Abstract: The four questions that Niko Tinbergen identified for behavioural biology ? evolution, function, development and causation ? are all important and should be studied in their own right. Recently, there has been a debate as to whether these four questions should be investigated separately or whether they should be integrated. Integration of the four questions has been attempted in novel research disciplines such as cognitive ecology, evolutionary psychology and neuroecology. Euan Macphail and I have criticised these integrative approaches, suggesting that they are fundamentally flawed as they confound function and mechanism. Investigating the function or evolutionary history of a behaviour or cognitive system is important and entirely legitimate. However, such investigations cannot provide us with answers to questions about the mechanisms underlying behaviour or cognition. At most, functional or evolutionary considerations can provide clues that may be useful for a causal analysis of the underlying mechanisms. However, these clues can be misleading and are often wrong, as is illustrated with examples from song learning and food storing in birds. After summarising the main issues in the neuroecology debate, I discuss some misunderstandings that were apparent in the responses to our critique, as well as some recent relevant data. Recent results do not support the neuroecological approach. Finally, I suggest that the way forward is a cautious and critical use of functional and evolutionary clues in the study of the mechanisms of behaviour.

Abstract: Eyes play an important role in communication amongst humans and animals. However, relatively little is known about specific differences in eye morphology amongst primates and how these features might be associated with social structure and direction of gaze. We present a detailed study of gazing and eye morphology-exposed sclera and surrounding features in orangutans. We measured gazing in rehabilitating orangutans in two contexts: interspecific viewing of the experimenter (with video camera) and intraspecific gazing (between subjects). Our findings show that direct staring is avoided and social looking is limited to certain age/social categories: juveniles engage in more looking at other orangutans than do adults or infants. While orangutans use eye movements in social communication, they avoid the more prolonged mutual gaze that is characteristic of humans, and also apparent in chimpanzees and gorillas. Detailed frame-by-frame analysis of videotapes from field and zoo studies of orangutans revealed that they pay visual attention to both human observers and conspecifics by glancing sideways, with the head turned at an angle away from the subject being observed. Mutual gaze was extremely rare, and we have observed only two incidences of gaze following. Orangutans in captivity appear to use a more restricted pattern of gazes compared to free-living, rehabilitating ones, possibly suggesting the presence of a pathological condition (such as depression) in the captive subjects. Our findings have implications for further investigations of social communication and cognition in orangutans.