Abstract
Nonhuman primates are known to use objects as tools. Amongst the great apes, gorillas seem to be the least proficient tool users. Previous research has shown that the western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) at the Buffalo Zoo use buckets, given for enrichment, to collect water (Margulis, Steele, & Kleinfelder, 2012). To further explore the cognitive ability of these gorillas, a study was designed that tested whether the gorillas could distinguish between a functional and a non-functional manipulable object. The gorillas were given four buckets, two of which had holes drilled in the bottom (the ―non-functional‖ bucket). Seventy-eight hours of videotaped data were collected to test the hypothesis that the gorillas could distinguish between the functional and the non-functional buckets for transport of liquids. Overall, gorillas interacted with functional buckets significantly more than with non- functional buckets. This pattern was driven largely by the behavior of the oldest adult female. The findings suggest that gorillas have the ability to recognize tool functionality.
Highlights
Once thought to be a defining feature of Hominins, tool use has been documented widely across a diverse array of taxa
Breuer, NdoundouHockemba, and Fishlock (2005) reported a case of a wild Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) using a stick while walking through deep water and concluded that she was using it to gauge the depth of water through which she was walking
The present study investigated whether the gorillas could determine the functionality of the buckets they were using by providing both functional and nonfunctional buckets
Summary
Once thought to be a defining feature of Hominins, tool use has been documented widely across a diverse array of taxa. Breuer, NdoundouHockemba, and Fishlock (2005) reported a case of a wild Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) using a stick while walking through deep water and concluded that she was using it to gauge the depth of water through which she was walking Because this occurrence did not involve altering an external object, it would not be considered tool use by most other definitions. For example archer fish (Toxotidae spp.) shoot water drops at terrestrial prey in order to knock the prey into the water; ant lions (Myrmeleontidae spp.) construct pits into which terrestrial invertebrates may fall and shower the prey with sand pulling it towards the center of the pit; and woodpecker finches (Camarhynchus pallidus) use cactus spines and twigs to dislodge prey from holes in decaying trees (Alcock, 1972) While these examples may be considered tool use by all standard definitions, they do not necessarily demonstrate any cognitive or behavioral flexibility. Other examples of extractive foraging have been demonstrated in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus, Hirata & Ohashi, 2003; van Schaik, Deaner, & Merrill, 1999)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
