1996
DOI: 10.1007/s001140050271
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Manufacture and Use of Tools in Wild Sumatran Orangutans Implications for Human Evolution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
60
0
2

Year Published

1998
1998
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
6
60
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…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%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…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%
“…This is not because tool use requires advanced cognition per se, but rather because of the cognitive gradient that can be recognized when animals use objects. This ranges from the fairly simple manipulation of fixed substrates or borderline tool use to: true tool use in which objects are detached from their substrate (although use may still be stereotypic and inflexible); additional steps of manufacture and modification (Beck, 1980;Boesch & Boesch, 1990;McGrew, 1992;BentleyCondit & Smith, 2010); flexible tool use, in which the tools are adjusted to the task at hand (van Schaik et al, 1996); and finally accumulated tool use (also: cumulative or associated) in which multiple innovations (cf. Reader & Laland, 2002) may be combined for a single purpose (Parker & Gibson, 1977;Beck, 1980;Byrne, 1995;Bentley-Condit & Smith, 2010;Shumaker et al, 2011).…”
Section: Tool Use As Reflection Of a Cognitive Gradientmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The chimpanzee and the orangutan (van Schaik, Fox & Sitompul, 1996) are the only primate species regularly to manufacture and use tools for subsistence in the wild, and many tool types have now been described (McGrew, 1992). In captivity, all great apes commonly use and make tools (McGrew, 1989), and the manufacture of stone tools has been induced in orangutans and bonobos (Toth, Schick, Savage-Rumbaugh, Sevcik & Rumbaugh, 1993;Wright, 1972).…”
Section: Current Evidence Of Primate Cognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%