Aplin, L. M., Farine, D. R., Morand-Ferron, J., Cockburn, A., Thornton, A., & Sheldon, B. C. (2015). Experimentally induced innovations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds. Nature, 518, 538–541. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13998Google Scholar

Benson-Amram, S., Dantzer, B., Stricker, G., Swanson, E. M., & Holekamp, K. E. (2016). Brain size predicts problem-solving ability in mammalian carnivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113(9), 2532–2537. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505913113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boogert, N. J., Madden, J. R., Morand-Ferron, J., & Thornton, A. (2018). Measuring and understanding individual differences in cognition. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lon. B, 373(1756), 20170280. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0280Google Scholar

Ducatez, S., Clavel, J., & Lefebvre, L. (2015). Ecological generalism and behavioural innovation in birds: Technical intelligence or the simple incorporation of new foods? J. Anim. Ecol., 84(1), 79–89. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12255.Google Scholar

Ducatez, S., Sol, D., Sayol, F., & Lefebvre, L. (2020). Behavioural plasticity is associated with reduced extinction risk in birds. Nat. Ecol. Evol, 4, 788–793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1168-8.Google Scholar

Dunbar, R. I. M. & Shultz, S. (2007). Evolution in the Social Brain. Science, 317(5843), 1344–1347. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145463Google Scholar

Ebel, S. J., Schmelz, M., Herrmann, E., & Call, J. 2019. Innovative problem solving in great apes: The role of visual feedback in the floating peanut task. Anim. Cogn., 22(5), 791–805. doi: 10.1007/s10071-019-01275-0.Google Scholar

Fisher, J. & Hinde, R. A. (1949). The opening of milk bottles by birds. Brit. Birds, 42(347), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1038/1691006a0Google Scholar

Flynn, E., Turner, C., & Giraldeau, L.-A. (2016). Selectivity in social and asocial learning: Investigating the prevalence, effect and development of young children’s learning preferences. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 371, 20150189. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0189Google Scholar

Griffin, A. S. & Guez, D. (2014). Innovation and problem solving: A review of common mechanisms. Behav. Proc., 109(Pt B), 121–134.Google Scholar

Henrich, J. & McElreath, R. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evol. Anthropol., 12, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10110Google Scholar

Kummer, H. & Goodall, J. (1985). Conditions of innovative behavior in primates. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lon. Series, 308, 203–214.Google Scholar

Kummer, H. & Goodall, J. (2003). Conditions of Innovative Behaviour in Primates. In Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (Eds.), Anim. Innov., (223–236). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526223.003.0010Google Scholar

Lefebvre, L. (2011). Taxonomic counts of cognition in the wild. Biol. Lett., 7, 631–633. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0556Google Scholar

Lefebvre, L., Whitle, P., Lascaris, E. & Finkelstein, A. (1997). Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds. Anim. Behav., 53(3), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0330Google Scholar

Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M., & Sol, D. (2004). Brains, innovations and evolution in birds and primates. Brain Behav. Evol., 63, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076784CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Liker, A. & Bokony, V. (2009). Larger groups are more successful in innovative problem solving in house sparrows. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106(19), 7893–7898. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900042106Google Scholar

McCabe, C. M., Reader, S. M., & Nunn, C. L. (2015). Infectious disease, behavioural flexibility, and the evolution of culture in primates. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 282, 20140862. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0862Google Scholar

Mendes, N., Hanus, D., & Call, J. (2007). Raising the level: Orangutans use water as a tool. Biol Lett, 3(5), 453–455. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0198Google Scholar

Morand-Ferron, J. & Quinn, J. L. (2011). Larger groups of passerines are more efficient problem solvers in the wild. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 15898–15903. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111560108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morand-Ferron, J. & Quinn, J. L. (2015). The evolution of cognition in natural populations. Trends Cogn. Sci., 19(5), 235–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.03.005Google Scholar

Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E. F., & Quinn, J. L. (2016). Studying the evolutionary ecology of cognition in the wild: A review of practical and conceptual challenges. Biol. Rev., 91(2), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12174Google Scholar

Nelson, D. W. M., Crossland, M. R., & Shine, R. (2011). Behavioural responses of native predators to an invasive toxic prey species. Austral. Ecol., 36, 605–611. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2010.02187.xGoogle Scholar

Quinn, J. L., Cole, E. F., Reed, T. E., & Morand-Ferron, J. (2016). Environmental and genetic determinants of innovativeness in a natural population of birds. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 371(1690), 20150184. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0184Google Scholar

Ramsey, G., Bastian, M. L., & van Schaik, C. P. (2007). Animal innovation defined and operationalized. Behav. Brain Sci., 30, 393–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07002373Google Scholar

Reader, S. (2003). Innovation and social learning: Individual variation and brain evolution. Anim. Biol., 53(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1163/157075603769700340Google Scholar

Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (2003). Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reader, S. M., Morand-Ferron, J., & Flynn, E. (2016). Animal and human innovation: Novel problems and novel solutions. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 371(1690). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0182Google Scholar

Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (2002). Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99(7), 4436–4441. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062041299Google Scholar

Roth, T. C., LaDage, L. D., & Pravosudov, V. V. (2010). Learning capabilities enhanced in harsh environments: A common garden approach. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 277, 3187–3193. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0630Google Scholar

Sayol, F., Lefebvre, L., & Sol, D. (2016). Relative brain size and its relation with the associative pallium in birds. Brain, Behav. Evol., 87(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1159/000444670Google Scholar

Sol, D. (2003) Behavioural Flexibility: A Neglected Issue in the Ecological and Evolutionary Literature? In Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (Eds.), Animal Innovation (pp. 63–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press..CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sol, D. (2009). The Cognitive-Buffer Hypothesis for the Evolution of Large Brains. In Dukas, R & Ratcliffe, J. M. (Eds.), Cognitive Ecology II (pp. 111–134). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sol, D., Duncan, R. P., Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P., & Lefebvre, L. (2005). Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 102(15), 5460–5465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0408145102Google Scholar

Sol, D., Griffin, A. S., Bartomeus, I., & Boyce, H. (2011). Exploring or avoiding novel food resources? The novelty conflict in an invasive bird. PLoS ONE, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019535Google Scholar

Sol, D., Sayol, F., Ducatez, S., & Lefebvre, L. (2016). The life-history basis of behavioural innovations. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 371(1690), 20150187. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0187Google Scholar

Street, S. E., Navarrete, A. F., Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2017). Coevolution of cultural intelligence, extended life history, sociality, and brain size in primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114(30), 7908–7914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620734114Google Scholar

Taylor, A. H., Elliffe, D. M., Hunt, G. R., Emery, N. J., Clayton, N. S., & Gray, R. D. (2011). New Caledonian crows learn the functional properties of novel tool types. PLoS ONE, 6(12), 26887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026887Google Scholar

Teschke, I., Wascher, C. A. F., Scriba, M. F., von Bayern, A. M. P., Huml, V., Siemers, B., & Tebbich, S. (2013). Did tool-use evolve with enhanced physical cognitive abilities? Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 368, 20120418. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0418Google Scholar

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl., 2, 1125–1127.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behav. Brain Sci., 28(05), 675–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. & Herrmann, E. (2010). Ape and human cognition: What’s the difference? Curr. Direct. Psycholog. Sci., 19(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359300Google Scholar

von Bayern, A. M. P., Heathcote, R. J. P., Rutz, C. & Kacelnik, A. (2009). The role of experience in problem solving and innovative tool use in crows. Curr. Biol., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.037Google Scholar

Webster, S. J. & Lefebvre, L. (2001). Problem solving and neophobia in a columbiform-passeriform assemblage in Barbados. Anim. Behav.. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1725Google Scholar

Wyles, J. S., Kunkel, J. G., & Wilson, A. C. (1983). Birds, behavior, and anatomical evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 80(14), 4394–4397. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.14.4394Google Scholar

Anastasi, A. (1961). Psychological Testing, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Anderson, B. (1993). Evidence from the rat for a general factor that underlies cognitive performance and that relates to brain size. Intelligence? Neuroscience Letters, 153, 98–112.Google Scholar

Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burkart, J. M., Schubiger, M. N., & van Schaik, C. P. (2016). The evolution of general intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, doi: 10.1017/S0140525X16000959 e195Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chopik, W. J., Bremner, R. H., Defever, A. M., & Keller, V. N. (2018). How (and whether) to teach undergraduates about the replication crisis in psychological science. Teaching of Psychology, 45, 158–163. doi: 10.1177/0098628318762900Google Scholar

Collias, N. E. & Collias, E. C. (2004). Comparison of vocal signals of three species of African finches. Behaviour, 141, 1151–1171. doi: 10.1163/1568539042664588Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. 1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. The American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar

Emmerton, J. (1998). Numerosity differences and effects of stimulus density on pigeons’ discrimination performance. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 243–256. doi: 10.3758/BF03199218Google Scholar

Gallistel, C. R. (2003). The Principle of Adaptive Specialization as it Applies to Learning and Memory. In Kluwe, R. H., Lüer, G., Rösler, F., Kluwe, R. H., Lüer, G., & Rösler, F. (Eds.), Principles of Learning and Memory (pp. 259–280). Cambridge, MA: Birkhäuser. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-8030-5_15Google Scholar

Galsworthy, M. J., Paya-Cano, J. L., Monleon, S., & Plomin, R. (2002). Evidence for general cognitive ability (g) in heterogeneous stock mice and analysis of potential confounds. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 1, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Galsworthy, M. J., Paya-Cano, J. L., Monleon, S., Gregoryan, G., Fernandes, C., Schalkwyk, L. C., & Plomin, R. (2005). Assessing reliability, heritability and general cognitive ability in a battery of cognitive tasks for laboratory mice. Behavior Genetics, 35, 675–692.Google Scholar

Grossman, H. C., Hale, G., Light, K., Kolata, S., Townsend, D. A., Goldfarb, Y., & … Matzel, L. D. (2007). Pharmacological modulation of stress reactivity dissociates general learning ability from the propensity for exploration. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 949–964. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.121.5.949Google Scholar

Herrmann, E., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Call, J., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21, 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356511Google Scholar

Jacobs, I. & Gärdenfors, P. (2017). The false dichotomy of domain-specific versus domain-general cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E207. doi:10.1017/S0140525X16001679Google Scholar

Kolata, S., Light, K., Townsend, D. A., Hale, G., Grossman, H. C., & Matzel, L. D. (2005). Variations in working memory capacity predict individual differences in general learning abilities among genetically diverse mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 84, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Light, K., Kolata, S., Townsend, D. A., Grossman, H., Hale, G., & Matzel, L. D. (2008). Up-regulation of exploratory tendencies does not enhance general learning abilities in juvenile or young-adult outbred mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 90, 317–329.Google Scholar

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychology’s replication crisis and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 660–664. doi: 10.1177/1745691616687745Google Scholar

Locurto, C. (1991). Sense and Nonsense about IQ: The Case for Uniqueness. New York: Praeger Press.Google Scholar

Locurto, C. (1997). On the Comparative Generality of g. In Tomic, W. & Kingma, J. (Eds.), Advances in Cognition and Education (pp. 79–100). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Locurto, C. (2016). G and g: Two markers of a general cognitive ability, or none? In Burkart, Schubiger, & van Schaik. (2016). The evolution of general intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 38. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X16001709 e211Google Scholar

Locurto, C. & Scanlon, C. (1998). Individual differences and a spatial learning factor in two strains of mice. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 344–352.Google Scholar

Locurto, C., Fortin, E., & Sullivan, R. (2003). The structure of individual differences in heterogeneous strain mice across problem types and motivational conditions. Genes, Brain, & Behavior, 2, 1–16.Google Scholar

Locurto, C., Benoit, A., Crowley, C., & Miele, A. (2006). The structure of individual differences in batteries of rapid acquisition tasks in mice. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 378–388.Google Scholar

Locurto, C., Fox, M., & Mazzella, A. (2015). Implicit learning in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and pigeons (Columba livia). Learning & Behavior, 43, 129–142. doi: 10.3758/s13420–015-0167-0Google Scholar

Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-852367-3.Google Scholar

Mackintosh, N. J., Wilson, B., & Boakes, R. A. (1985). Differences in Mechanisms of Intelligence among Vertebrates. In Weiskrantz, L. (Ed.), Animal Intelligence (pp. 53–66). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Macphail, E. M. (1982). Brain and Intelligence in Vertebrates. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Macphail, E. M. (1985). Comparative studies of animal intelligence. Is Spearman’s g really Hull’s D? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 234–235.Google Scholar

Macphail, E. M. (1987). The comparative psychology of intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 645–656.Google Scholar

Matzel, L. D., Han, Y. R., Grossman, H. Karnik, M. S., Patel, D., Scott, N., Specht, S. M., & Gandhi, C. C. (2003). Individual differences in the expression of a “general” learning ability in mice. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 6423–6433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Matzel, L. D., Wass, C., & Kolata, S. (2011) Individual differences in animal intelligence: Learning, reasoning, selective attention and inter-species conservation of a cognitive trait. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 116, 181–192.Google Scholar

Matzel, L. D., Kolata, S. Light, K., & Sauce, B. (2016). The tendency for social submission predicts superior cognitive performance in previously isolated male mice. Behavioural Processes, 134, 12–21.Google Scholar

Matzel, L. D. & Sauce, B. (2017). Individual differences: Case studies of rodent and primate intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 43, 32–340. doi: 10.1037/xan0000152Google Scholar

Miller, L. T. & Vernon, P. A. (1992). The general factor in short-term memory, intelligence, and reaction time. Intelligence, 16, 5–30.Google Scholar

Royce, J. R. (1950). The factorial analysis of animal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 235–259. doi: 10.1037/h0061384Google Scholar

Royce, J. R. (1966). Concepts Generated in Comparative and Physiological Psychological Observations. In Cattell, R. B. (Ed.), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology (pp. 642–683). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar

Sauce, B., Wass, C., Smith, A., Kwan, S., & Matzel, L. D. (2014) The external-internal loop of interference: Two types of attention and their influence on the learning abilities of mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 116, 181–192.Google Scholar

Seligman, M. E. & Hager, J. L. (1972). Biological Boundaries of Learning. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. E. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology. 15, 201–293. doi: 10.2307/1412107Google Scholar

Spearman, C. (1927). The Abilities of Man. Oxford, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Terrace, H. (2010). The comparative psychology of serially organized behavior. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 5, 523–558. doi: 10.3819/ccbr.2010.50002Google Scholar

Wahlsten, D. (1978). Behavioral Genetics and Animal Learning. In Anisman, H. & Bignami, G. (Eds.), Psychopharmacology of Aversively Motivated Behavior (pp. 63–118). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Warren, J. M. (1977). A Phylogenetic Approach to Learning and Intelligence. In Oliverio, A. (Ed.), Genetics, Environment and Intelligence (pp. 37–56). New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., & Miller, G. (2009). Does a fitness factor contribute to the association between intelligence and health outcomes? Evidence from medical abnormality counts among 3654 US Veterans. Intelligence, 37(6), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.03.008Google Scholar

Audet, J.-N. & Lefebvre, L. (2017). What’s flexible in behavioral flexibility? Behavioral Ecology, 28(4), 943–947. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx007Google Scholar

Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30, 441–451, 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1086/276408.Google Scholar

Bensky, M. K. & Bell, A. M. (2020). Predictors of individual variation in reversal learning performance in three-spined sticklebacks. Animal Cognition, 23, 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01399-8Google Scholar

Boogert, N. J., Anderson, R. C., Peters, S., & Searcy, W. A. (2011). Song repertoire size in male song sparrows correlates with detour reaching, but not with other cognitive measures. Animal Behaviour, 81(6), 1209–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.004Google Scholar

Borgia, G. (1985a). Bower quality, number of decorations and mating success of male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus): An experimental analysis. Animal Behaviour, 33(1), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(85)80140-8Google Scholar

Borgia, G. (1985b). Bower destruction and sexual competition in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 18(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299037CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borgia, G. (1993). The cost of display in the non-resource-based mating system of the satin bowerbird. The American Naturalist, 141(5), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1086/285502Google Scholar

Borgia, G. (1995). Why do bowerbirds build bowers? American Scientist, 83(6), 542–547.Google Scholar

Borgia, G. & Gore, M. A. (1986). Feather stealing in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus): Male competition and the quality of display. Animal Behaviour, 34(3), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80056-2Google Scholar

Borgia, G., Kaatz, I. M., & Condit, R. (1987). Flower choice and bower decoration in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus: A test of hypotheses for the evolution of male display. Animal Behaviour, 35(4), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80169-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borgia, G. & Mueller,  U. (1992). Bower destruction, decoration stealing and female choice in the spotted bowerbird Chlamydera maculata. Emu, 92(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU9920011Google Scholar

Borgia, G. & Presgraves, D. C. (1998). Coevolution of elaborated male display traits in the spotted bowerbird: An experimental test of the threat reduction hypothesis. Animal Behaviour, 56(5), 1121–1128. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0908Google Scholar

Borgia, G. & Keagy, J. (2006). An inverse relationship between decoration and food colour preferences in satin bowerbirds does not support the sensory drive hypothesis. Animal Behaviour, 72(5), 1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.03.015Google Scholar

Borgia, G. & Keagy, J. (2015). Sexual Selection and Cognitive Ability: What Bowerbirds Can Teach Us. In Irschick, D., Briffa, M., & Podos, J. (Eds.), Animal Signaling and Function: An Integrative Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Boul, K. E., Funk, W. C., Darst, C. R., Cannatella, D. C., & Ryan, M. J. (2007). Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3736Google Scholar

Bravery, B. D. & Goldizen, A. W. (2007). Male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus) compensate for sexual signal loss by enhancing multiple display features. Naturwissenschaften, 94(6), 473–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-006-0211-1Google Scholar

Cole, E. F., Morand-Ferron, J., Hinks, A. E., & Quinn, J. L. (2012). Cognitive ability influences reproductive life history variation in the wild. Current Biology, 22(19), 1808–1812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.051Google Scholar

Coleman, S. W. (2005). Variable Female Preferences and the Evolution of Complex Male Displays in the Satin Bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park]. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Coleman, S. W., Patricelli, G. L., & Borgia, G. (2004). Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature, 428, 742–745. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02419Google Scholar

Collis, K. & Borgia, G. (1993). The costs of male display and delayed plumage maturation in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Ethology, 94(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00547.xGoogle Scholar

Croston, R., Kozlovsky, D. Y., Branch, C. L., Parchman, T. L., Bridge, E. S., & Pravosudov, V. V. (2016). Individual variation in spatial memory performance in wild mountain chickadees from different elevations. Animal Behaviour, 111(1), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.015Google Scholar

Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Day, L. B., Westcott, D. A., & Olster, D. H. (2005). Evolution of bower complexity and cerebellum size in bowerbirds. Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, 66(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000085048Google Scholar

Diamond, J. (1986). Animal art: Variation in bower decorating style among male bowerbirds Ambylornis inornatus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 83(9), 3042–3046. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.9.3042Google Scholar

Diamond, J. (1987). Bower building and decoration by the bowerbird Amblyornis inornatus. Ethology, 74(3), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00932.xGoogle Scholar

Doerr, N. R. (2010). Decoration supplementation and male-male competition in the great bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus nuchalis): A test of the social control hypothesis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 64(11), 1887–1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1000-6Google Scholar

Doerr, N. R. & Endler, J. A. (2015). Illusions vary because of the types of decorations at bowers, not male skill at arranging them, in great bowerbirds. Animal Behaviour, 99(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.10.022Google Scholar

Endler, J. A., Endler, L. C., & Doerr, N. R. (2010). Great bowerbirds create theaters with forced perspective when seen by their audience. Current Biology. 20(18), 1679–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.033Google Scholar

Erwin, D. H. (2015). Novelty and innovation in the history of life. Current Biology, 25(19), R930–R940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.019Google Scholar

Federspiel, I. G., Garland, A., Guez, D., Bugnyar, T., Healy, S. D., Güntürkün, O., & Griffin, A. (2017). Adjusting foraging strategies: A comparison of rural and urban common mynas (Acridotheres tristis). Animal Cognition, 20(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1045-7Google Scholar

Griffin, A. S., Guez, D., Lermite, F., & Patience, M. (2013). Tracking changing environments: Innovators are fast, but not flexible learners. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e84907. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084907Google Scholar

Griffin, A. S. & Guez, D. (2014). Innovation and problem solving: A review of common mechanisms. Behavioral Processes, 109(Pt B), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.027Google Scholar

Hicks, R. E., Larned, A., & Borgia, G. (2013). Bower paint removal leads to reduced female visits, suggesting bower paint functions as a chemical signal. Animal Behaviour, 85(6), 1209–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoekstra, H. E., Hoekstra, J. M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S. N., Hoang, A., Hill, C. E., Beerli, P., & Kingsolver, J. P. (2001). Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A., 98(16), 9157–9160. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.161281098Google Scholar

Isden, J., Panayi, C., Dingle, C., & Madden, J. (2013). Performance in cognitive and problem-solving tasks in male spotted bowerbirds does not correlate with mating success. Animal Behaviour, 86(4), 829838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.07.024Google Scholar

Keagy, J., Savard, J.-F., & Borgia, G. (2009). Male satin bowerbird problem-solving ability predicts mating success. Animal Behaviour, 78(4), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.011Google Scholar

Keagy, J., Savard, J.-F., & Borgia, G. (2011). Complex relationship between multiple measures of cognitive ability and male mating success in satin bowerbirds, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Animal Behaviour, 81(5), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.018Google Scholar

Keagy, J., Lettieri, L., & Boughman, J. W. (2016). Male competition fitness landscapes predict both forward and reverse speciation. Ecology Letters, 19(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12544Google Scholar

Kingsolver, J. G., Hoekstra, H. E., Hoekstra, J. M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S. N., Hill, C. E., Hoang, A., Gibert, P., & Beerli, P. (2001). The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. The American Naturalist, 157(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/319193Google Scholar

Kingsolver, J. G., Hoekstra, H. E., Hoekstra, J. M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S. N., Hill, C. E., Hoang, A., Gibert, P., & Beerli, P. (2008). Data from: The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Dryad Digital Repository. [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.166Google Scholar

Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld-Smit, F. J. L., & Maan, M. E. (2011). Sexual selection and speciation: The comparative evidence revisited. Biological Reviews, 86(3), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1086/319193.Google Scholar

Kusmierski, R., Borgia, B., Uy, A. & Crozier, R. (1997). Labile evolution of display traits in bowerbirds indicates reduced effects of phylogenetic constraint. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 264(1380), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0044Google Scholar

Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37(6), 1210–1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x.Google Scholar

Larned, A. F. (2012). The effect of sunlight on decoration placement and mating success in male satin bowerbirds. [Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, College Park]. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M., & Sol, D. (2004). Brains, innovations and evolution in birds and primates. Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, 63(4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076784Google Scholar

Loffredo, C. A. & Borgia, G. (1986). Male courtship vocalizations as cues for mate choice in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Auk, 103(1) 189–195.Google Scholar

Madden, J. (2001). Sex, bowers and brains. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268(1469), 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1425Google Scholar

Madden, J. R. (2002). Bower decorations attract females but provoke other male spotted bowerbirds: Bower owners resolve this trade-off. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269(1498), 1347–1351. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1988Google Scholar

Madden, J. R. (2003). Bower decorations are good predictors of mating success in the spotted bowerbird. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 53(5), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-003-0583-6Google Scholar

Madden, J. R. (2006). Interpopulation differences exhibited by spotted bowerbirds Chlamydera maculata across a suite of male traits and female preferences. Ibis, 148(3), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00540.xGoogle Scholar

Madden, J. R. (2008). Do bowerbirds exhibit culture? Animal Cognition, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0092-5Google Scholar

Madden, J. R. & Balmford, A. (2004). Spotted bowerbirds Chlamydera maculata do not prefer rare or costly bower decorations. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55(6) 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-003-0737-6Google Scholar

Marshall, A. J. (1954). Bower-birds. Biological Reviews, 29, 1-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1954.tb01395.xGoogle Scholar

Marshall, A. J. (1956). Bowerbirds. Scientific American, 194(6), 48–53.Google Scholar

Martinez, J., Keagy, J., Wurst, B., Fetzner, W., & Boughman, J. W. (2016). The relative role of genes and environment on spatial learning ability in recently diverged stickleback fish. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 17(4) 565–581.Google Scholar

Mendelson, T. C. (2003). Sexual isolation evolves faster than hybrid inviability in a diverse and sexually dimorphic genus of fish (Percidae: Etheostoma). Evolution, 57(2), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00266.xGoogle Scholar

M’Gonigle, L. K., Mazzucco, R., Otto, S. P., & Dieckmann, U. (2012). Sexual selection enables long-term coexistence despite ecological equivalence. Nature, 484(7395), 506–509. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10971Google Scholar

Morand-Ferron, J., Hamblin, S., Cole, E. F., Aplin, L. M., & Quinn, J. L. (2015). Taking the operant paradigm into the field: Associative learning in wild Great Tits. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0133821. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133821Google Scholar

Morand-Ferron, J., Cole, E. F., & Quinn, J. L. (2016). Studying the evolutionary ecology of cognition in the wild: A review of practical and conceptual challenges. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 91(2), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12174.Google Scholar

Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. (1937). Experiments on colour-vision in the satin bower-bird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus), with other observations. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Series A, 107(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1937.tb08498.xGoogle Scholar

Nicolakakis, N., Sol, D., & Lefebvre, L. (2003). Behavioural flexibility predicts species richness in birds, but not extinction risk. Animal Behaviour, 65(3) 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2085Google Scholar

Odling-Smee, L. C., Boughman, J. W., & Braithwaite, V. A. (2008). Sympatric species of threespine stickleback differ in their performance in a spatial learning task. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62(12), 1935–1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-008-0625-1Google Scholar

Overington, S. E., Cauchard, L., Côté, K.-A., & Lefebvre, L. (2011). Innovative foraging behaviour in birds: What characterizes an innovator? Behavioural Processes, 87(3), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.06.002.Google Scholar

Patricelli, G. L., Coleman, S. W., & Borgia, G. (2002). Male displays adjusted to female’s response. Nature, 415(6869), 279–280. https://doi.org/10.1038/415279aGoogle Scholar

Prokosch, M. D., Yeo, R. A., & Miller, G. F. (2005). Intelligence tests with higher g-loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: Evidence for a general fitness factor mediated by developmental stability. Intelligence. 33(2), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.007Google Scholar

Reynolds, S. M., Dryer, K., Bollback, J., Uy, J. A. C., Patricelli, G. L., Robson, T., Borgia, G., & Braun, M. (2007). Behavioral paternity predicts genetic paternity in Satin Bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus), a species with a non-resource-based mating system. Auk, 124(3), 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/124.3.857Google Scholar

Robson, T. E., Goldizen, A. W. & Green, D. J. (2005). The multiple signals assessed by female satin bowerbirds: Could they be used to narrow down females’ choices of mates? Biology Letters, 1(3), 264e267. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0325Google Scholar

Roth, G. & Dicke, U. (2005). Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 250–257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005.Google Scholar

Rowe, C. & Healy, S. D. (2014). Measuring variation in cognition. Behavioral Ecology, 25(6) 1287–1292. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru090Google Scholar

Seehausen, O., Terai, Y., Magalhaes, I. S., Carleton, K. L., Mrosso, H. D. J., Miyagi, R., van der Sluijs, I., Schneider, M. V., Mann, M. E., Tachida, H., Imai, H., & Okada, N. (2008). Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature, 455(7213) 620–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07285Google Scholar

Sol, D. & Lefebvre, L. (2000). Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to New Zealand. Oikos, 90(3), 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900317.xGoogle Scholar

Sol, D., Timmermans, S., & Lefebvre, L. (2002). Behavioural flexibility and invasion success in birds. Animal Behaviour, 63(3), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1953Google Scholar

Sol, D., Duncan, R. P., Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P., & Lefebvre, L. (2005). Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102(15), 5460–5465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0408145102Google Scholar

Tebbich, S., Sterelny, K., & Teschke, I. (2010). The tale of the finch: Adaptive radiation and behavioural flexibility. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1543), 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0291Google Scholar

Thornton, A. & Samson, J. (2012). Innovative problem solving in wild meerkats. Animal Behaviour, 83(6), 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.018Google Scholar

Thornton, A., Isden, J., & Madden, J. R. (2014). Toward wild psychometrics: linking individual cognitive differences to fitness. Behavioral Ecology, 25(6), 1299–1301. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru095Google Scholar

Uy, J. A. C. & Borgia, G. (2000). Sexual selection drives rapid divergence in bowerbird display traits. Evolution, 54(1), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00027.xGoogle Scholar

Uy, J. A. C., Patricelli, G. L., & Borgia, G. (2000). Dynamic mate-searching tactic allows female satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus to reduce searching. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 267(1440), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.0994Google Scholar

Uy, J. A. C., Patricelli, G. L., & Borgia, G. (2001a). Loss of preferred mates forces female satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus) to increase mate searching. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268(1467), 633–638. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1413Google Scholar

Uy, J. A. C., Patricelli, G. L., & Borgia, G. (2001b). Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. The American Naturalist, 158(5), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1086/323118.Google Scholar

Wojcieszek, J. M., Nicholls, J. A., &Goldizen, A. W. (2007). Stealing behavior and the maintenance of a visual display in the satin bowerbird. Behavioral Ecology, 18(4), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm031Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. (2015). Exploration Technique and Technical Innovations in Corvids and Parrots. In Kaufman, A. B & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Animal Creativity and Innovation (pp. 45–72). London: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800648-1.00003-6.Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Gajdon, G. K., & Huber, L. (2010). Kea, Nestor notabilis, produce dynamic relationships between objects in a second-order tool use task. Animal Behaviour, 80(5), 783–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.007Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., von Bayern, A. M. P., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L., & Kacelnik, A. (2011a). Flexibility in problem solving and tool use of kea and new Caledonian crows in a multi access box paradigm. PLoS One, 6(6), e20231. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020231Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Huber, L., & Gajdon, G. K. (2011b). Navigating a tool end in a specific direction: Stick-tool use in kea (Nestor notabilis). Biology Letters, 7(6), 825–828. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0388Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Szabo, B., von Bayern, A. M. P., & Kacelnik, A. (2012). Spontaneous innovation in tool manufacture and use in a Goffin’s cockatoo. Current Biology, 22(21), R903–R904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.002Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Laumer, I. B., & Bugnyar, T. (2013a). Goffin cockatoos wait for qualitative and quantitative gains but prefer “better” to “more.” Biology Letters, 9(3), 20121092–20121092. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.1092Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Kacelnik, A., & von Bayern, A. M. P. (2013b). Explorative learning and functional inferences on a five-step means-means-end problem in Goffin’s cockatoos (Cacatua goffini). PLoS One, 8(7), e68979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068979Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Oswald, N., Domanegg, M., Gajdon, D., & Bugnyar, T. (2014a). Unrewarded object combinations in captive parrots. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(4), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.12966/abc.11.05.2014Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., van Horik, J. O., Bugnyar, T., Kacelnik, A., Emery, N. J., & von Bayern, A. M. P. (2014b). Combinatory actions during object play in psittaciformes (Diopsittaca nobilis, Pionites melanocephala, Cacatua goffini) and corvids (Corvus corax, C. monedula, C. moneduloides). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 129(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038314Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., von Bayern, A. M. P., Weber, S., Szabadvari, A., Bugnyar, T., & Kacelnik, A. (2014c). Social transmission of tool use and tool manufacture in Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffini). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1793), 20140972–20140972. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0972Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Borasinski, S., Laumer, I., & Kacelnik, A. (2016). Goffin’s cockatoos make the same tool type from different materials. Biology Letters, 12(11), 20160689. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0689Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., Köck, C., Pledermann, A., O’Hara, M., & Huber, L. (2017). Safekeeping of tools in Goffin’s cockatoos, Cacatua goffiniana. Animal Behaviour, 128, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.04.010Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I. & von Bayern, A. M. P. (2019). Who’s a clever bird – Now? A brief history of parrot cognition. Behaviour, 1(aop), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003550Google Scholar

Bateson, P. & Martin, P. (2013). Play, Playfulness, Creativity and Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Birch, H. G. (1945). The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 38(6), 367.Google Scholar

Biro, D., Haslam, M., & Rutz, C. (2013). Tool use as adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1630), 20120408–20120408. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0408Google Scholar

Bond, A. B., Kamil, A. C., & Balda, R. P. (2007). Serial reversal learning and the evolution of behavioral flexibility in three species of North American corvids (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus, Nucifraga columbiana, Aphelocoma californica). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(4), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.4.372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Borsari, A. & Ottoni, E. B. (2005). Preliminary observations of tool use in captive hyacinth macaws (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus). Animal Cognition, 8(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0221-3Google Scholar

Boswall, J. (1977). Tool-using by birds and related behaviour. Aviculture Magazine, 83, 88–97.Google Scholar

Demery, Z. P., Chappell, J., & Martin, G. R. (2011). Vision, touch and object manipulation in Senegal parrots Poicephalus senegalus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0374Google Scholar

Diamond, J., & Bond, A. B. (1999). Kea, Bird of Paradox: The Evolution and Behavior of a New Zealand Parrot. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Ducatez, S., Clavel, J., & Lefebvre, L. (2015). Ecological generalism and behavioural innovation in birds: Technical intelligence or the simple incorporation of new foods? Journal of Animal Ecology, 84(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12255Google Scholar

Emery, N. J. (2006). Cognitive ornithology: The evolution of avian intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1465), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1736Google Scholar

Gajdon, G. K., Fijn, N., & Huber, L. (2004). Testing social learning in a wild mountain parrot, the kea (Nestor notabilis). Animal Learning & Behavior, 32(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196007Google Scholar

Gajdon, G. K., Amann, L., & Huber, L. (2011). Keas rely on social information in a tool use task but abandon it in favour of overt exploration. Interaction Studies, 12(2), 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.12.2.06gajGoogle Scholar

Gajdon, G. K., Lichtnegger, M., & Huber, L. (2014). What a parrot’s mind adds to play: The urge to produce novelty fosters tool use acquisition in kea. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 4(2), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2014.42008Google Scholar

Goodman, M., Hayward, T., & Hunt, G. R. (2018). Habitual tool use innovated by free-living New Zealand kea. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32363-9Google Scholar

Gossette, R. L. (1968). Examination of retention decrement explanation of comparative successive discrimination reversal learning by birds and mammals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27(3_suppl), 1147–1152.Google Scholar

Greenberg, R. & Mettke-Hofmann, C. (2001). Ecological Aspects of Neophobia and Neophilia in Birds. In Nolan, V Jr. & Thompson, C. F. (Eds.), Current Ornithology (pp. 119–178). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar

Griffin, A. S., Diquelou, M., & Perea, M. (2014). Innovative problem solving in birds: A key role of motor diversity. Animal Behaviour, 92, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.04.009Google Scholar

Griffin, A. S., & Guez, D. (2014). Innovation and problem solving: A review of common mechanisms. Behavioural Processes, 109, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.027Google Scholar

Güntürkün, O. & Bugnyar, T. (2016). Cognition without cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.02.001Google Scholar

Gutiérrez-Ibáñez, C., Iwaniuk, A. N., & Wylie, D. R. (2018). Parrots have evolved a primate-like telencephalic-midbrain-cerebellar circuit. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28301-4Google Scholar

Hansell, M. & Ruxton, G. (2008). Setting tool use within the context of animal construction behaviour. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.006Google Scholar

Haslam, M. (2013). ‘Captivity bias’ in animal tool use and its implications for the evolution of hominin technology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1630), 20120421–20120421. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0421Google Scholar

Heinsohn, R., Zdenek, C. N., Cunningham, R. B., Endler, J. A., & Langmore, N. E. (2017). Tool-assisted rhythmic drumming in palm cockatoos shares key elements of human instrumental music. Science Advances, 3(6), e1602399. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602399Google Scholar

Herculano-Houzel, S. (2017). Numbers of neurons as biological correlates of cognitive capability. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 16, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.02.004Google Scholar

Homberger, D. G. (1986). The lingual apparatus of the African Grey Parrot, Psittacus erithacus Linné (Aves: Psittacidae): Description and theoretical mechanical analysis.Google Scholar

Homberger, D. G. (2006). Classification and Status of Wild Populations of Parrots. In Luescher, A. U. (Ed.), Manual of Parrot Behavior (1st ed.) (pp. 3–11). Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Huber, L. & Gajdon, G. K. (2006). Technical intelligence in animals: The kea model. Animal Cognition, 9(4), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0033-8Google Scholar

Hunt, G. R. (1996). Manufacture and use of hook-tools by New Caledonian crows. Nature, 379(6562), 249.Google Scholar

Kabadayi, C., Taylor, L. A., von Bayern, A. M. P., & Osvath, M. (2016). Ravens, New Caledonian crows and jackdaws parallel great apes in motor self-regulation despite smaller brains. Royal Society Open Science, 3(4), 160104. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160104Google Scholar

Kabadayi, C., Krasheninnikova, A., O’Neill, L., van de Weijer, J., Osvath, M., & von Bayern, A. M. P. (2017). Are parrots poor at motor self-regulation or is the cylinder task poor at measuring it? Animal Cognition, 20(6), 1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1131-5Google Scholar

Koepke, A. E., Gray, S. L., & Pepperberg, I. M. (2015). Delayed gratification: A Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) will wait for a better reward. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 129(4), 339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039553Google Scholar

Koops, K., McGrew, W. C., & Matsuzawa, T. (2013). Ecology of culture: Do environmental factors influence foraging tool use in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus? Animal Behaviour, 85(1), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.022Google Scholar

Koutsos, E. A., Matson, K. D., & Klasing, K. C. (2001). Nutrition of birds in the order Psittaciformes: A review. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, 14(4), 257–275.Google Scholar

Krasheninnikova, A. & Schneider, J. M. (2014). Testing problem-solving capacities: Differences between individual testing and social group setting. Animal Cognition, 17(5), 1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0744-1Google Scholar

Lambert, M. L., Seed, A. M., & Slocombe, K. E. (2015). A novel form of spontaneous tool use displayed by several captive greater vasa parrots (Coracopsis vasa): Table 1. Biology Letters, 11(12), 20150861. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0861Google Scholar

Lambert, M. L., Schiestl, M., Schwing, R., Taylor, A. H., Gajdon, G. K., Slocombe, K. E., & Seed, A. M. (2017). Function and flexibility of object exploration in kea and New Caledonian crows. Royal Society Open Science, 4(9), 170652. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170652Google Scholar

Lambert, M. L., Jacobs, I., Osvath, M., & von Bayern, A. M. P. (2018). Birds of a feather? Parrot and corvid cognition compared. Behaviour, 156(5–8), 505–594. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003527Google Scholar

Laumer, I. B., Bugnyar, T., & Auersperg, A. M. I. (2016). Flexible decision-making relative to reward quality and tool functionality in Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). Scientific Reports, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28380Google Scholar

Laumer, I., Bugnyar, T., Reber, S., & Auersperg, A. (2017). Can hook-bending be let off the hook? Bending/unbending of pliant tools by cockatoos. Procedures of the Royal Society B, 284(1862), 20171026.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, Louis, Whittle, P., Lascaris, E., & Finkelstein, A. (1997). Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds. Animal Behaviour, 53(3), 549–560.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, Louis, Gaxiola, A., Dawson, S., Timmermans, S., Rosza, L., & Kabai, P. (1998). Feeding innovations and forebrain size in Australasian birds. Behaviour, 135(8), 1077–1097.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, Louis, Nicolakakis, N., & Boire, D. (2002). Tools and brains in birds. Behaviour, 139(7), 939–973.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M., & Sol, D. (2004). Brains, innovations and evolution in birds and primates. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 63(4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076784Google Scholar

Liedtke, J., Werdenich, D., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L., & Wanker, R. (2011). Big brains are not enough: Performance of three parrot species in the trap-tube paradigm. Animal Cognition, 14(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0347-4Google Scholar

Linden, P. G., & Luescher, A. U. (2006). Behavioral Development of Psittacine Companions: Neonates, Neophytes, and Fledglings. In Luescher, A. U. (Ed.), Manual of Parrot Behavior (1st ed.) (pp. 93–111). Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

MacLean, E. L., Hare, B., Nunn, C. L., Addessi, E., Amici, F., Anderson, R. C., Aureli, F., Baker, J. M., Bania, A. E., Barnard, A. M., Boogert, N. J., Brannon, E. M., Bray, E. E., Bray, J., Brent, L. J. N., Burkart, J. M., Call, J., Cantlon, J. F., Cheke, L. G., … Zhao, Y. (2014). The evolution of self-control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), E2140–E2148. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323533111Google Scholar

Manrique, H. M., Gross, A. N.-M., & Call, J. (2010). Great apes select tools on the basis of their rigidity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019296Google Scholar

Manrique, H. M., Sabbatini, G., Call, J., & Visalberghi, E. (2011). Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys. Animal Cognition, 14(6), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0410-9Google Scholar

Manrique, H. M., Völter, C. J., & Call, J. (2013). Repeated innovation in great apes. Animal Behaviour, 85(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.026Google Scholar

Mettke‐Hofmann, C., Winkler, H., & Leisler, B. (2002). The significance of ecological factors for exploration and neophobia in parrots. Ethology, 108(3), 249–272.Google Scholar

Mioduszewska, B., O’Hara, M., Haryoko, T., Auersperg, A., Huber, L., & Prawiradilaga, D. M. (2018). Notes on ecology of wild Goffin´s cockatoo in the late dry season with emphasis on feeding ecology. 45, 85–102.Google Scholar

Mulawka, E. J. (2014). The Cockatoos: A Complete Guide to the 21 Species. Jefferson, GA: McFarland.Google Scholar

Navarrete, A. F., Reader, S. M., Street, S. E., Whalen, A., & Laland, K. N. (2016). The coevolution of innovation and technical intelligence in primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1690), 20150186. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0186Google Scholar

O’Hara, M., Huber, L., & Gajdon, G. K. (2015). The advantage of objects over images in discrimination and reversal learning by kea, Nestor notabilis. Animal Behaviour, 101, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.12.022Google Scholar

O’Hara, M., Mioduszewska, B., von Bayern, A., Auersperg, A., Bugnyar, T., Wilkinson, A., Huber, L., & Gajdon, G. K. (2017). The temporal dependence of exploration on neotic style in birds. Scientific Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04751-0Google Scholar

O’Hara, M., Mioduszewska, B., Haryoko, T., Prawiradilaga, D. M., Huber, L., & Auersperg, A. (2018). Extraction without tooling around: The first comprehensive description of the foraging- and socio-ecology of wild Goffin’s cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). Behaviour, 156(5–8), 661–690) https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003523Google Scholar

Olkowicz, S., Kocourek, M., Lučan, R. K., Porteš, M., Fitch, W. T., Herculano-Houzel, S., & Němec, P. (2016). Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(26), 7255–7260. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517131113Google Scholar

O’Neill, L., Picaud, A., Maehner, J., Gahr, M., & von Bayern, A. M. (2018). Two macaw species can learn to solve an optimised two-trap problem, but without functional causal understanding. Behaviour, 156(5–8), 691–720. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003521Google Scholar

Osuna-Mascaró, A. J. & Auersperg, A. M. I. (2018). On the brink of tool use? Could object combinations during foraging in a feral Goffin’s cockatoo (Cacatua goffiniana) result in tool innovations? Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5(2), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.05.02.05.2018Google Scholar

Parker, S. T. & Gibson, K. R. (1977). Object manipulation, tool use and sensorimotor intelligence as feeding adaptations in Cebus monkeys and great apes. Journal of Human Evolution, 6(7), 623–641.Google Scholar

Pepperberg, I. M. (2002). The Alex Studies: Cognitive and Communicative Abilities of Grey Parrots. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Power, T. G. (1999). Play and Exploration in Children and Animals. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Ramsey, G., Bastian, M. L., & van Schaik, C. (2007). Animal innovation defined and operationalized. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(04). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07002373Google Scholar

Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (2001). Primate innovation: Sex, age and social rank differences. International Journal of Primatology, 19.Google Scholar

Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (2002). Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 22(5), 787-805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.062041299Google Scholar

Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (Eds.) (2003). In Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (Eds.), Animal Innovation (pp. 39–61). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rössler, T., Mioduszewska, B., O’Hara, M., Huber, L., Prawiradilaga, D. M., & Auersperg, A. M. I. (2020). Using an innovation arena to compare wild-caught and laboratory Goffin´s cockatoos. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 8681. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65223-6Google Scholar

Russell, P. (1973). Relationships between exploratory behaviour and fear: A review. British Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 417–433.Google Scholar

Sayol, F., Downing, P. A., Iwaniuk, A. N., Maspons, J., & Sol, D. (2018). Predictable evolution towards larger brains in birds colonizing oceanic islands. Nature Communications, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05280-8Google Scholar

Schneider, L., Serbena, A. L., & Guedes, N. M. (2002). Manipulação de frutos de acuri e bocaiúva por araras-azuis no Pantanal Sul, XX; Encontro Anual de Etologia, 378.Google Scholar

Schuck-Paim, C., Alonso, W. J., & Ottoni, E. B. (2008). Cognition in an ever-changing world: Climatic variability is associated with brain size in neotropical parrots. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 71(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119710Google Scholar

Schwing, R., Weber, S., & Bugnyar, T. (2017). Kea (Nestor notabilis) decide early when to wait in food exchange task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 131(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000086Google Scholar

Seibert, L. M. (2006). Social Behavior of Psittacine Birds. In Luescher, A. U. (Ed.), Manual of Parrot Behavior (1st ed.) (pp. 43–48). Ames, IA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Shumaker, R. W., Walkup, K. R., & Beck, B. B. (2011). Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Szabo, B., Bugnyar, T., & Auersperg, A. M. I. (2017). Within-group relationships and lack of social enhancement during object manipulation in captive Goffin’s cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). Learning & Behavior, 45(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-016-0235-0Google Scholar

Tebbich, S., Griffin, A. S., Peschl, M. F., & Sterelny, K. (2016). From mechanisms to function: An integrated framework of animal innovation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1690), 20150195. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0195Google Scholar

Timmermans, S., Lefebvre, L., Boire, D., & Basu, P. (2000). Relative size of the hyperstriatum ventrale is the best predictor of feeding innovation rate in birds. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 56(4), 196–203.Google Scholar

Tokita, M. (2003). The skull development of parrots with special reference to the emergence of a morphologically unique cranio-facial hinge. Zoological Science, 20(6), 749–758.Google Scholar

van Horik, J. O. & Madden, J. R. (2016). A problem with problem solving: Motivational traits, but not cognition, predict success on novel operant foraging tasks. Animal Behaviour, 114, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.006Google Scholar

van Horik, J. O. & Emery, N. J. (2018). Serial reversal learning and cognitive flexibility in two species of Neotropical parrots (Diopsittaca nobilis and Pionites melanocephala). Behavioural Processes, 157, 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.04.002Google Scholar

van Schaik, C. P., Burkart, J., Damerius, L., Forss, S. I. F., Koops, K., van Noordwijk, M. A., & Schuppli, C. (2016). The reluctant innovator: Orangutans and the phylogeny of creativity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1690), 20150183. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0183Google Scholar

Vick, S.-J., Bovet, D., & Anderson, J. R. (2010). How do African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) perform on a delay of gratification task? Animal Cognition, 13(2), 351–358.Google Scholar

Wallace, A. R. (2015). The Malay Archipelago: The land of the orang-utan, and the bird of paradise: A narrative of travel, with studies of man and nature (3rd ed.). Oxford: John Beaufoy Publishing.Google Scholar

Wood, G. (1984). Tool use by the palm cockatoo Probosciger aterrimus during display. Corella, 8(4), 94–95.Google Scholar

Wood, G. (1988). Further field observations of the palm cockatoo Probosciger aterrimus in the Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. Corella, 12, 48–52.Google Scholar

Abe, K. (2010). Interaction between body and environment in creative thinking. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 17, 599–610.Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Auersperg, A. M. I., von Bayern, A. M. I., Weber, S., Szabadvari, A., Bugnyar, T., & Kacelnik, A. (2014). Social transmission of tool use and tool manufacture in Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffini). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1793), 20140972–20140972. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0972Google Scholar

Cantor, M. & Whitehead, H. (2013). The interplay between social networks and culture: Theoretically and among whales and dolphins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 368(1618), 20120340. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0340Google Scholar

Ciardelli, L. E., Weiss, A., Powell, D. M., & Reiss, D. (2017). Personality dimensions of the captive California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 131(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000054Google Scholar

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The neo personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5Google Scholar

Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, K. R. L. & Schaller, G. B. (1964). Tool-using behavior of the California sea otter. Journal of Mammalogy, 45(2), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376994Google Scholar

Herrmann, E., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Call, J., Hare, B. A., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356511Google Scholar

Herrmann, E. & Call, J. (2012). Are there geniuses among the apes? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1603), 2753–2761. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0191Google Scholar

Highfill, L. E. & Kuczaj, S. A. (2007). Do bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have distinct and stable personalities? Aquatic Mammals, 33(3), 380–389.Google Scholar

Higuchi, H. (1988). Individual differences in bait‐fishing by the green‐backed heron Ardeola striata associated with territory quality. Ibis, 130(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1988.tb00953.xGoogle Scholar

Hill, H. M., Kahn, M. S., Brilliott, L. J., Roberts, B. M., Gutierrez, C., & Artz, S. (2011). Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) bubble bursts: Surprise, protection, or play? International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 24, 235–243. Retrieved from http://comparativepsychology.org/ijcp-2011-2/05.Hill_PDF.pdfGoogle Scholar

Huffman, M. & Hirata, S. (2003). Biological and Ecological Foundations of Primate Behavioral Traditions. The Biology of Traditions: Models and Evidence. In Fragaszy, D. M. & Perry, S (Eds.), The Biology of Traditions (pp. 267–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jones, B. L. & Kuczaj, S. A. (2014). Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) novel bubble helix play behavior. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 2(2), 206. https://doi.org/10.12966/abc.05.10.2014Google Scholar

Kako, E. (1999). Elements of syntax in the systems of three language-trained animals. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802059929Google Scholar

Kaufman, A. B. & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Can you believe my eyes? The importance of interobserver reliability statistics in observations of animal behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 78(6), 1487–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.09.014Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the consensual assessment technique. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2009.tb01316.xGoogle Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.649237Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332–340.Google Scholar

Kaufman, A. B., Reynolds, M. R., & Kaufman, A. S. (2019). The structure of ape (Hominoidea) intelligence. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 133(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000136Google Scholar

Kopps, A. M., Ackermann, C. Y., Sherwin, W. B., Allen, S. J., Bejder, L., & Krützen, M. (2014). Cultural transmission of tool use combined with habitat specializations leads to fine-scale genetic structure in bottlenose dolphins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1782), 20133245–20133245. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3245Google Scholar

Krützen, M., Mann, J., Heithaus, M. R., Connor, R. C., Bejder, L., … Sherwin, W. B. (2005). Cultural transmission of tool use in bottlenose dolphins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(25), 8939–8943. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500232102Google Scholar

Krützen, M., Kreicker, S., Macleod, C. D., Learmonth, J., Kopps, A. M., Walsham, P., & Allen, S. J. (2014). Cultural transmission of tool use by Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) provides access to a novel foraging niche. Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society, 281(1784), 20140374. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0374Google Scholar

Kuczaj, S. A. & Highfill, L. E. (2005). Dolphin play: Evidence for cooperation and culture? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 705–706.Google Scholar

Kuczaj, S. A., Paulos, R. D. R. D., & Ramos, J. A. (2005). Imitation in Apes, Children, and Dolphins: Implications for the Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Symbolic Representation. In Namy, L. A (Ed.), Symbol Use and Symbolic Representation: Developmental and Comparative Perspectives (p. 221). Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Imitation+in+apes,+children,+and+dolphins:+Implications+for+the+Ontogeny+and+Phylogeny+of+Symbolic+Representation#0Google Scholar

Kuczaj, S. A., Makecha, R., Trone, M., Paulos, R. D., & Ramos, J. A. (2006). Role of peers in cultural innovation and cultural transmission: Evidence from the play of dolphin calves. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 19(2), 223–240. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4pn1t50s.pdfGoogle Scholar

Kuczaj, S. A. & Makecha, R. N. (2008). The Role of Play in the Evolution and Ontogeny of Contextually Flexible Communication. In Oller, D. K. & Griebel, U. (Eds.), Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication (pp. 253–277). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lawrence, M. K., Borger-Turner, J. L., Turner, T. N., & Eskelinen, H. C. (2016). Investigating the effects of applied learning principles on the “Create” response in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 29(1), 1–11.Google Scholar

Leung, A. K. Y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts.” Psychological Science, 23, 502–509.Google Scholar

McCowan, B., Marino, L., Vance, E., Walke, L., & Reiss, D. (2000). Bubble ring play of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): Implications for cognition. Journal of Comparative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.114.1.98Google Scholar

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509Google Scholar

Montgomery, S. H. (2014). The relationship between play, brain growth and behavioural flexibility in primates. Animal Behaviour, 90, 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.004Google Scholar

Paulos, R. D., Trone, M., & Kuczaj, S. A. (2010). Play in wild and captive cetaceans. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 23(4), (701–722).Google Scholar

Perals, D., Griffin, A. S., Bartomeus, I., & Sol, D. (2017). Revisiting the open-field test: What does it really tell us about animal personality? Animal Behaviour, 123, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.006Google Scholar

Pryor, K. W. (2014). Historical perspectives: A dolphin journey. Aquatic Mammals, 40(1), 104–114.Google Scholar

Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative porpoise: Training for novel behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(4), 653. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1338662/Google Scholar

Ramsey, G., Bastian, M. L., & van Schaik, C. (2007). Animal innovation defined and operationalized. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(4), 393–407; discussion 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07002373Google Scholar

Rendell, L. E. & Whitehead, H. (2001). Culture in whales and dolphins. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(2), 309–382.Google Scholar

Rendell, L. E. & Whitehead, H. (2003). Comparing repertoires of sperm whale codas: A multiple methods approach. Bioacoustics, 14(1), 61–81.Google Scholar

Rendell, L. E., Mesnick, S. L., Dalebout, M. L., Burtenshaw, J., & Whitehead, H. (2011). Can genetic differences explain vocal dialect variation in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus? Behavior Genetics, 42(2), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-011-9513-yGoogle Scholar

Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. S., Murphy, J., Sevcik, R. A. A., Brakke, K. E., Williams, S. L. L., Rumbaugh, D. M. M., & Bates, E. (1993). Language comprehension in ape and child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(3/4), 1–252. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1166068Google Scholar

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2016). The next big five inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar

Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-Technical Manual, Verbal Forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar

Walsh, R. N. & Cummins, R. A. (1976). The open-field test: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 482–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.3.482Google Scholar

Barrett, B. J., Monteza-Moreno, C. M., Dogandzic, T., Zwyns, N., Ibáñez, A., & Crofoot, M. C. (2018). Habitual stone-tool-aided extractive foraging in white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 181002. doi: 10.1098/rsos.181002.Google Scholar

Cardoso, R. M. & Ottoni, E.B. (2016). The effects of tradition on problem solving by two wild populations of bearded capuchin monkeys in a probing task. Biology Letters, 12, 20160604. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0604Google Scholar

Coelho, C. G., Falótico, T., Izar, P., Mannu, M., Resende, B. D., Siqueira, J. O., & Ottoni, E. B. (2015). Social learning strategies for nut-cracking by tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Animal Cognition, 18, 911–919. doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0861-5Google Scholar

Falótico, T. & Ottoni, E. B. (2013). Stone throwing as a sexual display in wild female bearded capuchin monkeys, Sapajus libidinosus. PLoS ONE, 8, e79535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079535Google Scholar

Falótico, T. & Ottoni, E. B. (2014). Sexual bias in probe tool manufacture and use by wild bearded capuchin monkeys. Behavioural Processes, 108, 117–122. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.036Google Scholar

Falótico, T., Proffitt, T., Ottoni, E. B., Staff, R. A., & Haslam, M. (2019) Three thousand years of wild capuchin stone tool use. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3, 1034–1038. doi. org/10.1038/s41559–019-0904-4Google Scholar

Fragaszy, D. M. (2003). Making space for traditions. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 61–70. doi: 10.1002/evan.10104Google Scholar

Fragaszy, D. M., Visalberghi, E., & Fedigan, L. M. (2004a). The Complete Capuchin: The Biology of the Genus Cebus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fragaszy, D. M., Izar, P., Visalberghi, E., Ottoni, E. B., & Oliveira, M. (2004b). Wild capuchin monkeys use anvils and stone pounding tools. American Journal of Primatology, 64, 359–366. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20085Google Scholar

Fragaszy, D. M., Biro, D., Eshchar, Y., Humle, T., Izar, P., Resende, B., & Visalberghi, E. (2013). The fourth dimension of tool use: Temporally enduring artefacts aid primates learning to use tools. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20120410. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0410Google Scholar

Galef, B. (2003). Social Learning: Promoter or Inhibitor of Innovation? In Reader, S. M. & Laland, K. N. (Eds.), Animal Innovation, ch.6 (pp. 137–152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haslam, M., Luncz, L. V., Staff, R. A., Bradshaw, F., Ottoni, E. B., & Falótico, T. (2016). Pre-Columbian Monkey Tools. Current Biology, 26, R515–R522. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.046Google Scholar

Itani, J. & Nishimura, A. (1973). The Study of Infrahuman Culture in Japan: A Review. In Menzel, E. W. (Ed.), Precultural Primate Behavior (pp. 26–50). Basel, Germany: Karger.Google Scholar