Abstract: Five hens, experienced in discrimination of two categories of multidimensional geometrical figures presented in fixed pairs in a simultaneous discrimination, were tested with familiar figures arranged as new pairs to assess the dependence of categorization performance on learned relational or configural cues. Test performance did not differ from training: relational or configural cues still influenced discrimination performance. It was suggested that – in accordance with exemplar theories – this influence depended on differences between pairs of probe exemplars that facilitate retrieval of learned category members. To test whether exemplar, feature or prototype theory was most suitable to explain categorization by chickens, the rates of pecking at exemplars were analysed using principal components analysis (PCA). The distribution of the exemplars' component loads on the single component obtained was examined in the light of the conditions dictated by the three types of theories on how representative category exemplars should be. The least constraining theory, i.e. the exemplar theory, was most suitable. Defining factors of classificatory behaviour are discussed with a special emphasis on the characteristics of category-defining stimulus attributes.

Abstract: Five dyads of chimpanzees were tested in a competitive situation, as a pilot study to examine chimpanzees' understanding of conspecifics' knowledge. A human experimenter baited one of five containers in an outdoor enclosure. Chimpanzee A (witness) could see where the food was hidden, while chimpanzee B (witness-of-witness) could not see the baited place but could observe the chimpanzee A watching the food being hidden. Then the two were released into the enclosure. This procedure was repeated for a certain number of days along with a control condition in which neither could see the baited location. The witness-of-witness developed tactics to forestall the witness in two pairs. The witness misled the witness-of-witness by taking a route to an empty container in several cases. These episodes might represent examples of deception. Tactics and counter-tactics thus developed through the interaction between the witness and the witness-of-witness, illustrating the high social intelligence of chimpanzees. An examination of the changes in tactics suggests a possibility that the witness-of-witness understands the witness's knowledge of the location of hidden food.

Abstract: The ability to discriminate between pairs of photographs according to the portrayed model's visual attention status was examined in four olive baboons. Two baboons successfully managed to solve the problem, even when attention was demonstrated by eye direction alone. A third showed an ability to discriminate head direction but not eye direction. In order to investigate further their ability to discriminate attention, the two successful baboons and two naïve baboons were presented with a simple object-choice task accompanied by experimenter-given cues. There was no evidence of transfer from the photographic stimuli to a real model; only one baboon showed signs of using the experimenter's attention to chose between two objects, and only after over 300 trials. These results could suggest that the baboons used simple physical cues rather than a concept of attention to solve the picture discrimination but alternative explanations are also discussed.

Abstract: The manipulative actions of mountain gorillas Gorilla g. beringei were examined in the context of foraging on hard-to-process plant foods in the field, in particular those used in tackling thistle Carduus nyassanus. A repertoire of 72 functionally distinct manipulative actions was recorded. Many of these actions were used in several variants of grip, finger(s) and movement path, both by different individuals and by the same individual at different times. The repertoire appears somewhat greater than that observed in comparable studies of monkeys, but a far more striking difference is found in the use of differentiated actions in concert. Mountain gorillas routinely and frequently deal with problems that involve: (1) bimanual role differentiation, with the two hands taking different roles but synchronized in time and space, and (2) digit role differentiation, with independent control of parts of the same hand used for separate purposes at the same time. The independent control that allows these abilities, so crucial to human manual constructional ability, is apparently general in African great apes. Role differentiation, between and within the hand, is evidently a primitive characteristic in the human arsenal of skills.

Abstract: Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) utter “shrill barks” in response to disturbances in their surroundings. In some cases, the majority of group members react by running away or climbing up a tree. In many other instances, however, group members show no overt reaction to these calls. We conducted a series of playback experiments to identify the factors underlying subjects' responses. We presented calls given in response to dogs that had elicited escape responses and calls that had failed to do so. We also presented calls given in response to snakes and to the observer approaching the sleeping-trees at night. An acoustic analysis of the calls presented in the playback experiments (electronic supplementary material, audioclip S1) revealed significant differences among calls given in response to dogs, the observer approaching at night, and snakes. However, the analysis did not detect any differences between calls given in response to dogs that were related to whether or not they had elicited escape responses in the first place. Correspondingly, after playback of calls given in response to dogs, we observed no difference in subjects' responses in relation to whether or not the calls had initially elicited escape responses. Subjects showed startle or escape responses significantly more often after playbacks of calls given in response to dogs than after calls given in response to observers. Playbacks of calls given in response to snakes failed to elicit specific responses such as standing bipedally or scanning the grass. Although these findings may imply that responses depend on the external referent, they also indicate that there is no clear-cut relationship between the information available to the listeners and their subsequent responses. This insight forces us to extend current approaches to identifying the meaning of animal signals.