Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do capuchin monkeys use weight to select hammer tools?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The extent to which tool-using animals take into account the properties of the tool is little explored. The use of percussors to crack open encapsulated fruit is a complex form of tool use, the choice of an adequate tool being a critical aspect in success. Several properties (e.g., material, resistance, friability, shape and weight) affect the suitability of an object to open a hard-shelled nut, with weight being amongst the most important factors. In general, heavier tools require fewer strikes to crack open a nut.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson JR (1990) Use of objects as hammers to open nuts by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Folia Primatol 54:138–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Antinucci F, Visalberghi E (1986) Tool use in Cebus apella: a case study. Int J Primatol 7:351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biro D, Sousa C, Matsuzawa T (2006) Ontogeny and cultural propagation of tool use by wild chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea: case studies in nut cracking and leaf folding. In: Matsuzawa T (ed) Cognitive development in chimpanzees. Springer, Tokyo, pp 476–508

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch C, Boesch H (1981) Sex differences in the use of natural hammers by wild chimpanzees: a preliminary report. J Hum Evol 10:585–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch C, Boesch H (1983) Optimization of nut cracking with natural hammers by wild chimpanzees. Behaviour 83:265–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch C, Boesch H (1984) Mental map in wild chimpanzees: an analysis of hammer transports for nut cracking. Primates 25:160–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boinski S, Quatrone RP, Sughrue K, Selvaggi L, Henry M, Stickler CM (2003) Do brown capuchins socially learn foraging skills? In: Fragaszy DM, Perry S (eds) The biology of traditions: models and evidence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 365–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E, Fedigan LM (2004a) The complete capuchin. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragaszy D, Izar P, Visalberghi E, Ottoni E, Gomes de Oliveira M (2004b) Wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) use anvils and stone pounding tools. Am J Primatol 64:359–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah AC, McGrew WC (1987) Chimpanzees using stones to crack open oil palm nuts in Liberia. Primates 28:31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi M, Mizuno Y, Matsuzawa T (2005) How does stone-tool use emerge? Introduction of stones and nuts to naïve chimpanzees in captivity. Primates 46:91–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuzawa T, Biro D, Humie T, Inoue-Nakamura N, Tonooka R, Yamakoshi G (2001) Emergence of culture in wild chimpanzees: education by master-apprentice-ship. In: Matsuzawa T (ed) Primate origins of human cognition and behaviour. Springer, Tokyo, pp 557–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Moura ACA, Lee PC (2004) Capuchin tool use in Caatinga dry forest. Science 306:1909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy NJ, Call J (2006) Apes save tools for future use. Science 312:1083

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ottoni E, Resende BD, Izar P (2005) Watching the best nutcrackers: what capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) know about others’ tool-using skills. Anim Cogn 24:215–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peres CA (1994) Primate responses to phenological changes in an Amazonian Terra Firme Forest. Biotropica 26:98–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensch B (1973) Gedächtnis, Begriffsbildung und Planhandlung bei Tieren. Parey, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts WA (2002) Are animals stuck in time? Psychol Bull 128:473–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson HB (1964) An experimental examination of the size weight illusion in young children. Child Dev 35:91–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sakura O, Matsuzawa T (1991) Flexibility of wild chimpanzee nut-cracking behaviour using stone hammers and anvils: an experimental analysis. Ethology 87:237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh JW (1983) Five new world primates: a study in comparative ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Visalberghi E, Néel C (2003) Tufted capuchins (Cebus apella) use weight and sound to choose between full and empty nuts. Ecol Psychol 15:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visalberghi E, Fragaszy D, Ottoni E, Izar P, de Oliveira MG, Andrade FRD (2007) Characteristics of hammer stones and anvils used by wild bearded capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) to crack open palm nuts. Am J Phys 132:426–444

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. M. Brunetti of the C.N.R.—Ivalsa, Istituto per la Ricerca sul Legno, Firenze—for measuring nut hardness. For help during the experiment we thank Massimiliano Bianchi and Simone Catarinacci. We are also grateful to Elsa Adessi, Gloria Sabbatini, Valentina Truppa, Martina Saporiti and Jessica Ford for suggestions, critical comments and discussions, to Bernhard Voelkl and Michael Steurer for statistical advice and to Michael Stachowitsch for improving the English. Partially funded by VI Framework, NEST Pathfinder Initiative “What it means to be human”, Contract no. 029088, “Humans: The Analogy-making species”—ANALOGY.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Neurobiology and Cognition Research, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Cornelia Schrauf & Ludwig Huber

  2. Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy

    Elisabetta Visalberghi

Authors
  1. Cornelia Schrauf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ludwig Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabetta Visalberghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornelia Schrauf.

Appendix 1: Measurements of nuts hardness

Appendix 1: Measurements of nuts hardness

Relative hardness of the different nut species (Macadamia ternifolia) (Bertholletia excelsa) was measured with the BRINELL European standard test in terms of resistance to a continuous pressure exerted by a universal testing machine (INSTRON 5567; Merlin Instron construction software). The tests were carried out at the C.N.R.—Ivalsa, Istituto per la Ricerca sul Legno, Firenze—with the help of Prof. M. Brunetti. This testing machine, normally used for testing the hardness of wood from different tree species, could reach a maximum load of 3,000 kg with a speed of 500 mm/min. The nut was stuck with a double-sided adhesive tape on the metal plate of the apparatus. Brazil nuts were positioned with the flat side on the metal plate and all macadamia nuts with the “eye” of the nut on the metal plate. The metal cylinder of the machine was above the nut; the cylinder could crack the nut by moving down either 5, or 10 mm. For each type of nut, half the tests were conducted with the 5 mm distance and half with the 10 mm distance. As no difference was found when comparing the measurements taken from the two distances, the data were pooled for further analysis.

For the sake of comparison, along with a total of 20 Brazil nuts and 20 Macadamia nuts, another nut species was included in the testing: 15 walnuts (Juglans regia), a more common species in Europe. These three species of nuts differ significantly in their hardness (Fig. 5) (ANOVA F 2, 52 = 100.16; P < 0.001). PostHoc tests (Bonferroni correction) revealed that Macadamia nuts are harder than Brazil nuts (Macadamia nuts: 222.18 kg ± 18.54; Brazil nuts: 57 kg ± 4.8; P < 0.001) and walnuts (36.67 kg ± 4.6; P < 0.001), and Brazil nuts are harder than walnuts (P = 0.005).

Fig. 5
figure 5

The average load (kg) ±SE needed to crack open a nut for Macadamia nuts, Brazil nuts and walnuts. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schrauf, C., Huber, L. & Visalberghi, E. Do capuchin monkeys use weight to select hammer tools?. Anim Cogn 11, 413–422 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0131-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0131-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation