4.8 Article

Sumatran Orangutans Differ in Their Cultural Knowledge but Not in Their Cognitive Abilities

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 23, Pages 2231-2235

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.041

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fyssen Foundation
  2. A.H. Schultz Foundation
  3. Universitas Nasional (UNAS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal cultures are controversial [1, 2] because the method used to isolate culture in animals aims at excluding genetic and environmental influences rather than demonstrating social learning [3, 4]. Here, we analyzed these factors in parallel in captivity to determine their influences on tool use. We exposed Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) orphans from tool-using and non-tool-using regions (western swamps and eastern Langkat, respectively) that differed in both genetic [5] and cultural [6] backgrounds to a raking task and a honey-dipping task [7, 8] to assess their understanding of stick use. Orangutans from both regions were equally successful in raking; however, swamp orangutans were more successful than Langkat orangutans in honey dipping, where previously acquired knowledge was required. A larger analysis suggested that the Alas River could constitute a geographical barrier to the spread of this cultural trait [9]. Finally, honey-dipping individuals were on average less than 4 years old, but this behavior is not observed in the wild before 6 years of age. Our results suggest first that genetic differences between wild Sumatran populations cannot explain their differences in stick use; however, their performances in honey dipping support a cultural differentiation in stick knowledge. Second, the results suggest that the honey-dippers were too young when arriving at the quarantine center to have possibly mastered the behavior in the wild individually [10], suggesting that they arrived with preestablished mental representations of stick use or, simply put, cultural ideas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available