The Fishing Monkey

Ran across this link this afternoon. Thought it might be interesting to talk about in the forums.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080610/D917EJU80.html

It is fun. But if you want a real discussion you'd have to supply your views first.Perhaps it just belongs in links and information? If you add 3 or 4 lines about what the contents are then we can put it there.

Ok. So do I need to edit the original or just add it on to this? If it's either/or, I guess it would go a little something like this. . .I read this article today. I found it fascinating and it brought up a few questions I hope someone on this forum could help answer for me.1. Would this be considered 'learned behavior' 'a possible result of an evolved trait' or something else entirely? I'm curious as to what the scientific difference is between a learned behavior and a behavior which proves beneficial for a species and thus is 'inherited' to the next generation. Excuse the lack of scientific terms in my questions, as I'm only a layman in physical sciences, as I was a philosophy and psychology major. ;-)2. If this is 'learned behavior' what other processes would it take in the environment and in this particular group of primates for it to become part of their 'known traits' for purposes of classification. Or can a learned behavior ever lead a step up in evolutionary terms? If, for instance, whatever else this group's diet consists of were to mostly disappear,but fish remained plentiful,and those that knew how 'to fish' were able to survive, would it constitue a new species or would it just be an necessary adaptation by a current species and not really evolution at all?I hope I'm clear enough on my questions, and if not, I'll try to clarify as best I can. Also, I suppose, I should mention that I'm not trying to set up a 'straw-man' or any other sort of debate 'bait and switch,' I'm just curious and interested.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi, dynadin. Welcome to EvC! "Learned behavior," most likely. It's technically possible that a change in the genetics underlying neural chemistry caused this change in the monkey's behavior, but it's infinitely more likely that the monkey's brain functions were plastic enough to allow it to learn this behavior without a direct genetic mechanism. I can say a brief bit about this.Because the fishing monkey picks up a new skill (assuming that not all monkeys of that species can fish), it can exploit a resource that the other monkeys cannot use. This does not make it a new species, but, if the behavior persists into the monkey's offspring and their offspring, natural selection will begin to work on the fishing monkeys in such a way that the best fishers survive and reproduce the best.Monkeys who make a living by catching fish will experience different selective pressures than monkeys that make a living eat fruit or carrion. For instance, fishing may favor monkeys with quick reflexes, sharper nails, better hand-to-eye coordination, and/or tooth structure better for processing fish meat. We'll call these "fishing traits." However, frugivory (fruit eating) probably favors monkeys that climb and brachiate well, and/or monkeys with nails and teeth better adapted to peeling fruits. We'll call these "frugivorous traits."If monkeys such as the ones in this article become fishing specialists, and stop eating fruit and carrion, the "fishing traits" will become more important to them than the "frugivorous traits," and nature will begin selecting for the "fishing traits," while ignoring and probably reducing the "frugivorous traits."Now, if two populations of monkeys---one fishing and one frugivorous---become separated so that they do not interbreed, the two populations can become divergent enough that they may then be considered two different species.Recap:1. new trait/behavior arises
2. new trait/behavior gives an advantage or opens up a new niche
3. population with new trait/behavior becomes isolated
4. after many generations, new population becomes a distinct speciesOnly time well time whether this monkey's new behavior will eventually spawn a new species.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed "Re: Needs more" subtitle.

---

Darwin loves you.

Thanks for the welcome! I apologize if my questions are somewhat under-educated. In the article, it mentions the behavior has been noticed four times in the last eight years, and one would have to assume it has happened many times when those pesky scientist cousins of theirs weren't watching. It doesn't mention if those who were seen were older, younger or in their physical prime. At which point, if any, would it become evident, from a scientific view, that the 'learned behavoir' had become part of the group's normal behavoir. A generation? A dozen generations? Many, many more? The necessity of isolation for a new species is something I failed to consider.On a related tanget, do you, or anyone here, know of other 'learned behaviors', (sorry if that's not the correct word) that have been documented in the wild? I've heard of teaching chimpanzees in capitivity sign language and other similiar things, but is this find a rather common occurence or is it rather extraordinary?Thanks for your answers and explanations. As I said, I have only a very basic and woefully underdeveloped understanding of biology and of evolution except in the most broad terms.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed "Re: Needs more" subtitle.

I don't have a link off the top of my keyboard, but there are quite a few examples of monkeys using tools.One I can remember is a monkey that uses a sticky stick, pokes it into an ant hill, and pulls out the tasty denizens therein.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed "Re: Needs more" subtitle.

They're not stupid questions, so I don't particularly mind your asking them. Most people don't even think to ask. "Learned behavior" is the right term. I admit that I only skimmed through the article, so I missed this part.One of the difficult things with evolutionary biology is distinguishing between the similar manifestations of differing phenomena. So, it's hard to say whether this fishing behavior is a new behavior, whether it's a hereditary trait, how normal it is, how important it is in the monkeys' ecology, etc. Such work is often very expensive and time-consuming, and it isn't likely going to interest a lot of potential sponsors, who would rather fund cancer research or crop pest management than monkey behavioral studies.So, it may be awhile before we actually know what's causing the behavior. Just shooting from the hip, I'd say it's just something the monkey learned, and not really a newly-evolved trait. Primates are known to have exceptional learning abilities, so the idea that each newly-learned behavior represents a novel genetic change is unlikely.Right now, I would think the behavior could be considered a "normal" part of these monkeys' ecology. There isn't a time or generational limit, nor an incidence limit on what constitutes "normal." In general, if the behavior seems to be increasing in incidence, it would probably be considered beneficial, and would be looked at an a potentially important factor in determining how the monkeys' evolution will proceed. Consider this: there are many races of humans. Each race is generally specific to a certain location. Chinese people all look Chinese, European people all look European, African people all look African, etc. But, if all the races were to begin mixing (as they're doing now in America), we could eventually expect all Americans to look at least a little bit European, African, Hispanic and Asian.If a population isn't isolated from other populations, it doesn't accumulate traits that distinguish it from those other populations, because its traits just become part of the bigger mix. If the fishing behavior of the monkeys is genetic, and the fishing monkeys don't become isolated from non-fishing monkeys, the trait will likely take a very, very long time to spread through the population.But, if a handful of fishing monkeys go live somewhere away from all other monkeys, one hundred percent of this new population already has the trait, and it will become an integral part of the population's genetic makeup. If the isolation persists long enough, the monkeys may become distinct enough from other monkeys to effectively prevent interbreeding. That would be considered speciation.

---

Darwin loves you.

I think that you are thinking about chimpanezes which have been seen using a stick poked into ant/termite hills. Great apes have also been seen using sticks as weapons.The macaque monkeys aren't using tools, only grabbing fish from the water. Not really much difference than one grabbing a passing insect.

Thanks for the info and the discussion. I don't really have anything else to add. I just found the article fascinating and wanted to know more.