Talk:Cephalopod intelligence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KylieKulbeth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 28 November 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pondmatt. Peer reviewers: RadicalDolphin2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dexterity

I've read that octopuses don't have very good control over the ends of their tentacles. This page, on the other hand, says that cephalopod dexterity equals that of humans. Could someone more knowledgeable determine what the truth about their dexterity is>? SteveSims 03:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"One particularly clever octopus called Otto has been known to juggle his fellow tankmates around out of boredom, as well as throwing rocks and smashing the aquarium glass. On more than one occasion he even caused short circuits by crawling out of his tank and shooting a jet of water at the overhead lamp."

I find this hard to believe, even though the link is on a well known news site. According to the news site Otto also redecorates his tank frequently out of boredom. LiamSP (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

At risk of sounding facetious, it actually states that they're "as efficient at grasping objects" which doesn't necessarily imply they're as dextrous. I do know, however, that octopodes are capable of certain complex dextrous tasks, the stereotypical example being their ability to open jam jars. If the videos I've seen are anything to go by, they tend to use the parts of their tentacles closer to their bodies... --Xanthine 15:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, this might be the worst worded sentence I've ever read: "However unlike vertebrates the motor skills of octopuses do not depend upon mapping the body within their brains with the ability to organize complex movements not being linked to particular arms" After reading it three times, I'm still not sure what it is supposed to mean. 128.143.74.158 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What needs expanding.

Just how intelligent are they? What experiments/studies, conducted by whom, have shown it? What controversies exist in the academic community about this (they do, that much I get from the web links)? We need more details about the lifestyle - BTW, there are differences between the lifestyles of different cephalopods (squid are swift, active swimmers, while octopuses are mostly slow sea-bottom crawlers). Who says that octopus arms are as efficient as the human hand? Precisely how is the cephalopod nervous system unlike that of vertebrates, and how is it unlike that of other molluscs? We need more info, and from the first-hand academic sources, too - otherwise the whole article adds so little new information that it had better be merged into cephalopod.--194.145.161.227 12:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Recent article, a good backgrounder: Zimmer, Carl (2008-06-23). "How Smart Is the Octopus? Bright enough to do the moving-rock trick". Slate. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Art

Monkeys can produce art and thus express their emotions. Is cephalopods capable of this too? --Ysangkok (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nearly 1 percent of all paintings and 5 percent of all sculpture in the world's museums was in fact created by a Greek dynasty of octopii artistes known as the Sheffields. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• ^^Hilarious, but no. Make useful contributions and not satirical ones laddie. As far as I know, there are no reports of any cephalopod "painting". -- Spotty11222 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tools?

many ants use tools, the statement about them being the only ones that use tools should be removed. I'm sure there are other inverts that do as well.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

octapi tool use?

i have to go with the reasearcher from oxford university disagreeing that octopus using a shell as a barrior is not tool use at all thats no diffrent then a hermit crab using a shell for a barrior (and its doesn't matter how more intelligent an animal is if it uses tools then its counts as tool use.)cause they dont technickly ever use it its just sorta kept on for defence against preditors so i strongly disagree and another comparosion is just like saying a bird collecting twigs for it to build a nest is not tool evan though it is for protection and gives shelter and warmth to the eggs or chicks and the parent/s it does not count as tool use. so i really insist that that section that includes the octopus using tool use is removed immedaitly.--Jasonz2z (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a general definition of "tool" that regards it as an object that is used and shared between tasks — there has to be some abstract behaviour with it, not just a notion that "this thing is useful now" but rather "this tool-thing is useful, and the useful-nature of it can be transferred to other targets". It has to be something that is either not just a simple and direct use (If it's dry under a bush in the rain, shelter under the bush) or else a behaviour that doesn't make immediate sense in context, unless the use is aware of an abstract purpose to a tool that only becomes clear when they do something else with it (Collecting a stick to pry snails out of shells from a place where there are no snails, and taking it to where the snails are).

Birds collect sticks to build a nest, but only crows (AFAIK) use a stick as a prybar (i.e. tool use), and repeat this behaviour on different targets with the same stick.

Many fish can use a crack in the rocks to hide in. Hermit crabs find an even better and portable "crack in the rocks" that they can hide in and carry. The octopus though doesn't just hide in one shell, it collects them and uses them as building blocks. It doesn't just "hide in a shell", it finds shells, recognises shells as building components, moves shells to where they're useful together, then builds with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

yes that is correct about the hermit crab, however its not classified as a tool user and the octopus does the same thing so it should either. and the only reason why it is, is cause some messed up person wrote an article about octopus's being tool users and wich is totally bodus, evan a researcher from oxford university argued that hw the octopus uses the shells does not count and define as tool use and i 100% agree with him. plus remember its a shell it it came from a dead animal (snail) it has 2 be an inaminate object like a rock or twig (wich is a dead plant, big difference). and yah thats wat birds do to build nests they look for specific twigs and assemble them together to build a nest and they look for the rite twigs to build a firm nest, and if u look up the bower bird it does the same thing but it doesnt count as tool use.--Jasonz2z (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the Oxford researcher of whom you speak. Do you have a reference that I can read? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry its been much over a year since peaple brought up the story of the octopus being a tool user and im not sure where my sources came from, i don't remember the name but i do remember that their was a researcher mentioned in another article argueing that the octopus is not a tool user. just like my point b4 he mentioned the Hermit crabs as his strong arguement saying that they use shells to protect their soft abdomen and collect them and will try on multiple shells and evan collect them to see which one may suit it and if not then it will scout for another one. and they especially do this when they outgrow their shell. and hermit crabs are well known to evan fight eachother but not over mating or territory but over their shells. In fact, the Hermit crab grabs stinging anemones, plants them on the shell he walks around with it as symbiosis and in a way the hermit crab is using biological warfare against its enemeys such as the octopus. Would one deserve to be called a tool user, the octopus or the Hermit crab? and Get this! Once a hermit crab outgrows its shell it finds a bigger one and transfer his anemone garden to the new shell. yet its still not called a tool user and the octopus pretty much does the same thing yet it is called the tool user and not the hermit crab. im not saying its either one or the other im saying if this animal does the same thing as the other but the other species of animal is classified as a tool user then the other animal should aswell. but my point is it doesn't so if one isn't classified then the other shouldn't be either. but if not then the hermit crab should atleast be classified as a tool user in the name of zoology aswell. and evan though the octopus stack to save their collected coconuts as supplys incase they want 2 use another pair. chimps don't do that they simply look for a sharp twig to poke at termite mounds to get at the termites and once they have eaten their fill they abondone the twigs and when they repeat this task they look for another twig to use so they don't save the twigs but they use it as a tool and its still called a tool user. so you don't have to save something or collect a bunch of these objects or then assemble them to be a tool user and the chimp simply only needs one twig so it only finds one to use and then leaves behind when its accomplished its goal. so i want your opinion should the hermit crab be classified as a tool user aswell or should them both be declassified as tools users. and my definition of a tool user is not how the octopus uses shells sure its for defence and collects them but its not actively using them as a tool should be. like hoe a knight weres metal armor for defence against other nights weapons is an advantage but his armor as a defence is not referred to as a tool. his sword yes to kill other peaple or just like how another person uses a spoon to drink but something like carring to halves of a coconut shell as armor is not tool use this is what i think is they simply look aroung and grab some they think is rite then pick wich pair they want and then carry it around with them and that doesn't really sound like tool use. just like how ants collect leaves and sometimes will but smaller foods on the leaves for them to carry and they send it to the nest where they assemble all the leaves however they do not eat the leaves the store it and some species of ant make gardens in their nest where a species of fungi can grow and this is what they eat and the fungi feed on the decaying leaves brought to it so it may continoue to grow and the ants maintain it by consumming it. however as you can see this is not tool use.--Jasonz2z (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Since tool use is understood to be a demonstration of abstract intelligence, perhaps it should be viewed in this light. The hermit crab's precursor was likely more intelligent than his modern counterpart. He probably actively sought out protection. Finding an evolutionary niche of hiding in these snail shells, he developed a dependence on them. Much like the less intelligent Cephalopod, the nautilus, perhaps demonstrated having one strength often negates the evolutionary maintenance of others. This might be something like comparing a dog, eating grass, to a medical practitioner, though in a much milder sense. Or perhaps a child who has memorized that 2 + 2 = 4 to a child who has learned to add. On the outside they are equally effective at the particular task. However, they demonstrate very different abilities. Indeed, at least one instance of Cephalopod intelligence has recently been found to be purely instinctual where as prior it had been thought to be a demonstration of observational learning. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635700001376 It seems that whether or not an octopus should be considered a tool user is probably more dependent on further research from the community about applicable abstract intelligence and less so on the capabilities of creatures with simpler nervous systems to achieve similar tasks. I apologize if anything is not kosher; this is my first post. Adam 66.87.0.226 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this page is still active but the octopus using a coconut shell as defense DOES count as tool use. If the octopus were simply sheltering in the coconut it would not be. The reason it is tool use is because the octopus disassembles its shelter (two halves of a coconut), stacks them, moves from one location to another, then reassembles it. This is the crucial part; the shell is not 'in use' when the animal is in transit as the shell is stacked underneath the octopus while it moves, not providing any benefit (actually rendering the octopus more vulnerable to predators as it is moving slower). It is then reassembled into a shelter. It is the provision of an object for future use when it is useless at present that makes the behavior tool use (i.e. a hammer is useless when you are carrying it around a building site, it then becomes useful when you need to bang in a nail.) Biff - Marine Biologist for more info, see paper by Finn (2009) "Defensive tool use in a coconut-carrying octopus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.11.183 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate link

In this serious article about how intelligent they are do we really need a link at the bottom to Paul the Octopus? No one seriously thinks they are smart enough to tell which team of people is likely to win a sports match.69.150.180.198 (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I second this. Am deleting it.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This article quoted

Authors of this article may be interested to know that it has been quoted on page 788 of The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Solitary species becoming social by learning.

The Spanish Octopus Research Institute have documented a population of originally solitary octopuses that started hunting collectively when the supply of small prey dwindled so they had to cooperatively hunt larger prey. They invented new signals to coordinate their hunting. That is documented.

I have also read something about originally solitary cuttlefish becoming social by observing interaction among human divers. They then started raising their young (they originally just left their eggs) unrelated adults rearing the young collectively, and they also started taming eels and riding them. Can anyone help find the references for the latter?

95.209.46.39 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cephalopod intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~jevers/data/palbio3/05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102230427/http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Support/AdoptSpecies/AnimalInfo/GiantOctopus/default.cfm to http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Support/AdoptSpecies/AnimalInfo/GiantOctopus/default.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208120700/http://intelligence.seti.org:80/pages/invertebrates to http://intelligence.seti.org/pages/invertebrates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Photographs taken by an octopus

Recalling the Monkey selfie copyright dispute and resulting public domain photographs now hosted on Wikimedia Commons, photographs taken by Cephalopods might be a good addition to this article.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/opinion/earth-day-octopus-teacher.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/03/04/the-octopus-that-figured-out-how-to-work-a-camera/

There was a story about such photographs today in the New York Times, and 2015 in the Washington Post.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've update Craig Foster (filmmaker) with File:Photograph taken by an octopus of Craig Foster.webp PK-WIKI (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)