Individual variation in the rate of use of tree-hole tools among wild orang-utans: implications for hominin evolution

Schaik, Carel P. van; Fox, Elizabeth; Fechtman, Lorri T.

doi:10.1016/s0047-2484(02)00164-1

Cited by 63 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Social transmission seems to be mainly vertical, through association, tool recycling, food and tool transfers, and watching. Other modes of transmission, although not predominant, might nevertheless be crucial as for example suggested by the finding that habitual tool use only occurs in populations with increased opportunities for social learning owing to enhanced social tolerance [97], prolonged parental feeding or association [25], exposure to artefacts [108] and/or perhaps rare cases of opportunity teaching [35,115]. Re-use of tools may be important for the accumulation of technological complexity [13,108].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individual variation among parents may also be present in the form of different association patterns affecting the number of sociallearning opportunities. Van Schaik et al [97] demonstrated a strong relationship between tool-use competence and mean female party size in orangutans. An analysis of social networks among tool-using dolphins, showed that after weaning, spongers preferred to associate with other spongers [61], which may be crucial for them to be able to find the best sites for tools and prey.…”

Section: Developmental Evidence For the Role Of Social Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

If at first you don't succeed… Studies of ontogeny shed light on the cognitive demands of habitual tool use

Meulman

Seed

Mann

2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many species use tools, but the mechanisms underpinning the behaviour differ between species and even among individuals within species, depending on the variants performed. When considering tool use ‘as adaptation’, an important first step is to understand the contribution made by fixed phenotypes as compared to flexible mechanisms, for instance learning. Social learning of tool use is sometimes inferred based on variation between populations of the same species but this approach is questionable. Specifically, alternative explanations cannot be ruled out because population differences are also driven by genetic and/or environmental factors. To better understand the mechanisms underlying routine but non-universal (i.e. habitual) tool use, we suggest focusing on the ontogeny of tool use and individual variation within populations. For example, if tool-using competence emerges late during ontogeny and improves with practice or varies with exposure to social cues, then a role for learning can be inferred. Experimental studies help identify the cognitive and developmental mechanisms used when tools are used to solve problems. The mechanisms underlying the route to tool-use acquisition have important consequences for our understanding of the accumulation in technological skill complexity over the life course of an individual, across generations and over evolutionary time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Developmental Evidence For the Role Of Social Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

If at first you don't succeed… Studies of ontogeny shed light on the cognitive demands of habitual tool use

Meulman

Seed

Mann

2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The exception was tool complexity, because no orangutan population had complex tools. However, flexible and habitual use suggestive of social acquisition have only been reported for seed-extraction and tree-hole tool use, which are both exhibited only by (non-morio) Sumatran orangutans (van Schaik et al, 1996(van Schaik et al, , 2003bvan Schaik & Knott, 2001). With regard to the results from the orangutan-chimpanzee comparisons, we found a significant bias toward extractive-foraging, complex, subsistence and terrestrial tool variants in favor of chimpanzees, whereas the bias was in favor of orangutans for the number of non-extractive and physical-comfort tool variants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orangutan tool use and the evolution of technology

Meulman

Schaik

2013

Tool Use in Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Among primates, apes and numerous monkeys (in the subfamily Cercopithecinae and the genus Cebus ) are known to use their hands for grasping food using various grip postures. Moreover, they are known to exhibit a degree Reghem /Tia /Bels /Pouydebat of independent control of the fingers [Christel, 1993[Christel, , 1994Byrne et al, 2001;Fragaszy et al, 2004;Spinozzi et al, 2004;Macfarlane andGraziano, 2009, Pouydebat et al, 2009] and to manipulate tools [Boesch and Boesch, 1990;Van Schaik et al, 2003;Fragaszy et al, 2004;Pouydebat et al, 2005;Visalberghi et al, 2009]. In comparison, Prosimii (lemuriforms and lorisiforms) are thought to be less variable in grip posture, to show no digital individualization and to use the mouth for grasping more often [Bishop, 1964].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Prehension and Manipulation in Microcebus murinus (Prosimii, Cheirogaleidae)

Reghem¹,

Tia²,

Bels³

et al. 2011

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among primates, apes and monkeys are known to use their hands and to exhibit independent control of their fingers. In comparison, Prosimii are thought to have less digital individualization and to use their mouth more commonly for prehension. Unfortunately, prehension and manipulation studies in Prosimii have been conducted in conditions constraining the subject to grasp with the hand. Moreover, the effect of food size remains unexplored, even though it could affect the use of the hands versus the mouth. Thus, whether prosimians use the hand or the mouth to grasp and manipulate food items of different sizes in unconstrained conditions remains unclear. To address this question, we characterized the eating and manipulation patterns of Microcebus murinus in unconstrained conditions, using three food sizes. The results showed that M. murinus showed (i) an eating pattern similar to that of rodents, with smaller food items being grasped with the mouth, (ii) a greater tendency to use the hands for prehension of larger foods, and (iii) plasticity during food manipulation similar to that which has been observed in rodents. These results are discussed in the framework of grasping in mammals and are used to discuss the origins of prehension in primates.

show abstract

Individual variation in the rate of use of tree-hole tools among wild orang-utans: implications for hominin evolution

Cited by 63 publications

References 22 publications

If at first you don't succeed… Studies of ontogeny shed light on the cognitive demands of habitual tool use

If at first you don't succeed… Studies of ontogeny shed light on the cognitive demands of habitual tool use

Orangutan tool use and the evolution of technology

Food Prehension and Manipulation in Microcebus murinus (Prosimii, Cheirogaleidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About