Talk:Tool use by animals/Archive 1

Cephalopod tool use

Does this article need a section on cephalopod tool use? There are several research articles documenting octopi tool use, such as opening jars and using shells to construct barriers. Komodo (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then please, feel free to add one! When creating this article, I just used what was in Category:Tool using species. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 15:53, 1 September

Seems to me that hermit crabs also employ objects as extensions of their bodies for protection, much the same as these octopi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.99.195 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jet propulsion

Consider the jellyfish, it has no brain and very basic sense abilitys. Howerver, working like a Human Heart, it uses jet propulsion to move it's self around. Cephalopods and Archer Fish have been observed using jet propelled water as a tool, so could jellyfish be tool users even though there doing it unconciosly. Woodnot (talk) 18:33 7 september 2008

In the broadest sense of the word, yes, in the normal sense, no. A section could be added about the use of water for propusion - although I see it as the same as us using the ground to walk. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Leopold?

Under "Tool Use By Specific Groups of Animals" on the "Primate" section several sentences state this: In an experiment a group of chimpanzees were presented with a model Leopold with a moving head. There was soon commotion as Leopold are one of the chimpanzees predators. So what is a Leopold? I assume the author meant Leopard, but not being the author and considering the author typed "Leopold" several times, I will leave it up to someone else to research and figure out exactly what it is. 168.103.81.73 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it is a Leopard, I wrote Leopold because of bad spelling. Now can you please help me with my querie. Woodnot (talk)17:18 19 september 2008

Mustelids

There is no cited source for these numbers Airdoo0 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A number of years ago, on IIRC a 'Nature' episode, there was footage (how artificial I can't say) of a Honey Badger attempting to get at an injured or baby bird in some branches hanging over a sandy creek. The badger was too short to reach, and dragged a piece of log under the branches to stand on, which is as clever as the stacking of boxes by chimps to create a support to reach fruit hanging from a ceiling in a classic experiment. Very unexpected for a badger. I wonder how many other mustelids would be capable of working out such things- maybe it depends on patience and persistence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.177 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I found another example of a honey badger using tools which I would like to mention: On a show called 'Great Animal Escapes' they showed a honey badger escape from its enclosure by using a broom that was forgotten there. The honey badger put the broom againts a wall and climbed up the broom. Another time they forgot a spade in the enclosure and the honey badger first put it in water to make it cool down (the spade was hot because the sun was shining on it) and then climbed it like it did with the broom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.158 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Humans?

I hate to be overly pedantic, but either this article should be moved to something like "Tool use by non-human animals" or a small (at least) mention of human tool use (i.e., what makes it different from that of other animals) should be added to it. - dcljr (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Dendodge for adding something about this. - dcljr (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support renaming it to 'non-human animals' - it's clearer, more accurate, and less likely to contribute to confusion about humanity's place in the animal kingdom. 138.37.244.26 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

How are the three images of non-primate animals relevant? They should be replaced by images of non-primate animals using tools. 138.37.244.26 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

octopi tool use?

i have to go with the reasearcher i think octopus using a shell as a barrior is not tool use at all thats no diffrent then a hermit crab using a shell for a barrior cause they dont technickly ever use it its just sorta kept on for defence against preditors so i strongly disagree and another comparosion is just like saying a bird collecting twigs for it to build a nest is not tool evan though it is for protection and gives shelter and warmth to the eggs or chicks it does not count as tool use. and an octopus opening a jar doesnt count either its using an object to your advantage like getting food opening a jar does not help or do anything for the octopus at all they just do it for their own amusment or what ever other reason plus evan if for what ever wacky reason lets say opening a jar is tool use (wich it totally isn't) its not like closed jars are found naturally in the wild their man made so octopus don't naturally try to find jars for their own use they are given to them from humans a tool is something that the octopus has to be able to find and be able to get naturally in the wild on its own and use on its own and that they may be able to pass on to their next generation so that it won't be a one in a billion thing that may never happen again or it was just some kind of freaky accident that the octopus may not perform ever again. and using a mano-war's tentacle is not using a tool a tool is an inaminate object using another living organisms bodypart is not tool use that sounds a bit more like symbiosis (but its not). so i really insist that that section that includes the octopus is removed immedaitly.--Jasonz2z (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia's main principle for inclusion is notability, not truth. So if you can find reliable sources for your opinion then go ahead and remove that section or add a sentence or two about differing opinions. Augurar (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Bird videos

YouTube videos added by me as citation for bird tool use are random examples. There is no connection between me and any of them. None are my videos. Just because the creator of one of those videos has a name beginning with J does not mean I am that person. YouTube videos are used and cited appropriately per Wikipedia:Video links guidelines. If you have a legitimate reason to believe that these claims or citations are not appropriate please discuss them here before changing again. -Jdmalouff (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct, I am not sure how I got those names confused. MrMarmite (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fish

Added a new section. The research here is quite preliminary; stingrays haven't been observed using tools in the wild, and the observations on wrasses haven't been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet. Also, I couldn't find a paper focused entirely on archerfish tool use, so I cited an overview of tool use in animals that mentions archerfish. 140.247.159.154 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure if using water counts as tool use. and even if so it depends upon the circumstance. and the archer fish sucks in water in its mouth and then spits it out at the insects over the water to catch and eat them, and that doesn't really sound like tool use just like how a person could use water from rain to spit at insects to eat wouldn't sound like tool use aswell. because even though water is a substance it still doesn't really count as tool use. cause you could see it as a predatory fish using it tail to thrust water into its mouth in hopes of also catching fish along with it, or like how we use the ground to walk around and also get from one place to the other. or durring that circumstance wich was to help it get food u could also see it as how humans use fire to help kill parasites and eat their prey or to help boil a live lobster to kill and consume it but evan though fire is a substance it still doesn't count as tool use, because it needs to be a solid object like a rock or other usable solid object and as an extention of the body.--Jasonz2z (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tool use requires intelligence?

The article states "tool use requires some level of intelligence." I would dispute this statement. While I certainly agree that most tool use in animals is a sign of intelligence, I would not consider this statement to be self-evident. I don't see any reason why tool use in an animal could not be genetically inherited behaviour that has nothing to do with deductive reasoning. For an animal to e.g. grab a branch to scratch a part of the body that is otherwise unreachable could be just as much an instinctive behaviour as the scratching itself. After all, an animal that uses its nails/claws for scratching is already using a "tool", the only difference being that this tool happens to be attached to its body.

I believe that tool use could certainly have evolved as such an instinctive behaviour in certain species. In fact, I can think of various examples: A beaver dam is a "tool", but a beaver never learned from its parents or via deductive reasoning that a dam is beneficial, but the dam building behaviour is an instinctive behaviour that evolved in the beaver species over time. The same could be said for example bird's nests. And even if we don't consider dams or nests as "tools", then at least it shows that such a use of the environment by animals is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, but that even such complex interactions can evolve and become genetic traits.

So I consider the statement that "tool use requires some level of intelligence" to be an unnecessary over-simplification and I would propose to erase it. --Ruebezahl (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Date for observation of chimpanzee tool use

Notice the following for "on this day" (Nov. 4): "1960 – At the Kasakela Chimpanzee Community in Tanzania, Dr. Jane Goodall observed a chimpanzee using a grass stalk to extract termites from a termite hill, the first recorded case of tool use by animals."

That was on Wikipedia MAIN page today. I followed the "tool use by animals" click-on from there, and find that that article says: "It has also been observed in the 1970s that some chimpanzees/bonobos use sticks as probes to collect ants and termites." That is not going back far enough. It needs to incorporate Jane Goodall's finding, and I will go ahead and insert that myself, but will someone get the needed citation in there?

Contradiction

On the page Tool, it states that what separates human tool use from other animals tool use is that we make tools to make other tools, because there are records of birds and monkeys reforming objects for tool use. But in this article, it states that humans are the only animals who build tools flat. So which one is it?--137.146.143.108 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Animals in general

The honey badger article says that 'honey badgers are one of the few animals known to be capable of using tools' which implies that people still believe that most animals can't use tools. Just because an animal doesn't use tools it doesn't necessarily mean it can't. Along with that honey badger which pulled the log I know about some other animals that did use tools even though don't usually do so for example:

- Somewhere on TV (maybe on 'Planet's Funniest Animals') I saw a dog pull a chair and then used it to reach onto a counter.

- On 'Zoboomafoo' they showed a bear rub its head with a stick. The hosts of the show said the bear was scratching a itch.

- I saw a videoclip of a young elephant throw a small rock at some tourists.

My guess is that any animal with a brain can use tools but will only do so if they need to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.10.41.147 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Look up Ninja Bear on YouTube. Apparently Kung Fu Panda is based on a "true story". I want to believe these bears are baton twirling experts. Is it real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.244.96 (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs a lot of updating

Basically this article is quite out of date. Tool-use does not require intelligence. Firstly lots of insects have been shown to use tools (this has been known for decades) so the 'cephalopods are the only tool-users' is wrong. They're the only ones to use tools 'spontaneously' rather than programmed genetically, but this is different to what the section is implying.

Lots of experiments have shown that widespread tool-users aren't any cleverer than non-tool-users, and that they don't possess any improved cognition, just a genetically-disposed motivation to use them (e.g. NC crows, woodpecker finches, hyacinth macaws, and Egyptian vultures). NC crows are great and all, but rooks can do the same stuff (e.g. make a hook tool) without actually using tools a lot in the wild. Woodpecker finches are no more intelligent or better at learning than their close relatives, the tree finches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.58 (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

regarding insect tool use, see http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25009422 - study of 'soil-dropping' behaviour (speculated to be a flooding defence) in a certain species of ant. It's from 1984, and references a previous study of another species of ant in '76. 131.111.159.134 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

need a lot of updating/connected Mzibhela nyodi (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nest building is tool use

Given the definitions of tool in this article, can it be explained why nest-building is not tool use? Definition 1: Birds "carry" twigs to the nest for "future use". Definition 2: Building a nest assists birds in stopping their eggs rolling away and thereby "extends the physical influence realized by the animal". Definition 3: Birds manipulate and interleave twigs to form the nest....the twigs are "modified to fit a purpose." Comments please. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nest building is an aspect of animal architecture i.e. structures built by animals which is a specialised form of tool use - to mould the environment and thereby "extend their control" (Hansen, 2000, pg 2-4) and should definitely form part of it. In fact we need to identify this cluster of articles dealing with tool use/construction byanimals and develop them as an integrated whole. AshLin (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ref : Michael Henry Hansell (31 August 2000). Bird Nests and Construction Behaviour. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-42908-5. Retrieved 4 July 2013.

The definitions of "tool" are certainly debatable, a good source and a very readable discussion is by Jeffrey Boswall here Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - a very interesting read. The article Nest building in primates states "Nest-building by great apes is learned by infants from the mother and others in the group and is considered a matter of tool use, not just animal architecture." If this is the case, I really can not see a difference between this and (most) nest building in birds. It would also mean other nests need to be included such as the trap-doors of the Trapdoor spider, and the nests of Paper wasps.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Water wells pumping bulls in India

I'm no specialist but in India there are several reports of cattle (bulls and cows) pumping water from bore wells by raising and lowering the levers with their heads and drinking it in a specific sequence. It is an overall behavior observed throughout and doesn't seem to have been conditioned to them. It looks to me like a pretty intelligent behavior. On Youtube look for the keywords: "bull drinking from well water" --179.208.167.229 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mnemonic Example?

There is a variety of bird, the Clark's Nutcracker, which caches seeds and has a remarkable memory for locations. But also, related to tool use, is the behavior of placing a stone, etc., to mark the cache.

I suggest that this is a pretty sophisticated usage of a tool -- an "abstract usage" to assist in memory, perhaps the closest an animal comes to literacy.--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting - do you have a reference for this?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw this behavior in a video -- if I can find a reference it might be to a video or an article on the web. But it was very remarkable to see an animal place a marker as a memory aid. Having said this, even as I write it occurs to me that scent marking of territory, while hardly tool using is nonetheless a form of writing and reading by the same token.--Jrm2007 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that had occurred to me too although I didn't mention it in the last post. Domestic cats are great at this. A spray of urine says who was there, their reproductive status, kinship with other cats, and the time they were there. This allows them to share territories without encountering each other. Leaving a stone to mark a cache is still an interesting behaviour (without linking it to literacy) so if you can find a reference, that would be great. Videos can be referenced by external links, although some editors might contest whether these are an appropriate source.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Here you go - have a look at this [1].__DrChrissy (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks although the video does not run currently. Another thought is, even if the bird uses the stone as a mnemonic "tool" is this a learned or instinctive behavior? My guess is that the bird has to make a decision about what sort of marker to leave based upon the surroundings -- even perhaps deliberately being subtle enough not to alert its fellows to the cache and this would require judgement that would to me be implausibly merely instinctual; what would be great is to observe such birds teaching mnemonics to their young! I queried a researcher just today about his findings about the Clark's.--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The video would not run for me either, but the text states stones are left so that could be written into the article. I would not worry too much about whether this is learned or instinctive behaviour. There are many definitions of tool use and I think some writers use whether the behaviour is instinct or not as a convenience to exclude some examples such as nest building by birds, or trap building by insects. Be bold in your editing. If you want me to look at something before you post it, I will be happy to do that.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Honeyguide?

If the Honeyguide uses humans and other animals to gain access to the bee wax is this not an example of tool use?--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

All the definitions in the article refer to "objects", "environmental objects" or "inanimate objects". I don't think humans or badgers can be considered as objects.__DrChrissy (talk)

There is the section where it mentions ants using other ants in order to function as a bridge calling them "social tools" though not sure if this really applies to use of other species and in this case even whether it would qualify as use at all or merely opportunistic behaviour like birds following fishing boats because their nets bring vast quantities of easy food they can snatch from them. That said genuine use of other species as a tool has been observed in at least one crow on a college campus, the crow in question imitated the human vocalisation "Here Boy!" to attract groups of dogs and hold them at bay while perched in a tree until students came out before flying off with the dogs chasing him, his reward being the frequently dislodged sandwich during the mayhem stimulated by this activity. Though this sort of manipulation, gathering and later use of another species almost sounds more like a proto-domestication type behaviour than tool use the crow in question is one of the examples in the book "Gifts of the Crow: How Perception, Emotion, and Thought Allow Smart Birds to Behave Like Humans" ISBN 9781439198742 which could be referenced as a source if you did want to include it in the article. MttJocy (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bower Bird

The Bower bird building a bower for purposes of impressing a potential mate -- is this not an example of tool usage and creation?--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The bower bird is already mentioned in the article as a user of proto-tools - items which are not changed or manipulated.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bird fishing with bait

I don´t know what bird this is, or if bait actually counts as tool, and of course the source is not RS, but I didn´t know birds did that. [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I have inserted this video into the article. I appreciate videos are not always considered to be robust sources, but, I think as long as the caption does not over interpret what we see, there is not really a problem.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Manual reversion of entire article

A single editor has recently made numerous wholesale edits to this article. Some of these are contentious, but have not been discussed on this Talk page. Some I think are inaccurate, or need more robust sources. I felt the only way to deal with this was to make a manual reversion of the entire article. I suggest to the editor that any possibly contentious edits are discussed here first. Let's go through these issues one by one as the article had previously not attracted any untoward attention. There are also breaches of MOS such as uppercase being used in sub-headings.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi- As part of a university biology course on behavioral ecology, we have been assigned to make revisions to a Wikipedia page and have chosen "Tool use by animals." We suggest that the introduction section be clarified. Also, the learning and cognition section should be expanded to 3 sections: Social learning, culture, and cognition; evolution of tool use; and tool use is not uniquely human. These sections would serve to provide a more thorough theoretical background for tool use and how and why it may have developed. We suggest major revisions to the chimpanzee, elephant, bear, cetacean, reptile, and insect sections, particularly removing repetitive and poorly-cited sections and adding details from the primary literature. We suggest smaller edits to the other sections, again with repetitive and poorly-cited statements being deleted, and grammar corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberts1234 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for engaging in discussion. Let's take these point-by-point. First, the article is called "Tool use by animals". Therefor, any section entitled "tool use is not uniquely human" is totally redundant. Second, many editors disagree with the use of the primary literature. I am NOT one of those, but replacing secondary sources may attract attention you do not wish. I am not sure there is enough information to divide learning and cognition in the way you suggest, but give it a try and let's see what evolves. As for the major revisions you suggest, the policy is usually to discuss those here on the Talk page before editing the already established article. Please do not forget to sign your posts. __DrChrissy (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

DrChrissy, thanks. The title of the section "tool use is not uniquely human" could be changed, but we think the point of the section is worthwhile. It serves to explain that while tool use was previously thought to be unique to humans, tool use was later discovered in other animals, leading to notice of the many forms of tool use mentioned on this page. We cite only primary literature in order to keep the data referenced as error-free as possible. We have added a discussion of our changes to the cetacean section. - Alberts1234

Cetacean edits

We made some changes to the cetacean section. We added detail on the use of sponges as tools by Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins by reviewing multiple primary sources. We also added a video clip from one of the studies, showing how researchers attempted to solve why dolphins use sponges to forage on the seafloor. We added a bit about possible tool use with conch shells in bottlenose dolphins. We took out the bit about bubble net feeding, as this does not seem to fit the definition of tool use, and is discussed in further detail on the humpback whale page. - Alberts1234

Bonobos in captivity taught to make stone tools

I just added a cite to an article to back up the statement that a captive Orangutan was taught to make stone tools. Anyway the article also mentions that two Bonobos were also taught to make stone tools. See

Thought I might mention this. It's not obvious where to mention it in the Chimpanzee section except by starting a new section so I don't know what to do, just mentioning it in case someone else finds this information of use for the article. Robert Walker (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)