The human capacity for music consists of certain core phenomena, including the tendency to entrain, or align movement, to an external auditory pulse [1-3]. This ability, fundamental both for music production and for coordinated dance, has been repeatedly highlighted as uniquely human [4-11]. However, it has recently been hypothesized that entrainment evolved as a by-product of vocal mimicry, generating the strong prediction that only vocal mimicking animals may be able to entrain [12, 13]. Here we provide comparative data demonstrating the existence of two proficient vocal mimicking nonhuman animals (parrots) that entrain to music, spontaneously producing synchronized movements resembling human dance. We also provide an extensive comparative data set from a global video database systematically analyzed for evidence of entrainment in hundreds of species both capable and incapable of vocal mimicry. Despite the higher representation of vocal nonmimics in the database and comparable exposure of mimics and nonmimics to humans and music, only vocal mimics showed evidence of entrainment. We conclude that entrainment is not unique to humans and that the distribution of entrainment across species supports the hypothesis that entrainment evolved as a by-product of selection for vocal mimicry.

An African Grey parrot, previously taught to use vocal English labels to discriminate more than 80 different objects and to respond to questions concerning categorical concepts of color and shape, was trained and tested on relational concepts of same and different. The subject, Alex, replied with the correct English categorical label ("color," "shape," or "mah-mah" [matter]) when asked "What's same?" or "What's different?" about pairs of objects that varied with respect to any combination of attributes. His accuracy was 69.7%-76.6% for pairs of familiar objects not used in training and 82.3 %-85 % for pairs involving objects whose combinations of colors, shapes, and materials were unfamiliar. Additional trials demonstrated that his responses were based upon the question being posed as well as the attributes of the objects. These findings are discussed in terms of his comprehension of the categories of color, shape, and material and as evidence of his competence in an exceptional (non-species-specific) communication code.

A Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) that was able to quantify 6 item sets (including subsets of heterogeneous groups, e.g., blue blocks within groupings of blue and green blocks and balls) using English labels (I. M. Pepperberg, 1994a) was tested on comprehension of these labels, which is crucial for numerical competence (K. C. Fuson, 1988; see also record 1987-98811-000). He was, without training, asked "What color/object [number]?" for collections of various simultaneously presented quantities (e.g., subsets of 4, 5, and 6 blocks of 3 different colors; subsets of 2, 4, and 6 keys, corks, and sticks). Accuracy was greater than 80% and was unaffected by array quantity, mass, or contour. His results demonstrated numerical comprehension competence comparable to that of chimpanzees and very young children. He also demonstrated knowledge of absence of quantity, using "none" to designate zero.

An African gray parrot (Psittacus erithacus), Alex, trained to label vocally collections of 1-6 simultaneously presented homogeneous objects, correctly identified, without further training, quantities of targeted subsets in heterogeneous collections. For each test trial Alex was shown different collections of 4 groups of items that varied in 2 colors and 2 object categories (e.g., blue and red keys and trucks) and was asked to label the number of items uniquely defined by the conjunction of 1 color and 1 object category (e.g., "How many blue key?"). The collections were designed to provide maximal confounds (or distractions) and thus replicate the work of Trick and Pylyshyn (1989) on humans. Humans count rather than subitize under such conditions. Alex's results (83.3% overall accuracy) are therefore discussed in terms of their relation to human numerical competence, particularly with respect to counting. Several studies have shown that a wide range of vertebrates recognize numerical quantities (e.g., reviews in Boysen & Capaldi, 1992; Davis & Perusse, 1988). Such studies are also often proposed as a basis for cross-species comparisons of general cognitive processing abilities (