Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 105–112 | Cite as

Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian

  • Claudia Uller
  • Robert Jaeger
  • Gena Guidry
  • Carolyn Martin
Original Article

Abstract

Techniques traditionally used in developmental research with infants have been widely used with nonhuman primates in the investigation of comparative cognitive abilities. Recently, researchers have shown that human infants and monkeys select the larger of two numerosities in a spontaneous forced-choice discrimination task. Here we adopt the same method to assess in a series of experiments spontaneous choice of the larger of two numerosities in a species of amphibian, red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus). The findings indicate that salamanders "go for more," just like human babies and monkeys. This rudimentary capacity is a type of numerical discrimination that is spontaneously present in this amphibian.

Keywords

Numerical discrimination Salamander Number 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Henry Wilbar for permission to use the facilities at Mountain Lake Biological Station; Don Dedrick, Mike Kalish, and Tony Maida for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript; Danielle Lee for assistance with the experiments; Tom Dickins and Uri Leron for comments on a presentation at the 2002 HBES conference based on these experiments, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on the previously submitted draft. The experiments described here comply with the current laws for animal care and use of the United States and were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (IACUC no. 2001-8717-004).

References

  1. Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser MD (2002) The representations underlying infants' choice of more: object files vs. analog magnitudes. Psychol Sci 13:150–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gillette JR, Jaeger RG, Peterson MG (2000) Social monogamy in a territorial salamander. Anim Behav 59:1241–1250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hauser MD, Carey S (1999) Building a cognitive creature from a set of primitives: evolutionary and developmental insights. In: Allen C, Cummins D (eds) The evolution of mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 51–106Google Scholar
  4. Hauser MD, MacNeilage P, Ware M (1996) Numerical representations in primates. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 93:1514–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hauser MD, Carey S, Hauser L (2000) Spontaneous number representation in semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:829–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jaeger RG, Barnard DE (1981) Foraging tactics of a terrestrial salamander: choice of diet in structurally simple environments. Am Nat 117:639–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jaeger RG, Barnard DE, Joseph RG (1982) Foraging tactics of a terrestrial salamander: assessing prey density. Am Nat 119:885–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nieder A, Freedman DJ, Miller EK (2002) Representation of the quantity of visual items in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science 297:1708–1711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  11. Santos L, Sulkowski G, Spaepen G, Hauser MD (2002) Object individuation using property/kind information in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Cognition 83:241–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sayler A (1966) The reproductive ecology of the red-backed salamander, Plethodon cinereus, in Maryland. Copeia 1966:183–193Google Scholar
  13. Simon T, Hespos S, Rochat P (1995) Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992). Cogn Dev 10:253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  15. Sulkowski G, Hauser MD (2001) Can rhesus monkeys spontaneously subtract? Cognition 79:239–262Google Scholar
  16. Treisman A, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12:97–136Google Scholar
  17. Trick L, Pylyshyn Z (1994) Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychol Rev 101:80–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Uller C (1996) Origins of numerical concepts. A comparative study of human infants and nonhuman primates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Uller C, Carey S, Hauser MD (1997) Is language needed for constructing sortal concepts? A study with nonhuman primates. Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University conference on language development. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass., pp 665–677Google Scholar
  20. Uller C, Carey S, Huntley-Fenner G, Klatt L (1999) What representations might underlie infant numerical knowledge. Cogn Dev 14:1-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Uller C, Hauser, MD, Carey S (2001) Spontaneous representation of number in cotton-top tamarins. J Comp Psychol 115:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Whalen J, Gallistel CR, Gelman R (1999) Nonverbal counting in humans: the psychophysics of number representation. Psychol Sci 10:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wynn K (1992) Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 258:749–750Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Uller
    • 1
  • Robert Jaeger
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gena Guidry
    • 2
    • 3
  • Carolyn Martin
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Louisiana at LafayetteLafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Mountain Lake Biological StationUniversity of VirginiaPembrokeUSA

Personalised recommendations