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: This study investigates behavioural lateralization in sheep and lambs of different ages. A flock was tested in a task in which the animals were facing an obstacle and should avoid it on either the right or left side to rejoin flock-mates (adult sheep) or their mothers (lambs). A bias for avoiding the obstacle on the right side was observed, with lambs apparently being more lateralized than sheep. This right bias was tentatively associated with the left-hemifield laterality in familiar faces recognition which has been documented in this species. Differences between adult sheep and lambs were likely to be due to differences in social reinstatement motivation elicited by different stimuli (flock-mates or mothers) at different ages. Preferential use of the forelegs to step on a wood-board and direction of jaw movement during rumination was also tested in adult animals. No population bias nor individual-level lateralization was observed for use of the forelegs. At the same time, however, there was a large number of animals showing individual-level lateralization for the direction of jaw movement during rumination even though there was no population bias. These findings highlight that within the same species individual- and population-level lateralization can be observed in different tasks. Moreover, the results fit the general hypothesis that population-level asymmetries are more likely to occur in tasks that require social coordination among behaviourally asymmetric individuals.

Abstract: Behavioural innovations have become central to our thinking about how animals adjust to changing environments. It is now well established that animals vary in their ability to innovate, but understanding why remains a challenge. This is because innovations are rare, so studying innovation requires alternative experimental assays that create opportunities for animals to express their ability to invent new behaviours, or use pre-existing ones in new contexts. Problem solving of extractive foraging tasks has been put forward as a suitable experimental assay. We review the rapidly expanding literature on problem solving of extractive foraging tasks in order to better understand to what extent the processes underpinning problem solving, and the factors influencing problem solving, are in line with those predicted, and found, to underpin and influence innovation in the wild. Our aim is to determine whether problem solving can be used as an experimental proxy of innovation. We find that in most respects, problem solving is determined by the same underpinning mechanisms, and is influenced by the same factors, as those predicted to underpin, and to influence, innovation. We conclude that problem solving is a valid experimental assay for studying innovation, propose a conceptual model of problem solving in which motor diversity plays a more central role than has been considered to date, and provide recommendations for future research using problem solving to investigate innovation. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Cognition in the wild.

Abstract: Growing evidence shows a variety of sensorial and motor asymmetries in social and non-social interactions in various species, indicating a lateralized processing of information by the brain. Using digital video cameras on tripods and drones, this study investigated lateralization in frequency and duration of social behavior patterns, in affiliative, agonistic, and resting contexts, in a feral population of horses (Equus ferus caballus) in Northern Portugal, consisting of 37 individuals organized in eight harem groups. Affiliative interactions (including grooming) were more often performed, and lasted longer, when recipients were positioned to the right side. In recumbent resting (animals lying down) episodes on the left side lasted longer. Our results of an affiliative behavior having a right side tendency, provide partial support to the valence-specific hypothesis of Ahern and Schwartz (1979) – left hemisphere dominance for positive affect, affiliative behaviors. Longer recumbent resting episodes on the left side may be due to synchronization. However, in both instances it is discussed how lateralization may be context dependent. Investigating the position asymmetries of social behaviors in feral equids will contribute to a better understanding of differential lateralization and hemispheric specialization from the ecological and evolutionary perspectives.