It should be noted that weapon actions are rare in animals under natural conditions - only in a few species, and even then, as a rule, irregularly, occasionally, or even as an exception. True, in recent years new facts have become known about the use of objects as tools in free-living animals, as well as in zoo animals, but nevertheless the number of such species has not increased significantly.

As early as the first century AD, it was reported that cephalopods, octopuses, use stones as tools. In Natural History, Pliny the Elder reports that the octopus inserts a stone into the bivalve shell of a mollusk to prevent its valves from closing. This was observed again in the middle of the last century, but over the next 125 years, no one was lucky enough to see an octopus using a stone as a tool again. Perhaps the observers were mistaken, for these cephalopods build shelters - “fortresses” of stones and shells and, therefore, often and intensively manipulate such objects. Today this question remains open, especially since we still know very little about the behavior of these amazing animals. However, it is well known that the octopus does not need stones or other tools to catch its victims, because it is enough for it to open the mollusk shell only for a moment to inject its poison and paralyze its owner, after which the valves themselves will move apart.

In another, small cephalopod, Tremoctopus violaceus, pieces of the tentacles of physalia, free-swimming coelenterates, serve as weapons of defense and attack. The "lasso" tentacles of these animals are strewn with stinging cells, forming stinging batteries. The poison secreted by the cells is very dangerous even for humans. Having mastered pieces of such “lassos” and holding them with the suction cups of its own tentacles, Tremoctopus acquires a powerful weapon that allows it to win even in a fight with a large opponent. It should, however, be noted that physalia, like other siphonophores, are complex organisms, built like a colony and consisting of individual individuals (zooids). “Arcans” and even pieces of them, being parts of such zooids (gastrozoids, i.e. feeding individuals), themselves have far-reaching autonomous viability, which is why they do not die when captured by tremoctopus. Consequently, we are again dealing here with a dubious case, on the verge of one animal using another animal rather than a tool. So, we see that we still have to doubt the ability of cephalopods to perform true instrumental actions.

Another thing is insects, in some species of which genuine use of tools is already found, for example, in burrowing wasps. Thus, a representative of the genus Ammophila, having filled up the entrance to the hole in which she placed a paralyzed caterpillar with an egg attached to it, begins to compact and level the ground above the entrance with a pebble, which she holds in her jaws. Making vibrating movements, the wasp hammers a pebble on freshly poured, well-pressed soil until it levels it so that the entrance to the burrow cannot be distinguished from the surrounding soil. Some sand wasps press down the ground with rhythmic movements of their heads, only lowering and lifting a pebble. In most cases, however, wasps disguise the entrance to the burrow by simply pressing the ground with their heads.

A classic example of tool behavior in insects is the hunting of antlions, which, as is known, take refuge at the bottom of cone-shaped trapping holes they make in the sand in anticipation of prey. Ants and other small insects running along the edge of the hole fall along with the crumbling sand directly into the exposed large jaws of the predator. The weapon actions of the latter consist in the fact that it “shoots” at the ants trying to get out of the trap with grains of sand, which it throws with sharp movements of its head towards the insect and thereby knocks it down. But probably few people know that the larvae of flies from the genera Vermileo and Lampromyia also hunt in the same way, also making cone-shaped pit-traps in the sand and lying in wait for their prey in them. It is easy to see that the same method of hunting is used here as that of the spray fish: the animal uses part of its habitat (water, sand) as a weapon, a projectile, with which it shoots down its prey.

Recently, facts have become known about the use of tools by ants, which, like other social insects, despite all the complexity of their behavior, seemed to get along without them. (The described stitching of leaves with secretions of the larvae, as we have seen, can hardly be considered a tool action.) It turned out that ants from the genus Aphaenogaster use small objects (pieces of leaves or pine needles, lumps of dried dirt, grains of sand, etc.) to transport succulent food objects. Having found and examined, for example, lumps of jelly or jelly, the foragers (the so-called individuals who supply the ant family with food) leave them, but after a few seconds return to them with pieces of leaves, which they place on the tasty lumps. Other ants, having stumbled upon pieces of leaves, “check” and correct them, sometimes pulling them off and putting them back on the lumps. After 30-60 minutes, other ants (not the ones that brought pieces of leaves) drag these pieces of leaves with food lumps stuck to them to the anthill. In a similar way, the ants collected liquid substances and other food objects placed near the anthill: tissue fluid protruding from a crushed spider and spider larvae, and juice from the pulp of rotten fruits.

Ants carefully select and test the objects they use as vehicles, picking up and throwing one object after another before they find the right one. In specially designed experiments, they preferred baked earth lumps to leaves. As we see, they show great flexibility and variability when choosing objects that they use as tools. Corresponding calculations showed that ants, using the tools they use, can drag into the anthill an amount of liquid food equal to the weight of their own body. During the usual “internal transportation” of liquid food in ants (i.e., by absorption and subsequent regurgitation), the ant is able to tolerate only a tenth of this amount.

Obviously, tools of communication should also be included in the category of tools, for example, “wedding gifts” presented by males to females during the breeding season. In some empidid flies, males attract females with peculiar “presents” - killed prey or balls twisted from silky threads formed from the secretion they secrete. In this case, mating occurs only if the attracted female is distracted by eating prey or “playing” with a ball, because cannibalism is very common among these flies. Consequently, what is happening here is not simple feeding of one animal by another, but the food object serves as a kind of instrument of communication between animals in another sphere, behavior - reproduction. As for the silky ball, which the female accepts from the male and rotates between her legs during mating, then probably this object, playing a distracting role, simultaneously brings the female into a state of readiness for; mating. However, since it, like a spider’s web, is made from the excretions of an animal, i.e., it is a product of its vital activity, it cannot be recognized as a tool. The situation is somewhat more complicated, however, with other empidids, which combine both options in their mating behavior: the males of some species lightly envelop the prey with threads, while others do it so intensely that the result is a large loose ball that exceeds the size of its creator. Since the “core” of the ball is a specially caught and killed insect, it can rather be called a tool.

Such examples, of course, increase the number of generally accepted facts about the tool behavior of insects. But if we consider that there are about one or even two million species of insects on the globe, then instrumental actions still constitute a rare exception among them.

The same applies to birds. And in this case, we can only talk about individual facts of tool behavior that are not characteristic of the entire class as a whole. True, these exceptional cases are still not as vanishingly rare as in insects - after all, there are only about 8,600 species of birds on earth, which means that weapon actions occur in birds at least 100-200 times more often than in insects.

When it comes to the use of tools by birds, “the first thing that comes to mind is the woodpecker finch from the Galapagos archipelago. The lifestyle of this bird is in many ways reminiscent of the woodpeckers absent from the archipelago, which is why it got its name. But unlike the woodpecker, the woodpecker finch does not have a long flexible tongue to extract insects from cracks and holes, which is compensated by instrumental actions. Just like woodpeckers, woodpecker finches tap trunks and thick branches of trees in search of food and listen to the sounds made by insects moving under the bark. Having found an insect in a crack or deep hole, the bird takes a cactus needle or a thin twig and, holding it by one end in its beak, picks it in the hole until it comes out of there. Woodpecker finches also take out larvae from the depths of their passages, probe rotten wood, and sometimes, using a stick as a lever, they break off pieces of rotting bark. With the help of such levers, they can even lift small objects, getting insects from under them. Having used a thorn, the finch usually throws it away, but sometimes holds it with its paw while eating, and then uses it again. Moreover, there have been cases where woodpecker finches even store thorns for future use before going hunting. Interestingly, woodpecker finches often “improve” their tools by shortening them or, if they have to use a branch, breaking off the side branches and turning the branch into a twig. There is even a case described when a bird hid already caught prey in a crack, and then took it out from there with the help of a stick.

The German ethologist I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, observing the behavior of a young finch in captivity, in isolation, found that he carefully examined the thorns that were placed in his cage and, manipulating them, sometimes stuck them into the cracks of the cage, but did not try to use them for picking them out insects, which he invariably took directly with his beak, as other birds do. Even if the insect was so deep in the crevice that it was impossible to get it without a thorn, the bird did not resort to its help, but unsuccessfully tried to take possession of it with the help of its beak. Then, however, gradually the finch began to try to use the spines as tools, but he acted with them extremely ineptly, and they kept falling out of his beak. In addition, at first the bird tried to consume objects that were completely unsuitable for picking out, such as blades of grass or soft veins of leaves.

The scientist came to the conclusion that the woodpecker finch has an innate, directed interest in various kinds of sticks and similar oblong objects, as well as an increased need to manipulate them. They learn the “technique” of weapon actions from adult birds, imitating their behavior. From Eibl-Eibesfeldt's observations it also follows that, until the accumulation of appropriate experience, woodpecker finches are not yet able to determine the suitability of certain objects for their use as tools. Even adult birds, not finding suitable objects, sometimes act like the mentioned experimental young finch.

The famous English ethologist V. Thorpe also believes that the innate tendency to pay special attention to objects suitable for use as tools and intensive handling of them can be decisive for the formation of instrumental actions. It is in the course of handling these objects that the bird becomes familiar with their mechanical properties and the possibilities of their use, and the necessary motor skills are developed through trial and error. At the same time, Thorpe believes, the bird may not understand the importance of the tool for solving the problem of extracting food.

Thus, there is no reason to consider the use of tools by woodpecker finches as “meaningful” actions or even generally evidence of higher mental abilities. Most likely, we are dealing here with species-typical behavior, determined by specific feeding characteristics, to which, however, the structure of the bird is not sufficiently adapted (the absence of a long sticky or pointed tongue, like that of a woodpecker). Tool behavior that replaces this structural deficiency, being basically innate and instinctive, requires, however, for its full development and improvement, the accumulation of appropriate individual experience and learning.

Let us also add that the ability to use twigs and similar objects to pick out insects from cracks and other hard-to-reach places has also been noted in some corvids, although mainly in experimental conditions.

Some birds, such as Egyptian vultures, break large, hard-shelled eggs with stones. The famous researcher of chimpanzee behavior, J. van Lawick-Goodall, reports that she once saw how, near an abandoned ostrich nest, one of the vultures gathered there “took a stone in its beak and headed towards the nearest egg. Approaching it, it raised its head and, sharply lowering it ", threw the stone down onto the thick white shell. We clearly heard the blow. Then he picked up the stone again and threw it until the shell cracked and the contents of the egg spilled onto the ground." Immediately the researcher could be convinced that large vultures, which also flew into this clutch, were unable to break the eggs in the usual way: “No matter how hard they tried,” she writes, “using their beaks and claws, they were not able to break them, although just one egg, and in the end they scattered without a sip.”

Similar observations about the behavior of Egyptian vultures were published more than 100 years ago. Thus, in an article published in a South African newspaper in 1867 and signed by a certain “old sportsman”, it is reported that the author personally saw how a vulture broke ostrich eggs by repeatedly throwing a large stone on them. In his opinion, this phenomenon is so widespread that vultures should be considered the main destroyers of ostrich nests. “In most old nests,” he writes, “you will find one or even two stones.” At the same time, the vulture sometimes brings stones from places up to three miles away from the nest. “I know this,” writes the author of the article, “for he had nowhere closer to find a stone, because there is only sand all around.”

Since then, similar cases have been identified in different time and in different places located over an area of ​​five thousand kilometers. This suggests that Egyptian vulture throwing stones at ostrich eggs is not a random, localized feature of a narrowly restricted population. At the same time, no one has observed any weapon actions in birds of this species in other parts of its range, where, however, ostriches are not (and have not been) found, for example in Spain. Is it therefore possible to talk about the innate, species-typical ability of these vultures to perform instrumental actions of the indicated type, or are only the individual mental abilities of especially “gifted” individuals manifested here?

The second point of view is close to the opinion of one of the experts on tool behavior of animals, J. Elcock, who believes that the tool action described here arose from the random throwing of stones by an excited bird, which failed in its attempts to break the egg with its beak, or throwing it on the ground. In such cases, in the language of ethologists, the bird can “redirect” its activity to other objects, in particular to stones. In this case, the bird can throw a stone instead of throwing an egg, and accidentally hitting a nearby egg can lead to the desired result. Mentally more developed individuals will quickly establish a connection between their action and its result and next time they will take advantage of the accumulated experience.

In this regard, I recall an incident that occurred in our laboratory and seemed to confirm the above assumption. Two crows were kept in a large cage, one of them did not allow the other, nicknamed “Grey,” to the drinking bowl, which from time to time was briefly placed in the cage. Unable to fight back the offender, Gray redirected the response to a toy plastic block lying in the cage. He began furiously hammering the cube, first on the floor, and then on the branch onto which he had flown up with it. During this fierce “retribution” with the object replacing the enemy, the cube fell out of the bird’s claws and accidentally fell on the head of a crow sitting on a drinking bowl, which jumped to the side in fear. Gray immediately took advantage of this and drank to his heart's content. Subsequently, every time Gray was not allowed to the drinking bowl, he climbed onto a branch with a cube in his beak and from there he aimed it at his enemy, thereby sending him into a panicked flight.

The Australian kite behaves in a similar way under natural conditions, which, like the Egyptian vulture, is not able to peck the thick shell of the eggs of large birds, in this case the emu. To break such an egg, the kite grabs a stone with its foot, flies up with it to a height of three to four meters above the clutch, and throws it on the eggs. And this fact was first described more than 100 years ago, and since then has received repeated confirmation in the observations of a number of naturalists. In particular, it was found that the predator sometimes brings a stone with long distance to the emu nest and drops it on the eggs in the absence of the brooding bird. Instead of stones, lumps of hard earth or clay and even large bone were also found in “bombed” nests.

A bald eagle in captivity has also been observed using stones to attack a scorpion. Before this, the eagle tried to crush him with his feet, but the fetters he put on them prevented him. Then the bird began to pick up stones with its beak and with a sharp movement of its head throw them towards the scorpion; the stones flew up to 24 inches (about 60 cm) and sometimes hit the target accurately.

These are all facts about the targeted use of stones as “throwing projectiles”. There are a number of interesting reports of how some birds (gulls, terns, crows, bearded vultures and kites) took stones and other objects with them in flight and then released them in the air, then caught them again, not allowing them to fall to the ground, or, on the contrary, they deliberately dropped them. It is possible that such behavior is a step towards the development of food-procuring instrumental actions of birds.

Of great interest are cases of birds (one of the species of Australian magpie larks) using various objects as a “hammer”. For example, they use old bivalve shells to open the shells of living mollusks: the bird holds half of the old dry shell in its beak with the convex side down and knocks them on the living mollusks. With strong repeated blows, the bird breaks the shell of the mollusk, after which, holding it with its claws, it begins to pull out pieces of contents from it with its beak. Described different variants the use of this unique impact weapon, depending on its physical properties and the specific conditions for performing weapon actions. If the tool breaks, which happens quite often, the bird continues to bang the piece until it is shortened to about one centimeter in length, or replaces it with another, larger piece. Only after trying all possible ways of using the remains of the previous tool, and even knocking on the mollusk with its beak, will the bird go in search of a new empty shell. Before using a new shell, she will try it out by hitting it on a piece of driftwood or other hard object.

The cockatoo Probosciger aterrimus uses a completely different type of tool to open hard facial objects. His favorite delicacy is a nut with a shell so hard that it can only be broken with a very heavy hammer. The beak of this parrot has cutting edges, with the help of which the bird can saw an object held in its beak. This is what the cockatoo does with the nut, and so that it does not slip out of its beak, it fixes it with a spacer - a piece of leaf, which it specially places between the upper jaw and the nut before starting to saw it. This fact was first described in the 70s of the last century by the famous English naturalist A.R. Wallace,

Another interesting example of food-procuring, or rather tool-hunting, behavior was observed in one tame North American green night heron. This heron threw pieces of bread into the pond, thereby attracting fish, which she immediately caught. At the same time, the bird carefully watched the surface of the water, and if the fish appeared away from it, it immediately took the crumbs in its beak, headed to that place and threw them into the water exactly at the place where the fish appeared. Obviously, here there was the formation of a unique tool skill based on exploratory behavior and the accumulation of individual experience, but such behavior was observed in several more individuals, and in a different place. Moreover, once, again in Florida, but in a different place, a young bird of this species was seen “fishing” in the same way, but the bait was a feather, which it carefully lowered into the water and thereby lured the fish.

Tools are used by some birds not only for obtaining food, but also in other areas of their behavior, for example, when forming pairs and in general during communication between a male and a female. Here we again encounter “wedding gifts” presented by the male to the female. For some birds, even a nest serves as such a “gift” if it was built by the male and is shown to the female. In these cases, the nest serves initially to attract a female and stimulate her reproductive function. For example, male starlings begin nest construction even before pairing. The same thing happens with the remez, and if not a single female is “tempted” by the structure erected by the male, then he takes up the matter again in another place. The male pied flycatcher leads the female to the nest, and the wren arranges a series of nests (but does not finish them) for his future partner to choose from. But still, in these cases, the nest is primarily a substrate for the implementation of the most important processes of life, and not a tool.

At the same time, the males of some birds (warblers, willow warblers) build, in addition to nests for raising chicks, additional nests for resting and sleeping, and bowerbirds (bowbirds) living in Australia and New Guinea are known for the amazing structures erected by males for mating ceremonies. These “gazebos,” or rather tunnels, made of flexible stems sometimes reach a meter in length, and level areas are arranged in front of the entrance and exit of them.

No less than the nest itself, females are stimulated by the display of nesting material by the male. A marabou stork courting a female places a twig or small stone at her feet. The bullfinch that lived with me followed the female for a long time, holding a twig, a ball of thread, or most often a piece of paper in its beak, and at the same time very diligently sang its touchingly simple, creaky song. Other passerine birds also make such offerings. Males of many species not only supply the female building the nest with the necessary objects for this purpose, but also deliberately demonstrate them, simultaneously producing current movements and certain sounds. And in the white heron, the male and female take turns guarding their clutch, and the “changing of the guard” is accompanied by peculiar movements, in which the bird that has flown in to replace the guard opens its wings and fluffs up its feathers, and in its beak holds a twig or a dry branch, which it passes to its partner.

Often, males present the female with treats that perform the same function as nesting material, and also serve to “pacify” the partner, to relieve possible aggressive impulses. And this form of mating behavior is widespread among birds. In bee-eaters, for example, a male holding a bee in his beak must often perform a whole series of current movements in front of the female before she “deigns” to accept his gift; male terns present females with fish, etc.

The instruments of communication in the mating behavior of birds undoubtedly include various kinds of “decorations” with which males attract females and put them in a favorable mood. Starlings prepare this kind of “wedding gifts” for their “brides” by decorating the nests prepared for them (but unfinished) with flowers. They found nests of petrels, the edges of which were decorated with shells and pebbles; Avocet nests lined with shells; Grebe nests, decorated with bright greenery.

The undoubted “champions” in the matter of decoration are bowerbirds. Males decorate both the gazebos and the areas in front of them with all sorts of bright objects - flowers, feathers, fruits, berries, mushrooms, bulbs, even wasp nests, faded bones, crayfish shells, shells, stones, as well as human objects - pieces of fabric and multi-colored paper , ribbons, glass fragments, beads, fragments of tiles and pottery, nails, coins, spoons and other metal objects, etc. Each species has its own preferred objects and colors by which the bird groups its collection. All things are neatly sorted and arranged in a certain order, which the bowerbird immediately restores if it is disturbed. Items that have lost their appearance are removed and replaced with new ones.

Some bowerbirds build high towers, which they also decorate with flowers, light parts of plants, sometimes even light animal hairs and other clearly visible objects. All “wealth” is jealously guarded and serves the same purpose - to attract and stimulate the female. This is an amazingly beautiful example of using objects as tools of communication. It is important to note that “wedding gifts” compensate for the fantastic variety and splendor of plumage colors that are characteristic of most other tropical birds and play a primary role in their mating behavior.

However, that's not all. Male bower birds are distinguished by another amazing property - the ability to color objects. Males of some species not only decorate their bowers with objects, but also paint their walls with their beaks with the coloring plant juices of certain berries or herbs. Since this juice is the same gift (berries are presented to the female, but in crushed form), serving to attract and stimulate the female, it can be considered an instrument of communication. But the species Ptilonorhynchus violaceus, which lives in eastern Australia, is also of particular interest. Males of this species paint with “tassels,” or rather, tampons, which are pieces of fibrous bark approximately a centimeter long and half a centimeter thick. Having bitten the bark, the bowerbird finally gives it the structure of a sponge. He prepares the paint from blue berries, mixing their pulp with saliva, then takes a swab with the tip of his beak and gets to work. The tampon prevents the beak from closing, and by seeping through it, the paint is evenly distributed over the substrate.

It is interesting that, being itself blue, this bowerbird clearly prefers this color - it paints the walls of the gazebo blue and selects decorations mainly of this color. Apparently, females are especially sensitive to the color blue, and the male thereby enhances the stimulating effect of the color of his plumage. In addition, the males of this species prepare black paint in the same way from charcoal, which they find in forest fires. It can obviously be said that the tampon serves as a tool of two kinds: firstly, to facilitate and improve the process of painting itself, to improve the technique and mechanical effect of this action and, secondly, as an instrument of communication of the “second degree”, as a “tool tools", indirectly increasing the efficiency of stimulation of the female during the mating season.

It is important to note one circumstance here. In all the considered actions of birds, it would seem that one can discern features of human behavior, but this similarity is purely external and essentially has nothing in common with our behavior.

Something similar to the behavior of males of the indicated bowerbird species was noted in the North American woodpecker Centurus uropygialis. They observed how the male fed his chicks with liquefied honey: he hollowed out pieces of bark the size of a pea, dipped them in syrup and gave them to the chicks. Sometimes the bird used cereal grains or sunflower seeds instead of pieces of bark.

Many birds generally tend to immerse objects in water or other liquids. Sometimes they "invent" new ways to use objects as tools. Thus, one parrot learned to scoop up water using a smoking pipe, holding it with its beak by the barrel (before that, it often soaked food and hard objects in water), another used a shell and half a peanut shell as a drinking cup. Then this bird learned to drink from a teaspoon, which it brought with its paw to its beak. Another parrot used a jar to scoop water from a vessel and pour it into a bathtub... The number of similar examples could be increased.

Finally, it is necessary to mention one more category of instrumental actions, this is the use of auxiliary means in the sphere of, as ethologists say, comfortable behavior, that is, caring for one’s body, for example, scratching. This was observed mainly in parrots, who used for this purpose some kind of stick or sliver, sometimes even a fallen feather, and in captivity, household items, such as a teaspoon. When scratching, the bird inserts the object into the feathers, grasping it tightly with its fingers. Most often, parrots scratch their head in this way, sometimes their neck (especially under the beak), back and other parts of the body.

There is a known case when a cormorant, with a fallen flight feather, distributed the secretion of the coccygeal gland over the feathers of its wings. The bird held the feather by the shaft in its beak so that the fan protruded in front of the tip of the beak, resulting in a kind of brush that extended the beak. Having brought this brush to the gland and anointed it with fatty secretions, the bird, evenly and smoothly swinging its head from side to side, moved the feather along the feathers of the open right and then left wing, periodically lubricating the feather with fat. When the feather fell out of its beak during these actions and flew a short distance, the cormorant picked it up and again began to lubricate its plumage with it. In this example, the question remains open whether the bird’s actions can be formally regarded as instrumental, since the feather it used is a product of its own vital activity. It seems, however, that such an objection is formal, since the bird could just as successfully perform the same actions with someone else’s feather that happened to be at its feet.

Our cursory review of the tool behavior of birds sufficiently shows that they have varied and sometimes quite complex forms of tool use. The English ornithologist J. Boswall compiled a fairly complete summary of the instrumental actions of birds, without, however, including in it the use of tools of communication. He concluded that tool use occurs in 30 species of birds. It is easy to calculate that this is only 0.35% of all bird species. Still, compared to other animals, as already indicated, this is quite a lot, especially if we add the ways of using objects as means of communication,

It may seem strange, but compared to birds, the “achievements” of mammals seem quite modest. When it comes to the use of tools by these animals, they first of all refer to the sea otter (sea otter) from the mustelidae family, this amazing semi-aquatic inhabitant of the coast of continents and islands of the North Pacific Ocean, an excellent swimmer and diver. The animal's front paws are flat pads, on the underside of which there are rough finger-like blades in which the fingers themselves are located. This peculiar structure of the limb does not, however, prevent the sea otter from grabbing objects and wielding them. According to some reports, he is able to hold a match or even a needle in his front paw.

The favorite food of sea otters is octopus and sea ​​urchins, but its diet also includes shellfish, crabs and other sedentary bottom invertebrates and, of course, fish. Having dived to the bottom, the sea otter collects several sea urchins at once (five or six, sometimes more), grabbing them with its paws, placing them in the skin folds on its chest and rising to the surface of the water, where it eats them while lying on its back. Unlike the teeth of other predatory mammals, the sea otter's molars are flattened and well adapted to breaking the hard shells of its victims.

At the same time, on the California coast, where sea otters feed on very large sea urchins and bivalves, they additionally use stones to crush the especially strong shells of these animals. As always, lying on the water, the sea otter places a stone on its chest and uses it as an anvil. He holds a mollusk or a sea urchin in his front paws by the flat sides of the shell valves and in this position lifts it up at a right angle to the body, then with a sharp movement and with great force hits it against a stone, repeating this until the shell breaks ( usually inflicts from one to three dozen blows, but sometimes significantly more). The blows follow each other - two blows per second - and alternate with biting the shell.

The American zoologist J.B. Schaller, who became famous for studying the life of gorillas, specifically studied the weapon behavior of sea otters in California. He described how one sea otter extracted 54 mollusks from the abyss in 1.5 hours. During this time he fired 2237 strikes. The stones used by California sea otters have a more or less smooth surface and weigh from 0.5 to 3.5 kg; They use them either once or repeatedly; in any case, the sea otter will not throw away the stone until it finds a new one. We have repeatedly observed how sea otters keep stones under their arms until they need them, and even dive with them. According to the observations of scuba divers, sea otters use stones taken with them on the seabed to separate mollusks firmly attached to them from the rocks.

The use of stones by sea otters provides us with a compelling example of how a tool increases the efficiency of behavior, in this case in the area of ​​feeding. This is especially clear when comparing the behavior of sea otters from different habitats and different ages. Let us recall that the use of stones as tools has been observed only among sea otters living in California. In the Soviet Far East and the Aleutian Islands, where sea urchins and mollusks are smaller, sea otters easily cope with them without the use of auxiliary means - stones. However, as reported by the American sea otter specialist K. Kenyon, the Aleutian sea otter begins to use stones if (in the zoo) it is given larger mollusks equipped with more durable shells than those it eats in its native places. At the same time, on the Aleutian Islands only adult individuals do without stones; young, and therefore weaker, animals use them. Consequently, sea otters use tools only in cases where they cannot destroy the hard shell of the victim with their teeth alone. The potential ability to use tools is obviously inherent in all sea otters.

This applies not only to this particular case, but to the tool behavior of animals in general; animals sometimes use tools not because they are particularly smart, they are simply forced to do so a vital necessity. If possible, they willingly and perfectly manage without tools, and in this they are fundamentally different from humans. In contrast to the creative labor activity of humans, the instrumental activity of animals has a purely biological adaptive significance and is entirely determined only by environmental factors.

Of course high level mental development(in particular, this cannot be denied to sea otters) increases the potential for using objects as tools, provides greater opportunities for carrying out instrumental actions and allows such actions to be transferred to new situations and used even in very unusual conditions. For example, according to Kenyon, a sea otter placed in an enclosure banged a stone on the wall of the pool with such force that it knocked off pieces of cement. Apparently, the aforementioned ability to use stones to knock mollusks off underwater rocks was manifested here. But, in addition, the sea otter also hit the door latch with a stone, so much so that these actions could be mistaken for attempts to move the latch.

Thus, sea otters apparently have a predisposition to use stones as tools. Perhaps the situation is the same as with chicks of woodpecker finches, i.e., baby sea otters are selective about stones, highlight them among other objects and play with them (such cases have actually been observed). But in the future, everything depends on the specific conditions in which the finch or sea otter finds itself, because the possibility and necessity of carrying out instrumental actions are entirely determined by the ecological situation that the animal will encounter. If it is possible to live without weapon actions, the potential ability to perform them remains with the sea otter “in reserve.” It seems that this is the case in other mammals (including monkeys); Perhaps this is one of the reasons that they very rarely use tools.

It is worth talking about one more form of use of tools by sea otters, and in the sphere of comfortable behavior. They observed how the animal cleaned its fur with a bunch of seaweed, which, generally speaking, should not be particularly surprising, since sea otters not only often rest, lying on their backs, on the surface of the water among thickets of seaweed, but in the summer they prefer to sleep in this position in these thickets. According to Soviet sea otter researchers I.I. Barabash-Nikiforov and S.V. Marakov, they wrap themselves in long thalli of these algae, which protects them from being carried away by the current during sleep. California sea otters also “anchor” at night, clinging to seaweed.

Before parting with the animals of the water element, let us mention another incident that occurred in the pool of a dolphinarium. The bottlenose dolphin, who had repeatedly observed how a diver cleaned the underwater viewing window of algae with a scraper, also began to “clean” this window, first with a seagull feather, then with fish, stone, paper and other objects available to her. Here, of course, there is no need to talk about the use of tools, because the actions of a dolphin do not increase the efficiency of any of the spheres of its life activity, but are only forms of imitative manipulation of objects that arose as a result of imitating the instrumental actions of a person in conditions of constant close communication with him.

Another bottlenose dolphin observed a diver scraping algal fouling from the bottom of the pool with a bucket scraper connected to a hose through which the resulting turbidity was sucked out. After finishing the work, the device was left in the pool. The dolphin examined and manipulated it for a long time, as a result of which the remains of algae leaked out of the hose and formed a small cloud in the water. The bottlenose dolphin immediately ate them, and a few hours after the apparatus was removed she was seen with a piece tiles in her mouth, which she used to cut pieces of algae from the bottom of the pool. Having prepared a certain amount of algae in this way, the bottlenose dolphin threw the tile, ate the algae, then picked it up again to “shave off” another portion of algae, etc. In the case we are considering, imitation of human instrumental actions led to a direct biological effect, and turned out to be a beneficial addition to the animal’s usual food-procuring actions and, in this sense, increased the efficiency of its behavior. As a result, the initial imitative movements were consolidated and developed into genuine tool behavior. This is also observed in other mammals that constantly communicate with humans. It is possible that this was exactly the case in the case below, which occurred at the Basel Zoo.

In this zoo, a young 3-year-old female spectacled bear named Tena began using a pole to knock down the leaves and fruits of a maple tree, the branches of which hung into the enclosure where she was kept with her mother and an adult 5-year-old male. The male could easily reach these branches if he stood up to his full height on his hind legs. Tena also rose to her full height, but only to swing the branches with a pole, which she pressed with her front paws across her body to her chest. In this case, the pole was located between the forearm and shoulder of one paw, while the bear pressed the end of the pole downwards with the other paw. As a result, the opposite end of the pole rose upward. On the first day, these actions continued without interruption for half an hour, then they were repeated several times, and later they were carried out systematically. Unfortunately, the zoo employee who described this episode was not present at Tena’s initial actions, and therefore it is not known what manipulations of the pole brought the bear to use this object as a tool. But it is reliably known that no one taught her such actions, since she was born in the same zoo.

The following observation is of great interest: when Tena had two poles at her disposal, one 2-meter, the other 4-meter, while sitting, she first tried on the shorter pole, that is, she placed it vertically in front of her and looked up along it. However, seeing that the pole did not reach the foliage, she put it aside and took a long pole, with which she again began to successfully knock down leaves and fruits. It is also interesting that Tena subsequently tried to pull out a piece of bread floating in a pond with a stick, and also to reach a bird floating there.

Two months after Tena’s first weapon actions, the male also began to try to use sticks to knock down leaves, but at first his movements were very clumsy, and the stick kept falling from his paws. This circumstance is consistent with observations made, in particular, of monkeys: young animals more easily and quickly learn new forms of manipulation that are unusual for their species, while older individuals learn more difficultly and slowly, most often by imitating young ones.

In the formation of Tena's instrumental actions, the artificial conditions of her life in captivity undoubtedly played a decisive role - limited freedom of movement (impossibility of reaching branches with fruits), monotony of the food ration, probably ordinary boredom and, of course, constant communication with humans, which provides rich material to “broaden one’s horizons,” and imitate his actions. In mentally more developed individuals, which Tena undoubtedly was, this leads to the invention of new ways to solve problems that arise in the life of the animal (in this case, the use of tools). In this example, the presence of potential abilities for instrumental actions, realized, however, only in case of need, clearly emerges. After all, free-living bears do not use tools - they solve their “life problems” perfectly without them, just as the larger male in the enclosure did not need them (it was enough for him to rise to his full height). And the fact that he subsequently tried to use Tena’s invention by way of imitation only shows that potentially from the very beginning he was capable of knocking down the branches and fruits of a maple tree with a stick, although he turned out to be not as dexterous and probably quick-witted as Tena.

Speaking about the fact that bears in the wild do not use tools, it is necessary to make a small clarification; one case was reported when polar bear brought a block of ice down on the sleeping sailor's head. Such reports should, however, be treated with great caution. Targeted throwing of stones, branches and other objects at people was observed in chimpanzees (which will be discussed later), and also once in a raven: a male and a female defended their nest, located on a 20-meter cliff, from people climbing to it, throwing stones at them . They did this in the manner already described: taking a stone in its beak, the bird, with a jerk of its head, threw it in the desired direction. The largest of these stones was 8 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thick.

The predatory mammals civets throw bird eggs at their feet and break them, but J. van Lawick-Goodall in one of her books mentions in passing that she saw young civets (mungos) throwing stones at the eggs.

It may seem unexpected, but sometimes ungulates (more precisely, even-toed animals), that is, animals whose limbs lack grasping function, also use tools. These animals secure objects used as tools with their horns. An employee of the Prioksko-Terrasny Nature Reserve once told me that he saw how an angry male bison, who was unsuccessfully trying to break through the fence to a female who was in the enclosure opposite, hooked his head on a log, lifted him on his horns and dragged him to the fence, then pushed him under took one end of the log and began to use it as a lever. As a result, the bison managed to partially break the fence using this weapon. An employee of the reserve managed to film this scene, and he showed me the photographs, as well as a concrete fence post mangled by a bison.

There are known cases of elephants using tools in captivity. Thus, zoo visitors can sometimes see elephants scratching their heads and backs with a stick held with their trunk. In addition, and I had to experience this myself, an elephant, when it is “out of sorts,” can throw at a person what it gets under its trunk. In my case it was the brush with which the attendant usually cleaned it.

According to the testimony of the former head of the young animals department of the Moscow Zoo, V.V. Chaplina, the elephant Shango, who was kept in this zoo, “strongly hated” his servant and, at every opportunity, threw stones at him, and chose the largest of all that he found in the enclosure. Things got to the point that one day an elephant, seeing a minister in a room whose windows overlooked an elephant hill, threw a huge stone at him through the window and almost hit him in the head. Other stones followed, forcing all employees to leave the premises in panic. After this incident, all the stones were removed from the enclosure and the earth was even sifted, but this did not help either - the elephant began throwing loaves of bread, beets, potatoes and other food at the servant. The minister had to be transferred to another job.

Elephants also throw loose material - earth, sand. When an incendiary bomb fell into the enclosure during the war, Shango threw sand at the fire until the bomb went out and a mound grew in its place, which the elephant then furiously trampled until it was leveled. Another weapon action of elephants is well known - targeted watering. Shango also loved to do this, throwing powerful jets of water from his trunk onto careless visitors, which he had taken from the pond of the elephant colony.

Finally, it is possible that elephants also give “wedding gifts.” In any case, this is how one can interpret the episode of Shango’s “courtship” of the elephant Molly, when he threw a loaf of bread to her through the partition. Before this, the elephant reacted negatively to all his “signs of attention” (movements, sounds) and avoided him, but, having accepted bread from her, Molly immediately moved closer to Shango and allowed herself to be stroked with her trunk. The couple subsequently gave birth to a baby elephant, Moskvich, the world's first baby elephant born in captivity.

All of these examples relate to the behavior of elephants in zoo environments. In the work to which they are involved in India, elephants do not use tools, just as there is no information about any tool actions among wild elephants (except for the use of sticks for scratching).

In general, as we see, mammals use tools very limitedly and are inferior to birds in this regard. This is explained by the fact that tools play only an auxiliary role in the life of animals and are by no means decisive factors in their evolution. The high level of adaptability of the structure and behavior of mammals to the conditions of existence, the high efficiency of their very advanced “working” organs - the oral apparatus and limbs, exceptional flexibility of behavior fully ensure the successful performance of all vital functions without the use of auxiliary means (tools). And only in exceptional or even extreme cases do they additionally resort to instrumental actions, and then, as we could see, mammals quite skillfully and, most importantly, inventively operate with a variety of objects.

The same, of course, applies to birds. However, the transformation of the forelimbs into wings deprived them of the ability to use these limbs to operate objects, or in any case extremely limited these possibilities. True, the grasping function of the hind limbs has been preserved, and in most birds, grasping objects with their toes plays a large role in their lives. But still, in this state of affairs, obviously, more often there is a need to resort to the use of auxiliary means, tools, if only because the legs of a flightless bird must constantly perform their supporting function. This is probably one of the reasons for the more frequent use of tools by birds than among mammals.

This begs the question: is it possible to talk about the evolution of tool behavior? We have seen that instrumental actions are observed in animals extremely rarely and in all respects are determined only by the ecological features of life activity. The similarity of some forms of tool use between invertebrates and higher vertebrates is due precisely to the similarity of biological problems that arise in the lives of these animals. There is no genetic connection, no relationship between these forms of tool behavior. Scientists speak in such cases about analogies due to the similarity in the lifestyle of representatives of the corresponding species.

Therefore, there is clearly no need to talk about any special evolution of tool behavior in the animal world. Talking about such “evolution” is the same as talking about evolution from an octopus to an elephant, which is what we hinted at in the title to this chapter. For this reason, I now remember how the outstanding Soviet zoologist B. S. Matveev ridiculed some physiologists who built diagrams of the evolution of animal behavior, as he said, “from monitor lizard to ram.”

If we take into account the true paths of evolution of the animal world and the diversity of ecological factors in the behavior of animals and do not try at all costs to find any phylogenetic connections between the “higher” and “lower” forms of tool actions, then the study of the tool behavior of different animals is, of course, provides valuable material for understanding their mental activity, in particular its potential. A. N. Severtsov clearly pointed out the enormous adaptive significance of the latter, ranking them among the leading factors in the evolution of animals.

We should obviously speak not about the evolution of the instrumental actions themselves, but about the progressive development of the potential capabilities for their implementation in the process of the evolution of the psyche, which, in turn, is an integral part of the general process of evolution of the animal world.



Insects already have instrumental actions. Wasps compact the entrance to the burrow with a stone. In the tropics, ants live on shrubs in leaves glued together with the juice of the larva (adults move the larva along the leaf, like a tube of glue). If it is necessary to transfer liquid, the ants drag it on leaves, having first checked them for suitability. Darwin's Galapagos finches poke the rotten bark with their spines so that the beetles crawl out. Sea otters use stones to remove shells from rocks and use stones to break them for food. The tool activity of great apes is fundamentally different: others have innate tool programs or it is an obligate learning. no matter what two-phase problem involves instrumental activity. Ladygina-Cats experiment: bait in a transparent tube, next to branches, wire, board. Twigs are chewed off, slivers are broken off. Ladygina-Kots: a monkey can make a tool only with the help of tentative actions, there is no type of tool. Firsov: experiments with a group of monkeys on the peninsula of Lake Ladoga. The monkeys were locked in a cage for the night, and they broke off a table leg, took it out and opened the curtain, behind which there were keys, and pulled up the keys. When the need for a stick arose, they ran into the forest to get a stick, holding with their hand the place to which the length of the stick had to be. Goodall showed that Everyday life Monkeys make extensive use of tools. Picking out termites from a termite mound: different lengths of sticks depending on the weather. Monkey weapon activities vary depending on the area and population. Chewed leaves can be used as toilet paper, as sponges for collecting water, and as washcloths. These activities are not species-specific programs. This is an elective course. Skills are transferred when playing with tools, imitating adults. Longitudinal studies in non-interfering populations of Japanese macaques: Observation of learning to wash sweet potatoes. Female children were the first to master it. It took the entire flock 3-4 years to master the procedure. The old ones never learned. “Social skills” - experience is passed on from elders to young animals. A fundamental point: monkeys do not store tools. They can pick up those previously used by other individuals or prepare them in advance, they can force the lowest in the hierarchy to make a weapon, but they will not store them. The higher the monkeys are in development, the blurrier the hierarchy, and this allows them to gain more life experience.

Recent data on the tool behavior of great apes in the natural environment forced researchers to take a fresh look at the paths and origins of the formation weapon activity in early hominids. L.A. Firsov considers this behavior in anthropoids to be an aromorphosis compared to other animals and speaks of the need to revise many canons that hinder the study of anthropogenesis. Chimpanzees are known to use tools to catch ants and termites. The first observations of termite "biting" were made by Jane Goodall in 1963 in Gombe (Tanzania), and then in eight places in Africa. A case of gun activity was reported in Belinga in northeastern Gabon. 30 guns were found, 28 guns were used. All the tools were made from branches, cleared of leaves, small twigs, one tool was made from a vine. Their length is 68-76 cm. All of them were found near termite houses, and only during the season when termites were on the surface; objects were modified and prepared for a specific purpose, “standardized.” To make tools, developed motor skills and experience are required - knowledge of the properties of the object used as a tool (length, thickness, pointedness, etc.), therefore, catching termites and ants begins at a certain stage of postnatal ontogenesis at the age of approximately three years and older. Preparation for this activity goes through three stages:

Manipulative games;

Making tools;

Development of motor skills.

L.A. Firsov obtained similar results in experiments and in natural conditions. Baby chimpanzens began to use objects as tools in different situations at the age of 2-2.5 years. Apparently, it is during this period of ontogenesis that the maturation of the nervous mechanisms that ensure this activity occurs. Ants, unlike termites, do not hunt seasonally, but throughout the year. Tools for fishing ants are similar to those for fishing termites. For example, the technique for making tools for catching ants is as follows:

Breaking off the proximal ends of the branches;

Clearing leaves from the end of a branch or the entire branch;

Straightening the branch;

Breaking off the end of a branch;

Freeing the central vein of the leaf.

The main similarity in the manufacture of tools for catching ants and termites is their “standardization”. Thus, 174 tools were discovered in the form of branches up to 1.5 m long and 1-4 cm thick, cleared of branches and with traces of use on one side; 323 tools were also discovered located near termite mounds. It is possible that the standardization or stereotyping of tools in early hominids could reflect the strength of social inheritance, but it is also possible that the standardization of tools indicates sufficient high level intelligence. The works of K. and M. Bush describe in detail the technique of cracking the nuts of several types of oil palm with stone “hammers” on a hardwood anvil. Branches or trunks lying on the ground were chosen as an anvil; less often, nuts were cracked directly on the tree. 210 samples of hammers made of granite, laterite and quartz were found. Typically, chimpanzees chose the material for their hammers based on the hardness of the nuts. Since tree trunks are heavy and untransportable, chimpanzees carried nuts and stone hammers. Nuts were carried at a distance of 0.5 to 30 m, hammers, depending on the weight, were transferred: from granite - up to 50 m, from laterite - up to 500 m. The weight of the hammers reached 9 kg. Cracking nuts required more effort than catching termites and ants. The greatest difficulties were noted when using tools directly on a tree. Hammers were carried to wood in the mouth, hands and feet. Nuts different types oil palm trees required a differentiated approach in the selection of tools and certain efforts to break them. For example, Panda nuts require more precise blows of a certain force than Caola nuts. To break them, hammers made of granite were more often used than hammers made of quartz and laterite. The cracking of nuts with stone hammers on stone platforms is also described. Typically, the weight of the hammer stone was 500-850 g, and the size of the platform for breaking nuts was 7.5x12.5 cm. In some populations, cracking of nuts was noted not only with stones, but also with sticks. Thus, when cracking nuts, population variations in tool technique were noted, as in termite fishing. There is a relationship between the diet of the species and the use of tools. The more varied the animal food, the more often the use of tools. A comparative description of tool activity in chimpanzees and early hominids was carried out (Butovskaya and Fainberg, 1993). Tools for obtaining food in chimpanzees are probes for fishing ants and termites, sponges made from leaves, branches, blades of grass, stone hammers, stone anvils. In Australopithecines, perhaps - branches, sticks, bones, animal horns, in Homo habilis - beaten pebbles, unprocessed and processed flakes.

Tool actions of animals and the problem of the origin of labor activity

When comparing the data presented for different groups of animals, the conclusion arises that in monkeys, especially apes, tool actions are more flexible, that they are more inventive in the use and especially in the preparation of tools, their adaptation to the upcoming operation. But just like in other animals, the instrumental actions of monkeys remain entirely within the framework of general biological laws and are one of the forms, and not very significant ones, of biological adaptation to the conditions of the environment in which their life activities take place. Even the most outstanding chimpanzee is not capable of creating something fundamentally new, is not capable of creative work, and, as we have seen, he has nothing to do with it. To maintain its existence even in the most difficult situations, it is enough for it to adaptively modify the existing components of nature, as do all other animals. Man cannot exist without creative work - even in the most primitive forms.

The above applies entirely even to monkeys living with humans in the conditions of civilization, say, to chimpanzees like Toto, who have adopted a lot from humans and learned a lot from him. Even when Toto helped the children “create” a dam in a pond, it was nothing more than imitation of the actions of his young playmates: he does not need a dam, but for children it is a useful exercise for developing their work skills. The same is the case with washing handkerchiefs and with other “humanoid” actions of Toto - all of them, in their content, are not necessary to ensure his existence. At best, these are adaptations to living together with a person (like a dog or a cat), but without understanding the true meaning of these actions, much less the origin and social conditionality of human household items, his tools, not to mention understanding the laws of human life and human society.

But does all this mean that monkeys are essentially no different from other animals, from other higher mammals? Of course not. Moreover, only monkeys, and no other animals, could in the distant past become our ancestors, give rise to intelligent beings capable of creatively, consciously building their relationships with nature and systematically creating with their labor something that never existed in it and could not appear as a result process of biological evolution. The primary reason for this is that among all animals, only monkeys have such a perfect grasping organ as the hand.

As we can see, other animals sometimes display remarkable abilities for using tools, and sometimes for making tools and adjusting them, as well as amazing ingenuity - remember the ability of corvids and parrots, the bear Tenu, the elephant Shango... But, with the exception of monkeys, higher vertebrates could not develop towards humans in the process of evolution, because such development was hampered by the limited motor capabilities of their effector organs, especially the limbs.

Many years of studying the motor abilities and behavior of mammals led me to the conclusion that only the thoracic limb of a monkey is capable of simultaneously firmly grasping objects and performing many varied and flexible movements (especially with the fingers), which was necessary for performing the first labor actions. Only such a maximally multifunctional limb could become an organ of full-fledged and varied instrumental actions, and then turn into an organ for using tools. After all, in order to use even the most primitive tool, it is not enough to firmly hold an object in weight and move it in space. To manufacture such a weapon, dozens of different motor operations were required.

As already indicated, among different forms Of the greatest interest in the instrumental activity of monkeys is their use of sticks. V.I. Lenin characterized the pre-human stage of anthropogenesis with precisely this feature when he wrote about “the primitive organization of a herd of monkeys taking sticks” 6 . How can one imagine the transformation of a stick held in a monkey’s hand into a tool?

Without a doubt, this was not a simple process of “growing” from ape tools into human tools. Some light is shed on this the most difficult problem, perhaps the results of our comparative analysis behavior of monkeys (mainly baboons) in cage and enclosure conditions. The main attention was paid to the “disinterested” treatment of monkeys with sticks, rods, straight pieces of solid wire, iron rods and other oblong objects of the “stick” type. When kept in cages, monkeys, especially young ones, often and diligently, but without any reward or direct benefit for themselves, performed specific manipulations with such objects, in which elements of synthesis are also found: one end of the object is inserted into a hole or crack in the substrate, after which the free end is intensively swings, bends, turns, bends, etc. Since the monkey handles the object as a lever, we designated such actions as “lever manipulations.” Outwardly, these “lever manipulations” resemble the use of a crowbar, drill, awl or hook. All these actions are performed by monkeys with perseverance and perseverance, which is amazing for monkeys, and last for a very long time.

When kept in an enclosure, lower monkeys perform simple manipulations basically in the same way as monkeys living in cages. At the same time, monkeys in the enclosure react to some inedible objects much weaker than in a cage, or even ignore them completely (in particular, the same wires and iron rods). But what is most striking is that captive monkeys completely lack complex forms of “lever” type manipulation. Despite the presence of all the necessary conditions, not one of the monkeys ever even inserted an object into any hole. Meanwhile, observations of the monkeys were carried out for hours every day for a number of months. The conclusion suggests itself that “leverage manipulations” are observed only when monkeys are kept in cages, which is confirmed by direct observations of animals that were first kept in cages and then transferred to an enclosure.

The absence of “leverage manipulations” in monkeys living in close-to-natural enclosure conditions is obviously explained by the abundance of natural objects suitable for manipulation, which disperse the animals’ attention and stimulate them to quickly change activities. These varied manipulations with objects contain basic motor components and “lever manipulations.”

Under cage conditions, there are almost completely no objects for manipulation, and therefore the normal varied motor activity of monkeys is concentrated on those very few objects that they can have: instead of various scattered manipulations with many objects in nature, animals produce no less diverse, but intense, concentrated , prolonged manipulations with one or a few objects. As a result, the natural need of monkeys to manipulate numerous different objects is compensated in cage conditions by new ones, including “lever manipulations.”

In other words, manifesting only in special, artificial conditions, “lever manipulations” are adaptive motor combinations that ensure the development of new, subtle motor abilities and receptor functions of the monkey’s hand in sharply changed conditions compared to natural ones. extreme conditions. We have designated these kinds of replacing forms of objective activity with the term “compensatory manipulation.”

It seems to us that the highly developed ability for “compensatory manipulation” played an important role in the evolution of primates and especially in the emergence of human labor activity, in the process of transforming the tool activity of monkeys into labor activity person. One must think that when, at the end of the Miocene, as a result of the rapid reduction of massifs tropical forests fossil monkeys - the ancestors of man - found themselves in open spaces, in an environment incomparably more monotonous and poorer in objects for manipulation than in the tropical forest; something similar happened to them as with our monkeys, who found themselves in the sharply impoverished environment of an empty cage.

The need for constant handling of various objects that developed in the conditions of the tropical forest during life in the trees had to be compensated for in new, extreme conditions. And just as in extreme conditions of cage keeping, an animal switches its motor activity from more superficial handling of many objects to more in-depth manipulation of a few single objects, and at the same time, scattered motor elements are concentrated and more complex manipulation movements are formed, so in survivors In the open spaces of monkeys, compensatory forms of motor activity arose, leading to an exceptionally strong concentration of elements of the psychomotor sphere. Moreover, with the transition to bipedal walking, the forelimbs turned into organs for manipulating objects. Compensatory movements were consolidated and filled with new biological content - obtaining food and protecting from enemies with the help of foreign objects, i.e., they acquired a tool function. At the same time, they had to merge with the already existing tool activity, which was probably fundamentally the same kind as that of modern wild anthropoids, but perhaps even more developed. All this created the possibility of the emergence of a qualitatively new, hitherto unprecedented form of activity - labor activity.

Compensatory manipulation and its transformation into instrumental activity of a higher order constituted, presumably, the main content of the prehistory of anthropogenesis, and this applies, of course, not only to the handling of sticks by our animal ancestors, but also with stones and other objects. It is also necessary to emphasize that this is not the only biological factor in the extremely complex process of the emergence and development of man. However, with all the diversity of factors, the root cause of all the distinctive mental abilities of monkeys, the progressive development of their brain, and at the same time the direction of evolution towards humans was ultimately the noted specific morphofunctional features of their thoracic limbs and the ability to develop complex forms of compensatory manipulation. It can be assumed that if fossil apes had not had this ability and if it had not been for those great changes in nature that led them to the impoverished environment of open spaces, then, despite all other prerequisites, the ape would never have turned into a person.

• Go to the section table of contents: Instinct and Instinctive Behavior
• - use of tools by animals; ; ; ;

STUDY OF TOOL ACTIVITY OF ANIMALS

Zh.I. Reznikova, Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals SB RAS; Novosibirsk State University. Published: Journal of General Biology, 2006, N1

In the last three decades, cognitive ethology has emerged as a separate field in ethology, studying cognitive processes in animals and relying largely on methods and approaches of psychology (Griffin, 1976, 1992; Allen, Bekoff, 1997; Shettleworth, 1998; Reznikova, 2000, 2005 [see Introduction and Chapter 8]; Bekoff, 2002). Problems of cognitive ethology are associated with the most complex mental processes in animals and are directly related to the search for the evolutionary roots of human intellectual activity. For centuries, tool use has been considered one of the most reliable behavioral traits that distinguishes humans from other species. True, attentive observers have long paid attention to the fact that animals can use different objects in their activities.

Observations of monkeys cracking nuts with stones and elephants driving away flies with branches are found in medieval books. Darwin (1871) brought scientific attention to the use of tools by animals and showed that humans are not the only species that manipulates objects to achieve goals.

With the development of ethology, in the second half of the 20th century, the list of species to which the concept of tool activity is applicable was significantly expanded. Many questions arose: why do representatives of some species use tools and other species not; to what extent animals are competent in the properties and connections of the objective world, to what extent individual and social experience affects the manifestation of the instrumental activity of animals, and to what extent it is determined by the genetic program. The author had to face these problems when discussing the connection between the communicative and tool behavior of ants, in discussions that repeatedly arose at ethological conferences (Reznikova, 1995, 2001; Reznikova, Ryabko, 1997).

Despite the fact that the tool behavior of animals has been repeatedly discussed in monographic summaries and textbooks (Goodall, 1992; Beck, 1980; McGrew, 1992, 2004; Reznikova, 2000, 2005 [see Introduction and Chapter 8]; Zorina, Poletaeva, 2001) , the task of analyzing accumulated results within the paradigm of cognitive ethology remains relevant. The study of tool activity is a wonderful tool for experimenters studying the limits of the intellectual capabilities of animals. The use of this approach gives rise to ever new productive hypotheses in the field of cognitive ethology and comparative psychology. An explanation can be the use of intermediary languages ​​to study the intelligence of animals, primarily apes (Gardner B., Gardner R., 1969; Savage-Rumbaugh, 1986), as well as parrots (Pepperberg, 1987) and dolphins (Herman, 1986) .

By entering into a “dialogue” with animals, the researchers were able not only to assess the potential of their communication capabilities, but also to obtain direct “answers” ​​from monkeys and parrots to questions regarding the properties, shape, and quantity of objects. However, dialogue can only be entered into with potentially “speaking” species, that is, with those to which an adequate intermediary language can be offered. Representatives of “skilled” species provide researchers with additional opportunities to understand the limits of cognitive abilities. By solving problems set by experimenters with the help of tools, animals enable the observer to judge how they select objects for making tools, how they evaluate their properties, whether they foresee the results of their actions, and whether they perceive patterns in the movement of objects in space and time.

In review, based brief description phenomenology of tool activity, experimental studies of the cognitive aspects of tool behavior of animals are analyzed. Systematization of the latest achievements in this field of knowledge gives grounds to consider the tool behavior of animals as an effective methodological tool for the integral assessment of the cognitive capabilities of a number of biological species.

It was the study of the tool activity of apes that laid the foundation for the problem of thinking in animals. With the development of ethology, the list of species to which the concept of tool activity is applicable has constantly expanded. Among mammals, the main observations concerned Indian(Elephas maximus) And African(Loxidonta africana) elephants, sea otters(Enhydra lutris), various bears. The greatest successes in weapon activity have undoubtedly been achieved by primates, and not only anthropoids. But even fish and insects became the object of study by ethologists in order to understand the origins of tool activity.

In many animals, tool activity is instinctive in nature. Sea otters They are able to use stones to break shells; some birds use twigs or thorns to fish out insects. Let us recall the finches, which, in conditions of abundant food, were deprived of the opportunity to implement foraging behavior with the help of a stick. The use of stones is mainly based on instinctive behavior fingerboard(Neophron pernopterus) for breaking ostrich eggs (Alcock J., 1984).

Birds provide even more numerous examples of tool activity than mammals. Vivid examples are the construction of “gazebos” to attract females bowerbirds, the use of stones, sticks, thorns and other objects by corvids. The construction of complex structures is sometimes considered by evolutionists as compensation for morphological changes due to sexual selection. The “energy” cost of such changes does not seem lower, given the burden of behavioral stereotypes (Reznikova Zh. I., 2005).

Recently, the completely instinctive nature of bird weapon activity has been increasingly called into question. Observations have been recorded that cannot be attributed solely to the manifestation of instinct. The complex relationship between heredity and learning determines the tool activity of woodpecker finches, such a favorite object of ethologists. Learning by imitation plays an important role in this activity, although it is also genetically determined - some species of finches do not have this ability.

It is very difficult to unambiguously imagine the degree of genetic determination of tool activity in one species or another. One can rather talk about a predisposition to the possibility of using tools. This possibility increases with the natural tendency to manipulate objects, which some birds and mammals have. In the implementation of instrumental activity, instinctive, associative and cognitive processes are closely intertwined, and it can be difficult to draw a line between them.

Important factors influencing the results arise from the characteristics of monkey ontogeny, where early experience plays a primary role. Once again we should point out the importance of the critical period in the formation of behavior. This applies both to the range of instinctively determined instrumental activity and to new forms of learning. Even species that do not use tools at all in nature are capable of learning at an early age. Such studies were carried out on marmoset monkeys (family. Callithricidae ) tamarins(Saguinus tamarin). Perhaps the common ancestor of all primates already had a genetic predisposition to tool activity (Reznikova Zh. I., 2005). But after reaching a certain age, monkeys of almost all species lose the ability to learn many skills.

A favorable factor of ontogenesis is the absence of stereotypes “interfering” with cognitive processes. Monkeys form strong stereotypes very easily if any action has been successful. These stereotypes severely block the natural intelligence and tool ingenuity of monkeys. It would not be superfluous to repeat that man is no exception in this regard.

The ability of anthropoids to use tools, as well as to speak language, is not realized in nature. Their “spare mind,” in the figurative expression of A. N. Severtsev, is not used as unnecessary. Only at chimpanzee In natural conditions, tool activity is observed. They often use tools, breaking nuts with stones or fishing for ants with blades of grass. Monkeys acquire these skills at a young age, learning from their elders. Gorillas, orangutans And bonobos In nature, tools are practically not used.

Behavior: evolutionary approach Nikolay Anatolievich Kurchanov

10.5. Tool activity of animals

It was the study of the tool activity of apes that laid the foundation for the problem of thinking in animals. With the development of ethology, the list of species to which the concept of tool activity is applicable has constantly expanded. Among mammals, the main observations concerned Indian(Elephas maximus) And African(Loxidonta africana) elephants, sea otters(Enhydra lutris), various bears. The greatest successes in weapon activity have undoubtedly been achieved by primates, and not only anthropoids. But even fish and insects became the object of study by ethologists in order to understand the origins of tool activity.

In many animals, tool activity is instinctive in nature. Sea otters They are able to use stones to break shells; some birds use twigs or thorns to fish out insects. Let us recall the finches, which, in conditions of abundant food, were deprived of the opportunity to implement foraging behavior with the help of a stick. The use of stones is mainly based on instinctive behavior fingerboard(Neophron pernopterus) for breaking ostrich eggs (Alcock J., 1984).

Birds provide even more numerous examples of tool activity than mammals. Vivid examples are the construction of “gazebos” to attract females bowerbirds, the use of stones, sticks, thorns and other objects by corvids. The construction of complex structures is sometimes considered by evolutionists as compensation for morphological changes due to sexual selection. The “energy” cost of such changes does not seem lower, given the burden of behavioral stereotypes (Reznikova Zh. I., 2005).

Recently, the completely instinctive nature of bird weapon activity has been increasingly called into question. Observations have been recorded that cannot be attributed solely to the manifestation of instinct. The complex relationship between heredity and learning determines the tool activity of woodpecker finches, such a favorite object of ethologists. Learning by imitation plays an important role in this activity, although it is also genetically determined - some species of finches do not have this ability.

It is very difficult to unambiguously imagine the degree of genetic determination of tool activity in one species or another. One can rather talk about a predisposition to the possibility of using tools. This possibility increases with the natural tendency to manipulate objects, which some birds and mammals have. In the implementation of instrumental activity, instinctive, associative and cognitive processes are closely intertwined, and it can be difficult to draw a line between them.

Important factors influencing the results arise from the characteristics of monkey ontogeny, where early experience plays a primary role. Once again we should point out the importance of the critical period in the formation of behavior. This applies both to the range of instinctively determined instrumental activity and to new forms of learning. Even species that do not use tools at all in nature are capable of learning at an early age. Such studies were carried out on marmoset monkeys (family. Callithricidae ) tamarins(Saguinus tamarin). Perhaps the common ancestor of all primates already had a genetic predisposition to tool activity (Reznikova Zh. I., 2005). But after reaching a certain age, monkeys of almost all species lose the ability to learn many skills.

A favorable factor of ontogenesis is the absence of stereotypes “interfering” with cognitive processes. Monkeys form strong stereotypes very easily if any action has been successful. These stereotypes severely block the natural intelligence and tool ingenuity of monkeys. It would not be superfluous to repeat that man is no exception in this regard.

The ability of anthropoids to use tools, as well as to speak language, is not realized in nature. Their “spare mind,” in the figurative expression of A. N. Severtsev, is not used as unnecessary. Only at chimpanzee In natural conditions, tool activity is observed. They often use tools, breaking nuts with stones or fishing for ants with blades of grass. Monkeys acquire these skills at a young age, learning from their elders. Gorillas, orangutans And bonobos In nature, tools are practically not used.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Dopings in Dog Breeding by Gourmand E G

3.6. SYSTEM ACTIVITY OF THE BRAIN Functional state of the central nervous system continuously changes in accordance with changing types of life activities. It is determined by posture, position of the limbs, and many signals from the external and internal environments. In every

From the book Physiology of Reproduction and Reproductive Pathology of Dogs author Dulger Georgy Petrovich

6.2. EXCESSIVELY STRONG LABOR ACTIVITY Violent labor activity is usually observed in easily excitable, nervous females. The etiology and pathogenesis have not been sufficiently studied. Probable Causes: excessive sensitivity of the uterus to endogenous oxytocin and (or) estrogens, and

From the book Fundamentals of Animal Psychology author Fabri Kurt Ernestovich

Objective activity of monkeys The interaction of vision and tactile-kinesthetic sensitivity of the hands finds its concrete embodiment in the extremely intense and diverse manipulative activity of monkeys. Research conducted by a number of Soviet

From the book General Ecology author Chernova Nina Mikhailovna

Ecology and practical human activity Man is closely connected with living nature by origin, material and spiritual needs. The scale and form of these connections grew steadily from the local use of individual species of plants and animals to practically

From the book Reactions and behavior of dogs in extreme conditions author Gerd Maria Alexandrovna

Higher nervous activity 20–25 days before the start of the experiments, an attempt was made to characterize the main features of the nervous processes of each experimental dog, for which examinations were carried out using tests described in detail on p. 90 of this book. By virtue of

From the book Evolutionary genetic aspects of behavior: selected works author Krushinsky Leonid Viktorovich

Rational activity Experimental study of rational activity in animals is almost just beginning. Despite the fact that Charles Darwin, back in 1871, clearly expressed his opinion that animals have a “reasoning

From the book Freaks of Nature author Akimushkin Igor Ivanovich

Activity bordering on reasonable! South American leaf-cutter ants also feed unusually.... Along the inconspicuous forest paths of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay... leaf stubs crawl! Green streams flow straight to a large embankment. These are leaf cutters, having gnawed another tree,

From the book Fundamentals of Higher Physiology nervous activity author Kogan Alexander Borisovich

Chapter 15 HIGHER NERVOUS ACTIVITY OF PREDATORS In the life of predators, the adaptive significance of higher nervous activity is manifested especially clearly in the fierce struggle for existence. In addition to the continuous development of new conditioned reflexes of protection from stronger enemies,

From the book Ant, Family, Colony author Zakharov Anatoly Alexandrovich

Chapter 16 HIGHER NERVOUS ACTIVITY OF MONKIES The study of the higher nervous activity of monkeys is of particular interest for two reasons. Firstly, monkeys are the most highly developed animals mentally, and secondly, they are the closest representatives to humans

From the book Ecology by Mitchell Paul

Chapter 17 THE HIGHEST NERVOUS ACTIVITY OF HUMAN Life at every step shows the immeasurable superiority of the human mind over the primitive thinking abilities of animals. The enormous gap between the mental life of man and animals has long served as a reason for

From the book Journey to the Land of Microbes author Betina Vladimir

Soil-forming activity of ants. By building a nest, ants have a serious impact on the soil where most species of these insects build their nests. The number of nests, as a rule, is very high: one hectare can contain up to 7-8 thousand anthills,

From the book Fundamentals of Psychophysiology author Alexandrov Yuri

CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES In 1979, the Large Blue butterfly finally disappeared from England, the number of individuals of which had been steadily declining over the previous decades. Detailed studies have revealed the reason for the decline in the number of this species,

From the book Natural Technologies of Biological Systems author Ugolev Alexander Mikhailovich

From the book Human Evolution. Book 2. Monkeys, neurons and the soul author Markov Alexander Vladimirovich

2. ORIENTATIVE-RESEARCH ACTIVITY An orienting reaction (as the adjustment of analyzers to better perceive a new stimulus) should be distinguished from exploratory reactions and orienting-exploratory behavior. The latter can follow the OR -

From the author's book

2.1. Activity of the digestive apparatus The processes of exotrophy in most animals and humans are realized digestive system. Throughout the 19th century. Many technological descriptions of this system have been given. One of the most striking in 1897 was made by I.P. Pavlov, who

From the author's book

Tool activity Long gone are the days when the manufacture and use of tools was considered unique properties person. Today, many species of animals are known that use tools in everyday life, and they use both unmodified natural