which group could ultimately evolve "intelligence" as we (in the daily sense) know it. Just like apes, mantis shrimps engage in highly complex visual and other interactions with other mantis shrimps, and even with other critters beyond mantis shrimps on a daily basis. The fact that mantis shrimps are typically longer lived than cephalopds also may play a factor. The absolute physical size of the mantis shrimp brains may be a limiting factor though..
I would suggest reviewing Dr Caldwell and others work from references int he literature (or from the stomatopod site) because some of the experiments reveal behavior that is both more intricate and fascinating than those seen in octopuses.
i'll put in my 2 cents by saying that anecdotal "evidence" of octopus/mantis shrimp intelligence is just that...anecdotes, and we should not put too much value into them.
The strong daily sociality of many mantis shrimps, versus mainly solitary octopuses, might be a better indicator of which group could ultimately evolve "intelligence" as we (in the daily sense) know it. Just like apes, mantis shrimps engage in highly complex visual and other interactions with other mantis shrimps, and even with other critters beyond mantis shrimps on a daily basis. The fact that mantis shrimps are typically longer lived than cephalopds also may play a factor. The absolute physical size of the mantis shrimp brains may be a limiting factor though..
I would suggest reviewing Dr Caldwell and others work from references int he literature (or from the stomatopod site) because some of the experiments reveal behavior that is both more intricate and fascinating than those seen in octopuses.
i think you make a mistaken comparison here, or misunderstand. Having a GREATER sense of smell, or being able to physically distinguish different smells better than humans does not make a dog smarter, but the interpretation of smell is obviously one humans would be able to do better than dogs.
i typically find animal studies to be a very soft science, and the way even some researchers become "attached" to their subjects calls into question the whole methoddology of the science. I especially find some of the articles in the cephalopod page to be guilty of showing too much "hope" about octopus intelligence, as if it were some sort of given that was inherently true and only needed to be proven to the rest of the world.
Gonodactylus presents a somewhat conservative view that is more aligned with what science should be...skeptism mixed with a good dose of experimentation and some logical arguments, such as the question about why a short lived, non-social group could evolve (or even needed to expend energy to evolve) the characteristics ascribed to them in anecdotes .
i typically find animal studies to be a very soft science, and the way even some researchers become "attached" to their subjects calls into question the whole methoddology of the science. I especially find some of the articles in the cephalopod page to be guilty of showing too much "hope" about octopus intelligence, as if it were some sort of given that was inherently true and only needed to be proven to the rest of the world.
Gonodactylus presents a somewhat conservative view that is more aligned with what science should be...skeptism mixed with a good dose of experimentation and some logical arguments, such as the question about why a short lived, non-social group could evolve (or even needed to expend energy to evolve) the characteristics ascribed to them in anecdotes .
Pandora said:
Pandora
Premium Member
kalim, what you say about sensory capabilities vs. the interpretation of those capabilities is very true! That's a good point (though keep in mind that the interpretation end is much more difficult to test for than the sensory side, and the two can be confused during testing), as is the one about "soft science", although you have to realize that this field has come a long way since the days where attachment was often a factor in such experiments, and primatologists would take their subjects home in diapers to raise like children. Most experiments done today try to cut out experimenter and interpretor bias by "blind" design. And remember that even so-called "hard science" ultimately has it's pitfalls in human error, though I would agree that the opportunities to misinterpret data are fewer here. Just the one comment on lifespan I don't think really applies well... many inverts such as starfish and anemones are not limited at all as far as aging (no "preprogrammed death" in their tissues) and yet have shown no strong evidence for intelligence. Lifespan is more a correlation of metabolism.
And Gono, I again will restate that sociality does not necessarily have to anything to do with a present species' cognitive abilities. Again I use the example of the orangutan, a highly intelligent animal with great ability to learn by mimicry as well as extrapolate earlier memories into future planning. In the wild, these primates are not at all social, and live as loners except to mate and raise young (which the mothers do so in solitary as well). How would you explain this? Just knowing an animal's present social behavior does not tell us if this is a conserved or derived trait of behavior to it's ancestors. We don't know much about the ancestors of the octopus when it comes to social organization, and they could have well lived in groups when their cognitive abilities evolved, just as some have conjectured that the common ancestor of all primates was a social organism. There are some squid, btw, which exhibit very social behavior and which DO appear to remember individuals they've met in the past. There is a great variation in the social behavior and ecological habitat of various cephalopods, and to view the octopus as a "model" for the ancestral state is as inaccurate as assuming the ancestor of all primates was "just like us" or "just like orangutans".
At any rate, it's all still an interesting debate to me, thanks for sharing. I am glad that someone questions this sort of thing. I would like to ask you guys to step by for a minute, because you guys obviously already have stomatopods (same observational bias as kalim talks about)... but how many of you have cephalopods? As I said before, I do own both, and I'd like to think I don't love one of my pets over the other... but just from day-to-day observation, my octo displays a great deal more intellectual curiosity and flexibility. He never does two things the same way... if he can't open a door one way, he will try another the next day, as well as find more efficient ways of ambushing fish, and yes, occasionally doing remarkable things such as unscrewing the cap to a pipe he shouldn't have gotten into. My mantis on the other hand, while it does some truly interesting things, I've never observed doing any behavior of a higher level than that of a tarantula. (Again, this is all anecdotal) It's certainly not to say it's not smart... just not in the puzzle-solving, more intricate kind of cognitive ability I usually ascribe myself to the word "intelligence". But perhaps it's just a limitation in the observer and tester... as someone else once said, both species display a kind of "alien intelligence" that we as humans may never fully understand, and that's our problem, not theirs...
Who knows, maybe my mantis will surprise me one day by scraping out the Grand Unified Theory of physics out in the algae on the walls of his tank. Or maybe he's been tapping it out in a morse code all along, I just never understood it...
And Gono, I again will restate that sociality does not necessarily have to anything to do with a present species' cognitive abilities. Again I use the example of the orangutan, a highly intelligent animal with great ability to learn by mimicry as well as extrapolate earlier memories into future planning. In the wild, these primates are not at all social, and live as loners except to mate and raise young (which the mothers do so in solitary as well). How would you explain this? Just knowing an animal's present social behavior does not tell us if this is a conserved or derived trait of behavior to it's ancestors. We don't know much about the ancestors of the octopus when it comes to social organization, and they could have well lived in groups when their cognitive abilities evolved, just as some have conjectured that the common ancestor of all primates was a social organism. There are some squid, btw, which exhibit very social behavior and which DO appear to remember individuals they've met in the past. There is a great variation in the social behavior and ecological habitat of various cephalopods, and to view the octopus as a "model" for the ancestral state is as inaccurate as assuming the ancestor of all primates was "just like us" or "just like orangutans".
At any rate, it's all still an interesting debate to me, thanks for sharing. I am glad that someone questions this sort of thing. I would like to ask you guys to step by for a minute, because you guys obviously already have stomatopods (same observational bias as kalim talks about)... but how many of you have cephalopods? As I said before, I do own both, and I'd like to think I don't love one of my pets over the other... but just from day-to-day observation, my octo displays a great deal more intellectual curiosity and flexibility. He never does two things the same way... if he can't open a door one way, he will try another the next day, as well as find more efficient ways of ambushing fish, and yes, occasionally doing remarkable things such as unscrewing the cap to a pipe he shouldn't have gotten into. My mantis on the other hand, while it does some truly interesting things, I've never observed doing any behavior of a higher level than that of a tarantula. (Again, this is all anecdotal) It's certainly not to say it's not smart... just not in the puzzle-solving, more intricate kind of cognitive ability I usually ascribe myself to the word "intelligence". But perhaps it's just a limitation in the observer and tester... as someone else once said, both species display a kind of "alien intelligence" that we as humans may never fully understand, and that's our problem, not theirs...
Who knows, maybe my mantis will surprise me one day by scraping out the Grand Unified Theory of physics out in the algae on the walls of his tank. Or maybe he's been tapping it out in a morse code all along, I just never understood it...
Pandora:
The starfish example is not relevant at all because the point being made is that a SHORT, non-social life span is not conducive to the development of intelligence. On the other hand, some mantis shrimps do live very long lives, engage in "married" life with a single mate, and interact extensively with conspecifics and other similar mantis.
Orangutans are large primates that care for and teach their young. They are also long lived. None of these characteristics describe octopuses. In addition, the alleged intelligence of these primates may have been derived from ancestral lines that WERE social.
The starfish example is not relevant at all because the point being made is that a SHORT, non-social life span is not conducive to the development of intelligence. On the other hand, some mantis shrimps do live very long lives, engage in "married" life with a single mate, and interact extensively with conspecifics and other similar mantis.
Orangutans are large primates that care for and teach their young. They are also long lived. None of these characteristics describe octopuses. In addition, the alleged intelligence of these primates may have been derived from ancestral lines that WERE social.
DreamScape
New member
the very reason why scientists avoid using the word intelligent is because it is too broad based. rather, they use terms like "able to reason"; "displays emotion"; " complex communication" and "ability to learn and memorise" to describe specific aspects of intelligence.
Then again, it is intelligent to avoid/discourage things that want too eat you and all animals do that.
...and then there's the octopus that imitates mantis shrimp...
i would say that of the arthropods, stomatopods show the most signs of intelligence... i may be wrong, of course, there might be something hiding in the deep...
my 2 cents.
i love these debates
they always cause such a stir.
Then again, it is intelligent to avoid/discourage things that want too eat you and all animals do that.
...and then there's the octopus that imitates mantis shrimp...
i would say that of the arthropods, stomatopods show the most signs of intelligence... i may be wrong, of course, there might be something hiding in the deep...
my 2 cents.
i love these debates
they always cause such a stir.
Pandora
Premium Member
Kalim, I've read some of your old posts, and honestly, I'd say you were strongly biased for personal reasons to the intelligence of mantis, the same personal bias you cite some animal behaviorists of having.
I'm saying here, let's keep an open mind that both have different types of intelligence that we will never fully understand, but right now observationally, owning both myself, I have to say I believe my octopus is intelligent to me in a way that I personally can relate to. Have you ever owned an octopus? I do think that owning one would change your mind.
I think you did miss my point about orangutans... the truth is, we don't know for sure the social organization of their primate ancestors (and I can say this with some certainty as an evolutionary bio and primatology major undergrad who has worked in Borneo with these animals). We also don't know that of the octopus' ancestors, because another close relative, the squid, does have social members in it's order. These are all assumptions.
You cited that long lifespan should somehow be related to intelligence and learning ability... first off, if you relate it to observational learning, then stomatopods are ruled out along with cephalopods. Also, there is no evidence WITHIN smaller taxa (i.e. orders, families, classes) that lifespan is correlated to intelligence... this is largely an anthropomorphism that people attribute to animals because we happen to be both the most cognitively developed AND most long lived species in OUR order, primata. If you look at the long- and short-lived species in a large sample of orders, you don't see this correlation at all. There are theories out there that short-lived species are actually at an evolutionary advantage if they can live the large proportion of their life at their peak reproductive potential.
(And since we're on mistaken myths of anthropomorphism, there's also no relationship between monogamous breeding groups and intelligence... largely a result of people looking at animals and saying "well, if they're like us, they must be smart, too")
BTW, you are wrong about a few other things... in addition to some cephalopods being highly social (i.e. squid), there are long lived cephalopods such as the nautilus, which live for 16 years. We do not know which, the octopus, nautilus or squid is most like the ancestor of all cephs, but the nautilus, being a "living fossil" does make probably the best model. Lastly, on no parental care... look up octopus and parental care and I think you'll find more info Or better yet, ask some of the people here on RC who have bred them. The mothers are often exceptionally good parents, refusing food while rearing young, and of course, ultimately dying for their reproductive success.
I'm saying here, let's keep an open mind that both have different types of intelligence that we will never fully understand, but right now observationally, owning both myself, I have to say I believe my octopus is intelligent to me in a way that I personally can relate to. Have you ever owned an octopus? I do think that owning one would change your mind.
I think you did miss my point about orangutans... the truth is, we don't know for sure the social organization of their primate ancestors (and I can say this with some certainty as an evolutionary bio and primatology major undergrad who has worked in Borneo with these animals). We also don't know that of the octopus' ancestors, because another close relative, the squid, does have social members in it's order. These are all assumptions.
You cited that long lifespan should somehow be related to intelligence and learning ability... first off, if you relate it to observational learning, then stomatopods are ruled out along with cephalopods. Also, there is no evidence WITHIN smaller taxa (i.e. orders, families, classes) that lifespan is correlated to intelligence... this is largely an anthropomorphism that people attribute to animals because we happen to be both the most cognitively developed AND most long lived species in OUR order, primata. If you look at the long- and short-lived species in a large sample of orders, you don't see this correlation at all. There are theories out there that short-lived species are actually at an evolutionary advantage if they can live the large proportion of their life at their peak reproductive potential.
(And since we're on mistaken myths of anthropomorphism, there's also no relationship between monogamous breeding groups and intelligence... largely a result of people looking at animals and saying "well, if they're like us, they must be smart, too")
BTW, you are wrong about a few other things... in addition to some cephalopods being highly social (i.e. squid), there are long lived cephalopods such as the nautilus, which live for 16 years. We do not know which, the octopus, nautilus or squid is most like the ancestor of all cephs, but the nautilus, being a "living fossil" does make probably the best model. Lastly, on no parental care... look up octopus and parental care and I think you'll find more info
Or better yet, ask some of the people here on RC who have bred them. The mothers are often exceptionally good parents, refusing food while rearing young, and of course, ultimately dying for their reproductive success.
Gonodactylus
Premium Member
Pandora,
You asked how many people wrting in response to your comments have octopus. I do. Over the past several years I have kept and studied Octopus chiercheriae, O. vulgarus, O. mercatoris, O. joubini, O. cyanea, O. bocki, O. wolfi, O. horridus, O. rubescens, an undescribed long-armed speceis from Hawaii,another from Moorea, Hapalochlaena lunulata, an undescribed species of blue-ring from northern Queensland, and probably another dozen or so underscribed species from the Indo-Pacific. I have studied them both in the lab and in the field and I have had several graduate students who completed their Ph.D. dissertations on octopus including one who is currently studying the behavior of an undescribed species that will probably turn out to be the most social octopus described to date.
Admittedly, I probably know more about stomatopods than I do octopus, but it is not for lack of trying - or interest.
Roy
You asked how many people wrting in response to your comments have octopus. I do. Over the past several years I have kept and studied Octopus chiercheriae, O. vulgarus, O. mercatoris, O. joubini, O. cyanea, O. bocki, O. wolfi, O. horridus, O. rubescens, an undescribed long-armed speceis from Hawaii,another from Moorea, Hapalochlaena lunulata, an undescribed species of blue-ring from northern Queensland, and probably another dozen or so underscribed species from the Indo-Pacific. I have studied them both in the lab and in the field and I have had several graduate students who completed their Ph.D. dissertations on octopus including one who is currently studying the behavior of an undescribed species that will probably turn out to be the most social octopus described to date.
Admittedly, I probably know more about stomatopods than I do octopus, but it is not for lack of trying - or interest.
Roy
hmmm...good exchange.
(1) I don't think comparing myself to researchers is relevant since I do NOT present my views as being anything BUT an opinion. My point was that people who should be strongly unbiased "seem" to be instead somewhat attached to their subjects.
(2) "Also, there is no evidence WITHIN smaller taxa (i.e. orders, families, classes) that lifespan is correlated to intelligence"
well, since we already noted that some of the longest lived species like star fish aren't that intelligent, the above is also not that relevant..
However, when we take stock of all the so-called "intelligent" critters, all seem to be relatively long lived, (whales, elephants, etc)
(3)" BTW, you are wrong about a few other things... in addition to some cephalopods being highly social (i.e. squid), there are long lived cephalopods such as the nautilus, which live for 16 years."
I do not believe I am wrong about the life span comments since we were talking about octopus and NOT nautilus or squid, or whatever. Hey, it's great that nautilus live so long, but so what? like you said, so does a starfish. Squids are social...so what? octopus aren't.
My opinion is that a relatively long-lived critter with intricate and vigorous conspecific social interactions is more likely to evolve behavior and characteristics that are conducive to the development of "intelligence", than a short lived group of animals who live solitary lives. However, that doesn't mean i automatically think that mantis shrimps are intelligent...
Honestly, i think intelligence is overrated and our placing so much emphasis on it when looking at other critters is another kind of anthropomorphism...I cringe when reading some of those cephalopod articles....i really do...instead of ascribing broad and amorphous characteristics such as "intelligence" to these critters, why not just concentrate on the components of such that can be reliably measured?
As an example, note how Gonodactylus does not actually ascribe intelligence to mantis shrimps , but instead sticks to verifiable observations made when conducting repeatable experiments.
(1) I don't think comparing myself to researchers is relevant since I do NOT present my views as being anything BUT an opinion. My point was that people who should be strongly unbiased "seem" to be instead somewhat attached to their subjects.
(2) "Also, there is no evidence WITHIN smaller taxa (i.e. orders, families, classes) that lifespan is correlated to intelligence"
well, since we already noted that some of the longest lived species like star fish aren't that intelligent, the above is also not that relevant..
However, when we take stock of all the so-called "intelligent" critters, all seem to be relatively long lived, (whales, elephants, etc)
(3)" BTW, you are wrong about a few other things... in addition to some cephalopods being highly social (i.e. squid), there are long lived cephalopods such as the nautilus, which live for 16 years."
I do not believe I am wrong about the life span comments since we were talking about octopus and NOT nautilus or squid, or whatever. Hey, it's great that nautilus live so long, but so what? like you said, so does a starfish. Squids are social...so what? octopus aren't.
My opinion is that a relatively long-lived critter with intricate and vigorous conspecific social interactions is more likely to evolve behavior and characteristics that are conducive to the development of "intelligence", than a short lived group of animals who live solitary lives. However, that doesn't mean i automatically think that mantis shrimps are intelligent...
Honestly, i think intelligence is overrated and our placing so much emphasis on it when looking at other critters is another kind of anthropomorphism...I cringe when reading some of those cephalopod articles....i really do...instead of ascribing broad and amorphous characteristics such as "intelligence" to these critters, why not just concentrate on the components of such that can be reliably measured?
As an example, note how Gonodactylus does not actually ascribe intelligence to mantis shrimps , but instead sticks to verifiable observations made when conducting repeatable experiments.
Similar threads
