Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of object manipulation among 74 species of non-human primates

  • Published:
Primates Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seventy-four primates species (24 genera of six families) were presented with a nylon rope and a wooden cube, and their subsequent manipulations were recorded in detail. Five hundreds and six manipulation patterns were distinguished on the basis of the actions performed, body-parts used and relations to other objects. Inter-specific comparisons revealed three groups: (1) lemurs, marmosets, spider monkeys and leaf-eaters; (2) Old World monkeys except leaf-eaters; and (3) cebus monkeys and apes. The first group had the smallest repertoire of manipulations, in which only a few types of actions and body-parts were involved. The second and third groups had more varied modes of manipulation. Actions such as Roll, Rub and Slide, and use of fingers characterized these groups. Except for the lesser ape, their manipulations were frequently related with other objects. Moreover, actions such as Drape, Drop, Strike, Swing and Throw were typical of the third group. The factors producing such inter-specific differences in manipulations and the relations to tool use are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abordo, E., 1976. The learning skills of gibbons. In:Gibbon and Siamang, Vol. 4,D. M. Rumbaugh (ed.), Karger, Basel, pp. 106–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reck, B., 1980.Animal Tool Behavior. Garland STPM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candland, D. K. &C. N. Johnson, 1978. Object-play: test of a categorized model by the genesis of object-play inMacaca fuscata. In:Social Play in Primates,E. O. Smith (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 259–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S., B. M. F. Galdikas &A. Z. Skolnikoff, 1982. The adaptive significance of higher intelligence in wild orangutan: a preliminary report.J. Human Evol., 11: 639–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, K. &J. Elliott, 1972. The evolution and ontogeny of hand function. In:Ethological Studies of Child Behaviour,N. Blurton Jones (ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, London, pp. 329–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deriagina, M., 1982. Note on the manipulatory activity of apes.J. Human Evol., 11: 171–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, C., 1952. On the prediction of phenomena from quantitative data and the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view.Annals Inst. Statistic. Mathematics, 3: 69–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itani, J., 1957. On the acquisition and propagation of a new food habit in the natural group of the Japanese monkey at Takasaki-yama.Primates, 1: 84–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izawa, K. &A. Mizuno, 1977. Palm-fruit cracking behavior of wild black-capped capuchin (Cebus apella).Primates, 18: 773–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, C., 1982. Object manipulation and tool-use in captive pygmy chimpanzee (Pan paniscus).J. Human Evol., 11: 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawai, M., 1965. Newly-acquired pre-cultural behavior of the natural troop of Japanese monkeys on Koshima islet.Primates, 6: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lethmate, J., 1979. Instrumental behaviour of zoo orang-utans.J. Human Evol., 8: 741–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W. A., H. F. Harlow &R. R. Rueping, 1959. The development of manipulatory responsiveness in the infant rhesus monkey.J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 52: 555–558.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, E. W., Jr., 1966. Responsiveness to objects in free-ranging Japanese monkeys.Behaviour, 26: 130–150.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J., 1961. Prehensility and opposability in the hands of primates.Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond., 5: 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. E., 1973. Manipulatory behavior and responsiveness. In:Gibbon and Siamang, Vol. 2,D. M. Rumbaugh (ed.), Karger, Basel, pp. 185–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————, 1974a. Behavioral diversity in ten species of nonhuman primates.J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 87: 930–937.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ————, 1974b. The antecedents of man the manipulator.J. Human Evol., 3: 493–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • ————, 1978. Opportunism and the rise of intelligence.J. Human Evol., 7: 597–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. T. &K. R. Gibson, 1977. Object manipulation, tool use and sensorimotor intelligence as feeding adaptation in cebus monkey and great ape.J. Human Evol., 6: 623–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———— &K. R. Gibson, 1979. A developmental model for the evolution of language and intelligence in early hominids.Behav. Brain Sci., 2: 367–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, Y. &J. Koman, 1979. Tool-using and -making behavior in wild chimpanzee at Bossou, Guinea.Primates, 20: 513–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vauclair, J. &K. A. Bard, 1983. Development of manipulations with objects in ape and human infants.J. Human Evol., 12: 631–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O., 1975.Sociobiology. Belknap Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Torigoe, T. Comparison of object manipulation among 74 species of non-human primates. Primates 26, 182–194 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02382017

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02382017

Key Words

Navigation