The Mental Life Of Monkeys And Apes Part 10

_Lock and Key Test_

By my a.s.sistant it was reported on May 5 that the orang utan had been seen to place a splinter of wood in a padlock which was used on the cages and to work with it persistently. It looked very much like imitation of the human act of using the key, and I therefore planned a test to ascertain whether Julius could readily and skillfully use a key or could learn quickly to do so by watching me.

The first test was made on May 15 with a heavy box whose hinged lid was held securely in position by means of a hasp and a padlock. The key, which was not more than an inch in length, was fastened to a six inch piece of wire so that Julius could not readily lose it. With the animal opposite me, I placed a piece of banana in the box, then closed the lid and snapped the padlock. I next handed Julius the key. He immediately laid it on the floor opposite him and began biting the box, rolling it around, and occasionally biting also at the lock and pulling at it.

During these activities he had pulled the box toward his cage. Now he suddenly looked up to the position where the banana had been suspended in the box experiment. Evidently the box had suggested to him the banana. For thirty minutes he struggled with the box almost continuously, chewing persistently at the hinges, the hasp, or the lock.

Then he took the key in his teeth and tried to push it into one of the hinges, then into the crack beneath the lid of the box.

Subsequently I allowed him to see me use the key repeatedly, and as a result, he came to use it himself now and then on the edge of the box, but he never succeeded in placing it in the lock, and the outcome of the experiment was total failure on the part of the animal to unfasten the lock of his own initiative or to learn to use the key by watching me do so. I did not make any special attempt to teach him to use the key, but merely gave him opportunity to imitate, and it is by no means impossible that he would have succeeded had the key been larger and had the situation required less accurately coordinated movements. However, it is fair to say that the evidence of the idea of using the key in the lock was unconvincing. My a.s.sistant's observation was, perhaps, misleading in so far as it suggested that idea. It may and probably was purely by accident that the animal used the splinter on the padlock.

2. Skirrl, _Pithecus irus_

_Box Stacking Experiment_

The monkey Skirrl was tested by means of the box stacking experiment much as Julius had been. On August 23, with a carrot suspended six feet from the floor of the large cage and three boxes in distant corners, the animal was admitted and his behavior noted.

The boxes, which were made of light, thin material, ranged in size from one six inches in its several dimensions to one twenty inches long, thirteen inches wide, and eleven inches deep. Only by using at least two of these boxes was it possible for the animal to reach the carrot.

Immediately on admission to the cage, Skirrl began to gnaw at the boxes, trying with all his might to tear them to pieces. After some thirty minutes of such effort, interrupted by wanderings about the cage and attempts to get at the other monkeys, he suddenly went to the largest box of all, set it up on end almost directly under the carrot, mounted it, and looked up at the food. It was still beyond his reach and he made no effort to get it, but instead, he reached from his perch on the big box for the next smaller box, which was approximately sixteen inches, by fourteen, by twelve. This he succeeded in pulling toward him, at the same time raising it slightly from the floor, but his efforts caused the large box to topple over and he quit work. The experiment was discontinued after a few minutes, the total period of observation having been thirty-five minutes.

Skirrl handled the boxes with ease and with evident pleasure and interest. He also noticed the carrot at various times during the interval, but his attention was fixed on it only for short periods.

The test was continued on August 24 when, instead of a carrot, a half banana was used as bait. It was placed only five feet from the floor, and three boxes were as formerly placed in distant corners of the cage.

When admitted, Skirrl looked at the banana, then pulled one of the boxes toward it, but instead of mounting, he went to the smallest box and began to gnaw it. Shortly, he mounted the middle sized box and looked up toward the banana, but the box was not directly under the bait, and in any event, it would have been impossible for him to reach it. He next went to the largest box, gnawed it vigorously, turned it over several times, and then abandoned it for the middle sized box, from which by skillful use of his teeth and hands, he quickly tore off one side.

By this time, apparently without very definitely directed effort on the part of the monkey, all three of the boxes were in the center of the cage and almost directly beneath the banana. Skirrl climbed up on the largest box and made efforts to pull the middle sized one up on to it, the while looking at the banana every few seconds. He did not succeed in getting the boxes properly placed, and after a time began moving them about restlessly.

His behavior plainly indicated that hunger was not his chief motive. He was more interested in playing with things or in working with them than in eating, and the satisfaction of tearing a box to pieces seemed even greater than that of food. It is especially noteworthy that when Skirrl attempts to dismember a box, instead of starting at random, he searches carefully for a favorable starting point, a place where a board is slightly loosened or where a slight crack or hole enables him to insert his hand or use his teeth effectively. Many times during this experiment he was observed to examine the boxes on all sides in search of some weak point. If no such weak point were found, he shortly left the box; but if he did find a favorable spot, he usually succeeded, before he gave up the attempt, in doing considerable damage to the box.

Following the behavior described above, Skirrl returned to the middle sized box, placed it on end under the banana, mounted, and looked upward at the bait, but as it was a few inches beyond his reach, he made no attempt to get it, but instead, after a few seconds, went to the smallest box, and finding a weak point, began to tear it to pieces.

Later he rolled what was left of the smallest box close to the other two boxes, nearly under the banana, and the remainder of his time was spent gnawing at the boxes and playing with pieces which he had succeeded in tearing from them. During the remainder of the thirty minute interval of observation, no further attention was given the bait.

Again, on August 25, the test was tried, but this time with boxes whose edges had been bound with tin so that it was impossible for the monkey to destroy them. He spent several minutes searching for a starting point on the middle sized box, but finding none, he dragged it under the banana, looked up, mounted the box, but, as previously, did not reach for the bait because it was beyond his reach. He then played with the boxes for several minutes. Finally he worked the two smaller boxes to a position directly under the banana, put the middle sized one on end, mounted it, and looked at the bait, but again abandoned the attempt without reaching.

During the thirty minutes of observation he made no definite effort to place one box upon another. Three times he mounted one or another of the boxes when it was under the banana or nearly so, but in no case was it possible for him to reach the bait.

From the above description of this monkey's behavior, it seems fairly certain that with sufficient opportunity, under strong hunger, he would ultimately succeed in obtaining the bait by the use of two or more boxes. For his somewhat abortive and never long continued efforts to drag two boxes together or to place the one upon the other clearly enough indicate a tendency which would ultimately yield success. The possibility of imitation is not excluded, for Skirrl had opportunities to see Julius and the experimenter handle the boxes.

Because of the other work which seemed more important at the time, this experiment was not continued further. The results obtained suggest the desirability of testing thoroughly the ability of monkeys to use objects as only the anthropoid apes and man have heretofore been thought capable of using them.

_Box and Pole Experiment_

Skirrl was first tested with the box and pole experiment on August 12.

As in the case of Julius, a half banana was placed in the middle of the long box and the attention of the monkey was attracted to the bait by small pieces of carrot placed near each open end. Two poles were placed near the box on the floor of the cage. When admitted to the cage Skirrl went almost directly to the ends of the box, took the pieces of carrot which were in sight, but apparently failed to perceive the bait in the middle of the box. For a while he played with the locks on the box, shoved it about, and amused himself with it, showing no interest in obtaining the food. Later he looked through the box and saw the banana.

He then dragged the box about, apparently trying to get it into his cage, but he gave no attention to the poles nor did he make any evident effort to obtain the banana which was easily visible in the center of the box. The period of observation was only twelve minutes.

On August 24 this experiment was repeated with an important modification of the apparatus in that the wooden lid of the long box had been replaced by a wire cover through which the animal could see the bait.

Two poles were as formerly on the floor of the cage, not far from the box. Skirrl almost immediately noticed the banana and tried to get it by gnawing at the box. He did not once reach in at the ends of the box, but he did handle the poles, throwing them about and pounding with them.

There was not the slightest attempt to use them in obtaining the bait.

This experiment was later repeated three times at intervals of a number of days, but in no case did Skirrl show any tendency to use the poles as means of obtaining the food.

_Draw-in Experiment_

This also was arranged in the same manner as for Julius, and on each of five days Skirrl was allowed at least thirty minutes to work for the bait. Either a banana or a carrot was each day placed on the board well beyond his reach, and one or two, usually two, small sticks were put into his cage. Not once during the several periods of observation did Skirrl make any attempt to use a stick or any other object as a means of drawing the food to him. Instead, he reached persistently with his arm, pulled and gnawed at the wires which were in his way, and occasionally picked up and gnawed or pounded with the sticks in the cage. His attention every now and then would come back to the food, but it tended to fluctuate rather rapidly, and in the regular period of observation, thirty minutes, it is unlikely that he attended to the bait itself for as much as five minutes. In this respect as well as many others, Skirrl's behavior contrasts sharply with that of the orang utan.

The results of this experiment indicate the lack in the monkey of any tendency or ability, apart from training, to use objects as means of obtaining food. Ways of using objects as tools which apparently are perfectly natural to the anthropoid apes and to man are rarely employed by the lower primates.

_Hammer and Nail Test_

One day I happened to observe Skirrl playing with a staple in his cage.

He had found it on the floor where it had fallen and was intently prodding himself with the sharp points, apparently enjoying the unusual sensations which he got from sticking the staple into the skin in various portions of his body, and especially into the prepuce.

A few days later I saw him playing in similar fashion with a nail which he had found, and still later he was seen to be using a stick to pound the nail with. This suggested to me the hammer and nail test.

A heavy spike was driven into an old hammer to serve as an indestructible handle. This hammer, along with a number of large wire nails and a piece of redwood board, was then placed in the monkey's cage. Skirrl immediately took up the hammer, grasping the middle of the handle with his left hand, and with his right hand taking up a nail. He then sat down on the board, examined the nail, placed the pointed end on the board, and with well directed strokes by the use of the head of the hammer drove the nail into the board for the distance of at least an inch. He then tried to pull it out, but was forced to knock it several times with the hammer before he could do so.

This performance, during the next few minutes, was repeated several times with variations. Often the side of the hammer was used instead of the head, and occasionally, as is shown in figure 8 of plate II, he seized the hammer well up toward the juncture of the same with the spike. This figure does justice to the performance. At the moment the picture was taken, Skirrl's attention had been attracted by a monkey in an adjoining cage, and he had momentarily looked up from his task, the while holding nail and hammer perfectly still.

This test was repeated on various days, and almost uniformly Skirrl showed intense interest in hammer and nails and used them more or less persistently in the manner described. Occasionally, apparently for the sake of variety, he would put the blunt end of the nail on the board and hammer on the point. Again, he would try persistently to drive the nail into the cement floor, and once by accident, when hammer and nails were left in his cage over night, he succeeded in making several holes in the bottom of his sheet iron water pan. There was no doubting the keen satisfaction which the animal took in this form of activity.

It is impossible to say that the behavior was not imitative of man, for Skirrl, along with all of the other monkeys, had had abundant opportunity to see carpenters working. But this much can be said against the idea of imitation,--no one of the other animals, not excepting the orang utan, showed any interest whatever in hammer and nails.

Occasionally they would be played with momentarily or pushed about, but Sobke, Jimmie, Gertie, Julius, although given several opportunities to exhibit any ability which they might have to drive nails, made not the least attempt to do so. Evidently we must either conclude that Skirrl had a peculiarly strong imitative tendency in this direction, or instead, a p.r.o.nounced disposition or instinct for the use of objects as tools. It would seem fair to speak of it as an instinct for mechanical activity.

Under this same heading may be described Skirrl's reactions to such objects as a handsaw, a padlock, and a water faucet. The saw was given to him in order to test his ability to use it in human fashion, for if he could so expertly imitate the carpenter driving nails, it seems likely that he might also imitate the use of the saw.

As a matter of fact, he showed no tendency to use the saw as we do.

Instead, he persistently played with it in various ways, at first using it as a sort of plane to sc.r.a.pe with, later often rubbing the teeth over a board so that they cut fairly well, but never as effectively as in the hands of a man. After two or three days' practice with the saw, Skirrl hit upon a method which is, as I understand, used by man in certain countries, namely, that of placing the saw with the teeth up, holding it rigid, and then rubbing the object which is to be sawed over it. This Skirrl succeeded in doing very skillfully, for he would sit down on the floor of the cage, grip with both feet the handle of the saw, with the teeth directed upward, then holding either end in his hands, he would repeatedly rub a stick over the teeth. In this way, of course, he could make the saw cut fairly well. But still more to his liking was the use of a spike instead of a stick as an object to rub over the teeth, for with this he was able to make a noise that would have satisfied even a small boy.

Further light is shed on the force of the tendency to imitate man by the saw test. After Skirrl had been given an opportunity to show what he could do with the tool spontaneously, I demonstrated to him the approved human way of sawing. Often he would watch my performance intently as though fascinated by the sound and motion, but when given the tool he invariably followed his own methods. Although I repeated this test of imitation several times on three different days, the results were wholly negative.

_Other Activities_

One day as Skirrl was being returned to his own cage by way of the larger cage, he picked up an unfastened padlock and carried it into the cage with him. For more than an hour he amused himself almost without interruption by playing with this lock. The things which he did with it during that time would require pages to describe. His interest in it was very similar to that which he had exhibited in hammer and nails, saw, and indeed any objects which he could play with. The lock was pounded in various ways, bitten, poked with nails, hooked into the wires of the cage, used to pull on, pounded with a stick, used to hammer on the floor of the cage with, and in fine, manipulated in quite as great a variety of ways as a human being could have discovered. Finally it was hooked to the side of the cage and snapped shut, and as Skirrl was unable to dislodge it from this position, he shortly gave up playing with it.

At the end of the large cage and just outside the wire netting was a faucet to which a hose was usually attached. The valve could be opened by turning a wheel-shaped hand piece. Both Skirrl and Julius learned to turn this wheel in order to get water to play with, but usually the former's strength was not sufficient to turn on the water. The latter could do it readily. The indications are that both animals profited by seeing human beings turn on the water. This unquestionably attracted their attention to the faucet, and probably by playing with it they accidentally happened upon the proper movement. At any rate, Skirrl's behavior was significant in this connection, for he would pick up the hose to see if water were flowing, and if it were not, he would throw it down, go directly to the faucet, and try to turn the wheel. The a.s.sociation of the wheel with the desired flow of water was therefore definitely established. Shall we describe the act as ideational? It seems the natural thing to do.

3. Sobke, _Pithecus rhesus_

_Box Stacking Experiment_