First evidence that reptiles can learn through imitation

[Supercommunist]

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930090443.htm

[theropod]

Do parrots parrotting what people say not count as learning through imitation?

[Supercommunist]

The article is obviously talking about non-avian reptiles; no need to be a smartass about it.

[creature386]

Theropod's question was valid actually, this sentence can be found in the summary:

The ability to acquire new skills through the ‘true imitation’ of others’ behavior is thought to be unique to humans and advanced primates, such as chimpanzees.

To answer the question, the article is perfectly aware of parroting, but does not define it as "true imitation". Here another quote:

In emulation, an animal copies a behaviour without understanding its deeper significance: for example, a parrot reciting the words of its owner.

[theropod]

Ah, but parrots do have a deeper understanding of language:
download.springer.com/static/pdf/611/art%253A10.3758%252FBF03199646.pdf?auth66=1412283380_e1afe94a263ac961e92d39833d7adf22&ext=.pdf

It’s of course their speaking ability that makes parrots such good examples. I’m sure corvids are also able to learn through imitation (google-scholaring "corvus imiation learning" turns up numerous results which seem promising, but I haven’t looked into them more closely yet).

Ergo, this is most likely not unique to great apes.

Just another example of the oversimplified concept science journalists have of things such as intelligence in animals, especially birds, and of terms such as reptile.

The line between non-avian and avian reptiles is completely artificial and thus meaningless. This cannot be pointed out often enough, consider that being a smartass or not.

Now, the ocurrence in a squamate is certainly interesting, but please take it for what it is, which is certainly not the only ocurrence outside of Hominidae.

[Supercommunist]

Theropod's question was valid actually, this sentence can be found in the summary:

Oh, my bad. To be honest I skimmed it.

I also do not deny the fact that birds are reptiles and blah blah, but I can understand the want to group the two into different categories due to the amount of differences between them.

[theropod]

And in this case, it’s really the science journalist’s fault. Here is the actual study:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25199480

The ability to learn through imitation is thought to be the basis of cultural transmission and was long considered a distinctive characteristic of humans. There is now evidence that both mammals and birds are capable of imitation. However, nothing is known about these abilities in the third amniotic class-reptiles. Here, we use a bidirectional control procedure to show that a reptile species, the bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps), is capable of social learning that cannot be explained by simple mechanisms such as local enhancement or goal emulation. Subjects in the experimental group opened a trap door to the side that had been demonstrated, while subjects in the ghost control group, who observed the door move without the intervention of a conspecific, were unsuccessful. This, together with differences in behaviour between experimental and control groups, provides compelling evidence that reptiles possess cognitive abilities that are comparable to those observed in mammals and birds and suggests that learning by imitation is likely to be based on ancient mechanisms.

While it does use an antiquated definition of reptile, it fully acknowledges the ocurrence of imitation in birds.

[theropod]

Oct 1, 2014 2:07:09 GMT 5 Supercommunist said:

Theropod's question was valid actually, this sentence can be found in the summary:

Oh, my bad. To be honest I skimmed it.

I also do not deny the fact that birds are reptiles and blah blah, but I can understand the want to group the two into different categories due to the amount of differences between them.

I’d love to have a nice, long debate with you on what you think sets apart birds from non-avian reptiles, but not here. Differentiating between the actual monophyla of lepidosauromorphs and archosauromorphs makes so much more sense, there is just no objective basis of doing that with birds and non-avian reptiles…

[creature386]

I don't see a problem with what he wants to do. Differing humans from other primates is nonsense from a phylogenetic point of view, but I can see why people are doing this.

[theropod]

It’s not that I can see the reasons, it’s that I don’t agree with them. They result is an increase in feely-arguments in evolutionary discussions and try to segregate animals based on entirely subjective (and terribly human) opinions about them, which are often just made up.

[creature386]

I know that this is annoying, but I think a person who knows the truth can segregate them informally.

[theropod]

This is related to the subject: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03949370.2014.915432?journalCode=teee20#.VDw7g3y5AQn