Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.

Abstract: In der vorliegenden Untersuchung werden in einem Praxisbetrieb die Verfahrenskosten eines
Faltschiebers erhoben. Aufgrund des reduzierten Arbeitszeitaufwandes ergibt sich durch den
Einsatz des Faltschiebers eine jährliche Kostenersparnis in Höhe von 78 € je Pferd. Durch die
Mechanisierung der Entmistung kann fast 30 % der Arbeitszeit in der Pensionspferdehaltung
eingespart werden. Beim Einsatz einer Entmistungstechnik spielt jedoch nicht nur die Ökonomie,
sondern darüber hinaus auch das Pferdeverhalten eine Rolle. Im selben Praxisbetrieb wird
nach Installation der Faltschieberanlage das Pferdeverhalten beim Erstkontakt mit dem Schieber
beobachtet. Dabei zeigt sich, dass die Pferde den direkten Kontakt mit der Entmistungstechnik
und somit kritische Situationen vermeiden.
[In the survey at hand, the procedural costs for a v-form scraper are gathered. In the process,
it is found that due to the reduced working time requirement the use of a v-form scraper
saves € 78/horse/year. The mechanization of manure removal can reduce working time in
horse keeping by almost 30 percent. However, using manure removal systems, the profitability
is not the only crucial criteria. The behaviour of the horses plays an essential role, too.
Moreover the horses’ behaviour when first encountering the manure scraper is observed. The
study reveals that the horses avoid contact with the scraper and thereby also shirk critical
situations.]

Abstract: Two chimpanzees used a joystick to collect dots, one at a time, on a computer monitor (see video-clip in the electronic supplementary material), and then ended a trial when the number of dots collected was equal to the Arabic numeral presented for the trial. Both chimpanzees performed substantially and reliably above chance in collecting a quantity of dots equal to the target numeral, one chimpanzee for the numerals 1-7, and the second chimpanzee for the numerals 1-6. Errors that were made were seldom discrepant from the target by more than one dot quantity, and the perceptual process subitization was ruled out as an explanation for the performance. Additionally, analyses of trial duration data indicated that the chimpanzees were responding based on the numerosity of the constructed set rather than on the basis of temporal cues. The chimpanzees' decreasing performance with successively larger target numerals, however, appeared to be based on a continuous representation of magnitude rather than a discrete representation of number. Therefore, chimpanzee counting in this type of experimental task may be a process that represents magnitudes with scalar variability in that the memory for magnitudes associated with each numeral is imperfect and the variability of responses increases as a function of the numeral's value.

Abstract: Conservation of quantity occurs through recognition that changes in the physical arrangement of a set of items do not change the quantity of items in that set. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were presented with a computerized quantity judgment task. Monkeys were rewarded for selecting the greater quantity of items in one of two horizontal arrays of items on the screen. On some trials, after a correct selection, no reward was given but one of the arrays was manipulated. In some cases, this manipulation involved moving items closer together or farther apart to change the physical arrangement of the array without changing the quantity of items in the array. In other cases, additional items were added to the initially smaller array so that it became quantitatively larger. Monkeys then made another selection from the two rows of items. Monkeys were sensitive to these manipulations, changing their selections when the number of items in the rows changed but not when the arrangement only was changed. Therefore, monkeys responded on the basis of the quantity of items, and they were not distracted by non-quantitative manipulations of the sets.

Abstract: Two chimpanzees and a rhesus macaque rapidly learned the ordinal relations between 5 colors of containers (plastic eggs) when all containers of a given color contained a specific number of identical food items. All 3 animals also performed at high levels when comparing sets of containers with sets of visible food items. This indicates that the animals learned the approximate quantity of food items in containers of a given color. However, all animals failed in a summation task, in which a single container was compared with a set of 2 containers of a lesser individual quantity but a greater combined quantity. This difficulty was not overcome by sequential presentation of containers into opaque receptacles, but performance improved if the quantitative difference between sizes was very large.