Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:48:28.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The animal variations: When mechanisms matter in accounting for function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2007

Hugo Viciana  and
Nicolas Claidiere
Hugo Viciana
Affiliation:
Grupo de Evolucion y Cognicion Humana, Universidad de las Islas Baleares, Palma, 07012, Islas Baleares, Spain; Hugo.Viciana@ens.frhttp://www.evocog.com
Nicolas Claidiere
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Nicod, Pavillon Jardin, École Normale Superieure, 75005 Paris, France. Nicolas.Claidiere@normalesup.orghttp://www.institutnicod.org/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We contend that Ramsey et al.'s definition of animal innovation sensu process may be partially misleading when investigating mechanisms underlying animal innovation. By excluding social learning from the “process” of innovation, they may be reproducing a dichotomous schema that does not accurately correspond to our knowledge of the acquisition of novel behavioral variants. This gives us some reason to doubt the functional specification of the defined process of innovation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 424 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbrook, A. C., Howe, C., Blake, J. N. & Robinson, P. (1998) The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394:839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burghardt, G. M. (2006) The genesis of animal play. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Galef, B. G. (1992) The question of animal culture. Human Nature 3:157–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H. & Kiraly, I. (2002) Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415:755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinde, R. A. & Fisher, J. (1972) Some comments on the re-publication of two papers on the opening of milk bottles by birds. In: Function and evolution of behavior, ed. Klopfer, P. H. & Hailman, J. P., pp. 377–78. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Podos, J., Huber, J. K. & Taft, B. (2004) Bird song: The interface of evolution and mechanism. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherry, D. F. & Galef, B. G. Jr. (1984) Cultural transmission without imitation: Milk bottle opening by birds. Animal Behaviour 32(3):937–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, P. J. B. & Lachlan, R. F. (2003) Is innovation in bird song adaptive? In: Animal innovation, ed. Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N., pp. 117–36. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2001) An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In: Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science, ed. Aunger, R., pp. 163–73. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar