Tag Archives: raven intelligence

Why the crow smiles

There’s hardly a corvid species that doesn’t strike me as beautiful but there’s only one that’s always struck me as particularly gleeful.  Looking at the New Caledonian crow it’s evident there’s something different about the shape and proportions of its bill. It’s a bit shorter and more blunt, and it lacks the obvious downward curve of a typical crow bill, with lower mandible actually curving slightly up. Put together, these features appear to give it the perpetual grin that trademarks this species.  I’ve joked that this must be because they’re always feeling very pleased with themselves for being so smart, and thanks to new research, I’ve come to learn my joke had it backwards.

By using tomography scans, Hiroshi Matsui and his team were able to compare the shape and structure of the NC crow’s bill with that of its close relatives. Their conclusion, which they report in the March issue of Scientific Reports, is that this shape makes the handling and manufacturing of tools easier. Looking at photos of the birds in action, it feels intuitive that the more exaggerated curve of a raven or American crow bill would have a hard time achieving the dexterity that NC crows need to use their stick and hook tools.

_62960355_newcaledoniancrow

Given this new research it’s time to amend my joke. It’s not that NC crows grin because they’re smart, they’re smart because they grin.

Literature cited

  1.  Matsui, H., Hunt, G., Oberhofer, K., Ogihara, N., McGowen, K., Mithraratne, K., Yamasaki, T., Grey, R., and Izawa, E. 2016.  Adaptive bill morphology for enhanced tool manipulation in New Caledonian crows.  Scientific Reports 6. doi:10.1038/srep22776

8 Comments

Filed under Crow behavior, crow intelligence, Crow life history, New Research

I spy with my raven eye…

…someone trying to steal my lunch.  Turns out, humans are not the only ones wary of peeping Toms; new research shows raven can imagine being spied on by a competitor.

***

The other day my friend and I were having a very merry time at the thrift store when, without cause or provocation, this women decides to up and ruin our trip.  Well really, she simply spotted the same gorgeous caste iron dutch oven that my friend wanted and reached it first, but the consequence was the same (it was a tragically beautiful dutch oven). This dynamic-my friend having her own intentions (to obtain and own that dutch oven for herself) and recognizing that this other women had her own intentions (to obtain and own that dutch oven for herself) is something so second nature to being human we rarely give it any thought.  But the ability to attribute mental states to those around us is an incredibly profound and complex cognitive task.  Understanding if this ability, called Theory of Mind, exists in other animals has been among our top interest as ethologists.

Like other corvids, ravens cache food and, as a consequence, run the risk of their caches being stolen by others.  It has long been known that if ravens can see that they are being watched, they behave differently when it comes to caching than if they are alone.  This is interesting, but doesn’t necessarily speak to whether they posses theory of mind because of the confounding effect of “gaze cues”.   Basically, the correlation between head cues and competitor behavior make skeptics doubtful about non-human animals having the ability to know what others might be seeing.  So raven master Thomas Bugnyar and his colleagues Reber & Bruckner recently published an elegant study to address just this issue.

By training captive ravens to look through a peephole, and then allowing them to cache food with the peephole opened or closed, the researchers were able to show that ravens behaved as if they were being watched when they could hear ravens and the hole was open, but not when they could hear ravens but the peephole was closed.  What this suggests is that ravens are capable of remembering their own experience of looking through a peephole to see into another room, and can imagine that another bird might be doing the same thing even if they cannot see this bird.

ncomms10506-f1

Experimental set up.  Bugnyar et al. 2016.  Nature Communications

Theory of mind and imagination (which are not mutually exclusive) are the cornerstones of what makes for a powerful cognitive toolkit and have long been thought to be uniquely human.  As we continue to build on the body of work showing non-human primates, corvids and some other animals posses some of the same skills we do, many will be challenged to redefine what it means to be human.  Personally, framing the question that way doesn’t interest me.  To me the more interesting question is not how are humans different from ravens, but how are we the same and why? What is it about being human and being raven that make possessing imagination important?  Fortunately there is still loads more research to be done, and when it comes to teasing out this question I can only imagine the possibilities.

Literature cited:

Bugnyar, T., Reber, S.A., and Buckner, C.  (2016) Ravens attribute visual access to unseen competitors.  Nature Communications 7.  doi:10.1038/ncomms10506

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under Crow behavior, crow intelligence, New Research, Raven behavior, Raven intelligence

The politics of ravens

With the (insert relevant election cycle) coming up, a 2014 publication from Massen et al. reminds us that we are not alone in our affection/affliction for political scheming. No, ravens don’t hold elections or engage in thinly veiled attempts at voter suppression, but they do build relationships and attempt to thwart the alliances of others.   Massen’s team observed the interactions of hundreds of individually marked birds and categorized their relationships as either (1) breeding pair with territory, (2) strongly bonded w/o territory, (3) loosely bonded w/o territory or (4) nonbonded.   Ravens build bonds by participating in affiliative behavior such as allopreening (mutual grooming), and interrupting these interactions can be risky if the pair fight back. Over six months they recorded affiliative interactions and found that 18.8% were

Photo credit: Jorg Massen

Photo credit: Jorg Massen

interrupted by a third bird, giving rise to their curiosity over the function of these interventions.  Given that ravens have been previously shown to track the dominance relationships of others, they wanted to know if there was a relationship between bonding status and the likelihood of being an intervener or being intervened.  In both cases they found that there was a significant relationship between the two.  Birds who were either pair or strongly bonded were most likely to intervene and those attempting to forge loose bonds were the most likely to be interrupted.  The researchers interpreted these results to show that strongly allied birds attempt to preclude the threat of competition by squashing the alliances of future coalitions.  Importantly, they were less likely to bother with nonbonded birds since, for now, their social ties are too weak to become threatening.  Conversely, they also stayed out of the interactions of other pair or strongly bonded birds since these interventions pose a greater physical risk to the third wheel.

I suspect these results will not be widely accepted since, critically, there is no immediate benefit to the intervener.   Embracing the results of this study requires accepting the idea that an animal, especially a bird, is capable of putting future rewards ahead of current risk or losses.  Loose bonds are too weak to act as a competitive threat, so this effort on behalf of the intervener is only useful if you assume that those loose bonds will become a threat if allowed to flourish and become stronger over the course of days, weeks or months. Risking a fight now to thwart a relationship that only may be problematic next month is a big temporal leap.  As humans, this kind of future planning is an ability we take for granted but it’s quite a cognitive feat.  Although the scales are beginning to shift, I imagine we have many more studies to go before results like this are considered representative of the temporal flexibility of ravens and other corvids.

  1. Jorg J.M. Massen, Georgine Szipl, Michela Spreafico, Thomas Bugnyar. Ravens Intervene in Others’ Bonding Attempts. Current Biology, 2014; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.073

1 Comment

Filed under New Research, Raven behavior, Raven intelligence