Comments on: Sponging dolphins keep it in the family

By: Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:16:01 +0000

Manual trackback:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2008/12/connecting-north-american-newts-and.html
“….Instead of a steady-state equilibrium, it’s more like the newts and snakes. The dolphins over-exploit their environment and either the tools or the fish disappear from accessible habitats, and then the dolphins forget the technique until it’s reinvented….”

By: windy

windy — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:27:03 +0000

With all due respect. That some chimps need to be taught to fish for termites with a stick is completely irrelevant.

Of course it’s not “irrelevant” if you are talking about cultural transmission. My objection was to the implication that it somehow makes it less interesting or less demanding of cognitive abilities if it’s cultural.

By: DDeden

DDeden — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:51:14 +0000

Sea otters use pebbles to crack shellfish, coastal macaque monkeys use oyster shells to open oysters. I figured (and still do) the sponges were up-close camouflage, though Janet’s comment sounds right.

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:04:14 +0000

With all due respect. That some chimps need to be taught to fish for termites with a stick is completely irrelevant.
Presumably there was a first chimp who first exhibited that behavior and did so spontaneously; unless you are positing the intervention of a human (or other entity) in teaching that first chimp how to fish for termites.
Perhaps chimps attribute the initial acquisition of termite fishing knowledge to supernatural intervention, the way that early humans attributed acquisition of fire, agriculture, fermentation, weaving, metal working and all manner of other human technologies to the intervention of supernatural beings. An acquisition we now consider apocryphal.
Maybe the dolphin god taught the first dolphin how to do sponging, or maybe Aquaman.

By: AnthonyK

AnthonyK — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:25:55 +0000

Interesting, but what exactly is “sponging”. It sounds like fun: do other mammals, or humans, do it to?

By: windy

windy — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:40:47 +0000

Yes, for “some” people. Not so much for others. And certainly not so much for the Discovery Channel level of presentation of this type of information.

OK, I have to ask. Who has claimed that chimps spontaneously fish for termites?

By: DrugMonkey

DrugMonkey — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:08:34 +0000

But I think some of your railing here misses the mark since for many people, the very reason the chimpanzee termite fishing ability has been so “highly touted” is that it’s cultural, not innate or spontaneous!
Yes, for “some” people. Not so much for others. And certainly not so much for the Discovery Channel level of presentation of this type of information. Even around dear old Sb you will find people sliding into the most incredible woo on this topic, particularly when Alex the African Grey Parrot is involved. I comment to keep interpretation within reasonable bounds.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:45:22 +0000

Pixelsnake – here’s the answer from Janet Mann herself:
“The sponge helps uncover the prey without getting one’s beak all dinged up. In addition, a dolphin’s beak is narrow and the sponges are much wider- so they can cover more area. They use the sponge by gentle disturbing the seafloor. They aren’t going very deep and I think the fish are only partially covered in a little sand. The floor of the channels is coarse sand with bits of rock and shell- which would not be nice to skim with one’s beak alone! I don’t think they could find the fish very easily without the sponge.”

By: windy

windy — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:15:25 +0000

So are we finally at the point we can stick a fork in the fundamental mistake of comparative cognition- i.e., that unique, incrementally learned and shaped behaviors in one exemplar of a species are indicative of the cognitive “level” of the entire species?

How does this study stick a fork in that notion?
From Drugmonkey’s earlier post:

Returning to a couple of additional “technologies” of the nonhuman ape brain, it turns out that chimpanzee’s highly touted ability to fish for termites with a bit of stick is a meticulously learned behavior taught by the mother. But..but.. tool use was supposed to be some qualitative watershed. A hugely significant difference in the animal kingdom between the “haves” and “have nots”. And believe you me it is a very large part of the comparative cognition theme to insist on examining “spontaneous” behaviors that are not trained and shaped though incremental learning.

I’ll have to believe you then, since I am not familiar with these comparative cognition types who insist this. But I think some of your railing here misses the mark since for many people, the very reason the chimpanzee termite fishing ability has been so “highly touted” is that it’s cultural, not innate or spontaneous! Otherwise they’d be just another woodpecker finch.

By: DrugMonkey

DrugMonkey — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:57:56 +0000

So are we finally at the point we can stick a fork in the fundamental mistake of comparative cognition- i.e., that unique, incrementally learned and shaped behaviors in one exemplar of a species are indicative of the cognitive "level" of the entire species?