hollback
Team RC
My brother sent me this. Quite amazing...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_sc/as_australia_coconut_octopus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_sc/as_australia_coconut_octopus
Smart Octopus
- Thread starter hollback
- Start date
Evidently, there is no clear consensus about whether a particular use of an object by an organism is the use of a "tool." According to these particular scientists, "What makes it different from a hermit crab is this octopus collects shells for later use, so when it's transporting it, it's not getting any protection from it," Finn said. "It's that collecting it to use it later that is unusual." Not sure if that's any better than a definition that would include hermit crabs using shells and pompomcrabs using little 'nems, but in any event, pretty fascinating behavior.
Anybody around these parts ever keep cephs? Pretty challenging. But apparently, doable: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1245638&highlight=cuttlefish
Anybody around these parts ever keep cephs? Pretty challenging. But apparently, doable: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1245638&highlight=cuttlefish
MarineFishGuy
Capn Jack Sparrow
The following is from a scientific paper on Revising the definition of tool use:
Tool use has been one of the central concepts in animal cognition research for the past century. Studies
of tool use, both in the laboratory and in the field, continue to advance our understanding of the
behavioral and cognitive capabilities of animals today (Povinelli 2000; Tomasello & Call 1997). An
important goal in understanding the nature of tool use is the development of a precise, comprehensive
definition.
One of the earliest explicit definitions, due to van Lawick-Goodall, focuses on abstract properties of
behavior, including functionality and goals:
[Tool use is] the use of an external object as a functional extension of mouth or beak, hand or
claw, in the attainment of an immediate goal (van Lawick-Goodall 1970, p. 195).
Alcock's later definition is more detailed in its specification of goals as the alteration of form and
position:
Tool-using involves the manipulation of an inanimate object, not internally manufactured, with
the effect of improving the animal's efficiency in altering the form or position of some separate
object (Alcock 1972, p. 464).
Beck (1980) offers a refinement of Alcock's definition, one that has come into wide use and is a
current standard in the animal cognition literature:
Thus tool use is the external employment of an unattached environmental object to alter more
efficiently the form, position, or condition of another object, another organism, or the user itself
when the user holds or carries the tool during or just prior to use and is responsible for the proper
and effective orientation of the tool (Beck 1980, p.10).
Various refinements and alternative definitions have been proposed since the publication of Beck's
book (e.g., Chevalier-Skolnikoff 1990; Preston 1998; Lestel & Grundmann 1999; Matsuzawa 2001;
Baber 2003; Catton et al. 2004; Holmes & Spence 2006), but his remains the most influential definition
of tool use in the field. It is straightforward, robust in its application to specific cases, and a good match
to the consensus judgments of experienced researchers in animal behavior.
In this article, we analyze
the criteria on which definitions of tool use are based, toward the development of a new definition of
tool use. We use Beck's definition as an exemplar because of its generality and historical influence,
though other definitions would also have been valid targets for comparison. The new definition
matches that of Beck's for most cases in practice; we argue, however, that it offers a clearer account of
why specific behaviors should be included or excluded. In those cases where the new definition does
disagree with Beck's, we believe that the new classifications are credible and justified.
PDF of entire Article on Revising the Definition of Tool Use:
ftp://ftp.csc.ncsu.edu/pub/ncsu/csc_anon/tech/2007/TR-2007-16.pdf
The authors of the Octopus article imply that Tool Use is is not well defined. However their definition of transport as a central tenet of tool use is encompassed within Beck's 1980 definition. You could further identify this as tool use by the fact the octopus orients the two shells in the proper orientation to create a shelter.
What is unclear is if they understood they were using this generally accepted, classical definition.
By the same token I think Hermit crabs shells could also be considered tool use. They hold them with a claw and orient them prior to changing shells to minimize their exposure to predators, based on my own observations.
While I applaud their enthusiasm and agree that Cephalopods are one of the hidden gems of higher intelligent life in the invertebrate class, I feel there are other examples of tool use in the marine world that fit the classic definition equally well.
Tool use has been one of the central concepts in animal cognition research for the past century. Studies
of tool use, both in the laboratory and in the field, continue to advance our understanding of the
behavioral and cognitive capabilities of animals today (Povinelli 2000; Tomasello & Call 1997). An
important goal in understanding the nature of tool use is the development of a precise, comprehensive
definition.
One of the earliest explicit definitions, due to van Lawick-Goodall, focuses on abstract properties of
behavior, including functionality and goals:
[Tool use is] the use of an external object as a functional extension of mouth or beak, hand or
claw, in the attainment of an immediate goal (van Lawick-Goodall 1970, p. 195).
Alcock's later definition is more detailed in its specification of goals as the alteration of form and
position:
Tool-using involves the manipulation of an inanimate object, not internally manufactured, with
the effect of improving the animal's efficiency in altering the form or position of some separate
object (Alcock 1972, p. 464).
Beck (1980) offers a refinement of Alcock's definition, one that has come into wide use and is a
current standard in the animal cognition literature:
Thus tool use is the external employment of an unattached environmental object to alter more
efficiently the form, position, or condition of another object, another organism, or the user itself
when the user holds or carries the tool during or just prior to use and is responsible for the proper
and effective orientation of the tool (Beck 1980, p.10).
Various refinements and alternative definitions have been proposed since the publication of Beck's
book (e.g., Chevalier-Skolnikoff 1990; Preston 1998; Lestel & Grundmann 1999; Matsuzawa 2001;
Baber 2003; Catton et al. 2004; Holmes & Spence 2006), but his remains the most influential definition
of tool use in the field. It is straightforward, robust in its application to specific cases, and a good match
to the consensus judgments of experienced researchers in animal behavior.
In this article, we analyze
the criteria on which definitions of tool use are based, toward the development of a new definition of
tool use. We use Beck's definition as an exemplar because of its generality and historical influence,
though other definitions would also have been valid targets for comparison. The new definition
matches that of Beck's for most cases in practice; we argue, however, that it offers a clearer account of
why specific behaviors should be included or excluded. In those cases where the new definition does
disagree with Beck's, we believe that the new classifications are credible and justified.
PDF of entire Article on Revising the Definition of Tool Use:
ftp://ftp.csc.ncsu.edu/pub/ncsu/csc_anon/tech/2007/TR-2007-16.pdf
The authors of the Octopus article imply that Tool Use is is not well defined. However their definition of transport as a central tenet of tool use is encompassed within Beck's 1980 definition. You could further identify this as tool use by the fact the octopus orients the two shells in the proper orientation to create a shelter.
What is unclear is if they understood they were using this generally accepted, classical definition.
By the same token I think Hermit crabs shells could also be considered tool use. They hold them with a claw and orient them prior to changing shells to minimize their exposure to predators, based on my own observations.
While I applaud their enthusiasm and agree that Cephalopods are one of the hidden gems of higher intelligent life in the invertebrate class, I feel there are other examples of tool use in the marine world that fit the classic definition equally well.
Similar threads
