Steve Silber
Advanced Animal Behavior
EBIO 4800
Marc Bekoff
Dec. 2 2004
After
a 48 hour plane ride from the U.S. to Arusha, Tanzania and a two day Land Rover
drive south by southwest over the Ngoro Ngoro Crater, through the Serengeti,
past numerous villages of Masai and Ndutu, we arrive at the Iyasi Basin just to
the northwest shores of the caustic Lake Iyasi, where we are greeted by our
bushman guide _______. ________
would be attempting to help us find the elusive Hadzabe tribe. Considered to be the most primitive
group of people left in the world, the Hadzabe (sometimes called Hadza) are
hunter-gatherers in every sense of the word. They make no dwellings nor do they own any possessions. They move from place to place eating
when they are hungry and simply laying down (sometimes in pile-ons in colder
weather) when they wish to sleep.
The only instruments they use are knives and bows and arrows (With
poison tips which they make using a reduction of the pulp of a local plant
called the Desert Rose.) These could hardly be called possessions though, as
they are capable of making new ones within a day if necessary. The poison if entered into the
bloodstream will cause death within a couple of minutes. One of the Hadza was missing a thumb,
which he cut off within half a second after accidentally being pierced by an
arrow, to prevent being poisoned to death. He was still sick for days.
The
staple of the HadzabesÕ diet is berries.
Any red berry on a bush, not a tree, is O.K. to eat in Tanzania. Periodically on their walks through the
bush looking for game or honey, the Hadza would stop to forage on a bush. It was a good thing they did this or I
fear we would never have been able to keep up with their brisk pace over the
terrain. Various small game as
well as Warthog, (Phacochoerus aethiopicus africanus,) Impala (Aepyceros
melampus,) and the occasional Kudu (Tragelaphus imberbis) are also
an important part of their diet.
As they have no ties to any particular place, if a larger game is taken,
one of the group would be sent to find the women and children and they would
all just stay in that area until the kill is completely eaten. One of their favorite pastimes, however,
is eating honey. For as long as
they can remember, the Hadzabe have been taking advantage of the helpful
behavior of a bird known as the Greater Honeyguide (Indicator indicator),
which—as its name implies—is widely renowned as a guide towards
deposits of honey.
The
Honeyguide is a dull colored bird, mainly brown with white tail feathers and is
related to the Barbet (Lybiidae.) It is rather small with a Sparrow-like bill. They are insect
eaters whose diet mostly consists of beeswax and bee larvae. Honeyguides have a
tough skin and a third eye membrane to protect them from bee stings. Sexes live separately and call for up
to eight hours from a single spot to attract a mate. One or more males use the
same song post repeatedly; it may be used for many decades. A site in use in
1930 (Friedmann 1955; Ranger 1955) was still in use in 2000 (CJ Vernon,
unpublished data).
Many
beehives, however, are virtually inaccessible to these birds and well protected
by the bees (Apis mellifira.) Most hives within the Iyasi Basin are located in Baobab
Trees (Adansonia digitata), a huge tree often measuring 55
feet around the trunk. The
Honeyguide unable to attain honey from most hives use a special symbiosis with
larger creatures in order to pillage the honey-cache. Later confirmed by a comprehensive study done by Isack and
Reyer, ________ informed us that they summon the Honeyguide, while on foraging
movements, by emitting a specific, penetrating whistle which can be heard from
a distance of over one kilometer.
Seemingly from nowhere, the bird arrives and it announces itself by
flying on a collision course towards our heads and perches in the trees using
its unmistaken call. Once it has
gained our attention, the Honeyguide darts off in a direct manner to the site of
the hive. Usually a scout would
scurry off after the bird, leaving the rest of us lagging behind. Isack and
Reyer describe the birdÕs actions as Òalternately appearing and disappearing,
periodically returning to check on its follower to be sure that he is still
following, such returns becoming more and more frequent as they draw nearer to
the hive.Ó Issack and Reyer found, as I was informed by my native
friends, that they could tell the direction and proximity to the hive based on
the type of call and the amount of times the Honeyguide would return. Upon arriving at the bees' hive, the
Honeyguide sits on the Baobab which the hive is in and uses a very distinctly
different call.
Once the
hive is found one of the Hadza starts a fire by rubbing two sticks together and
within seconds there is a smoldering stick covered with grass emitting a thick
heavy smoke. The youngest of the
tribe would climb the tree and smoke out the bees, often getting ten plus
stings in the process. Once out of
the hive he would drop honeycomb after honeycomb from the tree to his friends
below. Often the Hadza would be so
anxious to eat the honey they would ignore the residual bees attached to the
comb and get multiple internal stings.
Usually the Hadza would leave a small amount of the comb behind to
encourage the bees to remain at the site and replenish the honey. As their gathering and consumption ends
there is plenty of leftover comb and larvae dropped on the ground for the
Honeyguide to feast.
There are
many reasons this behavior displays evidence that there is very impressive
cognitive abilities used by the Greater Honeyguide. For one, there has to be a level of species
identification. The Honeyguide
must be aware of itself within a larger scope of an ecosystem in order to
understand which species will attempt to remove honey from a hive. In order to have this, the Honeyguide
must have some level of self-awareness or at least an awareness of its
ÒpartnersÓ as a representation.
More specifically it must have at least a representation of a tool which
could potentially be used for gaining access to food. The straight flight paths show that the Honeyguide will
know, at any point in time, where any number of hives is located up to one
thousand meters away. Isack and
Reyer watched from blinds and saw several unaccompanied Honeyguides visiting
hives, on reconnaissance missions during which they would inspect and peer into
the hives. Later the guide would
show tribe people to the very hives it had inspected earlier that day. This type of recall requires the
ability to search for hives, remember where each is located, find an eligible
follower, get his attention and then lead him to the hive. This takes longer-term
concentration.
Another way
that the Honeyguide displays its intelligence is through its communication skills. Often, throughout history one of the
largest reasons that animal cognition was seen as improbable if not impossible,
by skeptics, was that animals do not have the ability of speech. This is easily refuted, however. While I was chasing the honey guide
through the strange land of Tanzania, with a group of people who have a
vocabulary possibly not much over one hundred words, I could understand more of
what that bird was signifying than I possibly could have if one of those people
tried to tell me. The HoneyguideÕs
ability to communicate across species is evidence enough that it is definitely
a competent communicator without question.
Actually,
humans are not the only animals to have this communication with this
exceptional bird. The BushmenÕs
relationship with the Honeyguide is relatively recent compared to the
relationship between the Honeyguide and the Honey Badger or Ratel (Mellivora
capensis.) Also, Chacma
Baboons (Papio ursinus) are often considered associates of the Honeyguide. Most scientific papers on the subject
do not prescribe to the existence of these relationships, but on one of our
outings we saw a Honey Badger in the proximity of a Honeyguide. The Hadza then abandoned following the
bird to honey, for the opportunity of shooting at the Ratel. It was a near miss, but close enough
for the Ratel to hightail it into the brush, a trait uncharacteristic of this
known aggressive and hearty creature.
There is a
lot of what is considered folklore surrounding the Honeyguide and its
relationship with larger mammals.
It has been observed that on occasion a Honeyguide will alternately lead
one towards a dangerous animal, such as a leopard or poisonous snake. Although this has not been proven my
Hadzabe friends had heard of this occurring, but none had ever experienced it
for themselves.
Another
reason this symbiosis is so special is because of the complexity of the
behaviors and interspecies communication involved. This intricate situational behavior most likely is
instinctual, not learned through imitation nor merely as a reaction to the
environment. This conclusion is
due to the breeding process used by this unique creature. Honeyguides are parasitic breeders. Like the Cuckoo, these brood parasites
lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, often other bee-eaters, like
certain Woodpeckers. Newly hatched
young are featherless and blind but have bill hooks on both mandibles that are
used for attacking and biting host nestlings (Friedmann 1955, Fry et al. 1988). Their offspring kill the young of their
hosts or eject them from their nests.
Thus the chicks would seem to have little opportunity to learn the
intricacies of the intra-species symbiotic relationship from its parents. Many questions arise. Can an animal instinctually have this
type of knowledge? What does
it mean if itÕs abilities for this exceptional cognitive behavior is
instinctual rather than learned?
Is it possible that instinctual behavior is more proof of advanced
behavior or less?
That the evolutionary
beginning versions of the Honeyguide suddenly and miraculously attained,
through some sort of genetic mutation, the genome for such a complex behavior
is very unlikely, but over time not impossible. Just as an antelope does not have to learn to walk or eat or
breath, could it be possible that genetically a Honeyguide can have an innate
knowledge of the Hadzabe or the Ratel?
They actually would just need the ability for a certain type of
communication. Studies have shown
that a large majority of human infants first sounds begin with a sound of
Òda.Ó Anyone who has raised
puppies knows that they do not need to be taught how to feed off their
mother. These are all instinctual
behaviors. A Hartabeast
(Alcelaphus buselaphus) can begin to walk within seconds of being born. Another question this raises; if the
Honeyguide is instinctually capable of this complex type of behavior, what does
it say about its cognitive abilities?
One place we
could look for an answer to this question would be The Baldwin Effect. In 1896 James Baldwin considered
learning in relation to evolution and eventual instinct and came up with his
ÒNew FactorÓ hypothesis. Baldwin
claims that be indirectly inherited.
One phenotypic plasticity example would be related to exposure to the
sun and the ability to keep from getting burnt. The problem is that this type of plasticity can be difficult
to accomplish through each individualÕs lifetime. It takes time and energy to learn and in the case of the
Honeyguide, a teacher.
Essentially, the Baldwin Effect is the theory that given sufficient
time, evolution may find a built in mechanism that can replace the individually
learned mechanism. Thus a behavior that was once learned may eventually become
instinctive.
As an artist
I relate this effect to the history of art. One of the occurrences I often hear from friends when going
to a museum or gallery is, Òthat is not so impressive,Ó ÒI could do that,Ó or,
ÒMy eight year old could have painted that, it is just a bunch of paint
splatter.Ó The fact of the matter
is that often many important works of modern art taken singularly actually may
be without technical skill or even ÒbeautyÓ (whatever that is.) Take Marcel Duchamp as the
quintessential example. Duchamp
was most famous for his Òready made sculptures.Ó His most famous were placing a toilet in a gallery and
leaning a shovel against a gallery wall and calling them sculptures. These sculptures without the vision of
the history of art are ridiculous.
However, if we start with an impressionist like Monet, who was
interested in mood and color more than depicting picture perfect images and go
towards Picasso and cubism, where the deconstruction and reconstruction of
perception of space, we see that what is created is an entirely different view
of perception through art and therefore life.
Surrealist
artists, like Salvador Dahli, used disjointed but still realistic imagery to
discuss personal as well as various psychological states (influenced strongly
by Freud and Jung) and watch the progression to artists like Pollak who were
influenced by the freedom of the United States to show a perspective of the
freedom to abstract to the point that one no longer even needed to depict an
image. This freedom was not only a
comment upon the direction of the new ideas exploding around the world, but
allowed other artists to go directly into a base level of the psyche and pull
out what is instinctual without the restrictions placed upon us by the masters
of the past. Finally we come back
to Duchamp who was interested in gaining more perspective and objectivity by
stepping outside the world of art to discuss the importance of context over
art. He showed that more important
than the work itself is the way it is displayed. In other words, even the small in stature, but grand in
reputation Mona Lisa placed in a stack of other paintings in some warehouse,
with dust and cobwebs all over it would receive no attention. However placed behind glass in the
Louve it remains a prime example of great art. So, an artist like Duchamp, who already had a great
reputation, putting any random object in the context of a reputable museum,
could then become art, because it was properly Òframed.Ó
Just
as a toilet can be filled with inspiration and intelligence and be incredibly
interesting, so to should we recognize the instinctual behavior of some animals
with the understanding that given the history of how that instinct came about
could have taken huge amounts of ingenuity. The behavior of the Honeyguide could not have occurred
without one figuring something out.
Way back in history some early ancestor probably realized that if it
hung around some hive it could eat the leftovers of some animal raiding the
hive. Then possibly made a racket
while waiting around, which the Ratel intelligently listened for in the future
to find more honey. It is not
difficult to imagine the rest, but taken individually the end behavior is much
more impressive when each individual discovery is observed.
This paper attempts to display the cognitive abilities of non-human animals in general through the specific example of the Honeyguide. There is one trait which, although I am open to rebuttal, I have found within humans which I believe is unique. Humans have heightened rhetoric. The same reason I am attempting to show the intelligence of an animal is the very reason I believe humans do have a unique trait. We have a drive and desire to create situations, objects and conversation which are solely designed to help discover where we are in space and time and why. A number of instances of these traits we possess are poetry, art and music. Farming is one as well all though it actually may be a cause more than an effect. Another way to view this is the existence of religion and spirituality. I would even go as far as to say that banal popular culture icons and experiences, such as an entertainment channel spewing information on everything from interior decoration to the latest about Paris Hilton, are designed to numb us from our need to discover who we are by filling that gap with the inane. There is a need particular to humans which causes us to demonstrate our imagination and ability for ideas of representation within concrete manifestations, but to go beyond merely having innate understanding of representations. We as humans compound those representations to create purely ideological situations.
ÒThe most powerful known force in the universe is compound interest.Ó
-Albert Einstein
References:
– Robert M. May,
News and Views. Imperial College, London (1987).
– Isack.
H.A. & Reyer, H.U. Science 243. 1343-1346.(1989).
– Friedmann H
1955 The Honeyguides. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 208:1-292.
– Whittall E
1968 The Honeyguide. Bokmakierie 20(3):73
– LoveToKnow
1911 Online Encyclopedia. © 2003, 2004.
http://80.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HO/HONEY_GUIDE.htm
– Peter
Turney, Darrell Whitley, Russell Anderson, Special Issue of Evolutionary
Computation on the Baldwin Effect, Volume 4, Number 3.
– Baldwin, J.M., A new factor in evolution. American Naturalist, 30, 441-451, (1896)